- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 14,117
- Reaction score
- 4,310
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
Proof?
That's not proof of anything. It's not even the "peer-reviewed documents" you claimed to have.
That's literally a load of garbage that has absolutely no math or science to support the claims. It's ironic that you claim they didn't release the values for their modeling, but they are claiming their inputs are incorrect at the same time. Not only does it make no sense, they can't even produce a model of their own to refute it. Why don't they have their own model? The software is publicly available. They didn't model their claims because they can't.
And I guarantee you haven't actually sat down and read the documents like you claim. You're quoting outdated NIST comments to try and invalidate reports that were continued to be worked on for years after.
And I don't see any math to support your conclusions. Of course we never will because your dissenting opinions require ignored context, misinformation, and grossly obfuscating facts and comments.
And 90,000 tons of concrete was pulverized in mid air? You just pulled that figure from your ass.
You're also ignoring all the firefighters who led the rescue efforts who knew that the towers fell from plane damage and fires.
And this nano-thermite idea is horseshit. Again it's been debunked plenty of times.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/
This is the simple truth. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Period. You're not taking an objective look at the evidence. You're clearly lying about having read the reports. And you are clearly refusing to objectively look at any evidence that would disprove the bullshit you want to believe.
You're parroting the same crap from a decade ago. Maybe it's new for you, but it's not new to the debate.
Like I said, unsubstantiated bullshit is all I see coming from you. You can't produce a single verifiable piece of information that disproves the NIST reports. Your best effort was literally an untested opinion piece that the velocity and acceleration data was off, but you can't even provide a corrected model to show what it should be. I do this for a living. I'm telling you, that you're a serious fucking idiot if you think there's some giant conspiracy to secretly blow up the WTC towers when they already slammed two jets into them.
It's silly movie shit and it's not how the real world works. I know it makes you feel important and smart to think you've "figured it out" while the rest of us "sheep" don't see what you see. I get why you do it. You probably didn't go to college, or your degree is something worthless, and you work somewhere that emasculates and and makes you feel unimportant. It's easier to pretend like you're smarter than my entire industry of engineers, architects, and construction workers than actually doing the hard work to earn your place. Instead of doing real work, you can troll some bullshit website and feel important.
Just to remind you how full of shit you are, go back and read my last post to you. How much of it did you honestly ignore? Damn near every question and request. Why? Because you can't have a real discussion and you're limited to the same bullshit talking points that you started with.
Last edited:
