Loading...

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: Newton vs. NIST - AE911Truth.org

960 views

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 21, 2012

Does NIST think Newton's laws are only suggestions?


http://www.ae911truth.org

Comments • 628

Wim Ahlers
Please present your sources.
Wim Ahlers
We have been through all this, For a response see my previous replies ... multiple ones at that. No need to repeat them ... again, and again, and again, and again, and .... well, you get the picture.
hgfbob
"Convince the scientific community." I am the SCIENTIFIC community bunkie..... Wimpy, a 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The signifigance of FREEFALL, Wimpy... is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION! unchangeable physics fundamentals.....gotta love em......eh' where did 105feet of vertical support go?... GLOBALLY? ...bunkie!
hgfbob
" what an internal collapse can do to the overall resistence of the building." get it through you head..there is NO RESISTANCE!!! if there was, then NO acceleration bunkie....simple! so bunkie....as SOON as YOU can find a building where ALL it's vertical support can SIMULTANEOUSLY DISAPPEAR for 105 feet in an instant, and REMAIN MAGICALLY floating till it's ALL GONE...just to give us the 'IMPRESSION' of global unified descent EQUAL to G. lol...you have nothing bunkie!!! 
hgfbob
" And their conclusion is blindly accepted" lol..yea...the SCIENTIFIC investigation did NOT find ANY WTC steel that FAILED from the fires present. The U.L. testing concluded the truss assemblies DID NOT FAIL from the FIRES that were present. That within the FIRST 1/3 of it's UNIFIED collapse, WTC7 globally accelerates through itself at the SAME RATE an object descends WITHIN a VACUUM....1.75seconds to 4.0seconds you do remember the STANDARD for measuring the Acceleration of Gravity?
hgfbob
"I forgot to mention' lol..your 'rambling' again......you know what the doctor told you. " most plausible cause for the WTC collapse." the global failure of the vertical support... YOU have NO EVIDENCE it was the FIRES PRESENT that failed the columns to fall ALL THREE BUILDINGS.....nor do you have SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves explosives and accelerants did NOT assist.. and YOU don't like it... too fuck n bad bunkie...YOU made a choice to defend and PUSH the HYPOTHESIZED official story..
Wim Ahlers
I forgot to mention ... Your absoluteness that it is absolutely required to have the steel columns of the WTC and only the steel columns of the WTC to scientifically prove what is the most plausible cause for the WTC collapse. You are so convinced that this is the killer argument that you keep praising yourself about this discovery and praise yourself how right you are when people after 4 or 5 replies trying to explain to you that this is NOT a requirement don't bother to reply to you any more.
Wim Ahlers
So excuse me for not being impressed with your claim ... or your denial ... or your accusations. In the mean time... I am waiting for the truther breakthroughs. 11 years ... and counting. I don't mind that all the while you are convinced of your absolute truth, your absoluteness that nothing was proved and your absoluteness that physics was violated. And believing that the only institution in the world that investigated these matters was NIST. And their conclusion is blindly accepted.
Wim Ahlers
The claim that physics as we know it is violated. Without verifying if this claim is even true. The claim that the 2.25 seconds of freefall cannot be explained. Without you verifying what an internal collapse can do to the overall resistence of the building. The claim that there is no evidence for anything. Ignoring all references I provided that do. The claim that not a single paper I presented to you is ever peer-reviewed. Even when I showed the ASCE peer review process link and its papers. 
hgfbob
"So excuse me for not beining impressed with your claim.' what claim... I am asking for the supporting EVIDENCE that gives direction to a HYPOTHESIS of collapse..and you refuse to supply it... you deferred me to papers that deferred back to the UNRELEASED UNVERIFIED NON-PEER REVIEWED hypothesis of collapse by the NIST HYPOTHESIS Crew...
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...