I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[Liability]

Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.

False.

The 9/11 Truth Movement wasn't concerned with truth and wasn't a movement.

Any marginalization of those whacky scumbags is anything BUT sad.

 

[paulitician]

Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.

False.

The 9/11 Truth Movement wasn't concerned with truth and wasn't a movement.

Any marginalization of those whacky scumbags is anything BUT sad.

Yes, HEIL BIG BROTHER!!

 

[Liability]

Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.

False.

The 9/11 Truth Movement wasn't concerned with truth and wasn't a movement.

Any marginalization of those whacky scumbags is anything BUT sad.

Yes, HEIL BIG BROTHER!!

^ Abysmally dopey comment.

Disagreeing with the asshole scumbag lying fuckwit twoofers has nothing to do with Naziism or 1984.

But that was a revealing fail on your part.

 

[paulitician]

False.

The 9/11 Truth Movement wasn't concerned with truth and wasn't a movement.

Any marginalization of those whacky scumbags is anything BUT sad.

Yes, HEIL BIG BROTHER!!

^ Abysmally dopey comment.

Disagreeing with the asshole scumbag lying fuckwit twoofers has nothing to do with Naziism or 1984.

But that was a revealing fail on your part.

Actually, Big Brother is the "asshole scumbag lying fuckwit." Maybe one day you'll get that. And then again, maybe not.

 

[daws101]

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----

Its pure hilarity.

Photographic evidence clearly shows the building fully involved in fire and missing up to 20 floors at one of it's corners. That is why it fell.

Three years later and you're still believing your own shit?

If that were true then it would not have fallen in such a uniform manner, nor would it have experienced free fall, because of the law of conservation of momentum. If you believe that this physics law has no value, go and test it yourself by driving your car into a brick wall and see how much slower your acceleration will be upon impact. In fact I strongly urge that you perform this easy test..It'll be brief and explain what I'm talking about much more convincingly. If not then just try walking through a closed door with your hands behind your back while someone has a stop watch to time you..This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. .

You lie and you clearly contradict the NIST report that you worship, as it states that the damage caused to WTC 7 did not contribute to its demise.
Other buildings that were actually and honestly fully involved in huge fires that made the WTC 7 fires look like a camp fire, for much longer durations and more intensity, did not ever collapse like a CD, experiencing any free fall.
It would be expected to fall towards the side of this missing 20 floors, ( remove a leg from a chair and see which way it falls you idiot) and not go from stable to having no resistance with free fall of 8 floors in a symmetrical and even roof line descent.

Even NIST probably knew that saying the stupid shit you just posted would have drawn an immediate and justified BS! rebuttal, as the video evidence does not come close to even suggesting what you claim was possible.
And BTW...the posters who rebuttal your insane OCT fairy tale, get their information from independent, credible sources and physicists from all over the world, and do not make up or believe their "own shit" unlike you who make up your own crap that goes against the OCT in general, and specifically the NIST, and many of the 9-11 commission panelists.

To be clear, a crumbling (naturally collapsing) building absorbs kinetic energy making free fall impossible.
NIST agrees saying that- Free fall in a building collapsing naturally ("crumpling") is impossible.
NIST further clarifies by saying that- Only when structural components structural resistances are removed can buildings free fall as in a controlled demolition. -- not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing"
NIST finally admitted that- WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 secs. for about 8 floors, i.e., NO structural resistance and not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing" which means WTC7 experienced a state of collapse that can only be achieved by the removal of structural resistance that can only be done by deliberate actions like in a controlled demolition, not by ******* accident or miracles.

Free fall means NO RESISTANCE ..So... how did the building provide no resistance?

bullshit !
what nist really saidIn a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


as to your dumbass free fall theory
in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
it is no indicator or proof that the the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
it is also no proof of the use explosives.


Free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity, it also applies to objects initially moving upward. Since free fall in the absence of forces other than gravity produces weightlessness or "zero-g," sometimes any condition of weightlessness due to inertial motion is referred to as free-fall. This may also apply to weightlessness produced because the body is far from a gravitating body.

Although strict technical application of the definition excludes motion of an object subjected to other forces such as aerodynamic drag, in nontechnical usage, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.

 

[eots]

18 floors missing at the corner. It falls. Pretty simple really.

Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)? No? Carry on.

So that is a yes ..you are saying the NIST report that took almost 8 years to complete is wrong

November 20, 2008
NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[daws101]

18 floors missing at the corner. It falls. Pretty simple really.

Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)? No? Carry on.

So that is a yes ..you are saying the NIST report that took almost 8 years to complete is wrong

November 20, 2008
NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you wish!

 

[eots]

18 floors missing at the corner. It falls. Pretty simple really.

Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)? No? Carry on.

So that is a yes ..you are saying the NIST report that took almost 8 years to complete is wrong

November 20, 2008
NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you wish!

I wish ??...I wish what ?

 

[daws101]

So that is a yes ..you are saying the NIST report that took almost 8 years to complete is wrong

November 20, 2008
NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

you wish!

I wish ??...I wish what ?

you need me to make a list for you?
1. you wish the nist report was wrong. (that's all you can do as you have no evidence proving it so.)
2 you wish you were clever.
3. you wish you had a 12" dick

 

[Mr. Jones]

as to your dumbass free fall theory
in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
it is no indicator or proof that the the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
it is also no proof of the use explosives.

It's not my free fall theory asshole, it's NIST's. It was measured and is documented, and finally admitted to by NIST after they initially said it was not possible because of the resistance provided by the structure.
You minimize the massive building by calling it "falling parts" instead of what they really are, huge heavy columns and beams, in a heavily fortified building that would have been the tallest in many cities in America and around the world.
You don't want to understand the seriousness of the ramifications of free fall occurring in such a building, where you say there were no obstacles to hit.
There should have been shitloads of obstacles to hit, and could not have achieved any free fall as Sham Sunder explained in the report you sited... unless "parts" were taken out to facilitate the collapse, and the resistance he was talking about was removed.

What this means is that a huge amount of the buildings support structure was removed, cleared out of the way for this to have happened, and this has not ever happened due to sporadic office fires in ANY building in history, without the aid of something removing the resistance(mass) of the structure, and if fire could do this, then the CD industry would be changed forever as they would just light fires at all the support columns and walk away.

All of the supporting structure that needed to be cleared out of the way of the falling structure for free fall to happen, with a straight roof line, would have had to be removed at the same time in order for it to descend the way that it did, and the fires were not concentrated on every single joint, at the same ******* time, with the same ******* intensity for this to have occurred. If you believe this, you're more of a clueless idiot then
I initially thought.

You also conveniently do not mention the video of Sham Sunder of NIST explaining how free fall would be impossible because of the resistance the structure would undoubtedly provide, thus their bogus explanation of the 40% longer then free fall estimation THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHANGED THE REPORT TO ADMITTING FREE FALL ACTUALLY DID OCCUR IN THE REVISED REPORT, YOU STUPID ******* SCHMUCK.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed at free fall acceleration without the use of CD period.

One of the truthful things that came out of lying MFKER'S Sham Sunder mouth was
"The obvious stares you in the face" AP-2008.

NIST did a computer based study...So why wont they reveal the data for replication and put this to rest once and for all? What are they so afraid of?

The extreme heat that would have had to be generated at the points of failure simultaneously in order for WTC 7 to fall as it did, producing the free fall that NIST tried to hide, could not have come from regular office fires, and this is backed up by eye witness accounts and the flyovers that were done, that measured extreme amounts of heat in the rubble piles of ALL 3 WTC building implosion sites.

You once again fail, even using parts of the NIST report that contradicts the video evidence, and the measurements and themselves in the process. Why would they overlook such an obvious thing as acceleration rate of collapse? They got caught lying and changed it in their final report, with no plausible explanation to follow.

9-11 was a false flag event, the obvious stares you in the face.

 

[daws101]

as to your dumbass free fall theory
in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
it is no indicator or proof that the the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
it is also no proof of the use explosives.

It's not my free fall theory asshole, it's NIST's. It was measured and is documented, and finally admitted to by NIST after they initially said it was not possible because of the resistance provided by the structure.
You minimize the massive building by calling it "falling parts" instead of what they really are, huge heavy columns and beams, in a heavily fortified building that would have been the tallest in many cities in America and around the world.
You don't want to understand the seriousness of the ramifications of free fall occurring in such a building, where you say there were no obstacles to hit.
There should have been shitloads of obstacles to hit, and could not have achieved any free fall as Sham Sunder explained in the report you sited... unless "parts" were taken out to facilitate the collapse, and the resistance he was talking about was removed.

