Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

What's your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks?

  • The official story makes the most sense

    Votes: 48 40.7%

  • The attacks were allowed to happen

    Votes: 28 23.7%

  • Inside job by US/shadow Government

    Votes: 42 35.6%
  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

nut said:
They dismissed CD because of lack of Audio... didnt test it their modelling.

Fire and the failure of a few columns can bring down an entire building ... but CD is completely dismissed???
Click to expand...
How often do you need to be wrong before you reassess your views on this matter Nut?

From the above link, which clearly you didnt even open, much less read:

NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
 
BustedWing said:
Just a snippet from the NIST reports FAQ section. Refer to question 8.
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
Click to expand...
That is not an answer - it’s flipping the bird to the immeasurable evidence and testimony of the most likely and logical explanation in the FAQ - even you must realize how inadequate and embarrassing that is.

Any serious report had to consider CD in detail - accumulate the evidence for and against.

While You point to FAQ

It’s not frequently

It’s the question
 
BustedWing said:
How often do you need to be wrong before you reassess your views on this matter Nut?

From the above link, which clearly you didnt even open, much less read:

NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Click to expand...
Yes we can read
Watch the video of the ex NIST employee
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BustedWing said:
How often do you need to be wrong before you reassess your views on this matter Nut?

From the above link, which clearly you didnt even open, much less read:

NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Click to expand...

When did we start talking about the twin towers????
I'm talking about WTC7

Have you watched this yet ????


 
nut said:
When did we start talking about the twin towers????
I'm talking about WTC7

Have you watched this yet ????


Click to expand...

Re your video, we have discussed all this. Ad nauseum.

You're pretending this hasn't been brought up before, and that it hasn't been explained to you ad nauseum.

It has.

you just ignore the answers.

Here is where I explained it to you.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/9-11-part-2.923196/page-302#post-48695482

And before that post, We went back and forth over the same tired old points you're trying to bring up now as if they are new, fresh and exciting.

Here is roughly the start of a few pages of nonsense from you.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/9-11-part-2.923196/page-301#post-48679502

We have been over this Nut. You are wrong. It has been very clearly explained to you why you're wrong.

You just continue to ignore it, put your hands over your ears, and bleat "but the data! 2.3 seconds! NIST changed their story!".

Its all nonsense. and you will never ever ever admit it.
 
BustedWing said:
Oh!!

all this time and you were referring to WTC7 were you??
Well! say no more...

Of course...all you needed to do was google NIST WTC7...

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Refer to point 13.

Now then...retraction and apology please...
Click to expand...


Ok they "carefully looked at it"... sorry.

Now back to my questions...


nut said:
Answer me these 2 simple question ... just a yes or no answer please.

In the draft report by NIST did they refer the collapse at constant speed?

In the final report does NIST admit that the WWC 7 fell for 2.28 seconds at free fall?
Click to expand...

Here is the video again.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

nut said:
Answer me these 2 simple question ... just a yes or no answer please.

In the draft report by NIST did they refer the collapse at constant speed?

In the final report does NIST admit that the WWC 7 fell for 2.28 seconds at free fall?
Click to expand...

BustedWing you have not answered these questions...
 
nut said:
BustedWing you have not answered these questions...
Click to expand...
My response above certainly does answer these questions. My response above very clearly explains why your assertions are wrong, and why your claim that NIST changed their story is misguided and patently incorrect.

You're done Nut.
 
BustedWing said:
My response above certainly does answer these questions. My response above very clearly explains why your assertions are wrong, and why your claim that NIST changed their story is misguided and patently incorrect.

You're done Nut.
Click to expand...

So you are just as much a fraud as those you are defending ...
It's clear that NIST refered to constant speed... and it was changed.
Listen to Sunbar he says "it's not unusual because there WAS structural resistance..."

The answers are YES and YES.

You can attack Chandler all you want but his numbers MATCH NISTs ....
that's when they came up with the 3 stage collapse.

So magically all this collapsing was taking place while the exterior remain intact.

Then as it falls for 2.28 seconds there was no resistance. Correct??
 
BustedWing said:
While we're at it - when does Occams Razer come into play for you?
Click to expand...
When does it come into play for you Busted? Three buildings collapse and the most obvious answer is? Explosives.
A plane pierces through concrete walls of the Pentagon and the most obvious answer is? It was a missile. Planes can't pierce through solid concrete walls.
 
nut said:
It's clear that NIST refered to constant speed... and it was changed.
Listen to Sunbar he says "it's not unusual because there WAS structural resistance..."
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
nut said:
You can attack Chandler all you want but his numbers MATCH NISTs ....
that's when they came up with the 3 stage collapse.
Click to expand...
Explained to you in the posts I referenced above. You choose to ignore it.

Thats your choice.

nut said:
So magically all this collapsing was taking place while the exterior remain intact.
Click to expand...
Correct. And explained ad nauseum to you. You choose to ignore it.

Thats your choice.

nut said:
Then as it falls for 2.28 seconds there was no resistance. Correct??
Click to expand...
Also explained to you over and over and over.

You choose to ignore it.

Thats your choice.

nut said:
You are a fraud too..hope the money you get paid is worth it.
Click to expand...
You continue with the fantasy that people are being paid to post on an obscure football forum in Australia, 16 years after the event.

I am almost as silly as you for ever thinking you would engage rationally and with critical thought. That's my fault, and I accept it.

I'm done with you Nut.

You will never change your mind, no matter how many times the evidence is put under your nose. No matter how many times you say something, and its proven false.

Its over. you're finished.
 
Glacier said:
That's because he doesn't know
And he reads popular mechanics
Click to expand...

Constant speed in the draft report was amended in the final report to Constant acceleration .... BustedWing knows this but he won't admit it.

the brightest minds in NIST didn't know th difference???? Lol.

Apparently buildings can collapse whilst it's exterior remains intact ... the exterior is so strong and can with stand the pulling force of the interior floor beams as they disconnect magically ... yet falls a free fall moments later.
Amazing.
 
Last edited:
Enough with the trolling, otherwise some of you will be sitting this one out :rolleyes:
 
nut said:
calling someone a fool is fine???
Click to expand...
Not really. This thread is starting to get out of control again. Lots of censored and deleted posts and there may be more to deal with. You people like making work for me. I've already given out a couple of warnings!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top