Where were the 110 acres of floors and floor trusses then? They were not in the building's footprint. That's because Chandler is correct. The concrete was disintegrated before it ever hit the ground. Only explosives can do this.
KJC, you need some help getting over your denial. I understand your world view would collapse if you accepted the reality of 9/11, but that's the beginning of the healing process.
The idiot author of this video apparently fails to realize it isn't just the smoke trailing behind those projectiles that causes Chandler to identify them as "rockets", but their increased acceleration in conjunction with the smoke, exactly what one would expect with late-firing explosives on those building pieces. The author of this video is clearly a fucking imbecile and obviously just another pseudoskeptical JREF clown.
This video purports to "explain" the top 10% of the World Trade Center towers demolishing the much stronger bottom 90% by showing a video featuring the top HALF of a building demolishing the bottom HALF. What the video fails to mention, though, is that most of the supporting structures inside that building were pre-demolished, as is a common practice in controlled demolition, and the only way to ensure the building's complete demolition. Fucking morons.
The author of this video is clearly ignorant. What starts this "lurch" of the building? Also, since thermite was used, we should not expect only huge explosions (never mind that many videos feature just such explosions), since thermite is very quiet.
The 14 floor ABC Cite Balzac demolition was achieved by jacking, not explosives. To suggest it shows the top of a reinforced steel tower demolishing the bottom by gravity alone is misleading (and untrue). Pictures after the dust cleared show much remaining structure, but more to the point, the demolition of the building was started 7 months earlier (by Ferrari Wrecking) in a long process of "selective deconstruction and weakening".
In every Case I've written to 911 truth debunkers, I get blocked, called names etc. because at the point when I explain to them (with calculation) that their statements are not true or can't be true they either:
a) havew no knowledge in mechanics
b) can't stay on topic
c) talk about belive
d) block me because they are afraid I could disproove them.
It's just cheap disinfo for folks with an IQ lower than pi.
Do you believe fires on two floors brought down wtc 7? Well, I've got to say, we've been wasting a lot of money on demolition experts everytime we wanna bring a building down. We could just start a fire in 2 of the floors.
If they were telling the truth, why would they not release the over 80 videos that show the plane that hit the pentagon? Tell me, at what point did our government STOP lying to us? GulfofTulkin,Northwoods,IranContra,etc.
Wow this is serious stuff! You know, I have never seen a single piece of plane wreckage from the commercial airliner the pentagon. I've looked at probably over 100 photos of other commercial airliner crashes, and the thing that is ironic is that 100 percent of them have enormous debris. The same goes for shanksville. Nada. As for the 19 hijackers, 7 of them are still alive. And what about the passport that was not even singed of one of the hijackers that was found 2 blocks away.
1. First its obvious that David Chandler's video has been very persuasive, so that "KJC24"--someone who has only uploaded "debunker" videos--shows up to try to put a stop to it, largely with a title of pejorative rhetoric.
2. His best effort is ironic, a video of *De'molition* da la tour ABC, to refute controlled demolition, that is itself a controlled demolition! Clearly the video of that event shows that the "demolition" was engineered, but no lateral hurling of beams or squibs.
government would never engage in an evil act like 911, that they would never hurt or lie on this scale. This is a fantasy, a childish fantasy, they have no idea hoe global elite governments think in terms of massing power and controlling and building their power base and wealth. They do not care about you, they never have, just look at operation Northwoods for example. They are ruthless ungodly men who will do and say anthing to get what they want. power and money. Grow up and accept it!
@ConspiracyTVNetwork I'm confused dude. You have "ConspiracyTVNetwork" as your screen name and your Youtube site looks like your for conspiracies and exposing the government. But you run down my comment which is of course a "truther' comment and one look at my site you would see that I'm a truther. So what is it dude are you using sarcasm and pretending to be a truther or are you a government lover, because I can't figure what your angle is!
@Allanlegacy43 "or are you a government lover" yes, because those are the only two options right? either you're a "truther" or a "government lover." and you have the audacity to call other people sheep, you simpleton.
@BillKiernan That's right, it's either the truth or a lie, the government are nothing but liars and we who may not have all the answers have truth, is that simple enough for you!!
Everything that day was an extremely unprobable coicidence and first times. The powers to be who can and did orchestrate this evil modern day Pearl harbour are simply tyrannts and global killers. I mean you have these rich globalist who own so numerous military contracting and oil companies like Cheney and 911 happens and its the jackpot for all these men. The plan for Iraq's invasion was years in the making before 911, The masses have been brainwashed from childhood to believe that their
The physical towers are just a small percentage of evidence that shows planned coordinated inside miltary type precision. You would have to understand that the would have the latest and most advanced technology used to bring them down. That being said, you could argue forever on both sides and never come to a final conclusion. However there is a mountain of external evidence outside the towers that clearly show planned inside military false flag attacks, anyone who says no is a ignorant tool.
I do have to say that it's inaccurate to claim no audio of demolition charges going off was captured. Also, you're aware that a large majority of all available videos were 1st previewed and screwed with by NIST, right? They removed audio from many videos, altered the audio in others, removed frames from others, etc. There are still a few though where an audible demolition sequence that matches eyewitness testimony of 'firecrackers' and continual 'gunshots' going off upon collapse, can be heard.
uh..ok, then why do 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics envoke state of the art nano-thermite hush-a-bombs to explain away the lack of noise in the collapse of the builidngs?
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
So comparing the Twins to verinage actually comes down to admitting the Twins were controlled demolitions. Never mind the fact that verinage doesn't work for steelframed buildings, or the fact that there's a measurable deceleration on impact with the lower part, or the fact that the upper is destroying itself more each time it hits the lower part. It doesn't mention the fact that verinage usually starts it the middle of a building, and never near the top. That's because it would not work then.
8)Later in his DVD, David Chandler explains that another view of the same event shows an explosion occurs on the projectile, which separates it into two pieces, one of which, we see make a dramatic and sudden change of direction.
The author, KJC24, has committed scientific fraud by deliberately misrepresenting, obscuring and omitting the evidence that doesn't support his attempted dis-information.
I was going to critique part 2 of his "debunking", but why bother?
6)The projectile is in a clear area, free of other sources of smoke. The smoke trail is CLEARLY emanating from the projectile, since there is no nearby smoke or dust, that could have been "taken" or "pulled along" as it fell.
7)The "rocket projectile" is explained away by the author by claiming that the debris was "lightweight" aluminum, being blown around by the wind. Speculation, not evidence. Also, NOT confirmed by observation.
6)The "rocket projectile" was in free space and it suddenly changes direction in mid air. The author claims this is Aluminum cladding being blown by wind. This highly speculative explanation is not confirmed by observations.
Later in the DVD, Chandler states that he found a view of this event that shows an explosion that separated this object into two parts, dramatically changing the direction as seen. Choosing to omit contrary evidence is scientific fraud.
5) Chandler points out an object that is moving faster than other debris, falling nearby. He suggests that explosives could be accelerating it faster than gravity, because of the tell-tale white smoke, which could be from a thermite reaction. The author ignores the key point of faster-than-gravity speed, and diverts attention to the smoke. Ignoring evidence that does not fit is a violation of the scientific method.
4)The author shows a video of another successful CD that "did not use explosives" as proof(?) that gravity could have done all of the observed damage, during the tower's collapse. The example had the middle floors removed, and the destruction was equal to both remaining halves. BUT ,in twin towers, the destruction started near the top. As the top was destroyed, so would an equal sized part of the lower building. The collapse would have then stopped.
1)The name-calling at the start is not EVIDENCE of anything, except for the author's inappropriate anger and obvious lack of debating skills.
2)Actually, there were MANY reports and recordings of EXPLOSIONS, However, Lack of explosive sounds does not mean lack of explosives (see what the fire investigation procedures manuals say at ff911t.org)
3)The top did disintegrate and it's off-center mass fell into the street and, therefore, could not have crushed the tower.
I would like to critique something about this, but I don't even know where to start.
Cheap personal attacks notwithstanding, attacking just two small claims made is... Well, I have no idea what Verinage is supposed to do with Chandler's claim of top section coming apart mid-air (which is evident from it not hitting the ground in one piece, of course)...
But to suggest one particular object out of all the debris was covered in "dust" and then was magically "resisted" by air half-way rather than all along the way is... The claim was, of course, that the sudden change of velocity on object's part is indication of an outside force (such as explosives), which I'm not sure how one can contest.
You'd be better served addressing more important claims such as detailed NIST-confirmed velocimetry of the collapses rather than resorting to cheap insults.
"don't use Wikipedia, and second off, it is correct"
I would agree Wiki is not a reliable scientific source. My knowledge comes from working for the world's largest engineering company for the last 25 yrs.
You used "velocimetry" incorrectly firstly because the term is used regarding the velocity of fluids and secondly(more importantly) because the factor was acceleration not velocity.
BTW oddly enough I checked wiki and found it was accurate on "Velocimetry"
@NWOisBS "My knowledge comes from working for the world's largest engineering company for the last 25 yrs."
That wouldn't be UL by any chance?
"You used "velocimetry" incorrectly firstly because the term is used regarding the velocity of fluids and secondly(more importantly) because the factor was acceleration not velocity."
Both correct, thanks.
Yes, acceleration is more important and the actual subject of the studies.
@NWOisBS Using velocity in a measurement is more than appropriate as long as velocity remains at least semi constant. Remember an object that travels in a path that return to the point of origin as a velocity of 0 despite the highest speeds achieved. But if velocity remains constant from A to B then it remains a number above 0.
Not very well debunked at all. JREF uses dismissive language to denigrate people questioning the official story and I wonder why denigration and snide comments seem to be their weapon of choice. Is that because they can't mount a strong objection to the 'alt theory' videos on a physics basis?
No audible blasts? what planet are you on? did you see the wtc7 VERY LOUD EXPLOSION clip? Do you even know eyewitness testimony of explosions going off?
Do you ignore them all?
hundreds of them? as well as video evidence? the whole premise of this video is false and pathetic.
the collapse video that you use as an example was not a steel framed building... gravity collapses are not used on steel framed buildings because they do not work...
The towers had 47 internal steel frames as the major load bearing support, designed to support five times its own weight, with the thickest steel at the base. 10-20 stories demolished 80-90 stories? The gravity demolition loses acceleration as the building falls. You cannot reproduce that effect with a much larger building; a few floors at the top destroying the rest of a much larger structure. Head over to AlienScientist's channel and let him hand you your ass on any 9/11 topic of "debate".
@thisguyoverhere1"The gravity demolition loses acceleration as the building falls. " You are trying to argue that resistance remains constant for each floor that collapses. I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that, at least not all the time. The Tolerance of every floor remains the same but the level of resistance decreases with every floor as the falling mass only acquires more mass as it falls. More mass = more weight = less resistance quantified
Is this guy serious? Or did he make this compilation of drivvel in a tourettes fit?
He actually disproves himself showing a real gravitational collapse where 43% of the top of a building + the kinetic energy falling over 14% of the structure crushing the remainder of the underlying 43%. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". 10% falling over 5% cant pulverize the remaining 85% you douche.
@roxxphatcox No building was "pulverized". just collapsed. And that is easily done by having, say, ten floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, then the 11 floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, then the 12 floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, and so on. No single floor can stand such an impact, and so the collapse continues, getting stronger floor by floor.
@Pygar2 Ah, you are still in 7th grade. They teach you this concept in 8th grade, atleast in Norway: 10 floors hitting 90 floors would result in? (remember the laws of physics, equal and opposite reaction) 9 floors and 89. At what floor will there be no more mass to crush the one below? I`ll give a quick hint: 80th floor. A floor cannot accumulate and at the same time be halfway to new jersey in powderform, understand? "No one floor can stand such an impact" IDIOT, look at failed demolitons.
@roxxphatcox It's not a case of ten floors hitting 90. It's a case of ten hitting 90, then 11 hitting 89, and so on. I won't speculate on what grade you are in, not to understand basic math. NO floor was powdered, although a lot of plaster and ceiling tile did. Look at the debris field, and stop pretending any significant amount of the buildings were convenient enough to blow away. Newton was satisfied by the tiny return impetus to the Earth. Failed CD? Those had internal pillars, T1&2 did not.
@Pygar2 Oh the humanity: So if I have a bad understanding of math, let us look at your calculation: 10 hits 90 -> 11 hits 89 -> 12-> 88 and so on. Then you would have 100 intact floors left at ground level. Since as you stated: NO floor was powdered. And ofc, the towers had no internal pillars....
This was a fun trip to Pygar2`s science and math fantasyland:)
I find it futile to entice in a fruitful discussion with you , though it is amusing
@roxxphatcox Excuse me? Where do the 100 intact floors come from? After all the floors have been successively demolished by impact from above, plus impact from the sudden stop below, all floors were reduced to rubble. The "failed demolitions" were of buildings with strong internal supports, which the Towers simply did not have. The lack of pillars, was IMHO the death of the Towers. I knew about this quirk from articles about them. And on 9/11 warned my family in advance they'd be coming down.
@roxxphatcox are you really trying to suggest that the overall mass of an entire floor simply disappears into thin air just because it is collapsed by the impact of the mass falling from above. The Mass of 10 floors collapses the mass of the floor directly beneath it then when the mass of that floor collapses it JOINS and adds to the mass of the 10 floors above it creating the mass of 11 floors falling. Matter can not be destroyed it can only be transformed. E=MC^2 should be enough to prove that
@thebluemaggot There's something very wrong with this theory. U know that, don't u?
Or rather, this theory relies on a few very very bold assumptions. I would say this vid tries to convince people who don't want to believe the obvious, with speculative arguments and out of line comparisons to other buildings being destroyed.
Verinage is a CD-technique, it works only because the upper part drops straight down as a whole unit. That can only be achieved through precise control of column failure.
What can one say to this half-baked attempt to discredit Chandler? "...objects flying through dust will take the dust with it and leave a trail behind" That's not what is seen in the video...the trail is WHITE. Your handlers ought to be disappointed if this is the best you can do! You won't make it long in COINTELPRO....like Colonel Klink used to say..."very interesting...BUT STUPID!"
free fall in layman's terms. like a skydiver freefall. it's not a free fall as applied to physics. a free fall, in a vacuum or not, can only be achieved if there is no other force acting upon it. for example, since the east side fell before the west, the west would have had momentary acceleration greater than 9.8 because it would be getting pulled down. btw drag or resistance due to air is never negligible, or else terminal velocity wouldn't exist. that's like saying pressure is negligible.
It is OBSERVABLE that collapse of WTC7 is indistinguishable from free fall, this implies the the building had no vertical resistance. It also implies no side of the building pulled another part down.
What you are saying: The building SHOULD have held together, hence free fall could not have been possible.
dude, if i jump from a tree and and land on a branch 5 meters into the fall, never touch the branch again, and the branch hits the ground around the same time as me, it's acceleration will exceed -9.8 m/s/s.
I don't know how many examples I can give you. You and Chandler are confusing free fall in layman's terms and free fall as it applies to physics. You should be able to read a simple definition and conclude that it is not possible
Despite you are making an effort to sound scientific, you do not seem to be able to make yourself clear.
I on the other hand have a university degree in engineering - there is nothing "layman" about something as simple as acceleration.
Ignoring air resistance, when I fall, I do it with free fall acceleration. Hitting a branch will slow my movement, hence I will not hit the ground in the time given by the free fall formula (solved for time) t=sqrt(2*s/g), s being the height I fell from.
The fact that WTC collapsed in the SAME time that an object dropped from it's roof would have taken to hit the ground PROVES WITHOUT DOUBT that nothing slowed or resisted its fall (like, beams, structures bending, being crumpled, or otherwise giving way) .
first of all, it took more than 6 seconds for it to come down. a true free fall would have taken a little less than 6 seconds. if you are going to treat it as one object, you have to start from when the SE corner collapsed, and you're talking well over 10 seconds. even chandler says the acceleration of -9.8 m/s/s only occured for 1.75 seconds of the fall than slowed down
you stupid ass watch his videos. his claim is 2.5 seconds in freefall, second video he claims 3.5 seconds of freefall. an object in freefall for 5 seconds would have fallen over 500 feet if the initial velocity was zero. the whole building was 560 ft, and the entire collapse took well over 10 seconds.
well you make no sense. chandler said the building was in freefall for 2.5 seconds in his 1st video and 3.5 seconds in his second "revised" video. no one is dumb enough to think it was in freefall for 5 seconds. the building is 174m, it's not even 1/2 way down in the video at 5 seconds. at freefall the building would have hit the ground in 5 seconds. at least watch the videos of the people you are defending.
you refute the irrefutable. unless you can't count the youtube's player time when it starts to fall and when you can't see it anymore then you should be able to see that it is almost EXACTLY 5 sec. NIST has even admitted now that it did fall at free fall acceleration. why don't you stop talking? you're just bullshitting.
lol you're an idiot, you obviously haven't taken high school physics yet or you did and failed or you don't remember it. not that you'd even need that to know your statement is retarded "dude, if i jump from a tree and and land on a branch 5 meters into the fall, never touch the branch again, and the branch hits the ground around the same time as me, it's acceleration will exceed -9.8 m/s/s."
oh yeah WTC7 was only 600 ft tall. A true free fall would have taken 6.15 seconds and any claim that free fall acceleration was achieved for any stretch defeats the theory that there was no resistance because the building would have had to come to a virtual stand still later in the fall for this to have occured because of the length of the collapse.
From the title I don;t think this video claims to be a debunking of all 911 conspiracies. It simply points out some of Chandlers ridiculous unfounded claims of explosions , midair disintegration, and rockets.
If this video is "weak" what does that make Chandlers video? Feeble and illogical would be my call.
funny how you didn't explain why the 'rocket projectile' "carried" more "dust" with it after the "air" "resisted" it's movement than it had when it was leaving the giant dust cloud of the building...
if one weren't a fool, one may postulate that only a finite amount of dust can be carried with a moving object, it should not produce more once it exits the dust cloud, after it changes directions in midair....for whatever reason.
i never heard of NIST admitting anything, but if you're talking about free-fall you must be talking about wtc7 not north or south towers which fell at approximately 60% of free fall
Yes, it is about WTC 7, because the view on it is not obstructed by dust clouds and free fall acceleration can thus not be denied.
Concerning WTC 1, 2, free fall acceleration can be proven to take place in part of the collapse (where view is unhindered). The 60% is most probably not true.
There is numerous evidence that all WTC buildings were demolished by explosives:
lateral ejection of multiton steel beams several hundred feet far, mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, total dismemberment of 100,000 tons of steel frame, massive amounts of molten steel (hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt or even bend steel sufficently - proven by FEMA), seismic, visual proof for explosions, symmetric collapse through path of greatest resistance, etc..
The FEMA report even finds remains of thermite explosives on steel beams (in the appendix), this dissappeared in the NIST report.
A peer reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal even identifies the exact thermite variant used based on gournd zero dust samples.
yeah but as we know there were definitely explosives in the building just from footage of the towers not even having been able to have access to all the ground zero evidence which CIA did but for some reason weren't smart enough to figure that out huh? well it's impossible to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. to speculate on what that conspiracy specifically is, is not important. what is important is to know that there is one going on or was anyway...
I am a scientific person, for me belief is irrelevant: what counts is facts, and proof.
I know it is hard to believe there is a government conspiracy. But this is not important. Perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't.
But: There is proof that the WTC was destroyed by means of explosives, let an independent investigation come to the conclusions who did this, exactly how, and why, and then, if parts of the government were involved, or not.
i like how the video clips of the demoed buildings in your video look like they're are falling at a slower rate than that of the world trade center lol i never held a great deal of merit in the demolition of the world trade center until now. funny how sometimes the person who you are debating will actually bring some things to light that you didn't really notice before
and how about the fact that when the FBI wished to interview both cheney and bush SEPARATELY they refused... why would they do that? i mean serisously why not allow the FBI to ask you questions separately if you had nothing to do with the incident?
these are MY reasons for skepticism, not the physics of the towers collapsing... although it does seem to raise allot of debate, that is also the reason why i don't use it in my argument... because it's to easy to manipulate it. i'll just stick with the facts
oh and also i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol... and whatever happened to the footage of the security camera that shows the plane hitting the pentagon? i haven't seen that one in a while... oh and what are your thoughts on the bin laden family being quickly flown out of the country after the towers had been struck when no one else was able to take off?
@brucelee6790 It seems to me that since we were linking Osama Bin Laden by the end of the first day, a good investigation would call for the prudent questioning of his relatives before flying them to safety. This would have been done for any other crime. The family is usually the first questioned as to whereabouts of a suspect. Not in this case though.
"i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol"
You expose yourself as being on the lowest rung of the twoofer ladder. That's a bad place to be
Did you even watch this video? This is what happens to a plane that nosedives to the ground
95% of the plane was recovered and all the victims including hijackers were identified by coroners.
ALSO 9/11 stinks because cheney took over norad a few months before 9/11 and changed the policy to "the pilots must be granted permission before engaging enemy planes" also cheney COINCIDENTALLY thought it would be a good idea to to run a training exercise the day of 9/11 where there would be all sorts of random blips on the radar to confuse the pilots... tower 7 first building to ever collapse from fire alone, and did so VERY quickly. what was in tower 7? oh just all sorts of CIA records
"95% of the plane was recovered and all the victims including hijackers were identified by coroners" lmfao that's what they told you jackass (tears in my eyes) omg so your going to consider the CIA "investigators" word as apart of your alibi in a conspiracy that's all about the sketchy governments actions??? O_O and all the "evidence" is classified and will never see the light of day, at least not for many many years to come. just like the JFK assassination evidence
""i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol"" well that's what they were telling us around the time that it happened, so... you pick when they were lying
if you really knew all the points of the conspiracy theorists theories then you should have no problem responding to all of them immediately. it took me all of 10min to type those up, because i had already looked into the conspiracy a great deal before deciding whether it was bullshit or not. i suggest you do the same if your going to set up your whole youtube channel uploading video that would advocated against this idea through taking other's videos and adding sarcastic commentary
i can't wait for you to research the points i made by looking for friendly anti-truther's websites and finding the lamest disclaimers that you'll just end up repeating much like the tool you are
i'm trying to find the footage of the little white puffs of smoke that shoot of of the building as it's collapsing in on it's self before the collapsing part of the building even reaches it, that in itself is proof. not to mention that 9/11 was the first case EVER of knowing where a plane went down and never being able to recover the indestructible black box... two black boxes per plane... was it 3 or 4 planes that went down on 9/11 i forget? there's T1 T2 the pentagon, and one that went down in
You are a fool. The AE for 911 Truth is NOT a group for misinformation. On the contrary, it presents facts. You choose to explain away the uncomfortable. There are a whole load of reasons that the squibs cannot be smoke and dust, as you claim. However, you are also a hypocrite: be honest, you are not interested in the evidence because you TOO have made your mind up. So you too are interpreting events to the reality you believe in. Trouble is evidence does not support you.
The skeptic movement is NOT laughing at idiots like you out of discomfort. That would mean there's actually evidence that the WTC was demolished and that skeptics are ignoring it. Fact is, skeptics who attack belief in the paranormal, miracles, are the same people laugh at your own stupid beliefs.
The "squibs" CAN be smoke because it's the very same color of the smoke generated by fires, and only comes out the windows AFTER the tower begins to move. AND there are no BOOMS from any explosives.
I think you should learn what a "skeptic" is. I am one of them, so I think you got your first sentence the wrong way round. Out of "discomfort"? What sort of English is that, and what on earth do you mean? Wrong. The squibs are NOT smoke, because smoke cannot be clocked at over 100 mph - as these squibs have been. No booms; proves you haven't been listening to our argument. 1. There WERE (testimony ignored). 2. This is an unconventional demolition.
no, because if that were your meaning, then you have debunked yourself. You require far more energy that mere gravity to achieve the speeds at which these jets were clocked. In an airplane that is provided by the jet fuel and the motor. You don't get that in collapses. So if you were debunking me, you have just scored an own goal!
I am not sure how "fast" smoke can go. My point is that the argument that the gas ejections from the towers were caused by compressed air (due to the "collapse") simply cannot hold. I forget the EXACT speed, but it has been clocked, and believe me you cannot explain the jets away that simply... even if you don't think that explosives brought down the towers. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. They need answering. Give Richard Gage his day in Court.
No, you are not a skeptic, you are a denier. Go to TAM, which is the biggest anual meeting of skeptics and critical thinkers - do a poll of all the people you speak to as to whether they think 9/11 was an inside job and that the WTC was demolished.
1. Irrelevant. We have original audio close to the WTC. This is far better evidence than unreliable eye witness testimony.
2. OK, show me explosives that can violently explode but make no sound? That simply violates how explosives work.
So are you. 1. It is hard to know which audio clips are genuine from the YouTube. I know of one, for example, where the selfsame "Oh my God" is screamed at the collapse of the first tower, and the same audio used in a video of the second tower. 2. you are denying the presence both of recordings and witness accounts precisely from the streets below, which testify both to explosions before and during the collapses. Explain the lobby damage.. and don't say fire came down the elevator!
1. Its obvious which audio has been faked on silly youtube videos and 9/11 mysteries bullshit. Go by the ones widely used on TV and also here on Youtube, unless you are going to say they are fake cos there are no booms.
2.I don't deny the presence of recordings period. No booms anywhere.
As for the lobby damage, it was indeed from the elevator shafts. Only lightweight materials were damaged by it, so it did NOTHING to the structure.
Ah, so you buy the elevator story. Problem. There were only the so-called "express" and service ones that went up to the area with the damage - out of which came survivors. The others were local ones, and you had to get out and get another elevator. So you have a problem explaining that, my friend.
Whoever posted this video has altered what David Chandler is referring to when he discusses the "rocket" projectile. There's excellent footage of its reversing direction in Chandler's REAL videos. He could probably sue you for plagiarizing and falsifying his work, as you've done here. I'll be sure and let him know about it. Otherwise, thanks for publicizing his work here, since your own criticisms make no sense anyway.
David already knows about this video as I added it as a video response which he was too scared to accept it as a video response. He also never responded to me or commented on the video to say what was false about it.
Months ago I added a clarification to say that I couldn't see what Chandler was talking about and looked like it could be only two things, both of which are bullshit and David Chandler is an utter fool for using either one as evidence of fairy dust.
Guess he probably thinks you're too lame to waste any time on. Your stupid video only has 694 views anyway. Obviously you're not getting much attention.
It's more that he can't answer what debunkers say to him.
I've never seen him directly address a list of criticisms of any of his videos and the manner of which he blocks comments and video responses can only say this guy is not interested in the truth, but instead promoting a delusional belief system.
You're criticizing a fraudulent copy of his video---why should he respond to that? You're not credible as a critic if you're a fraud. He gets more hits in two days on his videos than you've gotten in 4 months. He's busy creating these videos, doing the research required to CORRECT a giant institution like NIST for free, while they make $20M to get it wrong. Even they admitted it. All you did was alter it. You're a waste of his time and mine too, so this will be my last response to you.
NIST did not admit they got it wrong, another giant strawman from rabid conspiracy nuts.
To say he simply can't be bothered to reply to his critics is a red herring. If his only desire is to preach to the choir of like-minded delusion dickheads like you, then he has no place trying to push his ridiculous claims off as being scientific. Scientific claims and evidence have to be discussed with critics, and I have never seem Chandler do this.
I did, I did just fine, and because of other reasons I did not continue. It seems to me, though, that you're more content throwing insults around like a 5 year old with a temper tantrum than you are about any kind of truth, 911 or otherwise.
question regarding the controlled demolition beginning around 1:10 in your video... though gravity was CLEARLY being used as the destructive force for demolition, is it possible that the demolition company responsible may have worked for weeks to carefully weaken that structure in order to prepare it for demolition day?
national geographic carried out some bizzare experiments which proved nothing. another wasted hour of my life, almost as much of a waste of time as the bbc hit peice.
And of course everyone will listen to you because you have more swear words in your reply than George Carlin. You just sound like one of those drunk homeless people who yell at pedestrians and rocket their spittle at the joes going to work.
You're really good at ignoring other pieces of evidence (and logic, common sense, and critical thinking). Thousands of gallons of jet fuel, more than 60% of which was consumed in the initial impact, the remainder lasted less than 10 minutes according to NIST _and_ FEMA. Not enough to do more than roast a marshmallow or two.
NatGeo? As in National Geographic? The publication? And do you have citations for this study? Seriously, man, you're going to have to do better than that. I could set up 7000 gallons of kerosene in such a way that it could indeed cause a "coaded" beam as you put it, and cause that beam to fail. Does it mean it was how things happened in the WTC buildings? No. Cite, please, don't just claim.
Again, my bad, I was thinking of another on of Chewy's little retard sock accounts on LC, *bows head in apology*. Are you gonna throw more insults at me because I apologized?
No worries. I understand a lot of truthers carry around the 'tude that they're unbelievably intelligent and knowledgeable, but it's unjustified by their real abilities.
That's truther culture, in my experience. But outside the bubble of truther websites, they don't carry a lot of clout, nor do they command a lot of respect - for perfectly good reasons, IMHO.
Let's be perfectly honest and frank about of few things, shall we?
Haha.... I guessed you would be a bit smug, especially when an honest mistake was made. I've been a little busy (it being holidays and having to deal with little ankle biters constantly) I've not had the chance to reply fully to your video. I will in a little while when I can get my son to take a nap and get rid of the other little demon (did I say demon? I meant my nephew) sent home. Keep smiling, I'm not gonna throw little childish things around at you.
I decided not to engage the LCF for reasons which I outlined at JREF. LCF is not an open forum, where members are free to create new threads in any subject - if you are labeled a 'skeptic', you are stuck in that section alone.
Nor can you even mention certain topics (certain no-plane topics), whereas at JREF you can discuss whatever conspiracy theory you like.
OT posts and personal attacks are regularly dealt with at JREF as well, yet at LCF this was evidently not the case with attacks on me.
Do you honestly blame them? With sock puppets like Chewy going in there and behaving like children, then going back to JREF for high-fives from his buddies (to which the mods close his threads and reprimand him for behaving like a child in other forums)? What's the point of a forum if people can go in any portion they like and hijack threads? I'm sure (absolutely positive, actually, according to the TOS) they will block users from posting in certain threads for the same reason.
WOW.....debunkers have really lost there edge huh..This was pathetic.
FreedumbFighter28 1 month ago 2
did you know they never found one toilet, not one. This was NOT a gravity collapse. This was done with very high explosives.
nothwind 2 months ago
Where were the 110 acres of floors and floor trusses then? They were not in the building's footprint. That's because Chandler is correct. The concrete was disintegrated before it ever hit the ground. Only explosives can do this.
Dulcimerea 2 months ago
KJC, you need some help getting over your denial. I understand your world view would collapse if you accepted the reality of 9/11, but that's the beginning of the healing process.
thamnosma 3 months ago
The idiot author of this video apparently fails to realize it isn't just the smoke trailing behind those projectiles that causes Chandler to identify them as "rockets", but their increased acceleration in conjunction with the smoke, exactly what one would expect with late-firing explosives on those building pieces. The author of this video is clearly a fucking imbecile and obviously just another pseudoskeptical JREF clown.
fertilizerspike 3 months ago
This video purports to "explain" the top 10% of the World Trade Center towers demolishing the much stronger bottom 90% by showing a video featuring the top HALF of a building demolishing the bottom HALF. What the video fails to mention, though, is that most of the supporting structures inside that building were pre-demolished, as is a common practice in controlled demolition, and the only way to ensure the building's complete demolition. Fucking morons.
fertilizerspike 3 months ago
@fertilizerspike That's what I was going to say. Except the last sentance.
autocrow 3 months ago
Chandler says the top of the building "suddenly disintegrates" because that's exactly what the video shows, despite the shrieking of a JREF clown.
fertilizerspike 3 months ago
The author of this video is clearly ignorant. What starts this "lurch" of the building? Also, since thermite was used, we should not expect only huge explosions (never mind that many videos feature just such explosions), since thermite is very quiet.
fertilizerspike 3 months ago
The 14 floor ABC Cite Balzac demolition was achieved by jacking, not explosives. To suggest it shows the top of a reinforced steel tower demolishing the bottom by gravity alone is misleading (and untrue). Pictures after the dust cleared show much remaining structure, but more to the point, the demolition of the building was started 7 months earlier (by Ferrari Wrecking) in a long process of "selective deconstruction and weakening".
cogrobotix 3 months ago
In every Case I've written to 911 truth debunkers, I get blocked, called names etc. because at the point when I explain to them (with calculation) that their statements are not true or can't be true they either:
a) havew no knowledge in mechanics
b) can't stay on topic
c) talk about belive
d) block me because they are afraid I could disproove them.
It's just cheap disinfo for folks with an IQ lower than pi.
Tsutomu6 5 months ago
Do you believe fires on two floors brought down wtc 7? Well, I've got to say, we've been wasting a lot of money on demolition experts everytime we wanna bring a building down. We could just start a fire in 2 of the floors.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
Let's not be naive.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
If they were telling the truth, why would they not release the over 80 videos that show the plane that hit the pentagon? Tell me, at what point did our government STOP lying to us? GulfofTulkin,Northwoods,IranContra,etc.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
Wow this is serious stuff! You know, I have never seen a single piece of plane wreckage from the commercial airliner the pentagon. I've looked at probably over 100 photos of other commercial airliner crashes, and the thing that is ironic is that 100 percent of them have enormous debris. The same goes for shanksville. Nada. As for the 19 hijackers, 7 of them are still alive. And what about the passport that was not even singed of one of the hijackers that was found 2 blocks away.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
Two points:
1. First its obvious that David Chandler's video has been very persuasive, so that "KJC24"--someone who has only uploaded "debunker" videos--shows up to try to put a stop to it, largely with a title of pejorative rhetoric.
2. His best effort is ironic, a video of *De'molition* da la tour ABC, to refute controlled demolition, that is itself a controlled demolition! Clearly the video of that event shows that the "demolition" was engineered, but no lateral hurling of beams or squibs.
blueridgewv 6 months ago
government would never engage in an evil act like 911, that they would never hurt or lie on this scale. This is a fantasy, a childish fantasy, they have no idea hoe global elite governments think in terms of massing power and controlling and building their power base and wealth. They do not care about you, they never have, just look at operation Northwoods for example. They are ruthless ungodly men who will do and say anthing to get what they want. power and money. Grow up and accept it!
Allanlegacy43 6 months ago
@Allanlegacy43
Then you are a fool then, what world are you living in, it's not this one then
ConspiracyTVNetwork 5 months ago
@ConspiracyTVNetwork I'm confused dude. You have "ConspiracyTVNetwork" as your screen name and your Youtube site looks like your for conspiracies and exposing the government. But you run down my comment which is of course a "truther' comment and one look at my site you would see that I'm a truther. So what is it dude are you using sarcasm and pretending to be a truther or are you a government lover, because I can't figure what your angle is!
Allanlegacy43 5 months ago
@Allanlegacy43
I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment.
I am looking for the evidence for 9/11 and I believe it was a inside job
I am no government lover I can assure you of that
ConspiracyTVNetwork 5 months ago
@Allanlegacy43 "or are you a government lover" yes, because those are the only two options right? either you're a "truther" or a "government lover." and you have the audacity to call other people sheep, you simpleton.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan That's right, it's either the truth or a lie, the government are nothing but liars and we who may not have all the answers have truth, is that simple enough for you!!
Allanlegacy43 4 months ago
Everything that day was an extremely unprobable coicidence and first times. The powers to be who can and did orchestrate this evil modern day Pearl harbour are simply tyrannts and global killers. I mean you have these rich globalist who own so numerous military contracting and oil companies like Cheney and 911 happens and its the jackpot for all these men. The plan for Iraq's invasion was years in the making before 911, The masses have been brainwashed from childhood to believe that their
Allanlegacy43 6 months ago
The physical towers are just a small percentage of evidence that shows planned coordinated inside miltary type precision. You would have to understand that the would have the latest and most advanced technology used to bring them down. That being said, you could argue forever on both sides and never come to a final conclusion. However there is a mountain of external evidence outside the towers that clearly show planned inside military false flag attacks, anyone who says no is a ignorant tool.
Allanlegacy43 6 months ago
I do have to say that it's inaccurate to claim no audio of demolition charges going off was captured. Also, you're aware that a large majority of all available videos were 1st previewed and screwed with by NIST, right? They removed audio from many videos, altered the audio in others, removed frames from others, etc. There are still a few though where an audible demolition sequence that matches eyewitness testimony of 'firecrackers' and continual 'gunshots' going off upon collapse, can be heard.
mit26chell 8 months ago
@mit26chell
uh..ok, then why do 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics envoke state of the art nano-thermite hush-a-bombs to explain away the lack of noise in the collapse of the builidngs?
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage, 9/11 "truth" cult guru.
IndividualParties 8 months ago
So comparing the Twins to verinage actually comes down to admitting the Twins were controlled demolitions. Never mind the fact that verinage doesn't work for steelframed buildings, or the fact that there's a measurable deceleration on impact with the lower part, or the fact that the upper is destroying itself more each time it hits the lower part. It doesn't mention the fact that verinage usually starts it the middle of a building, and never near the top. That's because it would not work then.
Sandberg1972 9 months ago
Problems with this (PART 5):
8)Later in his DVD, David Chandler explains that another view of the same event shows an explosion occurs on the projectile, which separates it into two pieces, one of which, we see make a dramatic and sudden change of direction.
The author, KJC24, has committed scientific fraud by deliberately misrepresenting, obscuring and omitting the evidence that doesn't support his attempted dis-information.
I was going to critique part 2 of his "debunking", but why bother?
251omega 11 months ago
Problems with this (PART 4):
6)The projectile is in a clear area, free of other sources of smoke. The smoke trail is CLEARLY emanating from the projectile, since there is no nearby smoke or dust, that could have been "taken" or "pulled along" as it fell.
7)The "rocket projectile" is explained away by the author by claiming that the debris was "lightweight" aluminum, being blown around by the wind. Speculation, not evidence. Also, NOT confirmed by observation.
251omega 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Problems with this (PART 4):
6)The "rocket projectile" was in free space and it suddenly changes direction in mid air. The author claims this is Aluminum cladding being blown by wind. This highly speculative explanation is not confirmed by observations.
Later in the DVD, Chandler states that he found a view of this event that shows an explosion that separated this object into two parts, dramatically changing the direction as seen. Choosing to omit contrary evidence is scientific fraud.
251omega 11 months ago
Comment removed
251omega 11 months ago
Problems with this (PART 3):
5) Chandler points out an object that is moving faster than other debris, falling nearby. He suggests that explosives could be accelerating it faster than gravity, because of the tell-tale white smoke, which could be from a thermite reaction. The author ignores the key point of faster-than-gravity speed, and diverts attention to the smoke. Ignoring evidence that does not fit is a violation of the scientific method.
251omega 11 months ago
Problems with this (PART 2):
4)The author shows a video of another successful CD that "did not use explosives" as proof(?) that gravity could have done all of the observed damage, during the tower's collapse. The example had the middle floors removed, and the destruction was equal to both remaining halves. BUT ,in twin towers, the destruction started near the top. As the top was destroyed, so would an equal sized part of the lower building. The collapse would have then stopped.
251omega 11 months ago
Problems with this (PART 1):
1)The name-calling at the start is not EVIDENCE of anything, except for the author's inappropriate anger and obvious lack of debating skills.
2)Actually, there were MANY reports and recordings of EXPLOSIONS, However, Lack of explosive sounds does not mean lack of explosives (see what the fire investigation procedures manuals say at ff911t.org)
3)The top did disintegrate and it's off-center mass fell into the street and, therefore, could not have crushed the tower.
251omega 11 months ago
It should be clear to any one not wearing blinders that multiple EXPLOSIONS are occurring. Ad Hominen attack anyone "Nutty and Tin hat".
UNTC321 1 year ago
@UNTC321
"It should be clear to any one not wearing blinders that multiple EXPLOSIONS are occurring."
Soooo blinders prevent us from hearing the explosions???
Interesting theory........
NWOisBS 1 year ago
I would like to critique something about this, but I don't even know where to start.
Cheap personal attacks notwithstanding, attacking just two small claims made is... Well, I have no idea what Verinage is supposed to do with Chandler's claim of top section coming apart mid-air (which is evident from it not hitting the ground in one piece, of course)...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
But to suggest one particular object out of all the debris was covered in "dust" and then was magically "resisted" by air half-way rather than all along the way is... The claim was, of course, that the sudden change of velocity on object's part is indication of an outside force (such as explosives), which I'm not sure how one can contest.
You'd be better served addressing more important claims such as detailed NIST-confirmed velocimetry of the collapses rather than resorting to cheap insults.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"NIST-confirmed velocimetry of the collapses"
I think you'd better look up the definition of the word "velocimetry".
NWOisBS 1 year ago
@NWOisBS Velocimetry is measurement of velocity. You don't need a PhD in Latin to figure this out.
If you're referring to Wikipedia then, first off, don't use Wikipedia, and second off, it is correct.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"don't use Wikipedia, and second off, it is correct"
I would agree Wiki is not a reliable scientific source. My knowledge comes from working for the world's largest engineering company for the last 25 yrs.
You used "velocimetry" incorrectly firstly because the term is used regarding the velocity of fluids and secondly(more importantly) because the factor was acceleration not velocity.
BTW oddly enough I checked wiki and found it was accurate on "Velocimetry"
NWOisBS 1 year ago
@NWOisBS "My knowledge comes from working for the world's largest engineering company for the last 25 yrs."
That wouldn't be UL by any chance?
"You used "velocimetry" incorrectly firstly because the term is used regarding the velocity of fluids and secondly(more importantly) because the factor was acceleration not velocity."
Both correct, thanks.
Yes, acceleration is more important and the actual subject of the studies.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
"That wouldn't be UL by any chance?"
No, UL is an an independent product safety certification organization.
I work for a engineering company.
NWOisBS 1 year ago
@NWOisBS What would be the correct term for study of acceleration and/or speed of physical objects, by the way?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"What would be the correct term for study of acceleration and/or speed of physical objects"
Well that depends on the type of object and the location of the object it could be anything from Astrophysics to Quantum Physics.
NWOisBS 1 year ago
@NWOisBS Haha. Good catch, yeah.
I suppose "physics" is still the appropriate term to use for this stuff.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@NWOisBS F=MA and physical resistance limits are all that one needs when debating flying and or falling objects and kinetic energy.
thebluemaggot 11 months ago
@NWOisBS Using velocity in a measurement is more than appropriate as long as velocity remains at least semi constant. Remember an object that travels in a path that return to the point of origin as a velocity of 0 despite the highest speeds achieved. But if velocity remains constant from A to B then it remains a number above 0.
thebluemaggot 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebluemaggot
"Using velocity in a measurement is more than appropriate "
Not when you are are making calculations involving gravitational acceleration.
NWOisBS 11 months ago
Not very well debunked at all. JREF uses dismissive language to denigrate people questioning the official story and I wonder why denigration and snide comments seem to be their weapon of choice. Is that because they can't mount a strong objection to the 'alt theory' videos on a physics basis?
snapkat 1 year ago
Are you deaf as well as blind?
No audible blasts? what planet are you on? did you see the wtc7 VERY LOUD EXPLOSION clip? Do you even know eyewitness testimony of explosions going off?
Do you ignore them all?
hundreds of them? as well as video evidence? the whole premise of this video is false and pathetic.
zenoist2 1 year ago
the collapse video that you use as an example was not a steel framed building... gravity collapses are not used on steel framed buildings because they do not work...
calmrainydaze 1 year ago
we know who Chandler is. Who are you?
holt325 1 year ago
The towers had 47 internal steel frames as the major load bearing support, designed to support five times its own weight, with the thickest steel at the base. 10-20 stories demolished 80-90 stories? The gravity demolition loses acceleration as the building falls. You cannot reproduce that effect with a much larger building; a few floors at the top destroying the rest of a much larger structure. Head over to AlienScientist's channel and let him hand you your ass on any 9/11 topic of "debate".
thisguyoverhere1 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
thebluemaggot 11 months ago
@thisguyoverhere1"The gravity demolition loses acceleration as the building falls. " You are trying to argue that resistance remains constant for each floor that collapses. I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that, at least not all the time. The Tolerance of every floor remains the same but the level of resistance decreases with every floor as the falling mass only acquires more mass as it falls. More mass = more weight = less resistance quantified
thebluemaggot 11 months ago
What a steaming pile.
JREF is that way, morons ------->
bofors7715 1 year ago
If you want to lend credibility to your argument, avoiding linking yourself to JREF is a good place to start.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Is this guy serious? Or did he make this compilation of drivvel in a tourettes fit?
He actually disproves himself showing a real gravitational collapse where 43% of the top of a building + the kinetic energy falling over 14% of the structure crushing the remainder of the underlying 43%. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". 10% falling over 5% cant pulverize the remaining 85% you douche.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago 2
@roxxphatcox No building was "pulverized". just collapsed. And that is easily done by having, say, ten floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, then the 11 floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, then the 12 floors smash into the one floor directly beneath them, and so on. No single floor can stand such an impact, and so the collapse continues, getting stronger floor by floor.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2 Ah, you are still in 7th grade. They teach you this concept in 8th grade, atleast in Norway: 10 floors hitting 90 floors would result in? (remember the laws of physics, equal and opposite reaction) 9 floors and 89. At what floor will there be no more mass to crush the one below? I`ll give a quick hint: 80th floor. A floor cannot accumulate and at the same time be halfway to new jersey in powderform, understand? "No one floor can stand such an impact" IDIOT, look at failed demolitons.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox It's not a case of ten floors hitting 90. It's a case of ten hitting 90, then 11 hitting 89, and so on. I won't speculate on what grade you are in, not to understand basic math. NO floor was powdered, although a lot of plaster and ceiling tile did. Look at the debris field, and stop pretending any significant amount of the buildings were convenient enough to blow away. Newton was satisfied by the tiny return impetus to the Earth. Failed CD? Those had internal pillars, T1&2 did not.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2 Oh the humanity: So if I have a bad understanding of math, let us look at your calculation: 10 hits 90 -> 11 hits 89 -> 12-> 88 and so on. Then you would have 100 intact floors left at ground level. Since as you stated: NO floor was powdered. And ofc, the towers had no internal pillars....
This was a fun trip to Pygar2`s science and math fantasyland:)
I find it futile to entice in a fruitful discussion with you , though it is amusing
to point out the level of ignorance portrayed
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox Excuse me? Where do the 100 intact floors come from? After all the floors have been successively demolished by impact from above, plus impact from the sudden stop below, all floors were reduced to rubble. The "failed demolitions" were of buildings with strong internal supports, which the Towers simply did not have. The lack of pillars, was IMHO the death of the Towers. I knew about this quirk from articles about them. And on 9/11 warned my family in advance they'd be coming down.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox are you really trying to suggest that the overall mass of an entire floor simply disappears into thin air just because it is collapsed by the impact of the mass falling from above. The Mass of 10 floors collapses the mass of the floor directly beneath it then when the mass of that floor collapses it JOINS and adds to the mass of the 10 floors above it creating the mass of 11 floors falling. Matter can not be destroyed it can only be transformed. E=MC^2 should be enough to prove that
thebluemaggot 11 months ago
@thebluemaggot There's something very wrong with this theory. U know that, don't u?
Or rather, this theory relies on a few very very bold assumptions. I would say this vid tries to convince people who don't want to believe the obvious, with speculative arguments and out of line comparisons to other buildings being destroyed.
Verinage is a CD-technique, it works only because the upper part drops straight down as a whole unit. That can only be achieved through precise control of column failure.
Sandberg1972 9 months ago
so mr. kjc24,,,,,,,,,you can actually watch these massive towers burst into dust,,,,,,,,,and somehow believe it is a pancake collapse????
bigbopper993 1 year ago
What can one say to this half-baked attempt to discredit Chandler? "...objects flying through dust will take the dust with it and leave a trail behind" That's not what is seen in the video...the trail is WHITE. Your handlers ought to be disappointed if this is the best you can do! You won't make it long in COINTELPRO....like Colonel Klink used to say..."very interesting...BUT STUPID!"
Jambo6813 1 year ago
Is this a joke? You've done nothing but convince me even more strongly that explosives were used.
What a clown.
LazlosPlane 1 year ago 2
what there were explosions heard. damn
Zachdudeio2 1 year ago
Only the truth evaporated at 9/11, the towers 1 &2 are clearly more than a normal CD because of the overkill in using explosives .
oegromov 1 year ago
9/11 was an inside job... People, be patriots and question your corrupt government...!
StopTheCorruption1 1 year ago
chandler is a douche bag
shanquilla562 1 year ago
Free fall acceleration was proven for WTC 7, and admitted by NIST in the final report.
Just go and check.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
free fall in layman's terms. like a skydiver freefall. it's not a free fall as applied to physics. a free fall, in a vacuum or not, can only be achieved if there is no other force acting upon it. for example, since the east side fell before the west, the west would have had momentary acceleration greater than 9.8 because it would be getting pulled down. btw drag or resistance due to air is never negligible, or else terminal velocity wouldn't exist. that's like saying pressure is negligible.
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
Hahaha!
You are mixing up cause with effect.
It is OBSERVABLE that collapse of WTC7 is indistinguishable from free fall, this implies the the building had no vertical resistance. It also implies no side of the building pulled another part down.
What you are saying: The building SHOULD have held together, hence free fall could not have been possible.
A pity this is not what everyone can see.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
dude, if i jump from a tree and and land on a branch 5 meters into the fall, never touch the branch again, and the branch hits the ground around the same time as me, it's acceleration will exceed -9.8 m/s/s.
I don't know how many examples I can give you. You and Chandler are confusing free fall in layman's terms and free fall as it applies to physics. You should be able to read a simple definition and conclude that it is not possible
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
Despite you are making an effort to sound scientific, you do not seem to be able to make yourself clear.
I on the other hand have a university degree in engineering - there is nothing "layman" about something as simple as acceleration.
Ignoring air resistance, when I fall, I do it with free fall acceleration. Hitting a branch will slow my movement, hence I will not hit the ground in the time given by the free fall formula (solved for time) t=sqrt(2*s/g), s being the height I fell from.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
The fact that WTC collapsed in the SAME time that an object dropped from it's roof would have taken to hit the ground PROVES WITHOUT DOUBT that nothing slowed or resisted its fall (like, beams, structures bending, being crumpled, or otherwise giving way) .
You then work from there.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
first of all, it took more than 6 seconds for it to come down. a true free fall would have taken a little less than 6 seconds. if you are going to treat it as one object, you have to start from when the SE corner collapsed, and you're talking well over 10 seconds. even chandler says the acceleration of -9.8 m/s/s only occured for 1.75 seconds of the fall than slowed down
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
no he doesn't he says that free fall acceleration occurred throughout the entire footage of the collapse about 5sec. get your facts straight you twat
brucelee6790 2 years ago
you stupid ass watch his videos. his claim is 2.5 seconds in freefall, second video he claims 3.5 seconds of freefall. an object in freefall for 5 seconds would have fallen over 500 feet if the initial velocity was zero. the whole building was 560 ft, and the entire collapse took well over 10 seconds.
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
i'm talking about 7 wtc dumbass . no one in their right mind think towers 1 and 2 were in a free fall
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
so am i, you dumb fuck
brucelee6790 2 years ago
well you make no sense. chandler said the building was in freefall for 2.5 seconds in his 1st video and 3.5 seconds in his second "revised" video. no one is dumb enough to think it was in freefall for 5 seconds. the building is 174m, it's not even 1/2 way down in the video at 5 seconds. at freefall the building would have hit the ground in 5 seconds. at least watch the videos of the people you are defending.
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
you refute the irrefutable. unless you can't count the youtube's player time when it starts to fall and when you can't see it anymore then you should be able to see that it is almost EXACTLY 5 sec. NIST has even admitted now that it did fall at free fall acceleration. why don't you stop talking? you're just bullshitting.
brucelee6790 2 years ago
@Metaspace2
I see, so the jews/reptiloids blew up an empty building after allowing it to burn for five hours?
I'll work from there shall I?
2210ethan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol you're an idiot, you obviously haven't taken high school physics yet or you did and failed or you don't remember it. not that you'd even need that to know your statement is retarded "dude, if i jump from a tree and and land on a branch 5 meters into the fall, never touch the branch again, and the branch hits the ground around the same time as me, it's acceleration will exceed -9.8 m/s/s."
brucelee6790 2 years ago
I seriously doubt NIST's calculations are correct. Besides, an object falling in and out of free fall is not in a free fall. Galileo
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
oh yeah WTC7 was only 600 ft tall. A true free fall would have taken 6.15 seconds and any claim that free fall acceleration was achieved for any stretch defeats the theory that there was no resistance because the building would have had to come to a virtual stand still later in the fall for this to have occured because of the length of the collapse.
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
I love these debunking videos, they're always so weak...this one is so bad it laughs at Chandlers use of 'rocket' to describe the debri with trails...
that's it then, 9/11 debunked! Thank KJC
xtcongo 2 years ago
@xtcongo
Read the title of this video again
"A response to David Chandler's nutty claims"
From the title I don;t think this video claims to be a debunking of all 911 conspiracies. It simply points out some of Chandlers ridiculous unfounded claims of explosions , midair disintegration, and rockets.
If this video is "weak" what does that make Chandlers video? Feeble and illogical would be my call.
NWOisBS 2 years ago
funny how you didn't explain why the 'rocket projectile' "carried" more "dust" with it after the "air" "resisted" it's movement than it had when it was leaving the giant dust cloud of the building...
if one weren't a fool, one may postulate that only a finite amount of dust can be carried with a moving object, it should not produce more once it exits the dust cloud, after it changes directions in midair....for whatever reason.
it almost looks like a con-trail..
lunac666 2 years ago
Hahaha! What a poor attempt to ridiculize basic physics.
The OP must think we are really dumb, and that mocking people will prevent us from acknowledging basic truths.
Even NIST admitted free fall which directly contradicts gravity driven collapse.
Ask any physicist around you :-))
Metaspace2 2 years ago
i never heard of NIST admitting anything, but if you're talking about free-fall you must be talking about wtc7 not north or south towers which fell at approximately 60% of free fall
brucelee6790 2 years ago
Just google "NIST Admits Freefall".
Yes, it is about WTC 7, because the view on it is not obstructed by dust clouds and free fall acceleration can thus not be denied.
Concerning WTC 1, 2, free fall acceleration can be proven to take place in part of the collapse (where view is unhindered). The 60% is most probably not true.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
There is numerous evidence that all WTC buildings were demolished by explosives:
lateral ejection of multiton steel beams several hundred feet far, mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, total dismemberment of 100,000 tons of steel frame, massive amounts of molten steel (hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt or even bend steel sufficently - proven by FEMA), seismic, visual proof for explosions, symmetric collapse through path of greatest resistance, etc..
Metaspace2 2 years ago
The FEMA report even finds remains of thermite explosives on steel beams (in the appendix), this dissappeared in the NIST report.
A peer reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal even identifies the exact thermite variant used based on gournd zero dust samples.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
I suggest you watch the presentation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth about the collapses and come to your own conclusion.
This presentation only deals with collapse facts - no conspiracy theories.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
yeah but as we know there were definitely explosives in the building just from footage of the towers not even having been able to have access to all the ground zero evidence which CIA did but for some reason weren't smart enough to figure that out huh? well it's impossible to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. to speculate on what that conspiracy specifically is, is not important. what is important is to know that there is one going on or was anyway...
brucelee6790 2 years ago
(I hope I understand you correctly)
I am a scientific person, for me belief is irrelevant: what counts is facts, and proof.
I know it is hard to believe there is a government conspiracy. But this is not important. Perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't.
But: There is proof that the WTC was destroyed by means of explosives, let an independent investigation come to the conclusions who did this, exactly how, and why, and then, if parts of the government were involved, or not.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
...? i fail to see where we disagree
brucelee6790 2 years ago
Ah, wasn't completely sure, but good to see we don't :-)
Metaspace2 2 years ago
He was saying "free fall" in layman's terms, like most CT's on youtube. Free fall is not possible in our atmosphere when applied to physics.
According to Newtonian Law, an object in free fall for 10 seconds would have had to travel 1608 ft and hit the ground at 98.1 m/s, or 220mph.
-s= (1/2) -gt^2 where g in SI = -9.81m/s^2
source: Isaac Newton
WTC7 fell at the rate of -3.4 m/s^2, less than 1/2 the force imposed on it by gravity and at it's greatest acceleration -5 m/s^2 is a possibility
Flisticuffs 2 years ago
Of course free fall acceleration is possible, minus air resistance, which is negligible.
Free fall acceleration was proven for WTC 7, and admitted by NIST in the final report.
Check David Chandler's videos for proof.
Metaspace2 2 years ago
i like how the video clips of the demoed buildings in your video look like they're are falling at a slower rate than that of the world trade center lol i never held a great deal of merit in the demolition of the world trade center until now. funny how sometimes the person who you are debating will actually bring some things to light that you didn't really notice before
brucelee6790 2 years ago
lol what a fag
brucelee6790 2 years ago
and how about the fact that when the FBI wished to interview both cheney and bush SEPARATELY they refused... why would they do that? i mean serisously why not allow the FBI to ask you questions separately if you had nothing to do with the incident?
brucelee6790 2 years ago
these are MY reasons for skepticism, not the physics of the towers collapsing... although it does seem to raise allot of debate, that is also the reason why i don't use it in my argument... because it's to easy to manipulate it. i'll just stick with the facts
brucelee6790 2 years ago
oh and also i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol... and whatever happened to the footage of the security camera that shows the plane hitting the pentagon? i haven't seen that one in a while... oh and what are your thoughts on the bin laden family being quickly flown out of the country after the towers had been struck when no one else was able to take off?
brucelee6790 2 years ago
@brucelee6790 It seems to me that since we were linking Osama Bin Laden by the end of the first day, a good investigation would call for the prudent questioning of his relatives before flying them to safety. This would have been done for any other crime. The family is usually the first questioned as to whereabouts of a suspect. Not in this case though.
newtatguy 2 years ago
When you make statements like this:
"i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol"
You expose yourself as being on the lowest rung of the twoofer ladder. That's a bad place to be
Did you even watch this video? This is what happens to a plane that nosedives to the ground
95% of the plane was recovered and all the victims including hijackers were identified by coroners.
KJC24 2 years ago
ALSO 9/11 stinks because cheney took over norad a few months before 9/11 and changed the policy to "the pilots must be granted permission before engaging enemy planes" also cheney COINCIDENTALLY thought it would be a good idea to to run a training exercise the day of 9/11 where there would be all sorts of random blips on the radar to confuse the pilots... tower 7 first building to ever collapse from fire alone, and did so VERY quickly. what was in tower 7? oh just all sorts of CIA records
brucelee6790 2 years ago
"95% of the plane was recovered and all the victims including hijackers were identified by coroners" lmfao that's what they told you jackass (tears in my eyes) omg so your going to consider the CIA "investigators" word as apart of your alibi in a conspiracy that's all about the sketchy governments actions??? O_O and all the "evidence" is classified and will never see the light of day, at least not for many many years to come. just like the JFK assassination evidence
brucelee6790 2 years ago
""i believe this was the first ever incident of a plane crash with no recovered plane material... but i suppose we are to believe that it all just evaporated lol"" well that's what they were telling us around the time that it happened, so... you pick when they were lying
brucelee6790 2 years ago
I would rather you bring up 1 or 2 points at a time, because I simply don't have the time to respond to all these idiotic claims of yours.
KJC24 2 years ago
if you really knew all the points of the conspiracy theorists theories then you should have no problem responding to all of them immediately. it took me all of 10min to type those up, because i had already looked into the conspiracy a great deal before deciding whether it was bullshit or not. i suggest you do the same if your going to set up your whole youtube channel uploading video that would advocated against this idea through taking other's videos and adding sarcastic commentary
brucelee6790 2 years ago
i can't wait for you to research the points i made by looking for friendly anti-truther's websites and finding the lamest disclaimers that you'll just end up repeating much like the tool you are
brucelee6790 2 years ago
@KJC24 can you please supply evidence, has any part of flight 77 has ever been positively identified?
matPolaschek 1 year ago
the one that went down in the field left a crater in the ground lol
brucelee6790 2 years ago
a field somewhere am i correct?
brucelee6790 2 years ago
i'm trying to find the footage of the little white puffs of smoke that shoot of of the building as it's collapsing in on it's self before the collapsing part of the building even reaches it, that in itself is proof. not to mention that 9/11 was the first case EVER of knowing where a plane went down and never being able to recover the indestructible black box... two black boxes per plane... was it 3 or 4 planes that went down on 9/11 i forget? there's T1 T2 the pentagon, and one that went down in
brucelee6790 2 years ago
You are a fool. The AE for 911 Truth is NOT a group for misinformation. On the contrary, it presents facts. You choose to explain away the uncomfortable. There are a whole load of reasons that the squibs cannot be smoke and dust, as you claim. However, you are also a hypocrite: be honest, you are not interested in the evidence because you TOO have made your mind up. So you too are interpreting events to the reality you believe in. Trouble is evidence does not support you.
organisten 2 years ago
The skeptic movement is NOT laughing at idiots like you out of discomfort. That would mean there's actually evidence that the WTC was demolished and that skeptics are ignoring it. Fact is, skeptics who attack belief in the paranormal, miracles, are the same people laugh at your own stupid beliefs.
The "squibs" CAN be smoke because it's the very same color of the smoke generated by fires, and only comes out the windows AFTER the tower begins to move. AND there are no BOOMS from any explosives.
KJC24 2 years ago
I think you should learn what a "skeptic" is. I am one of them, so I think you got your first sentence the wrong way round. Out of "discomfort"? What sort of English is that, and what on earth do you mean? Wrong. The squibs are NOT smoke, because smoke cannot be clocked at over 100 mph - as these squibs have been. No booms; proves you haven't been listening to our argument. 1. There WERE (testimony ignored). 2. This is an unconventional demolition.
organisten 2 years ago
@organisten
airplanes make smoke. Those are clocked at 500mph and faster
taledarkside 2 years ago
@taledarkside. Well I need say no more! Explain that KJC24.
organisten 2 years ago
@organisten
shouldn't you explain it, cuz i'm debunking you.
you said smoke can't reach 100mph.
taledarkside 2 years ago
no, because if that were your meaning, then you have debunked yourself. You require far more energy that mere gravity to achieve the speeds at which these jets were clocked. In an airplane that is provided by the jet fuel and the motor. You don't get that in collapses. So if you were debunking me, you have just scored an own goal!
organisten 2 years ago
@organisten
we are not talking about collapses
we are talking about you saying, smoke can only go 100mph.
airplanes can make smoke at higher than100mph. you can drive a ferrari and the smoke will have a velocity of 200mph out of the exhaust.
taledarkside 2 years ago
I am not sure how "fast" smoke can go. My point is that the argument that the gas ejections from the towers were caused by compressed air (due to the "collapse") simply cannot hold. I forget the EXACT speed, but it has been clocked, and believe me you cannot explain the jets away that simply... even if you don't think that explosives brought down the towers. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. They need answering. Give Richard Gage his day in Court.
organisten 2 years ago
@organisten
because??
where should the air escape? All the windows are intact below the impact of the airplane.
richard gage is an idiot. You should have the guy that designed the WTC in court. He's the real engineer.
taledarkside 2 years ago
No, you are not a skeptic, you are a denier. Go to TAM, which is the biggest anual meeting of skeptics and critical thinkers - do a poll of all the people you speak to as to whether they think 9/11 was an inside job and that the WTC was demolished.
1. Irrelevant. We have original audio close to the WTC. This is far better evidence than unreliable eye witness testimony.
2. OK, show me explosives that can violently explode but make no sound? That simply violates how explosives work.
KJC24 2 years ago
So are you. 1. It is hard to know which audio clips are genuine from the YouTube. I know of one, for example, where the selfsame "Oh my God" is screamed at the collapse of the first tower, and the same audio used in a video of the second tower. 2. you are denying the presence both of recordings and witness accounts precisely from the streets below, which testify both to explosions before and during the collapses. Explain the lobby damage.. and don't say fire came down the elevator!
organisten 2 years ago 2
1. Its obvious which audio has been faked on silly youtube videos and 9/11 mysteries bullshit. Go by the ones widely used on TV and also here on Youtube, unless you are going to say they are fake cos there are no booms.
2.I don't deny the presence of recordings period. No booms anywhere.
As for the lobby damage, it was indeed from the elevator shafts. Only lightweight materials were damaged by it, so it did NOTHING to the structure.
KJC24 2 years ago
Ah, so you buy the elevator story. Problem. There were only the so-called "express" and service ones that went up to the area with the damage - out of which came survivors. The others were local ones, and you had to get out and get another elevator. So you have a problem explaining that, my friend.
organisten 2 years ago 2
LOL @ Rocket projectile.
You can't really respond to a person like David Chandler without calling him stupid and trying to slap the shit out of him.
flanksteak1 2 years ago
Whoever posted this video has altered what David Chandler is referring to when he discusses the "rocket" projectile. There's excellent footage of its reversing direction in Chandler's REAL videos. He could probably sue you for plagiarizing and falsifying his work, as you've done here. I'll be sure and let him know about it. Otherwise, thanks for publicizing his work here, since your own criticisms make no sense anyway.
evajames 2 years ago
David already knows about this video as I added it as a video response which he was too scared to accept it as a video response. He also never responded to me or commented on the video to say what was false about it.
Months ago I added a clarification to say that I couldn't see what Chandler was talking about and looked like it could be only two things, both of which are bullshit and David Chandler is an utter fool for using either one as evidence of fairy dust.
KJC24 2 years ago
Guess he probably thinks you're too lame to waste any time on. Your stupid video only has 694 views anyway. Obviously you're not getting much attention.
evajames 2 years ago
It's more that he can't answer what debunkers say to him.
I've never seen him directly address a list of criticisms of any of his videos and the manner of which he blocks comments and video responses can only say this guy is not interested in the truth, but instead promoting a delusional belief system.
KJC24 2 years ago
You're criticizing a fraudulent copy of his video---why should he respond to that? You're not credible as a critic if you're a fraud. He gets more hits in two days on his videos than you've gotten in 4 months. He's busy creating these videos, doing the research required to CORRECT a giant institution like NIST for free, while they make $20M to get it wrong. Even they admitted it. All you did was alter it. You're a waste of his time and mine too, so this will be my last response to you.
evajames 2 years ago
NIST did not admit they got it wrong, another giant strawman from rabid conspiracy nuts.
To say he simply can't be bothered to reply to his critics is a red herring. If his only desire is to preach to the choir of like-minded delusion dickheads like you, then he has no place trying to push his ridiculous claims off as being scientific. Scientific claims and evidence have to be discussed with critics, and I have never seem Chandler do this.
KJC24 2 years ago
So although David Chandler actually made NIST retract their statement that WTC 7 didn't fall at gravitational acceration, -he is a lying loser?
Unlike the high minded intellectuals who made this pile of crap.
I wonder if the people who made this believe what they are saying-somehow I doubt it.
whatever2dont 2 years ago
"let's agree to disagree."
LMFAO! Let's all agree on 1 thing Diosdebaca. You're wrong, you'll always be wrong & there's nothing you can do about it!
Agreed? Alrighty then!
WhyAskQuestions 2 years ago
I agree with AE!
If any Truther wishes to discuss about 9/11 they're more than welcome to come to JREF.
Just don't attack the arguer, attack the arguement. Obey the 12 rules that are in the Membership Agreement section & you'd do just fine.
WhyAskQuestions 2 years ago
I did, I did just fine, and because of other reasons I did not continue. It seems to me, though, that you're more content throwing insults around like a 5 year old with a temper tantrum than you are about any kind of truth, 911 or otherwise.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
@Diosdebaca
Ummmm maybe you should be with your family like you said you would at JREF.
WhyAskQuestions 2 years ago
"Go ask Chewy what you should come up with next, he's smarter than you"
Seriously? That's a compliment!
AlienEntity & everyone at JREF is smarter than you Truthers!
WhyAskQuestions 2 years ago
case closed. no conspiracy.
question regarding the controlled demolition beginning around 1:10 in your video... though gravity was CLEARLY being used as the destructive force for demolition, is it possible that the demolition company responsible may have worked for weeks to carefully weaken that structure in order to prepare it for demolition day?
andymac419 2 years ago
national geographic carried out some bizzare experiments which proved nothing. another wasted hour of my life, almost as much of a waste of time as the bbc hit peice.
chunkyboy100 2 years ago
And of course everyone will listen to you because you have more swear words in your reply than George Carlin. You just sound like one of those drunk homeless people who yell at pedestrians and rocket their spittle at the joes going to work.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
What diesel fuel?? In WTC 7? It contributed nothing to the collapse, and WTC 1&2 had thousands of gallons of Jet-1 dumped into them.
You're not very good at this whole 2009 thing are you.
BTW, jet fuel fires WILL in fact heat steel enough that they would fail. I never mentioned anything about cutting them, you did.
IdrinkCrown247 2 years ago
You're really good at ignoring other pieces of evidence (and logic, common sense, and critical thinking). Thousands of gallons of jet fuel, more than 60% of which was consumed in the initial impact, the remainder lasted less than 10 minutes according to NIST _and_ FEMA. Not enough to do more than roast a marshmallow or two.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
But yet, NatGeo took (IIRC) 7,000 gallons of jet fuel, put a coaded beam above it, set it on fire, and in less that 7 minutes, it failed.
Care to elaborate on this logic, common sense, and critical thinking that you posess?? I certainly haven't seen it.
triforcharity 2 years ago
NatGeo? As in National Geographic? The publication? And do you have citations for this study? Seriously, man, you're going to have to do better than that. I could set up 7000 gallons of kerosene in such a way that it could indeed cause a "coaded" beam as you put it, and cause that beam to fail. Does it mean it was how things happened in the WTC buildings? No. Cite, please, don't just claim.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
Comment removed
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
Hey liar, I posted your lies on the JREF thread, remember, the one that you falsely claimed was closed?
See you later, Pinocchio.
AlienEntity1 2 years ago
Again, my bad, I was thinking of another on of Chewy's little retard sock accounts on LC, *bows head in apology*. Are you gonna throw more insults at me because I apologized?
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
No worries. I understand a lot of truthers carry around the 'tude that they're unbelievably intelligent and knowledgeable, but it's unjustified by their real abilities.
That's truther culture, in my experience. But outside the bubble of truther websites, they don't carry a lot of clout, nor do they command a lot of respect - for perfectly good reasons, IMHO.
Let's be perfectly honest and frank about of few things, shall we?
AlienEntity1 2 years ago
Haha.... I guessed you would be a bit smug, especially when an honest mistake was made. I've been a little busy (it being holidays and having to deal with little ankle biters constantly) I've not had the chance to reply fully to your video. I will in a little while when I can get my son to take a nap and get rid of the other little demon (did I say demon? I meant my nephew) sent home. Keep smiling, I'm not gonna throw little childish things around at you.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago
I decided not to engage the LCF for reasons which I outlined at JREF. LCF is not an open forum, where members are free to create new threads in any subject - if you are labeled a 'skeptic', you are stuck in that section alone.
Nor can you even mention certain topics (certain no-plane topics), whereas at JREF you can discuss whatever conspiracy theory you like.
OT posts and personal attacks are regularly dealt with at JREF as well, yet at LCF this was evidently not the case with attacks on me.
AlienEntity1 2 years ago
Do you honestly blame them? With sock puppets like Chewy going in there and behaving like children, then going back to JREF for high-fives from his buddies (to which the mods close his threads and reprimand him for behaving like a child in other forums)? What's the point of a forum if people can go in any portion they like and hijack threads? I'm sure (absolutely positive, actually, according to the TOS) they will block users from posting in certain threads for the same reason.
Diosdebaca 2 years ago