What this means is that a huge amount of the buildings support structure was removed, cleared out of the way for this to have happened, and this has not ever happened due to sporadic office fires in ANY building in history, without the aid of something removing the resistance(mass) of the structure, and if fire could do this, then the CD industry would be changed forever as they would just light fires at all the support columns and walk away.

All of the supporting structure that needed to be cleared out of the way of the falling structure for free fall to happen, with a straight roof line, would have had to be removed at the same time in order for it to descend the way that it did, and the fires were not concentrated on every single joint, at the same ******* time, with the same ******* intensity for this to have occurred. If you believe this, you're more of a clueless idiot then
I initially thought.

You also conveniently do not mention the video of Sham Sunder of NIST explaining how free fall would be impossible because of the resistance the structure would undoubtedly provide, thus their bogus explanation of the 40% longer then free fall estimation THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHANGED THE REPORT TO ADMITTING FREE FALL ACTUALLY DID OCCUR IN THE REVISED REPORT, YOU STUPID ******* SCHMUCK.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed at free fall acceleration without the use of CD period.

One of the truthful things that came out of lying MFKER'S Sham Sunder mouth was
"The obvious stares you in the face" AP-2008.

NIST did a computer based study...So why wont they reveal the data for replication and put this to rest once and for all? What are they so afraid of?

The extreme heat that would have had to be generated at the points of failure simultaneously in order for WTC 7 to fall as it did, producing the free fall that NIST tried to hide, could not have come from regular office fires, and this is backed up by eye witness accounts and the flyovers that were done, that measured extreme amounts of heat in the rubble piles of ALL 3 WTC building implosion sites.

You once again fail, even using parts of the NIST report that contradicts the video evidence, and the measurements and themselves in the process. Why would they overlook such an obvious thing as acceleration rate of collapse? They got caught lying and changed it in their final report, with no plausible explanation to follow.

9-11 was a false flag event, the obvious stares you in the face.

Hey sister jones
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

the above is the actual report try using it instead of the bullshit you are using now.
it might help as you have no evidence proving any of the laughable claims you source in this and all of your posts...

 

[eots]

as to your dumbass free fall theory
in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
it is no indicator or proof that the the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
it is also no proof of the use explosives.

It's not my free fall theory asshole, it's NIST's. It was measured and is documented, and finally admitted to by NIST after they initially said it was not possible because of the resistance provided by the structure.
You minimize the massive building by calling it "falling parts" instead of what they really are, huge heavy columns and beams, in a heavily fortified building that would have been the tallest in many cities in America and around the world.
You don't want to understand the seriousness of the ramifications of free fall occurring in such a building, where you say there were no obstacles to hit.
There should have been shitloads of obstacles to hit, and could not have achieved any free fall as Sham Sunder explained in the report you sited... unless "parts" were taken out to facilitate the collapse, and the resistance he was talking about was removed.

What this means is that a huge amount of the buildings support structure was removed, cleared out of the way for this to have happened, and this has not ever happened due to sporadic office fires in ANY building in history, without the aid of something removing the resistance(mass) of the structure, and if fire could do this, then the CD industry would be changed forever as they would just light fires at all the support columns and walk away.

All of the supporting structure that needed to be cleared out of the way of the falling structure for free fall to happen, with a straight roof line, would have had to be removed at the same time in order for it to descend the way that it did, and the fires were not concentrated on every single joint, at the same ******* time, with the same ******* intensity for this to have occurred. If you believe this, you're more of a clueless idiot then
I initially thought.

You also conveniently do not mention the video of Sham Sunder of NIST explaining how free fall would be impossible because of the resistance the structure would undoubtedly provide, thus their bogus explanation of the 40% longer then free fall estimation THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHANGED THE REPORT TO ADMITTING FREE FALL ACTUALLY DID OCCUR IN THE REVISED REPORT, YOU STUPID ******* SCHMUCK.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed at free fall acceleration without the use of CD period.

One of the truthful things that came out of lying MFKER'S Sham Sunder mouth was
"The obvious stares you in the face" AP-2008.

NIST did a computer based study...So why wont they reveal the data for replication and put this to rest once and for all? What are they so afraid of?

The extreme heat that would have had to be generated at the points of failure simultaneously in order for WTC 7 to fall as it did, producing the free fall that NIST tried to hide, could not have come from regular office fires, and this is backed up by eye witness accounts and the flyovers that were done, that measured extreme amounts of heat in the rubble piles of ALL 3 WTC building implosion sites.

