I argued for years that the official story on 9/11 was solid, then I read the NIST report myself.

For a long time, I'd just repeat what I heard on the news and shut down any 'truther' talk. About six months ago, a friend challenged me to actually read the 2005 NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. I finally did, and the timeline they give for the fire causing a total, symmetrical collapse in freefall speed just didn't add up with basic physics I learned in high school. That was the specific moment I realized I'd been defending a position I never actually checked. It made me question what else I just accept because it's the mainstream line. Has anyone else had a single document or study flip their view on a big, censored topic like that?

3 comments

3 Comments

elizabethn561mo ago

Yeah, that NIST timeline got me too.

terry_thomas1mo ago

What part got you?

vera_campbell1mo ago

Oh man, the part where they had to show the whole collapse step by step. Like watching a really depressing, super technical cartoon. Just a brutal way to spend an afternoon.