Free Fall - By David Chandler

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Apr 29, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For me this 5 part series deserves its own thread even though the issue is strongly connected to several other threads in this section of the forum. For example, it is part of the evidence being used in support of the petition for a federal grand jury investigation into 9/11.

    David Chandler wrote a 5 part series explaining free fall as it pertains to WTC7 on 9/11 and the implications. The first 4 parts have been published and Part 5 is forthcoming. I hope of course the relevant discussion in this thread remains technical as much as possible. I will begin with Part 1, posting excerpts.

    Free Fall — Part 1
    by David Chandler

    What does it take for a tall building to collapse downward through its own structure at absolute free fall?

    Galileo demonstrated long ago that any object, of any mass, falling under the influence of gravity alone would accelerate downward at a characteristic rate, which we call the acceleration of gravity, or g. The experimentally determined value of this acceleration varies slightly from one place to another on the surface of the earth. The earth bulges outward slightly at the equator and is flattened at the poles, so gravity is stronger at the poles where one is a little closer to the center of the earth. Similarly, gravity is weaker at higher altitudes. Generally speaking, however, the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 m/s^2, which means an object will gain 9.8 m/s of speed each second it falls. Starting at rest, at the end of one second it would be moving at 9.8 m/s, at the end of two seconds it would be moving at 19.6 m/s, etc. In physics we say it accelerates at 9.8 [meters/second]/second, which is abbreviated 9.8 m/s^2. (In U. S. Customary units that would be about 32.2 ft/s2^2.) In New York City the acceleration of gravity is about 9.803 m/s^2.


    Skipping ...

    Things to note:
    • View the videos on my web site. All four corners of the building start downward within a fraction of a second of each other. The roof line remains essentially level during the entire period of free fall. Whatever is happening to remove resistance is happening across the entire width of the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second. Lack of precise synchronization in the removal of support would lead to tumbling.
    • The building is 100 m side to side, and the overall dimensions of the trapezoidal building would essentially cover a football field, overlapping into the end zones. Any coherent theory of the collapse of the building would have to account for how the process happened synchronously over such a large area.

    • One penthouse, on the east side of the building, collapses early, in an event separate from the overall collapse, but the penthouse on the west side of the building (the right) remains supported until about a half second before the overall collapse. It remains partially visible throughout the free fall portion of the collapse. This indicates that the interior support structure is compromised first, but it gives way only a fraction of a second ahead of the perimeter walls.
    Skipping ...

    By the way, does this sound like conspiracy theory to you? Notice that I have not theorized, or even hypothesized anything. I am observing and analyzing public information regarding an extremely significant public event, holding it up to the light of day. This is normal curious behavior for a scientist, not political or weird or fringe. Rather, choosing not to observe or not to analyze or not to try to understand such an event for fear of where the evidence might lead, or to insist that only officially sanctioned explanations are to be permitted, or to smear with derogatory labels those who use their own eyes and powers of reason, … that is a political act, and not the kind of politics worthy of citizens of a democratic society.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    Discussion open.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one wants to discuss reality, I understand, fairy tales make so much more sense. So on to Part 2.

    Free Fall — Part 2
    by David Chandler

    If you haven’t read Part 1 of this series, you should really start there.

    [Being new to Medium.com I just now discovered that I could embed video clips, so I have edited Part 1 to include a montage showing the collapse of WTC 7 from several points of view.]

    In Part 1 we saw that the free fall of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) on 9/11/01 was an observational reality, independent of any politics, how or why questions, or any theories, conspiratorial or otherwise. It was an objectively measurable fact. The central question asked in Part 1, which has not yet been answered, was, “What does it take for a tall building to collapse downward through its own structure in absolute free fall?” Let us approach this question by looking at the physical implications of free fall.

    So what does free fall imply?

    We can state with certainty that during free fall the falling section of the building could not have been what was destroying the structure underneath it. The clearest way to understand this is to consider the energy involved. When an object is elevated it has potential energy. In free fall, the potential energy is converted entirely into kinetic energy with no energy left over to do anything else.


    Skipping ...

    A tall building has potential energy given to it as it was built by cranes that originally lifted the heavy components into place. As in the case of a loaded mouse trap, that energy remains, hidden and seemingly passive, as the building is held in place for years. That stored energy is released, however, if the building is demolished. In a conventional demolition, support is removed low in the building, allowing the top section to fall. As the building falls, its potential energy is transferred into other forms. If it does not interact with anything along the way, all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of the downward moving building. This is a description of free fall. If the falling section crushes or otherwise interacts with the underlying structure, the energy is shared among various forms: energy of deformation of the structure, kinetic energy carried off by objects being thrown around, and heat generated by these processes. Any energy transferred to these other processes is deducted from the kinetic energy of the falling top section of the building, causing it to slow as it falls. The only way free fall can be maintained is for none of the energy to be used for other purposes. In free fall, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy of the falling mass, and nothing else.

    Skipping ...

    We are now able to answer our original central question: “What does it take for a tall building to collapse downward through its own structure at absolute free fall?” The answer is the underlying structure has to be removed, and the energy needed to accomplish this has to be supplied from some external source. The free falling section of the building does not contribute to this process.

    What could the external source of energy be? In simple demolitions energy is provided by a wrecking ball that attacks the structure piecemeal. Like a wrecking ball the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes, but like the wrecking ball these impacts caused only localized damage which the towers survived for an hour or more. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Earthquakes can cause buildings to fail, but there were no earthquakes in New York City that day. Verinage demolitions, innovated in France, are accomplished by simultaneously buckling all of the support columns on the middle floors using hydraulics or sometimes cables. Fire can cause wooden structures to collapse, but fire tends to eat away at a structure, causing a series of local failures that may culminate in a global collapse. Fire, on the other hand, has never caused the complete collapse of any steel frame high rise, even after burning for many hours. The only way, apart from Verinage demolitions, buildings have ever been brought straight down with sudden onset, and with an initial period of free fall, is by using explosives to suddenly and simultaneously remove all column support. All of these mechanisms, apart from earthquake or fire, would seem to require rather major outside intervention.

    I ended Part 1 by pointing out that I was not engaging in any kind of conspiracy theory, because I did not put forth any theory whatsoever, conspiratorial or otherwise. The same remains true here. I have simply provided the background physics sufficient to understand the nature of the problem.

    After a great deal of pressure and a long delay, the Bush administration commissioned an analysis of the collapses of the Twin Towers, completed in 2005, and WTC 7, completed at the very end of the Bush presidency in November 2008, by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Many people assume that NIST is an independent scientific agency, but in fact NIST is a government agency under the Commerce Department, which is in the executive branch of the government. Keeping that in mind, we look at the analysis provided by NIST in Part 3.


    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-5efaea1ba1bd

    Discussion open for Parts 1 and 2.

    See the picture yet? No? It's really not that complicated, even our resident hobbyists/"engineers" (as they claim) can figure this out. If not they can always snicker among themselves about how "troofers" who know zero about physics and engineering don't understand that steel frame buildings always "collapse" at free fall from fire. Oh wait... Perhaps in Part 3.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    oh the irony ...



    but they didn't collapse at free fall Bob ... stop drinking the Kool Aid ...



    make sure you see it until the end ...
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48


    part 2 open for discussion
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for chiming in. I don't mind posting 9/11 issues for the benefit of those who really care about 9/11 even if no one wants to discuss this issue. However this is a discussion forum so I'd rather posters actually discuss what is posted, even if a poster does not care anything about 9/11 (such as you for example). Isn't that ironic?

    WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed nearly uniformly at the rate of approximately 2/3 free fall (give or take) and Chandler often uses the term "indistinguishable from free fall" for WTC7. NIST agrees with the free fall characterization for the first 100 feet (8 stories) or so. So there is no controversy between the two conflicting sides of the argument, and almost 3,000 identifiable architects and engineers agree as well. The only ones who often refute the free fall issue are anonymous self professed "debunkers". In the case of the videos you posted, one who calls himself "alienentity". A very brave soul who obviously does not want to be identified. For a claimed "engineer" as you claim to be, you missed the entire picture that any engineer who has seen the videos of the destruction of WTC7 should discover immediately. In fact, one does not need to be engineer to deduce what happened to WTC7, just a bit of common sense. Your posts on 9/11 tell me you're anything but an engineer and your own claims are that this is strictly a hobby for you. But you could very well be an engineer, after all, all those who contributed to the NIST reports were highly qualified engineers. That's also pretty ironic.

    So to explain (not necessarily for your benefit since I know you really don't give a ****), when viewing the videos of WTC7 dropping, one can see at least 3 sides of the building going down uniformly at a nearly constant rate of descent. The only side that has not been captured descending on video is the south side. However, one should be able to conclude that if 3 sides are going down at the same time, the 4th side is very likely also going down at the same time. From the moment the roof line begins to descend, the entire building descends uniformly at an accelerating rate. That means that the massive structure below the descending building is not only providing nearly zero resistance but the whole structure is dropping uniformly. The only way that can happen is if everything that provides resistance was removed at the same time. No fire, inferno or otherwise has ever caused anything like that to happen to any steel frame high rise either before or after 9/11. No known experiment or computer model has ever shown that fire could actually do that to a steel frame structure. In fact, there were at least two major experiments that showed that a deliberately exaggerated fire could not bring down a steel frame structure.

    I haven't drank Kool Aid since I was a child too many decades ago. What does that have to do with this discussion? I know, you just can't help yourself and eventually you'll just resort to irrelevant trolling.

    Yep, including the music at the end.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well actually I will be posting Part 3 of David Chandler's Free Fall series shortly. That is what this discussion is about, not alienentity's videos. So parts 1 and 2 of David Chandler's series are still open for discussion. BTW, none of this has anything to do with "conspiracy theory/ists" or "troofers" or any other silly demons this guy and you want to label those who disagree with or don't believe the OCT. This is strictly about building collapse (or destruction) theory. The problem with "alienentity" is he loses all credibility when he liberally uses the usual labeling. That nonsense has nothing to do with science.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So on to Part 3 where David Chandler addresses some key deceptions by NIST, including the deliberate mistiming of the downward acceleration of WTC7 (supported by anonymous "debunkers" such as "alienentity"). Caution once again that although WTC7 did free fall and both sides agree, free fall is only one symptom but not the primary factor in determining whether the 3 towers collapsed naturally as a result of the events of 9/11 or were deliberately destroyed as part of the events of 9/11. But free fall or near free fall is definitely a significant characteristic.

    Free Fall — Part 3
    by David Chandler

    In Part 1 we looked at the kinematics (analysis of motion) of the fall of WTC 7. We reviewed the process of measuring acceleration and saw the direct observational evidence that the NW corner of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) descended at the acceleration of gravity for the first 2.5 seconds of its fall.

    In Part 2 we looked at the dynamics (analysis of forces) of the fall of WTC 7. We established that as a direct consequence of free fall the falling section of the building could not have been what was crushing or removing the underlying structure. The building had to have been falling as a consequence of structure that was removed by other forces.

    At this point it is easy to see why many scientists, engineers, and architects see pre-planted explosives as the only plausible explanation of the forensic evidence, acknowledging that there is a very deep rabbit hole of logical consequences that follow. The official story is all about avoiding that rabbit hole, but any honest investigation would need to do justice to the forensic evidence. So let’s see how the official investigation handled the free fall question.


    Skipping ...

    NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7; Draft for Public Comment is divided into a shorter summary report labelled NIST NCSTAR 1A and the full report labelled NIST NCSTAR 1–9. Section 3.6 of the summary report, starting on p. 40, discusses “Collapse Time.”

    The section starts by saying, “NIST was interested in estimating how closely the time for WTC 7 took to fall compared with the descent time if the building were falling freely under the force of gravity.” It is curious that the framing is in terms of time rather than “acceleration.” The realistic task at hand was to correctly characterize the collapse of the building. The overall time of fall is not the issue. The most natural and meaningful way to compare the fall of the building with the acceleration of gravity would be to measure the acceleration of the building. NIST, in this report, chose not to do this. In the very next sentence they spell out their alternative methodology: “Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant, the two quantities needed for the determinations were (1) a length that some feature of the building descended and (2) the time it took to fall that distance.”

    The reference to “constant speed” was clearly an error. Even casual observation indicates that the building was not falling at constant speed, and that while it was moving downward it was accelerating. It is clear from context that the sentence was confused because the following paragraph starts, “The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., neglecting air friction), was computed from, t = √(2h/g),…” This formula applies only to motion at the acceleration of gravity, starting at rest, with no resistance of any kind. This approach is equivalent to using a stop watch to record the starting and ending time. Use of this formula completely contradicts the constant speed assumption.

    Even if the report had said, “Assuming that the acceleration was approximately constant,” the methodology would still be invalid because there is no a priori basis for that assumption. We covered this issue in Part 1 of this series. The only way to determine the acceleration of the motion in a complex situation (such as a building falling through its own structure) is to compute the velocity as a function of time, over many short intervals, and determine the rate of change of the velocity from one interval to the next. Typically one would accomplish this by graphing velocity vs. time and computing the slope in any interval of interest. The virtual stopwatch approach, employed by NIST, is equivalent to computing the slope of a straight line connecting the first and last data points on the graph, ignoring all the data in between. This approach provides a meaningless result that obscures the true motion of the building. If NIST had provided the actual graph of velocity vs. time, and connected the first and last dots with a straight line, we could see for ourselves that the virtual stopwatch approach was a ludicrous irrelevancy. The actual motion of the NW corner of the roof, over the 5.4 second time interval chosen by NIST, was to remain at rest for about 1.5 seconds, then fall at the acceleration of gravity for about 2.5 seconds, and then continue accelerating downward at less than free fall over the remaining time. To do a simple stopwatch timing to characterize a motion of this complexity is a completely meaningless exercise. Coming from a professionally competent scientific organization such as NIST, it is hard to see this analysis as anything other than an attempt at deception.


    Skipping ...

    The outcome was a starting time that was about a second and a half before the actual onset of downward motion. From NIST’s start time to the time when the roof line descended to the 29th floor (the lowest point visible from Camera 3) was 5.4 seconds. Free fall to the 29th floor would have taken about 3.9 seconds, so if the extra 1.5 seconds were omitted, all we would have left would be free fall transitioning to near free fall. NIST clearly didn’t want to go there.

    Skipping ...

    NIST’s explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 in Section 3.6 is sufficiently incoherent that one might wonder what it actually says. On the surface it appears to be a claim that the building fell significantly slower than it would have if it were in free fall. But NIST never actually commented on the acceleration of the building. They simply compared two unrelated time intervals: 1. the time from the first pixel color change until the roof line reached the level of the 29th floor, on the one hand, and 2. the time for an object in absolute free fall to traverse the same vertical distance, on the other. One might claim (if one were a lawyer) that NIST made no claim about the actual acceleration of the building at all. It is only by glossing over the incoherence of the argument that we think NIST has claimed that the building fell slower than free fall. Scientists and engineers don’t communicate this way, which is why I am led to speculate that this section may well have been written in collaboration with a legal team. NIST desperately wanted to deny free fall, because that is the opening of a very deep and troubling rabbit hole. But they didn’t want to actually lie, in the sense of producing a document that would be provably fraudulent in court. So, according to my best guess, NIST opted for incoherence to avoid an overt lie.

    Skipping ...

    I don’t want to leave this topic without suggesting how the change in the final report may have been brought about. Later in the Technical Briefing Steven Jones, a physicist at BYU, pointed out the simple and undeniable error in the report: “NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of the summary report, where it’s stated, ‘assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant.’ However observations by others of the descent speed show that the building is accelerating rather than being at constant speed. Why did NIST assume that the descent speed was approximately constant?”

    Shyam Sunder handed that question to John Gross, who spent about 45 seconds recounting how the measurement was made and saying absolutely nothing in response to the question, while fidgeting with his pen, rubbing his nose, and displaying extreme discomfort. At that point Shyam Sunder asked if someone could clarify the comment. Someone else leaned in and said they would have to correct this in the final report.

    With that response we had a commitment, documented on video, to change the final report. The door had been opened. One might think a simple change of wording in that one spot might have fulfilled the commitment, but as we shall see in Part 4, NIST responded with a new analysis that actually acknowledged free fall. Isn’t that interesting! More to come.


    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-3-58a87de4ecea

    Parts 1-3 are now open for discussion.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Chandler believes an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon ... so I'm somewhat OK with the old dude ...

    but you know what they say about teachers right? ...

    no matter whose video and analysis you proscribe to regarding WTC 7 , there is absolutely zero evidence of a controlled demo ... zero ... I don't care what some high school teacher or random people on the internet that believe in every imaginable conspiracy have to say ...

    there's a reason nobody has won a Pulitzer Prize relating to 9/11 ... just a few bunker mentality books you can by off personal websites ... no real investigative material ...

    there is a reason that this crap is relegated to the CT section ... and it doesn't go by the made up OCT definition ... meh ...
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah he said that scientifically speaking, and I'm also ok with the old dude despite.

    Yeah some of them can actually teach. This guy's amazing, isn't he?

    Guess what, I don't care that you don't care. I already said you don't care, thanks for agreeing. For me and many identifiable experts, the evidence is overwhelming and common sense dictates the inescapable possibility(ies). For anonymous "debunkers" and "hobbyists", not to mention the US government, there will never be any evidence. In fact, they're making sure no one sees the evidence, by their own admission.

    Now, you're beginning to veer off topic. None of that has anything to do with Chandler's piece. If you want to discuss the Pulitzer, start your own thread.

    Yet you're infesting the "crap CT section" daily. Why is that? Do you like spewing crap in the crap section? Please stay on topic, if it's crap to you, please stay out. Thanks.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So without further ado and notwithstanding the trolling posts, on to Part 4. Here David Chandler explains in technical detail even a claimed engineer should be able to understand how and why NIST's artificially invented "collapse" time of 5.4 seconds, where embedded within is a 2.25 second period of free fall, is a deliberate scam. Those are my words, Chandler was trying to be somewhat diplomatic.

    Free Fall — Part 4
    by David Chandler

    In Part 3 we looked at NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7; Draft for Public Comment released in August 2008. We turn now to the final report released in November 2008.

    During the public comment period after the release of the final draft a number of organizations and individuals, myself included, submitted “requests for correction” heavily criticizing the measurement of the descent of the building that led to the conclusion that it came down 40% slower than free fall. As we saw in Part 3, Steven Jones had elicited a commitment from NIST that they would make a change in the final report due to the erroneous phrase, “Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant,” when the building was clearly accelerating. A minimal change in the wording was all any of us expected.

    However, when the final report was released we were surprised to see a new analysis that acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall! I immediately changed the title of my YouTube video that displayed my measurement of free fall to WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial.

    Case closed! Or is it? Upon closer inspection, the new NIST analysis merits more analysis.


    Skipping ...

    As stated here, after having made their detour into comments about velocity and acceleration, NIST reverts fully to the original 5.4 second time interval dressed up as a three-stage process. But as we have seen, there is no gradual transition into free fall. If there is no gradual transition there is no Stage 1. If there is no Stage 1, there is no 5.4 second interval which is the linchpin of this analysis. The 5.4 second interval and the “three stages of collapse progression” are simply fabrications.

    Another issue is hiding in the language. Laced throughout this section is a repeated phrase, “the north face.”


    [​IMG]
    On one level this phrase seems innocuous. The videos being used for measurements do in fact show the north face of the building. However if you dig deeper you find that the actual claim being made is that only the exterior façade is falling at free fall. A few pages earlier in the report is a table of events including several seconds prior to the start of the visible collapse over which the buckling of core columns propagates from one end of the building to the other. The report claims, “The horizontal progression of buckling core columns was interior to the building and could not have been observed from the street.” Somehow NIST is imagining that the collapse of the interior of the building was decoupled from the exterior walls and occurred earlier than the collapse seen on video. In their account, only the exterior façade remained, which later buckled low in the building resulting in the observed free fall.

    The supposed decoupling of the interior collapse from the visible exterior collapse is NIST’s ultimate rationale for accepting the observation of free fall. This claim is both implausible and contrary to the evidence. The WTC 7 Q&A page on the NIST web site makes the claim of decoupling even more explicit. There it says, “WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.”

    How does this contradict reality? Let me count the ways! First, take the time to study a compilation of views of WTC 7’s collapse from different camera angles.

    Skipping ...

    If the interior columns had buckled they would have pulled the floors down with them, This would have pulled inward on the exterior walls and we would see visible deformations on the surface. The girders could not pull away from the exterior walls, as the NIST Q&A piece claims, because there is no mechanism for the interior to decouple from the exterior walls. The girders directly tie the interior columns to the exterior walls. Note that NIST’s own computer models of the collapse all involved major deformations of the exterior walls, but no such large deformations were seen in the videos of the actual building even as the building was falling.


    [​IMG]
    Skipping ...

    NIST cannot just supplement the errors in the draft report and expect the errors to go away. The draft report is based on the fiction of an early start time for the collapse using a deceptive camera angle to make that determination. After being assailed by its critics (us), the final report conceded the fact of free fall while trying desperately to discount the significance of that finding. The consequences do not go away, however. It is clear that the building fell with a sudden transition to free fall, and that the interior of the building gave way only about a half second early, which is a common demolition technique to pull the building in on itself. The further implication, as discussed previously, is that the building had to have been demolished by an external energy source (explosives).

    Something else has been learned from the NIST report, as significant as the physical analysis. What we have seen is that NIST produced a report that is both implausible in general and impossible in detail. They did not do that through incompetence, because the scientists and engineers at NIST are most assuredly not incompetent. NIST has a well-deserved solid reputation for competence and rigor. We must conclude, therefore, that at least under the influence of the Bush administration, a select team within NIST knowingly participated in a cover-up. Since 9/11 was a crime, the NIST report must be considered a criminal cover-up. In fact, since 9/11 provided a false pretext for attacking multiple countries, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, most of them civilians, NIST committed a war crime by participating in covering up a war crime. In a just world, NIST would be held accountable.

    Questioning the official story of 9/11 has become taboo in politics, the media, in academia, and in polite society in general. But the events collectively known as 9/11 changed the course of U.S. foreign and domestic policy and impinged on our civil rights and our very identity as a nation. How is it that examining such an event, in careful detail, should be considered taboo if we expect to remain a free society?

    And so the rabbit hole opens wide. We shall explore the rabbit hole as we continue.


    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-4-6986c23835d7

    Part 5 has not yet been published. I will post it of course when it is.

    Parts 1-4 open for discussion.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I find myself agreeing with Chandler that NIST's criminality (those responsible for the deception) not only includes criminal fraud but they are complicit in the war crimes of the Bush administration as well. Unfortunately, the criminals are still in charge even though the faces may have changed and they still commit war crimes on a regular basis, so those responsible at NIST will never be prosecuted same as the Bush administration.
     
  12. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    9/11 was an act of terrorism perpetuated by Muslims ... perhaps some cover up for the Saudis (perhaps) ... NIST played no part in any cover up ... just another useless government agency ...

    but I guess the real criminals are the ones that snuck into WTC 7 and planted the explosives ... /s ...
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sure! And the fact that the University of Washington could make a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in four months back in 1940, and no engineering school has been able to make a physical or virtual model of the North Tower collapse in 16.5 years is totally irrelevant to the nation that put men on the Moon half-a-century ago.

    The computers must confuse us.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is strictly conspiracy theory/conjecture based on a stated US government narrative unsupported by any legitimate official investigation.

    There is strong evidence of some form of coverup for the Saudi government. This requires a legitimate official investigation.

    The factual evidence as indicated in this thread and fully supported/documented by the ones below and other threads strongly indicates otherwise.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...llapse-of-world-trade-center-7-theory.514312/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11-the-legal-initiative.500060/

    NIST is and has been instrumental in developing and implementing specific industry wide standards and guidelines. They were inappropriately chosen by the US government to conduct an official investigation into the destruction of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9/11 and catastrophically failed their mandate.

    The "real" criminals are yet unknown because there has never been any legitimate criminal/forensic investigation into 9/11.
     
  15. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,813
    Likes Received:
    924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THREAD LOCKED - Rule 15 - Copyright Violation

    The OP appropriates by the use of cut and pasting, a majority of a linked article, and therefore violates the intellectual property rights and copyrights of the author and the website that published the article. Only small snippets of articles are allowed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page