Those anti-establishment pundits who support the official story

I can't answer that but they have written many papers, produced many videos and enlisted experts such as Dr. Leroy Hulsey and all have been able to prove that NIST's hypotheses for the 3 towers are utter nonsense and scientifically impossible without getting into the steel distribution.

 

Might you expand on what you mean by the steel distribution?

 

Each of the Twin Towers had 116 levels, counting the 6 basement levels. The very bottom level Had To Be Strong Enough to support the 115 levels above. So obviously every level up from there had to support fewer levels and therefore less weight. But another factor was the function of the level. The Mechanical Floors were different. The had to support motors for the elevators and air conditioning units. But the 87 normal rental levels supported progressively less weight all of the way up the building. With 47 columns in the core there would have been 47 times 12 feet of vertical steel on most levels in the core. The Mechanical Levels were 14 ft high. But the length of horizontal steel bracing the columns would have had to be about 2.5 times that total length. I have NEVER SEEN any data on the thickness of those horizontal beams in the core and if it varied down the structure.

A couple of weeks ago some nitwit on YouTube told me that there were no horizontal beams in the towers.

I talk about the North Tower the most because it had the smallest portion that had to fall and destroy the largest portion in less than 30 seconds. I bring up the Eiffel Tower because it is basically a naked skeleton of 10,000 tons of wrought iron and anyone can see how it increases. Each tower was 100,000 tons of steel. Curious how I cannot find numbers. The ET would make 82 12 foot slices.

The conservation of momentum should make the North Tower collapse impossible but the lack of engineers and physicists talking about the distributions of steel and concrete make this situation peculiar especially after Two Decades.

What kind of a******s would they look like saying anything about it now?

A Canadian chemist, Frank Greening, wrote a paper where he divided the weight of the North Tower by 110. So he ignored the basements thereby making everything to heavy. Then did some fancy calculations assuming every level was the same weight. So he started with too much potential energy toward the top and presuming too much weakness toward the bottom.

If this did not possible me off so much it would be hysterically funny.

 

Damn this spellfix. That was supposed to be piss not "possible".

 

I am not sure how to say this without coming across as a jerk for pointing out the obvious but all of this had to be figured out before construction starts. There are lots of tall buildings all over the world. They all have to be built from the bottom up. So don't lots of experts have to be deliberately saying nothing?

Can they even make good cost estimates without knowing how much steel is going where?

Of course only some super rich people could pay for 9/11 regardless of the payoff. And all skyscrapers around the world are going to be financed by the super rich.

 

There's a reason why most expert 9/11 activists are retired. If they're employed and speak out about the obvious, they're labeled "conspiracy theorists" and can lose their jobs. Many are employed in industries that do business with the US government. Speaking out can be a career killer.

 

I'm still trying to decide which is the bigger lie, 911 or the Scamdemic. Don't know whether to laugh or cry....

 

Is either of them the biggest?

What is NDP, Net Domestic Product?

How often do you hear economists mention it?
The equation is:

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

That depreciation is for Capital Goods. The Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between capital goods and durable consumer goods. What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods every year since Sputnik? How many cars, refrigerators, televisions and microwave ovens have consumers trashed since WWII?

When do you hear economists talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles and other durable consumer goods?

The equation should be:

NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon) (reality)

NDP = GDP - Dcap (official economic delusion)

Dcap == Depreciation of Capital Goods
Dcon == Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods

GDP == Grossly Distorted Propaganda

Running a planet on defective algebra since WWII? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994. $1500 of annual depreciation would be $300,000,000,000 for one year. How many years since 1994? How many cars added to GDP since 1994?

Planned obsolescence could not be a complicated form of economic servitude could it?

 

Or the phony pyramid scheme that we all have to live with, the dollar that's not worth the paper it's printed on (now in digital form to strengthen control of the serfs) and of course the banking cartel run by the totally illegitimate Federal Reserve. And let's not forget the enforcement arm of that racket, the equally unconstitutional IRS.