9/11 theory...

[P1tchblack]

University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower's Collapse on 9/11

FAIRBANKS, Alaska, Sept. 4, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) following a four-year computer modeling study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


The UAF team's findings contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire. The collapse of WTC 7 has long been the subject of controversy, with critics of the government's account arguing it was brought down in a controlled demolition.


More:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yah...00146.html

[Brutus Buckeye]

[TakeThePoints]

ComputerBuck likes this.

[zigbee]

I could have sworn I saw with my OWN EYES a plane or two fly into these buildings.....hmmmmmm

[ScarletHayes]

So what was the take home?  

Fwiw, every time I hear "controlled demolition" in regards to 9-11 I have to fight the urge to lmao.  So Bush, who was bought and paid for by Wall St types, wanted to bring down the WTC because....

[P1tchblack]

I could have sworn I saw with my OWN EYES a plane or two fly into these buildings.....hmmmmmm

Two planes hit two buildings.  Three total buildings fell.

[maize]

Most view government as incompetent, you think they were competent enough to pull this off and we are talking 18 years later?

[P1tchblack]

Most view government as incompetent, you think they were competent enough to pull this off and we are talking 18 years later?

You don't have to blame the government to acknowledge that the collapse wasn't caused by fire.

[maize]

Most view government as incompetent, you think they were competent enough to pull this off and we are talking 18 years later?

You don't have to blame the government to acknowledge that the collapse wasn't caused by fire.

Who is to blame?

[TakeThePoints]

Most view government as incompetent, you think they were competent enough to pull this off and we are talking 18 years later?

You don't have to blame the government to acknowledge that the collapse wasn't caused by fire.

Who is to blame?

Trump.

[3rdgensooner]

When the article brings up controlled demolition and refers to fruitcakes and conspiracy nuts as critics time to laugh and walk away.

[P1tchblack]

Most view government as incompetent, you think they were competent enough to pull this off and we are talking 18 years later?

You don't have to blame the government to acknowledge that the collapse wasn't caused by fire.

Who is to blame?

If you read the article, nobody is claiming to know what/who to blame.  The people doing the study are asking congress to re-open the case because they believe that the original conclusion was incorrect.

[cincydawg]

You need a viable alternative theory.

[JamesWright]

Or even an unviable alternative theory. Or any theory at all.

[P1tchblack]

I don't think it's the researchers job to determine how the building went down. They're just saying that the current provided reason is incorrect and there needs to be an investigation.