![]() ![]() Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.” In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete resistance in the lower part of the building. New to reddit? Click here! Get flair in /r/science Previous Science AMA'sįree fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion. ![]() Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned.Comments dismissing established findings and fields of science must provide evidence.Criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers.Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed.No off-topic comments, memes, low-effort comments or jokes.All submissions must have flair assigned.No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics.Research must be less than 6 months old.No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles.No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, or reposts.Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary.23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. (Ed.) The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 ( Research in Political Economy, Vol. (2006), "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", Zarembka, P. I conclude by calling on the New York Times, which got the 9/11 Oral Histories released, now to complete the task of revealing the truth about 9/11. These testimonies further strengthen the already virtually conclusive case that all three buildings were brought down by explosives. With regard to building 7, many testimonies point to widespread foreknowledge that the building was going to collapse, and some of the testimonies contradict the official story that this anticipation of the building's collapse was based on objective indications. With regard to the Twin Towers, many of the firefighters and medical workers said they observed multiple explosions and other phenomena indicative of controlled demolition. I also show the importance of the recently released of 9/11 Oral Histories recorded by the New York Fire Department. All (other) such collapses have been produced by the use of explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” The other major problem is that the collapses of all three buildings had at least 11 features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives had been used. One reason is that fire has never, except allegedly three times on 9/11, caused the total collapse of steel-frame high-rise buildings. I argue that the official story about the collapses of the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center, according to which the collapses were caused by fire – combined, in the case of the Twin Towers, with the effects of the airplane impacts – cannot be true, for two major reasons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |