Did the NIST Model Acknowledge the Fact, the Floor Support Joists Were Embedded in the Concrete Floors

PecosinRat · 2020-10-10T21:34:13+00:00

I don't believe that the connection of the concrete floor to the steel support structure was included in NIST's model. However, I'm not sure that's the same thing that you're talking about here. I think what I read was that NIST did not include the "studs" embedded in the floor.

PecosinRat · 2020-08-31T20:29:47+00:00

AE911Truth reports today that last Friday (28Aug2020) NIST refused to correct the inaccuracies in its report on the destruction of Building Seven of the World Trade Center. The truth group indicated that they will appeal that decision within NIST as the next step in its efforts to get acknowledgement of the white-wash nature of NIST's Building Seven report. Read AE911Truth's more detailed report of NIST's actions at the link above.

PecosinRat · 2020-08-31T20:26:54+00:00

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/706-statement-9-11-families-and-experts-to-appeal-egregious-nist-building-7-decision

PecosinRat · 2020-08-06T20:31:18+00:00

This article suggests that nuclear devices were the cause of the collapses of the towers on 9/11 and that there were no planes involved. This particular approach is a detriment to the efforts to bring about 9/11 truth, if for no other reason than 99% of the people will dismiss it out of hand. We must get to the point of broad public consensus that the official explanation is not just wrong, but criminally wrong, before the "how it happened" question can be asked and effectively answered. Until then the best strategy is bringing undeniable facts back to the public conversation rather than engage in speculations that--to many of the public--are a perfect demonstration of our dismiss-able nuttiness.

PecosinRat · 2020-08-06T20:04:06+00:00

While there seems to be logical reasons to involve intelligence agencies from outside the US in an operation of this kind (e.g. other country's operators might not be so squeamish with regard to actions that kill Americans). It is extremely premature to try to identify whether people or organizations outside the US might have been involved, what exactly that involvement might have been (lead, assist, look-the-other-way), and what they might expect in return. First, we need to get to the point that a strong majority of Americans understand that the "9/11 Commission Report" is a cover-up of crimes against humanity. Once that occurs, perhaps prosecutors can begin the court-dominated investigations needed to find out exactly who the criminals are. Justice at the level of local prosecutors, judges, and jurors is a lot more difficult to control. That's why so much effort has been made from day-one to avoid anything about 9/11 going to court.

PecosinRat · 2020-05-16T02:13:39+00:00

If that is true, the more important that we get the truth spread as widely as possible as soon as possible. History suggests that accepting a concentration camp fate doesn't really work out well.

PecosinRat · 2020-03-18T03:18:08+00:00

This page is quite interesting. The very short video points out the obvious, "Where is all the material that was supposed to have crushed a hole in the middle of building six?"

PecosinRat · 2020-01-21T17:39:22+00:00

The obvious candidates for actual responsibility for what happened on 9/11, Bush etal., can't have been the primary movers. Remember that Cheney avoided the draft for Vietnam and Bush was AWOL. These two people don't have the necessary guts to be more than administrators. There must be a person (more likely, "persons") who bankrolled the operation and provided the necessary leadership. While exposing the guilty is extremely important, it is much more important that the knowledge that this was a false flag makes it into the public's understanding of this event. We can't undo 9/11, but if people's first reaction to future extraordinary events is "That must be a false flag" then the usefulness of this tool to manipulate the public will be extremely diminished.

PecosinRat · 2019-03-23T02:29:14+00:00

A check of Lawyer's Committee website shows no news suggesting that they have received formal notification that a Grand Jury is being convened. The author of this article may have made an assumption that the fact that the U.S. Attorney acknowledged that the evidence met the standard for potential crimes that should go before a grand jury meant that the grand jury would be convened.

PecosinRat · 2018-12-04T01:20:39+00:00

This interview explains just how important the news is that the events of 9/11 and the evidence that the day wasn't what the government said it was may be put before a grand jury. Essentially, this could mean that a jury actually gets to see the evidence that has been accumulated over the last 17 years and decide if it is meaningful. Further, the package of evidence submitted to the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney's response to it has already gotten visibility to hundreds of main stream media outlets. The act of the US Attorney's office agreeing to look at the evidence could just let the cat out of the bag by making it possible for mainstream media to discuss the evidence without having to label it just tin hat conspiracy theory. While there are lots of "...slips twix cup and lip" this is still very hopeful news.

PecosinRat · 2018-11-14T03:37:49+00:00

Interesting, James. I've always felt that any arguments beyond the "asymmetrical damage versus symmetrical collapse" were unnecessary. However, I do understand what you're getting at.

PecosinRat · 2018-11-11T23:20:11+00:00

Seems to be missing all the physical evidence of the towers collapsing, or am I just missing something...?

PecosinRat