9/11 Conspiracy theorist comes to /r/nyc (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
25 ups - 0 downs = 25 votes
50 comments submitted at 03:45:11 on Jun 29, 2014 by Hamzaboy
9/11 Conspiracy theorist comes to /r/nyc (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
25 ups - 0 downs = 25 votes
50 comments submitted at 03:45:11 on Jun 29, 2014 by Hamzaboy
Building 7 was not hit by a plane, debris from the two other buildings collapse had no bearing on the collapse of this skyscraper, which collapsed due to scattered office fires (first and only time in history) and even experienced free-fall for 2.25 seconds, according to NIST, who have never explained how that could possibly happen.
I live in New York, people are starting to wake up big time.
> I live in New York, people are starting to wake up big time.
Is it morning time there?
Fuckin hell, it's always the youtube videos! Every single god damn time! Can you people just find something...ANYTHING else to get a source from?
That would mean having to read stuff, and truthers and conspiracy theorists are not exactly the most literate people around.
It is a compilation of WTC 7 collapsing, symmetrically, at free-fall for a substantial amount of time.
Why does it matter where the videos are hosted?
It doesn't matter where the videos are hosted, what matters is that they're videos. Don't you have any journal articles? Photographs that prove there were demolition charges in the buildings? Math doesn't lie, how about some actual proof that they fell at "free-fall" speed? Here's a hint for you: HEAVY FALLING THINGS + BIG BUILDING = BUILDING FALL DOWN
By the way, if it wasn't hit by debris, where did this TEN STORY GASH come from, hm?
Indeed, math does not lie, so then, how do you explain free-fall in building 7?
This is NISTs graph, as you can clearly see (added with all the video evidence), free-fall happened for 2.25 seconds, this is an undeniable fact.
NISTs theory has never been scientifically corroborated because NIST refuse to release any relevant information regarding their theory, it is not, can not, be considered a piece of scientific literature
Steel framed skyscrapers do not fall down symmetrically, due to isolated office fires, you have to be completely stupid to think otherwise, the NIST theory is absurd and at odds with basic science and common sense.
> NISTs theory has never been scientifically corroborated because NIST refuse to release any relevant information regarding their theory, it is not, can not, be considered a piece of scientific literature
PS m8, this is complete bullshit, here's why: http://np.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilationofscientificliteraturethat/
Saving that link. Thanks.
WTC 7 collapsed at 5pm in the afternoon, it was hit by debris at 9am when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, it was bowing structurally since at least 2 in the afternoon, which is when firefighters started to abandon operations in and around WTC 7 for fear of collapse.
It didn't fall down symmetrically, it buckled under its own weight after 2 to 3 hours of visible loss of structural integrity, the firefighters working on it knew, were they in on it?
They were not "scattered" and "isolated." They were fierce and burned for a really long time, with a broken sprinkler system.
This is all pointless anyway. You'll never convince anyone, so go do something else.
> By the way, if it wasn't hit by debris, where did this TEN STORY GASH come from, hm?
NIST have categorically confirmed that debris from the other two falling towers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7.
> “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
>had nothing to do with the collapse
Other than initiating the fires, as it says on page xxxvii, not xxxii like you lied.
We got a live one here.
> Building 7 was not hit by a plane,[1] debris from the two other buildings collapse had no bearing on the collapse of this skyscraper
There are dozens and dozens of reports from fire fighters saying that they were pulled out of building 7 because everybody saw it was damaged and only a matter of time before it fell.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Here is an email from Chief Daniel Nigro who was on the scene and talking specifically about you conspiracy nuts.
"Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
============================================
One side has actual qualified eye witnesses and a mountain of evidence, you have a fucking youtube video.