You once again fail, even using parts of the NIST report that contradicts the video evidence, and the measurements and themselves in the process. Why would they overlook such an obvious thing as acceleration rate of collapse? They got caught lying and changed it in their final report, with no plausible explanation to follow.

9-11 was a false flag event, the obvious stares you in the face.

Hey sister jones
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

the above is the actual report try using it instead of the bullshit you are using now.
it might help as you have no evidence proving any of the laughable claims you source in this and all of your posts...

but a few post ago you where contradicting the NIST report...have you ever actually read and understood the NIST findings or do you just blindly accept them ?

 

[daws101]

It's not my free fall theory asshole, it's NIST's. It was measured and is documented, and finally admitted to by NIST after they initially said it was not possible because of the resistance provided by the structure.
You minimize the massive building by calling it "falling parts" instead of what they really are, huge heavy columns and beams, in a heavily fortified building that would have been the tallest in many cities in America and around the world.
You don't want to understand the seriousness of the ramifications of free fall occurring in such a building, where you say there were no obstacles to hit.
There should have been shitloads of obstacles to hit, and could not have achieved any free fall as Sham Sunder explained in the report you sited... unless "parts" were taken out to facilitate the collapse, and the resistance he was talking about was removed.

What this means is that a huge amount of the buildings support structure was removed, cleared out of the way for this to have happened, and this has not ever happened due to sporadic office fires in ANY building in history, without the aid of something removing the resistance(mass) of the structure, and if fire could do this, then the CD industry would be changed forever as they would just light fires at all the support columns and walk away.

All of the supporting structure that needed to be cleared out of the way of the falling structure for free fall to happen, with a straight roof line, would have had to be removed at the same time in order for it to descend the way that it did, and the fires were not concentrated on every single joint, at the same ******* time, with the same ******* intensity for this to have occurred. If you believe this, you're more of a clueless idiot then
I initially thought.

You also conveniently do not mention the video of Sham Sunder of NIST explaining how free fall would be impossible because of the resistance the structure would undoubtedly provide, thus their bogus explanation of the 40% longer then free fall estimation THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHANGED THE REPORT TO ADMITTING FREE FALL ACTUALLY DID OCCUR IN THE REVISED REPORT, YOU STUPID ******* SCHMUCK.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed at free fall acceleration without the use of CD period.

One of the truthful things that came out of lying MFKER'S Sham Sunder mouth was
"The obvious stares you in the face" AP-2008.

NIST did a computer based study...So why wont they reveal the data for replication and put this to rest once and for all? What are they so afraid of?

The extreme heat that would have had to be generated at the points of failure simultaneously in order for WTC 7 to fall as it did, producing the free fall that NIST tried to hide, could not have come from regular office fires, and this is backed up by eye witness accounts and the flyovers that were done, that measured extreme amounts of heat in the rubble piles of ALL 3 WTC building implosion sites.

You once again fail, even using parts of the NIST report that contradicts the video evidence, and the measurements and themselves in the process. Why would they overlook such an obvious thing as acceleration rate of collapse? They got caught lying and changed it in their final report, with no plausible explanation to follow.

9-11 was a false flag event, the obvious stares you in the face.

Hey sister jones
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

the above is the actual report try using it instead of the bullshit you are using now.
it might help as you have no evidence proving any of the laughable claims you source in this and all of your posts...

but a few post ago you where contradicting the NIST report...have you ever actually read and understood the NIST findings or do you just blindly accept them ?

show me those posts.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Hey sister jones
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

the above is the actual report try using it instead of the bullshit you are using now.
it might help as you have no evidence proving any of the laughable claims you source in this and all of your posts...

but a few post ago you where contradicting the NIST report...have you ever actually read and understood the NIST findings or do you just blindly accept them ?

show me those posts.

Doesn't matter to thinking folks with a working brain who aren't mentally or emotionally handicapped like you. The NIST report wreaks of BS, fudged/changed/hidden data, doesn't explain or put any of the controversy to rest, and instead creates more.
Like the resistance of the structure being a normal and expected observation and absolutely consistent with physical properties, but then oops a miracle happened, the massive structure offered no resistance for for 8 story's and free fall DID occur, and then no mention of it being consistent with physical properties in their revised report, no explanation offered, hide the computer data, shut up and move along?
**** you. You may be easily duped, because you want and need to be, while showing off your lack of intellect, and lack of respect for yourself and your country in the process, but
there are many of us who don't take BS and nonsense for answers.

