I find it difficult to imagine the organization and number of people involved with all of the crap that happened on 9/11. If it were not for the total impossibility of the physics I would think that it could not have been done. But it means that my conceptions of how this country worked before 9/11 were totally wrong. However what has happened since then with engineering schools failing to raise obvious issues for twenty years is even more disappointing.
Hopefully this guy is an exception at UAF since he wrote this peer reviewed paper. A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 https://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf https://marquistopeducators.com/2021/11/11/j-leroy-hulsey/
9-11 was just one of many PSYOPS events where our government had decided to "sacrifice" - "murder" it's own citizens.
NIST's "collapse initiation hypothesis" of the twin towers on 9/11 is scientifically fraudulent in multiple ways. And while their "collapse initiation hypothesis" is based on invented data, NIST never even bothered to analyze the "collapse" itself by their own admission within a footnote in their 10,000 page report. They merely falsely claimed that "global collapse ensued". John Schuler provides the details:
"no evidence" Yes, @ the 7:25 minute mark WTC #7 just implodes like a "planned" Las Vegas hotel demolition. I doubt that Las Vegas Demolition and Environmental Services, LLC.® couldn't have done a better job then the government "Megalomaniacs" & "Cowards" behind 9/11 that sacrificed 3,000 innocent lives.
But I make relevant comments like pointing out that the NICSTAR1 report is so stupid that it does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. I am beating the horse to make it get its lazy ass up rather than claiming that it is dead. It is brain dead people who are being fooled by the horse.
The following is a letter from NIST dated 9/27/07 which is NIST's response to a Request for Correction dated 4/12/07. Here are some of the jaw dropping highlights (IMO) along with my personal comments. Note there is much more but these are some of the quotes I found quite glaring: NIST: As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse. So NIST readily admits they cannot provide an explanation of the total collapse of the twin towers despite that they were funded by Congress and even claim on their website that their first primary objective was to determine why and how the WTC1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. NIST: NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC towers. - and - NIST has reviewed the full body of firefighter interviews and conducted its own interviews of first responders and building occupants and taken as a whole, these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact zone. First, we know from these very interviews that there were at least 150 documented claims by firefighters and others of seeing, hearing, feeling and being injured by explosions. These occurred before the first plane impact and following the plane impacts prior to and during the "collapses". Second, we also know there were multiple documented corroborating reports by firefighters and others of seeing large quantities of molten steel at the WTC site. Yet John Gross, NIST's lead engineer, publicly denied ever hearing or knowing about the eyewitness evidence of molten steel. NIST: Finally, as NIST has noted in the frequently asked questions page on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov, NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive. First NIST denies or ignores eyewitness claims of explosions and molten steel (not mentioned in the letter). Second NIST admits failing to test for the presence of explosive residue (required by NFPA fire investigation protocol that NIST itself promotes) despite the multiple eyewitness claims of explosions (not to mention molten steel). And third, NIST claims that even if they did test for explosive residue, it would not necessarily been conclusive (either way I presume). The letter has a handwritten note that says "so don't even try?". https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal.pdf
There are perhaps 5 controlled demolition companies in the US capable of pulling this off. For me CDI is the #1 suspect because of their ties to the US government and the fact that they were contracted by the US government to "clean up" the Ground Zero site (i.e. get rid of the evidence). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc. We just don't know because there never was a legitimate criminal or scientific investigation into 9/11. All the purported government "investigations" (NIST, the 9/11 Commission, FBI's PENTTBOM and others) were designed to coverup what really happened on 9/11. What we do know is that the evidence and the science*, not to mention simple observation and common sense, overwhelmingly points to the controlled demolition of all 3 towers. * https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/
How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11 By Ted Walter and Graeme MacQueen Editor's Note: At the end of this article is an appendix that contains video clips of the 36 reporters who brought us the Twin Towers’ explosive demolition on 9/11. Readers can go directly to each video clip by clicking on the reporter's name in the list that follows here. The reporters are, by network, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Cynthia McFadden; CBS’s Harold Dow, Tom Flynn, Mika Brzezinski, and Carol Marin (appearing on WCBS); NBC’s Pat Dawson and Anne Thompson; CNN’s Aaron Brown, Rose Arce, Patty Sabga, and Alan Dodds Frank; Fox News’ David Lee Miller and Rick Leventhal; MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield and Rick Sanchez; CNBC’s John Bussey, Ron Insana, and Bob Pisani; WABC’s N.J. Burkett, Michelle Charlesworth, Nina Pineda, Cheryl Fiandaca, and Joe Torres; WCBS’s John Slattery, Marcella Palmer, Vince DeMentri, and Marcia Kramer; WNBC’s Walter Perez; New York 1’s Kristen Shaughnessy, Andrew Siff, John Schiumo, and Andrew Kirtzman; USA Today’s Jack Kelley; and two unidentified reporters (1 and 2) who attended a press conference with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki. The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions. This observation was first made 14 years ago in the article, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.” A review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11 revealed that 118 of them described witnessing what they interpreted that day to be explosions. Only 10 FDNY members were found describing the destruction in ways supportive of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The interviews of fire marshal John Coyle and firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding. Coyle remarked in his interview, “I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards. . . . Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.” Similarly, Fenyo recalled in his interview, “At that point, a debate began to rage [about whether to continue rescue operations in the other, still-standing tower] because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.” News reporters constitute another group of individuals who witnessed the event firsthand and whose accounts were publicly documented. While many people have seen a smattering of news clips on the internet in which reporters describe explosions, there has never been, as far as we know, a systematic attempt to collect these news clips and analyze them. We decided to take on this task for two reasons. First, we wanted to know just how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters. Second, anticipating that this would be the more prevalent hypothesis, we wanted to determine exactly how it was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse. In this article, we present our findings related to the first question. In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition
I haven't read through all the posts on this thread, but has there been any mention of who to point the finger at yet? I'll give their initials who I'm aware it should be. G.B Jr, D.C & D.R The brains behind it all.
Close, but no cigar. Yes, all those were players, but with Dov Zakheim being the comptroller at the Pentagon in those days, and with Israelis dancing in New Jersey as the towers were struck, and with PTech and many other factors, the vast preponderance of the evidence shows Israel to have been the prime mover and beneficiary in the events of the day. The best coverage and analysis over years was Christopher Bollyn married to an Israeli woman.
I don't really care. The structural engineers of the United States are accomplices after the fact. The physics of the North Tower collapse should have been resolved by January of 2003. Once it was determined that aircraft's impact and fire could not do it everyone would have been free to investigate what and who did.
It was never determined it could, and that is the responsibiloity of a government investigation. That said the complete official narrative is fantasy unless they determine it can. Seems to me some hirise forensics professor spent several years with the help of several students to do the menial labor determined it definitely could not have happened. Seems you are spinning tales again!
Yeah, the NIST can't even specify the the total amount of concrete in the towers. Your concept of logic is totally idiotic. But your pseudonym is excellent.
