sorry to break it to you idiots: steven jones, the idiot who started this free fall conspiracy crap, admitted that he got it wrong. he even admitted that he carried on spreading the free fall theory so as not to disappoint you moron conspiracy theorists. i would say now is a good time to STFU and get over it. Thank you
Do people even read my comments? I explained this already. You need to understand how structures stand. This video is very misleading. Each floor only holds the vertical load of the floor above it. Once all of the weight of the building above the impact zone finally drops down when the heated steel fails, nothing is stopping it since each floor is only able to hold the floor above it.
Okay, so lets say the floors do collapse from too much weight. That still doesn't account for the central beams collapsing completely on both towers in an identical fashion.
And that definitely doesn't account for what happened at WTC7. Face it, the government is lying to us about what happened. Exactly how much they're lying, I don't know, but their story does not add up.
This video adheres to a common misconception. It's as follows: Since there is more steel below where the impact zone is then above, the top part dropping down shouldn't have been able to collapse the lower section of the building into its own footprint. The problem with this is that each floor is only designed to carry the weight of the floor above it. So, once all of the weight of the tower above the impact zone dropped down, nothing was stopping the chain reaction.
Once all the weight above the impact zone drops down nothing will stop it. More bolts will pop, and more steel will snap and more and more weight will keep being added to the chain reaction. When both the towers first started collapsing, they both leaned in the direction where the perimeter columns were bowing due to heat warp. They kept on bowing more and more as the fire went on. This is visible in pics and videos. When they finally gave out, the building temporaily leaned, and then went down.
I love how you fucking people criticize comments on youtube without any details to back up your criticism. Where the trusses bolt to the perimeter and core columns is where the vertical load of the floor above is held. Each floor only holds the weight of the floor above it. So, when the steel finally failed at the impact zone and everything above the impact zone dropped down, what do YOU supposed could have stopped it?
The "bowing theory" is supported by NIST. The National Institute of Standards and Technology. I wonder if their physicists know anything about physics? Hmmm
Molten steel? The steel never melted and no one from NIST claimed it melted. The fire proofing foam was blown off during impact and office debris soaked in jet fuel was left to heat the exposed steel trusses. And because of the impact, a lot of the burning debris ended up in the outer corners of the tower, which are the weakest points. The WARPING (not molten) trusses start popping bolts that connected them to the perimeter columns, and bam, you have all that weight dropping down. (cont..)
@itzahazylife Yes there was molten steel. Nasa even has satellite thermal images showing 2000°+ temperatures central to wtc 1&2 and also building 7. Read about "The Meteor". Its steel and rock fused together that was recovered.
2000+? it was actually around 1800. Even a little over 2000 isn't enough to melt steel anyway. That hunk of molten metal could have eaisly been mostly aluminum since aluminum has a much lower melting point, and since most of the plane and external sheathing on the towers was made of aluminum. Look at all the steel rebar and steel shards sticking out of "the meteor" in that chunk. None of it is molten. Just twisted up and bent.
And what's the point of this argument anyway? Normal demolitions using thermite aren't known to create pools of molten steel anyway, so why does everyone push the molten steel thing?
@718SOLID Thanks for the grammar lesson, and there are multiple times were the bush administration gave a line of crap that doesn't even match what was put in the official 9/11 report.
Which of you people think the steel supports were 400 meters long and ran top to bottom? Nobody? Good. Because they were not. Second, if supports give way, they dont have to be "Crushed" for free fall, they become detached and "fall" just like the building above. If it were controlled it were the WORST EVER attempt allowing one side to go first. Also, the 15 floors DO NOT NEED to crush all the others, it gathers an extra floor each time like a snow ball. Not a pancake.People still believe some *
Thanks, your analysis is correct. The buildings definitely did not "pancake", and couldn't have pancaked because: 1. Hundreds of connect points per floor 2 A horizontal disc (i.e. a floor slab) trying to fall as a unit through a vertical tube must remain perfectly horizontal, or it will jam. Even if broken, it would still jam temporarily, and cause a delay for every floor.
So don't listen to those who believe concrete crushes itself to dust from the friction of falling through air....
At the WTC we had 45,000 + tones of floors falling dynamicaly (multiply the falling force hundreds of times according to scientists) on floors that can only support 1,300 tones static weight above their own weight. Seems simple enough to me
You can't convince people who are ignorant of physics by using physics as your argument.
People who are unfamiliar with the scientific method are easily swayed by emotional manipulation. Nothing new here - these techniques have been used to discredit scientific evidence for centuries when it challenges the status quo.
It's unfortunate, but for many people hate and fear will always trump rational, objective thinking. The individual who truly thinks for themselves is a rare bird in today's world.
@KDanagger Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Herman Goering
Idiot truthers 45,000 tonnes fell on floors that can support 1,300 tonnes above their own weight. Thats why the towes collapsed. You truthers can guess and create fantasy theories as much as you want but your amazingly good as ignoring the basic facts
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama, a TERRORIST because I'm against the Bush wars, ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Israel unconditionally, a TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution, a TRUTHER for asking unanswered questions, a TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt government atrocities, a CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts, a TROLL for uploading news, videos, and quotes, and ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting a Constitutionalist like Dr. Ron Paul.
Yup it was all a hoax and all of newyork and the government was in on it. Rigging the building under total secrisy. Paying off the media, fake plane. Paying binladin to take the blame even though it ment he would have to hide for the rest of his life, but ended up dead and I I guess he forgot to leave evidence of all this incase of his demise.
