So, you have read and studied that entire 160 page report on the Building 7 collapse? I didn't think so.
I read it but I don't understand it very well because it was put together by 20 of the smartest, most experienced building experts in the world. 7
doctorates 11 masters and 2 military experts.
They are all wrong-and you are right.
What I did get from it was the water main under the North tower was severed by the collapse and without water pressure the hydrants and the sprinklers
couldn't slow the fire expansion. How could anyone claim negligence from that?
Surely, they didn't expect a redundant water feed.
All these super intelligent people, yet were constantly corrected by "crack pot conspiracy theorists" forcing them to change the report.
one example is a high school physics teacher forcing them to admit that 2.5 seconds of the collapse was free fall, which is more than 1/3 of the
Why didn't their own experts mention this? its because they already knew and tried to hide this fact, eg; playing dumb. they tried to get away with
Explain how freefall, which requires the simultaneous removal of the supporting structure can be acheieved without a controlled demolition?
i beleive that without the conspriacy theorists lurking over NIST, the report would have been far different, even more wrong that it is now.
NIST have been wrong many times and the only reason they changed anything was because they got called out on it. is it no wonder they were scared to
make any data they had public.
I am not saying i am right in any reguard, but what i am saying is that NIST is not to be trusted, they lie, play ignorant,and totaly shun anybody who
tries to tell them anything else.
This video for example is a good way of showing what i mean by ignorance;
every action NIST takes just screams coverup, ignorance, and BS and i don't care how many experts they have science is meant to be open for
discusion, what is science without critisicm. not to be done behind closed doors and forced upon you
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.