Activism Discussion: 9/11: NIST Provides The Proof 9-11 Was An Inside Job / False Flag Attack

9/11: NIST Provides The Proof 9-11 Was An Inside Job / False Flag Attack
Posts: 44

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Dan
2009-01-04 22:57:18 EST
Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459

January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58


The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST
Admits Free Fall.”


NIST’s proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack goes like this:


I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs
energy making free fall impossible (David Chandler, Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth);


II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building
crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam
Sunder, NIST);


III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural
resistance for a building to free fall.


IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall;

V. And Given that the only way free fall can occur is to remove all
structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a
controlled demolition;


VI. Therefore, the free falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.


(The following follows logically from the above):

Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like
WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to
believe anyone other than “insiders” could have carried out the advanced
preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the
secure WTC7 (“CIA Building”); therefore the controlled demolition of
WTC7 was carried out by “insiders.”

Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be
no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other
events on 9/11; therefore “insiders” also planned and executed the other
events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job.

Thank you NIST for providing the proof that 9/11 was an inside job /
false flag attack.

http://www.911blogger.com/blog/5343 (“NIST Admits Free Fall”)

Al Dykes
2009-01-05 09:16:52 EST
In article <D9adnb7elaCRGPzUnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>
>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>
>
>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>from David Chandler\ufffds excellent and invaluable video series, \ufffdNIST
>Admits Free Fall.\ufffd



More lies by omission by the Movement that uses the words "truth" too
much.

It is Only the penthouse for for the first 20 ft as it collapsed into
the core of WTC7 which had been hollowed out by hours of fire. Nobody
with relevant engineering expertise thinks there is anything about
this that isn't explained by hours of fire.


The Chandler claims are discussed in detail here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131882&page=2

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194&page=6



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail


Freedom Fighter
2009-01-05 15:25:47 EST
The mass-murderers behind the HOLOCAUST of 9/11 must be brought to justice.
They KILLED 3000 INNOCENT AMERICANS.

To find criminals, you must investigate those that stood to benefit from the
crime.

Zionist Larry Silverstein stood to, and did, profit the most financially
from the destruction of the WTC. He in fact took out insurance against just
such an event before the attacks occurred.

Israel of course stood to benefit through continuing and increased support,
financial and military, for Israel.

Are you aware of the "dancing Israeli" incident? This was the arrest of
several Israeli nationals by New Jersey police on 9/11. They were
exuberantly celebrating, dancing around, while across the Hudson river they
watched the WTC towers collapse. Could they have had any foreknowledge, as
did those that manipulated the stock market to profit from the coming
disaster?

I had two personal encounters with orthodox Jews just after 9/11 in which I
was appalled by their lack of compassion, and apparent secret joy, over the
tragedy. I could not understand it at that time, but as I learned more and
more of the truth about 9/11 and who was most likely actually behind this
crime of the century, the reasons for their behavior became more clear. I
now believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy in which the neo-cons and probably
Israel had a hand. When seeking criminals, one must suspect those that most
stood to benefit from the crime.

Does being the victim of a holocaust justify taking part in perpetrating
one? What comes around will go around!

ANYONE LIVING IN AMERICA THAT HAS
GREATER ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN NATION
SHOULD MOVE THERE VOLUNTARILY TO FIGHT
THEIR OWN BLOODY BATTLES.

IF THEY WON'T GO VOLUNTARILY, THESE
DANGEROUS SUBVERSIVES SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

"DUAL CITIZENSHIP" IS NONSENSE. EITHER YOU ARE
AN AMERICAN, OR YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.

THE ISRAEL-FIRST EXTREMISTS ARE: UNAMERICAN SUBVERSIVES!

ISRAEL-FIRSTERS, MOVE TO ISRAEL! And take all your political hacks like
arrogant Zionist Bloomberg, Fascist-Zionist Giuliani, and probable
mass-murdering criminal conspirator and 9/11 profiteer Larry Zionist
Silverstein with you!



Danny Burstein
2009-01-05 15:40:08 EST
In <f1u8l.111783$_Y1.51505@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> writes:

>The mass-murderers behind the HOLOCAUST of 9/11 must be brought to justice.
>They KILLED 3000 INNOCENT AMERICANS.

>To find criminals, you must investigate those that stood to benefit from the
>crime.

>Zionist Larry Silverstein stood to, and did, profit the most financially

Hey, Freedom From Thought. Not only are you a pathetic
scaredy cat, but you're also delusional.

I've still got that MetroCard for you. Yup, I traded in
the expiring one.

You ever going to pick it up?

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
d*b@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

A*@justicespammail.com
2009-01-05 18:29:02 EST
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:57:18 -0500, Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>
>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>
>
>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST
>Admits Free Fall.”
>
>
>NIST’s proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack goes like this:
>
>
>I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs
>energy making free fall impossible (David Chandler, Architects and
>Engineers for 9/11 Truth);

(a) that isn't NIST's proof, and
(b) NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building
>crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam
>Sunder, NIST);

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural
>resistance for a building to free fall.

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall;

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>V. And Given that the only way free fall can occur is to remove all
>structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a
>controlled demolition;

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>VI. Therefore, the free falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.


>(The following follows logically from the above):
>
>Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like
>WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to
>believe anyone other than “insiders” could have carried out the advanced
>preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the
>secure WTC7 (“CIA Building”); therefore the controlled demolition of
>WTC7 was carried out by “insiders.”

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

>Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11

Not a given.

> and given that there could be
>no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other
>events on 9/11; therefore “insiders” also planned and executed the other
>events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job.

Your "assumptions" are erroneous, therefore so is your conclusion.

>Thank you NIST for providing the proof that 9/11 was an inside job /
>false flag attack.

NIST never said that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.



O*@real.com
2009-01-06 01:05:31 EST
On 5 Jan 2009 09:16:52 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
wrote:

>In article <D9adnb7elaCRGPzUnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>>
>>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>>
>>
>>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>>from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST
>>Admits Free Fall.”
>
>
>
>More lies by omission by the Movement that uses the words "truth" too
>much.

How long does the collapse take?
Has anyone lied about it? Is it "controversial"?
The official reports certify the time it took for
the buildings to fall, but they do not explain the
reasons for these short periods of time, in ways
that the laws of physics can confirm.

>It is Only the penthouse for for the first 20 ft as it collapsed into
>the core of WTC7 which had been hollowed out by hours of fire. Nobody
>with relevant engineering expertise thinks there is anything about
>this that isn't explained by hours of fire.
>
Hours of fire not hot enough to melt steel, and
how did a 200 ton girder manage to fly some 150
feet through the air, before the towers came down?
Oh my. You're not looking at the videos that have
been provided.

>The Chandler claims are discussed in detail here.
>
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131882&page=2
>
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194&page=6

Remember...

"This is Our Time"

A*@justicespammail.com
2009-01-06 17:56:55 EST
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:05:31 -0500, Obwon@real.com wrote:

>On 5 Jan 2009 09:16:52 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <D9adnb7elaCRGPzUnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>>>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>>>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>>>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>>>
>>>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>>>
>>>
>>>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>>>from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST
>>>Admits Free Fall.”
>>
>>
>>
>>More lies by omission by the Movement that uses the words "truth" too
>>much.
>
> How long does the collapse take?

Longer than troofers like you claim.

> Has anyone lied about it?

Yes, people like you.

> Is it "controversial"?

Only because people like you make it so.

> The official reports certify the time it took for
>the buildings to fall, but they do not explain the
>reasons for these short periods of time, in ways
>that the laws of physics can confirm.

No laws of physics were broken in the collapse of any of the
buildings. Just because people like you are too stupid to understand
the science doesn't make reality change.

>>It is Only the penthouse for for the first 20 ft as it collapsed into
>>the core of WTC7 which had been hollowed out by hours of fire. Nobody
>>with relevant engineering expertise thinks there is anything about
>>this that isn't explained by hours of fire.
>>
> Hours of fire not hot enough to melt steel,

No steel was required to be melted.

>and
>how did a 200 ton girder manage to fly some 150
>feet through the air, before the towers came down?

Because it didn't happen.

>Oh my. You're not looking at the videos that have
>been provided.

You haven't provided any. At least not any that show what you're
claiming.

>>The Chandler claims are discussed in detail here.
>>
>> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131882&page=2
>>
>> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194&page=6
>
> Remember...
>
> "This is Our Time"

If you say so....

O*@real.com
2009-01-07 05:12:01 EST
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:56:55 -0500,
a*6@justicespammail.com wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:05:31 -0500, Obwon@real.com wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jan 2009 09:16:52 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <D9adnb7elaCRGPzUnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>>>>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>>>>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>>>>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>>>>
>>>>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>>>>from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST
>>>>Admits Free Fall.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>More lies by omission by the Movement that uses the words "truth" too
>>>much.
>>
>> How long does the collapse take?
>
>Longer than troofers like you claim.

What claim have I made about this, that
differs from what the video and the 9-11
commission report, shows? Can you
give us a time? You know, instead of
simply alluding/asserting that the time
the fall took was simply "longer than what
we say it was"? How much longer precisely?
Quantify what we're talking about.

I and others have repeatedly posted that
it was somewhere in the range of 9 to 10
seconds. Raw calculations of a stone falling
from 1,100 feet yield about 9.2 seconds to the
ground. Now, tell us what your time is!

>> Has anyone lied about it?
>
>Yes, people like you.

Well, why don't you go about proving it
in the proper and acceptable ways? Post
the facts and figures that refute what we
say. Any fool can keep saying "no!, it didn't
happen that way, you're wrong!" But facts
and figures will show whose correct and whose
not. You don't ever post any figures or facts,
just assertions, claims, fantasies and anecdotes.

>> Is it "controversial"?
>
>Only because people like you make it so.

Hardly, it will be forever controversial because
the laws of nature simply do not allow it.
Which is why you don't post any figures, or
even explaination of how the force of gravity
works.


>> The official reports certify the time it took for
>>the buildings to fall, but they do not explain the
>>reasons for these short periods of time, in ways
>>that the laws of physics can confirm.
>
>No laws of physics were broken in the collapse of any of the
>buildings. Just because people like you are too stupid to understand
>the science doesn't make reality change.

Of course no laws of physics were broken in the
collapse of any of the buildings, they couldn't be!
That being so... Where does all this extra energy,
displayed by the collapse configuration, come from?
Since there isn't sufficient energy in the falling of
building materials, that energy has to be supplied
somehow. Now, give us something, other than
rhetorical parries, to work with! Post some figures,
laws, and/or explainations, that show our
assumptions to be wrong.

>>>It is Only the penthouse for for the first 20 ft as it collapsed into
>>>the core of WTC7 which had been hollowed out by hours of fire. Nobody
>>>with relevant engineering expertise thinks there is anything about
>>>this that isn't explained by hours of fire.
>>>
>> Hours of fire not hot enough to melt steel,
>
>No steel was required to be melted.
>
>>and
>>how did a 200 ton girder manage to fly some 150
>>feet through the air, before the towers came down?
>
>Because it didn't happen.
>
>>Oh my. You're not looking at the videos that have
>>been provided.
>
>You haven't provided any. At least not any that show what you're
>claiming.
>
>>>The Chandler claims are discussed in detail here.
>>>
>>> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131882&page=2
>>>
>>> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194&page=6
>>
>> Remember...
>>
>> "This is Our Time"
>
>If you say so....
Remember...

"This is Our Time"

Al Dykes
2009-01-07 11:32:53 EST
In article <rts5m45oitmmvmg4m7q757ul74gheermkt@4ax.com>,
<*n@real.com> wrote:
>On 5 Jan 2009 09:16:52 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <D9adnb7elaCRGPzUnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>Dan <Danwigin2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Will NIST or another federal agency investigate Larry Silverstein as
>>>what prompted him to lease the two towers a few month before 911 and
>>>insure them for billions of dollars against a terror attack.
>>>http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15459
>>>
>>>January 4, 2009 at 15:49:58
>>>
>>>
>>>The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes
>>>from David Chandler\ufffds excellent and invaluable video series, \ufffdNIST
>>>Admits Free Fall.\ufffd
>>
>>
>>
>>More lies by omission by the Movement that uses the words "truth" too
>>much.
>
> How long does the collapse take?
> Has anyone lied about it? Is it "controversial"?
> The official reports certify the time it took for
>the buildings to fall, but they do not explain the
>reasons for these short periods of time, in ways
>that the laws of physics can confirm.
>
>>It is Only the penthouse for for the first 20 ft as it collapsed into
>>the core of WTC7 which had been hollowed out by hours of fire. Nobody
>>with relevant engineering expertise thinks there is anything about
>>this that isn't explained by hours of fire.
>>
> Hours of fire not hot enough to melt steel, and

