Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
...
Every Man Man A human being (irrespective of sex or age deserves to be heard and judged on the merit of their words and thoughts.
I applaud and endorse Ron Johnson's mission...
While I agree with the principle, I can't help noticing that Johnson brings very exactly ZERO new and own words and thoughts to the table to be judged upon. He merely picks up the worst of the lies of the misnamed "9/11 Truth Movement" as they align with his anti-American political agenda. And by "anti-American" I mean anti-republican, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-people, anti-science, anti-reality.
We actually need to judge his judgement to align himself with that tiny fringe bubble that's been spreading ugly lies far too long.
The original "official investigation" was compromised and a proven fraud.
There will be noconclusions until all of the truth is visible
and confirmed.
The FDNY family members deserve no less, Americans deserve no less, and the World deserves no less.
Curt Weldon will speak for the Firemen, Ron Johnson will speak for the curious, and the courageous will speak for the truth.
That principle is going to be awkward to follow consistently. I think you will find that few, if any, historical events will qualify as concluded, then.
Fonebone said: The original "official investigation" was compromised and a proven fraud. There will be noconclusions until all of the truth is visible and confirmed. The FDNY family members deserve no less, Americans deserve no less, and the World deserves no less.
Curt Weldon will speak for the Firemen, Ron Johnson will speak for the curious, and the courageous will speak for the truth.
That is always a possibility in an investigation mandated, supervised and carried out by partisan organisations such as parliaments.
But who else, other than US Congress, which by its very nature is a partisan body, would you have trusted and demanded to have that investigation? Be specific!
As has already been pointed out, you pretend to go by a criterion of perfection that nothing you actually support in real life could ever actually live up to. Repeating this impossible standard only makes it ever more clear that you are a dishonest agent with clear double standards.
Ron Johnson is a very partisan hack and as such deeply compromised. There is no group with standing to demand a new investigation that could legitimately be described as "the curious". That's just BS.
Fonebone said: The original "official investigation" was compromised and a proven fraud. There will be noconclusions until all of the truth is visible and confirmed. The FDNY family members deserve no less, Americans deserve no less, and the World deserves no less.
Curt Weldon will speak for the Firemen, Ron Johnson will speak for the curious, and the courageous will speak for the truth.
"Amen, and amen, and amen. You'll have to forgive me, I'm not familiar with the local custom. Where I come from, you always say 'Amen' after you hear a prayer. Because that's what you just heard - a prayer."
Fonebone said: The original "official investigation" was compromised and a proven fraud. There will be noconclusions until all of the truth is visible and confirmed. The FDNY family members deserve no less, Americans deserve no less, and the World deserves no less.
Curt Weldon will speak for the Firemen, Ron Johnson will speak for the curious, and the courageous will speak for the truth.
Which investigation, exactly? FBI? FEMA? FDNY? NYPD? ATF? Or do you not know there were already multiple investigations, not counting the insurance companies. and Thai intelligence.
And where is the proof? Just because you don't like the answers doesn't make all of them wrong.
Truth is a philosophical concept. We deal in facts, and most have been visible since the first plane struck the north tower. Almost 10,000 people worked on the investigation, yet you - a hack - think you know more. It is your right to live in a fantasy world, but you do not have a right to make things up.
What do you care about the families of the FDNY? You piss on their dead loved ones with every lie you tell about 911. You don't care about them at all, and your hiding behind them is cowardly.
You mean like invading Iraq because 9-11 Truthers like you in the Bush NSC didn't believe Al Qaeda didn't have a state sponsor? In the end, Iraq and Afghanistan are the direct result of 9-11 Truth-type failures of logic, and clouded judgement. This is a world people like you have created, and now you're just looking to deflect blame for your failure to grasp basic facts.
Curt Weldon, for those like me who didn't recognise the name, is proper sketchy. He is listed in the top 20 corrupt US politicians, and is an all-round crooked scumbag.
fonebone: Why do you believe him? Just because he agrees with you, or is there something more?
(I still don't need a biro, by the way, before you ask.)
Even AI is demonstrating symmetrical building collapse complete with crush-up and mound of powdered debris pile.
Just like the three WTC towers on 9-11.
Even AI is demonstrating symetrical building collapse complete with crush-up and mound of powdered debris pile.
Just like the three WTC towers on 9-11.
Even AI is demonstrating symmetrical building collapse complete with crush-up and mound of powdered debris pile.
Just like the three WTC towers on 9-11.
Today's AI's are language models. They don't do physics models. What they demonstrate to you is what they find on the internet people before have been thinking. There is however precious little data on the visuals of highrise collapses to draw from.
No. Just no. There is no footage of crush-up for any of the three WTC tower collapses - in all three cases, the top descends into the obscurity of dust clouds before any crush-up has occurred.
Even AI is demonstrating symmetrical building collapse complete with crush-up and mound of powdered debris pile.
Just like the three WTC towers on 9-11.
The OP's link is an example of poor structural design for seismic activity (from what I researched, investigations found poor quality steel rebar used in the construction). Unfortunately poor quality construction and outrageous construction costs / predatory loan terms are a thing with Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. I would bet high odds that had US Building Code (or even local) standards been implemented properly, the collapse could have been mitigated, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Obvious, but still worth pointing out. Completely different mechanism of collapse along side a completely different construction configuration. Should be obvious that where the debris falls is tied to the location of initial failure points, and gravitational acceleration rates is irrelevant to the collapse mechanism aside from the fact that gravity exists. There's really no excuse for this behavior when there's been almost 24 years to get this right for them.
Unless you are a physicist or an engineer, your opinions may lack the necessary foundation. Here is what we know:
1) No steel-framed building has ever collapsed at near free-fall speed due to fire or a plane crash. On September 11, we witnessed three such instances.
2) The only way a steel-framed building can collapse into its own footprint at near free-fall speed is through controlled demolition.
3) The steel structure at each floor is designed to support the weight of all floors above it. Therefore, a steel-framed building cannot "pancake" unless the steel frame is compromised in some manner.
4) Consequently, a fire on the upper floors cannot cause a steel-framed structure to pancake, let alone collapse at free-fall speed. This is basic engineering principle.
Now, let's examine the physics of a collapsing building. Firstly, did any of the buildings actually collapse at free-fall speed? According to the NIST Report, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall speed for 2.4 seconds due to a fire that started on the roof. They subsequently drew no conclusions based on that fact because it was inexplicable.
Their calculations are straightforward to replicate. By using a video of Building 7 on September 11 to time the collapse, and with the known height of the building, one can determine the rate of collapse. NIST determined that for 2.4 seconds, the rate of collapse was 9.8 m/s², which is the acceleration due to gravity. This is not merely "near" free fall, and it certainly is not "pancaking." It is physically impossible unless the entire steel frame structure was compromised in some manner. The only way this could have occurred is through controlled demolition. This is why thousands of physicists and engineers who have studied the NIST data are 9/11 truth advocates—not because they believe it was an "inside job."
This is why the NIST report made no conclusions regarding Building 7. It only presented the mathematical and physical data and submitted it to the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, most 9/11 truth advocates are not physicists; they are conspiracy theorists who have developed the inside job narrative. Physicists who are 9/11 truth advocates contend only that two planes and fire cannot cause the collapse of three steel-framed buildings at near free-fall speed, as it defies the laws of physics. The only way this could have happened is through controlled demolition.
The new owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, insured the buildings for $4.6 billion and needed to remove all the asbestos to bring them up to code. It would have been more cost-effective to rebuild, so he contemplated demolition. When the fire in Building 7 could not be contained, he instructed the firefighters to evacuate and stated he was going to "pull it," which in the context of controlled demolition means to detonate explosives to collapse the building into its own footprint.
However, I never believed that Larry Silverstein referred to "pull it" as meaning the intentional collapse of Building 7, but in light of the NIST Report, I am now uncertain. There is a distinct difference between saying "pull it" and "pull out." The NIST Report convinced me that Building 7 could only have collapsed in the manner it did through controlled demolition; however, that does not imply that Larry Silverstein had any involvement in the 9/11 attacks solely to collect insurance money. It is possible that he could have acknowledged that he purposefully brought down Building 7 because it was wired for demolition. Otherwise, fires could have triggered the demolition of the other two buildings. Ultimately, Larry may have deemed it prudent not to openly admit that the WTC was slated for demolition and that it was vulnerable to terrorist attacks. He would not receive any insurance money if the truth behind 9/11 were to be revealed.
In conclusion, the evidence presented in the NIST Report indicates that the three WTC buildings collapsed in a manner consistent with controlled demolition, as no steel-framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed at free-fall speed into its footprint as a result of fire, which is physically implausible. It is important to note that free-fall implies zero resistance. A steel-framed building cannot even experience a pancake collapse, let alone collapse with no resistance. On September 11, we observed three such unprecedented occurrences. While these implications do not necessarily suggest an inside job, they do indicate that the truth has been obscured.
Unless you are a physicist or an engineer, your opinions may lack the necessary foundation. Here is what we know:
1) No steel-framed building has ever collapsed at near free-fall speed due to fire or a plane crash. On September 11, we witnessed three such instances.
Prove #2. Look at some of the videos out there of real controlled demolitions and time how long it takes for the building to collapse. You'll be surprised to find that they collapse in a much longer time than that implied by free-fall acceleration.
And while you're at it, will you explain what you mean by "into its own footprint?"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
