Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

Options
11415161719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But this is a lie on your part also. Your points about the iron spheres have been adressed many many times in many many ways. I know because I specifically addressed them. At the time, you simply did what you are now falsely accusing people of doing: ignoring and refusing to engage with the points made to you.

    People now just don't put as much effort into chasing you down on these points because they are familiar with your usual tactic of ignoring and deflecting.

    Like now how you're deflecting away from your lie about there being "tons" of iron spheres.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    What don't you do here again, so everyone can read your explanation? Sure, there are posters on here who have not read your rebuttal.

    The same individual who was previously convinced of the presence of firefighters inside Building 7 and the existence of firefighting activities there, despite lack of evidence only weeks ago, now comments on other people's alleged lies and mistakes. Despite presenting themselves as an authority or expert, evidence emerged that disproved their claims. 

    One other notable example of your behavior recently, is a claim made by you that conspiracy theorists said that building seven 47 floors was allegedly rigged with explosives. This claim is without any evidence or credible sources to support it. It is purely fictitious and serves no purpose other than to perpetuate misinformation here..

    I do not engage in mudslinging constantly, very rare, but rather I am genuinely interested in uncovering the truth behind the situation at hand. The purpose of this discussion is not to attack you but rather to foster a constructive and open-minded environment. I kindly request that you take a step back and approach this topic with the same level of sincerity.If you truly want to be miserable, there are other platforms available where negativity and misery thrive

    I understand that you may not share the same beliefs or affinity for conspiracy theories.. Start a new chapter if you are agreeable and like to see what you have to say about the fires melting the iron/steel.I honestly don't remember your rebuttal. Go ahead.  



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Here is a perfect example:

    The same individual who was previously convinced of the presence of firefighters inside Building 7 and the existence of firefighting activities there, despite lack of evidence only weeks ago, now comments on other people's alleged lies and mistakes

    I never claimed any such thing.


    And yes, conspiracy theorists like yourself who keep waffling on about free fall must be arguing that there were demolition charges on every support in Building 7. If that isn't the case, then your arguments about free fall are not possible. Likewise, when you are asked to detail anything about the demolition, you ignore. You don't clarify how many demolition charges you think there might be. So we can only conclude that you're arguing for thousands of explosions that we just can't hear.


    You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in there being a conspiracy that you've uncovered.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You aren't engaging in constructive discussion. You aren't explaining or supporting your conspiracy theory.

    All you are doing is engaging in endless circular denial. Which anyone can do. You can't prove to that poster that satellites exist anymore they can prove to you the events of 9/11.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Why did you thank Nal for a post when he claimed the firefighters were inside the building? The assumption is that, if you thank a post on that topic, you believe it to be true?

    Don't believe that claim was true. Fair enough, I retract my statement.

    Clarify why you thanked him for his post?

    The topic has changed again, and I wonder why it is so difficult for you to provide evidence that you claim to have posted some time ago. You keep shifting the subject, making it difficult to have a productive conversation.

     The collapse started over a distance of approximately 100 feet. This fall occurred over eight floors, which collapsed along with the steel supports that were in place. The collapse of the building was triggered by the failure of these floors at the base. Do you follow that?

    Once the floors at the bottom essentially collapsed, a chain reaction ensued. The entire building started to collapse, and everything above started to fall through the space created by the eight fallen floors. This subsequent collapse was characterized by a freefall motion, upper came through that now open gap.

    How many of those eight floors were rigged for demolition not sure, could be less than eight to see that effect. NIST model does not show a wide area collapse at the bottom across eight floors.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful, you lied about my position.

    You lied about there being "tons of iron spheres".

    You're trying to deflect from these points.

    Your constant lies and deflection tactics are the reason that constructive conversations are not likely to happen with you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    A statement that "saying fire brought down the building isn't an explanation" is misleading.

    The argument that the steel in the green x area is still buckling defies the laws of physics and contradicts the observed behavior of the building.

    For the building to collapse as it did on 9/11, all x spots had collapsed red and green ( fact).

    One half of the building collapsed and other half still buckling, which makes no sense (remember, it's the eight-floor collapse all sides) that started the final collapse.

     Freefall occurs when an object accelerates downward due to gravity alone, without any external force or support (which means no resistance, no steel supports anywhere there).

    However, now it seems that you are fleeing from the Freefall discussion too that you initiated. It appears that you have changed your mind or simply do not want to engage in that conversation any longer.






  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And deflection again.

    The free fall issue has been addressed you over and over and over again. Lying and saying it wasn't is just proving my point.


    Also it's funny that you're quoting the definition of free fall to me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S



    It is difficult to imagine in your mind exactly what happened here, but I hope this crude image will provide some clarity. The event that occurred was that the entire floor system in that black box collapsed, extending from one end of the building to the other, with all corners affected. Subsequently, the upper portion of the building could no longer support itself, bottom eight floors had collapsed and rest of the building contents began pouring through the open hole at free fall.

    Reality

    The building scientific measurements show it happened this way, not the way NIST has it in the second image.

    The sink begins at 10 seconds of the building. The collapse of the building is underway.The sink in the building can be attributed to the collapse that occurred at the bottom. 




  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No cheerful, your crude diagrams are not helpful. They are extremely unclear and only make your confused waffle even more opaque. They only serve to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

    The freefall stuff has been explained to death over and over. You don't acknowledge any of the points made against it.

    Just like the iron spheres. And the thermite.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    The collapse is now well underway, with a significant event at 11 seconds. Second building disappears from view.

    At this point, the building is literally coming down way before this, and then the west side windows shatter and NIST thinks the bottom area is still buckling? Its a joke doesnt match the video.


    Looking at the collapse of the roofline, you can immediately see the poor quality of the NIST model.This dip in the roofline is caused by the collapsing of eight floors.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    NIST does not explain why the building is still buckling and providing resistance two seconds into the collapse.The timing is completely off. Only by tracing back can the errors be identified.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    All three buildings fell due to fire, those are the conclusions of the reports and investigations.

    According to you they were blown up and melted in broad daylight, you hear "explosive charges" no one else hears, you see things in photos no one else sees.

    A vast array of international figures and people are in your ever-morphing conspiracy and you can't explain any of it nor give any timeline. A bunch of people walked into these buildings and casually rigged them up, you can't provide a shred of evidence for that. Not a single name of any of them.

    It's the alternative history of an event according to one person on the internet, who can't explain or support it.

    I suspect you've inadvertently ended up convincing more people that 9/11 wasn't an inside job on this site that anyone else. Easily.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    There's been a distinct die off in interest about 9/11 in the last couple of years. It's simply not as marketable as it once was. It doesn't have the shock value any more, since things like flat eatherism has taken up that space. It doesn't really work as an anti-government thing as that space has been complicated by various alt-right trumpist nonsense. It can't be used as a sign of the coming New World Order or whatever cause it's happened so far in the past and so many other conspiracy theories have come and gone saying the same thing since. The figures in the movement like Alex Jones have become old and embarrassing and have been long replaced with new grifters running with more lucrative scams.

    There's a reason why there's only one theorist still recycling the same old nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We're pretty much down to one 911 conspiracy believer, which was one of the key goals. All in all I think our mission to suppress the real truth tackle conspiracy theories have been pretty successful ;)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Unlike you and others, I believe that anomalies such as the pouring of liquid from the South Tower prior to its collapse, the observation of steel melting by FEMA, the presence of heated induced meteorite rocks in the rubble, and the identification of iron/steel microspheres in the WTC dust are not irrelevant pieces of evidence. It is indeed possible that these investigations did not adequately recognize and address the strangeness of the phenomena when it comes to investigations.

    One of the most significant pieces of evidence that supports the reality of what i am saying is the presence of previous melted FE iron in the dust. However, it is not surprising that none of the participants in this thread are willing to discuss this. It is evident that the refusal to acknowledge this evidence contributes to the perpetuation of pseudoscientific explanations that only focus on fire.

    It is important to distinguish between evidence and personal opinions or theories. The existence of a liquid flowing out of the South Tower and steel melting during the attacks is supported by numerous reports and testimonies. One of the primary arguments against the evidence presented is that there are too many parties involved. This line of reasoning suggests that the complexity and interconnectedness of the alleged conspiracy make it unreliable.However, history has shown us on multiple occasions that conspiracies can indeed be vast and involve a multitude of individuals and organizations



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You don't. You have decided it's a conspiracy and work retroactively from there.

