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

Zidane98 said:
www.metabunk.org

Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling]

In a recent interview with the BBC, Roland Angle claimed that NIST did not have any explanation for the 2.25 seconds of essentially free fall descent observed during the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, saying: You've got to understand that the way that that building collapsed was...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org


It's all in the report. WTC 7 had an empty atrium area that extended for a number of floors. When the collapsed progressed to that area it had no resistance explaining the 2.2 seconds of freefall. Most notably before and after that stage of the collapse there was no freefall. The total collapse time for the whole building was at a slower rate than freefall.


I'm guessing you've already been told this but simply ignore it.
Click to expand...
you funny ... empty atrium ... 2.2 seconds of atrium ...... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha FMD....
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Video = fake science....

Such a disingenuous comment. How do you know planes even flew into WTC1-2? Oh, because we saw them. So you'll use visual evidence to support something, but suddenly other visual evidence is irrelevant to suit an agenda/stance. Or you'll use the same video evidence to highlight how WTC1-2-7 didn't resemble controlled demolition thus that's valid evidence, but it's not valid evidence for others to highlight how it looks like controlled demolition or some other method of organized destruction.

Not like I'm saying video is all the evidence one needs, case closed. But you cannot just write it off either. Nor use visual evidence or visual testimony to back up the O/S but it's not allowed or just plain wrong to be used to back up the CT.

How many times in football game threads the same people will decry a free kick based on visual evidence, video, or many other daily things in their life, "it looks to me like such and such", happy to use it to assert things, perceptions, judgments, but not when it comes to 9/11.
 
Zidane98 said:
www.metabunk.org

Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling]

In a recent interview with the BBC, Roland Angle claimed that NIST did not have any explanation for the 2.25 seconds of essentially free fall descent observed during the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, saying: You've got to understand that the way that that building collapsed was...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org


It's all in the report. WTC 7 had an empty atrium area that extended for a number of floors. When the collapsed progressed to that area it had no resistance explaining the 2.2 seconds of freefall. Most notably before and after that stage of the collapse there was no freefall. The total collapse time for the whole building was at a slower rate than freefall.


I'm guessing you've already been told this but simply ignore it.
Click to expand...
You are the one who's ignored the 4 year finite element analysis study, with 125 page final report studying the collapse Building 7. The 47-story skyscraper, the third to collapse on 9/11 study was led by Professor Leroy Hulsey and his team of PhD researchers at University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF). Professor Hulsey is a top forensic structural engineer of 50 years, served as Chairman of the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at the university.

NEST said fire brought the building down, but this is thoroughly debunked in the report. NEST report was a series of manipulations or assumptions that were invalid or fraudulent and not able to prove fires could not have cause the collapse of building 7. NEST omitted key structural components in building 7 to try to prove fires were responsible fro bringing the building down. They've never provided any calculations for the fantasy video they produced simulating the collapse of building 7.

WTC 7 building was "pulled" as in a controlled demolition with all the evidence included in the University structural engineers report showing to make the building collapse like was seen on the day of 9/11 they had to remove 650 columns over 8 floors within a second or so of each other.

The whole building drops and is reduced to rubble in 7 seconds.

 
BlueE said:
You are the one who's ignored the 4 year finite element analysis study, with 125 page final report studying the collapse Building 7. The 47-story skyscraper, the third to collapse on 9/11 study was led by Professor Leroy Hulsey and his team of PhD researchers at University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF). Professor Hulsey is a top forensic structural engineer of 50 years, served as Chairman of the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at the university.

NEST said fire brought the building down, but this is thoroughly debunked in the report. NEST report was a series of manipulations or assumptions that were invalid or fraudulent and not able to prove fires could not have cause the collapse of building 7. NEST omitted key structural components in building 7 to try to prove fires were responsible fro bringing the building down. They've never provided any calculations for the fantasy video they produced simulating the collapse of building 7.

WTC 7 building was "pulled" as in a controlled demolition with all the evidence included in the University structural engineers report showing to make the building collapse like was seen on the day of 9/11 they had to remove 650 columns over 8 floors within a second or so of each other.

The whole building drops and is reduced to rubble in 7 seconds.

Click to expand...

Debunked

www.metabunk.org

Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page: Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/ We are proud to announce the completion of the Final Report of the 4-year Study of World Trade Center Building 7 performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

You have quoted a study commissioned by 911 truthers.

Never mind the fact that the report is full of factual errors.

You are unable to cite any report not linked to a 911 truther group. Pretty obvious why.

You and a bunch of moronic 911 truthers do not know better than NIST and engineers.
 
GG.exe said:
Video = fake science....

Such a disingenuous comment. How do you know planes even flew into WTC1-2? Oh, because we saw them. So you'll use visual evidence to support something, but suddenly other visual evidence is irrelevant to suit an agenda/stance. Or you'll use the same video evidence to highlight how WTC1-2-7 didn't resemble controlled demolition thus that's valid evidence, but it's not valid evidence for others to highlight how it looks like controlled demolition or some other method of organized destruction.

Not like I'm saying video is all the evidence one needs, case closed. But you cannot just write it off either. Nor use visual evidence or visual testimony to back up the O/S but it's not allowed or just plain wrong to be used to back up the CT.

How many times in football game threads the same people will decry a free kick based on visual evidence, video, or many other daily things in their life, "it looks to me like such and such", happy to use it to assert things, perceptions, judgments, but not when it comes to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness accounts are discredited because noone filmed it?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98 said:
Debunked

www.metabunk.org

Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page: Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/ We are proud to announce the completion of the Final Report of the 4-year Study of World Trade Center Building 7 performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

You have quoted a study commissioned by 911 truthers.

Never mind the fact that the report is full of factual errors.

You are unable to cite any report not linked to a 911 truther group. Pretty obvious why.

You and a bunch of moronic 911 truthers do not know better than NIST and engineers.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a truther group.
 
Zidane98 said:
Debunked

www.metabunk.org

Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page: Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/ We are proud to announce the completion of the Final Report of the 4-year Study of World Trade Center Building 7 performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

You have quoted a study commissioned by 911 truthers.

Never mind the fact that the report is full of factual errors.

You are unable to cite any report not linked to a 911 truther group. Pretty obvious why.

You and a bunch of moronic 911 truthers do not know better than NIST and engineers.
Click to expand...

You mean NIST, the same organization that was destroyed by a high school teacher when they tried to deny the fact building 7 fell at free fall speed???
The same organization that then had to change their report to include free fall???
That NIST? LMFAO…
 
GG.exe said:
Video = fake science....

Such a disingenuous comment. How do you know planes even flew into WTC1-2? Oh, because we saw them. So you'll use visual evidence to support something, but suddenly other visual evidence is irrelevant to suit an agenda/stance. Or you'll use the same video evidence to highlight how WTC1-2-7 didn't resemble controlled demolition thus that's valid evidence, but it's not valid evidence for others to highlight how it looks like controlled demolition or some other method of organized destruction.

Not like I'm saying video is all the evidence one needs, case closed. But you cannot just write it off either. Nor use visual evidence or visual testimony to back up the O/S but it's not allowed or just plain wrong to be used to back up the CT.

How many times in football game threads the same people will decry a free kick based on visual evidence, video, or many other daily things in their life, "it looks to me like such and such", happy to use it to assert things, perceptions, judgments, but not when it comes to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Imagine before they had video.

Nothing ever happened because there is no way to prove that it did.

I put it to you that world war 1 was faked.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Saying that something looks a bit like something is not evidence.
Click to expand...
It is evidence. Evidence is a range of things from eyewitness accounts to police log reports to DNA and everything between. They all are put together to paint a picture, give motivations for the crime. It's standard judicial practice. The prosecutors are always looking for the smoking gun, but everything else is still important to compile together.

So, that millions of people at the time and later in video have remarked how the buildings fell is counter to logic, resembles controlled destruction, is a valid bit of evidence that is compiled against the O/S. It's not the only bit of such evidence that defies various stories of the O/S. Things like hijacker passports found on the streets later, in the hole where the plane supposedly crashed and disappeared, and the Pentagon, those things are also similar bits of evidence compiled. There are so many of them....inconsistencies and illogical things, deliberately confiscating and destroying air traffic control tapes, CCTV from neighboring hotels and establishments, doctoring Pentagon cam footage, etc, are also more to compile. How all the ground zero steel was quickly shipped off and destroyed, not allowed to be investigated, a criminal act itself, more bits of evidence to compile. So many things.
 
Zidane98 said:
Debunked

www.metabunk.org

Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page: Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/ We are proud to announce the completion of the Final Report of the 4-year Study of World Trade Center Building 7 performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

You have quoted a study commissioned by 911 truthers.

Never mind the fact that the report is full of factual errors.

You are unable to cite any report not linked to a 911 truther group. Pretty obvious why.

