Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job
Comments
-
-
-
Yes, that sound can be blast, and you only have to be familiar with NIST work to understand why.
NIST highlighted the following events in their finite computer simulation model: Highlight floor 12 and 13 here.
1. Expansion and Slippage of Girder: The girder in the simulation model experienced thermal expansion and slipped off its fixed position.
2. Losing Connections on Beams: The expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder caused beams on this side to lose connections.
3. Stalling Steel Column: The floors that collapsed on the steel column resulted in it bucking.
NIST's analysis indicates that the expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder were the primary factors leading to the observed events later..
According to NIST, the destruction of a single column was sufficient to bring about the collapse of the building on 9/11. Therefore, if we consider the evidence presented by NIST, it logically follows that it would only take the column being destroyed by controlled demolition for the same result to occur.
Why do you ignore the fact that a loud thud on video can't be a controlled demolition of the Eastside columns?
I don't argue that collapse didn't begin on the east side; it clearly did, but the NIST investigation stated that there is no noise at all heard before any collapse, which is factually incorrect.
interconnected nature of collapse in steel-core buildings. Skeptics, such as yourself, fail to appreciate the profound impact that the collapse of one column on the eastern side of a structure can have on other floors, as well as those at the bottom could be hearing the demolitions of the eastside columns, which could potentially serve as the final domino for the collapse of the building. However, it is important to note that we do not have hours of video footage of building seven to claim that there were no other thuds similar to this one.
One of the main arguments put forth by critics of the NIST explanation is that thermal expansion was a brand new concept invented by the NIST to explain the failures. They claim that thermal expansion has not been observed or recognized before and was only introduced after the incident
One of the key claims made by the truth community is that NIST failed to acknowledge the existence and vital significance of shear studs, which are specialized reinforcement elements typically used in steel structures to prevent slippage. However, according to blueprints obtained by the truth investigation, the girder in question was indeed supposed to have 32-shear studs.
Furthermore, the truth community asserts that NIST also neglected to include crucial stiffeners and steel plates that would have prevented the girder from sliding and contributed to its stability. More error for time leave it at that.
NIST intentionally left these construction details out of the investigation; the implication is that the organization may have intentionally facilitated the collapse of the girder. The omission of shear studs and stiffeners, as well as the absence of steel plates, suggests a conscious effort by NIST to downplay the role of controlled demolition in the collapse scenario.
Columns 79 and 44 and others were taken out by controlled demolition on the eastside.
0 -
-
Question 11:
In a debate, a particular answer posed by Chris sparked my attention:
"I was reading that debate and Chris posted this before hiring Dr. James Milette. In question 11, it states that an EPA group that conducted an investigation into the dust for the U.S. government found large amounts of iron in the dust as well. However, no one sitting here has asked how that was happening while the Twin Towers were on fire. It makes me wonder if they lack the common sense or if it's because they're too wrapped up in their own bubbles to realize that iron that melted in the dust is an anomaly."
From what I remember, Dr. Milette made a promise to do peer review work and send it to journals, but this specific evidence, including a study on the Iron Microspheres, never materialized. He seemingly disappeared from the scene right after the debate about the burning and energy testing.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
I am tired now final post. The skeptic on here again does not notice the flaws.
The hypothesis suggests that the removal of columns and floors on the east side of the building resulted in instability, leading to the collapse of the columns and floors there. The collapse of the columns on the east side triggered the collapse of the west side of the building too. at the bottom.
West side of the building, with a larger number of columns and a larger floor area, was in the early stage of collapse as well.
How do we know this?
The explanation of how the building descended over eight stories at freefall at the bottom can be attributed to the collapse of the eight floors. It is often overlooked that the collapse of the eight floors is what causes the building to freefall into a large open hole that has opened up at the bottom during the final collapse.
When there is no steel resistance on those eight floors, the rest of the building essentially collapses into the resulting void, causing it to descend rapidly.
There appear to be no collapsed columns or floors on the west side of the building, as observed on the east side of the building
What you see here in the NIST model upper section crushing the west side as it collapses.This event is not characterized by freefall, but rather by a typical collapse where the upper section is the driving force that crushes the bottom section.
Freefall means upper section of the building simply "drove" through the empty space over eight floors without any exertion of energy. NIST model shows that energy is being used to crush the bottom half of the building on the west side.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Warren Commission's report faced criticism from those who believed there was a larger conspiracy behind Kennedy's assassination. Similarly, investigations into the World Trade Center collapse have been subject to conspiracy theories, questioning the official narrative and raising questions about the role of government agencies.
How Can I Consider Anything Else When Skeptics Here Can't Even Post Correct Information?
It is frustrating to encounter skeptics who consistently post incorrect or misleading information on online platforms. This behavior undermines the credibility of the subject matter and makes it more difficult to engage with them nicely. One example of incorrect information that was posted by a skeptic on this forum is the claim that the 47 floors were rigged according to conspiracy theorists. However, this was a lie, nobody ever said that on here.
Additionally, another post made by a skeptic stated that building seven had 52 floors. Well actually has 47 floors. This discrepancy demonstrates a lack of attention to detail and undermines the credibility of the individual making the claim.
During days of debate on this forum, the same skeptics made claims about the New York firemen inside building 7 fighting the fires and the Silverstein nonsense and all that. However, these claims are not supported by the official investigation. The official report does not corroborate these Skeptic assertions, and there is no evidence to support it I posted the evidence, so its a fact.
Have a new claim today. It has been alleged that firemen never mentioned anything about explosions or anything related to oddities at the scene of the WTC attacks on 9/11. However, this claim is misleading and inaccurate again. Testimony from dozens of firefighters can be found online, indicating that the Twin Towers were brought down through controlled demolition. One fire department in New Jersey even went on record two years ago stating that they will support a new investigation, as they believe that the conspiracy theory is a more accurate portrayal of the events.
When considering the credibility of the firemen's statements, it is essential to distinguish between hearsay evidence and actual evidence. Hearsay evidence refers to second-hand information or testimony. The official investigation did not explicitly address this evidence, which NIST denied. The testimonies of firemen who were filmed saying they saw liquid steel in the rubble of the Twin Towers are they liars. The official record does not acknowledge witness testimony about this odd phenomenon, which raises the question of whether anyone should take the investigation seriously. Firemen, architects, engineers, and clean-up crews all claim to have witnessed the alleged event, yet there is no mention of it in the official record.
If the NIST official investigation asserts that no steel or iron melted, how can there be large quantities of melted iron in the dust? If there is indeed a new investigation and all the aforementioned allegations I made are adequately explained, I could shift in my opinion. This revision would depend on the thoroughness, credibility, and rationality of the presented evidence.
The skeptics not me are not recognizing the inherent flaws in the NIST computer model that they believe to be true. In this particular case, we have two images that capture the same period of time during the collapse of an object.The video presents a detailed comparison of the two images, highlighting the remarkable similarity in their collapse patterns
One of the main criticisms is that physical evidence contradicts the official narrative.
What Skeptics never talk about is that freefall began once that north point of the wall dropped and second building collapsed.
.The timestamps will play a crucial role in making it easier for people to track and analyze the problem. By using timestamps, viewers can conveniently pinpoint the exact moments when certain events occur
At exactly 10 seconds into the freefall collapse, the building began to rapidly descend at the bottom, support now removed. This sudden loss of structural integrity is evident in the video footage,
NIST model no freefall, 12 seconds in. Watch the video all there can see for yourself. Watch the windows on the westside.
In August 2008, NIST released its draft report on the collapse of Building 7, a skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed later in the day. The report initially stated that freefall did not occur during the collapse. However, a few months later, NIST retracted this claim, acknowledging that freefall did occur.
Slowed the the event down to hide that freefall was done by controlled demolition. Its impossible for the building to descend at 10 seconds at freefall if one side of the building steel resistance is there at 12 seconds.
Identical: 12 seconds of the video
Identical: 12 seconds of the video.
I am not perfect, and I often make mistakes. However, the skeptics never seem to correct anything they say or admit to the possibility that they may have got something wrong. When I make a statement , it is often subjected to various interpretations and manipulations by those who choose to act upon it. These individuals may latch onto certain words or phrases, take the information out of context, and spin the narrative in their own favor.
My position regarding the 9/11 conspiracy is not that the government was directly responsible for the attacks. Rather, I contend that this was a decentralized faction attack that was carried out through a combination of individuals with varying motivations and backgrounds
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Debunkers question.
Do you believe that an Airline striking a tower at 710kmph between floors 93 -99 (nth tower) would cause the whole tower to collapse 1hr 42mins later?
Steel melts at a temp of 2500-2800 F , Jet fuel burns at 1500-2000 F.
What do you think caused the two towers to fall then, if you are totally discounting anything else other than the airlines causing it?
"Bright lights and Thunder .................... "
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R. J. Lee group team found that the concentration of FE spheres in the WTC dust collected after the event was 150 times higher than the dust collected at Twin Towers prior to the fire ( this breakdown in their report) This finding is noteworthy since there would be FE spheres in the building during construction, repair work, and their presence in concrete. The number of FE spheres in the post- fire dust suggests a highly unusual and abnormal occurrence.
This discrepancy between the findings of the R J Lee group and the NIST report has left many unanswered questions. The absence of a clear explanation of how this extraordinary concentration of FE spheres was achieved has led to speculation and debate among conspiracy theorists and debunkers on various websites.
NIST's report asserts that the fires that engulfed the WTC buildings reached temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius (C) to 1,000 degrees Celsius (C) for a very short period. This temperature range is not within the melting point of steel and iron, which are typically considered to be around 1,538 degrees Celsius (C) for steel, and higher for Iron.
It is indeed challenging to blame conspiracy people for the fact that there are conflicting claims regarding the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. While both major theories propose that fire played a crucial role, they differ in their interpretations of the temperature.
0 -
Advertisement
-
iron and steel are heavy materials even in their spherical form after melting.
They see a 150 times increase of Fe spheres compared to what was there in the building before.
Let's say there were 1000 Fe spheres in the building before the fires, that seems low considering all the construction, but let's stay with it.
The jump is massive once you multiply it by 150 times.
0
