14
80

[–] DishonestCartooNIST 14 points 80 points (+94|-14) ago 

Smoking Gun: Free fall occurred in Building 7's collapse for 2.25 seconds. NIST was attempting to cover this up, but a physics teacher called them out at the public draft hearing. Surprisingly, in its final report released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but dishonestly placed it in bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video series was created by the man who forced NIST to admit free fall occurred and displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 coverup.

More info: http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/


Danny Jowenko - Demolition Expert: https://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08

  • Mr. Jowenko concludes that WTC 7 had to have been a controlled demolition without a doubt. (RIP)

9/11 Survivor Barry Jennings Uncut Interviews (WABC-TV, 2001, LC 2007): https://youtu.be/OmeY2vJ6ZoA

  • Barry talks about the explosions in Building 7 and his escape from it after tying to enter the office of emergency management area on the 23rd floor. (RIP)

These professionals appeared on C-SPAN last August to discuss the demolition evidence of 9/11 -- it is now the most popular video on the site since then, and #6 all-time: http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth — 400,000 views

Some of the members:

Steven Dusterwald, S.E. - Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/I7oti6KGEf4

  • Mr. Dusterwald presents contradictory evidence between the NIST model and the actual sequence of failures within all the WTC Buildings.

David Topete, MSCE, S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/v9WB1A9j8f8

  • Mr. Topete discusses how WTC Building 7's column 79's failure could not have caused the symmetrical and simultaneous collapse into it's own footprint.

Casey Pfeiffer, S.E. – Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/V4y6cweaegI

  • Mr. Pfeiffer provides a in-depth look at what actually happened to the top portions of the WTC towers prior to collapse and how WTC 7 could not have experienced simultaneous connector failure without the use of controlled demolition devices.

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/3WCcSHpvAJ8

  • Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST's analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition.

Ron Brookman S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/TM_l_4sJ-sY

  • Mr. Brookman discusses his direct inquiries with President Obama and NIST on NIST's responsibility to find the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7 and their responses.

They have been attempting to expose the fraud in the NIST reports, along with thousands of other professionals. Here are a few:

Bob Bowman PhD, Lt. Colonel (ret.):

https://youtu.be/CROB5p-1GjE

  • The former head of the Star Wars program under President Ford & Carter, has multiple engineering degrees and agrees that NIST is conducting a massive coverup. (RIP)

Lynn Margulis PhD:

https://youtu.be/O0fkDmi78Og

  • 1999 Presidential Medal of Science award winner and Carl Sagan's first wife, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report. (RIP)

Rudy Dent, 9/11 survivor and former Fire Marshall:

https://youtu.be/nQrpLp-X0ws

  • 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD Rudy Dent, speaks about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7 and gives his professional opinion on the destruction of the buildings with his experience as a Fire Marshall.

Another prominent member from this group is:

Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer: https://youtu.be/gJy7lhVK2xE

  • Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained.

Click here for their series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself--including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross--should be investigated.


Did you know? NIST did not follow standard fire investigation protocol:

Erik Lawyer – Firefighter: https://youtu.be/KsbbpUA9FHM

  • Mr. Lawyer presents investigative directives from the National Fire Protection Standards Manual that were never followed by NIST or FEMA for the fires they claim caused all 3 WTC Buildings to collapse.

Building 7 collapsed at 5:21 pm on 9-11-2001 - it was the first and only steel fire-proofed high rise in world history to collapse because of fire.

6
15

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 6 points 15 points (+21|-6) ago 

Hey. I cross-posted your C-SPAN submission to /v/science, glad you showed up. Impressive list.

5
2

[–] Gerplaunckamo 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

This thread is on the frontpage:

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views

Researching the claims produced this popular sentiment:

Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

The problem is this is the most common sentiment used today: demonize the messenger so you don't have the be held accountable to the message. Refuse to debate your critics. This implies that ignoring criticism undermines its credibility. But just the opposite is true. Ignoring criticism bolsters the critics.

This is an important principle of debate. The truth is not threatened by public scrutiny, but cowardly keyboard warriors today seem to think that the truth is some fragile princess that needs to be placed in an ivory tower to be protected. What these cowards are really admitting is that their fragile self-esteem needs to be protected. The truth laughs at their insecurity. When has the truth ever been threatened by a dissenting viewpoint?

0
3

[–] epsilona01 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The Building 7 thing has bothered me for some time now - but for different reasons than most I imagine. Like many, I had the TV on to the live news coverage as it was unfolding. Still strange to recall it. But at one point, they cleared the people away from Building 7, people were yelling "It's coming down", and the building fell. At that point, I thought they brought the building down on purpose. I can't recall everything I saw or all of what was said, but it all led me to believe that it was an intentional demolition.

Years later, I hear about the controversy.

1
0

[–] Snownewh 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Thanks for the list.

23
0

[–] Grospoliner 23 points 0 points (+23|-23) ago  (edited ago)

Except you are full of shit

Edit: I see that the Truthers are brigading the comments.

6
16

[–] Drenki 6 points 16 points (+22|-6) ago 

No, we watched the video and it's shit.

0
4

[–] mr_skeltal 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

TIL downvotes are always brigades

4
4

[–] 9-11 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

15
31

[–] JustWonderful 15 points 31 points (+46|-15) ago 

I find it always hilarious that when I bring it up I don't believe the official explanation in voat / reddit / wherever I get called a bunch of names I didn't even know about. No matter what you say or you try to bring the evidence their opinion won't change. Guess goverment's official word is the absolute truth in 99%'s eyes.

8
12

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 8 points 12 points (+20|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Why do good people become silent — or worse — about 9/11?

Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, to be presented here as a series, is comprised of a synthesis of reports on academic research as well as clinical observations.

Ms. Shure’s analysis begins with recognition of the observation made by the psychology professionals interviewed in the documentary “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who cite our human tendencies toward denial in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Indeed, resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview is the rule rather than the exception, Ms. Shure explains. This is so because fear is the emotion that underlies most of the negative reactions toward 9/11 skeptics’ information. Ms. Shure addresses the many types of fear that are involved, and how they tie into the “sacred myth” of American exceptionalism.

Source

2
1

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

This little blurb doesn't really support one viewpoint or the other, since it cuts all ways.

Psychological Omnislash!

It's super effective!

0
4

[–] Snownewh 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Of course. Government can do no harm, ever. /s

0
3

[–] TheRogueScholar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Well it's a scary proposition for most people. I think certain people actively reject cultivating a more critical viewpoint, because it opens up a huge Pandora's Box of paranoia. If you CAN'T trust the official government version, than who can you trust? It's pretty terrifying to finally understand that many of the people who are supposed to be protecting our best interests have not only abandoned their posts, but are actively involved in not only making us less safe, but creating an environment where it is all but certain to happen. All of that is pretty horrific, but then to add that they actually finance, and assist in the execution of these sorts of things, and it's no wonder most of your average everyday Americans just don't want to entertain that notion despite all of the clear evidence to the contrary. The government's not going to save us, nor is any corporation or special interest group. The people have only each other, which is not actually anything to slouch at. That's why I find it so comical that many of these people mindlessly defend these faceless individuals because of party loyalties or brand loyalties, or whatever rationalization they can muster, against their fellow citizens, who are only trying to make positive change or expose the omnipresent malfeasance that pervades this countries' power structures.

0
2

[–] old_soul 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah, it amazes me how the scientific method has been perverted to a culture of non-religion religious.

0
2

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The mod who censored this thread also deleted another rising submission: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/comments/433589

This is not acceptable.

0
2

[–] JustWonderful 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm not talking about that now. I'm talking about having a discussion about it. It's useless, basically thanks to comments such as what I got earlier yesterday. I have only said I do not agree with official report. That doesn't mean I would disagree with everything what it says. But hey, what does it matter? since I don't agree with everything what US government says about it I'm to be silenced by any mean necessary, without having a conversation about it, right? If I don't agree. It's this attitude of yours, spektards, idiots, tinfoil hats, haters, racists etc, you name it. But such is world, you have the right to express your opinion as long as it's the right opinion, otherwise you're better locked up in asylum! Everybody doesn't fucking have to agree on everything but they could still discuss it like adults do. False hope

2
16

[–] NikoMyshkin 2 points 16 points (+18|-2) ago 

I have a totally open mind about what really happened except that I do not consider the offical version to be logically possible. they're covering something up but I have no idea what.

1
7

[–] Lurch 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

I'm convinced it has something to do with Saudi involvement. Anything beyond that gets into "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory for me.

Specifically, I think that some high-level Saudis were responsible for supporting/financing the perpetrators. It's widely accepted that the Saudi royal family have some very extremist views, and obviously they have the private wealth to back that up. Blame was placed solely on Al Qaeda because it would have been politically inconvenient to call out the Saudis, what with all that oil and all.

0
2

[–] NikoMyshkin 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

God knows. You could well be right. All I know is that 9/11 was extremely useful to the Bush administration and to those that would impose fascism on the US.

0
2

[–] Belisaerio 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There are probably a lot of things being covered up; the Saudis, as you said, illegal actions, bad decisions and all of the opportunistic misconduct that this kind of situation allows. It's been observed in disaster after disaster; people cooperate, governments panic.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] DishonestCartooNIST 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This thread has been censored by the mods. It was #1 in the subverse and sitting on the front page of /v/All with 250+ upvotes. https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/comments/430022

3
0

[–] 9-11 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

4
15

[–] novictim 4 points 15 points (+19|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Awesome that you cited C-Span. It is one of the most bestest, if not THE "bestest", sites for real primary source information and content and interviews and analysis in all of media.

Don't over look C-Span folks. Between C-Span 1, Cspan 2 and Cspan 3, there is a ton of great content you won't find anywhere else.

3
4

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

This information needs to get out there, and the only reason C-SPAN took this guest on was because their shows/interviews were getting bombarded for months about Building 7 and 9/11 — there's a montage of some of it here: http://youtu.be/0LYH8bv5ZN4

I do not subscribe to "Inside Job" memes or "Bush Did it" — if anything both parties are involved and the president is just a puppet for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

7
-5

0
3

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This thread has been censored by @MathGrunt

This post reached the front page of all. It is now deleted.

0
2

[–] forgetmyname 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The modlog is missing from the /v/science sidebar

https://voat.co/v/science/modlog/deleted

Removed by MathGrunt at: 8/19/2015 6:44:09 PM. Reason given: This feature is not yet implemented

tell the admins. paging /u/Atko

0
1

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This submission was censored — the same mod deleted another rising submission today: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/comments/433589

4
13

[–] mr_skeltal 4 points 13 points (+17|-4) ago 

The emotional responses from people ITT who believe the official story indicate that they are too emotionally attached for objectivity.

1
12

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Cognitive dissonance is absolutely fascinating.

1
9

[–] mr_skeltal 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

It sure is. As a foreigner, I would wager that more people are skeptical than are believers outside of the US and the downright aggressive response to any mention of an alternative theory is uniquely American in my experience.

0
5

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Science mods have censored this thread. I believe it was @MathGrunt

The community upvoted this to an 8:1 ratio. It reached the front page/all.

This is unacceptable censorship

0
4

[–] mr_skeltal 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It absolutely is, and a ballsy move considering the timing.

0
2

[–] forgetmyname 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The modlog is missing from the /v/science sidebar

https://voat.co/v/science/modlog/deleted

Removed by MathGrunt at: 8/19/2015 6:44:09 PM. Reason given: This feature is not yet implemented

0
0

[–] hatesniggasandfags 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, that's the only possible explanation. Not the fact that believing in these conspiracies is borderline treason.

0
2

[–] mr_skeltal 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm not from the US so I don't care really, I don't much like the US to be honest.

3
10

[–] DangerWolf 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago  (edited ago)

If the towers were indeed brought down by a controlled demolition then what was the point of the airplanes crashing into the buildings? Were the airplanes a detonator, a cover, what was their purpose? If it was a government conspiracy, then why not just say the terrorists rigged the buildings with explosives and brought them down that way? I really want to understand this.

4
9

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago 

It's hard to say, I don't know. What we do know is that the NIST report is fraudulent and that the commission report was set up to fail by the White House.

We also know, due to basic Newtonian principles, that those 3 towers were brought down with explosives.

If you want to get into why, I guess that falls into the "theory" category and I don't like setting myself up for personal attacks by stating I know why 9/11 was a demoltion — but, here's a documentary that recently came out which covers EVERYTHING you could imagine.

September 11 - A New Pearl Harbor

http://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M

7
1

[–] escape 7 points 1 points (+8|-7) ago 

We also know, due to basic Newtonian principles, that those 3 towers were brought down with explosives.

That's a pretty bold claim that isn't supported by much more than conjecture and hearsay.

5
0

[–] Grospoliner 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

2
7

[–] CinnamicAcid 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Disclaimer: I am speculating and in no way endorsing any position on 9/11, I just think coming up with reasons is fun.

The planes would cause a spectacle and give reasons for reporters to show up. If terrorists planted bombs they'd probably want both buildings gone at the same time. But if it was two hijacked planes minutes apart, it gives time for the media to show up and broadcast the event. Planes crashing into buildings are also more dramatic then simply planting bombs. It combines previously held fears of flying with new fears of terrorist who could strike anywhere at any moment from the sky. When people see stuff like this they don't act rationally, and the government is then able to take advantage and do stuff they wouldn't normally have been able to do.

From a world and national perspective, 9/11 wasn't that big a deal. Only a few buildings where destroyed beyond repair, damage to others, and less than 3000 people died in a country of over 200 million. But because it was big and flashy and loud and scary, many americans will act as if it was the worst thing to happen in history.

1
5

[–] Dread_Pirate 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Same disclaimer - pure speculation. Bombs in a building wouldn't allow them to be able to search everyone who goes onto a plane, one of the biggest lasting changes of 9/11. Also, searching people before they get on a plane to travel is a lot easier to enforce and a lot more practical than searching everyone before they go into a building.

0
1

[–] bisaya 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That is equally fascinating and horrifying.

0
6

[–] FormerBaltimoreRes 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I wonder that as well. The reality is that there were three planes heading towards New York, one plane crashed and 2/3 hit their target. Yet 3/3 buildings fell. Something is off there.

0
1

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This submission has been censored, it was on the front page and rising in /v/all with hundreds of comments and upvotes. https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/comments/430022

0
4

[–] omegletrollz 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The planes were there to "take the blame" so to speak. Just like magicians make sudden movements with one hand to gather people's attention away from what they're really doing with the other one.

So basically: the airplanes were to be seen as the actual reason the towers collapsed, but they alone wouldn't have caused them to crash. This way the government can say that Arabs/Muslims/Terrorist were the ones piloting the planes as suicide for extremist religious beliefs.

The actual perpetrator is actually the USA government itself. If you believe that there is some sort of cover-up then ask yourself: why would the government do any cover up unless it is to cover itself up from the blame? There is no reason the government would want to cover up anyone else but itself.

26
9

[–] refugee610 26 points 9 points (+35|-26) ago 

@Bashlet, @MathGrunt, @Slug, @system, @Teh_Sauce_Guy, @YourBlueIsMyPurple

Please remove this conspiritard bullshit from /v/science. It's not science in any way.

4
30

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 4 points 30 points (+34|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The NIST report isn't science. And to advocate censorship of a C-SPAN interview -- the #1 video on the site mind you -- is despicable.

Scrutinize the information rather than censoring it. That's not science.

Edit: - Lynn Margulis PhD:

https://youtu.be/O0fkDmi78Og

1999 Presidential Medal of Science award winner and Carl Sagan's first wife, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report. (RIP)

-Rudy Dent, 9/11 survivor and former Fire Marshall:

https://youtu.be/nQrpLp-X0ws

32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD Rudy Dent, speaks about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7 and gives his professional opinion on the destruction of the buildings with his experience as a Fire Marshall.

What are your credentials? Why would you want to censor information?

18
0

[–] escape 18 points 0 points (+18|-18) ago 

Take this shit to /v/conspiracy or something.

12
-2

[–] TheBuddha 12 points -2 points (+10|-12) ago 

They are not advocating censorship, they are advocating putting it somewhere where it is topical. That is not censorship, not even close. I am sure you will see it as such and refuse to accept reality. That's a surprise, really.

0
1

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If I do, I will get the slobbering morons knocking at my door calling me an SJW or some other bullshit. But I will start doing it, soon.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

This post is on the front page of voat.

It has hundreds of comments and upvotes. It's C-SPAN — the WASHINGTON JOURNAL.

Censoring this thread over petty reasons is absolutely ridiculous. The community in science obviously was engaged considering the upvote ratio. Why delete this thread over such trivial reasonings? Discussing the NIST report is science.

3
1

[–] old_soul 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

All emotion, no scientific discussion at all, no arguments, just name calling and labelling. You skeptards are not scientific in any way. You guys are just stuck in your non-religion religion taking your hypotheses for granted.

[–] [deleted] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

7
7

[–] IntrinsicFactorSucks 7 points 7 points (+14|-7) ago 

When so much of the population is arguing over 9/11 there's gotta be some shit covered up.

4
17

[–] SmedleyButler [S] 4 points 17 points (+21|-4) ago 

The 9/11 commissioners said they were set up to fail, one of them--a US Senator--resigned in protest.

MAX CLELAND: The commission had to subpoena the F.A.A. for documents, had to subpoena NORAD for documents and they will never get the full story. That is one of the tragedies. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.

Source: http://m.democracynow.org/stories/4956

0
2

[–] HowSoonWasThen 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No, Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission because he was just appointed to the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Cleland WAS disgusted with the little amount of information that the 9/11 Commission could access but it wasn't his primary reason for leaving.

Also, the quote you listed does not appear in your link at all.

3
10

[–] PontarTourist 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

People can barely agree over what to eat for dinner, and kill each other over their choice of Sky Wizard. People selectively filtering information that doesn't conform to their own reality is hardly new.

0
0

[–] PiercingAjarDolphin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nah, it's just a way for the nation to process it. Some choose healthy ways, like helping out other people who were victims, while others sit and try and find scapegoats and imagine conspiracies that aren't true.

3
0

[–] escape 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

That isn't logical. The same (erroneous) statement can be made about GMOs, vaccines, chemtrails, etc. but we all know that disagreement over something doesn't legitimize opposition to it.

1
1

[–] I_EAT_THOUGHTS 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

You can accurately judge a conspiracy by asking, "does this affect rich people, and how?"

Chem trails, vaccines, GMOs - we can say fairly easily that if any of these were valid issues they would affect rich people negatively. They are less likely to be valid - but still not impossible.

Some people made billions of dollars in put-options of airline stocks, placed within days prior to 9/11, at a magnitude that makes "outlier" look like an incredible understatement.

It is, in fact, illogical to believe that anything is impossible - at least, unless you know literally everything there is to know about the universe. Hence, dismissing so many claims outright and without consideration is an assumption comparable to those made by the "conspiritards" you denigrate.

load more comments ▼ (22 remaining)