6
7

When did certain details about 9/11 become memes? I'm sick of this. (self.911truth)

mononaut が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Akareyon 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Isn't this exactly what NIST did as well?

First contradict truthers until overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary and then pretend it's what they've been saying all along? Yes, yes, you have a point there.

Is that meant as excuse or justification for you or for NIST?

[–]PhrygianMode -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's meant to show that NIST and the faithers who push their unproven theory are one in the same.

[–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's a faither?

[–]PhrygianMode -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you believe and push the official story (NIST) you are doing so based solely on faith. There are a few reasons for this:

  1. NIST never explained how global collapse occurred in either of the twin towers. Despite the fact that, according to NIST themselves, their very first "Specific Objective" was to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed. Instead, they simply stated that they were "unable to provide" an explanation of the total collapse, but assured us that once the collapse began, global collapse was inevitable. So we'll have to take their word for it.

  2. NIST "explained" their theory of global collapse of WTC7 in the section of their report entitled "The Probable Collapse Sequence." To prove this theory, NIST used a computer based collapse model. Not only did NIST not release the model data with the report, but they denied Freedom of Information Act requests (including one from a licensed structural engineer) for the data stating that the release would somehow "jeopardize public safety." This of course doesn't make sense due to the fact that they explained in their report exactly where the failure occurred that took down the entire building. Providing the data would simply prove their theory to be correct. So we'll have to take their word for it.