As I have stated, and yet to be proved wrong by the simple cut and paste which should be no problem according to coincitards claims, NIST gives no explanation of how the buildings fell. Not an explanation I don't understand- but simply no explanation. You've have unwittingly acknowledged that a few posts back.

If how the buildings fell can never be answered then why are you so confident you know the answer?

Checkmate. Game set match.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

Took all of 3 minutes to find via the google, answers all your questions about the collapse and it really is "readily explained."

Here is the short version since you are incapable of reading:

The floors were rated to be able to support a dynamic load of 6 other stories of the tower. Both towers had more than 6 stories fall on them, almost twice as much at a minimum. So after the collapse was initiated there was so much more moving mass hitting the lower floors that they offered virtually no resistance.

Yikes.

Nobody ITT has posted a sequential mechanism AFAIK...

No, everyone told you that the reason for the rest of the collapse was so ****ing simple they didn't need to spell it out. However, they have fixed that oversight for mouth breathing *******s like you on the FAQ I posted, questions 6 and 12 cover the entire collapse from initiation to completion.

What the **** are you talking about? You have presented no facts comfortable or uncomfortable in regards to the collapse of the towers. You have demonstrated that you are functionally retarted which is a fact though. Again, someone saying something you don't understand is "readily explainable" isn't hand waving away, and is now moot because they answer it completely in questions 6 and 12 in the FAQ.

Why don't you? Read that FAQ and tell us what "questions" you have left about how "funny" the towers collapse looked. Or are you really not open minded about the collapse and just another ****ing idiot truther who gets his self worth from thinking he's in on a "secret" no one else sees?

"If you are aware you are autistic, you should be aware that when people yell at you for being aspy, that's your cue to shut the **** up, and not continue to asp it up about how you just don't understand."

That infamous quote reminded me of the embarrassingly bad autistic detective character on The Bridge.

Well, this is pretty much the exact opposite of what's going on. Wiles didn't bother to prove/explain hundreds of known results needed for the proof. Surely NIST isn't required to prove things to your satisfaction just like Wiles wasn't.

It's really considerate of deuces to post ITT since it saves us the trouble of having to copy and paste his quotes into it.

This is the worst since the infamous "autist" Flyasco. I especially like the incorrect, self-defeating use of quotes, furthering the terrible nature of the post itself.

i didn't follow that conversation much, is it just soy milk that's fake? what about almond milk? I only ask because I've made almond milk myself from actual almonds, and i'm curious to find out if they were in fact tiny cows wearing almond disguises

That's almond juice low key. Almond milk isn't possible because there are no almond tits. Please stop spreading illuminati messages of "almond" milk around this board

LK clearly in on the faux milk Jedi mind trick that targets moronic liberal marks.

lol... epic.

These posts should be screened for legitimacy.

done

Known results have nothing to do with explaining a novel event such as this. This was a crime, not a commission of mathematical abstraction. And the known results Wiles used were proven. It's not as though NIST pointed to some known mechanism- they pointed to NOTHING.

NIST is not required to prove things to my satisfaction, obviously. But I believe they were paid to, if not prove, at least offer an explanation. They did not.

NIST did NOT offer ANY explanation as to how the twin towers actually fell. NIST hand waved the actual collapse, and not just hand waved as in offer some paltry explanation. They offered no explanation whatsoever.

It's just as though you people are members of a fing cult with your implacable faith that NIST has explained anything. Where?

kerowo, this is you paraphrasing what you imagine you read and passing it off like a quote. That formulation is not from the report or the FAQ which you keep referencing. Why would you go to such lengths when NIST was commissioned to do the report? Why can't you simply quote what NIST says?

Did you really think I would link to a source and then lie about what it says? That's the best you can come up with after a week? Whether you accept their explanation or not will you at least shut the **** up with the whole
bull**** you've been spouting.

No, it doesn't. And if it did you would have posted the quote. And why go to a FAQ anyway? There is a formal report. I don't believe (although there might have been developments on this) that the report has not been peer reviewed. So there is that.


The uncomfortable fact we are talking about is the NIST report's complete omission of any explanation as to how the towers actually fell. It's not that I don't understand the explanation. It's that there is no explanation. I assume it is uncomfortable to you because you are in full denial of this reality which is available for simple inspection. You keep pointing to things which don't say what you claim, refuse to copy and paste, and make up things and try to pass it off as quoting the ghost explanation.


Why would I feel special when most of the world agrees with me in at least questioning the government sponsored explanation? In this particular sub-topic, you are the one who is seeing things that aren't there. You didn't know the explanation wasn't there. You never read the report. You took it on faith. Now that you have been challenged to verify your assumptions you are going into twists to keep your misplaced faith. What age did you stop believing in Santa Claus? 15? Or let me guess: Santa Claus is real too.

lol, you aren't even reading the posts are you? You're pathetic.

The "paraphrasing" was contained in your quote which I referenced. You made up your own formulation out of desperation because you just can't face the facts.

The response to question 6 summarizes this entire dynamic: NIST is charged with explaining, produces a report that says nothing about the key sequence, are asked again, then point to the initiation which they say they explain (as it turns out there are major challenges to the measurement's even in the initiation sequence but since the failure to even acknowledge hand waving as such portends that such a discussion is beyond the limits here). There is no language pertaining to the actual collapse phase in the response to question 6 which, again, is the FAQ and NOT the report. So even when you goal shift to the FAQ and ignore the actual NIST report, you still lose. Are you that illiterate or are you just such a true believer that nothing can shake your faith?

Question 12 is about the amount of gravitational energy. There is very vague exposition on why the conditions for collapse existed (won't be too critical on this since it's a FAQ and not the actual report) but nowhere is there a MECHANISM, which is what you need for an explanation. And, again, the is a FAQ which is not meant stand up to scientific inquiry, only casual, results oriented questions.

Any actual detailed explanation of the mechanism of collapse would necessarily be in the report itself, not the FAQ. But still, it isn't in the FAQ either.