University of Alaska study on WTC Building 7 concludes it could not have come down due to fires

[Amerikuracana]

Never forget the bloody, crying firemen who screamed about the bombs in the towers and the lobby.

Never forget the 2,300,000,000,000 dollars that was reported missing by Donald Rumsfeld the day before 9/11.

Never forget that the comptroller in charge of the Pentagon's budget was Doc Zakheim who lost the 2.3 trillion dollars by doing poor book keeping (lost 1.55 billion dollars, per day, for five years....)

Never forget that Dov Zakheim was also the CEO of Systems Planning Corporation in 2001 which manufactures Flight Termination Systems for commercial airliners so they can be remotely controlled by computers....

Never forget that the day after Rumsfeld mentioned missing 2.3 trillion dollars, a plane impacted the Office of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon where the computers were kept which stored that information....over 100 budget analysts and accountants were killed and the money trail was lost.

Never forget that Larry Silverstein bought the entire WTC center lease in 2000 for a 15 million dollar bid (even though he was LOWER than other bidders).

Never forget that Larry Silverstein put a 3.5 BILLION dollar insurance policy on the towers against terrorist attacks in June 2001.....then 3 months later, both towers get hit by aircraft.

Never forget that Larry Silverstein sued his insurers (over 40 companies) to get paid double his limit, since each plane constitutes a separate attack...and never forget that Larry made 4.55 billion dollars so far, off of an initial investment of 15 million dollars.

Never forget that scientists and physicists at BYU found a type of explosive in every dust sample tested which was confirmed to be a type of Thermite. (Thermite produces liquid iron and is used to cut thick columns effectively and quietly).

Never forget that World Trade Center 7 fell at 5:20pm on 9/11 and the news tried to cover it up.....

Never forget that BBC, fox news and CNN reporters all misread scripts live on TV which announced WTC7 collapsing hours before it did.....indicating a prewritten narrative

Never forget that WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, yet NIST said that it collapsed "at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds".

Never forget high school physics and the definition of static equilibrium and conservation of momentum which would make it impossible for any structure to collapse at FREE FALL acceleration (impossible with out explosives or preweakening the structure )

Never forget that NORAD was running two drills on 9/11:. Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior

Never forget that these drills scrambled jets all over the country, and over the ocean and made it impossible for the pilots to intercept the hijacked jets in time once they were scrambled towards the hijackings.

Never forget that molten metal was found at ground zero days after the towers collapsed, and was also found under WTC7. And never forget that Kerosene and office furniture doesn't burn hot enough to phase change steel from solid to liquid.

Never forget that a van was pulled over trying to leave new York city, and contained illegal explosives and very suspicious occupants from Israel who were detained for 71 days, and then this story disappeared.

Source: Facebook Friend

If those news agencies had a script like you say, that adds about 1,000 people to the conspiracy that would be sworn to secrecy. People aren't that good at secrets.

 

[Amerikuracana]

There has to be a HUGE blast/charge to implode a building that size. I watched live all day, didn't see it.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Too many credible eyewitnesses...

So seconds before the complete collapse, the windows started blowing out on the building. Seems like something that could happen..

 

[tonni]

Here is another video featuring the former NIST employee. It includes closeup and slow motion video and brings to the forefront many of the unanswered questions. This is a must watch, especially if you still think fire did all that.

gonna be honest, i have no idea what to believe

 

[basedgodfedor]

Of course. I love how all the steel got shipped to China asap lmao

 

[DoomPatrol]

This made me think of jgarner...


"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

-- Bertrand Russell, philosopher - "Roads to Freedom"

That's absolutely priceless coming from you. See, I have plenty of evidence, and none that you have ever disproven. In fact, you ignore almost everything I say simply because you can't refute it. You're stuck with ignoring my posts and making troll comments like this.

I'm glad to listen to any actual evidence, but you don't have any of that.

Well, I actually went to the site that jgarner mentioned was refuted by Popular Science and the NIST and that NakedRare suggested. There is an amazing body of research that leads to multiple unanswered questions, let alone they actually debunk Popular Science and the NIST, both of whom are missing giant parts of the story.

For anyone who has never really looked at the science, you must check this out. Most of it is actually very basic.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Every single thing listed on that page has a perfectly reasonable explanation if you actually look for it. And no, they haven't debunked Popular Mechanics, nor have they debunked any single section of the NIST reports. They just rely on your ignorance to spread this basic bullshit.

 

[m52nickerson]

Never forget ...
Source: Facebook Friend

 

[Fawlty]

This made me think of jgarner...


"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

-- Bertrand Russell, philosopher - "Roads to Freedom"

Bookmarked for end-of-year awards consideration.

 

[abiG]

Every single thing listed on that page has a perfectly reasonable explanation if you actually look for it. And no, they haven't debunked Popular Mechanics, nor have they debunked any single section of the NIST reports. They just rely on your ignorance to spread this basic bullshit.

I disagree as Popular Mechanics and the NIST ignore all the evidence that shows how incomplete the official narrative is.

For example and from the link I posted:
KEY EVIDENCE

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I disagree as Popular Mechanics and the NIST ignore all the evidence that shows how incomplete the official narrative is.

For example and from the link I posted:
KEY EVIDENCE

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

I'm pretty sure you just copied and pasted from the previous link, and literally every single one of those claims has been solidly debunked.

And NIST hasn't ignored anything, these are just stupid points.

1. Rapid onset? Fucking dumb. The collapses progressed in a scientifically valid manner that's explained by the NIST report.

2. Acceleration is near constant as it should be. There's a complete breakdown of why the acceleration is what it is in the NIST reports. Nothing here is abnormal unless you don't understand basic structural engineering.

3. There's eyewitnesses who heard loud noises and fire caused explosions, but that's to be expected in a fire that large. There's no evidence to suggest it's caused by high explosives. And you further show how silly this is because you later claim it was thermite, not high explosives. So which is it? Is it whichever one is most convenient at the moment? You don't apply these statements in proper context.

4. Lateral ejections? Perfectly explained by NIST's model. As the floors pancaked on each other, the air was forced out laterally. It pushed some lighter debris outwards. Again, thermite wouldn't cause that anyways. So pick a bullshit conspiracy and at least be consistent.

5. Mid air pulverization? Silly nonsense. Plain and simple.

6. Also explained by air being forced out of the building.

7. Total destruction and dismemberment? You don't understand how structural engineering works do you? When one part fails, the rest fails. That's a byproduct of the building design. And debris is missing? What the fuck is that? It just vanished? No. These idiots don't realize that theres a huge area underground with these buildings. A lot of debris is below street level.

8. No molten steel is proven to be found, but it was red hot in several places and would look molten at first glance. And there are several other metals that actually melted. Finally this is a most retarded thing to bring up. High explosives and thermite wouldn't cause molten steel in the debris pile. It would have cooled off by your logic.

9. No there isn't. Plain and simple. The only "evidence" of this are photos of beams after the recovery effort started.

10. And by "nanothermite composites" they mean aluminum and rust, which is found in great quantities in these buildings.



Here's my biggest problem with you and guys like Naked. You'll exert all this energy looking at conspiracy theories, but you're only looking for things that confirm or agree with your pre-existing desire for a conspiracy. You're not looking for the truth. You're looking for factoids to reference that support what you want to believe.

This is how I can know for a fact that you're being intellectually dishonest during this debate. I can guarantee that you have never bothered to sit down for a couple hours and actually read the NIST reports and supporting documentation. So not only have you failed to even read the documents your claiming are wrong, you also don't spend time looking for documents and information that reasonably explain these conspiracy questions.

Feel free to pick any one of those points and let's have a discussion on it. Which one do you think is the most damning piece of evidence?

 

[abiG]

I'm pretty sure you just copied and pasted from the previous link, and literally every single one of those claims has been solidly debunked.

None of it has been debunked. It is all backed by scientific, peer reviewed literature that has yet to even be challenged, but by idiots on the internet.

And NIST hasn't ignored anything, these are just stupid points.

They have ignored all key evidence, never tested for explosives and to this day, have not released the parameters they used in their computer model.

1. Rapid onset? Fucking dumb.

You seem "fucking dumb."

Go debunk their work in a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed and get back to us. Otherwise, all you have is internet babble from someone who appears to cowardly to examine the facts.

 

[DoomPatrol]

None of it has been debunked. It is all backed by scientific, peer reviewed literature that has yet to even be challenged, but by idiots on the internet.

Can you point out these peer reviewed documents? Haven't seen a single one published in any of the journals I pay a subscription to.

They have ignored all key evidence, never tested for explosives and to this day, have not released the parameters they used in their computer model.

Not true. They've shown exactly what they did as far as modeling and what parameters they used. They explain it in detail and it's all mathematically valid. In fact, I guarantee you can't point to a single section of the NIST reports that is incorrect. You know, the report that you clearly haven't read because you keep making assumptions about things they didn't look at that they clearly did.

You seem "fucking dumb."

Go debunk their work in a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed and get back to us. Otherwise, all you have is internet babble from someone who appears to cowardly to examine the facts.

Well then I'm a dumb engineer who works specifically in the high rise construction field and have managed dozens of ground up builds and renovations on high rise buildings. So if I'm fucking dumb, then what does that make you in this conversation? I've only spent the last several years of my life working on high rise construction as an engineer and project manager. I've worked on huge towers just like the WTC buildings in New York, Chicago, LA, Florida, Austin, and several other cities.

They don't have any actual work to debunk because they've never submitted anything for peer review. They haven't submitted anything for peer review because the relied of half truths and ignoring reasonable explanations to make unsubstantiated wild claims.

I'm happy to review any actual work. That bullshit has been available for a decade now. Every single one of those points has been torn apart by people who actually know what they're talking about.

As I fucking said, why don't you pick one of those points that you think is so great, and let's discuss it.

 

[mudflap mike]

anybody who belevees the nist report is a fing moron

 

[Pickle Rick]

University of Alaska? how many students do they have? 15? (not counting sled dogs)

thanks for the lulz

 

[The Catch-Wrestler]

gonna be honest, i have no idea what to believe

The fact you aren't completely brainwashed into thinking the government's report is 100% conclusive is a very positive sign.

Continue to look into the details and you'll come to your own conclusions. That doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, that makes you intelligent.

Jgarner is hilarious. An example of someone who is completely hopeless and doesn't have the capacity for critical thought.

 

[Pickle Rick]

The fact you aren't completely brainwashed into thinking the government's report is 100% conclusive is a very positive sign.

Continue to look into the details and you'll come to your own conclusions. That doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, that makes you intelligent.

Jgarner is hilarious. An example of someone who is completely hopeless and doesn't have the capacity for critical thought.

the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they think that being one makes them special.It gives them a feeling that they "know" something that 99.999% of the populace doesn't know or somehow they are "better" for "knowing"

the reality is that they went so far down the rabbit hole looking for acceptance or validation for their lack of understanding of how the world works.Most conspiracy theorists seek to escape reality because (mostly because of their own doing) their real life is an unhappy one.


http://elkodaily.com/opinion/column...cle_578e77af-1984-5b62-87ba-be0f6d948fab.html

What Makes Conspiracy Theories so Appealing?



Whether we are talking about bout 9/11 being an inside job, the moon landings being faked, JFK's assassination being ordered by the CIA (or the Mafia, or Fidel Castro, or the KGB) or the world being under the control of shape-shifting reptilian aliens, it seems as if there is someone out there who insists that these conspiracies are true.

Almost inevitably, these conspiracy theorists also insist that Someone Out There (such as the Illuminati, the New World Order, or the Masonic Temple) are suppressing the information that could prove they are right. Entire industries have sprung up to support the various communities espousing this or that theory and no amount of tangible evidence seems capable of dissuading the true believers. And it seems as if every new world event spawns another theory to add to the countless others that are already in place.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...8/what-makes-conspiracy-theories-so-appealing

 

[Pickle Rick]

OK, lying POS, let me expose you yet again.








There was likely both thermite and explosives, dimwit.



Gravity does not work like that and never will, pathetic tool.



Lying sack of shit, NY was covered in dust!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO


I love how an anonymous jackass on the internet is smarter than all the scientists, architects and engineers who have studied this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO


Total BULLSHIT as there are multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing it with their own eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO


Another obvious lie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO


It doesn't work like that you fucking moronic liar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9ywmzewRQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Uww-T68E4&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO


That's what you do, pot/kettle asshole.


I have, so fuck off, mental midget. And anyone who honestly buys that tripe is seriously mentally challenged.

You should be up to speed by now, you pathetic wretch.

lets see.. (aside from your pissbelt worthy post)
im going to assume you aren't even a us citizen (using the word tripe?)
that being said ALL of your "knowledge" about this subject is then from the internet (not a good source of info)
and youtube vids (lol)

here is the short version
I was at ground zero as a first responder (Fire dept) i saw the buildings go down and i spent several weeks there afterwards helping look for identifying markers (shoes blood personal belongings)

sorry to burst your bubble but it wasn't a controlled demolition and or some conspiracy
try to find happiness in your life or maybe get some fresh air.

 

[abiG]

This is how I can know for a fact that you're being intellectually dishonest during this debate. I can guarantee that you have never bothered to sit down for a couple hours and actually read the NIST reports and supporting documentation. So not only have you failed to even read the documents your claiming are wrong, you also don't spend time looking for documents and information that reasonably explain these conspiracy questions.

I have read the report as you suggested as well as a ton of other material including technical, scientific papers. I honestly can't see how you can accept what the NIST wrote as believable, complete or even scientific.

Here is PROOF that what the NIST presents is unreliable at best.

WORLD TRADE CENTER PHYSICS
Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse

Excerpts:

Today, the argument that such behavior was possible without the aid
of explosives — i.e., that the buildings underwent a natural progressive
collapse — relies solely and entirely on a series of technical articles,
examined herein, that have been comprehensively and indisputably
refuted

NIST carried its analysis to the point
where the buildings reached global
instability. At this point, because of the
magnitude of deflections and the number
of failures occurring, the computer
models are not able to converge on a
solution.... [W]e are unable to provide a
full explanation of the total collapse.”
—
NIST, Response to Request for Correction,
September 27, 2007

Conclusion
The analysis of Le and Bažant uses incorrect
input values. These errors each have the effect
of reducing the resistance of the lower part of
the building. As a result, their calculated velocity
drop on impact is too low, and their calculated
acceleration following that drop is too high.

Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions
156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, said that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses. Read them all at AE911Truth.org/downloads/156eyewitnessaccounts.pdf

90,000 tons of concrete in each of the Twin Towers were pulverized in midair. Their steel structures were almost entirely dismembered and ejected up to 500 feet in all directions at speeds up to 70 mph.

It seemed like on
television they blow
up these buildings.
It seemed like it was
going all the way
around like a belt, all
these explosions.”
— Richard Banaciski, FDNY

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust
Unreacted nano-thermitic material has been discovered in four independent World Trade Center dust samples. Nano-thermite is a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips . . . is active, unreacted thermitic material,
incorporating nanotechnology....”
— Harrit et al., Open Chemical Physics Journal, April 2009

(Comment) This is not aluminum and rust as you suggested and actually requires nanotechnology to create...

http://www.ae911truth.ch/world-trade-center-physics.pdf

 

[The Catch-Wrestler]

lets see.. (aside from your pissbelt worthy post)
im going to assume you aren't even a us citizen (using the word tripe?)
that being said ALL of your "knowledge" about this subject is then from the internet (not a good source of info)
and youtube vids (lol)

here is the short version
I was at ground zero as a first responder (Fire dept) i saw the buildings go down and i spent several weeks there afterwards helping look for identifying markers (shoes blood personal belongings)

sorry to burst your bubble but it wasn't a controlled demolition and or some conspiracy
try to find happiness in your life or maybe get some fresh air.

At this point, because of the
magnitude of deflections and the number
of failures occurring, the computer
models are not able to converge on a
solution.... [W]e are unable to provide a
full explanation of the total collapse

If NIST can't even explain what caused the total collapse, how can be sure it isn't a conspiracy or controlled demolition?

You can't be. Better to just say you aren't' sure.

You criticize somebody for listening to information gathered from the internet, while simultaneously linking them to an article, ON THE INTERNET, indicating that they should read that information and, apparently, take it seriously.

Just because information is gathered from a book doesn't make it accurate. Information online is just like information elsewhere. Context should always be taken into account, and validating claims with scientific data and/or other sources who have proven reliable previously is a good start.

You seem to approach this problem set on one answer - it wasn't controlled demolition. And that's sad, and stupid as well. You should approach it from as neutral a standpoint as possible.

 

[Pickle Rick]

If NIST can't even explain what caused the total collapse, how can be sure it isn't a conspiracy or controlled demolition?

You can't be. Better to just say you aren't' sure.

You criticize somebody for listening to information gathered from the internet, while simultaneously linking them to an article, ON THE INTERNET, indicating that they should read that information and, apparently, take it seriously.

Just because information is gathered from a book doesn't make it accurate. Information online is just like information elsewhere. Context should always be taken into account, and validating claims with scientific data and/or other sources who have proven reliable previously is a good start.

You seem to approach this problem set on one answer - it wasn't controlled demolition. And that's sad, and stupid as well. You should approach it from as neutral a standpoint as possible.

i was there moron
i dont need some youtube version of it