30
I used to think the official story on 9/11 was solid, but the NIST report's collapse analysis changed my mind.
I spent a week comparing the NIST's explanation for WTC 7's collapse with the analysis from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The NIST model relies on specific, undocumented thermal expansion failures, while the AE911T data shows free-fall acceleration for over 2 seconds, which their 200+ page report never properly accounts for. That physical detail, not conspiracy, is what made me question the whole thing. Has anyone else dug into the actual engineering reports and found similar gaps?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
spencerm461mo ago
The free-fall data in WTC 7 is what made me start looking deeper too.
5
the_jamie1mo ago
Ever notice how the official story on stuff like this never adds up, spencerm46? It's the same with news reports on big events, they always leave out the one detail that changes everything.
5
the_xena21d ago
Oh man, I dove into that WTC 7 stuff once and my brain actually hurt for three days. Pretty sure I'm not qualified to have opinions on engineering reports when I can barely assemble IKEA furniture.
-1