Oct 16 - NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

most viewed right now
 124
Video inside US DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASES NAVY JET ENCOUNTER WITH UFO VIDEO :mjd..
55 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 76
Video inside Unseen 50 & Yayo footage in 2000 for cash money Tour!
22 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 69
Nicki Minaj speaks up against White rappers taking over the charts
310 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 59
Frequent Flier Series: Brazil
5 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

9/11 Was An Inside Job

Props Slaps
 10 years ago '04        #1
8280 pageviews
267 comments


Adam A 19 heat pts19
space
avatar space
space
$4,516 | Props total: 85 85
Oct 16 - NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
 

 
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed


The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter
[pic - click to view]

 (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.
"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."
"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



[pic - click to view]

 http://prisonplanet.com/a .. ist_admits.htm


Last edited by Adam A; 10-16-2007 at 06:19 PM..

267 comments for "Oct 16 - NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"

 10 years ago '06        #2
Kingme 7 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$10,917 | Props total: 7614 7614
damn!
 10 years ago '05        #3
MeziaaL 4 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$15,469 | Props total: 2489 2489
you kno they gotta keep they mouth shut
 10-16-2007, 06:27 PM         #4
ill800 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
if george bush came out on national tv and said that he knocked down the towers himself, almost everyone would continue on with their normal day
 10-16-2007, 06:51 PM         #5
the hater 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
free mike vick
put george bush in jail
 10 years ago '04        #6
Chea! 
space
space
space
$998 | Props total: 0 0
If Bush did in fact say that, I am willing to bet a catastrophe near the whitehouse. People are convinced that 9/11 was performed by Terrorists and to find out that it could have been the man who runs the country would cause so much drama.

I predict many important people would die.

Insanity would ensue.
 10-16-2007, 07:12 PM         #7
DaminOG™ 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
this was a goverment thing period. too much evidence of such
 10 years ago '05        #8
Sheeed 1 heat pts
space
space
space
$12,028 | Props total: 12 12
ppl will still blindly believe it is ALL the result of the Osama Bin Laden
 10 years ago '05        #9
danny|M 7 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$36,288 | Props total: 2652 2652
It wasn't an "inside job." It's impossible. The total collapse is explainable, but no scientific experiment could EVER prove that because they would have to construct the SAME EXACT buildings, EXACTLY with the same materials and everything with the SAME EXACT conditions and causes. To do this is close to impossible. No, it wasn't 100% because of Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't even 100% because of the terrorists hitting the building, but that is what is the bulk of the cause. Poor construction along with cheap building materials and blown off fire-resistant foam on the steel beams contributed to a large portion of the failure of the structural support as well as part of the collapse. A Boening that size with an almost full tank of jet fuel was also a huge contributor to the failure and collapse of the Twin Towers. The Towers was a "Pancake Collapse," which meant that one floor fell on top of the one below it and so on. One floor can only support a certain amount of weight. Once that weight limit is exceeded the floor and its supports start to bend and then buckle to the point where it fails and falls onto the next floor below that floor. With each collapse of each floor comes more weight and that means the floors fail a lot faster as what is common with pancake collapses with higher buildings or a structure with a lot of sections. One thing is certain, though, there are a lot of explanation why it couldn't have been planned or a controlled demolition. The evidence of it being a deliberate collapse from the initial crash of the planes is staggering and all over. Conspiracy theories and controlled demolition theories are proved wrong all the time. I've seen hundreds of theories shot down because of the evidence proving them wrong.
 10-16-2007, 10:37 PM         #10
theoffsprg 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Apparently it can be explained by science! I'll trust Cambridge University over prisonplanet any day of the week.


