Would a government allow a terrorist attack to happen?
-
01-03-2023 8:59pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Their model indicates that the collapse was not a freefall event and was instead a buckling event can see at the bottom of their model. As i have repeatedly pointed out that if they admit a freefall collapse then the building collapsing must come through its own structure with zero resistance at the bottom end.
Clearly there was plenty of resistance when collapse began as evidenced by their own modelling in blue. It is not for debunkers or skeptics to interpret this, its a fact.
The NIST tried to hide the anomaly by claiming there was a stage of freefall later, which is absurd since the building was already falling.
They have yet to explain why the building would suddenly accelerate its descent at the point of collapse, or why it would not slow down as it fell.
Shaded area in blue represents the floor system with all girders and steel framing, so must collapse on either side at the same time for freefall to happen.
How can part of the same building stay standing on the west side while the east side was completely destroyed. That blue shaded area shows the resilience of the floor system to the collapse. The NIST modelling shows no freefall at all. Do not claim otherwise
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Astonishingly, not only did the military operation successfully remove all evidence, but NIST could not even find any recognizable steel pieces from Building 7
Remember this is an unprecedented event in history since it was the first tall building with steel framing to collapse solely due to fire. The magnitude of this feat is even more impressive when one considers the sheer size of the building - the equivalent of a large football field - and the fact that every single piece of steel had vanished.
In the engineering world, this event will go down in history, but few will doubt the official explanation,.
The NIST report was based on a computer model, not on actual evidence from the scene. This means that their conclusions were not supported by the physical evidence and could have been skewed to fit their desired outcome. Furthermore, their model did not account for all of the elements present in the building at the time, which means that their conclusions were unreliable.
NIST analysis of the progressive collapse of Building Seven is even more perplexing. Experts have argued that the failure of the girder at column 79, which was assumed to have initiated the collapse, doesn't explain the entire sequence of events that led to the building's collapse. The omissions, and errors in the original analysis have yet to be corrected.
The fact that the model is not showing the same level of destruction on the west side of the building as it does on the east side proves that the collapse could not have been caused naturally. The model indicates that the columns on the west side should have been destroyed in the same way as the columns on the east side, but that is not what happened. This implies that some other force was at play in the collapse.
The fact that there are different results on the east and west side of the building further suggests that the collapse could not have been caused by natural forces alone. The east side shows a complete collapse of the floors and concrete at the bottom of building seven, while the west side does not show this complete collapse, even though the building lost support of the columns at this point. This suggests that something else must have played a role in the collapse, which is why the NIST model is performing differently on the east and west side
The lack of an explanation for the freefall of the collapse is further evidence that NIST's evidence does not support its own progressive collapse theory. Furthermore, the fact that there are countless different pieces connecting the steel frame means that there must be some resistance to the collapse, yet NIST does not address this point.
There is no resistance over 100 feet at the bottom, and people buy that **** as natural.
The explosives in building seven were used to weaken the steel core of the building and create a controlled collapse.
From what I've seen on news videos, it appears that steel is melting at the Twin Towers. I not convinced explosives got used here.
The nano thermite chips were found in the dust from the World Trade Center two, indicating that they may have been used to weaken the steel beams of the building. This kind of heat would have been far greater than the fire from the plane crashed alone, and it would have been enough to weaken the steel and cause the building to collapse. Ingenious way to mask the towers' destruction on 9/11 with a chemically engineered thermite.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
