W. Niederhut Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 The final draft of the University of Alaska study debunking the NIST coverup of the WTC7 demolition on 9/11 is out this week. Anyone with a working knowledge of Newtonian physics could have concluded as much years ago. The 47 floor steel skyscraper collapsed in an abrupt-onset, symmetrical free fall, indicating zero resistance-- i.e., a synchronized, simultaneous demolition of the steel columns. It's an irrefutable smoking gun, indicating that the 9/11 demolitions were staged, in advance, by experts. https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 On 3/28/2020 at 7:39 PM, W. Niederhut said: The final draft of the University of Alaska study debunking the NIST coverup of the WTC7 demolition on 9/11 is out this week. Anyone with a working knowledge of Newtonian physics could have concluded as much years ago. The 47 floor steel skyscraper collapsed in an abrupt-onset, symmetrical free fall, indicating zero resistance-- i.e., a synchronized, simultaneous demolition of the steel columns. It's an irrefutable smoking gun, indicating that the 9/11 demolitions were staged, in advance, by experts. https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf Anybody who has seen builders demolishing apartment buildings knew in an instant... what a world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 LOL not even submitted for peer review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 4, 2022 Author Share Posted July 4, 2022 On 4/18/2022 at 7:18 PM, Len Colby said: LOL not even submitted for peer review Len, Did you even read this academic paper? It was peer-reviewed. (See page iii for details.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) On 7/4/2022 at 8:04 PM, W. Niederhut said: Len, Did you even read this academic paper? It was peer-reviewed. (See page iii for details.) Yes, I read it. Fake peer review by other CTs Edited February 13 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 16 Author Share Posted March 16 On 2/13/2023 at 10:27 AM, Len Colby said: Yes, I read it. Fake peer review by other CTs They are scientists, fella. Have you studied any science at a collegiate or post-graduate level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 On 2/13/2023 at 12:27 PM, Len Colby said: Yes, I read it. Fake peer review by other CTs. That's the loony fringe's version of "peer review." They knew if they submitted that "paper" to regular, genuine peer review, it would have been torn to shreds and exposed as the trash it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 30 Author Share Posted May 30 On 5/25/2023 at 11:41 AM, Michael Griffith said: That's the loony fringe's version of "peer review." They knew if they submitted that "paper" to regular, genuine peer review, it would have been torn to shreds and exposed as the trash it is. Nonsense. Michael Griffith doesn't have the scientific education or background to legitimately review this study. Griffith doesn't even have the empirical ability to accurately perceive the serial explosions (on film) that pulverized the Twin Towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now