I suggest you take a look at the works and writings of those who have serious objections to the NIST report, and make an effort to compare their grievances with NIST. There are many, with good valid points who point out the inconsistencies deceptions along the way.

 

[daws101]

but a few post ago you where contradicting the NIST report...have you ever actually read and understood the NIST findings or do you just blindly accept them ?

show me those posts.

Doesn't matter to thinking folks with a working brain who aren't mentally or emotionally handicapped like you. The NIST report wreaks of BS, fudged/changed/hidden data, doesn't explain or put any of the controversy to rest, and instead creates more.
Like the resistance of the structure being a normal and expected observation and absolutely consistent with physical properties, but then oops a miracle happened, the massive structure offered no resistance for for 8 story's and free fall DID occur, and then no mention of it being consistent with physical properties in their revised report, no explanation offered, hide the computer data, shut up and move along?
**** you. You may be easily duped, because you want and need to be, while showing off your lack of intellect, and lack of respect for yourself and your country in the process, but
there are many of us who don't take BS and nonsense for answers.

I suggest you take a look at the works and writings of those who have serious objections to the NIST report, and make an effort to compare their grievances with NIST. There are many, with good valid points who point out the inconsistencies deceptions along the way.

the works and writing you speak of are from people suffering from the same delusions you are!
the many you rave about are in reality only a minuscule % of the population.
besides I've read all "works" and they come up short on fact and evidence.
I'd tell you to go **** yourself but that would be too little too late.

 

[Mr. Jones]

show me those posts.

Doesn't matter to thinking folks with a working brain who aren't mentally or emotionally handicapped like you. The NIST report wreaks of BS, fudged/changed/hidden data, doesn't explain or put any of the controversy to rest, and instead creates more.
Like the resistance of the structure being a normal and expected observation and absolutely consistent with physical properties, but then oops a miracle happened, the massive structure offered no resistance for for 8 story's and free fall DID occur, and then no mention of it being consistent with physical properties in their revised report, no explanation offered, hide the computer data, shut up and move along?
**** you. You may be easily duped, because you want and need to be, while showing off your lack of intellect, and lack of respect for yourself and your country in the process, but
there are many of us who don't take BS and nonsense for answers.

I suggest you take a look at the works and writings of those who have serious objections to the NIST report, and make an effort to compare their grievances with NIST. There are many, with good valid points who point out the inconsistencies deceptions along the way.

the works and writing you speak of are from people suffering from the same delusions you are!

The reality is that it is people like you who are suffering from delusions and refuse to except the reality you were and are being lied to.
You can't face it, it's a mental problem you have and that is understood, so you resort to attacking their character to keep your delusion going.

the many you rave about are in reality only a minuscule % of the population.

BS, you resort to minimizing that many people don't believe the OCT, and this has been evidenced by various polls.

besides I've read all "works" and they come up short on fact and evidence.

I doubt you have even looked at any in any earnest, objective way. Your mental state that includes a need to be comforted and coddled, wont allow that.
Besides if you truly did read or take their works and papers into consideration for serious study, you would post something within them as an objection, or observation, it's obvious you don't bother to, as you just ridicule them with BS one line statements, and BS.

I'd tell you to go **** yourself but that would be too little too late.

You're a hopeless idiot, 9-11 was not as it was explained to the US people or the world, and the nation needs people with the ability to think not merely follow and you're not needed so it is you that can go **** itself.

quote=daws101 extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.

So where is your extraordinary evidence that confirms NIST's BS, Dawgshit?

 

[paulitician]

The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Sadly, Big Brother murdered it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Sadly, Big Brother murdered it.

Depends how you look at it. If it's justice and accountability and court cases and all of that, then yes I'd have to agree, but as far as the 9-11 attacks being used as a tool to awaken the masses to the reality of their governments corruption, and complicity in terror against their own people, then it's still alive.

 

[paulitician]

Unfortunately, i'm beginning to believe that when all those Americans died on 9/11, so did our Nation. We've lost so much of our Freedom & Liberty since that awful day. It's very sad.

 

[Triton]

Agreed.


9/11 is the justification for all this accelerated police state crap we see now.

If you do not support all the police state crap then the puppetmasters say you are making us all vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could happen at anytime, anywhere, by anybody.