• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

Lethbridge said:
I'm offering up proof that the free press in AMERICA
really isn't free, its owned by big money.

A TV network that is owned by General Electric
can not be expected to report news of the fact that
GE is a huge "defense contractor" with its tentacles
into the halls of power. My bit about checking the
content of 4 ( or more ) evening "news" programs
to see the parallels in the reporting and what is considered "news".

At the time of the American Revolution, there were hundreds if
not thousands of independent printers in the Colonies and these
all had totally independent management. Ironically Ben Franklin
started to franchise his printing operation into many different locations,
pre-revolution however, there is a difference between a small number of
printers under one banner, rather than a huge number of radio and TV
broadcasters under unified management.

KILL YOUR TELEVISION!
Click to expand...

Okay, well you seem to be clearly having some type of episode. I'll just leave this here for you:

What is the "official story" and who released it?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
What is the "official story" and who released it?
Click to expand...

Do you not know the story that you so steadfastly defend?
Airliners used as weapons, the reason for the total collapse
of the twin towers & 7, the attack on the PENTAGON. The
drama of FLT93. And you have to ask?

As for who released it, of course it was the mainstream media
acting as a puppet to the cartel of big money that controls what
is broadcast.

May I also include two Founding Fathers quotes

" its a Republic, If you can keep it"

" once the people discover that they can vote themselves money, the Republic is doomed "
 
Lethbridge said:
Do you not know the story that you so steadfastly defend?
Airliners used as weapons, the reason for the total collapse
of the twin towers & 7, the attack on the PENTAGON. The
drama of FLT93. And you have to ask?
Click to expand...

That's it? That's the "official story"? Yeah, that's kinda easy to defend lol. I also defend the "official story" that the Seahawks won the Super Bowl last year. I also defend the "official story" that Bradenton, Florida sits on on the Gulf of Mexico and the "official story" that John Pemberton invented Coke. So if what you just said is the "official story" that I'm defending? lol, yeah, I'll defend that, that's a pretty simple one. I'll also defend that the US one dollar bill has a picture of George Washington on it and that Otto von Bismark was the primary statesman that united Germany. Maybe all at the same time!

As for who released it, of course it was the mainstream media
acting as a puppet to the cartel of big money that controls what
is broadcast.
Click to expand...

No, names. Times. Who did it and when? I don't care about your personal boogeymen.

May I also include two Founding Fathers quotes
Click to expand...

You may not.
 
Henry David said:
Then why don't you translate that certainty into action, and show that relevant part of NCSTAR? I would love to read it, and thanks again for linking to Bollyn's site. :)
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of using a computer? NCSTAR 1-5 is available on line.
 
Lethbridge said:
and by this OLDWORLDORDER seeks to define what is acceptable
or not, for his own liking or for the forum?
Click to expand...

Are you asking me a question? You asked if you may. I told you that you may not. What's the issue? Why did you ask if you didn't want an answer?

Also, do you deny that there is a unity in what is broadcast as "news" these days?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do. Read a book, dude. Are you acting as if the TV is the only source of news? That's up to you. Just because you seem to believe that doesn't mean other people do.

What does this have to do with anything? Who released the "official story"? When?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Yeah, I do. Read a book, dude. Are you acting as if the TV is the only source of news? That's up to you. Just because you seem to believe that doesn't mean other people do.

What does this have to do with anything? Who released the "official story"? When?
Click to expand...

In all too much of the print media, there is total lock-step adherence to the party line.
The "who released the official story" question has been answered, the story was being
promoted from the very beginning ( Remember the "Harley guy" ? )
and the people who dictate what is to be broadcast, were pulling the strings.
I do not need to supply names ( etc... ) to know that there is a force behind the
mainstream media that dictates what constitutes "news" and indeed writes the stories
for broadcast by the networks. The vast majority of people in this country now simply
get their "news" from TV, or other mainstream controlled sources such as the newspapers
& magazines - also owned by the same cartel. What I very seriously recommend is that
people question everything that they see, read, whatever comes from the mainstream
media, because the mainstream media has an agenda and that is to enslave everybody
in this world. There is a speech by JFK, were he states that there is a plot to enslave every
American citizen. Who better to know about this sort of thing than the PRESIDENT.
There are things that all people should be taking seriously, and much that we should be
VERY skeptical of ( such as the "news" presented by the mainstream media )
 
Lethbridge said:
In all too much of the print media, there is total lock-step adherence to the party line.
The "who released the official story" question has been answered, the story was being
promoted from the very beginning ( Remember the "Harley guy" ? )
and the people who dictate what is to be broadcast, were pulling the strings.
I do not need to supply names ( etc... ) to know that there is a force behind the
mainstream media that dictates what constitutes "news" and indeed writes the stories
for broadcast by the networks. The vast majority of people in this country now simply
get their "news" from TV, or other mainstream controlled sources such as the newspapers
& magazines - also owned by the same cartel. What I very seriously recommend is that
people question everything that they see, read, whatever comes from the mainstream
media, because the mainstream media has an agenda and that is to enslave everybody
in this world. There is a speech by JFK, were he states that there is a plot to enslave every
American citizen. Who better to know about this sort of thing than the PRESIDENT.
There are things that all people should be taking seriously, and much that we should be
VERY skeptical of ( such as the "news" presented by the mainstream media )
Click to expand...

Who released it? When?

Nothing is stopping you from reading a book, doing research.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Who released it? When?

Nothing is stopping you from reading a book, doing research.
Click to expand...

Your repetition of the question speaks volumes about your understanding.
For anyone who may be interested, review the last few posts in this thread.
enjoy.
 
Lethbridge said:
Your repetition of the question speaks volumes about your understanding.
For anyone who may be interested, review the last few posts in this thread.
enjoy.
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes about your inability to answer them. Read a book, dude. Stop being a conspiracy theorist and become knowledgeable about the world.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It speaks volumes about your inability to answer them. Read a book, dude. Stop being a conspiracy theorist and become knowledgeable about the world.
Click to expand...

So you refuse to recognize that my last several posts contained information
that constituted answers to your questions.

& as for the "read a book" statement, I have read books by various authors
and one thing that I find striking is the diversity of explanations contained
in said books, the books all too often tangent into discussions of politics and
the speculation as to the motivation of angry Islamic radicals.
The bits I would like to really focus on and that is the discussion about the
collapsing towers & 7, the investigation of the airliner crashes, or missile strikes.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It speaks volumes about your inability to answer them. Read a book, dude. Stop being a conspiracy theorist and become knowledgeable about the world.
Click to expand...

Is it not a conspiracy to say that Islamic radicals conspired together to hijack airliners?
 
Mark F said:
Your missing the plot again. That video, due to its angle, does not show how the building twisted leaned - the reason for example it hit Fiterman Hall. This is why 9/11 Truth has a 13 year track record of fail. They look at one piece of evidence that confirms the conclusion they started with and ignore everything else.

Objectively speaking, 7 World Trade Center did not by any stretch of the imagination land in its foundation.
Click to expand...

WTC 7 was a 610 foot tall building with a plan nearly that of a football field with each of its 47 floors being an acre in area. It had 75% of the floor space of the Empire State building. It came down virtually within its own footprint and anyone saying it didn't is picking fly***t out of pepper.


wtc7_rubble.webp

This photo of WTC 7's rubble pile, taken from the Verizon building to its west,
shows its walls were pulled towards the center.



WTC aerial photo.webp

This aerial photo shows there was very little damage to the adjacent buildings.
It also shows the exterior walls on top of the pile, again indicating they were pulled towards the center.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
WTC 7 was a 610 foot tall building with a plan nearly that of a football field with each of its 47 floors being an acre in area. It had 75% of the floor space of the Empire State building. It came down virtually within its own footprint and anyone saying it didn't is picking fly***t out of pepper.

This photo of WTC 7's rubble pile, taken from the Verizon building to its west,
shows its walls were pulled towards the center.

This aerial photo shows there was very little damage to the adjacent buildings.
It also shows the exterior walls on top of the pile, again indicating they were pulled towards the center.
Click to expand...

So it is "virtually" within its own footprint now, is it? That's new. Part of the never-ending process of watering down your claims I suppose.

Since Fiterman Hall had to be torn down because of the damage it suffered from being hit by 7 World Trade I think we know what to think of the lie that there was very little damage to adjacent buildings.

Back to the subject you keep avoiding now: How did you measure the acceleration of the 25 core columns of 7 World Trade Center which you claim descended at free-fall for 8 stories?
 
Mark F said:
So it is "virtually" within its own footprint now, is it? That's new. Part of the never-ending process of watering down your claims I suppose.

Since Fiterman Hall had to be torn down because of the damage it suffered from being hit by 7 World Trade I think we know what to think of the lie that there was very little damage to adjacent buildings.

Back to the subject you keep avoiding now: How did you measure the acceleration of the 25 core columns of 7 World Trade Center which you claim descended at free-fall for 8 stories?
Click to expand...

It was never contended that it was within its footprint by 1/16th of an inch. The connotation meant was always that WTC 7 came down "essentially in its footprint".

Fitterman Hall received some damage and was taken down. That still does not mean WTC 7 did not essentially come down in its footprint the way a controlled demolition is intended. The building was 610 foot tall and its rubble was fit within 70 feet on any side of its plan. Most would call that level of accuracy "within its footprint" for a 610 foot tall building being brought down.

I haven't been avoiding anything and you are clearly misinterpreting if you think I implied that I measured the acceleration of the core columns. I was discussing how I believe the building was taken down and that a way to replicate the observations would be to take out the twenty-four core columns over eight stories. The removed core would pull the exterior columns inward over that 100+ foot height and cause them to fail with essentially no vertical resistance and the building would fall symmetrically. If the twenty-four core columns are taken out they would be free-falling and a slight over g acceleration of the exterior would occur due to a whip action when the exterior is first pulled on by the already falling core.

It is with the utmost probability that WTC 7's collapse was due to its entire core being pulled over eight stories, starting in the middle of it, and that pulled the exterior inward and down.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It was never contended that it was within its footprint by 1/16th of an inch. The connotation meant was always that WTC 7 came down "essentially in its footprint".

Fitterman Hall received some damage and was taken down. That still does not mean WTC 7 did not essentially come down in its footprint the way a controlled demolition is intended. The building was 610 foot tall and its rubble was fit within 70 feet on any side of its plan. Most would call that level of accuracy "within its footprint" for a 610 foot tall building being brought down.
Click to expand...

Continued watering down of claims noted.

I haven't been avoiding anything and you are clearly misinterpreting if you think I implied that I measured the acceleration of the core columns. I was discussing how I believe the building was taken down and that a way to replicate the observations would be to take out the twenty-four core columns over eight stories. The removed core would pull the exterior columns inward over that 100+ foot height and cause them to fail with essentially no vertical resistance and the building would fall symmetrically. If the twenty-four core columns are taken out they would be free-falling and a slight over g acceleration of the exterior would occur due to a whip action when the exterior is first pulled on by the already falling core.
Click to expand...

Let's step back a moment. In post #707 of this thread you stated:

Since the core was already falling at free fall and its speed had increased it would act like a whip on the exterior and produce a slight over G acceleration to start on the exterior which then settled into an acceleration at G.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are stating this as fact when really it is mere conjecture, cooked up by starting with the hypothesis that there was MHI, then working the problem backwards to make the evidence fit that conclusion, inventing what you need to along the way.

I've asked Bob this before but he wouldn't answer so maybe you will. Why on earth would anyone rig the columns to blow over 8 floors? 24 columns over 8 stories had to be removed to match the collapse as observed, yes? What is the purpose of that? Why remove 24 columns over 8 stories? Isn't that a bit overkill? Why not just one story? Wouldn't that be sufficient to bring down the building? After all, Dr. Evil and his minions presumably had the goal of simply bringing down the building by the most expedient means possible (why is a different matter), not bringing it down in a way that gives your overly convoluted story a chance to make sense.
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
I've asked Bob this before but he wouldn't answer so maybe you will. Why on earth would anyone rig the columns to blow over 8 floors? 24 columns over 8 stories had to be removed to match the collapse as observed, yes?
Click to expand...

Why should I speculate about a speculation that isn't even mine? I'm trying to find out what happened, not make up stories.
 
Bob0627 said:
Why should I speculate about a speculation that isn't even mine? I'm trying to find out what happened, not make up stories.
Click to expand...

At the time it was your speculation - taken from Tony and Chandler of course. But lacking an answer you could copy from them you ducked the issue instead and I had to answer it for you. Now if you don't mind stepping aside I am going directly to the source.
 
Mark F said:
At the time it was your speculation - taken from Tony and Chandler of course. But lacking an answer you could copy from them you ducked the issue instead and I had to answer it for you. Now if you don't mind stepping aside I am going directly to the source.
Click to expand...

You referred to me and now you want me to "step aside"? It wasn't my speculation at any time. I never made any claims or any speculation about how a CD might have been done, stop lying.
 
Bob0627 said:
You referred to me and now you want me to "step aside"? It wasn't my speculation at any time. I never made any claims or any speculation about how a CD might have been done, stop lying.
Click to expand...

Your correct you have not stated how CD was done.

Yet, you know it could not be fire induced collapse, right?
 
Mark F said:
Continued watering down of claims noted.



Let's step back a moment. In post #707 of this thread you stated:



Sounds to me like you are stating this as fact when really it is mere conjecture, cooked up by starting with the hypothesis that there was MHI, then working the problem backwards to make the evidence fit that conclusion, inventing what you need to along the way.

I've asked Bob this before but he wouldn't answer so maybe you will. Why on earth would anyone rig the columns to blow over 8 floors? 24 columns over 8 stories had to be removed to match the collapse as observed, yes? What is the purpose of that? Why remove 24 columns over 8 stories? Isn't that a bit overkill? Why not just one story? Wouldn't that be sufficient to bring down the building? After all, Dr. Evil and his minions presumably had the goal of simply bringing down the building by the most expedient means possible (why is a different matter), not bringing it down in a way that gives your overly convoluted story a chance to make sense.
Click to expand...

I am giving a scenario which would produce the observables. Engineers do this when they are trying to replicate a failure. You don't sound like you are an engineer, so maybe you wouldn't understand that, so I am now telling you that is how it is done. We do work backwards from what is observed and see what failures would produce the observations. The NIST scenario does not produce the observables and cannot possibly be correct. The omitted pertinent structural features would make their scenario impossible and for that reason it has been discredited.


Hugo Bachmann.webp

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH).



Jorg Schneider.webp

Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".


Mark, what basis do you have to argue with me and the above two professors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom