911 WTC Dwain Deets with laser guide for remote control

[MaisaMmaximus]

Omdz

[danp5648]

Does NIST believe in the  "single column theory" the real issue? Can or does anyone defend this theory? Does the "greater then free fall theory" include a two stage implosion i.e center then outer wall progression as defense against implosion?? I would like a vote on these issues.

[iBlindGame]

@danp5648 "DavidChandler911" on YouTube has many videos which explain these sorts of things.

Btw, nothing falls faster than freefall unless it has additional energy. Nothing falls at freefall if it is resisted in any way.

WTC7 does fall at freefall for 105 feet, so there was nothing resisting. It's a simple physics concept. There is no debate on this matter. Anyone debating this is just unaware of the facts.

NIST produced no simulation to show how this impossible scenario is possible.

[danp5648]

@iBlindGame You are not reading my reply correctly. Please turn off all gizmos, take some time and read and think. Turn off what other people said and say it.

[iBlindGame]

@danp5648 Your comments were not very clear. I re-read them just now. I still don't know what you were asking.

Did you watch this?

We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results (15 minutes)

watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk

[iBlindGame]

Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:

watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk

[danp5648]

@iBlindGame Does NIST believe in the  "single column theory"? Does anyone defend this theory if so then who? Does the "greater then free fall speed theory" include a two stage implosion i.e center then outer wall progression as defense against implosion??

[iBlindGame]

@danp5648 The "column 79 theory" (if that's what you are referring to) is from NIST's wtc7 report. Yes. They want us to believe it, but they substantiate their claims in no way, as I explain in this video:

We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results (15 minutes)

watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk