You realize every time there's an explanation of how thing's happened, It gets trumped by the ground zero witnesses who's words are taken very serious & exact. But when they don't support the official reports, they are not credible any longer.
Larry gave permission to "Pull it" And explains. does this releases his responsibility some how to the people.
How did they pull it in such short time.? Don't give me it was people being pulled. That's stupid & I won't except that answer.
Larry said pull it to a firefighter. Last I checked firefighters don't do demolition.
Regardless, pull it is a term for "pull it with cables". Even Alex Jones got the meaning of pull it right, they decided to withdraw from the building. Pull back.
Oh, I would bet they probably do. I've watched them burn & gut a perfect 2 story home 4years ago.
Now what makes you think they don't Or won't.?
NEVER have people been referred to as "IT" I guess that slips the mind. And considering many have stated FF's were never inside Building 7, I'd say that was a stupid answer once again by debuggers claiming truth is crazy.
You don't know what all they'll do seriously, Rules have changed. And so we don't know who were the ones pulling the building.
What we do know is L.S. authorized the fire commanders. which doesn't even make sense. But you heard it all. And they won't answer to the public about nothing.
Great work on this video. I woke up on the day 9/11 happened and saw the building burning. I thought it was an accident. Then on live TV, I saw the second plane hit the building. I saw it actually turn into the building. It was very chilling. I was taping with my VCR. I remember them talking about WTC 7 and multiple reports said that fire officials were expecting the building to collapse. . But the conspiracy nuts don't believe than a building can burn down to the ground.
@Rayvyn007 That would make Building 7 the THIRD BUILDING IN HISTORY to go down because of fire & that building went strait down too- The term PULL IT was used: Do you know what that means? Yeah, NO YOU DONT. And here's a weird one_ BBC reporter standing at a distance, Is reporting that the Salmon building has just collapsed & IT "building 7" IS STILL STANDING in the background. Oh and Barry Jennings "What did he say again" I don't remember but it contradicted the O'FisHoleSTORY! & now hes dead
I'm guessing you meant the third steel frame building in history. So what? It was also the first time in history three high rise fires have gone completely unfought. The fact that WTC 7 survived seven hours of completely unfought fires is simply amazing. All of the three buildings performed excellently.
Yes, to pull something means to take down a building using cables. It also means pulling forces from some situation. I.e. firemen from a burning building.
@Weirdo10o4 Alright WEIRDO! You want to be right so bad_ your right_ Its your right to be right. RIGHT!? LOL Fucking weirdo I didn't come here to argue with you.
You obviously did come here to argue and decided to pull on rules N.1 and 1B when confronted and run away.
PS. Do inform me if I got anything wrong. (with sources, please)
Also it was the first time large aircraft have been used as weapons against buildings and the first time in history a structure which used solid fire proofing was hit by a very large modern plane.
Continued. WTC 7 was expected to collapse for three to four hours. It's hardly unexpected or strange that reports of its impending collapse turn in to reports of a collapse. If you do think it's strange, then consider that Finnish news special reported on 9/11 that a Boeing 747 had gone missing. Nothing unheard of. No spook in history would be stupid enough to give foreknowledge to the same news that busted them on everything that followed in the next seven years.
Furthermore. Barry Jenning's identical witness Michael Hess is still alive, and neither support/ed your ridiculous bullshit. Also, Jennings was in WTC 7 during WTC 1's collapse, so his account only further validates the fact that WTC 1 impacted WTC 7.
@grimbattalion What the hell are you babbling about? You're all over the place. The building was heavily damaged by the debris and gutted by fire. It was going to collapse. The reason it burned is because it stored emergency fuel for the emergency command post. Also that was not a controlled demo, a controlled demo uses detonation cords all over the place and you can hear them go off in series, not all at once. Also a demo causes the center of the building to go first, not like 7's str8 down
The 911 truthers are doing a disservice to all the firemen who wanted to save people. These "truthers" clamied they were in on it. They disgust me. I remember seeing the building burning all day before it collapsed under it's own weight. Yet the 911 conspiracy loons claim it was a controlled demo yet you can't hear any explosions in series.
@Rayvyn007 One truther, especially not kooktard Jason Bermas, does not speak for truthers as a whole. Everyone seems to think every "truther" shares the same opinions as every other truther.
Btw, there is more than one type of demolition... Not all involve a series of audible explosions...
@Weirdo10o4 Thermite/thermate or nuclear demolitions are possible. No matter how many people try to refute this. Their only basis for denial is that controlled demolition COMPANIES do not use these practices. But of course, if the military was involved in 9/11, they would have access to far greater technology and methods than any controlled demolitions company. The nuclear method would explain the giant craters under each building, and the convenient use of the term "ground zero."
Thermite is never used for tasks which require timing. Nuclear devices create a sound. And the size which they'd need to be would be microscopic(and the smaller they are, the more expensive they get), never mind the radiation, EMP and such. What craters? The building weighed 500,000 tonnes each, I think that explains, perfectly, how they breached the basement structures. And the base of the core of the North Tower remained intact. As did the entire core of WTC 2 for a moment after the collapse.
@Weirdo10o4 LOL. This is all just based on YOUR knowledge. You have no idea what the military uses thermite for. Yes, a nuclear device would make A sound, not a series as I said before. And there are many videos and witnesses verifying that there was at least one explosion. Money is not an issue, so I have no idea why you raise this point. Radiation is easily controlled, and the ground would absorb most of it. Just do a search and you'll see the craters.
Much smaller military conspiracies don't work in a religiously tense and corrupt nation. There's no way in hell they could pull it off in America.
There were several explosions, there's a shitload of things on Manhattan that will explode in such conditions. You're working off the premise of one explosion six hours before the collapse of 7? How desperate are you.
Money is an issue.
Then you have no trouble providing a nuclear physicist who says it's possible.
@Weirdo10o4 BULLSHIT. It's been done repeatedly. Just investigate false-flag events. Who said anything about 6 hours? or building 7 in particular. So I have to take your question... How desperate are YOU?
If your explosion theory holds true, why does NIST, etc. deny there were any explosions at all?
Money is not an issue if your the military and already have plenty of nuclear devices.
"WTC 7 explosion" although no one has a clue where the video is from when asked, is the most common explosion video around. I'm sure you don't mind giving an example of US false flag operations.
NIST denies the presence of explosives. Explosions are about as common as fires in high rise fires, and some normal fires in general.
There's this thing called "a budget", then there's a black budget which they don't need to account for.
@Weirdo10o4 Of course not. Easily done. The Gulf of Tonkin.
NIST denies explosions in general or they would have tested for it to be thorough. Why would you not test for explosions when the "same terrorists" used them in 1993?
You're "budget theory" hold no weight, sorry. As I said before, they have plenty of nuclear devices at hand. It wouldn't take 50 billion to manufacture small nuke devices. That's like saying we dropped 100 billion dollars on Japan, and who knows how much in nuclear tests
@corruptedsilence It's pretty easy to tell what they use thermite for given it's properties. It's used to burn very hot but as a demolition tool, they did and experiment with it on the Discovery Channel and the thermite took a long time to burn through steel and they had to build a reservoir around the steel to hold it. The military probably uses it in incendiary devices.
And others have done experiments with nano thermite and found it extremely hard to use against steel. Thermite can cut steel well, but it has to have a large device to concentrate it.
@Rayvyn007 LOL, the Discovery Channel? The channel and show you're referring too are owned by members of the elite. They're not going to let anything out that they don't want going out. Secondly, research Jonathan Cole. He proved the "Discovery" channel wrong. Apparently, they just aren't very smart. Thermite can be used in small amounts to cut steel horizontally and vertically, very easily. Not too mention, thermite is much weaker than thermate and nanothermite, which neither source has tested.
It requires a device, none of which were seen at the WTC site. And it wasn't easy, maybe you should rewatch that video. Nano thermite has been tested and it didn't do shit. It did so bad Jesse Ventura had to edit that part of the show out. Not to mention the fact that nano thermite isn't stable.
@Weirdo10o4 No it doesn't. Thermite can be lit with a simple magnesium strip. Like I said before, look up Jonathan Cole's videos. He proved it is possible whether you want to be ignorant to it or not.
Did I comment about the devices themselves? Yes. It would not be easy to place them, any version of them. All the columns were covered in fireproofing, aluminum cladding and all sorts of shit.
@corruptedsilence OK please show me a video demonstration from a credible source that shows a small amount of thermite or nanothermite being used to cut through steel I-beams or girders. I hear all these wild assed claims from those who claim to know "the truth" but when you ask them to back up what they say, they don't. Will you show proof?
The Discovery Channel is owned by the elite(illuminati) right? Is there any conspiracy theory you DON'T believe in? LOL
@corruptedsilence Nuclear devices make big sounds even under ground and they leave radiation even when detonated underground. You're now making stuff up because your nutty theory has been debunked. Oh yea, thank you for showing what a coward you are and blocking me from responding to your post.
@Rayvyn007 Not at all. You're stupidity and lack of knowledge on the subject is just annoying. I'd rather not waste my time with a moron who doesn't know that the the amount of radiation can be controlled.
@corruptedsilence Well apparently you think anyone who disagrees with the flimsy evidence you guys provide are paid off by the "elites". In other words, you guys think that you know everything and any other source is lying. This makes you a cult member, you act just like a crazy cult loon who refuses to believe anything that contradicts the cult leaders. In this case the cult is that of the conspiracy theory believers. Your page is only about conspiracies, nothing else. It's your cult life...
@Rayvyn007 Not at all, but it's funny to see you blindly assume such ridiculous things. You keep wasting your life all day on youtube, while I'm out living a real one. ;)
No, my page has other things than conspiracies, it must suck being wrong so much. But most of THIS account is focused on that, just to keep it organized for people who want the information.Try again, so I can keep laughing at how pathetic you are.
@corruptedsilence No you're the nut who has every video on his page dedicated to nutty conspiracy theories. I only have ONE video on my page and it was done mainly as an experiment. You are obsessed with conspiracy theories from chemtrails to the myth that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were inside jobs. I bet you even look like a weirdo as we know most conspiracy loonies look, well loony. As for my life, I work for a living and don't spend my life online. Just look at your page, nutty nutty...lol
Woe listen to you!! You can turn all the way around & smell your own ass!! Am I hearing it doesn't stink. WOW.
NEWS FLASH!!
People that show no face of themselves and cast stones at others are rarely smart. Which can only mean you're a government nut job. Like a church goon. I'm amazed when I argue with you goofy people. this is why religion was so easily taught to air heads.
No bases to stand on, But yell out "God is coming" 60 years. Is that him over there... Awl nope. damn.
@Snowman374th How come whenever someone simply points out the gaping holes in all these conspiracy theories, they get labeled as a government operative? I wish the government did pay me to debunk these conspiracy theories, it would be easy money!
The Pentagon was well protected against all conventional threats. The hijackers had all received university level education, so shove your cavemen up yours.
Yes, they did fail to protect because the system hadn't contemplated such a threat. The margin of success was strict. Flight 93 failed only by a matter of minutes.
Lol, that's a quote. 9/11 Truth - The War on Reading Comprehension
Lol. That's gonna make it to my wall of twoof. So the FBI or CIA trained them to fly, but they couldn't fly. LOLOLOLOLOL. DOES IT HURT WHEN YOU TRY TO THINK.
Well other instructors said that once they got going they wouldn't have any problems pointing the aircraft and hitting the building. Indeed there's nothing amazing about it. They train for years to learn to fly aircraft safely. What you're saying is that it takes a fucking stunt driver with years of experience to crash a car.
Where's the evidence that the FBI housed them or knew of their plans. Kook websites not accepted.
We wouldn't want to accept anything that contradicts the official report right.?
Yes it is amazing, amazing to find the side you chose to take can't defend any of it's positions let alone a any structure. with thorough investigating.
now you say no kook websites. Well I find everything I need on the tube. So visit my page 9/11 inside job. that should be plenty. But don't go though. I wouldn't want you to change you're view or position of sides.
I already did prove they were liars. Alex Jones goes on to admit what pull it means, then he forgets all about it. AJ's show on the USS Liberty, full of lies. Richard Gage lying:
And never the less. The number 1 play list. Nobody can't dismiss make up or deny what's being said & shown in the first two series. meaning two different ones. Over an hour long each series.
NO DEBUGGER will stay with it. they cry it's too long and claim silly things against them. well. truth is worth hanging around for.
There's two sides. And it seems both sides will say anything to discredit the other. Showing more desperation to cover this up.
Regardless, you're the one who's remaining silent, helping the agenda. That's why I've asked you to tell me the motive of the hijackers according to the official account, can't be hard, right?
1st nobody has claimed responsibility. Bin laden in a language nobody can understand is a set up. The Arab world knows he didn't, And the FBI knows because his face never made it to the most wanted for it. I know, I went to see if it was.
That country refused the money offered to run that oil line our people protect there now. The embassy's attacked are B.S. India's was too.
Everything that proves all of this, is bashed by debuggers who refuse to listen.
A country housing terrorist, Doesn't get to come here and learn to fly nothing.
Pay attention to WWII. and what happen to the Japanese here.
V.N. war, was the beginning of all the open B.S. they allowed them to come here as well. They didn't attack us here, And they had a better cause for it. And backed that up all through that conflict.
I keep reading what you are saying to dude. Insults seem to be all you have to offer.
Radiation can be controlled.? You come back when you get sober.!
You better not start slinging insults at me. I've heard plenty. Insults translate the person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I know many myself. Did you here me insult you.
Well either you're not American and understand our history or where I'm coming from, Or you just enjoy being rued, which is just like a typical debugger aka debunker.
As I said save the insults for you're friends. We're done.
"I keep reading what you are saying to dude. Insults seem to be all you have to offer.
Radiation can be controlled.? You come back when you get sober.!
You better not start slinging insults at me. I've heard plenty. Insults translate the person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I know many myself. Did you here me insult you.
@corruptedsilence Well implosions all use explosives. Thermite and microthermite demolition would take huge amounts of the chemical. It is not used in demoliton but some people think a thin layer of painted on thermite or microthermite is enough to melt steel or weaken it enough to cause collapse. That is not the case. The fall of WTC 7 was due to fuel stored there and the building being damaged by debris impact and being gutted by fire. I heard the reports on 9/11 to evacuate WTC 7.
@Rayvyn007 Unfortunately, no. Nanothermite is so highly reactive that it doesn't take as much as normal thermite. And who really knows how advanced the military has become with thermite forms and uses. I'm not saying that it was used, just that it's possible.
Stored fuel? Not even NIST claims this. The building was not gutted by fire. There is no proof of this. If that was the case, the building would have fallen to the weakened side, not into its own footprint at free fall for 2.5 seconds.
@corruptedsilence But no nanothermite was used on WTC 7 because nobody of any credibility found any. In fact the only thermite at all was found by a nutty scientist from Europe. The fact is people want to believe in some crazy conspiracy theory. It makes loony loners and misfits feel like they know more than the "clueless morons" who believe that Al Qaeda hit us. It makes them feel powerful or important so that's why no matter how many time you debunk the lies they still belive in that horsesht.
@Rayvyn007 Not true. An American scientist found the same thermite. And he sent the dust to a number of his colleagues and they all found the same thing. Just because they disagree with your idiotic claims, doesn't make them "nutty" or without credibility. YOU have no credibility. Especially, when you make unbased, biased claims such as these. You've never debunked anything that wasn't turned around to make you look stupid. You just ignore it when it happens. Dumb ass.
@corruptedsilence They did not prove that thermite caused the collapse. I'll concede that some other scientists may have claimed to have found something. But it's probably more lies put out by the nutty conspiracy folk like you seem to be. Stop smoking weed, get a job and learn to look up FACTS rather than some crackpot loony scientists' unfounded claims. I hear all kinds of debunked claims. Thermite was not used to bring down the towers, it would be impractical. Oh yea "dumbass" is one word.
@Rayvyn007 The first half of your statement truly shows who you are. A pathetic weasel who will do anythng to squirm his way out of being wrong, which is only why you half admit what I say is true then try to throw a biased, "probably" based, lame excuse to discredit the truth. Pathetic kid.
You have given 0 facts.
No. Dumb ass, is two words, like, "dick breath" which you undoubtedly have. Dumb is the adjective, which describes YOU, and ass is the subject, which IS you. Once again... umad? XD
@corruptedsilence The first half of my statement only says that other crackpots have made claims without proving jack squat. I've seen how nanothermite needs to be used to cut steel girders. It takes a lot for a building that size and it does not explode, it burns. It takes minutes to burn through girders, that's why they don't use it for demolition. They use conventional explosives. I've met some of these conspiracy nuts and they look and act like loony people. Sorry that's just a fact.
@corruptedsilence Oh yea you should go to Debunking911. They show how some pictures showing firemen standing over molten steel were faked by conspiracy loonies and those idiots who believe everything they say like yourself. Go to the bottom of the page read about the molten steel photos. They also debunk a lot of common conspiracy theories about the 9/11 Al Qaeda attack on the USA.
@Rayvyn007 LOL. Really? "Debunking911?" Surely you're not talking about the same site that's been debunked itself on many items? That website is a joke and you're a fool for believing everything they say. So I guess we're both "idiots" and "loonies." umad? XD
@corruptedsilence OK show me how Debunking911 d o t c o m has been debunked. I must have pegged you pretty well since you seem to be pissed. Let me guess, you don't have a job or life of much importance. You probably spend a lot of time alone and on the Internet looking for new conspiracy theories to latch onto. I think you should go outside and realize that there is a 9/11 conspiracy. Al Qaeda members conspired to hijack commercial airliners and attack the WTC and gov buildings. Dot end...
@Rayvyn007 Sounds like you're talking from personal experience there, kiddo. My life is just fine thanks, I actually just got back from a week in Italy. What were you doing? Oh yeah, jerking off to animal porn in your mom's basement... umad?
Excellent vid! I would have to say that it is exactly in line with the fact that the columns had greater loads placed on them, which making them more vulnerable to such damage and catastrophe's such as what it experienced on that day. Add to that, the fact that the bottom 7 floors were basically hollow void, by design, to accommodate the Con Ed sub-station and you have quite a recipe for disaster such as what happened on 9/11.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed ”. Adolf Hitler
but of course... this has no relevance of today. not when the major media is owned by the people who could orchristrate this? no. we are much more intelligent now!.. arn't we?? jesus F&*#
WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
WTC 2 is extremely closer to Banker's Trust building than WTC 1 is to WTC 7. isn't that weird that BT doesn't collapse?
Nobody's going into 7? I heard other non-truthers say the exact opposite. I guess non-truthers have different stories just they they say about us truthers. I wonder who's into reading disinfo or misinfo.
All 47 stories were on fire. WTF! The pictures definitely don't show that!.
Did WTC 7 collapse from debris or from fire? The Bankers Trust just didn't catch fire. Neither did the Winter Garden or any of the WFC buildings...
What time of day was that quote from. Nobody's going in to seven was probably said in the afternoon after they had ordered WTC 7 to be evacuated when they expected it to collapse.
Why isn't even the color on WTC7 recognizable? Should be a brownish building. Could the video be fake and rendered on a lousy computer? Is that why the color became so bad? So why is the color so horrible wrong than? Recorded by a $20 webcamera?
If you're referring to the firman clip then it's probably because a wrong type of camera or film is used and the clip is overexposed. If you've never realized, outdoor lighting conditions are thousands of times stronger than indoor light.
/watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY
I'd appreciate it if you'd get the slightest clue about photography before opening your mouth on the subject.
While you're at it, do create your own "fake" video any time. Seeing as it's so easy.
@Weirdo10o4 - It is not just the colors, but even the colors are fishy. What about the missing backlot or background? Every video of the WTC7 collapse have the same problem. Even, yes even the "live" news broadcast is obviously fake. Very easy to spot when you understand what to look for. Fake video and paid actors - Goebbels would be proud if he had created this.
I don't get what you're saying. Overexposure burns the film to plain white. What missing background, where? So have you ever heard of OpSec? "Paid actors, fake footage" how many millions per person? Paid off firefighters?
@Weirdo10o4 - The background is missing in a lot of these 911videos - very typical. Don't know what OpSec is. An actor in firefighter costume is not an firefighter. Lots of prostitutes out there, shouldn't be to difficult to find some actors for a bargain either.
Here is what a lying witnesses can look like - Nayirah, the Kuwiti Abassadors daughter:
Show me one that has a missing background? Operations security, something like the WTC? Never. Actors in a black op? Never. How much do you think the story would sell for?
Sigh the reason the color of wtc 7 is grey rather than brown is because that side of the building is shadowed by the sun. Just search world trade center 7 on google images and you will see the same color when it is shadowed by the sun.
If explosives were used. Where is the audio of Massive explosions just before the collapse? Are there reports of any such sounds? Wouldn't these explosions be impossible to hide? Just a theory...
2.5s/30m - 15s/180m building. There's something funny about them not being able to simulate a collapse? You've got a weird sense of humor, I'm just gonna wait till they can.
Besides don't you think with their "secret source codes" they could just make it an animation that matches perfectly with the events if it were an inside job? 9/11 truth - Defying Common Sense since 2004.
@jaguarclaw well then how do you explain the windows on the west side of the building blowing out just prior to collapse initiation ???? because I have had truthers say that it was an indication of explosives going off ?!?!? but that would not be possible with thermite ???
There is no evidence thermite COULD even do it. Not a single demolition has used thermite, ever.
The penthouse is inconsistent with CD. It came down naturally, the windows breaking are a result of deformation in the building's wall and the collapse inside. Lets not forget how badly 5 was damaged by fire.
@jaguarclaw ........... it is consistent with NIST's collapse scenario, as is the collapse of the east penthouse 6 seconds before the collapse of the building
WTC 5 suffered major floor failures. The towers suffered major floor failures.
The difference is that the towers didn't have their core bases next to the fire zones. The smaller buildings had nearly adamant bases right next to the fires, the smaller structures were more stable than the immense towers. The bases of both cores stayed intact.
/watch?v=eWpOfUMz6SE
Etc. 25 percent came from eye witnesses, last I heard eye witness testimonies are evidence.
@jaguarclaw ABSOLUTLEY NOT, fires caused the collapse of portions of floors 8-4 in WTC 5 ..... if you go and look at the FEMA report you will also see photos of buckled columns, faled coulmn tree connections, and and beam connections with bolts torn away on floors 6,8, & 9 ALL FROM "NORMAL OFFICE FIRES" ...... I wonder what would have happened if these floors had been holding up 300,000 TONS of building !?!?!??!?!?!
What a joke - free-fall acceleration and a horizontal symmetrical roof-line and a deficient brain are all that's required to be brainwashed into thinkin buildings fall like this because of a few sporadic fires - free-fall for 2.5 seconds = all structural support taken away at precisely the same time - now you try and think about that for a few minutes - no building before / none since - duh let me think
No, 25 meters of a 186 meter building isn't the whole building, no matter if it is in twoofer world, retard40. 25 meters of support columns removed is too obvious for a secret operation.
@Weirdo10o4 your meters to building shit is like shinola einstein - yes - it's an American idiom - look it up - and please tell us how meters are important when free-fall is irrefutable- lol - please tell mr Gay Finland
@LOLCATS3111 - and you think that wtc7 fell because of a few fires? This had a 'low probability of occurrence' - yet you know more? You think buildings free-fall for nearly three seconds with a horizontal intact roof-line cause of an organic process like fire? LMAO at morons like you - Bin Laden made it do that eh? lol
@mooners40 ..... you know who is a moron ????? I guy like you, who has never taken a single college level science course, but yet thinks that because he watches a couple of youtube videos that he knows more then PhD level structural engineers, collapse forensics engineers, and fire safety engineers at NIST who have years of particle experience in building collapses and building fires
@Weirdo10o4 i need a qualification to comment? Did you miss my last post? What qualifications has Mark Roberts got in relation to structural engineering yet the official lie followers like yourself would blow him in a second - enlighten us
Did Mark Roberts lead the NIST or FEMA/ASCE investigation? Or what the hell are you going on about?
Richard Gage/AE911 doesn't have the credibility to comment. Not only is their front page covered with lies, Gage, the founder, is an idiot: /watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
@Weirdo10o4 I don't think Roberts led anything apart from dicks like you by the nose- he's a tour guide - but your god of engineering lol, Gage is an honourable man and an architect - watch the blueprint for truth series type it into yt and watch and learn - - did you give me the answer to the fire induced 'collapse having a 'low probability of occurrence'? If you knew anything about the official story you would tell me - You call an architect an idiot? What are you? read books on 9/11!
@Weirdo10o4 you think he's a shill - lol - you need to brush up on word meanings - what do you think a shill is?and actually watch his blueprint for truth - you might start a journey of learning - inform yourself
You tell me what a shill is... :D This's gonna be entertaining. The meaning coincides with what I'm saying...
.
Actually watch playschool with Richard Gage, makes you appreciate what a moron he is. "journey of learning" try your Alphabet book tricks somewhere else. They don't appeal to me.
Yes, it's unlikely, surprise, if something hasn't been observed to happen often it's unlikely.
.
Another kook starts congratulating himself, moron.
@Weirdo10o4 learning doesn't appeal to you - very evident - shill - paid to tell ya? you're missing a big picture - the whole lie of 9/11 is about money and being 'paid' - oh the irony - you're wilfully ignorant - sad moron
Seattle firefighter? There are 11,000 firefighters in the FDNY. 9/11 left a lot of people badly traumatized.
Richard is a moron.
The evidence is not the towers nor the planes. The cause isn't a mystery.
They had the steel available for the investigation, just stored at scrap yards. There was neither molten steel or concrete. There was an accelerant called jet fuel. The towers had so many chemical in them it would've been useless.
Concrete "dustifies" when it breaks, dropping 50,000 tonnes of building on concrete covered floor systems tends to break concrete. The only point where concrete pulverized was during the collapse so it's caused by, nor a cause of the collapse. "Only be considering exotic accelerants," they should only be considering jet fuel and the succeeding fires. "Why should we not test for them now," probably because the towers weren't blown up and exotic accelerants can't survive fires for hours.
The bases of the cores remained intact, we know that nothing happened in the basement. Fire explosions, do you think they need to rule all the 10,000 explosions that day, all sorts of things can explode.
They did it with planes and that's the only thing that can account for the bowing of the exterior columns, tilting of the tops. There was nothing strong enough to damage the steel frame. The only explosives required would've been for the initiation of the collapse.
7 was only hit by a skyscraper, burnt uncontrolled for 7 hours, fires were dangerous according to a fire photographer with 30 years of experience, the "crimp" didn't work since it collapsed on to other buildings and left an 8 story pile.
The one saying that is the firefighters so stfu or view everything in this video and in the description.
No, it didn't fall down perfectly unless hitting the Verizon building was in the plans, the fire weakened the base of the building so that 7 floors buckled at once leading to two seconds of near free fall acceleration. 7 floors is a bit TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS for a secret demolition. 2 seconds of free fall out of the entire collapse means the building resisted the rest of the over 12 second col
7 WTC being hit by a large section of the north tower is a FACT, anybody who thinks it was hit by "dust" is either clueless or in denial
YES, you are correct, the structural damage from the north tower impact had NOTHING to do with the collapse ...... BUT you are WRONG in saying that " fires did not do that " ............ THEY DID
You can believe whatever you want,no one's stopping you,but don't lie about shit you don't know about because you weren't there
Windows are breaking, watch the higher resolution video, it's obvious. It happens later on the west side from deformation. Smoke puffs from the top, figures since the building was on fire.
I cant see through dust clouds, heated metal could ignite fires, breaking electrical equipment.
Fire can weaken steel, the core couldn't stand without the floors, which failed first.
Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all low-rise Buildings 7 was the only relatively large building that took a hit and started burning. Unfought fire for 7 hours weakened the building, and it was assessed by FDNY who decided to retreat from it.
7 had the Con-Edison substation in its basement which supplied Manh..
I see the expression of FIRE, As if this can make this kind of building collapse.
INFORMATION!
If you work in a high rise. QUIT that job! get out now!
It's very clear that fire will bring a high rise down, even if it needs help. In the U.S. anyway.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
'Cuzz all fires start on five+ floors at once and go completely unfought for 7 hours.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Sounds like you been fooled pretty good. I can't believe such a building would be constructed if fire can bring it down so easy.
Before you start the bashing. Keep in mind. If the clock was on time, You would have never seen the building fall.
This is called an unorganized crime, From an organized NWO, Who have made a few mistakes and should be holding certain members for a "hangin"
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Easy? How's it easy? How do you keep the fire department from doing nothing to a building for 7 hours under normal conditions?
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Orders.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
You realize every time there's an explanation of how thing's happened, It gets trumped by the ground zero witnesses who's words are taken very serious & exact. But when they don't support the official reports, they are not credible any longer.
Larry gave permission to "Pull it" And explains. does this releases his responsibility some how to the people.
How did they pull it in such short time.? Don't give me it was people being pulled. That's stupid & I won't except that answer.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
What responsibility?
Larry said pull it to a firefighter. Last I checked firefighters don't do demolition.
Regardless, pull it is a term for "pull it with cables". Even Alex Jones got the meaning of pull it right, they decided to withdraw from the building. Pull back.
Go ahead don't except[sic] that answer.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Oh, I would bet they probably do. I've watched them burn & gut a perfect 2 story home 4years ago.
Now what makes you think they don't Or won't.?
NEVER have people been referred to as "IT" I guess that slips the mind. And considering many have stated FF's were never inside Building 7, I'd say that was a stupid answer once again by debuggers claiming truth is crazy.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
The FDNY does not do high rise demolitions.
There was no operation at WTC 7, but there were firemen. How do you think they got Barry Jennings and Michael Hess out of there.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
You don't know what all they'll do seriously, Rules have changed. And so we don't know who were the ones pulling the building.
What we do know is L.S. authorized the fire commanders. which doesn't even make sense. But you heard it all. And they won't answer to the public about nothing.
That's a form of guilt.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
Great work on this video. I woke up on the day 9/11 happened and saw the building burning. I thought it was an accident. Then on live TV, I saw the second plane hit the building. I saw it actually turn into the building. It was very chilling. I was taping with my VCR. I remember them talking about WTC 7 and multiple reports said that fire officials were expecting the building to collapse. . But the conspiracy nuts don't believe than a building can burn down to the ground.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 That would make Building 7 the THIRD BUILDING IN HISTORY to go down because of fire & that building went strait down too- The term PULL IT was used: Do you know what that means? Yeah, NO YOU DONT. And here's a weird one_ BBC reporter standing at a distance, Is reporting that the Salmon building has just collapsed & IT "building 7" IS STILL STANDING in the background. Oh and Barry Jennings "What did he say again" I don't remember but it contradicted the O'FisHoleSTORY! & now hes dead
grimbattalion 8 months ago
@grimbattalion
I'm guessing you meant the third steel frame building in history. So what? It was also the first time in history three high rise fires have gone completely unfought. The fact that WTC 7 survived seven hours of completely unfought fires is simply amazing. All of the three buildings performed excellently.
Yes, to pull something means to take down a building using cables. It also means pulling forces from some situation. I.e. firemen from a burning building.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Alright WEIRDO! You want to be right so bad_ your right_ Its your right to be right. RIGHT!? LOL Fucking weirdo I didn't come here to argue with you.
grimbattalion 8 months ago
@grimbattalion
You obviously did come here to argue and decided to pull on rules N.1 and 1B when confronted and run away.
PS. Do inform me if I got anything wrong. (with sources, please)
Also it was the first time large aircraft have been used as weapons against buildings and the first time in history a structure which used solid fire proofing was hit by a very large modern plane.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@grimbattalion
Continued. WTC 7 was expected to collapse for three to four hours. It's hardly unexpected or strange that reports of its impending collapse turn in to reports of a collapse. If you do think it's strange, then consider that Finnish news special reported on 9/11 that a Boeing 747 had gone missing. Nothing unheard of. No spook in history would be stupid enough to give foreknowledge to the same news that busted them on everything that followed in the next seven years.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@grimbattalion
Furthermore. Barry Jenning's identical witness Michael Hess is still alive, and neither support/ed your ridiculous bullshit. Also, Jennings was in WTC 7 during WTC 1's collapse, so his account only further validates the fact that WTC 1 impacted WTC 7.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@grimbattalion What the hell are you babbling about? You're all over the place. The building was heavily damaged by the debris and gutted by fire. It was going to collapse. The reason it burned is because it stored emergency fuel for the emergency command post. Also that was not a controlled demo, a controlled demo uses detonation cords all over the place and you can hear them go off in series, not all at once. Also a demo causes the center of the building to go first, not like 7's str8 down
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rayvyn007 What ever you say. I'm sure you already know how smart you are ^-_^
grimbattalion 8 months ago
The 911 truthers are doing a disservice to all the firemen who wanted to save people. These "truthers" clamied they were in on it. They disgust me. I remember seeing the building burning all day before it collapsed under it's own weight. Yet the 911 conspiracy loons claim it was a controlled demo yet you can't hear any explosions in series.
Rayvyn007 10 months ago
@Rayvyn007 One truther, especially not kooktard Jason Bermas, does not speak for truthers as a whole. Everyone seems to think every "truther" shares the same opinions as every other truther.
Btw, there is more than one type of demolition... Not all involve a series of audible explosions...
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
Oh, really!? Well can we see one?
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Thermite/thermate or nuclear demolitions are possible. No matter how many people try to refute this. Their only basis for denial is that controlled demolition COMPANIES do not use these practices. But of course, if the military was involved in 9/11, they would have access to far greater technology and methods than any controlled demolitions company. The nuclear method would explain the giant craters under each building, and the convenient use of the term "ground zero."
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
Thermite is never used for tasks which require timing. Nuclear devices create a sound. And the size which they'd need to be would be microscopic(and the smaller they are, the more expensive they get), never mind the radiation, EMP and such. What craters? The building weighed 500,000 tonnes each, I think that explains, perfectly, how they breached the basement structures. And the base of the core of the North Tower remained intact. As did the entire core of WTC 2 for a moment after the collapse.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 LOL. This is all just based on YOUR knowledge. You have no idea what the military uses thermite for. Yes, a nuclear device would make A sound, not a series as I said before. And there are many videos and witnesses verifying that there was at least one explosion. Money is not an issue, so I have no idea why you raise this point. Radiation is easily controlled, and the ground would absorb most of it. Just do a search and you'll see the craters.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
Much smaller military conspiracies don't work in a religiously tense and corrupt nation. There's no way in hell they could pull it off in America.
There were several explosions, there's a shitload of things on Manhattan that will explode in such conditions. You're working off the premise of one explosion six hours before the collapse of 7? How desperate are you.
Money is an issue.
Then you have no trouble providing a nuclear physicist who says it's possible.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 BULLSHIT. It's been done repeatedly. Just investigate false-flag events. Who said anything about 6 hours? or building 7 in particular. So I have to take your question... How desperate are YOU?
If your explosion theory holds true, why does NIST, etc. deny there were any explosions at all?
Money is not an issue if your the military and already have plenty of nuclear devices.
No trouble at all.
watch?v=BVI6a1wUzvI
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
"WTC 7 explosion" although no one has a clue where the video is from when asked, is the most common explosion video around. I'm sure you don't mind giving an example of US false flag operations.
NIST denies the presence of explosives. Explosions are about as common as fires in high rise fires, and some normal fires in general.
There's this thing called "a budget", then there's a black budget which they don't need to account for.
50 billion.
Not enough.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Of course not. Easily done. The Gulf of Tonkin.
NIST denies explosions in general or they would have tested for it to be thorough. Why would you not test for explosions when the "same terrorists" used them in 1993?
You're "budget theory" hold no weight, sorry. As I said before, they have plenty of nuclear devices at hand. It wouldn't take 50 billion to manufacture small nuke devices. That's like saying we dropped 100 billion dollars on Japan, and who knows how much in nuclear tests
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence It's pretty easy to tell what they use thermite for given it's properties. It's used to burn very hot but as a demolition tool, they did and experiment with it on the Discovery Channel and the thermite took a long time to burn through steel and they had to build a reservoir around the steel to hold it. The military probably uses it in incendiary devices.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007
And others have done experiments with nano thermite and found it extremely hard to use against steel. Thermite can cut steel well, but it has to have a large device to concentrate it.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 LOL, the Discovery Channel? The channel and show you're referring too are owned by members of the elite. They're not going to let anything out that they don't want going out. Secondly, research Jonathan Cole. He proved the "Discovery" channel wrong. Apparently, they just aren't very smart. Thermite can be used in small amounts to cut steel horizontally and vertically, very easily. Not too mention, thermite is much weaker than thermate and nanothermite, which neither source has tested.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
It requires a device, none of which were seen at the WTC site. And it wasn't easy, maybe you should rewatch that video. Nano thermite has been tested and it didn't do shit. It did so bad Jesse Ventura had to edit that part of the show out. Not to mention the fact that nano thermite isn't stable.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 No it doesn't. Thermite can be lit with a simple magnesium strip. Like I said before, look up Jonathan Cole's videos. He proved it is possible whether you want to be ignorant to it or not.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
Did I say anything about ignition?
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Excuse me for thinking these were the devices you were referring too. Maybe you should be more specific next time, kiddo.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
Did I comment about the devices themselves? Yes. It would not be easy to place them, any version of them. All the columns were covered in fireproofing, aluminum cladding and all sorts of shit.
Nuclear kook? Lol. So what's your theory.
Weirdo10o4 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence OK please show me a video demonstration from a credible source that shows a small amount of thermite or nanothermite being used to cut through steel I-beams or girders. I hear all these wild assed claims from those who claim to know "the truth" but when you ask them to back up what they say, they don't. Will you show proof?
The Discovery Channel is owned by the elite(illuminati) right? Is there any conspiracy theory you DON'T believe in? LOL
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence Nuclear devices make big sounds even under ground and they leave radiation even when detonated underground. You're now making stuff up because your nutty theory has been debunked. Oh yea, thank you for showing what a coward you are and blocking me from responding to your post.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 Not at all. You're stupidity and lack of knowledge on the subject is just annoying. I'd rather not waste my time with a moron who doesn't know that the the amount of radiation can be controlled.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence Well apparently you think anyone who disagrees with the flimsy evidence you guys provide are paid off by the "elites". In other words, you guys think that you know everything and any other source is lying. This makes you a cult member, you act just like a crazy cult loon who refuses to believe anything that contradicts the cult leaders. In this case the cult is that of the conspiracy theory believers. Your page is only about conspiracies, nothing else. It's your cult life...
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 Not at all, but it's funny to see you blindly assume such ridiculous things. You keep wasting your life all day on youtube, while I'm out living a real one. ;)
No, my page has other things than conspiracies, it must suck being wrong so much. But most of THIS account is focused on that, just to keep it organized for people who want the information.Try again, so I can keep laughing at how pathetic you are.
corruptedsilence 7 months ago
@corruptedsilence No you're the nut who has every video on his page dedicated to nutty conspiracy theories. I only have ONE video on my page and it was done mainly as an experiment. You are obsessed with conspiracy theories from chemtrails to the myth that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were inside jobs. I bet you even look like a weirdo as we know most conspiracy loonies look, well loony. As for my life, I work for a living and don't spend my life online. Just look at your page, nutty nutty...lol
Rayvyn007 7 months ago
@Rayvyn007
Woe listen to you!! You can turn all the way around & smell your own ass!! Am I hearing it doesn't stink. WOW.
NEWS FLASH!!
People that show no face of themselves and cast stones at others are rarely smart. Which can only mean you're a government nut job. Like a church goon. I'm amazed when I argue with you goofy people. this is why religion was so easily taught to air heads.
No bases to stand on, But yell out "God is coming" 60 years. Is that him over there... Awl nope. damn.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th How come whenever someone simply points out the gaping holes in all these conspiracy theories, they get labeled as a government operative? I wish the government did pay me to debunk these conspiracy theories, it would be easy money!
Rayvyn007 6 months ago
@Rayvyn007
I wasn't referring to you being paid. I was referring to you nut huggin their policies, And defending what has happen under their watch.
They failed to protect us. Even their own HQ. & you can't seem to grasp that. So take it however you want to.
But this stands as an inside job. Whether we get another investigation or not.
Caveman is no danger to technology. We pay for it. But it does nothing good for the people in a form of protection. They proved that this day.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
The Pentagon was well protected against all conventional threats. The hijackers had all received university level education, so shove your cavemen up yours.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Well protected. oh, that's why it was HIT. What was protecting it.? Air or water. I saw both of them there.
I bet they did get university ed. Probably the same place who taught them to fly planes. Who was teaching them the FBI or CIA or Bush?
You sound two post from calling me a bunch of names. I'm getting somewhere.
You shouldn't feel insulted, You should feel embarrassed.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
"conventional threats" a surprise attack using an airliner wasn't a conventional threat. There were only a handful of precedent cases.
They didn't learn to fly at one place. I didn't know the FBI, CIA or Bush did flight training.
How about Al-Qaeda was paying for it.
"I'm getting somewhere." So proud of your ignorance? Fine. At least tell me what was their motive according to the official account, sheep.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Yup typical name caller I see. Okay I won't hold mine back either.
They failed to protect ANYTHING. Stupid. Conventional or not.
"9/11 EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE: Jerry Lobdall, C.E. - Chemical Engineer, Physicist" = Inside help.
Where are you getting.? You won't get anywhere with me.
I'm not a sheep. I'm a wolf. & you've become my bunny & I'm hungry. Choose better words.
It's a know fact FBI or CIA housed & trained these so called pilots to fly. & the trainers said they couldn't fly.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Where did I call you names?
Yes, they did fail to protect because the system hadn't contemplated such a threat. The margin of success was strict. Flight 93 failed only by a matter of minutes.
Lol, that's a quote. 9/11 Truth - The War on Reading Comprehension
Lol. That's gonna make it to my wall of twoof. So the FBI or CIA trained them to fly, but they couldn't fly. LOLOLOLOLOL. DOES IT HURT WHEN YOU TRY TO THINK.
So no answer as to what their motive was, sheep.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Stop making excuses for their incompetence. It's not becoming.
You're telling me they didn't house them. They knew why they were being trained to fly. 9/11 made it concrete.
Sheep. twice now. Names!
Motive.? Mass depopulation's & Ruling by power of the world. hints, NWO.
No?
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Well other instructors said that once they got going they wouldn't have any problems pointing the aircraft and hitting the building. Indeed there's nothing amazing about it. They train for years to learn to fly aircraft safely. What you're saying is that it takes a fucking stunt driver with years of experience to crash a car.
Where's the evidence that the FBI housed them or knew of their plans. Kook websites not accepted.
No, motive according to the official account.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Gotcha!
We wouldn't want to accept anything that contradicts the official report right.?
Yes it is amazing, amazing to find the side you chose to take can't defend any of it's positions let alone a any structure. with thorough investigating.
now you say no kook websites. Well I find everything I need on the tube. So visit my page 9/11 inside job. that should be plenty. But don't go though. I wouldn't want you to change you're view or position of sides.
the report was the kook.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Ok, any site that doesn't have a single blatant lie on its front page. That rules out your page. Gage is a walking, blatant, lie. So's AJ.
/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0
Youtube, the infallible source of eternal wisdom. So no evidence that the FBI or CIA trained or housed them.
And no idea of why these people did it, just like the former establishment wants it.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Okay lets run with a new topic. This time You have to proof they are liars. All of them otherwise you are beaten. Checkmate.
I won't stand for that. 9/11 play list alone beats ALL of the official report.
GO!
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
I already did prove they were liars. Alex Jones goes on to admit what pull it means, then he forgets all about it. AJ's show on the USS Liberty, full of lies. Richard Gage lying:
/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
I don't buy it.
And never the less. The number 1 play list. Nobody can't dismiss make up or deny what's being said & shown in the first two series. meaning two different ones. Over an hour long each series.
NO DEBUGGER will stay with it. they cry it's too long and claim silly things against them. well. truth is worth hanging around for.
There's two sides. And it seems both sides will say anything to discredit the other. Showing more desperation to cover this up.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
I don't give a crap if you don't buy it, it's a fact.
I'll PM you. I think it's about time I debunk that as well.
Tomorrow.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Like I even care what you think you can debunk. Debunk is another word for help cover up.
I'm not a law firm. Why even bother, we both know where this is going anyway.
I'm convinced this was an inside job leading to war for G.O.D. God-Oil-Drugs, Bottom line.
So just be proud we lost our country to communist scum. Something I know, I lost people to.
Thanks America!.. they died for nothing ya bastards.
I don't care what you do.
I'm ashamed of our God damned countries people.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
"apparently you think anyone who disagrees with the flimsy evidence you guys provide are paid off"
No I think they are blind. And they hope by helping this agenda remain silent gives you liberty when they take over.
Because even people like you know they are watching listening & recording everything we say & probably do.
Those prisons are empty for a good reason & it sure as hell isn't for over crowded prison we use now.
Wake up dude. debunk that one while you're at it.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
I didn't say that.
Regardless, you're the one who's remaining silent, helping the agenda. That's why I've asked you to tell me the motive of the hijackers according to the official account, can't be hard, right?
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
1st nobody has claimed responsibility. Bin laden in a language nobody can understand is a set up. The Arab world knows he didn't, And the FBI knows because his face never made it to the most wanted for it. I know, I went to see if it was.
That country refused the money offered to run that oil line our people protect there now. The embassy's attacked are B.S. India's was too.
Everything that proves all of this, is bashed by debuggers who refuse to listen.
You tell me the motive.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
A country housing terrorist, Doesn't get to come here and learn to fly nothing.
Pay attention to WWII. and what happen to the Japanese here.
V.N. war, was the beginning of all the open B.S. they allowed them to come here as well. They didn't attack us here, And they had a better cause for it. And backed that up all through that conflict.
I'm sure McCain can explain that one real well.
People are blind by corrupt politics.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Come back once you're sober.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
yeah that's what I thought.
A person makes valid points and cut through the chase. And wow he must be on drugs or drunk.
Stfu. then.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
I keep reading what you are saying to dude. Insults seem to be all you have to offer.
Radiation can be controlled.? You come back when you get sober.!
You better not start slinging insults at me. I've heard plenty. Insults translate the person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I know many myself. Did you here me insult you.
Pitiful.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
Your previous comment made no sense. I don't even drink.
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@Weirdo10o4
Makes no sense. WTF.?
Well either you're not American and understand our history or where I'm coming from, Or you just enjoy being rued, which is just like a typical debugger aka debunker.
As I said save the insults for you're friends. We're done.
Later.
Snowman374th 6 months ago
@Snowman374th
"I keep reading what you are saying to dude. Insults seem to be all you have to offer.
Radiation can be controlled.? You come back when you get sober.!
You better not start slinging insults at me. I've heard plenty. Insults translate the person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I know many myself. Did you here me insult you.
Pitiful."
Weirdo10o4 6 months ago
@corruptedsilence Well implosions all use explosives. Thermite and microthermite demolition would take huge amounts of the chemical. It is not used in demoliton but some people think a thin layer of painted on thermite or microthermite is enough to melt steel or weaken it enough to cause collapse. That is not the case. The fall of WTC 7 was due to fuel stored there and the building being damaged by debris impact and being gutted by fire. I heard the reports on 9/11 to evacuate WTC 7.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 Unfortunately, no. Nanothermite is so highly reactive that it doesn't take as much as normal thermite. And who really knows how advanced the military has become with thermite forms and uses. I'm not saying that it was used, just that it's possible.
Stored fuel? Not even NIST claims this. The building was not gutted by fire. There is no proof of this. If that was the case, the building would have fallen to the weakened side, not into its own footprint at free fall for 2.5 seconds.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence But no nanothermite was used on WTC 7 because nobody of any credibility found any. In fact the only thermite at all was found by a nutty scientist from Europe. The fact is people want to believe in some crazy conspiracy theory. It makes loony loners and misfits feel like they know more than the "clueless morons" who believe that Al Qaeda hit us. It makes them feel powerful or important so that's why no matter how many time you debunk the lies they still belive in that horsesht.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 Not true. An American scientist found the same thermite. And he sent the dust to a number of his colleagues and they all found the same thing. Just because they disagree with your idiotic claims, doesn't make them "nutty" or without credibility. YOU have no credibility. Especially, when you make unbased, biased claims such as these. You've never debunked anything that wasn't turned around to make you look stupid. You just ignore it when it happens. Dumb ass.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence They did not prove that thermite caused the collapse. I'll concede that some other scientists may have claimed to have found something. But it's probably more lies put out by the nutty conspiracy folk like you seem to be. Stop smoking weed, get a job and learn to look up FACTS rather than some crackpot loony scientists' unfounded claims. I hear all kinds of debunked claims. Thermite was not used to bring down the towers, it would be impractical. Oh yea "dumbass" is one word.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 The first half of your statement truly shows who you are. A pathetic weasel who will do anythng to squirm his way out of being wrong, which is only why you half admit what I say is true then try to throw a biased, "probably" based, lame excuse to discredit the truth. Pathetic kid.
You have given 0 facts.
No. Dumb ass, is two words, like, "dick breath" which you undoubtedly have. Dumb is the adjective, which describes YOU, and ass is the subject, which IS you. Once again... umad? XD
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence The first half of my statement only says that other crackpots have made claims without proving jack squat. I've seen how nanothermite needs to be used to cut steel girders. It takes a lot for a building that size and it does not explode, it burns. It takes minutes to burn through girders, that's why they don't use it for demolition. They use conventional explosives. I've met some of these conspiracy nuts and they look and act like loony people. Sorry that's just a fact.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence Oh yea you should go to Debunking911. They show how some pictures showing firemen standing over molten steel were faked by conspiracy loonies and those idiots who believe everything they say like yourself. Go to the bottom of the page read about the molten steel photos. They also debunk a lot of common conspiracy theories about the 9/11 Al Qaeda attack on the USA.
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 LOL. Really? "Debunking911?" Surely you're not talking about the same site that's been debunked itself on many items? That website is a joke and you're a fool for believing everything they say. So I guess we're both "idiots" and "loonies." umad? XD
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence OK show me how Debunking911 d o t c o m has been debunked. I must have pegged you pretty well since you seem to be pissed. Let me guess, you don't have a job or life of much importance. You probably spend a lot of time alone and on the Internet looking for new conspiracy theories to latch onto. I think you should go outside and realize that there is a 9/11 conspiracy. Al Qaeda members conspired to hijack commercial airliners and attack the WTC and gov buildings. Dot end...
Rayvyn007 8 months ago
@Rayvyn007 Sounds like you're talking from personal experience there, kiddo. My life is just fine thanks, I actually just got back from a week in Italy. What were you doing? Oh yeah, jerking off to animal porn in your mom's basement... umad?
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
Excellent vid! I would have to say that it is exactly in line with the fact that the columns had greater loads placed on them, which making them more vulnerable to such damage and catastrophe's such as what it experienced on that day. Add to that, the fact that the bottom 7 floors were basically hollow void, by design, to accommodate the Con Ed sub-station and you have quite a recipe for disaster such as what happened on 9/11.
MrSkunkwork100 11 months ago
@MrSkunkwork100
7 hours on fire is an admirable feat of endurance from any structure. All of the buildings performed excellently.
Weirdo10o4 11 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 It sure is an admirable feat for any building.
MrSkunkwork100 11 months ago
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed ”. Adolf Hitler
but of course... this has no relevance of today. not when the major media is owned by the people who could orchristrate this? no. we are much more intelligent now!.. arn't we?? jesus F&*#
dylanbryson 1 year ago
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed ” -- 9/11 Truth.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
TheEots 1 year ago
WTC 2 is extremely closer to Banker's Trust building than WTC 1 is to WTC 7. isn't that weird that BT doesn't collapse?
Nobody's going into 7? I heard other non-truthers say the exact opposite. I guess non-truthers have different stories just they they say about us truthers. I wonder who's into reading disinfo or misinfo.
All 47 stories were on fire. WTF! The pictures definitely don't show that!.
omarlives 1 year ago
Did WTC 7 collapse from debris or from fire? The Bankers Trust just didn't catch fire. Neither did the Winter Garden or any of the WFC buildings...
What time of day was that quote from. Nobody's going in to seven was probably said in the afternoon after they had ordered WTC 7 to be evacuated when they expected it to collapse.
Are you suggesting that the FDNY's in on it?
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
Why isn't even the color on WTC7 recognizable? Should be a brownish building. Could the video be fake and rendered on a lousy computer? Is that why the color became so bad? So why is the color so horrible wrong than? Recorded by a $20 webcamera?
elbuggo 1 year ago
If you're referring to the firman clip then it's probably because a wrong type of camera or film is used and the clip is overexposed. If you've never realized, outdoor lighting conditions are thousands of times stronger than indoor light.
/watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY
I'd appreciate it if you'd get the slightest clue about photography before opening your mouth on the subject.
While you're at it, do create your own "fake" video any time. Seeing as it's so easy.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 - It is not just the colors, but even the colors are fishy. What about the missing backlot or background? Every video of the WTC7 collapse have the same problem. Even, yes even the "live" news broadcast is obviously fake. Very easy to spot when you understand what to look for. Fake video and paid actors - Goebbels would be proud if he had created this.
elbuggo 1 year ago
I don't get what you're saying. Overexposure burns the film to plain white. What missing background, where? So have you ever heard of OpSec? "Paid actors, fake footage" how many millions per person? Paid off firefighters?
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 - The background is missing in a lot of these 911videos - very typical. Don't know what OpSec is. An actor in firefighter costume is not an firefighter. Lots of prostitutes out there, shouldn't be to difficult to find some actors for a bargain either.
Here is what a lying witnesses can look like - Nayirah, the Kuwiti Abassadors daughter:
watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
elbuggo 1 year ago
Show me one that has a missing background? Operations security, something like the WTC? Never. Actors in a black op? Never. How much do you think the story would sell for?
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 - Here is a clip where the "live" news broadcast HAD a background, but where the background was removed in the replay:
watch?v=VsiXMqzOL1c&t=1m10s
(Don't listen to that narrator - it is just another Judas goat.)
elbuggo 1 year ago
The background-less shot is from ground level, the other is from over 400m ASL.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 - You made that up too.
elbuggo 1 year ago
Oh really? Why don't you counter my arguments?
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@elbuggo
Sigh the reason the color of wtc 7 is grey rather than brown is because that side of the building is shadowed by the sun. Just search world trade center 7 on google images and you will see the same color when it is shadowed by the sun.
marvelfannumber1 6 months ago
If explosives were used. Where is the audio of Massive explosions just before the collapse? Are there reports of any such sounds? Wouldn't these explosions be impossible to hide? Just a theory...
dr4mus 1 year ago
Some possibly, but not in the volumes you'd expect, and never positioned on a map really.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@dr4mus there are videos with explosions heard but they are only just being released now.
The government didnt think fit to release them at the time or take them into account since it contradicts the fire damage theory.
zenoist2 1 year ago
FEMA Report Appendix C.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw the imposibility of a fire induced collapse ?!?!?!?!?!
is that way millions and millions of dollars are spent every year fireproofing
structural steel in high rise buildings ??????
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
2.5s/30m - 15s/180m building. There's something funny about them not being able to simulate a collapse? You've got a weird sense of humor, I'm just gonna wait till they can.
Besides don't you think with their "secret source codes" they could just make it an animation that matches perfectly with the events if it were an inside job? 9/11 truth - Defying Common Sense since 2004.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw well then how do you explain the windows on the west side of the building blowing out just prior to collapse initiation ???? because I have had truthers say that it was an indication of explosives going off ?!?!? but that would not be possible with thermite ???
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
There is no evidence thermite COULD even do it. Not a single demolition has used thermite, ever.
The penthouse is inconsistent with CD. It came down naturally, the windows breaking are a result of deformation in the building's wall and the collapse inside. Lets not forget how badly 5 was damaged by fire.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
can anybody explain to us WHY no video of the collapse of 7 WTC has the 130 db sound of explosives going off ?????? where these magic explosives ????
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw ........... it is consistent with NIST's collapse scenario, as is the collapse of the east penthouse 6 seconds before the collapse of the building
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw - the collapse is consistent with a controlled demolition ???
so why was it that NOT A SINGLE VIDEO recording the collapse picked up ANY 130db explosion ..... hhhhhmmmmmm !?!?!?!?!?!?
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
WTC 5 suffered major floor failures. The towers suffered major floor failures.
The difference is that the towers didn't have their core bases next to the fire zones. The smaller buildings had nearly adamant bases right next to the fires, the smaller structures were more stable than the immense towers. The bases of both cores stayed intact.
/watch?v=eWpOfUMz6SE
Etc. 25 percent came from eye witnesses, last I heard eye witness testimonies are evidence.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw ABSOLUTLEY NOT, fires caused the collapse of portions of floors 8-4 in WTC 5 ..... if you go and look at the FEMA report you will also see photos of buckled columns, faled coulmn tree connections, and and beam connections with bolts torn away on floors 6,8, & 9 ALL FROM "NORMAL OFFICE FIRES" ...... I wonder what would have happened if these floors had been holding up 300,000 TONS of building !?!?!??!?!?!
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
What a joke - free-fall acceleration and a horizontal symmetrical roof-line and a deficient brain are all that's required to be brainwashed into thinkin buildings fall like this because of a few sporadic fires - free-fall for 2.5 seconds = all structural support taken away at precisely the same time - now you try and think about that for a few minutes - no building before / none since - duh let me think
mooners40 1 year ago
No, 25 meters of a 186 meter building isn't the whole building, no matter if it is in twoofer world, retard40. 25 meters of support columns removed is too obvious for a secret operation.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 your meters to building shit is like shinola einstein - yes - it's an American idiom - look it up - and please tell us how meters are important when free-fall is irrefutable- lol - please tell mr Gay Finland
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 and this conclusion comes from yout vast education and MANY years of work in the structural enineering field !?!?!?!?!?
ANBODY who say " all structural support taken away at precisely the same time:" HAS NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!!!
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
@LOLCATS3111 - and you think that wtc7 fell because of a few fires? This had a 'low probability of occurrence' - yet you know more? You think buildings free-fall for nearly three seconds with a horizontal intact roof-line cause of an organic process like fire? LMAO at morons like you - Bin Laden made it do that eh? lol
mooners40 1 year ago
I don't think the probability was that low to the men on the site, with creaking, leaning, damaged, torched for 7 hours.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 who was it that said that the 'collapse' from fire had a 'low probability of occurrence'?
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 ..... you know who is a moron ????? I guy like you, who has never taken a single college level science course, but yet thinks that because he watches a couple of youtube videos that he knows more then PhD level structural engineers, collapse forensics engineers, and fire safety engineers at NIST who have years of particle experience in building collapses and building fires
LOLCATS3111 1 year ago
@LOLCATS3111 only morons assume they know the educational background of someone they don't know - hence you
mooners40 1 year ago
Except Lolcat's right, you don't have any qualification to comment.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 i need a qualification to comment? Did you miss my last post? What qualifications has Mark Roberts got in relation to structural engineering yet the official lie followers like yourself would blow him in a second - enlighten us
mooners40 1 year ago
Did Mark Roberts lead the NIST or FEMA/ASCE investigation? Or what the hell are you going on about?
Richard Gage/AE911 doesn't have the credibility to comment. Not only is their front page covered with lies, Gage, the founder, is an idiot: /watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
You need a source to comment.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 I don't think Roberts led anything apart from dicks like you by the nose- he's a tour guide - but your god of engineering lol, Gage is an honourable man and an architect - watch the blueprint for truth series type it into yt and watch and learn - - did you give me the answer to the fire induced 'collapse having a 'low probability of occurrence'? If you knew anything about the official story you would tell me - You call an architect an idiot? What are you? read books on 9/11!
mooners40 1 year ago
Gage is a moron and a shill. Or can you debunk Playschool with Richard Gage. Or do you actually believe that shit.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 you think he's a shill - lol - you need to brush up on word meanings - what do you think a shill is?and actually watch his blueprint for truth - you might start a journey of learning - inform yourself
mooners40 1 year ago
You tell me what a shill is... :D This's gonna be entertaining. The meaning coincides with what I'm saying...
.
Actually watch playschool with Richard Gage, makes you appreciate what a moron he is. "journey of learning" try your Alphabet book tricks somewhere else. They don't appeal to me.
Yes, it's unlikely, surprise, if something hasn't been observed to happen often it's unlikely.
.
Another kook starts congratulating himself, moron.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 learning doesn't appeal to you - very evident - shill - paid to tell ya? you're missing a big picture - the whole lie of 9/11 is about money and being 'paid' - oh the irony - you're wilfully ignorant - sad moron
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 the quote i'm asking you about is either fema or nist - try and find out which - and think about what it means - ever tried thinkin?
mooners40 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 maybe you should get a different hobby - you're shit at this one- and don't read or watch = hopeless case
mooners40 1 year ago
Truly
the emperor
is NAKED!
Charlie666XZ 2 years ago
Make fun of "truthers" all you want, but it isn't anybody's job to 'convince' you or 'debate' you.
9/11 demands a new investigation due to the obvious purposeful exclusion of large amounts of evidence and the fact the victims ask for it.
What kind of ass are you that you would deny the victims of 9/11 a new investigation to get complete closure? Some kind of 'patriot'?
Yeah, right, up yours assholes.
baguazhang1 2 years ago
Comment removed
baguazhang1 2 years ago
From a firemen that was there!
watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
Tell him you know better Weirdo!
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
Seattle firefighter? There are 11,000 firefighters in the FDNY. 9/11 left a lot of people badly traumatized.
Richard is a moron.
The evidence is not the towers nor the planes. The cause isn't a mystery.
They had the steel available for the investigation, just stored at scrap yards. There was neither molten steel or concrete. There was an accelerant called jet fuel. The towers had so many chemical in them it would've been useless.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Concrete "dustifies" when it breaks, dropping 50,000 tonnes of building on concrete covered floor systems tends to break concrete. The only point where concrete pulverized was during the collapse so it's caused by, nor a cause of the collapse. "Only be considering exotic accelerants," they should only be considering jet fuel and the succeeding fires. "Why should we not test for them now," probably because the towers weren't blown up and exotic accelerants can't survive fires for hours.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
The bases of the cores remained intact, we know that nothing happened in the basement. Fire explosions, do you think they need to rule all the 10,000 explosions that day, all sorts of things can explode.
They did it with planes and that's the only thing that can account for the bowing of the exterior columns, tilting of the tops. There was nothing strong enough to damage the steel frame. The only explosives required would've been for the initiation of the collapse.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
7 was only hit by a skyscraper, burnt uncontrolled for 7 hours, fires were dangerous according to a fire photographer with 30 years of experience, the "crimp" didn't work since it collapsed on to other buildings and left an 8 story pile.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
It wasn't hit by a skyscraper..the only one that's saying that is you!
It was barely hit by any debris..it was mostly dust!
And there's no way that debris caused the building to fall perfectly straight down with NO resistance!
That means the INNER structure would had to have been taken out and sorry but those weak ass fires did not do that!
You can believe whatever you want,no one's stopping you,but don't lie about shit you don't know about because you weren't there!
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
The one saying that is the firefighters so stfu or view everything in this video and in the description.
No, it didn't fall down perfectly unless hitting the Verizon building was in the plans, the fire weakened the base of the building so that 7 floors buckled at once leading to two seconds of near free fall acceleration. 7 floors is a bit TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS for a secret demolition. 2 seconds of free fall out of the entire collapse means the building resisted the rest of the over 12 second col
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
7 WTC being hit by a large section of the north tower is a FACT, anybody who thinks it was hit by "dust" is either clueless or in denial
YES, you are correct, the structural damage from the north tower impact had NOTHING to do with the collapse ...... BUT you are WRONG in saying that " fires did not do that " ............ THEY DID
You can believe whatever you want,no one's stopping you,but don't lie about shit you don't know about because you weren't there
LOLCATS3111 2 years ago
XxRymenxX - you are an idiot Eric Lawyer is a firefighter from Seattle and WAS NOWHERE NEAR GROUND ZERO ON 9/11 !!!!
LOLCATS3111 2 years ago
Yeah, good lulz from that "Seattle firefighter..." illiteracy is on the rise in the twoof movement.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
well thanks for this video :)
well watch from 1:03 till 1:15
explosions are going off , before and while building 7 collapses and then watch , how explosives are going off on the roof of building !!!
seriously,
and that statement that fire was raging in all 47 stories is a lie
only in few stories there was small , regular fire
and that picture with corner of building 7 damaged
is from, looking directly at the corner you can see that it isn`t damaged so much at all
911insidejob81 2 years ago
Windows are breaking, watch the higher resolution video, it's obvious. It happens later on the west side from deformation. Smoke puffs from the top, figures since the building was on fire.
So the FDNY is in it?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Even the 9/11 commission said the investigation was setup to fail!
watch?v=qnANe7w8pmY
You would have to be a complete retard if you believe all those coincidences!
There are wayy too many coincidences to be coincidental!
If you want to believe that bag of bullshit...and it's a huge bag..then you go right ahead but don't think I'm gonna!
Debris didn't cause the building to fall like a controlled demo!
What about the classic demolition crimp in the middle of the building before it fell?
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
The 9/11 Commission to investigate the events leading up to and of the day, because politicians don't like people reviewing their mistakes.
Well the crimp didn't do its job since it collapsed on other buildings
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Don't you believe it's more plausible that explosives made that building come down exactly like a controlled demolition?Instead of a debris?Honestly?
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
No I don't think it's plausible that the thousands of trained shills on ground zero didn't find one bit of traces.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
You believe these buildings were made of wood. How did the steel manage to burn?
JZJYRWO 2 years ago
Who has said the steel burned? Do you think the entire building was made of steel?
There are plenty of combustibles in offices. You believe the FDNY is in it?
/watch?v=G6lLbDQcJyA
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Why is it that when the guy said do you see it leaning?....that they don't show the building leaning?
And why is it so impossible that explosives did all the damage?
How did the fires start?
Why did the building fall straight down?
Why didn't the building fall over?
Where the so-called gash that was in the corner of building 7?
Why is it we see mostly smoke?
Why?
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
The camera can't resolve enough.
Explosives leave evidence and ground zero was swarming with people trained to find such.
Flaming debris from Tower 1's collapse hit WTC 7.
Because a building so massive has too much inertia to fall in any other fashion than straight down, though both tops tilted.
See previous. Do you have any basis to support the funny topple over scenario+
The southwest corner? Or the 4th column?
Because fire smokes, concrete breaking leaves dust.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Flaming debris?What video were you watching?
Fire can't take out steel!The inner structure would have been fine!
Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were nearly cut in half and they still stood!
Firemen said they saw low level flashes all the way around the building before it "fell".
They also said they saw,heard and felt explosions going off!That is what really took the building down!
If you get your info from NIST it doesn't make it true!They are just theories and ridiculous ones at that!
XxRymenxX 2 years ago
I cant see through dust clouds, heated metal could ignite fires, breaking electrical equipment.
Fire can weaken steel, the core couldn't stand without the floors, which failed first.
Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all low-rise Buildings 7 was the only relatively large building that took a hit and started burning. Unfought fire for 7 hours weakened the building, and it was assessed by FDNY who decided to retreat from it.
7 had the Con-Edison substation in its basement which supplied Manh..
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Besides, even steel, iron, burns.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
From an uncontrolled source of heat, such as an uncontrollable office fire. This doesn't sound logical...
JZJYRWO 2 years ago
What doesn't sound logical? "Symmetric collapse"?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I never mentioned that. You didn't like the direction in which my argument was going.
JZJYRWO 2 years ago
What direction is it going, what's your point?
Weirdo10o4