New published physics article points out NIST limitations and need for new investigation.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Truthful

Banned
Banned
Here is a link to the published physics article

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf


In it it discusses the assumptions NIST made without any further explanations and the likelihood of these assumptions being true.


It concludes that a growing number of science based people are beginning to ask legitimate questions in how fire and gravity created three unparalleled events.


So this seems to go against the NIST explanation and seems to give deeper explanations than NIST ever did.


Is this a bunk article or have these group of published physicist found legitimate grievances with the NIST report and demonstrated such accordingly?
 
Is this a bunk article or have these group of published physicist found legitimate grievances with the NIST report and demonstrated such accordingly?


This was already posted:

https://www.metabunk.org/scientific...e-to-controlled-demolition.t7895/#post-189957

There is nothing new here...although one of the authors, Tony Szamboti, has participated extensively here:

https://www.metabunk.org/members/tony-szamboti.2740/

you should really check out the 9/11 forum:

https://www.metabunk.org/9-11.f28/
 
Well they bring up valid points like how fire and gravity can't account for the massive amount of pulverization that occurred within seconds. Gravity and fires aren't that strong ever!


Are you aware that according to the official story that 220 stories of mostly undamaged building constituents were pulverized into a dust pile that didn't raise over the lobby levels Within seconds ?
 
i'm locking this thread. i will delete it shortly. @Truthful i already sent you the link to where this article is being discussed. If you post this yet again i will put you in moderation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top