There was no molten steel at WTC on 9/11. So what?


>how did a 200 ton girder manage to fly some 150
>feet through the air, before the towers came down?

Gravity plus maybe 15 ft/sec horizontal initial velocity.










--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail


Al Dykes
2009-01-07 11:51:46 EST
In article <f1u8l.111783$_Y1.51505@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>The mass-murderers behind the HOLOCAUST of 9/11 must be brought to justice.
>They KILLED 3000 INNOCENT AMERICANS.
>
>To find criminals, you must investigate those that stood to benefit from the
>crime.
>
>Zionist Larry Silverstein stood to, and did, profit the most financially
>from the destruction of the WTC. He in fact took out insurance against just
>such an event before the attacks occurred.
>


Silverstein didn't get a nickel more than he lost. That's now
insurance works.

The insurance company wouldn't have to pay out if WTC was a
crime. Insurance companies routinely hire investigators to see if they
can avoid paying.

WTC was no different. Here's the independent lab results payed for
by the insurance companies.


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2002/10/23/23894.htm


International News
Swiss Re Releases WTC Engineering Study

October 23, 2002

Swiss Re and the other insurers involved in the World Trade Center
coverage dispute with master leaseholder Silverstein Properties, have
released the comprehensive engineering study they commissioned to
determine the causes of the twin towers' collapse following the
Sept. 11 attacks.

The study concludes that "the World Trade Center was a highly
integrated complex and that the collapse of one tower in the World
Trade Center complex would have severely compromised the future
viability of the entire complex."

Swiss Re, the other companies and Silverstein made their reports
public, with the permission of the court that's handling the lawsuit,
following a great deal of inflamed rhetoric from the media which
focused on their existence. The reports, which featured a lot of
hysterical claims that the contents of the study "would never be
revealed" and "the public will never know why the towers collapsed,
etc." probably weren't true then and certainly aren't true now.

The only reason they were withheld to begin with was because they
formed part of a court proceeding. Swiss Re said that two weeks ago
the companies had "provided all of their engineering materials --
including the reports, the underlying data, computer models and
engineering analyses -- to NIST, the government organization that is
investigating the engineering aspects of the tragedy to determine if
there are safety lessons that can be learned from the way the World
Trade Center complex held up in the attack."

Among the conclusions in the study, developed by professional
engineering firm Exponent Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA), were the
following: -The towers were designed as a pair and they relied on each
other for the structural stability to resist wind pressures.

-The collapse of a single tower would have destroyed or damaged
virtually the entire sub-grade area that housed the common HVAC
system; the electrical, water, sewage and steam systems for the
complex; emergency control systems, and critical elements of the
sprinkler system in addition to parking and retail space.

-The FaAA study also demonstrates that a standing tower would have
been damaged in ways that would have been very costly to repair. The
facade on two sides would have to be replaced for nearly the entire
height of the tower, due to the damage from flying debris. Localized
structural damage from heavier debris would need to be
repaired. Fires would likely have been started in a standing tower,
as they were in many other buildings close to ground zero, which
would have caused both fire damage and smoke contamination.

Swiss Re also used the opportunity of the report's release to
reiterate its contention that the WTC attacks constituted one loss
event and not two as "the World Trade Center complex collapse was the
result of one attack on one complex."

Complete copies of the FaAA study are available at Swiss Re by calling 212-317-5663.
Find this article at:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2002/10/23/23894.htm
) 2008 Wells Publishing, Inc. Reprint Information | Home Search | Contact Us



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron