In the watergate incident about 4 people knew about it and it was leaked. in order for 9/11 to be a conspiracy there would have to be around 10,000 people who knew about it. no-one leaked anything. it wasn't an inside job, get over it, you're slowing down the process of mankind.
You can find an expert to say what you want,that isn't difficult. This guy doesn't look like he'd have the balls or heart to go against the govt "official account". The simple question is would 3 buildings fall from 2 plane strikes and fire perfectly and completely into their own footprint at near freefall speed? Never happened before or since.Also don't forget these towers were designed and built to withstand airliner impact and fire. You'd have to stupid to believe it,then u have the Pent
In no way was the WTC constructed to withstand 80 floors falling onto the rest of the building.
The "construed to withstand an aircraft flying into the building" might be true but there are smaller aircraft than 737s. Like the sportsplane that flew into a building a short timer after 9-11 and caused broken windows. The aircraft that crashed into the WTC were also fresh out of airport and had most of their fuel left as I understand it. Which did no good at all for either people or buildings.
The building so called "collapsed on itself" by floors basically falling on top of each other and did this as fast as it would if it was a controlled demolition? Think about that for a second. You don't think that even one floor would shift slightly off center and tilt the rest of the building or slide off? You think the amount of jet fuel in those planes weakend and destroyed the entire infastructure of a building almost a 1/4 mile high after it withstood an impact of a jetliner flying into it?
No building as tall as the WTC could ever fall perfectly downward as it did without a controlled blast. The only part of the tower that "fell off" was the top above the impact onto the Marriott below. Go time how fast the building fell (WTC that is) and then use Newtons law and you will calculate the building basically "free fell". No jet fuel or anything else "melted" the steel at 2400F or 1300F to warp it (the temp that jet fuel burns is 600F). This isn't conspiracy, it's fucking science.
What I am suggesting is that the documentary researchers never even questioned - in fact just assumed - he would be an expert on demolition cleanup as well.
I have seen stories about him before, but no mention was ever made of any cleanup services offered by his company.
In that business you focus on the demolition itself and move on to planning or executing the next project.
I also wonder how much he would say about Thermite/Thermite if asked.
I apperciate your suggestion bro. This is a clip from one of the most respected news agencies in the world the 'BBC' not conspiracy folk (narration included). The company do demolish buildings AND clean them up - so they are experts at it, that's why they were called in as consultants. Mark told lies and changed the focus of the discussion. He's been caught out. Tell the BBC they got there facts wrong about this story not me.
You are a full blown imbecile. You have a demolition expert who blows your stupid theory out of the water and you put your fat shiny BBQ eating redneck head in the ground. The fact is that your are such fascist nut job that you doesn't believe in existence of Al-Qaeda!!! Your childish version of events are laughable. Did planes hit the towers? Were there really hijackers? When did were the buildings rigged with Thermite? Let's exam the inconsistencies in your theory.
Since you are the Nazi demolition expert, let's ask your expert opinion on a simple question. How many holes would have to be drilled into the I-Beams of each of the Twin Towers to bring it down according to your theory? How did the demolition experts access these I-Beams? How long do you suppose that it would take to pull off such a job? How many people would be involved? Why hasn't one person come forward to talk during the last 8 years?
According to your genius theory, the government was masterminded, then implemented the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. It was so perfectly coordinated and tight lipped, that not one of the hundreds of collaborators have uttered a word. Yet, these same 'masterminds' decide to make these hijackers citizens our closest Arab ally?! They went to trouble to frame the hijackers on Al Quaeda...the organization that doesn't exist but they could fake evidence linking Osama Bin Laden?
So who cleans up the mess? He blows 'em then cleans up the debris. He's an expert at demolition and at the clean-up after the demolition, that's why they hired him - because the WTC site was a controlled demolition site. Who better to hire?
Genius, they haul the mess off in dump trucks and bulldozers. The demolition expert has little to do with cleanup since that requires no specialization. Controlled collapse is only used because it's quicker, not necessarily cheaper than taking a multistory building apart piece by piece. Have you ever considered the logistics for what you insinuate? I would love for you to outline your entire conspiracy theory. We've been waiting 8 years for your alternative version of what happened!
@SpudXXXX You need too look at the bigger picture.....why does EVERY CONTROLLED DEMO on youtube have massive explosive sounds in the video before and during the falls but there are no explosive sounds on any of the videos on any of the 3 building that fell on 9/11.
@MrBoredatwork "You need too look at the bigger picture"
I agree, your best option here would be to take a look at ALL possibilities. You obviously are unaware of Thermite Cutter Charges and Thermite being used in controlled demolitions. The reason you don't see radio controlled demolition being used and thermite is due to cost. It does not mean that no one can use them. Its time you started thinking outside of the box.
P.S. You should look further then YouTube in your research.
@Tzimnewman3 I use youtube for video evidence only. Its easy to use youtube for video evidence because this site, by far, has the highest amount of demolitions to use as examples and to help compare those. I get my information from a ton of other places. I would tell you where but I am about 100% certain you could care less. BTW, Thermite was never found in the dust. The found sulfur, aluminum, and zinc. 3 things that were HEAVILY used in the construction of the towers.
@SpudXXXX The most common come back question I get when I mention demolition is "What about the miles of detonating cord needed?" Well that one is simple, radio controlled. The next one is no evidence of cutter charges which is another easy one since most cutter charges destroy themselves in the detonation. Then the one I call (The statement of last resort) which is: "Why would the Government do such a thing". I wonder if the Germans of 1938, would say the same thing if told the truth.
What I noticed in this piece is probably nothing but the woman narrating introduces Louiseax by saying he was brought in to consult about the removal of debris 3 days afterwards.
Ahm excuse me. But isn't demolition technology require specific levels of expertise and planning enough to keep him busy? Even on his own projects I doubt his company sticks around to supervise welders and excavator operators.
Key quote that is conveniently not applied to riverview implosion example:
"if the explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building were detonated, the windows all the way around would be shattered"
Obviously 'big building' being applied to sky-scrapers such as the WTC-towers.
So how does the demolition of an 8-9 story concrete 'tower block' structure hold any relevance to what would be required to sever the support columns in a 110 story framed tube structure?
He never seen the backs of the Twin Towers or WTC7 they were demolished. He was talking about smaller buildings on or surrounding the WTC site. Please stick to the point.
Again, how does the example apply? Your referencing unbroken windows on the facade of a building (both smaller and structurally different) being demolished and trying to apply that to this guys explanation of what affect explosives with the energy to sever the WTC tower columns would have had on the glass of surrounding buildings. Where's the connection? There is no established "point" to stick to.
You make a valid point bro. I'm just trying to make the point that he said 'I didn't see the windows broken on the backs of buildings', he was speaking about standing buildings. If there's no connection it's because he made an invalid connection to confuse listeners- why does he speak about what has no connection?
This video is recklessly inaccurate & proves nothing. 1) Loizeaux wasn't "brought to ground zero", he arrived uninvited trying to get demo work and was banned from site by mayor's office for repeatedly claiming to media he was "in charge". He did nothing at site but leave in disgrace. 2) He's referring to a shape charge, but the blast shown is Humana bldg in Louisville, made of concrete (and thus shot with conv dynamite). There's no practical relation between shapes & dyno. C'mon dude, get real-
To be fair he DID say "if explosives were used to take down a building of this MAGNITUDE windows all around would be shattered". He never implied it would be impossible in smaller structures.
And still the explosions and demo flashes can be be clearly seen in the first vid @ 1:04 and explosions heard in the second ALL before the buildings fell. 9-11 was not a controlled demolition.
Your mixing up two theory's. Initially Steven Jones conjectured Thermate was at the Towers because of the amount of sulfur found in dust samples when in reality many materials in the Towers contained sulfur.
And recently samples supposedly collected in 2001 (none by experts and none at the Trade Centers) sent to Jones contained what they call "active thermitic material" (not nano-thermite or thermate) with no absolute proof of there origin, prevelance or possible alternative explanations.
Never implied Steven Jones created the samples. Its a fact none of the so-called "unignited thermitic material" were collected by experts (they were supposedly collected by NY "residents") nor were they collected at ground zero (one was collected at the brooklyn bridge, another 5 blocks from ground zero in someones apartment. Literally).
And I have no clue where the (non related) sulfur ridden aka "thermate" samples came from. Jones doesn't provide a chain of custody.
Well think about for a sec. If they are genuine samples, the "active thermitic material" should not be in the dust. So they had to have been faked if they are not real. That's a pretty unlikely conspiracy theory.
Amazing how quickly people take the governments side when a conspiracy theory is needed to cover their asses.
I'm not saying they're not real. They don't have to be fake. They simply can have alternative explanations that the "truthers" don't give time to investigate. I find it interesting that the "active thermitic material" bear an uncanny resmbalance to paint chips.
And also the fact unreacted thermite is a powder with a grayish color (not a red solid chip). Its quite likely if this is paint as some conjecture, the paint chemical composition would explain why these different chemicals were found.
Wow, talk about stretching for an answer. Can't you see the irony? People that so easily dismiss a mountain of evidence, now strain for the wildest of possibilities to create doubt. Paint chips? These are scientists. Why would you assume that they would not know the difference between paint and explosives?
2. There's no "mountain of evidence". Just wild speculation on the part of conspiracy theorist. They recieve small baggies of dust collected by a few residents 6 or more years after the fact with little red chips and conclude its thermite without exploring any other possible sources.
3. The only "proof" of this material is red chips in the dust samples they were given but not in solid debris. I mean talk about straining for the wildest of possibilities.
Lets be real. The biggest propogator of the conspiracy theory is Steven Jones. The same guy who blatantly claimed that pictures of fire fighters standing around a lamp was them standing around a pool of glowing molten metal.
And he blatantly claimed a huge angle cut support beam (that was actually cut by a powerful blow torch) was "cut" by thermite. Thermite can't "cut" shit. It burns and corrodes metal but expecting it to cleanly cut anything is rediculous.
You present so little evidence to support your claims. You use opinion to reach definitive conclusions, pathetic. There IS a mountain of evidence, which you are choosing to dismiss.
If you actually cared about discussing reality, I might continue this. Your ad hominem attacks prove that it is a complete waste of time. The end.
No Ive got a life, who wants pricks like you for friends. You are obviously an unqualified moron, at least in explosives and demolition. If you ha been with me in Cyprus in 1968/72 you would have been welcoming me and my skills. Ive seen things that would make you puke
you ar off the mark with your suggestion. I have been dealing with explosives all my life all over the world in wide variety of situations. Until you know what you are talking about stop rumourmongering and get some training
Plugbayonet You have been on YouTube for almost a year and a half yet you have no vids, you appear to like nothing on YouTube as you have no favourites and you have no friends. You make unsubstanciated claims of being an explosive expert and you offer no evidence in your comment. Are we supposed to take you seriously?
If you want to prove your point, you need an example of proper scale. The WTC towers were 1,368 ft. tall with a full steel and glass curtain wall; the 'example' is at best 150 feet tall, made with structural concrete. So, do you think the SAME explosives would be used on a 150' concrete block versus TWO steel and glass skyscrapers NINE TIMES AS BIG?? Don't be an idiot and pretend to be smarter than an expert; you look like a fool with this shit on your name. Dumbass
He never seen the backs of the Towers. They were down before he came on the site. He's not talking about the Towers, he's talking about the smaller buidings.
What i mean is to Contain a explosion of that magnitude takes alot of preparation ... days worth actually it takes alot of equipement to so that couldn't have gone unnoticed.
Its like blowing up a rock to make a example.
if i wrapp it in dynamite i might need say 2 kg.
if i drill a hole in it and then seal that hole il need 1/4 of that amount and il get a better result probably. cause the energy doesent go in al directions.. it al goes into the rock.
There not talking about detonating explosives in a controlled structure though. This is a heap of rubble with no solid place to let the explosives bite. Everybody that used explosives know that if you cant contain the energy then you need alot more to get the same effect.. ALOT :p "yay"
Your video proves WTC wasn't Controlled demolition.
Listen to your video, there were loud bangs and then a time lag and then the building collapses. But eye witness testimony and video of 9/11 show different than this video.
Look, 9/11 happened because your country's foreign policy came back to bite your ass.
Good vid but I'm not sure it really shows your point. Assuming that the base of all the buildings is the same; wouldn't it still take more explosives to bring down a taller building than a shorter one? I really don't know, but if we can assume that to be true (hypothetically) then what amount of explosive WOULD be necessary, and would that amount blow out the glass of nearby buildings? I would say that you used examples that are too small and not comparable to the WTC if explosives were used
According to Dr. Sunder, the smallest amount of explosives they could determine to be neccessary to demolish WTC & would have blown all the windows and would have run about 130 decibels three miles away. Neither of these were noticed on 9/11. It should have given Ashley Banfield one bloody awful earache before she even saw the dust cloud coming.
This video would have a point if Mark had said that all explosive demolitions cause windows to be shattered, instead of the size required to sever the WTC columns.
First point, the windows facing the towers were broken randomly, obviously by impact of debris, all below the dust residue left by the debris clouds. They should have been uniformly shattered on the facing side and ABOVE that dust cloud level.
It is also sometimes feasible to place plywood over windows to contain frag from the blasts. Plywood will reflect light in bright sunshine. Once a window frame begins to deform, older glass will break. You have nothing here.
How can any building in NYC be above the WTC Twin Towers? Or above the dust residue? Plywood! Who the hell would cover the 2 Towers in plywood - that would take 5 years - and anger the Tower residents - they would not work in the dark. You are definitely beyond left field! Truth scoffers are all in denial and totaly wacky!
I was referring to the windows in the smaller building in this video. The windows behave more like plywood than glass. I also notice no explosives being detonated above the sign on the building, thus the floors would have shielded the windows. You have not said anything here about the effect of the explosive shockwaves on surrounding structures with this presentatation.
Excuse me! Are you saying plywood reflects the sun just like glass? The windows are glass who would build a building and put plywood in the windows? "The windows all the way round would have been shattered - NO WAY ROUND IT!" Hey! They ain't shattered and they ain't plywood.
They may have installed plywood prior to shooting the building to contain frag. There usually is frag in a demolition. I would have to look for it, but there are mentions in some of the demo vids of a spectator killed by a chunk of something blown out of a building.
It might help, for the purpose of this discussion, to know whhat building this is and who shot it. They would have records of what they did to prep it.
This whole argument is a ruse. Mark came to Ground zero three days after the event. He did NOT see the backs of Towers 1 2 or 7 because they were all demolished rubble! He saw the backs of buildings still standing that no-one claims had explosives in them! The only reason that I took the batton up and ran with it was because I suspected that their next vid would have been shots of the back of Tower 7 where the glass is intact - implying there were No explosives used on Tower 7.
"...Explosion of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a BIG BUILDING were detonated..."
Do any of those buildings shown look anywhere near the size of the WTC Towers? Those little dinky buildings wouldn't need the same support the Twin Towers did, so you don't need OMGHUGEBREAKGLASS explosions.
The only way that the government could get so many experts to promote the official story is if it is common practice to pre-install explosives for safty reasons in highrise buildings. Or if the experts believe that the WTC was pre- installed for safty reasons.
WTC1 110 stories (1368 feet in height) fell in 10.5 seconds. WTC2 110 stories (1362 feet in height) fell in 11 seconds. WTC7 47 stories (570 feet in height) fell in 6.6 seconds. 3300 feet fell to earth in less than 30 seconds. Believe you own eyes and mind!
There's a change in attitude among the 9/11 DENIER shills that permeate these discussions.
Rather than sticking with the smear, fear and steer nonsense and the sophomoric internet bullying 911 DENIERS have gone into disinformation mode.
They see the writing on the wall.
More and more people are taking deep breaths and saying "Ya know Martha, I think all these these guys on You Tube ARE right. Have look at this and tell me if you think:
Loizeax says that controlled demolition blows out windows and causes a blast wave that ejects flying glass in all directions. So local authorities give permission for this?
A substantial blast wave from within a WTC building would tear out the windows certainly but have no impact on the steel core which requires explosives raising the temperature of the steel locally well beyond its melting point in order to destroy the structure.
WTC 1 & 2 were blasted by miniture concret busting nukes. Bush in 8 months, could not have pulled the 911 attacks without Billy Goat Clinton's help from 1996. On sept10/2001. Rummesfield announced that $2.3 trillion was missing.Then bang next day.All forgotten about the money.Used as payoff to Israel.
In the watergate incident about 4 people knew about it and it was leaked. in order for 9/11 to be a conspiracy there would have to be around 10,000 people who knew about it. no-one leaked anything. it wasn't an inside job, get over it, you're slowing down the process of mankind.
metalebd 1 year ago
Another government lapdog !!
sandsifter149 1 year ago
You can find an expert to say what you want,that isn't difficult. This guy doesn't look like he'd have the balls or heart to go against the govt "official account". The simple question is would 3 buildings fall from 2 plane strikes and fire perfectly and completely into their own footprint at near freefall speed? Never happened before or since.Also don't forget these towers were designed and built to withstand airliner impact and fire. You'd have to stupid to believe it,then u have the Pent
73mandala 1 year ago
The floors falling onto floors below would have crushed them granted.
But the top parts that had no force on them should have survived in large peices.
They didnt.
WTC7 had no jet impact and still fell @ free fall as admitted by NIST.
it had hardly any fires either.
zenoist2 1 year ago
In no way was the WTC constructed to withstand 80 floors falling onto the rest of the building.
The "construed to withstand an aircraft flying into the building" might be true but there are smaller aircraft than 737s. Like the sportsplane that flew into a building a short timer after 9-11 and caused broken windows. The aircraft that crashed into the WTC were also fresh out of airport and had most of their fuel left as I understand it. Which did no good at all for either people or buildings.
CJFCarlsson 2 years ago
The building so called "collapsed on itself" by floors basically falling on top of each other and did this as fast as it would if it was a controlled demolition? Think about that for a second. You don't think that even one floor would shift slightly off center and tilt the rest of the building or slide off? You think the amount of jet fuel in those planes weakend and destroyed the entire infastructure of a building almost a 1/4 mile high after it withstood an impact of a jetliner flying into it?
sjohn274 2 years ago
No building as tall as the WTC could ever fall perfectly downward as it did without a controlled blast. The only part of the tower that "fell off" was the top above the impact onto the Marriott below. Go time how fast the building fell (WTC that is) and then use Newtons law and you will calculate the building basically "free fell". No jet fuel or anything else "melted" the steel at 2400F or 1300F to warp it (the temp that jet fuel burns is 600F). This isn't conspiracy, it's fucking science.
sjohn274 2 years ago 2
"No building as tall as the WTC could ever fall perfectly downward as it did without a controlled blast"
Your incredulity is not proof
why do truthers lie?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
thats cool
yanger5335 2 years ago
What I am suggesting is that the documentary researchers never even questioned - in fact just assumed - he would be an expert on demolition cleanup as well.
I have seen stories about him before, but no mention was ever made of any cleanup services offered by his company.
In that business you focus on the demolition itself and move on to planning or executing the next project.
I also wonder how much he would say about Thermite/Thermite if asked.
lookupzionism 2 years ago 2
I apperciate your suggestion bro. This is a clip from one of the most respected news agencies in the world the 'BBC' not conspiracy folk (narration included). The company do demolish buildings AND clean them up - so they are experts at it, that's why they were called in as consultants. Mark told lies and changed the focus of the discussion. He's been caught out. Tell the BBC they got there facts wrong about this story not me.
SpudXXXX 2 years ago
You are a full blown imbecile. You have a demolition expert who blows your stupid theory out of the water and you put your fat shiny BBQ eating redneck head in the ground. The fact is that your are such fascist nut job that you doesn't believe in existence of Al-Qaeda!!! Your childish version of events are laughable. Did planes hit the towers? Were there really hijackers? When did were the buildings rigged with Thermite? Let's exam the inconsistencies in your theory.
SithLordRising 2 years ago
Since you are the Nazi demolition expert, let's ask your expert opinion on a simple question. How many holes would have to be drilled into the I-Beams of each of the Twin Towers to bring it down according to your theory? How did the demolition experts access these I-Beams? How long do you suppose that it would take to pull off such a job? How many people would be involved? Why hasn't one person come forward to talk during the last 8 years?
SithLordRising 2 years ago
According to your genius theory, the government was masterminded, then implemented the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. It was so perfectly coordinated and tight lipped, that not one of the hundreds of collaborators have uttered a word. Yet, these same 'masterminds' decide to make these hijackers citizens our closest Arab ally?! They went to trouble to frame the hijackers on Al Quaeda...the organization that doesn't exist but they could fake evidence linking Osama Bin Laden?
SithLordRising 2 years ago
So who cleans up the mess? He blows 'em then cleans up the debris. He's an expert at demolition and at the clean-up after the demolition, that's why they hired him - because the WTC site was a controlled demolition site. Who better to hire?
SpudXXXX 2 years ago
Genius, they haul the mess off in dump trucks and bulldozers. The demolition expert has little to do with cleanup since that requires no specialization. Controlled collapse is only used because it's quicker, not necessarily cheaper than taking a multistory building apart piece by piece. Have you ever considered the logistics for what you insinuate? I would love for you to outline your entire conspiracy theory. We've been waiting 8 years for your alternative version of what happened!
SithLordRising 2 years ago
@SpudXXXX You need too look at the bigger picture.....why does EVERY CONTROLLED DEMO on youtube have massive explosive sounds in the video before and during the falls but there are no explosive sounds on any of the videos on any of the 3 building that fell on 9/11.
MrBoredatwork 1 year ago
@MrBoredatwork "You need too look at the bigger picture"
I agree, your best option here would be to take a look at ALL possibilities. You obviously are unaware of Thermite Cutter Charges and Thermite being used in controlled demolitions. The reason you don't see radio controlled demolition being used and thermite is due to cost. It does not mean that no one can use them. Its time you started thinking outside of the box.
P.S. You should look further then YouTube in your research.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
@Tzimnewman3 I use youtube for video evidence only. Its easy to use youtube for video evidence because this site, by far, has the highest amount of demolitions to use as examples and to help compare those. I get my information from a ton of other places. I would tell you where but I am about 100% certain you could care less. BTW, Thermite was never found in the dust. The found sulfur, aluminum, and zinc. 3 things that were HEAVILY used in the construction of the towers.
MrBoredatwork 1 year ago
@MrBoredatwork "Thermite was never found in the dust"
That's your opinion. I will stick with the 1300 architects and engineers.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
@Tzimnewman3 That wasn't an opinion, it was a statement of fact. Either thermite was found, or it wasn't. 1300 engineers x 0 thermite = 0 evidence
JesusChristsDick 1 month ago
@SpudXXXX The most common come back question I get when I mention demolition is "What about the miles of detonating cord needed?" Well that one is simple, radio controlled. The next one is no evidence of cutter charges which is another easy one since most cutter charges destroy themselves in the detonation. Then the one I call (The statement of last resort) which is: "Why would the Government do such a thing". I wonder if the Germans of 1938, would say the same thing if told the truth.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
What I noticed in this piece is probably nothing but the woman narrating introduces Louiseax by saying he was brought in to consult about the removal of debris 3 days afterwards.
Ahm excuse me. But isn't demolition technology require specific levels of expertise and planning enough to keep him busy? Even on his own projects I doubt his company sticks around to supervise welders and excavator operators.
lookupzionism 2 years ago
Key quote that is conveniently not applied to riverview implosion example:
"if the explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building were detonated, the windows all the way around would be shattered"
Obviously 'big building' being applied to sky-scrapers such as the WTC-towers.
So how does the demolition of an 8-9 story concrete 'tower block' structure hold any relevance to what would be required to sever the support columns in a 110 story framed tube structure?
Wayanseeker 2 years ago 4
He never seen the backs of the Twin Towers or WTC7 they were demolished. He was talking about smaller buildings on or surrounding the WTC site. Please stick to the point.
SpudXXXX 2 years ago
Again, how does the example apply? Your referencing unbroken windows on the facade of a building (both smaller and structurally different) being demolished and trying to apply that to this guys explanation of what affect explosives with the energy to sever the WTC tower columns would have had on the glass of surrounding buildings. Where's the connection? There is no established "point" to stick to.
Wayanseeker 2 years ago 2
You make a valid point bro. I'm just trying to make the point that he said 'I didn't see the windows broken on the backs of buildings', he was speaking about standing buildings. If there's no connection it's because he made an invalid connection to confuse listeners- why does he speak about what has no connection?
respect
SpudXXXX 2 years ago
This video is recklessly inaccurate & proves nothing. 1) Loizeaux wasn't "brought to ground zero", he arrived uninvited trying to get demo work and was banned from site by mayor's office for repeatedly claiming to media he was "in charge". He did nothing at site but leave in disgrace. 2) He's referring to a shape charge, but the blast shown is Humana bldg in Louisville, made of concrete (and thus shot with conv dynamite). There's no practical relation between shapes & dyno. C'mon dude, get real-
implosionworld 2 years ago
They know that people who actually look into things will figure out whats happening, so they can lie as much as they want with virtual impunity.
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
To be fair he DID say "if explosives were used to take down a building of this MAGNITUDE windows all around would be shattered". He never implied it would be impossible in smaller structures.
And still the explosions and demo flashes can be be clearly seen in the first vid @ 1:04 and explosions heard in the second ALL before the buildings fell. 9-11 was not a controlled demolition.
Juniversal 2 years ago
What about the unreacted thermate found in the WTC dust?
I can show you ten CD's with no flashes whatsoever. It's because the charges happen to be more towards the center of the building.
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
Your mixing up two theory's. Initially Steven Jones conjectured Thermate was at the Towers because of the amount of sulfur found in dust samples when in reality many materials in the Towers contained sulfur.
And recently samples supposedly collected in 2001 (none by experts and none at the Trade Centers) sent to Jones contained what they call "active thermitic material" (not nano-thermite or thermate) with no absolute proof of there origin, prevelance or possible alternative explanations.
Juniversal 2 years ago
Not mixing, I'm making two separate points.
So you are saying Steven Jones created the sample and is lying about it's origin? Interesting conspiracy theory...
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
Never implied Steven Jones created the samples. Its a fact none of the so-called "unignited thermitic material" were collected by experts (they were supposedly collected by NY "residents") nor were they collected at ground zero (one was collected at the brooklyn bridge, another 5 blocks from ground zero in someones apartment. Literally).
And I have no clue where the (non related) sulfur ridden aka "thermate" samples came from. Jones doesn't provide a chain of custody.
Juniversal 2 years ago
Well think about for a sec. If they are genuine samples, the "active thermitic material" should not be in the dust. So they had to have been faked if they are not real. That's a pretty unlikely conspiracy theory.
Amazing how quickly people take the governments side when a conspiracy theory is needed to cover their asses.
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
I'm not saying they're not real. They don't have to be fake. They simply can have alternative explanations that the "truthers" don't give time to investigate. I find it interesting that the "active thermitic material" bear an uncanny resmbalance to paint chips.
And also the fact unreacted thermite is a powder with a grayish color (not a red solid chip). Its quite likely if this is paint as some conjecture, the paint chemical composition would explain why these different chemicals were found.
Juniversal 2 years ago
Wow, talk about stretching for an answer. Can't you see the irony? People that so easily dismiss a mountain of evidence, now strain for the wildest of possibilities to create doubt. Paint chips? These are scientists. Why would you assume that they would not know the difference between paint and explosives?
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
1. Thermite is not an explosive.
2. There's no "mountain of evidence". Just wild speculation on the part of conspiracy theorist. They recieve small baggies of dust collected by a few residents 6 or more years after the fact with little red chips and conclude its thermite without exploring any other possible sources.
3. The only "proof" of this material is red chips in the dust samples they were given but not in solid debris. I mean talk about straining for the wildest of possibilities.
Juniversal 2 years ago
Lets be real. The biggest propogator of the conspiracy theory is Steven Jones. The same guy who blatantly claimed that pictures of fire fighters standing around a lamp was them standing around a pool of glowing molten metal.
And he blatantly claimed a huge angle cut support beam (that was actually cut by a powerful blow torch) was "cut" by thermite. Thermite can't "cut" shit. It burns and corrodes metal but expecting it to cleanly cut anything is rediculous.
Juniversal 2 years ago
You present so little evidence to support your claims. You use opinion to reach definitive conclusions, pathetic. There IS a mountain of evidence, which you are choosing to dismiss.
If you actually cared about discussing reality, I might continue this. Your ad hominem attacks prove that it is a complete waste of time. The end.
WhyNotTruth 2 years ago
Wow, those liars! Those "experts" can easily decieve people. It's a shame. You exposed him. very good!
bastienjack 2 years ago
No Ive got a life, who wants pricks like you for friends. You are obviously an unqualified moron, at least in explosives and demolition. If you ha been with me in Cyprus in 1968/72 you would have been welcoming me and my skills. Ive seen things that would make you puke
PLUGBAYONET 3 years ago
you ar off the mark with your suggestion. I have been dealing with explosives all my life all over the world in wide variety of situations. Until you know what you are talking about stop rumourmongering and get some training
PLUGBAYONET 3 years ago
Plugbayonet You have been on YouTube for almost a year and a half yet you have no vids, you appear to like nothing on YouTube as you have no favourites and you have no friends. You make unsubstanciated claims of being an explosive expert and you offer no evidence in your comment. Are we supposed to take you seriously?
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
If you want to prove your point, you need an example of proper scale. The WTC towers were 1,368 ft. tall with a full steel and glass curtain wall; the 'example' is at best 150 feet tall, made with structural concrete. So, do you think the SAME explosives would be used on a 150' concrete block versus TWO steel and glass skyscrapers NINE TIMES AS BIG?? Don't be an idiot and pretend to be smarter than an expert; you look like a fool with this shit on your name. Dumbass
xxbydesign 3 years ago 2
He never seen the backs of the Towers. They were down before he came on the site. He's not talking about the Towers, he's talking about the smaller buidings.
SpudXXXX 2 years ago
What i mean is to Contain a explosion of that magnitude takes alot of preparation ... days worth actually it takes alot of equipement to so that couldn't have gone unnoticed.
Its like blowing up a rock to make a example.
if i wrapp it in dynamite i might need say 2 kg.
if i drill a hole in it and then seal that hole il need 1/4 of that amount and il get a better result probably. cause the energy doesent go in al directions.. it al goes into the rock.
Hes just a little short in the explanation.
tulbowin 3 years ago
There not talking about detonating explosives in a controlled structure though. This is a heap of rubble with no solid place to let the explosives bite. Everybody that used explosives know that if you cant contain the energy then you need alot more to get the same effect.. ALOT :p "yay"
tulbowin 3 years ago
I bet he gets paid a lot, supply and demand.
skibee50 3 years ago
you got a red herring here
Your video proves WTC wasn't Controlled demolition.
Listen to your video, there were loud bangs and then a time lag and then the building collapses. But eye witness testimony and video of 9/11 show different than this video.
Look, 9/11 happened because your country's foreign policy came back to bite your ass.
thirdrockband 3 years ago
HAHAHAHA The "lead expert" and president of the huge Controlled Demolition Inc. company
doesn't know his shit (just kidding...I know he lied)!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
What a scandal!!
JSSTyger 3 years ago
The answer is simple, would you lie if you where to receive a large amount of money, like a 500 mil or so.
Index51 3 years ago
whoa go to 0:39 impressive damage to neighboring buildings
vietman90210 3 years ago
Good vid but I'm not sure it really shows your point. Assuming that the base of all the buildings is the same; wouldn't it still take more explosives to bring down a taller building than a shorter one? I really don't know, but if we can assume that to be true (hypothetically) then what amount of explosive WOULD be necessary, and would that amount blow out the glass of nearby buildings? I would say that you used examples that are too small and not comparable to the WTC if explosives were used
McConsumer 3 years ago
great video.. mark 'OKC and 911' clean up man.
like popular mechanics 3 stooges episode, good thing we got the entire story of 911 down nobody should have any questions left...
of course it took 7 yrs and 3 official reports before nist sent the yale economist out to sell the latest bldg7 story.
If it was all "just muslim hitchikers" why do they have to try so hard to sell it to the people, The truth needs no band aid
giantshadows 3 years ago
ClunkityClunk, one question:
You say: "...the size required to sever the WTC columns."
Isn't your position that it didn't take ANY explosives AT ALL?
Where's your logic?
VanDerLubbe 3 years ago
According to Dr. Sunder, the smallest amount of explosives they could determine to be neccessary to demolish WTC & would have blown all the windows and would have run about 130 decibels three miles away. Neither of these were noticed on 9/11. It should have given Ashley Banfield one bloody awful earache before she even saw the dust cloud coming.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Remember ! He's talking about WTC 7 NOT the Towers! Don't change the subject guys!
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
This video would have a point if Mark had said that all explosive demolitions cause windows to be shattered, instead of the size required to sever the WTC columns.
Nice try, though.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago 2
You are a drowning man clutching at WTC straws! YOU AREN'T EVEN KIDDING YOURSELF. You have no chance with WE the people!
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
First point, the windows facing the towers were broken randomly, obviously by impact of debris, all below the dust residue left by the debris clouds. They should have been uniformly shattered on the facing side and ABOVE that dust cloud level.
It is also sometimes feasible to place plywood over windows to contain frag from the blasts. Plywood will reflect light in bright sunshine. Once a window frame begins to deform, older glass will break. You have nothing here.
leftysergeant 3 years ago 4
How can any building in NYC be above the WTC Twin Towers? Or above the dust residue? Plywood! Who the hell would cover the 2 Towers in plywood - that would take 5 years - and anger the Tower residents - they would not work in the dark. You are definitely beyond left field! Truth scoffers are all in denial and totaly wacky!
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
I was referring to the windows in the smaller building in this video. The windows behave more like plywood than glass. I also notice no explosives being detonated above the sign on the building, thus the floors would have shielded the windows. You have not said anything here about the effect of the explosive shockwaves on surrounding structures with this presentatation.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Excuse me! Are you saying plywood reflects the sun just like glass? The windows are glass who would build a building and put plywood in the windows? "The windows all the way round would have been shattered - NO WAY ROUND IT!" Hey! They ain't shattered and they ain't plywood.
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
They may have installed plywood prior to shooting the building to contain frag. There usually is frag in a demolition. I would have to look for it, but there are mentions in some of the demo vids of a spectator killed by a chunk of something blown out of a building.
It might help, for the purpose of this discussion, to know whhat building this is and who shot it. They would have records of what they did to prep it.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Those buildings are pint size compared to the towers. It's not a valid argument...just like the rest of the conspricacy theories.
saybya 3 years ago
This whole argument is a ruse. Mark came to Ground zero three days after the event. He did NOT see the backs of Towers 1 2 or 7 because they were all demolished rubble! He saw the backs of buildings still standing that no-one claims had explosives in them! The only reason that I took the batton up and ran with it was because I suspected that their next vid would have been shots of the back of Tower 7 where the glass is intact - implying there were No explosives used on Tower 7.
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
Really? Pay attention.
"...Explosion of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a BIG BUILDING were detonated..."
Do any of those buildings shown look anywhere near the size of the WTC Towers? Those little dinky buildings wouldn't need the same support the Twin Towers did, so you don't need OMGHUGEBREAKGLASS explosions.
ltearthworm 3 years ago 2
Great point, earthworm.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
earthworms are blind! Get eyes!
SpudXXXX 3 years ago
The only way that the government could get so many experts to promote the official story is if it is common practice to pre-install explosives for safty reasons in highrise buildings. Or if the experts believe that the WTC was pre- installed for safty reasons.
kevincannell 3 years ago
There are more experts that question the official story than those that promote it. ae911truth (dot) org
peterson553 3 years ago
WTC1 110 stories (1368 feet in height) fell in 10.5 seconds. WTC2 110 stories (1362 feet in height) fell in 11 seconds. WTC7 47 stories (570 feet in height) fell in 6.6 seconds. 3300 feet fell to earth in less than 30 seconds. Believe you own eyes and mind!
GBZ10TROY 3 years ago
There's a change in attitude among the 9/11 DENIER shills that permeate these discussions.
Rather than sticking with the smear, fear and steer nonsense and the sophomoric internet bullying 911 DENIERS have gone into disinformation mode.
They see the writing on the wall.
More and more people are taking deep breaths and saying "Ya know Martha, I think all these these guys on You Tube ARE right. Have look at this and tell me if you think:
9/11 WAS and CONTINUES TO BE an INSIDE JOB.
pyubtinsl 3 years ago
Loizeax says that controlled demolition blows out windows and causes a blast wave that ejects flying glass in all directions. So local authorities give permission for this?
A substantial blast wave from within a WTC building would tear out the windows certainly but have no impact on the steel core which requires explosives raising the temperature of the steel locally well beyond its melting point in order to destroy the structure.
forthurst 3 years ago
bring up a point like a steel assembly weighing thousands of tons being ejected horizontally hundreds of feet, and the loizeaux liars will tell lies.
keep in mind that he is saying that the windows of the surrounding buildings would have been blown out on the far side of the building.
...but of course, he's innocent... because he hasn't confessed.
the perps should be hung at ground zero from a firetruck ladder.
ControlledDemolition 3 years ago
WTC 1 & 2 were blasted by miniture concret busting nukes. Bush in 8 months, could not have pulled the 911 attacks without Billy Goat Clinton's help from 1996. On sept10/2001. Rummesfield announced that $2.3 trillion was missing.Then bang next day.All forgotten about the money.Used as payoff to Israel.
geo1671 3 years ago
Keep talking about it.... but those people who are still caught up in the "cult of American
denial" will always find some lame excuse
to disregard facts, history, and any other lame excuse to keep the fantasy of their lies from
disintegrating. They avoid pain/truth at all costs, and cling to whatever an "authority
figure" tells them, that puts down science as long as it doesn't make them aware.
randallcaster 3 years ago
just goes to show you definitely that even experts can be morons. lying sack of $#!+
thecentrinox 3 years ago 2
Excellent Video!!
drcorrector 3 years ago
Controlled Dem is always called in by the govt to clean up after these "terrorist" events, Oklahoma City and 911..
Good video bro
giantshadows 3 years ago 3
Good one! Of course the guy is lying.
BTW, wasn't the guy charge of the demo in Oklahoma?
MustacheVerra 3 years ago
mustacheverra, yes, it is the same guy/company that completed the OKC bombing.
They always use the same sociopaths, of course.
peterson553 3 years ago