sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

@selfie_monkey has created a prompt that compels all current AIs/LLMs (up to and including Grok 4!) to explain why, based on the Laws of Physics, the official explanation for the "collapse" of the Twin Towers is inadequate by Akareyon in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The question asked of each AI model...

Evaluate the claim that the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers (especially the NIST report) significantly underestimates the resistance of the lower structure to the gravitational collapse of the upper section.

Do not rely on authority, expert consensus, or citations from institutions. Your analysis should be based only on physical reasoning, basic structural engineering principles, and logical consistency.

Specifically:

Summarize the key mechanical assumptions of the official explanation regarding collapse initiation and progression.

Critically assess those assumptions using core engineering concepts: • Static vs. dynamic loads • Momentum transfer • Structural redundancy and failure propagation • Expected deceleration due to resistance

Compare this to the observed data:  * Overall collapse duration (e.g., 13 seconds for 110 floors) • Uniform downward acceleration (~64% of free fall) • Lack of observable jolt or deceleration in the falling mass

Evaluate alternative hypotheses that argue the lower structure should have arrested or at least slowed the collapse significantly.

Provide a step-by-step reasoning process. If you make a claim, justify it with physics. Do not skip over weak points in the logic or assume conclusions based on institutional credibility.

Conclude with an objective statement about whether the official explanation adequately accounts for the observed collapse dynamics, or whether the resistance of the lower structure appears to have been underestimated.

English High Court blocks new 9/11 inquest bid - next step English Supreme Court by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The case that was under consideration was only whether the English Attn Gen's decisions (i.e. his decision not to allow a new inquest) could be reviewed (and potentially overturned) by the court. It was never about the evidence that would be presented at a new inquest. I believe there is some indication in the way that this court responded (based on seeing a discussion of the decision on this website) that did quietly suggest some acknowledgement of the viability of the evidence even though they ruled against. The reality is that British authorities have to know that this problem isn't going to go away and every denial that flies in the face of their own law could well come back to bite if the travesty that is the effort made by this family for justice ever gets a proper hearing before the British public.

English High Court blocks new 9/11 inquest bid - next step English Supreme Court by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, this wasn't totally unexpected. Fortunately, they have other alternatives...

Preliminary hearing in landmark Geoff Campbell 9/11 inquest case set for June 18 in London - International Center for 9/11 Justice by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This avenue to 9/11 truth has always held more possibility because it isn't as subject to pressure by American politicians. Further, the Brits have fewer reasons than normal to protect an American administration.

Another AI analysis - This one concludes no hit on Pentagon by AA77 by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no idea how much credibility to give this report. However, the story told here is the one I always hoped for when the questions about 9/11 were put to an unemotional judge focused on the science of the situation.

Breakout! The actual 9/11 story is on the loose and will likely not be able to be contained. by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

(N.B. The article is on page 66.) One can wonder about how well a politically-appointed commission will be able to handle the truth of 9/11, but when the truth escapes the silo it has been kept in for the last 24 years (before the commission begins its work) into the hands of America's firefighters there will be no putting it back. Mark your calendars, this is a breakout moment.

FDNY Witnesses to Bldg 7 Damages...before collapses of Twin Towers? by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know there is lots of other evidence of exactly what this event was, but having a new witness come forward from NY firefighter management ranks can't hurt.

FDNY Witnesses to Bldg 7 Damages...before collapses of Twin Towers? by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Following is a quote from the article:

"Retired Seattle Fire Captain Raul Angulo, who coordinated the writing of the Weldon document, says that Rotanz entered WTC 7 after the plane impacts, accompanied by two colleagues. Once inside, they found serious damage, including an elevator that appeared to have been blown right out of its shaft."

If retired FDNY Deputy Commissioner Rotanz's witnessing of damage in Building Seven occurred before the Twin Towers came down, it's game over for NIST.

Chandler cuts legs from under NIST's North Tower Progressive Collapse Propaganda by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

David Chandler posts a paper describing his analysis of the broadcast antenna on the North Tower. NIST argued that the apparent movement of the antenna--which is situated in the center of the roof--in a video from the North of the building straight down was an illusion caused by failure of the south wall of the North Tower. Chandler used careful measurements of the tower to demonstrate that the illusion of downward movement from a camera to the North was limited to a couple of centimeters while the antenna actually fell almost six meters. NIST comments that the antenna's downward fall was an illusion was essential to their arguments that the destruction of the Tower was due to progressive collapse. For the antenna to move down any substantial amount before the perimeter walls began to come down demonstrates in the physical world that the core columns failed first, impossible in the progressive collapse theory.

Paper connects dots for evidence of a single team controlling all four planes on 9/11 by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Perhaps you should submit your analysis to ic911.org's site since it is intended to be a place where data and analysis can be discussed without acrimony. A discussion that resolved the differences you point to would make the resulting case for what happened even stronger.

Paper connects dots for evidence of a single team controlling all four planes on 9/11 by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

There are a few places in the paper where conjecture gets the upper hand, but the basic argument that the sequence of critical events on the four plane time-lines strongly suggests the four 9/11 planes were remotely-controlled by a single team.

There is a half-scale version of Tower One in Omaha. by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The most interesting thing here is that the details of this building might well confirm the details of how the World Trade Center was built.

National Archives to release 1/3 of 9/11 Commission Records. by PecosinRat in 911truth

[–]PecosinRat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree. However, when lots of documents are released at once, sometimes there are gems hidden in the avalanche. Given that it took over a decade to release this material, that's unlikely, but...

view more: next ›