It fell because it got severely damaged from the buildings collapsing on top of it! Just think! 900,000 pounds of steel falling at speeds over 200 miles per hour which is equivalent to 180,000,000 pounds of force!!! Which weakened the WTC7 building, which led to its collapse. People, use your brains, its in you friggin skull for a reason!
@SMITEM1 no video shows what you are saying, it was 7 hours after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed.... then came down WTC7 in an almost perfect demo... text book in fact..
The video of building 7 every "twoofer" hates to watch...It simply destroys their little fantasy. It's much like a 6 year old child catching his parents putting out Christmas presents and realizing that Santa doesn't exist. Believe what you want "twoofers", I know you will find something else to deny the mountains of evidence so you can keep your fantasy alive. I've given up arguing with "twoofers" so don't expect a reply if you decide to reply to this statement. Seek the truth twoofs.
are you counting those 13 seconds on a ABACUS? Does it really make that much of a difference if one person thinks it took 7 seocnds and another person thinks it took 13 seconds. The reality is that a SOLID STEEL structure fell without any resistance by the STEEL that it was created out of. For those of you who honestly believe that this is natural should have your head examined for a brain.
If you think anything but fire brought this building down, prove it. If you think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, prove it. JUST PROVE IT Simple concept....
All of the "tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy idiots" just happen to be police, firemen, rescue workers, ironworkers, scientists, and engineers. Anyone who thinks a fire brought this building down is fucking retarded.
@crazypaul34 It wasn't the fire. It was the fire, damage, and boiler explosions. 25% of the 10th floor down was destroyed by falling debris. Learn the actual facts, not the half baked ones.
@burns1210 .... Yet you failed to mention the buildings that were closer, had more debris damage, and burned more intensely only partially collapsed. When a boiler goes it will cause some serious damage, a partial collapse maybe ...... but not the entire building at the same goddamn time. Do you truly want to believe some debris falling that didn't even cause that much damage, and a petty-ass office fire caused a boiler to explode somehow collapsing 47 stories straight down all at the same time?
How could this possibly happen without some catalyst to initiate the fall - 13 seconds is still rather fast for such a huge building. The third steel framed building in the history of the world ever to collapse due to fire? If you are trying to disprove the CD theory you did a bad job, if anything you aided in its proving.
@jfarris4417 Third steel Framed Building in History? What the fuck are you talking about? There are countless examples of Steel Framed building collapsing from fire (Windsor buildings top floors for one example). Stop Parroting Loose Change, and go do some real research you low life.
@911TruthersAreLiars Paste a link of another steel frame building collapsing due to fire. If there are thousands - then you must be able to show some evidence of one. This should be easy for you, you fucking douchebag fuck.
LMAO! You are such a skitzo, I never said "Thousands" I said "Countless" Stop Twisting my words you little lair. I already gave you an example in my last post of a steel framed building collapsing from fire, the Windsor Buildings top floors. Here's some more! Since your sorry ass can't do any REAL research on your own!
/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk
Get out of the Childish Fantasy world, and go get an Education and a job! You can't be a little boy forever. Go be a real man
@911TruthersAreLiars you use rk owens vids as a source - don't make me laugh sad twat - tell me how a 47 storey building collapses in free-fall- if you understand what free-fall entails - and your apostate friend there is an Asch paradigm too - look it up and understand what it means- try it
@mooners40 Hey Mr. Mooney, The video shows it collapse at THIRTEEN SECONDS, that is not free fall speed you fucking idiot. Why use RKowens? Hmmmmm. Maybe because his videos are based on FACT and not fantasy. No building fell at free Fall speed on 9/11. Get a life and a job, you pathetic loser. 40 something years old, on youtube, spreading lie after lie about something that happend 9 years ago, and making terrible songs. Wow, you are the defenition of a Low Life and a dead beat father.
@911TruthersAreLiars "Maybe because his videos are based on FACT and not fantasy. No building fell at free Fall speed on 9/11. " You are clearly an idiot and know fuck all about 9/11 wtc7 fell in theoretical free-fall - absolute free-fall , with no force other than gravity acting on the building , for 2.5 seconds - this is observed and measurable and has been observed by those with eyes and measured by Chandler - go find your dad
@mooners40 "In Theoretical Free Fall" LMAO!!!!!! Theoretical? Whats Theoretical about 13 seconds, you fucking idiot. I love it how Twoofers completely ignore things, like the TOTAL collapse time, because it instantly kills their whole "Free Fall Speed" Fantasy.
So Mooney, where's the Det Cords? Why were there no Detonations heard on any video? Why do all REAL Scientests disagree with the twoofers (Oh yeah, they're all disinfo agents, lol)
@911TruthersAreLiars even Nist acknowledges free-fall for 2.5 seconds - this occurs as the roofline drops - expensive det charges don't use det cord - they use radio and they disintegrate when they go off - watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
watch?v=ns_hjONWZ88 the building fell as if in a vacuum at the rate of gravitational acceleration - with no force other than gravity acting on the whole building - that's what free-fall means = try and understand it
@givebeesachance To bad the building collapsed about 7 hours after the damage occured. Exterior damage led to a complete structural collapse? If the building were damaged by falling debris on one side gouging, wouldn't one expect a toppling over? Or maybe one side of the building to collapse first. But a complete structural collapse all at once like that in 10-13 seconds, I don't buy it.
50 story buildings do not "topple" like they are made out of legos. Even a slight uncentering causes unbearable strain on the support structures and in a 250 million killogram building, when one structure goes, they all go, and they go straight down.
And when they fall, nothing stops them. The contents of the building are pulverized by thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel. This isn't Tetris, where one level supports the next.
@givebeesachance The building is one structure, you need more than just one support column to fail. If you can take out one or a few support columns and bring down a building demo experts would just wire up a few columns and save money on explosives. You must take out many support columns, on multible floors simultaneously to bring down a building. Why didn't it come down immediately after the damage? Damage was not bad, buildings closer than 7 had to be blown later because they din't collapse
"Why didn't it come down imediately after the damage?" You answered yourself: because you need more than just one support column to fail. There's also the fact of structural damage. I've known buildings who had to be evacuated because a simple crack got bigger and bigger. The building could take months or even years to show, but at a certain point, you'd get to danger of collapse. And that's inner structural damage, only. Having half a skycraper fall on another building quite hurts it.
@jfarris4417 Building are made to stand some damage in case of receiving an impact. So you can evacuate people from them. The towers stood a good bit too. And I doubt having a good part of a huge skycraper falling into a building computes as "exterior damage". Half a burning tower fell on WTC7. That's enough to harm the building enough for its collapse. And tall buildings are designed so they fall over themselves, so they don't hit the nearby ones.
These conspiracy theory nuts still believe the earth is flat and every government agency on the planet had something to do with the JFK assassination.....
@mikepilot57 .... Anyone who thinks a "fire" brought this building down is still walking on a flat planet. As for the JFK assassination , JFK was taking on the Federal Reserve, the War Industry, the Mafia, and Secret Societies. If there wasn't something suspicious then why hasn't the government released Oswald's W2 tax papers from 1961 to 1963 ? Why would they hide that ?
@burns1210 ,,,as for your little insult get fucked. I guess every fireman, engineeer, scientist, and every professional who are screaming bullshit know less that your ass. Between the withholding of the pentagon attack videos, NORAD just dragging thier feet, and fucking office fires that collapse 47 story buildings all happening at the same time is just good ol' fashioned logic for you. Shit.... you probably jumped for joy when the Patriot Act was passed.
When I count how long it takes for something to fall, I don't start when something else is falling... I'm prepared to understand why the top flours encountered no resistance at all, but let's not pretend they did.
@WeAreChangeDebunked usually when i discuss the collapse of wtc 7 i mention the exterior walls, which when they began to fall took about 7 seconds, given the height that is about 9 tenths away from pure freefall. there is only one way for that to happen, everyhting underneath gave way at the same time.
looked more like ten seconds to me and why did it collapse again? The building that was blown up in Oklahoma City was damaged a lot more and it still stood.
anyway, I'm at least glad to see you gave up on the supercrazy beliefs of the no-planer crowd. maybe as you bounce back from that instanity, the momentum will carry you all the way to reality and you'll realize the anti-semitic "Mossad Jews!!!" theory is just as ridiculous.
by the way, how do you know Betty Ong ponted to a specific seat to confirm that the passenger there fired a gun? where does that information come from?
checkit, I thoght you had moved into the even crazier "no airplanes" movement.
why are you talking about airplanes at all if you don't even think there were airplanes involved?
are you a little confusued?
by they way, there isn't any video showing that Bozo the Clown wasn't on the planes. so how do you know HE isn't responsible, huh? prove you aren't mentally ill.
Here you go again with your unsubstantiated racist claims that Israel perpetrated the attacks & Mossad agents hijacked the planes! lmfao at you.
Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid you sound? If it wasn't Atta then who was it? Name him & then get a family member or friend to verify it was his voice & not Attas.
What do you think a judge would say if you stood up in court & said "only the perps could know where the passengers are?"
Your ad hominem attacks are not helping your case. They just reinforce the fact that you have nothing of any value to say.
It's really very very simple. If you want to persuade anyone of sound mind to agree with you, you have to offer up irrefutable proof that you're right. Is that fair?
If you agree, then post a link to all that verifiable proof you have. Can you do that?
"Easy, there is no videos showing them getting on any of the hijacked planes"
So what? Are there any videos showing them NOT getting on the planes?
Now explain, for example, how Mohammed Atta's voice is heard by Air Traffic Control if he wasn't on the plane? How come there are calls from passengers saying they were hijacked? Where are these passengers if the planes were drones?
These are obvious that questions you're ignoring. Game over for you if you can't answer them.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims here! I support the official version of events in the total absence of anything credible or verifiable that refutes it.
I can see I'm getting to you because all you can say is "I'm finished, it's game over". Indeed it is...for the "twoof" movement & it's lying, racist, hate filled followers like you.
Now you're sounding exactly like the racist "truther" you are. Well done little man!
How about you prove Muslims weren't on the planes!
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is innocent, why aren't you protesting for his release?
And, surprise surprise, you have spectacularly failed to link me to anyone who saw the planes land, get switched to drones or any of the passengers who never turned up alive & well anywhere! Where is this proof checkit?
How about YOU refute the official version with cold hard facts, evidence & proof. Not rumour, opinion or your own personal racist viewpoint.
Do you have proof that the planes were swapped for drones, if so post a link to operatives at the airport who saw the planes land, the passengers get off & drones take off in their place. I also want to see any of the passengers who were on those planes & didn't come home to their families alive & well. Can you do this?
Actually, pretty much everything you have stated is either skewed , false or being deliberately manipulated into something it isn't to suit your racist agenda.
Were Jewish pilots flying the planes? No they were Muslims. Did a Jewish person admit to planning the attacks? No, he is a Muslim.
This is really simple. Take all your proof to the highest court in the USA, or any other democratic country in the world, and ask them to listen. Be prepared to be cross examined & have an immediate water tight answer to every question.
Do you think you can do that?
If you can go ahead.
If you can't I suggest you stop with the racist comments. It's the kind of thing that will get you removed from YT.
When you can provide proof of all your claims feel free to take it to the highest court in the land ok.
Until then, the critical thinking non "truther" majority of people who know anything about the events of 9/11 will continue to dismiss you racist motivated comments.
1) You have ZERO PROOF to support your racist "Israel did 9/11" claim
2) There is overwhelming PROOF that 19 Muslim hijackers DID carry out the attacks. They were confirmed Al-Queda operatives & their mastermind was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who has also ADMITTED he masterminded the attack.
3) Silverstein would not have been able to purchase the WTC complex WITHOUT having terrorist insurance!
Your personal hatred & racism is clouding your interpretation of reality.
Anyone reading the shite you've written here will very quickly establish that you are 1) not a critical thinker 2) you're a racist 3) you're a typical low I.Q. "truther" 4) YOU promote debunked strawman arguments 5) you resort to ad hominem attacks when you cannot provide proof of your beliefs or accusations re 9/11 or individuals who support the official version.
People like you are roundly dismissed for the stupidity you believe & promote, which is why your "truth" movement is finished.
I've worked at two demolition sites and the sagging in the center is one of the most obvious signs and proof of implosion.I don't hate the U.S.,I actually love living here and that's why I care about this.
Ignore subscriber terrymanning1.He like many others,goes on channels his little mind can't grasp and tries to get people to insult him and threaten him so they lose their account.He uses racial insults and anything he can to incite rage in you.Two people I know already lost their accounts.
You know... A video editor actually intended on timing it's collapse, would have provided a countdown from 13 seconds. Digital stop watch says 8-9 seconds.
An investigation will not happen unless we force the issue.
Force the issue by legally refusing to pay income tax. See the videos "Freedom to Fascism" and "Theft by Deception" to learn more about the issue.
Sixty-seven million people don't pay income tax. There is no way they can prosecute and imprison that many people. They use fear to cow people, the same way they are using 911 to cow people.
Stop living in fear and stop paying taxes. Demand justice, or justice will not happen.
This is a really great video of wtc7 collapse its atleast from a higher vantage point rather than from the ground. Its shows the spot where column 79 failed to collapse the penthouse and everything. Thanks for posting.
Once again, it was not the collapse of WTC7 that brings us to debate. It was the MANNER of the collapse. No one has been able to find a video of a collapse remotely resembling WTC7's that was caused by fire, damage, military ordnance, earthquakes, or ANYTHING but a CD. The examples often cited are PATHETIC: the 4-floor Kader Toy Co.; the Jerry-built 5-floor Sampoong store, the Delft Bouwkunde (architecture) building. That last one is a joke: a bunch of balconies falling off due to fire!
No one has been able to find a video of a demolition of a building even close to the height of WTC 7. No one has found a case of a demolition that involved silent, flash-free explosives. No one has found a case of demolition in which the building was engulfed in flames and was lean& creaking prior to "demolition." No one has found a case of a demolition in which the detonation charges left no trace in the seismic record.
Even if it took 13 seconds to collapse; WTC 7 is appoximately 580 ft tall so if fell at a rate of 44 feet per second. And remember, a plane DID NOT even hit this building. It didn't pancake, it collapsed into nothing in 13 seconds with no support from the beams what so ever. Do you really think a fire on 3 or 4 floors would have really caused this to happen. If so, then your an idiot!
NIST has now admitted that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds of its collapse. See David Chandler's WTC7 videos on YouTube.
So what? Free fall acceleration (and please don't say "speed") means WTC7 went very quickly from stability to NO force holding it up. Not only that, but the "event" happened all over the building at the same time. Otherwise, we would not see it drop intact in this video.
that was taken out of context. upon initiation of global collapse which took place after the penthouse fell. It took 2.3 seconds. But since the local collapse contributed to the global collapse the added time has to be taken in for consideration. And according to firefighters it was anything but stable. They said if was leaning and making the "moan and groan" sounds that indicate an inevitable collapse.
We do not have to time the entire collapse to measure acceleration. Indeed, in the final seconds of the collapse, WTC7 did not accelerate at all, according to NIST and others. Why? Because it was crushing steel and concrete.
WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds because 25 meters of vertical support structure was suddenly removed. That's not debatable; it's physics (d=1/2 a t^2). HOW the support was removed is debatable. If you have an explanation, please let us read it...
This video shows a controlled demolition. It doesn't matter if you stretch the total time to include the first penthouse falling, the fact remains that the entire structure fell in complete freefall for more than 2 seconds!! This is not possible without demolition!
The only way to prove thermite or thermate was used is to show why the other explanations for the observed phenomenon are not valid. So far, no one, not even Steven Jones, has done that. Still waiting to see someone with expertise in demolitions and incendiaries to confirm that thermite / thermate was used. Yep, still waiting...tick tick tick...
Thermite has not been proven or disproven. As Steven Jones points out in a peer-reviewed paper, "Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.) would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues?" Or perhaps PoHo (loves to claim case closed on themite) has an explanation for us...
Steven Jones did not undergo a proper peer review. He has still been unable to get corroboration for his thermite claims from anyone with relevant expertise - metallurgists, incendiaries experts, materials engineers, or demolition experts. Perhaps smitty can tell us why Jones has refused to seriously explore alternative explanations for presence of substances he claims are thermite residues.
Sir Isaac Newton said WTC 7 couldn't have fallen for 2 seconds without controlled demolition? I think not. I think it's just an unsubstantiated assertion from you.
Which peer reviewed journal - the Jurinal of 911 Studies? LOL! I said PROPER peer review, with the review conducted by people with relevant expertise that you don't know. He has refused to undergo a proper peer review and he has failed to get his thermite claims corroborated by anyone with relevant expertise.
Or was it from the vanity press Bentham journal which, if it has any peer review at all, is utterly non-transparent. But come to think of it, since Jones was careful in how he phrased the statement - "traces of thermite residues WOULD" tell us..." then he's okay because he's not saying the residues WERE found.
Yes, Bentham, and yes, he's ok because he's not saying the residues were found. So if NIST tested for them it would end this conversation. But they didn't.
Hey PoetryHound, you realize that the only reason residues weren't found is because they weren't tested for... despite the fact that it is in the NFPA guidelines to do so.
Hey smitty, I see you ran away rather than back up your claim that FEMA said there was a "good" chance the eutectic reactions took place while the steel was still standing.
And no, there's no requirement that thermite be tested for. Why would there be a requirement to go on a wild goose chase?
NFPA guideline 19.2.4 exotic accelerants says melted steel or concrete is a sign of high temperature accelerants and should therefore be tested for.
NFPA 18.15 analyze fuel source says test for all fuel sources that can cause the type of damage observed
the FEMA report confirmed a reaction resulting in liquefied steel (whether or not it happened in the debris pile is irrelevant to whether or not to test for the residues)
Sigh, a guideline, not a requirement. Just as I thought, another lie from you. Just when you claimed FEMA said there was a "good" chance the eutectic reaction took place prior to collapse. That was a lie too.
But at least you've admitted that thermite use is irrelevant to the discussion of WTC 7's collapse.
BTW, even though you don't want to talk about thermite, note that the author of this guide, The National Fire Protection Association, does not believe that thermite was involved in the destruction of the WTC. The National Association of Fire Investigators and the International Association of Arson Investigators have come to the same conclusion. Are they part of the plot too? Or maybe they're just too "compartmentalized."
I saved some info & will try to dig it up. Meanwhile, check out the websites of the NFPA, NAFI, and IAAI and see if there is any demand for a new investigation or any articles about the possibility of thermite at the WTC.
The only way to refute the thermite/thermate/superthermite/nanothermite claims is to DENY the existence of:
-molten metal (steel)
-ironspheres
-sulfidized steel
-horseshoebent huge I-beams
Or come up with bullshit arguments like that the sulfur comes from the gypsum (how scientific is that, LOL!!!), the molten metal is molten aluminium, etc etc.
I suggest YOU take the logic and advanced physicsclass urself, because if u believe the official crap, that's badly needed. The official story's based on cartoon physics, in case u didn't know.
But hey, u don't know, indeed, because ur own knowledge is apparently very poor.
Nice distraction though, this WMD reference, it won't work though.
PH-bitch thinks she's clever as always, u're really not impressive, u know that?
It's only people with NO experience or expertise in demolitions or incendiaries that suggest thermite or nanothermite was used. They think they're smarter than the experts. lol
I would not obsess about thermite/thermate. If the cops find a shooting victim, they don't pretend to know immediately if it was .38 or .357 magnum; that takes extra work. Prof. Jonathan Barnett discovered some evaporated steel evidence in the WTC7 debris. He presented his findings and then shut up. The only demolition contractor to say openly that WTC7 was a CD is Danny Jowenko, who works in Holland. He does not have to care for US opinion the way most of us do in our jobs.
Barnett? I thought it was former BYU prof. Steven Jones who originated the thermite claim and then refused to undergo a proper peer review and couldn't find anyone with relevant expertise to corroborate his claims. Jowenko said nothing about thermite. In fact, I haven't seen a single demo expert refer to the use of thermite for highrise demos.
Sandberg remains woefully ignorant & unable to back up any of his proclamations. Funny to see him criticize others for his own failings.
My mistake: the NY Times article was originally published Nov 29, 2001
Quote: "But that would not explain steel members in the [WTC7] debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
Barnett has never mentioned thermite or thermate. But he did use "evaporated" and "steel", two words seldom found together in a story about a building fire, or a controlled demolition for that matter. Barnett has since chosen his words very carefully.
This is consistent with the metallurgists in the FEMA investigation who reported the intergranular melting. Of course, just because someone says the words "melting" or "evaporation" does not automatically mean it was caused by thermite or thermate.
"The pictures of the WTC7 sample certainly look like evaporation."
Really? Which pictures show steel that is "evaporating?"
Steel can collapse when it is weakened, which takes place at much lower temps. It will lose its load bearing capability well before it starts melting, let alone boiling.
Look at the "Swiss cheese" picture of the steel recovered from WTC7.
Thermite is a great classroom demonstration of ENTHALPY. ThermATE, which is thermITE with sulfur, is a great demonstration of ENTROPY. Many students guess the sulfur in thermATE reacts immediately with O2 to form SO2; wrong! At such high temperatures, entropy favors sulfur, not SO2!
Metallurgy shows FeS in the WTC7 sample, consistent with this concept.
I'm a "truther" and ive taken an advanced physics class. i know all about conservation of momentum and energy and the formulas of motion, ive done my own calculations and i can quite comfortaby say theres no way in hell those 3 buildings could have collapsed as fast as they did without some explosive energy being thrown into the mix.
Folks, we all should have paid more attention in high school physics class.
We do not have to time the entire collapse to measure acceleration!
NIST has recently (December 2008) admitted that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. That means WTC7dropped about five floors with NO resistance at all. Fire weakening the beams does not explain it.
The beams of several complete floors were GONE, suddenly and completely! Either a CD or something we don't understand.
Elvis? Is that your response to NIST conceding that in fact there was freefall? And then you have the nerve to tell someone else to "Take an intro to LOGIC class"? How sad you are.
Well Bud, I see ur understanding of controlled demolition is rather poor. In a "normal" CD, they usually rig more floors than just the bottom floor, because if u don't do that, the resistance of the structure can cause it to go different places than u planned for.
Other than that, nanothermite is just the latest invention, and must be considered a credible & viable candidate for bringing down these 3 structures. I know reasoning is tough, but give it ur best shot, OK?
No contradiction: the 174-meter WTC 7 only caused surface damage to the two buildings on both sides of it, separated by only narrow streets. True, the corner of a third building was damaged. Even that might have been prevented in a normal demolition, but explosive demolition would probably not be used in such tightly built environment in any case - normally. 9/11 was not a normal situation. Btw, as NIST now says normal office fires alone brought down 7, should I start a match demolition company?
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."-Ephesians 6:12
Don't worry, Sandberg is just another clown who fancies himself a demo expert. There's no evidence any thermite or nanothermite was used. Only NON-demo experts make claims about its use.
Building 7.I was asked to testify on congress on the controlled demolition matter as my company is the number one demo crew in the world. The day of my flight I was put on the no fly list with out explanation, and then abruptly after the hearing removed from the list My credit cards were canceled and my bank accounts were frozen. Once the hearings were over I was contacted by my banks and credit cards companies that a mistake was made and that the problem was solved. somthing isnt right here.
How is that? WTC 7 fell like a normal demolition, so if it was a demolition, the charges would have to be placed in basement and 1st level or so - how does having an office on the 40th floor give you this access?
And what will Thermate do? It does not cut horizontally? So it cannot sever the structural supports.
The most hilarious or rather sad part of this, is that u're obviously UNable to see the absurdity of ur situation or position.
If u have a grain of common sense, u know that no building comes down in this manner without the aid of CD, it has never happened and with with a likelyhood bordering on complete certainty, it will never happen in the future.
Good point u made though, about the fact that CD's can be engineered any way you like it. Of course u FORGOT to mention topdown CD ;-)
Despite falling straight down without virtually no resistance, symmetrically, listen up folks, this particulat collapse, was NOT a CD, believe it or not.
No, this time there was some local damage, and some fires, and this building had a very special design. And then well, u had these massive coincidences of all these things, happening just at the wrong time at the wrong place (or rather, just at the RIGHT time at the RIGHT place), causing the building to collapse, JUST LIKE A CD!!!
"Because everytime we see a building collapse on tv/video/whatever, it is a controlled demolition."
Yeah, makes u kinda wonder doesn't it, when u see one more, looking exactly like a CD once again, and then surprise surprise, THIS ONE, believe it or not, was not. You hardly see collapses recorded that aren't a controlled demolitions, and even those look like a controlled demolition, as you can blow up a buildnig in any way you like it: into its footprint, make it topple, over, etc. etc."
Maybe u could take a peak at the journalof911studies, my fellow countryman, this request for correction is posted there, u can see all of the points they want NIST to correct, each and every time it is explained WHY the point must be corrected, WHY is it INCORRECT, UNTRUE, UNREALISTIC, and AGAINST current rules.
U know, has to do with the scientific method and how one is REQUIRED to conduct an investigation.
But I guess it won't mean much to you, considering ur previous answers.
"It is fun to see how you try to think for Jowenko.. "
I don't really see why that's funny or something. Look if u have doubts u can call him urself, and ask him. U know, like I did. His mobile phonenumber is on his website, what's keeping u from doing it?
And what makes u think people like Jones, Ryan, an others, have not already sent such a request for correction (multiple times in fact) to NIST?
No surprises about the answer, NIST just ignored ALL OF IT, without ANY argument of course.
""How can u look at the collapse of WTC7 and NOT think: CD?"
Besides the point."
Uhhh, could u explain WHY this is besides the point?
When I find a man with a little hole in his forehead and a big hole at the back of his head, u think it might be "reasonable" to suggest that that man was killed by a gunshot to the head?
And not by some 'natural" cause?
In fact don't u think tht "killed by gunshot to the head" would be the first and strongest hypothesis to consider?
"Uhhh, could u explain WHY this is besides the point?"
Because everytime we see a building collapse on tv/video/whatever, it is a controlled demolition. You hardly see collapses recorded that aren't a controlled demolitions, and even those look like a controlled demolition, as you can blow up a buildnig in any way you like it: into its footprint, make it topple, over, etc. etc.
Jowenko is an expert, so of course he immediately recognizes the collapse of WTC7 as a CD.
In the case of the Twintowers, these were rarely seen topdown demolition, onan unprecedented scale. So of course he has doubts at first. He may still have, but I think that when he takes a long hard look at it, he'll come to the conclusion that these 2 were demoed as well.
"it has been considered, NIST looked into CD by explosives and thermite, and found both to be unrealistic.
Read their report for details"
LOL!!
Well, it's typical for someone like u to find this convincing.
They didn't address anything, they just stated that they din't find anything, they didn't look for anything u see. Something that was also somewhat of a problem, since all the physical evidence was long destroyed by then.
I don't mean to offend u, but are u really this ignorant?
"If you have ever seen interviews with experts about something, you would have noticed that they never answer questions that are beond the scope of their expertise"
Oh u mean like Leslie Robertson, who refused to give ANY comment on the collapse of WTC7, since he didn't work on that particular building. He IS a structural engineer but hey, lord forbid he would give his opinion on the complete rapid collapse of a structure which he didn't help to build, right?
"Leslie Robertson, who refused to give ANY comment on the collapse of WTC7, since he didn't work on that particular building"
That is indeed a good reason for an expert not to comment on wtc7, when his opinion as an expert was asked.
Lesley isn't the only expert in the world, and luckely others did comment about the collapse of wtc7. So i don't see why you need his expert opinion too..
NIST? Throughing out Thermite? Of course they did. Read their report? The one that was late by how many years, that is a sham? Wake Up!
How sad so many are blinded by "officialdom" whether it be the major state apparatus in Germany in the 1930's, or the United States in the 2000's. Too many conned people, always loving to believe, embrace a lie, the official propaganda of their murderous government.
"More likely it was because the truthers themself started attacking each other about which story about 911 is the correct one. Finally patman was fed up about it and silenced the 911truthers."
That's true. U won't see me defend any no-planes at the wtc" or missiles, spacebeams-theory etc.
Although there are many options that I keep open, because they haven't been researched thoroughly enough as of yet.
U're not this atmosphere-dude by any means, are u?
"Indeed, as that is not his expertise. He of course is entitled to give his opinion, just like you and i are, but that opinion isn't an expert opinion."
Oh I see, so basically no one, except CD-experts and structural engineers, is entitled to give credible views on this matter, is that it? And if a majority of those "experts" favor "natural collapse" above CD, then natural collapse is scientifically correct, right?
"The total collapse took 18 seconds. That is not an estimate, that is what seismic data revealed. If you look at video footage and count, you get to about 15-16 seconds before the collapse disappeares behind the other structures on the video."
I get to around 14 secs, NIST's report talks about 9 and 11 secs, and who are we to question that, right? In any case, WAY to fucking fast to comply with conservation of momentum, and u should know this.
"Anyway, the Dutch university TU Delft did a study in 2006 on the twin tower collapses, and they calculated that the collapse was possible without any additional energy (e.g. bombs) involved."
Yeah I've seen that, too fucking disgraceful to watch, 3 of those idiot students coming up with all kinds of absurd arguments, constantly OMITTING crucial details, it was a JOKE.
I wrote this dipshit Coen Vermeeren about it, he just kept circumventing the issue, asking for my background all the time.
Come on Esnir, how much time goes by, between th failure of the first corner/side of the building, and the last corner/side of the building to start freefalling towards the ground?
Gimme a rough estimate.
Also, maybe u could explain what this "vertical upward progression of failure" means, 'cause I'm a little in the dark about that one.
Furthermore, u seem to believe in a string of highly IMprobable event resulting in the Mother of all coincidences?
fire, most stupid answer ever
Mandems96 2 months ago
It fell because it got severely damaged from the buildings collapsing on top of it! Just think! 900,000 pounds of steel falling at speeds over 200 miles per hour which is equivalent to 180,000,000 pounds of force!!! Which weakened the WTC7 building, which led to its collapse. People, use your brains, its in you friggin skull for a reason!
SMITEM1 7 months ago
@SMITEM1 no video shows what you are saying, it was 7 hours after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed.... then came down WTC7 in an almost perfect demo... text book in fact..
yellowgroove 5 months ago
The video of building 7 every "twoofer" hates to watch...It simply destroys their little fantasy. It's much like a 6 year old child catching his parents putting out Christmas presents and realizing that Santa doesn't exist. Believe what you want "twoofers", I know you will find something else to deny the mountains of evidence so you can keep your fantasy alive. I've given up arguing with "twoofers" so don't expect a reply if you decide to reply to this statement. Seek the truth twoofs.
mikeyt34 9 months ago
this link will be the answer....
watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc
prihanantozh 1 year ago
yeah its called a DEMOLITION
inhuman0id 1 year ago
Even by just judging the video, it takes about 6 1/2 - 8 seconds tops to fall. 13 seconds?
HostelEffect 1 year ago
9/11 Conspiracy Theorist are retarded.
01042383 1 year ago
are you counting those 13 seconds on a ABACUS? Does it really make that much of a difference if one person thinks it took 7 seocnds and another person thinks it took 13 seconds. The reality is that a SOLID STEEL structure fell without any resistance by the STEEL that it was created out of. For those of you who honestly believe that this is natural should have your head examined for a brain.
Empire895 1 year ago
as yet, no proof has been presented that either bin laden or the taliban had anything to do with 9/11 and are not even wanted by the fbi for it.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
If you think anything but fire brought this building down, prove it. If you think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, prove it. JUST PROVE IT Simple concept....
mikepilot57 1 year ago
All of the "tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy idiots" just happen to be police, firemen, rescue workers, ironworkers, scientists, and engineers. Anyone who thinks a fire brought this building down is fucking retarded.
crazypaul34 1 year ago
@crazypaul34 It wasn't the fire. It was the fire, damage, and boiler explosions. 25% of the 10th floor down was destroyed by falling debris. Learn the actual facts, not the half baked ones.
burns1210 1 year ago
@burns1210 .... Yet you failed to mention the buildings that were closer, had more debris damage, and burned more intensely only partially collapsed. When a boiler goes it will cause some serious damage, a partial collapse maybe ...... but not the entire building at the same goddamn time. Do you truly want to believe some debris falling that didn't even cause that much damage, and a petty-ass office fire caused a boiler to explode somehow collapsing 47 stories straight down all at the same time?
crazypaul34 1 year ago
How could this possibly happen without some catalyst to initiate the fall - 13 seconds is still rather fast for such a huge building. The third steel framed building in the history of the world ever to collapse due to fire? If you are trying to disprove the CD theory you did a bad job, if anything you aided in its proving.
jfarris4417 1 year ago 8
@jfarris4417 Third steel Framed Building in History? What the fuck are you talking about? There are countless examples of Steel Framed building collapsing from fire (Windsor buildings top floors for one example). Stop Parroting Loose Change, and go do some real research you low life.
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars Paste a link of another steel frame building collapsing due to fire. If there are thousands - then you must be able to show some evidence of one. This should be easy for you, you fucking douchebag fuck.
jfarris4417 1 year ago
@jfarris4417
LMAO! You are such a skitzo, I never said "Thousands" I said "Countless" Stop Twisting my words you little lair. I already gave you an example in my last post of a steel framed building collapsing from fire, the Windsor Buildings top floors. Here's some more! Since your sorry ass can't do any REAL research on your own!
/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk
Get out of the Childish Fantasy world, and go get an Education and a job! You can't be a little boy forever. Go be a real man
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars you use rk owens vids as a source - don't make me laugh sad twat - tell me how a 47 storey building collapses in free-fall- if you understand what free-fall entails - and your apostate friend there is an Asch paradigm too - look it up and understand what it means- try it
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 Hey Mr. Mooney, The video shows it collapse at THIRTEEN SECONDS, that is not free fall speed you fucking idiot. Why use RKowens? Hmmmmm. Maybe because his videos are based on FACT and not fantasy. No building fell at free Fall speed on 9/11. Get a life and a job, you pathetic loser. 40 something years old, on youtube, spreading lie after lie about something that happend 9 years ago, and making terrible songs. Wow, you are the defenition of a Low Life and a dead beat father.
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars "Maybe because his videos are based on FACT and not fantasy. No building fell at free Fall speed on 9/11. " You are clearly an idiot and know fuck all about 9/11 wtc7 fell in theoretical free-fall - absolute free-fall , with no force other than gravity acting on the building , for 2.5 seconds - this is observed and measurable and has been observed by those with eyes and measured by Chandler - go find your dad
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 "In Theoretical Free Fall" LMAO!!!!!! Theoretical? Whats Theoretical about 13 seconds, you fucking idiot. I love it how Twoofers completely ignore things, like the TOTAL collapse time, because it instantly kills their whole "Free Fall Speed" Fantasy.
So Mooney, where's the Det Cords? Why were there no Detonations heard on any video? Why do all REAL Scientests disagree with the twoofers (Oh yeah, they're all disinfo agents, lol)
Go be a father to your kids, You Dead Beat Loser
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars even Nist acknowledges free-fall for 2.5 seconds - this occurs as the roofline drops - expensive det charges don't use det cord - they use radio and they disintegrate when they go off - watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
watch?v=ns_hjONWZ88 the building fell as if in a vacuum at the rate of gravitational acceleration - with no force other than gravity acting on the whole building - that's what free-fall means = try and understand it
mooners40 1 year ago
@jfarris4417
I believe being hit by giant chunks of falling building provided a pretty good catalyst.
givebeesachance 1 year ago
@givebeesachance To bad the building collapsed about 7 hours after the damage occured. Exterior damage led to a complete structural collapse? If the building were damaged by falling debris on one side gouging, wouldn't one expect a toppling over? Or maybe one side of the building to collapse first. But a complete structural collapse all at once like that in 10-13 seconds, I don't buy it.
jfarris4417 1 year ago
@jfarris4417
50 story buildings do not "topple" like they are made out of legos. Even a slight uncentering causes unbearable strain on the support structures and in a 250 million killogram building, when one structure goes, they all go, and they go straight down.
And when they fall, nothing stops them. The contents of the building are pulverized by thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel. This isn't Tetris, where one level supports the next.
givebeesachance 1 year ago
@givebeesachance The building is one structure, you need more than just one support column to fail. If you can take out one or a few support columns and bring down a building demo experts would just wire up a few columns and save money on explosives. You must take out many support columns, on multible floors simultaneously to bring down a building. Why didn't it come down immediately after the damage? Damage was not bad, buildings closer than 7 had to be blown later because they din't collapse
jfarris4417 1 year ago
"Why didn't it come down imediately after the damage?" You answered yourself: because you need more than just one support column to fail. There's also the fact of structural damage. I've known buildings who had to be evacuated because a simple crack got bigger and bigger. The building could take months or even years to show, but at a certain point, you'd get to danger of collapse. And that's inner structural damage, only. Having half a skycraper fall on another building quite hurts it.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@jfarris4417 Building are made to stand some damage in case of receiving an impact. So you can evacuate people from them. The towers stood a good bit too. And I doubt having a good part of a huge skycraper falling into a building computes as "exterior damage". Half a burning tower fell on WTC7. That's enough to harm the building enough for its collapse. And tall buildings are designed so they fall over themselves, so they don't hit the nearby ones.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@jfarris4417 due to fire? Wrong! Structural damage and fire.
Caellest89 3 months ago
Dark Angel, whatever you are, you are the one who needs to get educated. I mean educated in the real world, not some fantasy la la land...
mikepilot57 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some quick Facts on nine 1 1 cover up.
1. CCTV footage from airports in Question Suppressed
2. CCTV footage from Pentagon Suppressed
3, offical report avoids asking very important Questions such as
a. how did Terrorist get into U.S
b. why did the lower levels of Towers Collapse
c. Fails to Even Mention Building7
4. Offical report commissioners on record report was set to fail etc
5. Patriot act Protected the companies in charge of airports in Question,
truthlogic1 1 year ago
0:04 look closely to the left side there you see the beginning of the collapse to 0:21 so yes its 13 seconds
sternwolf27 2 years ago
13 seconds?!?? LoLoLoLoL EPIC FAIL
MrTedshackleford 2 years ago
LOL 13 SECONDS??? MORE LIKE 6.5 SECONDS! this is FUCKED up video
NWOmustfall 2 years ago
These conspiracy theory nuts still believe the earth is flat and every government agency on the planet had something to do with the JFK assassination.....
mikepilot57 2 years ago
@mikepilot57 No the earth is round and JFK was killed because he was trying to abolish the federal reserve.
Get educated you moron, large buildings don't fall because of fires.
DarkAngelGRM 1 year ago
@mikepilot57 .... Anyone who thinks a "fire" brought this building down is still walking on a flat planet. As for the JFK assassination , JFK was taking on the Federal Reserve, the War Industry, the Mafia, and Secret Societies. If there wasn't something suspicious then why hasn't the government released Oswald's W2 tax papers from 1961 to 1963 ? Why would they hide that ?
crazypaul34 1 year ago
@crazypaul34 You are one screwed up dude.
burns1210 1 year ago
@burns1210 ,,,as for your little insult get fucked. I guess every fireman, engineeer, scientist, and every professional who are screaming bullshit know less that your ass. Between the withholding of the pentagon attack videos, NORAD just dragging thier feet, and fucking office fires that collapse 47 story buildings all happening at the same time is just good ol' fashioned logic for you. Shit.... you probably jumped for joy when the Patriot Act was passed.
crazypaul34 1 year ago
they took our jobs !
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
How's that 13 seconds ?
thi54120 2 years ago
Because the East pent house fell first
This is a bad quality video so it's hard to see, there's much better quality versions on youtube, just look them up!
The WHOLE Collapse is easily 13 seconds, nowhere near 7.
This is what the 911 "Truth" Movement DELIBERATELY CUTS OUT, to make it appear that the building came down in 7 Seconds! (Free Fall Speed)
That is called Withholding Evidence!
That is why No one likes the 9/11 "Truth Movement" Because they are Liars!
WeAreChangeDebunked 2 years ago
When I count how long it takes for something to fall, I don't start when something else is falling... I'm prepared to understand why the top flours encountered no resistance at all, but let's not pretend they did.
thi54120 2 years ago
@WeAreChangeDebunked usually when i discuss the collapse of wtc 7 i mention the exterior walls, which when they began to fall took about 7 seconds, given the height that is about 9 tenths away from pure freefall. there is only one way for that to happen, everyhting underneath gave way at the same time.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@WeAreChangeDebunked in other words, why should i calculate the rate of fall for the exterior walls based on when something else starts to fall?
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@thi54120 lol its not, I guess this '9/11debunkmyths' character doesnt know how to count.
templarx122 2 years ago
I would prefer to believe the official story.
However this debunk911 myths franchise tells me a lot about itself, regardless of the physics.
It's the work of a body trying to perpetuate a lie.
It's designed to appeal to lower to middle intellects, and their baser instincts, which accounts for the majority of US and UK citizens.
And it is definitely promulgating a lie, the writer doesn't believe their own thesis- there are textbook give aways on that count.
-another indicator 9/11 was an ij
whatever2dont 2 years ago
looked more like ten seconds to me and why did it collapse again? The building that was blown up in Oklahoma City was damaged a lot more and it still stood.
CptJackAubreyRN 2 years ago
Not like being debunked has ever stopped a truther from repeating himself.
There are still people going on about thermite and "nanothermite" for example.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
checkit says:
"Read all of my previous comments, it is beyond any shadow of a doubt done by Israel. "
Go say to every single one of the people you mention that you think they are murderers & see what response you get.
I guarantee you'll get a law suit for baseless slander & a restraining order to keep a nutjob away from them.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
"No that has been debunked."
so has inside job. thoroughly.
anyway, I'm at least glad to see you gave up on the supercrazy beliefs of the no-planer crowd. maybe as you bounce back from that instanity, the momentum will carry you all the way to reality and you'll realize the anti-semitic "Mossad Jews!!!" theory is just as ridiculous.
by the way, how do you know Betty Ong ponted to a specific seat to confirm that the passenger there fired a gun? where does that information come from?
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
"Daniel Lewin was on flight 11, he is a mossad agent. Betty Ong pointed to his seat as the one who fired a gun"
how do you know that?
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
checkit, I thoght you had moved into the even crazier "no airplanes" movement.
why are you talking about airplanes at all if you don't even think there were airplanes involved?
are you a little confusued?
by they way, there isn't any video showing that Bozo the Clown wasn't on the planes. so how do you know HE isn't responsible, huh? prove you aren't mentally ill.
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
checkit
Here you go again with your unsubstantiated racist claims that Israel perpetrated the attacks & Mossad agents hijacked the planes! lmfao at you.
Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid you sound? If it wasn't Atta then who was it? Name him & then get a family member or friend to verify it was his voice & not Attas.
What do you think a judge would say if you stood up in court & said "only the perps could know where the passengers are?"
Case dismissed
Next
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
Your ad hominem attacks are not helping your case. They just reinforce the fact that you have nothing of any value to say.
It's really very very simple. If you want to persuade anyone of sound mind to agree with you, you have to offer up irrefutable proof that you're right. Is that fair?
If you agree, then post a link to all that verifiable proof you have. Can you do that?
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
"Easy, there is no videos showing them getting on any of the hijacked planes"
So what? Are there any videos showing them NOT getting on the planes?
Now explain, for example, how Mohammed Atta's voice is heard by Air Traffic Control if he wasn't on the plane? How come there are calls from passengers saying they were hijacked? Where are these passengers if the planes were drones?
These are obvious that questions you're ignoring. Game over for you if you can't answer them.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
I'm not the one making outrageous claims here! I support the official version of events in the total absence of anything credible or verifiable that refutes it.
I can see I'm getting to you because all you can say is "I'm finished, it's game over". Indeed it is...for the "twoof" movement & it's lying, racist, hate filled followers like you.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
Now you're sounding exactly like the racist "truther" you are. Well done little man!
How about you prove Muslims weren't on the planes!
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is innocent, why aren't you protesting for his release?
And, surprise surprise, you have spectacularly failed to link me to anyone who saw the planes land, get switched to drones or any of the passengers who never turned up alive & well anywhere! Where is this proof checkit?
The world is waiting.....
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
How about YOU refute the official version with cold hard facts, evidence & proof. Not rumour, opinion or your own personal racist viewpoint.
Do you have proof that the planes were swapped for drones, if so post a link to operatives at the airport who saw the planes land, the passengers get off & drones take off in their place. I also want to see any of the passengers who were on those planes & didn't come home to their families alive & well. Can you do this?
No. Thought not!
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
Actually, pretty much everything you have stated is either skewed , false or being deliberately manipulated into something it isn't to suit your racist agenda.
Were Jewish pilots flying the planes? No they were Muslims. Did a Jewish person admit to planning the attacks? No, he is a Muslim.
Your racism is clear for all to see checkit.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkit
This is really simple. Take all your proof to the highest court in the USA, or any other democratic country in the world, and ask them to listen. Be prepared to be cross examined & have an immediate water tight answer to every question.
Do you think you can do that?
If you can go ahead.
If you can't I suggest you stop with the racist comments. It's the kind of thing that will get you removed from YT.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
checkitb4uwreckit
When you can provide proof of all your claims feel free to take it to the highest court in the land ok.
Until then, the critical thinking non "truther" majority of people who know anything about the events of 9/11 will continue to dismiss you racist motivated comments.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
lmfao at you checkit
1) You have ZERO PROOF to support your racist "Israel did 9/11" claim
2) There is overwhelming PROOF that 19 Muslim hijackers DID carry out the attacks. They were confirmed Al-Queda operatives & their mastermind was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who has also ADMITTED he masterminded the attack.
3) Silverstein would not have been able to purchase the WTC complex WITHOUT having terrorist insurance!
Your personal hatred & racism is clouding your interpretation of reality.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
Anyone reading the shite you've written here will very quickly establish that you are 1) not a critical thinker 2) you're a racist 3) you're a typical low I.Q. "truther" 4) YOU promote debunked strawman arguments 5) you resort to ad hominem attacks when you cannot provide proof of your beliefs or accusations re 9/11 or individuals who support the official version.
People like you are roundly dismissed for the stupidity you believe & promote, which is why your "truth" movement is finished.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
The only dead end is the beliefs you "truthers" cling on to with religious fanaticism.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
I've worked at two demolition sites and the sagging in the center is one of the most obvious signs and proof of implosion.I don't hate the U.S.,I actually love living here and that's why I care about this.
Ignore subscriber terrymanning1.He like many others,goes on channels his little mind can't grasp and tries to get people to insult him and threaten him so they lose their account.He uses racial insults and anything he can to incite rage in you.Two people I know already lost their accounts.
pennach 2 years ago
That's an absolute lie. I don't abuse anyone unless they abuse me first. Dont give it out if you cant take it in return ok.
But you're a "truther" so we expect nothing less than lies.
And who are the people who lost their accounts because of me? I haven't reported anyone.
terrymanning1 2 years ago
You know... A video editor actually intended on timing it's collapse, would have provided a countdown from 13 seconds. Digital stop watch says 8-9 seconds.
meckhos 2 years ago
An investigation will not happen unless we force the issue.
Force the issue by legally refusing to pay income tax. See the videos "Freedom to Fascism" and "Theft by Deception" to learn more about the issue.
Sixty-seven million people don't pay income tax. There is no way they can prosecute and imprison that many people. They use fear to cow people, the same way they are using 911 to cow people.
Stop living in fear and stop paying taxes. Demand justice, or justice will not happen.
KevinMerck 3 years ago
blah blah blah evil govt. blah blah blah controlled demolition blah blah blah inside job blah blah blah free fall speed blah blah blah new investigation blah blah blah
Or should that be bahh bahh bahh.
You "truther" sheep need to get a life.
terrymanning1 3 years ago
whats with the shitty video quality? there isnt any government released shots that arnt tampered with.
dylanbryson 3 years ago
This is a really great video of wtc7 collapse its atleast from a higher vantage point rather than from the ground. Its shows the spot where column 79 failed to collapse the penthouse and everything. Thanks for posting.
newdad1107 3 years ago
WTC7 fires burned for 7 hours.
It was leaning & creaking before it fell.
The FDNY feared it would collapse hours before it did.
No demolition charges were seen or heard.
No seismographs picked up any demo charges.
No evidence of any thermite cuts.
No indication thermite can even be used in bldg demos.
There still is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it.
What exactly is there still to discuss? "Pull it"???
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Once again, it was not the collapse of WTC7 that brings us to debate. It was the MANNER of the collapse. No one has been able to find a video of a collapse remotely resembling WTC7's that was caused by fire, damage, military ordnance, earthquakes, or ANYTHING but a CD. The examples often cited are PATHETIC: the 4-floor Kader Toy Co.; the Jerry-built 5-floor Sampoong store, the Delft Bouwkunde (architecture) building. That last one is a joke: a bunch of balconies falling off due to fire!
Skeptic121 3 years ago
No one has been able to find a video of a demolition of a building even close to the height of WTC 7. No one has found a case of a demolition that involved silent, flash-free explosives. No one has found a case of demolition in which the building was engulfed in flames and was lean& creaking prior to "demolition." No one has found a case of a demolition in which the detonation charges left no trace in the seismic record.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
So at least we both admit that WTC7's collapse was unprecedented.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Even if it took 13 seconds to collapse; WTC 7 is appoximately 580 ft tall so if fell at a rate of 44 feet per second. And remember, a plane DID NOT even hit this building. It didn't pancake, it collapsed into nothing in 13 seconds with no support from the beams what so ever. Do you really think a fire on 3 or 4 floors would have really caused this to happen. If so, then your an idiot!
pachooeychomp 3 years ago
If you remove a section, weaken it considerably, momentum will do the rest. Why would you want to destroy the building?
instante101 3 years ago
NIST has now admitted that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds of its collapse. See David Chandler's WTC7 videos on YouTube.
So what? Free fall acceleration (and please don't say "speed") means WTC7 went very quickly from stability to NO force holding it up. Not only that, but the "event" happened all over the building at the same time. Otherwise, we would not see it drop intact in this video.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
that was taken out of context. upon initiation of global collapse which took place after the penthouse fell. It took 2.3 seconds. But since the local collapse contributed to the global collapse the added time has to be taken in for consideration. And according to firefighters it was anything but stable. They said if was leaning and making the "moan and groan" sounds that indicate an inevitable collapse.
newdad1107 3 years ago
We do not have to time the entire collapse to measure acceleration. Indeed, in the final seconds of the collapse, WTC7 did not accelerate at all, according to NIST and others. Why? Because it was crushing steel and concrete.
WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.3 seconds because 25 meters of vertical support structure was suddenly removed. That's not debatable; it's physics (d=1/2 a t^2). HOW the support was removed is debatable. If you have an explanation, please let us read it...
Skeptic121 3 years ago
I have some explanations. You can find them at AE911truth. org if you scroll toward the bottom on the left-hand side.
Please Peer Review these technical articles (whichever area you may be qualified for)
NanoThermite911 3 years ago
The collapse took alot more than 6 seconds. proving the conspiracy idiots can't count.
AmericasFan 3 years ago
yeah but they sure know how to edit out what doesnt support their fantasies
Obelisk2290 3 years ago
Yeah, that is why I hate these conspiracy people and the so called "truth" movement.
AmericasFan 3 years ago
they always say they are just asking question but neither accept or care about the answes
Obelisk2290 3 years ago
This video shows a controlled demolition. It doesn't matter if you stretch the total time to include the first penthouse falling, the fact remains that the entire structure fell in complete freefall for more than 2 seconds!! This is not possible without demolition!
smitty121981 3 years ago
"This is not possible without demolition!"
Really? According to who?
PoetryHound 3 years ago
The only way to prove thermite or thermate was used is to show why the other explanations for the observed phenomenon are not valid. So far, no one, not even Steven Jones, has done that. Still waiting to see someone with expertise in demolitions and incendiaries to confirm that thermite / thermate was used. Yep, still waiting...tick tick tick...
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Thermite has not been proven or disproven. As Steven Jones points out in a peer-reviewed paper, "Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.) would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues?" Or perhaps PoHo (loves to claim case closed on themite) has an explanation for us...
smitty121981 3 years ago
Steven Jones did not undergo a proper peer review. He has still been unable to get corroboration for his thermite claims from anyone with relevant expertise - metallurgists, incendiaries experts, materials engineers, or demolition experts. Perhaps smitty can tell us why Jones has refused to seriously explore alternative explanations for presence of substances he claims are thermite residues.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
"Steven Jones did not undergo a proper peer review" WRONG!! the quote I gave was published in a peer-reviewed journal!
"Really? According to who?" Sir Isaac Newton
smitty121981 3 years ago
Sir Isaac Newton said WTC 7 couldn't have fallen for 2 seconds without controlled demolition? I think not. I think it's just an unsubstantiated assertion from you.
Which peer reviewed journal - the Jurinal of 911 Studies? LOL! I said PROPER peer review, with the review conducted by people with relevant expertise that you don't know. He has refused to undergo a proper peer review and he has failed to get his thermite claims corroborated by anyone with relevant expertise.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Or was it from the vanity press Bentham journal which, if it has any peer review at all, is utterly non-transparent. But come to think of it, since Jones was careful in how he phrased the statement - "traces of thermite residues WOULD" tell us..." then he's okay because he's not saying the residues WERE found.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Yes, Bentham, and yes, he's ok because he's not saying the residues were found. So if NIST tested for them it would end this conversation. But they didn't.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Good, glad you agree that Jones didn't say thermite / thermate residues were found.
Now when oh when is Jones going to submit his claims/findings to a top tier peer-reviewed academic journal?
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Hey PoetryHound, you realize that the only reason residues weren't found is because they weren't tested for... despite the fact that it is in the NFPA guidelines to do so.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Hey smitty, I see you ran away rather than back up your claim that FEMA said there was a "good" chance the eutectic reactions took place while the steel was still standing.
And no, there's no requirement that thermite be tested for. Why would there be a requirement to go on a wild goose chase?
PoetryHound 3 years ago
no requirement? *sigh*
NFPA guideline 19.2.4 exotic accelerants says melted steel or concrete is a sign of high temperature accelerants and should therefore be tested for.
NFPA 18.15 analyze fuel source says test for all fuel sources that can cause the type of damage observed
the FEMA report confirmed a reaction resulting in liquefied steel (whether or not it happened in the debris pile is irrelevant to whether or not to test for the residues)
smitty121981 3 years ago
Sigh, a guideline, not a requirement. Just as I thought, another lie from you. Just when you claimed FEMA said there was a "good" chance the eutectic reaction took place prior to collapse. That was a lie too.
But at least you've admitted that thermite use is irrelevant to the discussion of WTC 7's collapse.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
BTW, even though you don't want to talk about thermite, note that the author of this guide, The National Fire Protection Association, does not believe that thermite was involved in the destruction of the WTC. The National Association of Fire Investigators and the International Association of Arson Investigators have come to the same conclusion. Are they part of the plot too? Or maybe they're just too "compartmentalized."
PoetryHound 3 years ago
got a quote and some names to back that up?
smitty121981 3 years ago
I saved some info & will try to dig it up. Meanwhile, check out the websites of the NFPA, NAFI, and IAAI and see if there is any demand for a new investigation or any articles about the possibility of thermite at the WTC.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
The only way to refute the thermite/thermate/superthermite/nanothermite claims is to DENY the existence of:
-molten metal (steel)
-ironspheres
-sulfidized steel
-horseshoebent huge I-beams
Or come up with bullshit arguments like that the sulfur comes from the gypsum (how scientific is that, LOL!!!), the molten metal is molten aluminium, etc etc.
Easily debunkable, nothing new...
Sandberg1972 3 years ago 2
Well gripper,
I suggest YOU take the logic and advanced physicsclass urself, because if u believe the official crap, that's badly needed. The official story's based on cartoon physics, in case u didn't know.
But hey, u don't know, indeed, because ur own knowledge is apparently very poor.
Nice distraction though, this WMD reference, it won't work though.
PH-bitch thinks she's clever as always, u're really not impressive, u know that?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
It's only people with NO experience or expertise in demolitions or incendiaries that suggest thermite or nanothermite was used. They think they're smarter than the experts. lol
PoetryHound 3 years ago
I would not obsess about thermite/thermate. If the cops find a shooting victim, they don't pretend to know immediately if it was .38 or .357 magnum; that takes extra work. Prof. Jonathan Barnett discovered some evaporated steel evidence in the WTC7 debris. He presented his findings and then shut up. The only demolition contractor to say openly that WTC7 was a CD is Danny Jowenko, who works in Holland. He does not have to care for US opinion the way most of us do in our jobs.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Barnett? I thought it was former BYU prof. Steven Jones who originated the thermite claim and then refused to undergo a proper peer review and couldn't find anyone with relevant expertise to corroborate his claims. Jowenko said nothing about thermite. In fact, I haven't seen a single demo expert refer to the use of thermite for highrise demos.
Sandberg remains woefully ignorant & unable to back up any of his proclamations. Funny to see him criticize others for his own failings.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Google Jonathan Barnett + WTC + evaporated and a NY Times piece from Dec 26, 2008 (today!) should be the first hit.
Notice how very low key Barnett's comment is.
He makes his point but does not go a micron beyond the data! THAT is how a real scientist avoids dishonesty AND avoids contradicting official policy.
Barnett is a professor of fire engineering (or something similar).
Skeptic121 3 years ago
My mistake: the NY Times article was originally published Nov 29, 2001
Quote: "But that would not explain steel members in the [WTC7] debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
Barnett has never mentioned thermite or thermate. But he did use "evaporated" and "steel", two words seldom found together in a story about a building fire, or a controlled demolition for that matter. Barnett has since chosen his words very carefully.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
This is consistent with the metallurgists in the FEMA investigation who reported the intergranular melting. Of course, just because someone says the words "melting" or "evaporation" does not automatically mean it was caused by thermite or thermate.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Well, it is important to know whether it was "melting" or "evaporation". Evaporation narrows the field of possible explanations!
Steel melts at about 1300 °C (2400 °F). It boils at approx. 3000 °C (5400 °F)
The pictures of the WTC7 sample certainly look like evaporation. Evaporation of steel needs to be explained!
Skeptic121 3 years ago
"The pictures of the WTC7 sample certainly look like evaporation."
Really? Which pictures show steel that is "evaporating?"
Steel can collapse when it is weakened, which takes place at much lower temps. It will lose its load bearing capability well before it starts melting, let alone boiling.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Google:
911research + appendixc
Type it exactly and see the first hit.
Look at the "Swiss cheese" picture of the steel recovered from WTC7.
Thermite is a great classroom demonstration of ENTHALPY. ThermATE, which is thermITE with sulfur, is a great demonstration of ENTROPY. Many students guess the sulfur in thermATE reacts immediately with O2 to form SO2; wrong! At such high temperatures, entropy favors sulfur, not SO2!
Metallurgy shows FeS in the WTC7 sample, consistent with this concept.
Skeptic121 3 years ago 2
"Fine, Sandberg, please give us an example of when nanothermite has been used in the past, or present for that matter, in a controlled demolition"
Can u read? Or do u pretend u can't?
What is it u don't understand about nanothermite being the LATEST invention?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Too bad they forgot to plant the WMD's in Iraq. Guess it slipped their minds, huh?
All you truthers need to:
1. Take a intro LOGIC class
2. Take an advanced PHYSICS class
3. Stop believing every little thing someone posts on their conspiracy blog.
4. Get some medication
gripper61 3 years ago
I'm a "truther" and ive taken an advanced physics class. i know all about conservation of momentum and energy and the formulas of motion, ive done my own calculations and i can quite comfortaby say theres no way in hell those 3 buildings could have collapsed as fast as they did without some explosive energy being thrown into the mix.
Are you an advanced physicist?
ScootleRoyale 3 years ago
i doubt you are.
lgday 3 years ago
Folks, we all should have paid more attention in high school physics class.
We do not have to time the entire collapse to measure acceleration!
NIST has recently (December 2008) admitted that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. That means WTC7dropped about five floors with NO resistance at all. Fire weakening the beams does not explain it.
The beams of several complete floors were GONE, suddenly and completely! Either a CD or something we don't understand.
Skeptic121 3 years ago
ELVIS!
gripper61 3 years ago
Elvis? Is that your response to NIST conceding that in fact there was freefall? And then you have the nerve to tell someone else to "Take an intro to LOGIC class"? How sad you are.
smitty121981 3 years ago
You are a TOOL for LOOSE CHANGE.
gripper61 3 years ago
Well Bud, I see ur understanding of controlled demolition is rather poor. In a "normal" CD, they usually rig more floors than just the bottom floor, because if u don't do that, the resistance of the structure can cause it to go different places than u planned for.
Other than that, nanothermite is just the latest invention, and must be considered a credible & viable candidate for bringing down these 3 structures. I know reasoning is tough, but give it ur best shot, OK?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Fine, Sandberg, please give us an example of when nanothermite has been used in the past, or present for that matter, in a controlled demolition.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
No contradiction: the 174-meter WTC 7 only caused surface damage to the two buildings on both sides of it, separated by only narrow streets. True, the corner of a third building was damaged. Even that might have been prevented in a normal demolition, but explosive demolition would probably not be used in such tightly built environment in any case - normally. 9/11 was not a normal situation. Btw, as NIST now says normal office fires alone brought down 7, should I start a match demolition company?
Finnquirer 3 years ago
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."-Ephesians 6:12
jesus-is-savior(dor)com
ofreshartist 3 years ago
"Isnt it possible thermite wasnt used rather thermate instead?"
Yes it's possible.
What's even more likely is the use of nanothermite (or nanothermate, don't really know if that exists as well).
Just google Kevin Ryan, nanothermite, and LLNL
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Sandberg - please tell us how you came to this new conclusion? Truthers change every day ...
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Don't worry, Sandberg is just another clown who fancies himself a demo expert. There's no evidence any thermite or nanothermite was used. Only NON-demo experts make claims about its use.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Building 7.I was asked to testify on congress on the controlled demolition matter as my company is the number one demo crew in the world. The day of my flight I was put on the no fly list with out explanation, and then abruptly after the hearing removed from the list My credit cards were canceled and my bank accounts were frozen. Once the hearings were over I was contacted by my banks and credit cards companies that a mistake was made and that the problem was solved. somthing isnt right here.
davesevaw 3 years ago
Another hilarious or rather sad part of this, is that CIA and US Secret services had their ofices in that building. (look it up)
pretty convinient huh?
daneeB79 3 years ago 2
Why would the CIA and Secret Service want to destroy their offices?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Its not wanting. It gives the possibility to plant the thermate without having problems.
HicEtNunc441 3 years ago
How is that? WTC 7 fell like a normal demolition, so if it was a demolition, the charges would have to be placed in basement and 1st level or so - how does having an office on the 40th floor give you this access?
And what will Thermate do? It does not cut horizontally? So it cannot sever the structural supports.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
The most hilarious or rather sad part of this, is that u're obviously UNable to see the absurdity of ur situation or position.
If u have a grain of common sense, u know that no building comes down in this manner without the aid of CD, it has never happened and with with a likelyhood bordering on complete certainty, it will never happen in the future.
Good point u made though, about the fact that CD's can be engineered any way you like it. Of course u FORGOT to mention topdown CD ;-)
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Despite falling straight down without virtually no resistance, symmetrically, listen up folks, this particulat collapse, was NOT a CD, believe it or not.
No, this time there was some local damage, and some fires, and this building had a very special design. And then well, u had these massive coincidences of all these things, happening just at the wrong time at the wrong place (or rather, just at the RIGHT time at the RIGHT place), causing the building to collapse, JUST LIKE A CD!!!
Good ey?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
so why was there molten metal found under this building if it fell from structure damage and a few fires
hibblyko 3 years ago
"Because everytime we see a building collapse on tv/video/whatever, it is a controlled demolition."
Yeah, makes u kinda wonder doesn't it, when u see one more, looking exactly like a CD once again, and then surprise surprise, THIS ONE, believe it or not, was not. You hardly see collapses recorded that aren't a controlled demolitions, and even those look like a controlled demolition, as you can blow up a buildnig in any way you like it: into its footprint, make it topple, over, etc. etc."
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Maybe u could take a peak at the journalof911studies, my fellow countryman, this request for correction is posted there, u can see all of the points they want NIST to correct, each and every time it is explained WHY the point must be corrected, WHY is it INCORRECT, UNTRUE, UNREALISTIC, and AGAINST current rules.
U know, has to do with the scientific method and how one is REQUIRED to conduct an investigation.
But I guess it won't mean much to you, considering ur previous answers.
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"It is fun to see how you try to think for Jowenko.. "
I don't really see why that's funny or something. Look if u have doubts u can call him urself, and ask him. U know, like I did. His mobile phonenumber is on his website, what's keeping u from doing it?
And what makes u think people like Jones, Ryan, an others, have not already sent such a request for correction (multiple times in fact) to NIST?
No surprises about the answer, NIST just ignored ALL OF IT, without ANY argument of course.
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Still looks like controlled demolition to me.
Inside job all the way.
motonegros 3 years ago
""How can u look at the collapse of WTC7 and NOT think: CD?"
Besides the point."
Uhhh, could u explain WHY this is besides the point?
When I find a man with a little hole in his forehead and a big hole at the back of his head, u think it might be "reasonable" to suggest that that man was killed by a gunshot to the head?
And not by some 'natural" cause?
In fact don't u think tht "killed by gunshot to the head" would be the first and strongest hypothesis to consider?
If not, why?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"Uhhh, could u explain WHY this is besides the point?"
Because everytime we see a building collapse on tv/video/whatever, it is a controlled demolition. You hardly see collapses recorded that aren't a controlled demolitions, and even those look like a controlled demolition, as you can blow up a buildnig in any way you like it: into its footprint, make it topple, over, etc. etc.
Esnir 3 years ago
Jowenko is an expert, so of course he immediately recognizes the collapse of WTC7 as a CD.
In the case of the Twintowers, these were rarely seen topdown demolition, onan unprecedented scale. So of course he has doubts at first. He may still have, but I think that when he takes a long hard look at it, he'll come to the conclusion that these 2 were demoed as well.
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
It is fun to see how you try to think for Jowenko..
Esnir 3 years ago
"it has been considered, NIST looked into CD by explosives and thermite, and found both to be unrealistic.
Read their report for details"
LOL!!
Well, it's typical for someone like u to find this convincing.
They didn't address anything, they just stated that they din't find anything, they didn't look for anything u see. Something that was also somewhat of a problem, since all the physical evidence was long destroyed by then.
I don't mean to offend u, but are u really this ignorant?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
The nist report is released to the public for scrutiny.
If you find anything wrong with it, you can contact them about it.
Why don't you do so?
Esnir 3 years ago
"If you have ever seen interviews with experts about something, you would have noticed that they never answer questions that are beond the scope of their expertise"
Oh u mean like Leslie Robertson, who refused to give ANY comment on the collapse of WTC7, since he didn't work on that particular building. He IS a structural engineer but hey, lord forbid he would give his opinion on the complete rapid collapse of a structure which he didn't help to build, right?
He only did the Twins, so...
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"Leslie Robertson, who refused to give ANY comment on the collapse of WTC7, since he didn't work on that particular building"
That is indeed a good reason for an expert not to comment on wtc7, when his opinion as an expert was asked.
Lesley isn't the only expert in the world, and luckely others did comment about the collapse of wtc7. So i don't see why you need his expert opinion too..
Esnir 3 years ago
"Nice speculations.
Any proof for it? "
Still here?
Ever heard of probability theory, Esnir?
What do u know about the properties of steel?
How can u look at the collapse of WTC7 and NOT think: CD?
Why was this hypothesis not even considered?
Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"How can u look at the collapse of WTC7 and NOT think: CD?"
Besides the point.
"Why was this hypothesis not even considered?"
it has been considered, NIST looked into CD by explosives and thermite, and found both to be unrealistic.
Read their report for details.
Esnir 3 years ago
Oh Common Dude.
NIST? Throughing out Thermite? Of course they did. Read their report? The one that was late by how many years, that is a sham? Wake Up!
How sad so many are blinded by "officialdom" whether it be the major state apparatus in Germany in the 1930's, or the United States in the 2000's. Too many conned people, always loving to believe, embrace a lie, the official propaganda of their murderous government.
ScuseMeJudge 3 years ago
So you didn't read the NIST report.
Esnir 3 years ago
No, he has never read the NIST report. His only source of "information" is the voices in his head.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
Isnt it possible thermite wasnt used rather thermate instead
hibblyko 3 years ago
"Well, you also called Jowenko ignorant etc when he spoke of wtc1/2, while you considered him to be absolutely right when he commented about wtc7."
That's right, I spoke to this man personally for about half an hour, and fact is he hasn't really looked that well at WTC1 & 2.
"Which is kinda typical for a truther: any argument that goes against your believes is a joke to you...."
That's more the case for u I would think, u seem to believe in fairytale physics and obvious fraud
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"More likely it was because the truthers themself started attacking each other about which story about 911 is the correct one. Finally patman was fed up about it and silenced the 911truthers."
That's true. U won't see me defend any no-planes at the wtc" or missiles, spacebeams-theory etc.
Although there are many options that I keep open, because they haven't been researched thoroughly enough as of yet.
U're not this atmosphere-dude by any means, are u?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"Indeed, as that is not his expertise. He of course is entitled to give his opinion, just like you and i are, but that opinion isn't an expert opinion."
Oh I see, so basically no one, except CD-experts and structural engineers, is entitled to give credible views on this matter, is that it? And if a majority of those "experts" favor "natural collapse" above CD, then natural collapse is scientifically correct, right?
Unfortunately for u, science is not democratic
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"The total collapse took 18 seconds. That is not an estimate, that is what seismic data revealed. If you look at video footage and count, you get to about 15-16 seconds before the collapse disappeares behind the other structures on the video."
I get to around 14 secs, NIST's report talks about 9 and 11 secs, and who are we to question that, right? In any case, WAY to fucking fast to comply with conservation of momentum, and u should know this.
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
"Anyway, the Dutch university TU Delft did a study in 2006 on the twin tower collapses, and they calculated that the collapse was possible without any additional energy (e.g. bombs) involved."
Yeah I've seen that, too fucking disgraceful to watch, 3 of those idiot students coming up with all kinds of absurd arguments, constantly OMITTING crucial details, it was a JOKE.
I wrote this dipshit Coen Vermeeren about it, he just kept circumventing the issue, asking for my background all the time.
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
Well, you also called Jowenko ignorant etc when he spoke of wtc1/2, while you considered him to be absolutely right when he commented about wtc7.
Which is kinda typical for a truther: any argument that goes against your believes is a joke to you....
Esnir 3 years ago
I see jesusgrc is doing a nice job.
Come on Esnir, how much time goes by, between th failure of the first corner/side of the building, and the last corner/side of the building to start freefalling towards the ground?
Gimme a rough estimate.
Also, maybe u could explain what this "vertical upward progression of failure" means, 'cause I'm a little in the dark about that one.
Furthermore, u seem to believe in a string of highly IMprobable event resulting in the Mother of all coincidences?
Sandberg1972 3 years ago
The total collapse took 18 seconds. That is not an estimate, that is what seismic data revealed.