Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

  • 18-09-2019 5:37pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭


    The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The draft report released Sept 5th concluded that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    Anyone closely following this story will not be surprised at the findings of the four year study. What is surprising though is that, for the first time, mainstream media is beginning to question the official narrative of that tragic day.

    The Daily Express online here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1175375/9-11-world-trade-center-twin-towers-September-11-conspiracy-theories

    And the CBS affiliate in Alaska KTVA (The Voice of Alaska) here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=496895787798241

    Can the center hold?


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,058 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Your first source is The Express. Straight away your evidence is dubious at best.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Your first source is The Express. Straight away your evidence is dubious at best.

    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    The fact that The Express is the only newspaper to take up the story does not lessen the veracity of the findings, rather, begs the question why are the broadsheets ignoring the report.

    Most people believe two skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11. It's bizarre how under-reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 was.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭Woke Hogan


    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    The fact that The Express is the only newspaper to take up the story does not lessen the veracity of the findings, rather, begs the question why are the broadsheets ignoring the report.

    Most people believe two skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11. It's bizarre how under-reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 was.
    WTC Building 7 probably fell because two giant skyscrapers collapsed right next to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    WTC Building 7 probably fell because two giant skyscrapers collapsed right next to it.

    You would think wouldn't you?

    That's not what the official NIST report from 2006 found though. They claimed the collapse was from office fires alone. The first steel framed building to collapse soley due to fire.

    The new report disputes that, mainly due to the manner of it's collapse, 47 stories collapsing in on itseldf in 11 seconds, 3 seconds of which even NIST admitted was at freefall speed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,384 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911


    The university study claimed fire didn't cause the collapse,other studies did.
    Nothing about controlled demolition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash




  • Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Jonybgud


    The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The draft report released Sept 5th concluded that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    Anyone closely following this story will not be surprised at the findings of the four year study. What is surprising though is that, for the first time, mainstream media is beginning to question the official narrative of that tragic day.

    The Daily Express online here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1175375/9-11-world-trade-center-twin-towers-September-11-conspiracy-theories

    And the CBS affiliate in Alaska KTVA (The Voice of Alaska) here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=496895787798241

    Can the center hold?
    Invest in a dictionary and look up Mainstream.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,013 ✭✭✭✭adox


    Shouldn’t this sort of stuff be kept to the conspiracy forum?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    adox wrote: »
    Shouldn’t this sort of stuff be kept to the conspiracy forum?

    There's oodles of this shiite there.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1489


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,299 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Mainstream media isn't questioning anything. It's just highlighting that a report has been launched that disputes the established narrative, that WTC7 fell due to fires and resulting structural failure.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,277 ✭✭✭Your Face




    Can the center hold?

    Mon Dieu! Dash off and warn General Murat posthaste.
    The centre must hold!


  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Thread moved from AH to dedicated 9/11 forum.

    Please adhere to local charter


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,206 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    Despite promises that it would be, this study is not and won't be peer reviewed.

    Secondly, it was not by the University of Fairbanks. It was by one professor from that university who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theorist group to specifically write a study that proved the real explanation was impossible. This should be very suspect.

    Lastly, the study is plagued with flaws, errors and questionable science.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,206 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Also it's a bit disingenuous to call it "a four year study".
    It's more like a two year study that's two years late.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,487 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    Roughly the same percentage of Americans believe god intelligently designed goblin sharks and that dinosaurs and man made climate change are myths. Popular misconception doesn’t make something a conspiracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,256 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.

    That's very disingenuous.
    Many of us who disagree with the claims of this study have spent quite a lot of time reading, reviewing researching and then refuting.

    The study is incredibly flawed.
    Even from the basic premise of setting out to "prove" a negative, is incredibly poor science.
    Further to this, the claimed finite element study that this was to be based on is not included in the study as released.
    The load analysis and collapse videos released, are animations and poor ones at that rather than simulations.

    There is no new evidence, there is no peer review other than debunking or an occasional point and laugh.

    This has also been discussed and debunked as infinitum not just on MetaBunk...
    But also on Boards.ie in the dedicated 9/11 sub forum.
    Feel free to join in, read the theories and rebuttals and ask a new question :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,335 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    donvito99 wrote: »
    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

    18 years

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Feel free to join in, read the theories and rebuttals and ask a new question

    Thanks for making me feel welcome banie01.

    I'm interested to hear your take on the official NIST findings on the collapse of Building 7.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,232 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    46% is also exactly the % of the US electorate who voted for Donald Trump at the last presidential election.


  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    46% is also exactly the % of the US electorate who voted for Donald Trump at the last presidential election.

    So it was isolated office fires then......


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    Average people viewing footage and deciding what did or didnt happen is irrelevant. They dont have a clue about buildings and how the should or shouldnt collapse under different circumstances regardless of how well they think they do.

    Suggest to them, or them having it suggested to them at any stage over the last 18 years is enough to have plenty going along and seeing what they want to see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Cold tonight eh?
    I can feel the draughts coming across the window shills...shills....shills, sorry window sills.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,487 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cold tonight eh?
    I can feel the draughts coming across the window shills...shills....shills, sorry window sills.

    mod:

    Please elevate the manner of your diction and be civil.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,206 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So it was isolated office fires then......

    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.

    Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,206 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...
    Extensive uncontrolled office fires that were left burning for many hours.

    Why did you say "isolated"?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.


    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.


Advertisement