Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
It was easy to see what happened that day....its also a very good thing they were poor pilots.
It was easy to see what happened that day....its also a very good thing they were poor pilots.
nivek
As Above So Below
I had already served in the Navy during the Persian Gulf war...
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Thanks for your service.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I remember seeing them in the 1970s too....amazing. Sometimes I still can't believe that they are gone.....but I don't see any mystery in it.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Here's two I'd like to see face a firing squad.
(Source) 911 – Israel Calling
Two of the most evil men ever to walk this earth; former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (left) and developer Larry Silverstein seen here appearing at the opening of 4 World Trade Center in November of last year… Look at the eyes.
Not sure what these two did.....especially to be called the "most evil".....
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Amazing images......this image shows why WTC7 collapsed.
Doggo_52
Novice
also sorry for being inactive everyone
There's definitely a conspiracy here. I also believe that the government benefited from this and tampered with the footage of the attacks.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Welcome...….how is it that the films were tampered with?
Also memes are a worse source for history than you tube.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
1975
I like this shot......shows how things have changed.
The shadow
The shadow knows!
The shadow
The shadow knows!
parts of my favorite 9/11 comic...
nivek
As Above So Below
A recent study reveals that building number 7 did not collapse because of fire, Mick West doesn't agree with this assessment and the video below are his comments...What do you think of this report?...
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Bring Down World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
The release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to submit comments. The final report will be published later this year.
Mick West:
Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report
On September 3, 2019, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth finally released the report on the study that they had contracted Professor Leroy Hulsey to carry out. The claimed result of the report was what they had originally set out to demonstrate, that fire could not have caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
However, there's a number of problems with the report that I think need to be clarified.
This video is simply my initial reaction to the report, and will undoubtedly be refined as I understand more and get input from other people. But I've read the report, I've watched the accompanying videos, and I've watched Professor Hulsey's presentation. So I wanted to get my initial thoughts out there to prompt some discussion, and hopefully some clarification from professor Hulsey and the AE911Truth team.
In brief, the five questions I have are:
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
The video contains a short overview of each issue (in the first four minutes) and then goes into a more in-depth examination of the problems as I see them.
I appreciate feedback, corrections, and comments. mick@mickwest.com
Metabunk thread: https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-...
Draft Report: https://www.metabunk.org/f/uaf_wtc7_d...
Original Videos: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 (down the left side)
.
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Bring Down World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
The release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to submit comments. The final report will be published later this year.
Mick West:
Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report
On September 3, 2019, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth finally released the report on the study that they had contracted Professor Leroy Hulsey to carry out. The claimed result of the report was what they had originally set out to demonstrate, that fire could not have caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
However, there's a number of problems with the report that I think need to be clarified.
This video is simply my initial reaction to the report, and will undoubtedly be refined as I understand more and get input from other people. But I've read the report, I've watched the accompanying videos, and I've watched Professor Hulsey's presentation. So I wanted to get my initial thoughts out there to prompt some discussion, and hopefully some clarification from professor Hulsey and the AE911Truth team.
In brief, the five questions I have are:
1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?
2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??
3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.
4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)
5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.
The video contains a short overview of each issue (in the first four minutes) and then goes into a more in-depth examination of the problems as I see them.
I appreciate feedback, corrections, and comments. mick@mickwest.com
Metabunk thread: https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-...
Draft Report: https://www.metabunk.org/f/uaf_wtc7_d...
Original Videos: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 (down the left side)
.
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
I agree the fire didn't do it all in WTC7 either......like the towers it just finished them off.
The shadow
The shadow knows!
WTC 7 collapsed because WTC1 tore a massive chunk out of it..
Castle-Yankee54
Celestial
Its very easy to see once people observe what WTC6 looks like.
The shadow
The shadow knows!
The shadow
The shadow knows!
The fatal blow.