Mountains of facts? How about the mountains of facts that prove you wrong. That prove the whole 9/11 truther movement wrong? You have no evidence, you present half truths, and outright lies to try and paint a picture that you want to paint. Every 9/11 conspiracy "fact" that you can bring up, has been debunked. You are the one that doesn't want to see the truth.
Debunked HOW??? The ONLY area I've seen adequately debunked is that I believe it really was a plane that hit the pentagon...
Meanwhile, NIST's explanation of events of the towers collapse relies on a series of impossible assumptions leading to collapse.
a - All fireproofing was removed : True ONLY for the area directly affected by the planes impact.
b - That the lack of fire meant the steel was heated to sagging : which is only true OF THE AREA of impact
c - The sagging metal failed and dropped : So, only the most damaged areas should have had collapses.
Instead, when one portion of the building begins to fail, the rest of the structure which by any stretch would be much less damaged (ie less likely to fail), YET in all the video evidence the whole floor fails simultaneously.
The way this is described, you would expect that the columns would have been left standing since it's the horizontal trusses that failed.. NOT the columns.
Then WTC7, 17 stories within 3% of free-fall acceleration.... that CANNOT happen without having 3% 'work'... for a building even the size of WTC7 3% loss of acceleration is about air resistance. So, what happened to 17 floors (at least) of that building???
Oh but WE are the ones with all the "spin". lol. NIST reports 14 stories of freefall in the final report on #7, on their own and without "being forced", but according to Gage and his cash cow dupes in AE9111, it was THEY that brought this grave injustice to the surface.
What a bunch of frauds.
Actually the press conference where they first made the concession was due to the calculations and files provided by a member of ae911truth. They were called out on the artificial start time, to make it appear to be 40% of gravities acceleration... they never admitted to what the implications of this are...
I do agree that they (NIST) are a bunch of frauds.
Why waste the time and resources? There is no need for an investigation. WTC7 collapsed due stress on the building caused by the fire that was burning inside it, not a controlled demolition.
No, what we need is a first investigation... I mean think about it, if it was YOUR family member that was lost and the cops came in and said 'oh it's gang related so we won't be able to solve it, waste of resources'... would you feel like you've had justice?
Show me any other example where fire produced a 'free-fall symmetrical collapse' of ANY structure... it CANNOT happen. Fire doesn't work like that. Yes, fires can collapse buildings, but they cannot collapse them like those towers fell.
Oh, it looks similar, its a conspiracy!!!! Please. Thats just how buildings collapse. One of the main support columns couldn't take it anymore, and gave way. Then the kinetic energy that was created by that caused the rest of the building to come down. It wasn't a controlled demolition, it collapsed due to damage caused by the fire, and if you can't see that, well then your unwilling to see the truth.
Yes, that's how buildings collapse when they have been rigged to collapse... consider that gravity is pulling down on the top, when there's any sort of 'collision' with say the lower floor, there is a reduction in accelleration for the time of the collision, and this would represent a measureable effect at least on the first couple floors of the collapse wave. INSTEAD, what is seen is that the entire structural support is completely pulverized and projected out the building... yes, there's smoke as a factor, but that would reduce energy from acceleration... all from the 9.8 m/s^2... this would be a slower process then even a verinage demolition, which sees collapses of about 40% acceleration, yet those buildings have had their structure reduced to make sure the building collapses... so, given that everything BELOW the plane impact zone would be essentially undamaged, you could expect to see a slower acceleration then a typical verinage demolition... but instead you see accelleration of 60% of gravity
My point exactly. To much has been given to "i heard an explosion'. Without other evidence, what a person heard may or may not be true.
This one shows the other side of building 7.