    Same as any other similar conspiracy. You dredge through everything to find things you "don't get" or "can't believe" and each of those becomes magical "clues" that the whole thing is.. surprise, surprise.. the conspiracy you want it to be. You then have no interest whatsoever in supporting that conspiracy.

    As demonstrated by every post here.

    Why did they "explode" WTC 7? You have no idea and you don't care.

    Who apparently "rigged" up all the skyscrapers? You have no idea and you don't care.

    All you care about is denying the facts over and over. That's the perverse hobby here. I can deny the e.g. world is round forever. It's simple.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    That is true, I acknowledge the presence of a conspiracy here. However, it is important to acknowledge that the official story suggests that both towers collapsed due to steel weakening and buckling only. This statement is not backed by the physical, forensic, and video evidence. Saying its fact is just a lie.

    The official story is a group interpretation of events, it is crucial to recognize that it is a human interpretation. It is influenced by personal biases, assumptions, and preconceived notions. 

    I am of the opinion that there is no denying the evidence presented regarding the events that took place during the 9/11 attacks. The testimonies of survivors, witnesses, and video footage all seem to indicate that planes hit the buildings, the buildings caught fire, and the steel weakened inside the towers. These facts have been corroborated by various investigations and reports, making it clear that these events were real and evident.

    However, the issue I have is with individuals who solely believe in the official story and decide for themselves what evidence to keep and what evidence to throw out.

    Why would the melting of steel, iron, and streams of liquid have nothing to do with a Twin towers collapsing?When looking into suspicious situations, it is important to consider all available evidence, even if it may seem insignificant at first glance. Each piece of data can contribute to the bigger picture and provide valuable insights. Yes, it is like a James Bond movie that buildings on 9/11 would be rigged for demolition or destroyed chemically.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The use of phrases such as "official story" or "official narrative" are red flags, phrases commonly used individuals who want to project their own narratives, often dodgy ones. It's used very often by e.g. Alex Jones. He takes an event, e.g. Sandy Hook, packages the established events and facts as the "official narrative" so that he can then place his own conjured narrative on the same level. As if there are two competing theories, when in reality there aren't.

    it's also used to make his audience feel special, like they "know more" than the average person by not believing the "official narrative", by "questioning it"

    These are classic projection techniques used by grifters and cranks. It's a dead giveaway that someone is about to spout a lot of BS.

    We know what happened on 9/11, it's not some mystery.

    You are claiming something else entirely happened on 9/11, involving a massive cast of characters, explosions only you can hear, stuff only you can see. Okay. But when asked, you can't detail it and always descend into perpetual denial.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,967 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Another technique being used here is the constant coating of everything in technical waffle in an attempt to add more credibility to it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    We can demonstrate why the NIST theory is completely flawed by analyzing the evidence presented in the WTC7 collapse video and comparing reality to their finite collapse model for Building 7.

    1) The second building on the roof is supported by the main steel core, which acts as a crucial load-bearing component. The core distributes the weight of the building evenly, reducing stress on the foundation and minimizing the risk of structural failure. First and foremost, physical video evidence provides a reliable and trustworthy account of the events that transpired. 

    2) Second screenshot. When the second roofline building and the front face of the building begin to drop, it indicates that the structural integrity has been compromised on the west side now.

    3) In the third screenshot, we see a comparison between the second screenshot and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) version of the same collapse. NIST has concluded that the dip observed in the second screenshot is not caused by the collapse at the bottom. Instead, they believe that it is only a stage in the process of collapse.


    ....................................................................................................................................................................

    NIST's analysis claims in their report what you see happening here on the right side would be a freefall collapse. This statement is nonsensical and defies the laws of physics. It is equivalent to saying that when a person jumps out of an airplane and experiences freefall, they will still reach the ground at the same rate, regardless of any objects they hit along the way. Debunkers like yourself simply do not know what freefall is if you think steel colliding with steel and floors all the way down to the bottom would cause it ( dont know anything)

    a scenario where steel collides with steel and floors all the way down. This statement implies that steel is not falling freely and encountering collisions with steel and floors throughout its descent.NIST is simply creating an illusion in their final report, as they have failed to demonstrate the occurrence of freefall in their modeling. Furthermore, the timing of the actual collapse does not align with their reality. It is important to take a closer look at what is happening in the first GIFs, as there is a clear sign of a significant west collapse that has already started.





  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    32. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

    In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

    To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

    This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

    Before coming back and claiming nonsense, it is important to examine the claim made by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 

    Stage 1 according to NIST

    Stage 2 ( second gif) NIST is writing a whole bunch of gibberish here, and yet their modeling is showing an entirely different collapse scenario to a freefall one. Negligible support is nonsense wording too, freefall means zero support freefall refers to a situation or state where someone or something is falling freely, without any support or resistance. In mathematics, a freefall is often represented by a line dropping straight down without any other forces acting on it.. NIST clearly does not understand what freefall means, as it has claimed the presence of resistance to the collapse, even if it is only a small amount. This lack of understanding is concerning and calls into question the accuracy of NIST's conclusions regarding the 9/11 World Trade Center seven collapse. They appear to be fabricating information as they go, see very obvious to the eye lot of resistance happening on that west side ( right side)




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    @Cheerful S @Dohnjoe @King Mob I have moved posts from the Saudi thread in to here.

    However before you engage in further discussion with each other on it, please remember the following part of the Charter:-

    Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs.

    It is clear the position you three hold, it is clear you will not change each others position and for the purposes of the CT forum, no one is obliged to change position. So @King Mob and @Dohnjoe and @Cheerful S any further bickering between you 3 will result in warning(s) being applied.

    HS



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,769 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    How did they rig the buldings with explosives?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    The NIST report only focuses on what would happen on the east end of the building and does not show the same level of analysis for the floors on the west end. NIST has acknowledged the existence of Stage 2 free fall in their final report. This confession has necessitated a revision of the existing models.


    Reality requires the collapse of steel columns on the east side (left side), where the penthouse collapsed. However, it is necessary for this collapse to be mirrored similarly on the west side (right side) of the building at the bottom too.

    Even if you don't believe the controlled demolition hypothesis is the correct one, NIST says free fall happens.

    What should happen to their models then?

    What you are seeing here should have occurred across the bottom from east to west on eight floors at the bottom of seven, way earlier than they believe. NIST only shows this level of failure on the east side and then claims in stage 2 that the west part of the building (see in the first gif) is still in the process of collapse.


    The bottom area highlighted in red arrows (gif one) should have already collapsed, like gif 2 earlier. However, this has not occurred in the NIST model.

    How does the upper half of the collapsing structure descend through the collapsed part at the bottom at freefall?

    One of the key factors contributing to the inability of the NIST building to descend in free fall during stage 2 is the presence of steel and concrete, which provide resistance. During this stage, there was a significant interaction between the falling upper floors and the bottom area of the building, as you can see in the first gif.

    .Freefall here refers to a situation where the upper half of a building descends completely freely through a gap, without any resistance or support from steel columns or a floor system on those eight floors. In this particular situation, which took place over a 100-foot drop, there was no infrastructure in place to prevent the top half of the seven building from falling.

    NIST has never explained the eight-floor gap at the bottom. However, there are those who believe that this gap can be attributed to controlled demolition.  It is hard to explain such a significant collapse through natural means alone. Proponents of the controlled demolition theory argue that only a deliberate and controlled process could have resulted in the deliberate removal of these floors. There are much harder questions to answer about how they got into the 47-story building. With freefall and the official investigation not revealing what happened correctly, what other options remain?

    Post edited by Cheerful S on


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    This is a big gaping hole in the conspiracy theories that all of the figures or organisations proportedly for 9/11 truth are careful to avoid.

    They make vague hand waves towards there being various construction works or something and say that's when the explosives were planted. But details are avoided.

    This is by design I think. If any of these "experts" attempted to detail the actual mechanism for how the demolitions were done, then it would be too obviously ridiculous.

    It would result in an operation so elaborate and huge it would not be hideable. It would require hundreds of people working for weeks to strip and prepare supports all over the building.

    Or they might try going the other way and claim that only a few supports would need to be rigged. But this would clash with all the times they said a few supports failing and causing a collapse in the official story isn't plausible.

    They could also invoke unknown, never before used methods of demolitions to try and handwave these problems, but that starts to push the theory into Sci fi nonsense territory.

    Either way if they detail specific places and methods it would clash with other claims, like explosives being needed in a place not covered by the fake construction works, or with explosions going off at certain times that don't match up with witness accounts.


    It's far easier to make vague hand waves and attempt to poke holes in the real story than it is to produce anything substantive. And it has the side benefit of appealing to different bands of theorists who believe completely opposing theories without stepping on any toes. (Ie. You don't lose the secret demolitions people when you claim it was a secret missile attack. And vice versa.)


    Believers might try and excuse this giant hole in their theories by complaining that they don't have the expertise or resources to make a model of how a demolition would work. But this should ring hollow when those same believers believe their experts are good enough to determine the official story is fake at a glance. And that truther organisations have raised and spent millions on things like fraudulent studies and flyer campaigns and salaries. And that they have had 20 years of this.

    Yet there's not even a barebones basic answer to your question.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    The WTC seven collapse marked the first time in history that a steel structure of this size and complexity had fallen due to a fire (with no airplane fuel).  This unprecedented event required NIST to provide additional analysis and explanations to determine the cause. NIST's response to the issue of freefall was driven by the need to address accusations and provide clarification since the denied freefall happened in the draft paper.

    The period of freefall observed in the WTC seven collapse raised questions about the integrity of the study and sparked accusations against NIST's understanding of basic physics too.

    By confirming the occurrence of freefall in the final report, NIST aimed to dispel any doubts among their supporters, they were clueless.

    In my post 563, the draft report was modified to include information regarding a three-stage collapse. The computer modeling presented and the findings of the study were purportedly consistent with freefall according to NIST. However, this claim was patently false, as the finite engineering models did not exhibit freefall behavior.

    Freefall, by definition, refers to a vertical downward motion without any resistance or deceleration. The NIST model clearly shows evidence of resistance at stage 2.

    You can decide to believe that the demolition was too complicated and that they would be caught, based on your perception of what is possible. However, there is physical and scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that the collapse was caused by controlled demolition. You don't have to take my word for it; the NIST report clearly demonstrates that they got things wrong and fail to comprehend the complexities of the building's behavior.

    Viewpoints While acceptable, they are not scientific facts. However, the occurrence of freefall at building seven is indeed a scientific fact. How this event took place can ultimately influence one's perspective. NIST's handling of the 9/11 investigation has become a circus-like spectacle. The agency's constantly changing narrative, coupled with errors and inconsistencies in its theories, has cast doubts on its independence and integrity. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    In August 2008, David Chandler, a physics lecturer at University/college in the United States, had the opportunity to question NIST at their own press conference about the seven-building report. He posed several challenging questions to the NIST personnel, highlighting inconsistencies and logical fallacies in their theories.

    One of the most significant issues raised by Chandler during his questioning was the NIST's denial of freefall during the collapse. This interaction on this video.

    When I watched the video interaction between the Ae911 Truth people and NIST long ago, I was truly stunned by how bad NIST was at answering basic science questions about the collapse. They denied the occurrence of freefall on this video, but after three months, they reversed course after being proven to be stupid. I was no longer on the fence about whether the controlled demolition theory was true or not. The video showed me that people in AE911 truth were correct




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,769 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    This is not an accurate statement. While one can choose to ignore certain aspects, the undeniable fact is that freefall did occur.

    This is a measurable and scientifically verified fact that has now been confirmed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    In this context, the claim being made is that when a building collapsed, a significant portion of the structure was not there.

    Why is there a 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom?

    The presence of an 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom raises suspicions about the cause of the collapse. This detail is one of the main reasons why people look at freefall as scientific evidence for controlled demolition.

    The NIST model focuses on the progressive failure of the floors, highlighting how each floor's failure contributed to the overall collapse. However, the report claims that the collapse was primarily due to the fire damage and structural damage sustained to the building.

    People have pointed out an issue with the NIST model of progressive collapse, stating that it does not accurately match the sequence of collapse stages depicted in the video. This discrepancy matters greatly, as it directly impacts the timeline and the sequence of failures that should occur.


    The problem is not clearly seen by most individuals. Eight floors are in the stage of collapsing before the next stages.

    Does NIST think that the second building drops for no reason at all earlier on the roof? Why would it drop there was no collapse there on the right side at the bottom?


    Both images are matching timelines of the collapse event.

    However, what many people overlook is the presence of approximately half of the eight floors in the NIST model at the bottom that still hold, even if they are weakened. significant pressure as the building pushes down upon itself. How does the upper half of the building come through all that still holding there, at freefall, it cant. It appears that controlled demolition is very likely, based on what we see here.Go ahead got a new explanation of the freefall that matches the video.




Advertisement