Would a government allow a terrorist attack to happen?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
This statement is in direct contrast to the official explanation that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the weakening of the steel structure of the building.
The skeptical community typically argues that the collapse of the building was due to the weakened structure caused by the fire. ignored the possibility that the melting phenomenon may have started during the fire and actually accelerated the collapse on 9/11. Why the debunker community ignore a government research paper? Clearly, the truthers aren't that crazy if they're an unknown phenomenon taking place before the collapse?
Either way, the fact that the building collapsed in an hour or so indicates that it was not a corrosion attack.
The only way you have melting in an office building is when something placed there shouldn't be there.
Here, the XEDS shows sulfur is present in the red layer of the WTC nano-thermite.
0 -
-
-
-
-
There is plenty of evidence if you open your eyes. NIST also commented on the strange white flame.
I stumbled into this tonight.
Page 324
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1-5av2.pdf
Of course, NIST didn't understand the significance of the white light and very white smoke in the area.
Of course, the distinctive white smoke could be the aluminum oxide that everyone says doesn't exist. NIST even pointed out the very usual smoke.
The video captures the collapse of the second tower the best, with all the liquid pouring out and a trail of smoke at the end. Sorry, Towers did not collapse due to a loss of steel strength. What a load of bullshit.
There was a snap-off here of this corner area. Just completely broke
Video is
even better.
0 -
-
What is the proper evidence?
This FEMA study is relevant to understanding the collapse because it provided a very unique evidence of the possibility of the Tower's steel frame being severed by melting phenomenon.
In place of the FEMA study's findings, NIST proposed an alternative explanation that steel lost strength yet lacked scientific, photographic, and video evidence. Based on FEMA's findings here, an inside job is a real possibility.
. FEMA's accounts of the steel attack are consistent with reports of molten steel. Why is it that NIST says nobody saw molten steel at Ground Zero? It was aluminum flowing out of that window that the debunkers put forward, which is obviously rubbish and a deflection.
The combination of Iron, copper, and Sulfur, was a liquid, which would be molten steel.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Debunkers and NIST nonsense that there was no molten liquid of Iron noticed or seen is complete and utter lie.
FEMA liquid of Iron is not the same as Iron Microspheres, which are tiny microscopic Iron particles that usually form when you cut into steel at really high temperatures and are byproducts of a thermatic reaction.
An official dust study of the Liberty Building in New York found unusually high concentrations of Iron microspheres in the dust that covered that building. In relation to the amount of steel cut by the workers at ground zero, it was impossible to explain. Liberty building has not yet been touched. They presumed that all those Iron Microspheres must have traveled inside the dust and had been formed during a very high-temperature event inside the Twin Towers. The fact all these particles formed inside the Twin Towers prior to collapse very important overlooked finding.
No evidence will convince a debunker. They want to parade the people who do this in front of the court first.. First of all, people ignore all the fingerprint clues. How is that ever going to happen?
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
You are clearly lying since FEMA is very clear in their report that the phenomenon witnessed could have started before the buildings fell down.
Are the truthers being lied to by FEMA?
The day's visual evidence confirms it happened before the collapse.
What could cause such a phenomenon in the building? No debunkers will go there (avoiding the discussion) due to the fact that nano-thermite would be a better choice to explain it all.
0 -
-
-
Bullshit, why would the BBC be involved in controlling the demolition of building seven? As I recall, I said the people involved in this conspiracy may have released information earlier to clear the surrounding area for the event.
There is no physical evidence or historical record to support NIST's assertion that steel's thermal expansion caused the collapse. Furthermore, all the other steel-framed buildings that have been involved in fires have not seen this phenomenon occur.
NIST's refusal to release the modeling data undermines the credibility of their findings and makes it difficult to verify their conclusions. Furthermore, the omission of key elements such as stiffener plates and 32 shear studs from the construction at column 79 renders their modeling data incomplete and prevents a thorough and accurate evaluation of the building's integrity due to fire. Official study about the collapse a joke.
By the way they even laughably made mistakes about the fires before the collapse. The work is so sloppy.
NIST claimed the fires on floor 12 are red hot between 4 and 5 o clock using this model. Remember column 79 is located between 12 and 13 floor.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf page 30.
A screenshot of the actual North Face of WTC seven at 4 o'clock shows a fire on floor 12 has long since been put out. Where are the 900 degree Celsius fires NIST imagined in this simulation model?
The photograph rotated pretty much shows that the fires were completely fabricated by NIST. They're not even a single fire; there are only broken windows on Floor 12. This building seven progression of fires at 3.55pm in the afternoon.
A falling girder at Column 79 did not cause the building to collapse.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