You and a bunch of moronic 911 truthers do not know better than NIST and engineers.
Click to expand...
Your supposed debunking of a four year university research, which you obviously haven't read is based on saying they didn't do a dynamic analysis of NIST hypothetical building collapse in their report. Makes no difference when NIST's fake simulation is still based on fraudulent data or data they don't reveal, in coming to a fake conclusion that fire was responsible for bringing down the building.

It's good that UAF advertised for feedback which is what any scientists would want and they published all the comments before making the final report.


Review comments, Sept 27th, 2019, to the draft report: “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” by J.L. Hulsey et al., Sept 3rd, 2019 This report provides a thorough analysis of what may or may not have caused the collapse of building 7 of the World Trade Center complex on Sept 11th, 2001. It demonstrates that previous reports about the collapse, specifically including the NIST report, suffer from substantial shortcomings and omissions, including the flexibility of the exterior wall, the stiffeners at the girders’ ends, the studs that connected steel and concrete slabs, and the unrealistic building deformation during the collapse. By addressing these shortcomings, the current report provides a more realistic analysis as a solid basis for its conclusion that the collapse of the building could not have been caused by fire, but instead was more likely caused by near simultaneous failure of nearly all columns. There are a few issues, both major and minor, as listed below that should be addressed in the report.

Major comments: 1. On p.63 (PDF p.75) section 2.6.1 states: “Note that the models in this analysis consist only of Floors 12 and 13.” It is not clearly stated anywhere in the report whether the restraint on column 79 by adjacent floors 11 and 14 was included in the analysis.

2. On p.64 (PDF p.76) the analysis result is described: “The displacement at Column 79 in the x-direction was 1.915 inches east (and not west), and the displacement at Column 79 in the y-direction was 0.7293 inches.” On p.71 (PDF p.83), the displacement relative to Column 79, this time assuming the NIST conditions including a rigid exterior wall, is reported to be 5.11 inches westward. This displacement is more than twice as much as the displacement found on p.64 but no clarification at all is provided in the report.

3. On p.5 (PDF p.17), the executive summary states: “columns 79, 80, 81 failed at the upper floors near the penthouse.” In section 4.3, these upper floors are specified as “Floor 45 all the way up to the penthouse”, which would add up to maximally 4 floors for a 47-story building with a penthouse. However, in videos that show the collapse of the penthouse, shattering windows are visible immediately after the penthouse collapse down until roughly 8 to 11 floors below the penthouse. It is important to include at least a hypothesis in the report that can explain both the collapse of the penthouse as well as these breaking windows in lower floors immediately after the penthouse collapse

4. On p.91 (PDF p.103), section 4.1.1 states that “differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”. But window breakage is in fact observable clearly and abundantly. So this statement is incorrect and should be adapted.

Minor comments:
5. On p.2 (PDF p.14), the executive summary states: “Near simultaneous failure of every column explains the collapse (secondary conclusion).” This statement should include that the “near simultaneous failure of every column” does not include the initial failure of the columns 79, 80 and 81 that caused the penthouse collapse nearly seven seconds before the final collapse of the building.

6. On p.55 (PDF p.67), section 2.5.2.1 starts with a Figure without caption and with 3 sentences that contain references to two Figures without mentioning the Figure numbers.

7. On p.66 (PDF p.78) the caption of Figure 2.57 refers to “displacement in the vertical direction”. However, the figure shows displacement in the horizontal North-South direction. The vertical direction is orthogonal to the viewed plane. Figure 2.56 shows the horizontal displacement in East-West direction.

My comments are mainly centered on Chapter 5: Examination of the building collapse.

I think it is great that the UAF team examined the various scenarios of partial collapse and global collapse. I see the conclusion that the WTC 7 collapse could not have been a "progressive collapse" but rather a global collapse initiated by severing all the columns on the 13th or the 19th floor. Per the report the SAP 2000 FEM program is used to model the building collapse and presumably generate the animated model. It would be very useful to expand the narrative further and describe the theory and capabilities of the SAP2000 program.

For example:
(1) How does the program model the collapse? Does the model include the full structure with all the connections allowing modeling the linear as well as non-linear behavior of the materials/ connections etc? Or were there simplifications made based on the prior analyses of the components that UAF made?
(2)The program presumably models the deformation of the building as elements yield and buckle and that is how the team arrived at the conclusion that if the columns 79, 80 and 81 are removed, the building would lean to one side rather than collapse into its footprint.
(3) Upon removal of the columns on the 13th floor in the mode;, does the program actually model free-fall of the upper stories of the building and the impact generated on the columns or impulse momentum forces? This then causes the upper levels to crush and buckle the columns traveling up the building and unzipping the connections as this happens.

What's wrong with wanting the truth, when the what has been produced is obviously lacking calculations or what has been shown is fraudulent? The architects for 9/11 disclose a $300,000 grant to UAF, so who paid for NIST report?
 
GG.exe said:
Video = fake science....

Such a disingenuous comment. How do you know planes even flew into WTC1-2? Oh, because we saw them. So you'll use visual evidence to support something, but suddenly other visual evidence is irrelevant to suit an agenda/stance. Or you'll use the same video evidence to highlight how WTC1-2-7 didn't resemble controlled demolition thus that's valid evidence, but it's not valid evidence for others to highlight how it looks like controlled demolition or some other method of organized destruction.

Not like I'm saying video is all the evidence one needs, case closed. But you cannot just write it off either. Nor use visual evidence or visual testimony to back up the O/S but it's not allowed or just plain wrong to be used to back up the CT.

How many times in football game threads the same people will decry a free kick based on visual evidence, video, or many other daily things in their life, "it looks to me like such and such", happy to use it to assert things, perceptions, judgments, but not when it comes to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Building 7 also "recently renovated".

The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then Mayor Giuliani.

Strange references 2 and 3 about the renovations from September and October 2001 have been removed.

1657950429262.png

Also the command centre was at the docks where a major drill had been planned for a full chemical disaster to hit NY on Sept 12th. So they had everything set up with hundreds of extra first responders in NY for the drill!

Imagine that.
 
GG.exe said:
It is evidence. Evidence is a range of things from eyewitness accounts to police log reports to DNA and everything between. They all are put together to paint a picture, give motivations for the crime. It's standard judicial practice. The prosecutors are always looking for the smoking gun, but everything else is still important to compile together.

So, that millions of people at the time and later in video have remarked how the buildings fell is counter to logic, resembles controlled destruction, is a valid bit of evidence that is compiled against the O/S. It's not the only bit of such evidence that defies various stories of the O/S. Things like hijacker passports found on the streets later, in the hole where the plane supposedly crashed and disappeared, and the Pentagon, those things are also similar bits of evidence compiled. There are so many of them....inconsistencies and illogical things, deliberately confiscating and destroying air traffic control tapes, CCTV from neighboring hotels and establishments, doctoring Pentagon cam footage, etc, are also more to compile. How all the ground zero steel was quickly shipped off and destroyed, not allowed to be investigated, a criminal act itself, more bits of evidence to compile. So many things.
Click to expand...
It's funny that now eyewitness accounts are now accepted. And video evidence. For a long time video and eyewitness accounts were considered corrupted or produced in a studio.
There's plenty of eyewitness accounts and video footage of airline passenger jets slamming into the twin towers.
 
Present Not Past said:
It's funny that now eyewitness accounts are now accepted. And video evidence. For a long time video and eyewitness accounts were considered corrupted or produced in a studio.
There's plenty of eyewitness accounts and video footage of airline passenger jets slamming into the twin towers.
Click to expand...
Evidence comes strong, mild, weak. Just saying it's all evidence. Everything is that can be used for/against a case.
 

PTech and the 9/11 Software | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com www.corbettreport.com

In this classic Corbett Report podcast from 2008, Indira Singh discusses Ptech, the company with numerous investors and managers with direct links to terrorist financing. Ptech's clients included the CIA, FBI, the White House, the Department of Energy, the Air Force, the Navy, the FAA, IBM and Enron...Yet Singh learnt they were a CIA front company and their software could gain control of the most sensitive computer systems in the country.

A stunning interview, jam packed with incredible information that goes to the very heart of 9/11, and I suggest that people who find this information important and find the controlled corporate media’s complete blackout on this information reprehensible, do their own part to get this word out by spreading the word about Indira Singh and this breakthrough interview.

Remarkably enough, considering the bombshell information provided by this corporate whistleblower, Indira Singh, about this company which actually operated in the basement of the FAA with complete and total access to every operational detail including their management of interoperability systems with NORAD, that could have directly affected the response of NORAD on 9/11. Absolutely nothing has resulted from the FBI investigation of this company and its links to terror.

Transcript.

Ptech and the 9/11 Software | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com www.corbettreport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top