 10 years ago '06        #11
Malcolm 34 heat pts34
space
avatar space
space
$6,129 | Props total: 1204 1204
fu*k all that. This sh*t was an inside job. I've always said it and further investigation of the video of the tower collapse is enough to prove it. How does the building fall down and not over if a plane collides into it. It shouldn't have fallen down in the first place because there's no reason that there should have been fire down at the bottom of the building for the steel to melt. The building collapsed. I could see if it had fallen over, but the damn thing collapsed. And it didn't even collapse in steps, the whole thing just fell. Come on now, that was a demolition collapse. Not a fire based collapse.
 10-16-2007, 11:08 PM         #12
ARbz1353 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 ima80baby said:
fu*k all that. This sh*t was an inside job. I've always said it and further investigation of the video of the tower collapse is enough to prove it. How does the building fall down and not over if a plane collides into it. It shouldn't have fallen down in the first place because there's no reason that there should have been fire down at the bottom of the building for the steel to melt. The building collapsed. I could see if it had fallen over, but the damn thing collapsed. And it didn't even collapse in steps, the whole thing just fell. Come on now, that was a demolition collapse. Not a fire based collapse.
It wasn't an "inside job." It's impossible. The total collapse is explainable, but no scientific experiment could EVER prove that because they would have to construct the SAME EXACT buildings, EXACTLY with the same materials and everything with the SAME EXACT conditions and causes. To do this is close to impossible. No, it wasn't 100% because of Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't even 100% because of the terrorists hitting the building, but that is what is the bulk of the cause. Poor construction along with cheap building materials and blown off fire-resistant foam on the steel beams contributed to a large portion of the failure of the structural support as well as part of the collapse. A Boening that size with an almost full tank of jet fuel was also a huge contributor to the failure and collapse of the Twin Towers. The Towers was a "Pancake Collapse," which meant that one floor fell on top of the one below it and so on. One floor can only support a certain amount of weight. Once that weight limit is exceeded the floor and its supports start to bend and then buckle to the point where it fails and falls onto the next floor below that floor. With each collapse of each floor comes more weight and that means the floors fail a lot faster as what is common with pancake collapses with higher buildings or a structure with a lot of sections. One thing is certain, though, there are a lot of explanation why it couldn't have been planned or a controlled demolition. The evidence of it being a deliberate collapse from the initial crash of the planes is staggering and all over. Conspiracy theories and controlled demolition theories are proved wrong all the time. I've seen hundreds of theories shot down because of the evidence proving them wrong.
and lol @ this source again, 10,000 page report? LMFAO, then the guy who came out with it? Barnett from scholars for 9/11 truth? they'll say anything against bush. how do people believe this stuff is real? visit the NIST website, aint nothing about this on there.


they put so much fake sh*t out against bush and people believe it cuz they need something to hate in their sh*tty lives.

9/11 was not an inside job. The total collapse happened. sometimes sh*t goes down like that you can't explain everything, unless the exact same thing were to happen again and you could record all the things that caused it.


Last edited by ARbz1353; 10-16-2007 at 11:13 PM..
 10-16-2007, 11:08 PM         #13
theoffsprg 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 ima80baby said:
fu*k all that. This sh*t was an inside job. I've always said it and further investigation of the video of the tower collapse is enough to prove it. How does the building fall down and not over if a plane collides into it. It shouldn't have fallen down in the first place because there's no reason that there should have been fire down at the bottom of the building for the steel to melt. The building collapsed. I could see if it had fallen over, but the damn thing collapsed. And it didn't even collapse in steps, the whole thing just fell. Come on now, that was a demolition collapse. Not a fire based collapse.
Yeah! fu*k science! Is there any point in producing math/science evidence if almost everyone here is just going to ignore it and believe what they want anyways?
 10-16-2007, 11:20 PM         #14
OOps 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
thats cause the jewish owner pulled a stunt, collected his insurance money and walked away...... Brilliant plan, and they got away with it, because most dumb americans believed it was the so called "terrorist" "arabs" that want to harm the common man in u.s.a and crashed into the buildings.


I wonder what happened to all of those bush supporters, and people who truly believe al queda destroyed these buildings to attack the u.s>>> u guys and girls give ur self a pat on tha back, because u got played like a fool
 10 years ago '07        #15
stogz 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$41,097 | Props total: 30497 30497
This shud be common f**kin' knowledge.... anyone who thought otherwise is an absolute moron.


No terrorists knockdown any buildings or hijacked any planes on Sept. 11/01.


@ this being considered news
 10-16-2007, 11:58 PM         #16
ARbz1353 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 From Da Future said:
explain why there where firef!ghters counting down the collapse of wtc 7 ...i bet you a hunned smackeroonies you cant ....imo if you havent researched the subject thoroughly its best you just shut your trap.
I was 12 when that happened and i was waiting for the buildings to come down.

and I bet you heard they were counting down from a similiar bs site where they feed to people who will believe anything people tell them.

I've done research, sure their are some truth to the conspiracies, but then get dismissed by facts. The truth is on this one, some terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the WTC, what happened afterwards was the worse catastrophe in recent memory. How it happened can be explained, but is hard to withouth the exact same conditions on what happened that day. But people blinded by hate want to attack bush because another idiot blinded by hate for bush told them some bs. open your eyes people, your just as blind as the people you claim are stupid for believe that 9-11 was caused by terrorists.
 10-17-2007, 12:03 AM         #17
Jimbo 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Bush and his cronies didn't "plan" 9/11 themselves you fu*king idiots, they simply "let it happen."
 10 years ago '07        #18
stogz 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$41,097 | Props total: 30497 30497
 ARbz1353 said:
and lol @ this source again, 10,000 page report? LMFAO, then the guy who came out with it? Barnett from scholars for 9/11 truth? they'll say anything against bush. how do people believe this stuff is real? visit the NIST website, aint nothing about this on there.


they put so much fake sh*t out against bush and people believe it cuz they need something to hate in their sh*tty lives.

9/11 was not an inside job. The total collapse happened. sometimes sh*t goes down like that you can't explain everything, unless the exact same thing were to happen again and you could record all the things that caused it.

It's idiot people like you that allow for gov'ts to rig elections and destroy innocent countries....


First of all, Sept 11/01 was NOT the first time a plane crashed into a building... nor is it the first time a raging inferno took place near the top floors of a skyscraper. However, Sept 11/01 is the FIRST time (and second time) an entire building made of steel collapsed due to "fire".

In the past, a B-52 bomber ( a plane much bigger and carries much more fuel than a commercial jet) crashed into a building.... yet, no building collapse.

Somewhere in latin america (Argentina i think), Raging inferno collapsed 6, I REPEAT, SIX floors near the top of a skyscraper..... yet, no collapse. (Poster's note: there is no special way to build a skyscraper... the same way it's built in the U.S. is the same way it's built all over the world).


TAKE A F**KING GRADE 10 SCIENCE CLASS!!!!


If you do the smallest bit of research... you can prove that you are a dumbass. Jet fuel cannot 1) reach a high enough temperature to melt the steel girders, 2) Jet fuel cannot sustain a slow burn. THOSE ARE FACTS!!!! Jet fuel burns up on impact... so, when a plane crashes, and you see a "firey flash", that was the jet fuel burning up. (Jet fuel is alot different than cooking oil).

Next, if you actually LOOK at the tapes of the buildings' actual collapse.... YOU CAN F**KING SEE EACH ACTUAL IMPLOSION SET OFF BY PLACED EXPLOSIVES.... FLOOR BY FLOOR EVEN!!!!!

Next, an inexperienced pilot CANNOT, (it is actually so highly unlikely that it is impossible), control a plane in the manner that they say the plane was controled on 9/11. To go from 20,000 feet and then do a u-turn and crash into the ground floor of the pentagon . The greatest video game player of all-time couldn't even do that on a real flight simulator. First off, the plane would stall and fall out of the sky. A turn like that is impossible.... AND, that commercial plane cannot, CANNOT descend from that altitude, that quickly.

Also, in regards to the pentagon plane.... it "crashed" in D.C. (well, West Virgina). If any of y'all had ever been to the Pentagon, you will know it is 5 minute drive from the white house.... my point? Well, D.C. is a tourist destination AND D.C. is one of the more secure places on earth.... you mean to tell me absolutely NO footage of that plane from tourists or security cameras from the premises or more importantly, off the premises caught any footage of a big a.ss plane hitting a building???!?? Think about it.

Lastly, have you ever seen what a commercial plane crash site looks like? Plenty of commercial planes have crashed in history due to varying reasons.... however, each crash scene looks the same.... a plane in ruins. What makes the crash site at the Pentagon and that field in pennsylvania different than other commercial plane crash sites??? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE HAVING CRASH!!!!
 10-17-2007, 12:10 AM         #19
DaminOG™ 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
the fact alone dude said he was only 11 when it happened voids anything he has to say.
bi*ch needs to shut the fu*k up and go watch Loose Change 2nd Edition and learn some real facts that his master bush dont want you to know. so until you REALLY know your facts on both sides and that doesnt mean getting info from biased sites and news channels and youtube shut your mouth and know your role jabroni
 10-17-2007, 12:10 AM         #20
Jimbo 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 stogz said:

First of all, Sept 11/01 was NOT the first time a plane crashed into a building... nor is it the first time a raging inferno took place near the top floors of a skyscraper. However, Sept 11/01 is the FIRST time (and second time) an entire building made of steel collapsed due to "fire".
lmfao. You say it wasn't the only time huge-ass commercial airliners flew at FULL SPEED into ENORMOUS skyscrapers? Can you please show me these "other times." lol.

The twin towers were bigger than you could ever imagine. Slowly melt away the support of buildings that large in the middle of them and the top parts are OBVIOUSLY going to cave in on the rest of the buildings. Common fu*king sense.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 65
Steph Kegels
112 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 46
Image(s) inside Jeezy wildin 😩😩😂😂😂
117 comments
23 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 40
Niggas just crucified Lil Kim
118 comments
22 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 35
Kevin Hart X-mad card
78 comments
20 hours ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 33
Image(s) inside Bx, can she be saved? Or is she Too Far Gone?
75 comments
18 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 28
Image(s) inside Dec 15 - Matt Damon Is Sharing All His Bad Opinions on Sexual Misconduct
37 comments
20 hours ago
@news
most viewed right now
 26
Image(s) inside Dec 16 - Virginia woman killed by her pit bulls in ‘grisly mauling’
169 comments
20 hours ago
@news
most viewed right now
 24
Image(s) inside Girl, you look so good, it's to die for (die for) | Ooh, that pus-y go..
22 comments
23 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy