representativepress you can read the official account and mindlessly buy into it you choose. But it is impossible for the jet fuel to be widely and uniformly distributed as the core of the WTC's were the solid concrete elevator banks that would have created a barrier of the uniform distribution of jet fuel and fire.... But hey, don't let common sense get in the way of your propaganda!
This is weak that's all you got? anymore evidence? because I'm not convinced come on man you gotta do better than this you could of least put some effort into.
If the U. S. Government doesn't like comments posted on U tube. They can simply kick in your door, call you a traitor, and indefinitely incarcerate you without ever charging you with a crime. The laws giving the government these far reaching powers were enabling a mass cull of those who disagree with the official Bull Shit spread by the 9-11 commission. Welcome to the new America. Dr. Ron Paul is America's only hope. God bless Dr. Ron Paul.
This is a load of Bull Shit. The Points made in this video are all far more speculative than any of those who look at All the inconsistencies surrounding 9-11.
I'll list just a few of hundreds of suspicious facts.
1.) Many of the supposed high jackers are still alive. They lied about who was guiding the jets in the building.
2.) Eye witnesses heard clearly before the buildings collapse pop,pop,pop,pop,pop.
Well, no. No exception. Do a google picture search for "burned car". Nowadays door handles and the shells of exterior mirrors are made of plastics. They do melt even when not directly exposed to the visible part of the fire but only the heat radiation. I had the chance to witness this myself.
Last but not least: Vehicles were burning before the towers collapsed.
@palasta That's not what I mean, look at the pictures. It's not just the handle that's missing. The entire steel apparatus is gone, there are only holes in the doors where the apparatus is supposed to be. You're playing stupid with me, aren't you?
"The entire steel apparatus is gone, there are only holes in the doors where the apparatus is supposed to be."
Yes, that is exactly what pictures of burned out cars not located at GroundZero are showing. You didn't even take a look, it is you who is acting stupid on purpose. First you're saying "except door handles". Now that you were proven wrong you're trying to save your neck you're coming up with this nonsense: "entire steel apparatus".
@RedStarVolume For one thing, it indicates that the type of explosives which were used to demolish the buildings could not have been thermite, unless someone had foreknowledge pertaining to exactly which vehicles would be on the premises, and had then installed thermite charges inside the vehicles in order to make us think that there was very strong evidence of radiation being emitted from the towers. It also indicates that AE911Truth is a group of shills.
@RedStarVolume You have to put the evidence into perspective, which means having an open mind and considering ALL of the evidence before you reaching a conclusion. What you are doing is closing your mind and ignoring certain key pieces of evidence because they do not support your opinion.
This is what you call evidence? Some wild irrational nonsense theses?
What evidence do you have that it weren't ordinary fires that burned the cars? O yea, because the "steel apperatus" of the door handles were gone. Some mysterious marvel substance. Yea, my guess that it wasn't Nanothermite, nono, it were NanoBots, programmed to eat only the "steel aperatus" and leave the rest of the "steel car" untouched.
O Really?! Don't you sayyy? And as it happens those burned out cars look exactly like every other charred vehicle. As it was shown to you cars were burning before the towers collapsed. How do you explain that?
And i still want to know what happened to that "steel apparatus" of the door handles.
@RedStarVolume "it was shown to you cars were burning before the towers collapsed" Prove this. All of the news footage from 9/11 is available here, find it you big red asshole.
This video already has been brought near to you and you didn't watch it? And you're telling me "considering ALL of the evidence before you reaching a conclusion". This is rich...
Lol, you can clearly see the burning cars and a single car in flames produces a lotta smoke.
/3O9WMfQPoU8
watch?v=f3_TsVmqsMw
It's always kinda sad to watch you lil twoofers struggle, trying to keep up your faith in the ones who stuffed you with all the CT-nonsense. Which reminds me.... what about the door handles, the "steel apparatus". You still haven't explained yourself...
@RedStarVolume That's where you are wrong. We do have evidence, Laws of physics prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Equal and opposite reaction was virtually non-existent. The only thing that was hijacked on 9/11, was the television airwaves.
"Equal and opposite reaction was virtually non-existent."
Pfahaha, thats why the mushroom clouding happened when the upper section crushed down on the floors beneath, resulting in a progressive collapse. An evidence leaping to the eye, because it's proofs there was plenty resistance and a release of enormous energy capable of ejecting steel members weighing tens of tons as far as winter garden. You mind showing me a CD where this ever happened?
It did not. In fact a large amount of fuel poured down the elevator shafts. The people in the stairwell smelled it. The odor was so strong it even made it hard to breath and it was feared the concentrated fuel and vapors could ignite.... and prbly. it partially did, which leads us to the next point of the agenda: "explosive sounds".
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence
i heard it is a german nazi dwarf attack they trancendent to mikro kosmos and acted like nano bots,in a very intense operation they started to eat the steal, several time later the buildings collapsed and the nanobots escaped to tower 7,the rest is history,beware of the german nanobot dwarf army,they where created first in south park then the choosen one came entered the game and liberated the little demons from ther 2 dim. world,citizens get ready to be raped by those mighty big stick dwarfs
WOW! I cant believe your falling for all the crap that this guy is talking about! so your saying that a fire man, who's career is based on saving people, would know more about the structural weaknesses of buildings then a professional architect! your messed! and when has the government ever been on our side! You my friend, are a victim of brainwash!
@12weasel100 "Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers" Maybe you should look up (Llyode England's Virtual Confession) before you say that. Were in the video the man who's cab allegedly got hit by flight 77 admits he was a stated eyewtiness. I'm not joking you around or anything like that in the video he admits he was in on 911. Can you debunk that?
@spoonsdnldsn if you believe 911 was an inside job then you are a retard. You have absolutely no facts to support the bullshit you spew out. There were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Knocked over light poles, pics of the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn, marks left by the plane etc etc etc all support the fact a plane did hit the Pentagon. You shit on the graves of those that died on that plane by suggesting they were not real. You are clearly are a deluded moron.
@spoonsdnldsn Oh it's you again! I can't believe you go on about this taxi drivers confession when I've explained to you dozens of times but yet you still go on and on about it. How do you even know that was a confession? the interviewer was making him very confused at the very start of the video and didn't even show what he said before his so called confession. For all I'm guessing Lloyde was either talking about something else and the truthers took his words out of context and started building
@spoonsdnldsn Their own story which is not the same as someone admitting he was in on 911. But even if that is him saying I was in on it? the man was not that bright and was confused and harassed by these truthers and was very unconvertible, so by that he just said I'm in on it so they would leave him alone or something like that. I know you'de love to think otherwise but that's the truth.
@bmw200000 That is the troother opening like "it doesn't look right". So one piece out of 1000 looks funny. Once camera angle, etc. that doesn't mean it isn't. Once you put all the scientific evidence together with the eye-witnesses and videos it looks like the experts concluded. Why would this be an inside job? who would benefit? and most importantly how was it done? Until you can answer those questions you don't have anything to stand on..
@MrRexquando those quetions have all been answered, just do a tad bit more reasearch, watch a couple more (unbiased) documentaries and open your fucking mind, u will see why you were wrong all along. i dont have time to answer all your questions, becaue u will jut ask more, and u will never be satisfied, instead just do some more research. it not very hard.
@bmw200000 Using 4 letter words is a common tactic of a troother who is on he ropes. I have most of my information from reading not youtube crap. I have looked every where and my mind is wide open. You don't have time to answer? Or you don't have answers? Sounds like the same thing. I have done the math with falling objects, researched high speed plane crashes and evidence, Look for other causes and found nothing. So its your turn and burden of proof. What did happen on 911?
I think the collapse of all three buildings was way to fast, even for a floor truss building!!! There was no resistance at all, i think you will never see a skyscraper collapse that fast! ;)
@74pbg Have you ever seen a steel frame demolition? How fast should it fall? It fell twice as fast as "free-fall".. but what does that prove either way? What do you think made the building fall?
It's very easy to assume wtc would collaps after he saw both twin's collapse this day! ;) Nobody thought that the twin tower's would come down this day, but after this everthing was possible!
@74pbg Or maybe if you look at the facts and science behind the investigation it makes perfect sense. And if you research it you'll notice it fell completely different that WTC1-2.. Did you notice that?
Yes yes, okay you people are idiots I'm leaving. the fire's "weakened" the steel in an asymetrical pattern but the fact that it went into freefall instantly straight into it's own footprint doesn't suggest anything otherwise happened. The fact that Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as a pretense to pass the patriot act, wage illegal war, establishment rogue government agencies, and make billions off of never ended defense contracts and raising oil prices doesn't mean anything either. SHEEP!
Amazing how two 97 storey buildings and a 47 storey building can be totally demolished by some structural damage over half way up and some fires when they had been designed to withstand plan impacts, and that high rise steel framed buildings according to the experts have never totally collapsed previously. Amazing how one of the worlds top CD experts said Building 7 was a CD BEFORE he knew it was building 7 in New York and on 9/11. And of course explosives residues found in the dust
Barry Jennings heard explosions going off in WTC7 way before the building collapsed. That could explain why the "structural integrity of the buiding" wasn't there anymore.
What you fail to explain is why asymmetric damage on two buildings resulted in a symmetric near freefall of all 3 buildings. You're in denial. The NIST report is a complete sham. We need a REAL investigation.
@narukofan2 Building 7? That's the one the firefighters said was unstable and likely to collapse, right? In fact, they even formed a collapse zone around it so that no one would get hurt when it eventually collapsed. That's the building you're referring to, right?
I would like to know how the pilots survived, and why they havent been arrested, as it seems some have turned up alive, still named in the offical report tho!
I would like to know how the pilots survived, and why they havent been arrested, as it seems some have turned up alive, still named in the offical report tho!
Yeah your debunking is flawed. What about building 7? Representative Press needs to smarten up and ask more questions instead of always trying to lead us down the anti-Israel angle. Not that I support Israel. But this guy has a real hard-on for the Israel issue. I strongly suggest that RP might very well be a gatekeeper organization. 70% of what he says is good. But has a mainstream knowledge base that ruins his outlook... I like non biased info.
@Scobo11 what about building 7? are you listening to the facts in my videos? The fire department was worried that building 7 would collapse. Fire chief Daniel Nigro thought the building could collapse. Here's why:
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create
a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].
A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the
building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity
@representativepress after the explosives went off.. plain fuel simply dosnt burn hot enough to melt the steal used, its a shame it all got taken away and destroyed before anybody got to look at it!
Still, we have satalite images, showing some serious hot spots!
@PoetryHound Exactly....which is why SOMETHING isn't right....bc that building had steel with fireproofing put on it....yet in 2 hrs after the crash of the plane and jet fuel induced fire the building collapes...even supposing the building would collapse from that alone....it wouldn't have happened that quickly
i don't think you understand the leidenfrost effect, and why it should not be applied on burning fuel. the fuel at the wtc was not heated and boiled by a hot surface, it's was ignited, burned. in fact, you seem to have no understanding in physics at all. if what you say is true, than why your claims didn't make into the mainstream conspiracy? i know why, even they find it not convincing. about the free fall - it has already been debunked.
Another facter that is often overlooked is the fact that the buildings would actually have lost mass and weight as they burned! like when a log turns to ash. I work metal on a forge, and it does not work easy even when heated under refractory conditions, This is not a truthers conflict, it is simple science that reveals the truth. as the buildings burned yes some heat would cause some bending and distortion, but the high winds would have actually strengthened the steel through fast cooling
Seen too many videos which very strongly demonstrate the opposite of what this video claims. I like Representativepress, just not this video or it's message. This leaves out Building 7 completely, did it fall out of sympathy or did it's fireproofing fail too? C'mon, not an effective argument. Was building 7 demolished by an invisible team in just minutes?
and what about all the firemen and people reporting very strong explosions in the buildings. the janitor in the basement reported a guy whose skin was blown of his arms and he heard the boom.
normally your videos are mindnumbingly boring and it's difficult to follow what you are even on about in the grand scheme of thing, often seems lost in minutia but with this video you went well beyond that and solidly stepped in it.
Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was demolished. president elect John Kerry admitted knowing about it. WTC7 was way too clean to be fire damaged to that point. come on.
and if WTC1 and 2 kinked at some floors, the structure underneath should at the very least slow it.
@DanFrederiksen No, Silverstein never admitted demolishing his building. That's just conspiracy kooks who have intentionally misinterpreted his use of the word "pull." There's no evidence of his involvement in any demolition. John Kerry obviously meant to say WTC 6, where cables were used to PULL down the remaining structure. And BTW, John Kerry is not and never was president elect. Looks like you were unaware that the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse.
@PoetryHound pull it and then we watched it collapse is fairly clear that he means to demo the building, that's also why police officers and fdny were backing people up because the building was "going to explode".....
@leafs3113 "pull it" = pull the fire-fighting operation for the safety of the men. They saw the building leaning over.. Google it.. it NEVER exploded did it.. it just fell..
@MrRexquando pull it is a commonly used phrase to destruct the building... and that's exactly what they do when they are destructed, fall straight down... sheep
@leafs3113 LoL yes call me names good cover for when you don't have anything. So you think fire-fighters are trained on demolish terms? It didn't straight down you know. It was leaning badly for hours. And do you have any evidence timed explosions? (NO)
@MrRexquando call you names??? I called you a sheep, that's not calling you a name, calling you an idiot would be calling you a name... I never said firefighters are trained to demolish buildings, where in the video do you see him talking about telling the firefighters to pull it....... if it was leaning it would have fallen sideways over, not straight down, which it did, yes debris spread out, bu the structure fell STRAIGHT DOWN, watch any video and it's obvious....
if the fireproofing was dislodged, then how is it that Edna Cintron was able to stand in the hole left behind by the plane? Surely if the fireproofing was removed, it would have been too hot at the place of impact - the point where the MOST fireproofing would have been removed. What exactly are you trying to represent here, Mr. Representative Press? You represent Bullshit.
RP...You ever had this many dislikes on one video....there is a reason for that...if your not being sponsored by the establishment you might want to research it more from alternate sources....maybe research physics no matter of jet fuel induced fires would bring a building of that size down in less than 2hrs
@PoetryHound Most "normal" people don't watch anything worth watching on tv or youtube or anywhere else because they are too busy being consumed by mindless and idiotic things that are put on just to entertain and pacify you....if you personally choose not to think for yourself and rather be told what to think thats your business...you just gonna look like that clown on your avatar....foolish
@Darock45 I guess you didn't notice there's a line through the clown on my avatar. The clown represents people who swallow the anti-science 9/11 conspiracy theories that some anonymous YT video spouts or that are posted on some unaccountable Joe Blow web site. The conspiracy clowns have subnormal intelligence. They even think the votes on YouTube videos have statistical significance. LOL!
@PoetryHound What you dont get is that it didn't take me watchin anythin on youtube to convince me that the official 9/11 story portrayed by the government had more than a few holes in it. I've actually talked to people who lost someone on that day and they are conviced either. If you actually believe that you were told the truth and nothing but the truth from the 9/11 report than your intelligence might be the one in question..No way towers that size would fall in less than 2hrs from fire alone
@Darock45 "No way towers that size would fall in less than 2hrs from fire alone"
And no one says fire alone caused the collapses. There was another major factor. Do you know what it was? I'll give you a hint: They fly through the air.
@PoetryHound and no the planes hitting it while significant still wouldnt bring down the building of that size in 2hrs especially being hit at the top of the structure....try again
@Darock45 BTW, it wasn't the planes alone that brought down the buildings, and it wasn't the fire alone that brought them down. It was the COMBINATION of the two.
@PoetryHound The impact of the plane was great and jet fuel may have fueled the fire but the sheer size of the buildings alone and where the planes hit (100th floor) would make it impossible to collapse or IMPLODE if you will in that short of time
@Darock45 "the sheer size of the buildings alone and where the planes hit (100th floor) would make it impossible to collapse or IMPLODE if you will in that short of time"
Is that your structural engineering expertise talking or just your intuition?
@PoetryHound Its my knowledge of physics that shows that....Laws of motion....An object will continue in motion (plane)until it is acted upon by another force (building) That energy is then transferred to the building..the plane did not drop straight down into the building but rather hit it from the side but we are to believe in less than 2hrs a building 120 stories tall would implode(not fall over) from that forceand fire COME ON
Great video. Hopefully more Truthers will come to see the errors in the CD theory and concentrate on the logical issues.
I'm a reformed Truther. I've even been to Gage speaking events! But as you clearly point out the collapses were caused by fire and damaged structures. There were no explosives.
Why the CIA let the highjackers through the Sudi embassy is a real question.
@TheTruthline Did this video really convince you? What about the fact that Barry Jennings heard explosions going off in WTC7 way before the building collapsed?
I love how no matter the amount of evidence you show that proves there was no inside job, from witness accounts to physical evidence, to common sense, there are shitloads of morons who will hold onto their petty conspiracy theories.
Yet another genuinely informative piece from you, RepPress.
People just have no idea how extremely hard it is to drop a building that was built NOT to fall straight down. much less three by accident! I have a video I recorded of a controlled demolition notice how identical it is, this building was months in planning and it was not even a quarter in stories high.
I agree it seems architecture has shown that 9/11 is a lie. This buildings were built strong but I would have made them with powerful concrete like the Empire State Building rather than how it was really buit. From the outside the WTC look as if it was just glass and pillars.
@AngryIntellectual I am talking about the design of the WTC. I believe the tube frame design could withstand fires but not a giant plane. Remember that many buildings were not meant for collisions. The planes destoyed the pillars on the floors they collided in as well weakining or break pillars on the nearby floors which would probrably sends a pattern throughtout the buildings. As the pillars weakend the floors would collapse, its simple.
On this issue I don't agree with you m8, my common sense tells me it's possible for the planes to collapse the 2 towers but the third.., no way. It was a controlled demolition to make space for wars as a pretext for robbing the country and change the world.
Very good video, I can't believe the entire architectural community hasn't shouted down Gage as a complete hack. I appreciate your logical analysis. The Truther movement is famous for making HUGE leaps of faith in both logic and analysis.
Foolishness. Even if fires could have eventually led to the towers collapsing, judging from other fire-induced building collapses, they shouldn't have just fell straight down, at near free-fall speed. And WTC 7 wasn't even hit by your magic building-destroying planes and it fell the same way. The Gov't has lied to us before for ulterior motives so this wouldn't be the first time. Wake up. They have used that event ever since as a pretext for war & incrementally turn this into a police state.
@1Historygenius because of the strength of the rest of the building, People just have no idea how extremely hard it is to drop a building that was built NOT to fall straight down. much less three by accident! I have a video I recorded of a controlled demolition notice how identical it is, this building was months in planning and it was not even a quarter in stories high.
@1Historygenius Easy. Resistance. The lower, undamaged part of the building would resist the upper part, slow it down and force it outward. It wouldn't just fall down symetrically in a neat pile, but sections would fall away from the center of gravity. Some sections don't even fall. Watch any video of a building that falls from fire damage. There's plenty of them on here.
@73849309378 Well that would be more into gravity than architecture, and I think that a big plane (note I do not know its weight) would crush at least some floors and those floors would crush the rest of the floors down. In other words floor after floor after floors would fall vertically. The only way in my opinion for the plane to even make the building tilt is ift would have a greater force. That it did so it makes sense that one it was lodged in there that it stressed the building.
By the way, Jet fuel burns by the Leidenfrost effect only the fumes burn and the temp stays cool under the boiling layer then the gas layer that is burning, REAL scientist knows this with any fuel fires that is one reason water is NOT used as it just scatters and spreads, ONLY the air temp is hot and for short periods of time and is scattered, the only thing the fuel could have done is hardened and tempered the steel, which by the way was covered in 6-4" of concrete. The pillars had over a foot
Sorry but I have worked steel and other exotic metals for 20 years, as well as various areas of construction, Jet fuel could not have caused the towers to fall, period! Rep press You just proved your part of the machine, I used to respect you as an intelligent person, but I can no longer perceive as such. It is obvious to me now your channel is set up for people to comment for profiling purposes. I am sure you will call me an conspiracy theorist but that is ok. I will call you a government agent
You fucking moron, YOU are "part of the machine", you're playing right into the government's hands. The government loves it when knuckleheads like you waste your time and energy on conspiracy theories, because they distract you from what the government is ACTUALLY up to. Why don't you read a book by Chomsky or Eric Margolis, and quit with the alien autopsy shit. You make all critics of the government look bad.
@tonymengela have you also worked with jet fuel (or other kinds of fuel) and tested its influence on steel structures? if not, then what are you basing your claim that "jet fuel could not have caused the towers to fall, period"?
@bellijklh why Actually I have, I make custom knives, I have a forge and am well aware of what fuels to use, and what CANNOT work and why. I already explained why liquid fuels cannot melt metal to any effect. liquid fuels stay cooler under the boiling level. What is also left out is the as the buildings burned they got lighter in weight! they lose mass as they burn and the steel structures actually take less stress, There is not enough space for reasons why in this forum.
And no one says they did. In fact, no one says the steel was melted. It was WEAKENED. Not by the jet fuel, but by the plane impacts and fires. The jet fuel simply acted as an accelerant for the fires.
@PoetryHound ahh yes they have man and they also found pools of melted metal in the rubble as they cleared it,,, and yes you are right jet fuel cannot melt steel or even get it hot enough to make it pliable
@PoetryHound Then why did they find pools of molten steel?. And if you knew anything about steel you would know that the heating would yes distort it but would NOT weaken it, the high wind up there would cause rapid cooling and because of the grade steel, it would have gained more strength from that alone,,, You see fire helps steel,, only IRON weakens through heat because it fractures from the impurities in it I know metals very well at best the towers could have twisted and leaned over
@tonymengela Temps weren't hot enough to create pools of motlen steel. All eyewitness accounts of molten "steel" are anecdotal. No one was in a position to determine the metallurgical composition of the witches brews at ground zero.
You're no steel expert. And your comment is absurd. Who says steel that distorts and buckles is not weakened? No one. Who says the wind cooled the steel sufficiently? No one. You made it up. FIre helps steel? You're nuts. So why do they coat it with fireproofing?
@PoetryHound What ever you say man after all poetry is your thing, believe what you want, its your choice, but I stand by what I said. I know the truth your more than welcome walking around with yours eye wide shut
@PoetryHound ahh yes it does the steel used in high rise buildings uses a low silica higher carbon and chromium ratio just for the reason of fires, you see with those ratios in mind the steel would form carbides when heated. there are always high winds at the top of towers in N Y buddy I watched the towers fall, they fell at free fall speeds, that is IMPOSSIBLE with out explosive help period EVER NEVER You are obviously another ignorant fool or just another cia bitch or best of all jew
@tonymengela It was mainly A-36 steel. It is susceptible to fire. Why would they coat it with fireproofing if fire couldn't damage it.
Of course there are winds. But you are the only one in the world that says those winds would have cooled the steel sufficiently to prevent weakening. Again, you made it up. If you hadn't made it up, you'd have provided a reference by now.
The towers did NOT fall at freefall. And you got "free fall speeds" wrong too. It's acceleration, not speed. You lose.
@selubria I don't know which of my comments you think is wrong. You're right that NIST stated there was no resistance for a brief 2.25 second period. Before and afterwards there were periods of resistance. Is that what happens in a CD?
@tonymengela BTW, who says free fall can only be caused by explosives? That's right, WHO makes that claim (other than you)? Even your fellow kookspiracy tard chums acknowledge that the twin towers fell at slower than free fall and that only a brief portion of WTC 7's collapse was at free fall.
@PoetryHound Lol yeah there's photographic evidence and witness testimonial of molten metal, which as you two have been arguing about, and as you will find out after you google those two questions, it wasn't jet fuel and crash impact does create molten iron either. Try and google what creates molten iron as a bi-product and you'll find out there was a thermitic reaction at the WTC. What does thermite do? Destroy steel.
@tonymengela your conclusions about the wtc collapse reflect your personal opinions. you're not an engineer and you've never worked with structures as huge and complicated as the wtc. it's not clear to me why do think that the building lost mass while the fuel was burning, can you please give me a more detailed explanation? can you estimate the initial and final masses of the towers while they were burning? even if mass was lost, it should have been equalized by the mass of the plane.
@tonymengela it's also not clear what you meant by " liquid fuels stay cooler under the boiling level". care to explain more? did you mean the the combustion temperature is lower than the boiling temperature?
@bellijklh I already described what I meant, And as far as working on structures as complex as buildings Ohh yes I have man, I have built almost every type of commercial and military ship that floats in the water, and not just as a labor hand, as supervisor of construction at EVERY stage from panel lines to modules. I have worked high rise building as well building the modules for those as well. My engineering comes from experience that spans 20 years of hands on and trouble shooting.
@tonymengela i don't think you can explain what you meant, you said something about boiling temperature and buildings loosing mass.... things that just don't make sense to a physics student like me.
@tonymengela supposing you do have experience in building almost any type of civil engineered structure ever built by humankind, as you claim, you are still not in a position to make a diagnosis for why WTC towers have collapsed based on your professional experience, you're not an engineer. you can repeat what you read on "truth" websites, but that would be your own personal opinion, which is not based on logic or evidence, but on an irrational stubborn belief that it was controlled demolition.
@bellijklh and now your a physics student and you have no idea about how material loses mass as its energy is burned up? You have never burned a log on the fire then seen ashes left? never burned a candle? I explained the Leidenfrost effect when it comes to liquid fuel, wait you not aware of this and your a physics student? wait a sec you understand the steel when heated would bend and distort at best with weight applied? TOTAL free fall when towers fell explain the physics in that.
@bellijklh Why don't you just google two things and you'll find your answer. "what temp centigrade does steel melt?" "what temp cent. does jet fuel burn?"
@selubria sure, i'll do that. but only if you google "conspiracy debunked" and read the full FEMA report. i'm sure you could also find your answers there.
@bellijklh Wow, yeah right. I will never read anything claiming to debunk a conspiracy theory written by the government. You are a fool to believe that report isn't biased.
@selubria what makes you think conspiracy inventors are not biased? especially those who gain prestige and money by in spreading those ideas. grow up. do you think Noam Chumsky is also a fool?
@selubria what makes you think conspiracy inventors are not biased? especially those who gain prestige and money by in spreading those ideas, the conspiracy leaders, those who make movies about it. grow up. do you think Noam Chumsky is also a fool? there is no evidence to doubt the integrity of the people who wrote the report, or to imply that they covered-up something else that had happened to the wtc.
Sorry but people with better credentials say it can. I've also played bridge builder for 2 days, so I can argue from authority just as well as you though if you used your head more often you'd realize doing so would be appealing to a fallacy.
No one cares who you respect, you are delusional enough to think government agents are out there in random places to keep us from the "Twoof".
@GonG108 I agree. If raw kerosene (jet a) burned at 1000c. I would imagine compressed jet fuel in an engine would burn right through the engine. Give me a break. This report is retarded.
Wow, totally unsubscribed. My freakin dog tags wont melt in jet fuel. Dog tags. Tiny thin steel. Civilians are brainwashed morons. Seriously. Gas stove, blue flame, stove is cold to the touch. Idiots. Rocket fuel burns hotter than jet fuel and doesnt melt the dang launch pad, made of steel. We been burning jet fuel in a steel oil drum etc etc etc and NOTHING. Idiots. Oh yea and I love those firemen that use Burn Buildings over and over and over again. Ya know the mini aparment buildings lol. Wow
@Psy0psAgent Shills get lost NOW. Before you even start with personal attacks and strawman bullcrap. Attack the arguement. You shills have NOTHING but neener neener jokes. Spewing hate like teeny bart simpson cowards. How about we make contract? You are liable for 50 million US dollars if you are wrong. Not to mention any possible violations of international law? I bet I can win. Do you want equal consideration or are you confident enough to accept full commercial liability for your actions?
I just can’t decide which of Richard Gage’s idiotic assertions is the most hilarious. When he said, “The policemen were obviously told [about the demolition],” that was a pretty good thigh-slapper. Or when he claimed the BBC was “fed information,” ya gotta love it. How about when he said there was no kinetic energy during the first seconds of the towers’ collapses? LOLOL! But my favorite has to be his claim that after 9/11, insurance rates rose 2,000%. Hahaha.
It is obvious you have a dog in this fight. ISRAEL DID 9/11 according to Dr Alan Sabrosky.. look up Dr david Chandler and Dr July Woods.. BOTTOM LINE some combination of technologies were used unknown to most people. Please explain the 200 mossad agents arrested FOR 9/11 some dancing in delight that were later DEPORTED by zionists commanders. ISRAEL DID 9/11 THEY ARE SO BUSTED it is not even funny. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR CREDIBILITY NOW.
Is it or is it not true that no steel framed building hs come down from fire like those THREE did on 9/11--two with 'planes' flown in em, and third with no plane flown in it. Dont give me 'ohhh it was predicted as could happen' DID it happen--EVER?
This--a rebuttal to mountains of evidence that calls into questions virtually every aspect of the govt's version of events. This? A rebuttal? I'm so tired of nitwitted support for a government that has repeatedly lied & was never investigated--meaning with subpoenas and under oath in public--for its role in "federal failure day". What low standards you nitwits have for truth & government conduct. You are on the wrong side of this one--shame on all of you for supporting a gov't of liars.
representativepress you can read the official account and mindlessly buy into it you choose. But it is impossible for the jet fuel to be widely and uniformly distributed as the core of the WTC's were the solid concrete elevator banks that would have created a barrier of the uniform distribution of jet fuel and fire.... But hey, don't let common sense get in the way of your propaganda!
Slave2Reason 1 week ago
If this is your only basis you got alot of work to do back to the drawing board LOL
themessengeromari 3 weeks ago
This is weak that's all you got? anymore evidence? because I'm not convinced come on man you gotta do better than this you could of least put some effort into.
themessengeromari 3 weeks ago
If the U. S. Government doesn't like comments posted on U tube. They can simply kick in your door, call you a traitor, and indefinitely incarcerate you without ever charging you with a crime. The laws giving the government these far reaching powers were enabling a mass cull of those who disagree with the official Bull Shit spread by the 9-11 commission. Welcome to the new America. Dr. Ron Paul is America's only hope. God bless Dr. Ron Paul.
SupperStu72 4 weeks ago
This is a load of Bull Shit. The Points made in this video are all far more speculative than any of those who look at All the inconsistencies surrounding 9-11.
I'll list just a few of hundreds of suspicious facts.
1.) Many of the supposed high jackers are still alive. They lied about who was guiding the jets in the building.
2.) Eye witnesses heard clearly before the buildings collapse pop,pop,pop,pop,pop.
Exactly like controlled demo's.
This Video addresses nothing even closely relev
SupperStu72 4 weeks ago
How does a collapsing building melt the police cruisers and fire engines parked on the street?
JZJYRWO 1 month ago
@JZJYRWO
They didn't melt, they simply burned out. Just look at pictures of burned cars. They look exactly the same.
palasta 3 weeks ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
@palasta With one exception, the cars at ground zero are missing all of their door handles.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
@JZJYRWO
Well, no. No exception. Do a google picture search for "burned car". Nowadays door handles and the shells of exterior mirrors are made of plastics. They do melt even when not directly exposed to the visible part of the fire but only the heat radiation. I had the chance to witness this myself.
Last but not least: Vehicles were burning before the towers collapsed.
/watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
palasta 3 weeks ago
@palasta That's not what I mean, look at the pictures. It's not just the handle that's missing. The entire steel apparatus is gone, there are only holes in the doors where the apparatus is supposed to be. You're playing stupid with me, aren't you?
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
@JZJYRWO
"The entire steel apparatus is gone, there are only holes in the doors where the apparatus is supposed to be."
Yes, that is exactly what pictures of burned out cars not located at GroundZero are showing. You didn't even take a look, it is you who is acting stupid on purpose. First you're saying "except door handles". Now that you were proven wrong you're trying to save your neck you're coming up with this nonsense: "entire steel apparatus".
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@JZJYRWO
Now i want to of you what was it that happened to this "steel apperatus". Why is it gone?
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume For one thing, it indicates that the type of explosives which were used to demolish the buildings could not have been thermite, unless someone had foreknowledge pertaining to exactly which vehicles would be on the premises, and had then installed thermite charges inside the vehicles in order to make us think that there was very strong evidence of radiation being emitted from the towers. It also indicates that AE911Truth is a group of shills.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
@JZJYRWO
Lol, you're kidding me, aren't you? Trying to pull my leg here...
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume You have to put the evidence into perspective, which means having an open mind and considering ALL of the evidence before you reaching a conclusion. What you are doing is closing your mind and ignoring certain key pieces of evidence because they do not support your opinion.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
@JZJYRWO
This is what you call evidence? Some wild irrational nonsense theses?
What evidence do you have that it weren't ordinary fires that burned the cars? O yea, because the "steel apperatus" of the door handles were gone. Some mysterious marvel substance. Yea, my guess that it wasn't Nanothermite, nono, it were NanoBots, programmed to eat only the "steel aperatus" and leave the rest of the "steel car" untouched.
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume Uintouched? The entire car was burned out. You are retarded.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
O Really?! Don't you sayyy? And as it happens those burned out cars look exactly like every other charred vehicle. As it was shown to you cars were burning before the towers collapsed. How do you explain that?
And i still want to know what happened to that "steel apparatus" of the door handles.
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume "it was shown to you cars were burning before the towers collapsed" Prove this. All of the news footage from 9/11 is available here, find it you big red asshole.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
This video already has been brought near to you and you didn't watch it? And you're telling me "considering ALL of the evidence before you reaching a conclusion". This is rich...
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume The video also shows that this smoke was coming from the building, not the car.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
Lol, you can clearly see the burning cars and a single car in flames produces a lotta smoke.
/3O9WMfQPoU8
watch?v=f3_TsVmqsMw
It's always kinda sad to watch you lil twoofers struggle, trying to keep up your faith in the ones who stuffed you with all the CT-nonsense. Which reminds me.... what about the door handles, the "steel apparatus". You still haven't explained yourself...
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume Those building were blown to kingdom come.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
That might have happened in your fantasy. But you see, in the real world there is no evidence for this "theory".
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
@RedStarVolume That's where you are wrong. We do have evidence, Laws of physics prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Equal and opposite reaction was virtually non-existent. The only thing that was hijacked on 9/11, was the television airwaves.
JZJYRWO 3 weeks ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
"Equal and opposite reaction was virtually non-existent."
Pfahaha, thats why the mushroom clouding happened when the upper section crushed down on the floors beneath, resulting in a progressive collapse. An evidence leaping to the eye, because it's proofs there was plenty resistance and a release of enormous energy capable of ejecting steel members weighing tens of tons as far as winter garden. You mind showing me a CD where this ever happened?
palasta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
Sure, you understand the laws of physics, just like you failed at the simple task to compare burned out cars.
palasta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JZJYRWO
"they do not support your opinion"
Lol, you don't even know what opinion i represent.
RedStarVolume 3 weeks ago
You are so wrong> The description in the NIST report is absolutely impossible. All the jet fuel was incinerated on impact.
nairbasirrah 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nairbasirrah
"All the jet fuel was incinerated on impact."
It did not. In fact a large amount of fuel poured down the elevator shafts. The people in the stairwell smelled it. The odor was so strong it even made it hard to breath and it was feared the concentrated fuel and vapors could ignite.... and prbly. it partially did, which leads us to the next point of the agenda: "explosive sounds".
palasta 3 weeks ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
This has been flagged as spam show
More gibberish from the "911 debunkers".
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence
Kill0Your0TV 2 months ago
i heard it is a german nazi dwarf attack they trancendent to mikro kosmos and acted like nano bots,in a very intense operation they started to eat the steal, several time later the buildings collapsed and the nanobots escaped to tower 7,the rest is history,beware of the german nanobot dwarf army,they where created first in south park then the choosen one came entered the game and liberated the little demons from ther 2 dim. world,citizens get ready to be raped by those mighty big stick dwarfs
GonG108 2 months ago
This video is awful. The ratings for the video speaks for itself.
AE911Truth,org
Over 1600 architects and engineers at AE911Truth say those were controlled demolitions, and I haven't seen one good argument against them yet.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago 4
WOW! I cant believe your falling for all the crap that this guy is talking about! so your saying that a fire man, who's career is based on saving people, would know more about the structural weaknesses of buildings then a professional architect! your messed! and when has the government ever been on our side! You my friend, are a victim of brainwash!
fatpat38 3 months ago
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers.
12weasel100 3 months ago
@12weasel100 "Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers" Maybe you should look up (Llyode England's Virtual Confession) before you say that. Were in the video the man who's cab allegedly got hit by flight 77 admits he was a stated eyewtiness. I'm not joking you around or anything like that in the video he admits he was in on 911. Can you debunk that?
spoonsdnldsn 3 months ago
@spoonsdnldsn if you believe 911 was an inside job then you are a retard. You have absolutely no facts to support the bullshit you spew out. There were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Knocked over light poles, pics of the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn, marks left by the plane etc etc etc all support the fact a plane did hit the Pentagon. You shit on the graves of those that died on that plane by suggesting they were not real. You are clearly are a deluded moron.
12weasel100 3 months ago
@spoonsdnldsn Oh it's you again! I can't believe you go on about this taxi drivers confession when I've explained to you dozens of times but yet you still go on and on about it. How do you even know that was a confession? the interviewer was making him very confused at the very start of the video and didn't even show what he said before his so called confession. For all I'm guessing Lloyde was either talking about something else and the truthers took his words out of context and started building
thespoon456 3 months ago
@spoonsdnldsn Their own story which is not the same as someone admitting he was in on 911. But even if that is him saying I was in on it? the man was not that bright and was confused and harassed by these truthers and was very unconvertible, so by that he just said I'm in on it so they would leave him alone or something like that. I know you'de love to think otherwise but that's the truth.
thespoon456 3 months ago
this is bullshit
nb45001 3 months ago
@nb45001 Wow that was an awesome response. and Fact based.. now I am totally on your side..
MrRexquando 3 months ago
wow this guy really believes 9/11 was NOT an inside job?
dude, you have to be an agent. cause all of your other arguments seem to make sense. except this one... hmmm... somethins fishy
bmw200000 3 months ago
@bmw200000 That is the troother opening like "it doesn't look right". So one piece out of 1000 looks funny. Once camera angle, etc. that doesn't mean it isn't. Once you put all the scientific evidence together with the eye-witnesses and videos it looks like the experts concluded. Why would this be an inside job? who would benefit? and most importantly how was it done? Until you can answer those questions you don't have anything to stand on..
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando those quetions have all been answered, just do a tad bit more reasearch, watch a couple more (unbiased) documentaries and open your fucking mind, u will see why you were wrong all along. i dont have time to answer all your questions, becaue u will jut ask more, and u will never be satisfied, instead just do some more research. it not very hard.
bmw200000 3 months ago
@bmw200000 Using 4 letter words is a common tactic of a troother who is on he ropes. I have most of my information from reading not youtube crap. I have looked every where and my mind is wide open. You don't have time to answer? Or you don't have answers? Sounds like the same thing. I have done the math with falling objects, researched high speed plane crashes and evidence, Look for other causes and found nothing. So its your turn and burden of proof. What did happen on 911?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
Comment removed
butanerios 3 months ago
I think the collapse of all three buildings was way to fast, even for a floor truss building!!! There was no resistance at all, i think you will never see a skyscraper collapse that fast! ;)
74pbg 4 months ago
@74pbg Have you ever seen a steel frame demolition? How fast should it fall? It fell twice as fast as "free-fall".. but what does that prove either way? What do you think made the building fall?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
It's very easy to assume wtc would collaps after he saw both twin's collapse this day! ;) Nobody thought that the twin tower's would come down this day, but after this everthing was possible!
74pbg 4 months ago
@74pbg Or maybe if you look at the facts and science behind the investigation it makes perfect sense. And if you research it you'll notice it fell completely different that WTC1-2.. Did you notice that?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
excellent video!!!
derpotni3riots 4 months ago
According to NIST the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. A physical impossibility. Given that we are still on planet earth.
roxxphatcox 4 months ago
@roxxphatcox So if it is impossible.. What did I see? I was there and saw them collapse..
MrRexquando 3 months ago
Yes yes, okay you people are idiots I'm leaving. the fire's "weakened" the steel in an asymetrical pattern but the fact that it went into freefall instantly straight into it's own footprint doesn't suggest anything otherwise happened. The fact that Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as a pretense to pass the patriot act, wage illegal war, establishment rogue government agencies, and make billions off of never ended defense contracts and raising oil prices doesn't mean anything either. SHEEP!
selubria 4 months ago
/watch?v=j9rPCgz_DXs <-- THE TRUTH, DEBUNK THAT ONE YOU TOOL.
sleek462 4 months ago
Amazing how two 97 storey buildings and a 47 storey building can be totally demolished by some structural damage over half way up and some fires when they had been designed to withstand plan impacts, and that high rise steel framed buildings according to the experts have never totally collapsed previously. Amazing how one of the worlds top CD experts said Building 7 was a CD BEFORE he knew it was building 7 in New York and on 9/11. And of course explosives residues found in the dust
fish5133 4 months ago
Barry Jennings heard explosions going off in WTC7 way before the building collapsed. That could explain why the "structural integrity of the buiding" wasn't there anymore.
IntoTheHeartOfMusic 4 months ago
What you fail to explain is why asymmetric damage on two buildings resulted in a symmetric near freefall of all 3 buildings. You're in denial. The NIST report is a complete sham. We need a REAL investigation.
Shroomn2hi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember, remember, the 11th of September
The global enslavement plot.
I know of no reason why the new world order treason
Should ever be forgot…
narukofan2 5 months ago
Research the building 7 collapse it's the key to what really happend on September the 11th in 2001.
Remember building 7 collapse.
narukofan2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narukofan2 Building 7? That's the one the firefighters said was unstable and likely to collapse, right? In fact, they even formed a collapse zone around it so that no one would get hurt when it eventually collapsed. That's the building you're referring to, right?
PoetryHound 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would like to know how the pilots survived, and why they havent been arrested, as it seems some have turned up alive, still named in the offical report tho!
patmaherjfm 5 months ago
I would like to know how the pilots survived, and why they havent been arrested, as it seems some have turned up alive, still named in the offical report tho!
patmaherjfm 5 months ago
Yeah your debunking is flawed. What about building 7? Representative Press needs to smarten up and ask more questions instead of always trying to lead us down the anti-Israel angle. Not that I support Israel. But this guy has a real hard-on for the Israel issue. I strongly suggest that RP might very well be a gatekeeper organization. 70% of what he says is good. But has a mainstream knowledge base that ruins his outlook... I like non biased info.
Scobo11 5 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
@Scobo11 what about building 7? are you listening to the facts in my videos? The fire department was worried that building 7 would collapse. Fire chief Daniel Nigro thought the building could collapse. Here's why:
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create
a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].
A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the
building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity
was in serious doubt."
representativepress 5 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
@representativepress after the explosives went off.. plain fuel simply dosnt burn hot enough to melt the steal used, its a shame it all got taken away and destroyed before anybody got to look at it!
Still, we have satalite images, showing some serious hot spots!
patmaherjfm 5 months ago
@patmaherjfm Office fires can reach temps in excess of 1,000C. The steel loses half its yield strength at 600C.
If steel was impervious to fire, then why would they coat it with fireproofing?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound Exactly....which is why SOMETHING isn't right....bc that building had steel with fireproofing put on it....yet in 2 hrs after the crash of the plane and jet fuel induced fire the building collapes...even supposing the building would collapse from that alone....it wouldn't have happened that quickly
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 According to NIST, the plane impacts stripped off much of the fireproofing from the steel on the fire floors.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scobo11 With all this NASTINESS, It's hard to see the difference between sincere people who disagree and the dis-info shills!
Here's a test that NEVER fails: The issue of having a real, criminal, forensic 9/11 investigation (we have not had one, yet).
Sincere persons, even with opposing views on what happened, will ALL agree that a 9/11 investigation is not only necessary, but LEGALLY MANDATED.
BUT, No mater how many pages of blog-posts you create promoting it, the SHILLS will never agree!
251omega 3 months ago
gratz for succesfull waste of your time making this vid..
dickobrazz01 5 months ago
i don't think you understand the leidenfrost effect, and why it should not be applied on burning fuel. the fuel at the wtc was not heated and boiled by a hot surface, it's was ignited, burned. in fact, you seem to have no understanding in physics at all. if what you say is true, than why your claims didn't make into the mainstream conspiracy? i know why, even they find it not convincing. about the free fall - it has already been debunked.
bellijklh 5 months ago
Another facter that is often overlooked is the fact that the buildings would actually have lost mass and weight as they burned! like when a log turns to ash. I work metal on a forge, and it does not work easy even when heated under refractory conditions, This is not a truthers conflict, it is simple science that reveals the truth. as the buildings burned yes some heat would cause some bending and distortion, but the high winds would have actually strengthened the steel through fast cooling
tonymengela 5 months ago
Seen too many videos which very strongly demonstrate the opposite of what this video claims. I like Representativepress, just not this video or it's message. This leaves out Building 7 completely, did it fall out of sympathy or did it's fireproofing fail too? C'mon, not an effective argument. Was building 7 demolished by an invisible team in just minutes?
electrodes1300 5 months ago
Unsubscribed.
bloodwiper 5 months ago
I am more than disappointed in this video. It is very contradictory to many of your previous posts.
Im not sure if i can continue to watch representativepress clips for fear of being manipulated. Please explain to your viewers your reasoning.
chrisellard 5 months ago
and what about all the firemen and people reporting very strong explosions in the buildings. the janitor in the basement reported a guy whose skin was blown of his arms and he heard the boom.
still liquid steel weeks after the falls.
ofcourse 9/11 was an inside job
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
normally your videos are mindnumbingly boring and it's difficult to follow what you are even on about in the grand scheme of thing, often seems lost in minutia but with this video you went well beyond that and solidly stepped in it.
Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was demolished. president elect John Kerry admitted knowing about it. WTC7 was way too clean to be fire damaged to that point. come on.
and if WTC1 and 2 kinked at some floors, the structure underneath should at the very least slow it.
DanFrederiksen 5 months ago
@DanFrederiksen No, Silverstein never admitted demolishing his building. That's just conspiracy kooks who have intentionally misinterpreted his use of the word "pull." There's no evidence of his involvement in any demolition. John Kerry obviously meant to say WTC 6, where cables were used to PULL down the remaining structure. And BTW, John Kerry is not and never was president elect. Looks like you were unaware that the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse.
PoetryHound 5 months ago 7
@PoetryHound pull it and then we watched it collapse is fairly clear that he means to demo the building, that's also why police officers and fdny were backing people up because the building was "going to explode".....
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 "pull it" = pull the fire-fighting operation for the safety of the men. They saw the building leaning over.. Google it.. it NEVER exploded did it.. it just fell..
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando pull it is a commonly used phrase to destruct the building... and that's exactly what they do when they are destructed, fall straight down... sheep
leafs3113 3 months ago
@leafs3113 LoL yes call me names good cover for when you don't have anything. So you think fire-fighters are trained on demolish terms? It didn't straight down you know. It was leaning badly for hours. And do you have any evidence timed explosions? (NO)
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando call you names??? I called you a sheep, that's not calling you a name, calling you an idiot would be calling you a name... I never said firefighters are trained to demolish buildings, where in the video do you see him talking about telling the firefighters to pull it....... if it was leaning it would have fallen sideways over, not straight down, which it did, yes debris spread out, bu the structure fell STRAIGHT DOWN, watch any video and it's obvious....
leafs3113 3 months ago
if the fireproofing was dislodged, then how is it that Edna Cintron was able to stand in the hole left behind by the plane? Surely if the fireproofing was removed, it would have been too hot at the place of impact - the point where the MOST fireproofing would have been removed. What exactly are you trying to represent here, Mr. Representative Press? You represent Bullshit.
shanehoustein 5 months ago
watch this video and tell me WTC7 wasnt demo'd
/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related
(this is not a rick roll or something stupid)
420JimmyX 5 months ago
Comment removed
420JimmyX 5 months ago
RP...You ever had this many dislikes on one video....there is a reason for that...if your not being sponsored by the establishment you might want to research it more from alternate sources....maybe research physics no matter of jet fuel induced fires would bring a building of that size down in less than 2hrs
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 "You ever had this many dislikes on one video....there is a reason for that."
Yep, and the reason is that it's mostly conspiracy believers who watch conspiracy videos. Most normal people don't.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound Most "normal" people don't watch anything worth watching on tv or youtube or anywhere else because they are too busy being consumed by mindless and idiotic things that are put on just to entertain and pacify you....if you personally choose not to think for yourself and rather be told what to think thats your business...you just gonna look like that clown on your avatar....foolish
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 I guess you didn't notice there's a line through the clown on my avatar. The clown represents people who swallow the anti-science 9/11 conspiracy theories that some anonymous YT video spouts or that are posted on some unaccountable Joe Blow web site. The conspiracy clowns have subnormal intelligence. They even think the votes on YouTube videos have statistical significance. LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound What you dont get is that it didn't take me watchin anythin on youtube to convince me that the official 9/11 story portrayed by the government had more than a few holes in it. I've actually talked to people who lost someone on that day and they are conviced either. If you actually believe that you were told the truth and nothing but the truth from the 9/11 report than your intelligence might be the one in question..No way towers that size would fall in less than 2hrs from fire alone
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 "No way towers that size would fall in less than 2hrs from fire alone"
And no one says fire alone caused the collapses. There was another major factor. Do you know what it was? I'll give you a hint: They fly through the air.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound and no the planes hitting it while significant still wouldnt bring down the building of that size in 2hrs especially being hit at the top of the structure....try again
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 BTW, it wasn't the planes alone that brought down the buildings, and it wasn't the fire alone that brought them down. It was the COMBINATION of the two.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound And the combination of those 2 still wouldn't bring those 2 buildings down in less than 2hrs...
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 According to who? You?
LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound according to any expert in the field of physics, architecture, fire-proofing, steel makers....take your pick
Darock45 5 months ago
@PoetryHound The impact of the plane was great and jet fuel may have fueled the fire but the sheer size of the buildings alone and where the planes hit (100th floor) would make it impossible to collapse or IMPLODE if you will in that short of time
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 "the sheer size of the buildings alone and where the planes hit (100th floor) would make it impossible to collapse or IMPLODE if you will in that short of time"
Is that your structural engineering expertise talking or just your intuition?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound Its my knowledge of physics that shows that....Laws of motion....An object will continue in motion (plane)until it is acted upon by another force (building) That energy is then transferred to the building..the plane did not drop straight down into the building but rather hit it from the side but we are to believe in less than 2hrs a building 120 stories tall would implode(not fall over) from that forceand fire COME ON
Darock45 5 months ago
@Darock45 "Its my knowledge of physics"
Well, you should go tell the physicists that you know Physics better than they do. LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
Great video. Hopefully more Truthers will come to see the errors in the CD theory and concentrate on the logical issues.
I'm a reformed Truther. I've even been to Gage speaking events! But as you clearly point out the collapses were caused by fire and damaged structures. There were no explosives.
Why the CIA let the highjackers through the Sudi embassy is a real question.
TheTruthline 5 months ago 10
@TheTruthline Did this video really convince you? What about the fact that Barry Jennings heard explosions going off in WTC7 way before the building collapsed?
IntoTheHeartOfMusic 4 months ago
Representative Press, I'm sorry your videos are getting attacked by 9/11 fraudsters just because you criticize one of their favourite talking heads.
ProfMike789 5 months ago
-=UNSUBSCRIBE NOW=-
maokly1 5 months ago
I love how no matter the amount of evidence you show that proves there was no inside job, from witness accounts to physical evidence, to common sense, there are shitloads of morons who will hold onto their petty conspiracy theories.
Yet another genuinely informative piece from you, RepPress.
AngryIntellectual 5 months ago
People just have no idea how extremely hard it is to drop a building that was built NOT to fall straight down. much less three by accident! I have a video I recorded of a controlled demolition notice how identical it is, this building was months in planning and it was not even a quarter in stories high.
tonymengela 5 months ago 3
I agree it seems architecture has shown that 9/11 is a lie. This buildings were built strong but I would have made them with powerful concrete like the Empire State Building rather than how it was really buit. From the outside the WTC look as if it was just glass and pillars.
1Historygenius 5 months ago
@1Historygenius
The event of 9/11 or the 9/11 Inside Job belief?
AngryIntellectual 5 months ago
@AngryIntellectual I am talking about the design of the WTC. I believe the tube frame design could withstand fires but not a giant plane. Remember that many buildings were not meant for collisions. The planes destoyed the pillars on the floors they collided in as well weakining or break pillars on the nearby floors which would probrably sends a pattern throughtout the buildings. As the pillars weakend the floors would collapse, its simple.
1Historygenius 5 months ago
On this issue I don't agree with you m8, my common sense tells me it's possible for the planes to collapse the 2 towers but the third.., no way. It was a controlled demolition to make space for wars as a pretext for robbing the country and change the world.
freshhug 5 months ago
Very good video, I can't believe the entire architectural community hasn't shouted down Gage as a complete hack. I appreciate your logical analysis. The Truther movement is famous for making HUGE leaps of faith in both logic and analysis.
duezeri1968 5 months ago
Richard Gage is a proven fraud and nothing more than a typical paranoid fueled 9-11 truther.
dreadnaught2 5 months ago
I'm unscribing because of this video. I believe more in Richard Gage than YOU.
joniindo78 5 months ago 3
@joniindo78 That makes at least two of us.
73849309378 5 months ago
Foolishness. Even if fires could have eventually led to the towers collapsing, judging from other fire-induced building collapses, they shouldn't have just fell straight down, at near free-fall speed. And WTC 7 wasn't even hit by your magic building-destroying planes and it fell the same way. The Gov't has lied to us before for ulterior motives so this wouldn't be the first time. Wake up. They have used that event ever since as a pretext for war & incrementally turn this into a police state.
73849309378 5 months ago 3
@73849309378 I am curious, why would'nt they fall straight down?
1Historygenius 5 months ago
@1Historygenius because of the strength of the rest of the building, People just have no idea how extremely hard it is to drop a building that was built NOT to fall straight down. much less three by accident! I have a video I recorded of a controlled demolition notice how identical it is, this building was months in planning and it was not even a quarter in stories high.
tonymengela 5 months ago
@1Historygenius Easy. Resistance. The lower, undamaged part of the building would resist the upper part, slow it down and force it outward. It wouldn't just fall down symetrically in a neat pile, but sections would fall away from the center of gravity. Some sections don't even fall. Watch any video of a building that falls from fire damage. There's plenty of them on here.
73849309378 5 months ago
@73849309378 Well that would be more into gravity than architecture, and I think that a big plane (note I do not know its weight) would crush at least some floors and those floors would crush the rest of the floors down. In other words floor after floor after floors would fall vertically. The only way in my opinion for the plane to even make the building tilt is ift would have a greater force. That it did so it makes sense that one it was lodged in there that it stressed the building.
1Historygenius 5 months ago
@73849309378 fod bless you for telling the truth
techmonster100 5 months ago
By the way, Jet fuel burns by the Leidenfrost effect only the fumes burn and the temp stays cool under the boiling layer then the gas layer that is burning, REAL scientist knows this with any fuel fires that is one reason water is NOT used as it just scatters and spreads, ONLY the air temp is hot and for short periods of time and is scattered, the only thing the fuel could have done is hardened and tempered the steel, which by the way was covered in 6-4" of concrete. The pillars had over a foot
tonymengela 5 months ago
Sorry but I have worked steel and other exotic metals for 20 years, as well as various areas of construction, Jet fuel could not have caused the towers to fall, period! Rep press You just proved your part of the machine, I used to respect you as an intelligent person, but I can no longer perceive as such. It is obvious to me now your channel is set up for people to comment for profiling purposes. I am sure you will call me an conspiracy theorist but that is ok. I will call you a government agent
tonymengela 5 months ago 2
@tonymengela well said bro
TheGreatKurd 5 months ago
@tonymengela
You fucking moron, YOU are "part of the machine", you're playing right into the government's hands. The government loves it when knuckleheads like you waste your time and energy on conspiracy theories, because they distract you from what the government is ACTUALLY up to. Why don't you read a book by Chomsky or Eric Margolis, and quit with the alien autopsy shit. You make all critics of the government look bad.
profd65 5 months ago 2
@tonymengela have you also worked with jet fuel (or other kinds of fuel) and tested its influence on steel structures? if not, then what are you basing your claim that "jet fuel could not have caused the towers to fall, period"?
bellijklh 5 months ago
@bellijklh why Actually I have, I make custom knives, I have a forge and am well aware of what fuels to use, and what CANNOT work and why. I already explained why liquid fuels cannot melt metal to any effect. liquid fuels stay cooler under the boiling level. What is also left out is the as the buildings burned they got lighter in weight! they lose mass as they burn and the steel structures actually take less stress, There is not enough space for reasons why in this forum.
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela "liquid fuels cannot melt metal"
And no one says they did. In fact, no one says the steel was melted. It was WEAKENED. Not by the jet fuel, but by the plane impacts and fires. The jet fuel simply acted as an accelerant for the fires.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound ahh yes they have man and they also found pools of melted metal in the rubble as they cleared it,,, and yes you are right jet fuel cannot melt steel or even get it hot enough to make it pliable
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela Yep, melted metal. Not uncommon in big fires. But it wasn't steel. The temps weren't hot enough to cause pools of molten steel.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound Then why did they find pools of molten steel?. And if you knew anything about steel you would know that the heating would yes distort it but would NOT weaken it, the high wind up there would cause rapid cooling and because of the grade steel, it would have gained more strength from that alone,,, You see fire helps steel,, only IRON weakens through heat because it fractures from the impurities in it I know metals very well at best the towers could have twisted and leaned over
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela Temps weren't hot enough to create pools of motlen steel. All eyewitness accounts of molten "steel" are anecdotal. No one was in a position to determine the metallurgical composition of the witches brews at ground zero.
You're no steel expert. And your comment is absurd. Who says steel that distorts and buckles is not weakened? No one. Who says the wind cooled the steel sufficiently? No one. You made it up. FIre helps steel? You're nuts. So why do they coat it with fireproofing?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound What ever you say man after all poetry is your thing, believe what you want, its your choice, but I stand by what I said. I know the truth your more than welcome walking around with yours eye wide shut
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela "I know the truth"
No you don't. You just make shit up. Fire doesn't "help" steel. You made that up.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound ahh yes it does the steel used in high rise buildings uses a low silica higher carbon and chromium ratio just for the reason of fires, you see with those ratios in mind the steel would form carbides when heated. there are always high winds at the top of towers in N Y buddy I watched the towers fall, they fell at free fall speeds, that is IMPOSSIBLE with out explosive help period EVER NEVER You are obviously another ignorant fool or just another cia bitch or best of all jew
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela It was mainly A-36 steel. It is susceptible to fire. Why would they coat it with fireproofing if fire couldn't damage it.
Of course there are winds. But you are the only one in the world that says those winds would have cooled the steel sufficiently to prevent weakening. Again, you made it up. If you hadn't made it up, you'd have provided a reference by now.
The towers did NOT fall at freefall. And you got "free fall speeds" wrong too. It's acceleration, not speed. You lose.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound wrong. nist admits in their report that building 7 had no resistance in it's fall for the first 8 stories.
selubria 4 months ago
@selubria I don't know which of my comments you think is wrong. You're right that NIST stated there was no resistance for a brief 2.25 second period. Before and afterwards there were periods of resistance. Is that what happens in a CD?
PoetryHound 4 months ago
@tonymengela BTW, who says free fall can only be caused by explosives? That's right, WHO makes that claim (other than you)? Even your fellow kookspiracy tard chums acknowledge that the twin towers fell at slower than free fall and that only a brief portion of WTC 7's collapse was at free fall.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound Lol yeah there's photographic evidence and witness testimonial of molten metal, which as you two have been arguing about, and as you will find out after you google those two questions, it wasn't jet fuel and crash impact does create molten iron either. Try and google what creates molten iron as a bi-product and you'll find out there was a thermitic reaction at the WTC. What does thermite do? Destroy steel.
selubria 4 months ago
@selubria Melted metal is common in fires, not in CDs. Thermite can't keep anything hot, let alone molten, after the reaction ends.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
@tonymengela Although the fires didn't melt the steel, they did weaken it.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@tonymengela your conclusions about the wtc collapse reflect your personal opinions. you're not an engineer and you've never worked with structures as huge and complicated as the wtc. it's not clear to me why do think that the building lost mass while the fuel was burning, can you please give me a more detailed explanation? can you estimate the initial and final masses of the towers while they were burning? even if mass was lost, it should have been equalized by the mass of the plane.
bellijklh 5 months ago
@tonymengela it's also not clear what you meant by " liquid fuels stay cooler under the boiling level". care to explain more? did you mean the the combustion temperature is lower than the boiling temperature?
bellijklh 5 months ago
@bellijklh I already described what I meant, And as far as working on structures as complex as buildings Ohh yes I have man, I have built almost every type of commercial and military ship that floats in the water, and not just as a labor hand, as supervisor of construction at EVERY stage from panel lines to modules. I have worked high rise building as well building the modules for those as well. My engineering comes from experience that spans 20 years of hands on and trouble shooting.
tonymengela 5 months ago
@tonymengela i don't think you can explain what you meant, you said something about boiling temperature and buildings loosing mass.... things that just don't make sense to a physics student like me.
bellijklh 5 months ago
@tonymengela supposing you do have experience in building almost any type of civil engineered structure ever built by humankind, as you claim, you are still not in a position to make a diagnosis for why WTC towers have collapsed based on your professional experience, you're not an engineer. you can repeat what you read on "truth" websites, but that would be your own personal opinion, which is not based on logic or evidence, but on an irrational stubborn belief that it was controlled demolition.
bellijklh 5 months ago
@bellijklh and now your a physics student and you have no idea about how material loses mass as its energy is burned up? You have never burned a log on the fire then seen ashes left? never burned a candle? I explained the Leidenfrost effect when it comes to liquid fuel, wait you not aware of this and your a physics student? wait a sec you understand the steel when heated would bend and distort at best with weight applied? TOTAL free fall when towers fell explain the physics in that.
tonymengela 5 months ago
@bellijklh Why don't you just google two things and you'll find your answer. "what temp centigrade does steel melt?" "what temp cent. does jet fuel burn?"
selubria 4 months ago
@selubria sure, i'll do that. but only if you google "conspiracy debunked" and read the full FEMA report. i'm sure you could also find your answers there.
bellijklh 4 months ago
@bellijklh Wow, yeah right. I will never read anything claiming to debunk a conspiracy theory written by the government. You are a fool to believe that report isn't biased.
selubria 4 months ago
@selubria what makes you think conspiracy inventors are not biased? especially those who gain prestige and money by in spreading those ideas. grow up. do you think Noam Chumsky is also a fool?
bellijklh 4 months ago
@selubria what makes you think conspiracy inventors are not biased? especially those who gain prestige and money by in spreading those ideas, the conspiracy leaders, those who make movies about it. grow up. do you think Noam Chumsky is also a fool? there is no evidence to doubt the integrity of the people who wrote the report, or to imply that they covered-up something else that had happened to the wtc.
bellijklh 4 months ago
@selubria No one says the fires melted the steel. They weakened it.
13falls123 4 months ago
@tonymengela
Sorry but people with better credentials say it can. I've also played bridge builder for 2 days, so I can argue from authority just as well as you though if you used your head more often you'd realize doing so would be appealing to a fallacy.
No one cares who you respect, you are delusional enough to think government agents are out there in random places to keep us from the "Twoof".
Chinomareno 5 months ago
sorry but steel does not melt at 1000 grad celsius , steel starts to melt with temperatures higher then 1800 grad celsius.
second there is no possibility to spread kerosin across several floors because it blew up when these flying objects hit the towers.
is that all ? i mean this is not very intelligent or sophisticated
GonG108 5 months ago
@GonG108 I agree. If raw kerosene (jet a) burned at 1000c. I would imagine compressed jet fuel in an engine would burn right through the engine. Give me a break. This report is retarded.
buzzybeemarketing 2 months ago
Wow, totally unsubscribed. My freakin dog tags wont melt in jet fuel. Dog tags. Tiny thin steel. Civilians are brainwashed morons. Seriously. Gas stove, blue flame, stove is cold to the touch. Idiots. Rocket fuel burns hotter than jet fuel and doesnt melt the dang launch pad, made of steel. We been burning jet fuel in a steel oil drum etc etc etc and NOTHING. Idiots. Oh yea and I love those firemen that use Burn Buildings over and over and over again. Ya know the mini aparment buildings lol. Wow
Psy0psAgent 5 months ago
@Psy0psAgent Shills get lost NOW. Before you even start with personal attacks and strawman bullcrap. Attack the arguement. You shills have NOTHING but neener neener jokes. Spewing hate like teeny bart simpson cowards. How about we make contract? You are liable for 50 million US dollars if you are wrong. Not to mention any possible violations of international law? I bet I can win. Do you want equal consideration or are you confident enough to accept full commercial liability for your actions?
Psy0psAgent 5 months ago
I just can’t decide which of Richard Gage’s idiotic assertions is the most hilarious. When he said, “The policemen were obviously told [about the demolition],” that was a pretty good thigh-slapper. Or when he claimed the BBC was “fed information,” ya gotta love it. How about when he said there was no kinetic energy during the first seconds of the towers’ collapses? LOLOL! But my favorite has to be his claim that after 9/11, insurance rates rose 2,000%. Hahaha.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
It is obvious you have a dog in this fight. ISRAEL DID 9/11 according to Dr Alan Sabrosky.. look up Dr david Chandler and Dr July Woods.. BOTTOM LINE some combination of technologies were used unknown to most people. Please explain the 200 mossad agents arrested FOR 9/11 some dancing in delight that were later DEPORTED by zionists commanders. ISRAEL DID 9/11 THEY ARE SO BUSTED it is not even funny. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR CREDIBILITY NOW.
1shabuti1 5 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
Gage is in it for the publicity, 'conspiracy theories' are an industry.
ruffa65 5 months ago
Is it or is it not true that no steel framed building hs come down from fire like those THREE did on 9/11--two with 'planes' flown in em, and third with no plane flown in it. Dont give me 'ohhh it was predicted as could happen' DID it happen--EVER?
zezt 5 months ago
You think you can debunk all the info that Gage presents in a 4 minute video ??? Funny, funny, stuff
biggbaddjohn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are wrong
progbean 6 months ago
Richard gage making 100,000 dollars a year, and still havn't funded any investigation.
dumb truth movement puppets keep giving him money
taledarkside 6 months ago
This--a rebuttal to mountains of evidence that calls into questions virtually every aspect of the govt's version of events. This? A rebuttal? I'm so tired of nitwitted support for a government that has repeatedly lied & was never investigated--meaning with subpoenas and under oath in public--for its role in "federal failure day". What low standards you nitwits have for truth & government conduct. You are on the wrong side of this one--shame on all of you for supporting a gov't of liars.
restoresoundmoney 6 months ago
@restoresoundmoney we do not care what you are "tired of" you opinion is worthless bullshit. 911 was not an inside job.
12weasel100