More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative

[the other mike]

Some of us have known all along, but it's encouraging to see the sleeping giant begin to awaken..

Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve.

More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative

Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Should be in Conspiracies.

 

[the other mike]

Should be in Conspiracies.

We don't have a board for conspiracies.
We have a board for conspiracy theories.

 

[Billy000]

Should be in Conspiracies.

We don't have a board for conspiracies.
We have a board for conspiracy theories.

Yes, that is a conspiracy theory lol

 

[the other mike]

Should be in Conspiracies.

We don't have a board for conspiracies.
We have a board for conspiracy theories.

Yes, that is a conspiracy theory lol

Thank you Mr Cheney.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some of us have known all along, but it's encouraging to see the sleeping giant begin to awaken..

Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve.

More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative

Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"

University of Alaska Fairbanks a major university!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some of us have known all along, but it's encouraging to see the sleeping giant begin to awaken..

Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve.

More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative

Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"

Also, the University did not find that result, a group that is not affiliated with the University came to that conclusion. They call themselves Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

 

[whitehall]

More Americans? Since the blog doesn't include polling results it's possible that five Americans believed that explosives were planted and now six Americans believe it. The theory that explosives were set is patently impossible. The timing would have to be perfect and there would have to be communication with the mad dog terrorists. The same jihad gang tried to blow up the WTC about eight years earlier so if there were explosives planted they would have been detonated at that time. We saw the freaking planes hit the buildings. If you want to promote a conspiracy theory you might wonder why Clinton's ass't A.G. warned the FBI and the CIA not to share files on the eve of the attack and then instead of being called as a witness Ms. Garelick was appointed to the committee and nobody ever asked her what the hell she was doing.

 

[Leo123]

Good article...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

There were multiple causes for the collapse which include, airliner impact, Jet fuel, explosion and fire. Fire DID NOT melt the metal and, it did buckle metal which failed.

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This again? Angelo is an idiot.

 

[the other mike]

This again? Angelo is an idiot.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This again? Angelo is an idiot.

While this country is politically divided. Both sides agree that you’re an idiot. Thanks for bringing the country together.

 

[Leo123]

This again? Angelo is an idiot.

OK Angelo but YOU are the one drifting from the truth. You can't even properly read and comprehend information according to your replies.

 

[the other mike]

OK Angelo but YOU are the one drifting from the truth. You can't even properly read and comprehend information according to your replies.

I've been 'arguing' with trolls like you since about 2004 on various other sites.
It's boring.

 

[Leo123]

I've been 'arguing' with trolls like you since about 2004 on various other sites.
It's boring.

So, disagreeing and providing support is now called trolling by Angelo?

That's right Angelo, you've been arguing, not discussing. You claim my premise is that the building was defectively designed (the post you removed I guess) yet, the article I provided says the opposite. From the link, the part you didn't even read...Here it is again...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).[/QUOTE]

 

[blackhawk]

Maybe it was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

 

[candycorn]

Should be in Conspiracies.

We don't have a board for conspiracies.
We have a board for conspiracy theories.

And this is definitely one of them

 

[the other mike]

While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was “set up to fail” from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day.

For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). They and other commissioners have outright said that the “official” report on the attacks is incomplete, flawed and unable to answer key questions about the terror attacks.

This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.
America’s Lost Liberties, Post-9/11

 

[whitehall]

Orwell is right but first you have to define the truth. The greatest truth is the Constitution but lefties have been hammering away at it for the better part of a hundred years and then whining that their "rights" are in jeopardy when somebody disagrees with them.

 

[the other mike]