nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

Capt. Autumn

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

TheValeyard

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

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.

donvito99

It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

Woke Hogan

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

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

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.

kneemos

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

JohnnyFlash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIkqEnVG8I

Jonybgud

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

adox

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

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

Ipso

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIkqEnVG8I

Solidarity brother!

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.

Your Face

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Can the center hold?

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

Ted_YNWA

Thread moved from AH to dedicated 9/11 forum.

Please adhere to local charter

[Deleted User]

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Overheal

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

banie01

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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

Gadgetman496

donvito99 wrote: »

It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

18 years

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.

Brussels Sprout

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

Capt. Autumn

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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......

Guy:Incognito

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

Capt. Autumn

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

Overheal

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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.

[Deleted User]

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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

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

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...

[Deleted User]

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

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"?

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.