The rhetoric out there by the uneducated is amazing in it's volume. Yet another sign of the degradation of our education system. If you find negative thoughts in response to this guys words; you are not able to form a scientific thought process. If you have questions you are able to form the process and need facts to investigate it. If you have positive thoughts you can form the process and am in favor of a positive result. The only wrong end is to close your mind to possibilities. Facts only!!
your point at 4:30-on is silly. you're assuming if most of the load bearing capability of that floor is lost when some beams are cut and others are weakened by heat, the few that are undamaged should stand stout and the building above must fall away from them.
I'm sure when you made this video you thought your presentation was insightful and informative.
@TheMrwildboar Well unless you can find some flaw in the laws of the universe and physics there isn't much you can say to disprove what he's stated. I passed highschool physics did you?
Larry Silverstein...and no, he put ALL of the money plus some into building the new WTC, not a dime of it is in his pocket...in fact, he even sold some land to the Port Authority to help afford the project.
You Truthers are a really unintelligent bunch, aren't you?
i know someone here comenting after me will disproove this as to what i am going to say, but if the govorment really did this, why would he take it 1 step further and place something in the building to detinate or take the final blow? for the people who say that they did it to be at war over "oil"i think crashing "planes" into it would be enough to erge the country no? i would love to see what people have to say about my theory. thanks
@ctcole77 it takes a while to plant the exposives you know.Mineta's Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) testimony 9/11 Commission video archive.Cheney gave look for a video STAND DOWN ORDER... are you done...
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange construction activity, wires, or boxes?
Cheney was NEVER in charge of NORAD moron. You haven't read Mineta's testimony. He CLEARLY says "does the shoot down order still stand".
@ctcole77 Danny Jowenko demolition expert form Nederland stated that it is possible to prepare building for a demolitoin in 7h: just 20guys with a cutting torch, just 15min for a column... even faster if you use a cutting charge.
@ctcole77 any video too prove it? :)oh i see that all those comments i wrote in last few days changed something...now you believe Danny Jowenko?you made yourself look like an idiot all ready- and still..just like when you said that Dick Cheney didnt gave orders to stand down or whenYOUstated that there wasNOmoltenSteel, or when you said it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to pland explosives :)i dont know what is your problemThose videos are around-its not like i cant check it..
@ctcole77 do you can tell me when exactly did he said that? :)... you are so stupid it is beyond me. Molten aluminum what? :)
you failed every single time since thursday :) everybody can seen it. Your statements are silly, and after what a seen on your channel i cant really treat you seriously.
@ctcole77 do you can tell me when exactly did he said that? :)... you are so stupid it is beyond me. Molten aluminum what? :)
you failed every single time since thursday :) everybody can seen it. Your statements are silly, and after what a seen on your channel i cant really treat you seriously.
@ctcole77 Mineta states "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is50miles out.The plane is30miles out." And when it got down to,"The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said,"Of course the orders still stand.."
name of a video: Dick Cheney Gave Stand Down Orders on 9/11
@ctcole77 Mineta states "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is50miles out.The plane is30miles out." And when it got down to,"The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said,"Of course the orders still stand.."
name of a video: Dick Cheney Gave Stand Down Orders on 9/11
@ctcole77 Ok, what makes you think that they didnt do all of this in a matter of months, 9/11 took YEARS of planning. F-15s? what f-15s? You do realize waiting 6 mins is FAR TOO LONG, the second a plane is seen going in a different direction they notify their superiors INSTANTLY, 6mins for something like that is like waiting hours. Im not saying that it was 100% fact that the buildings were bombed but its so blatant and obvious that the govnt is hiding something, why do they tell us 5
@718SOLID different story's? You are a mindless drone if you don't see this. Why is it that the Bush admin would NEVER speak about anything 9/11 related unless they were together? Its obvious that something that day is being hidden when the govnt tells you multiple story's with different answers. Dont tell me they wouldnt do this to their own people, history will tell you that the govnt will do ANYTHING to fuel their power WE mean NOTHING to them its all about profit and keeping power
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If explosions were heard in the basement of WTC 1, why did the building fail at the point of impact?
If the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, how did the nanothermite charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the building?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
@ctcole77 You still haven't answered any of my questions in regards to NORAD not responding to the hijacked planes. Ok first of all the charges were more than likely in the basement(if there were bombs) remember 93'? they would not need to be on the floor of the impact. How can 15floors DESTROY 95 floors? Simple physics we learn in the 5th grade would tell you that. ANSWER ME THIS, why is our govnt telling different story's that hold no weight, one guy says this, another says that
@Alaskaslim Couldn't get there in time? there is a base maybe a couple hundred miles from the WTC and an f-15 can't make it? Whats the point of having them? Were they stopping for donuts or something? I must say we have some great Air force that couldn't stop the biggest attack on America, NORAD may have responded but they took forever and that is not right, that doesn't just happen, especially when they are PREPARED for this exact situation...6mins to respond is far too long
Do you know ANYTHING about how Air traffic control works? Do you know ANYTHING about NORAD's function and structure?
Try to make it sound simple all you want IT'S NOT. Along with coordinating 1,000s of plane to f*cking land somewhere, the aircraft they're trying to track having their beacons off, and thus, on secondary radar, look like EVERY OTHER plane out there, the FAA NOT being NORAD and screwing up themselves, it's just...
Did you know no less than TWO aircraft have crashed into the White House?
Did you know in 2002, a THIRD one could have, as NORAD did NOT arrive in time to stop it?
IT"S NOT AS EASY AS YOU F*CKING THINK.
If you don't know how aviation works, or he difficulties involved, you have NO RIGHT to criticize. You're a man off the street, your "opinion" is noted, but it's uniformed, and flawed.
@Alaskaslim Oh I'm sorry i didn't realize you were an aviation expert. Yes because it takes a genius to see 4 planes go off of their original flight path and then take your sweet time to respond, yea that's very hard. I can care less how many times they avoided a plane crash because the fact of the matter is they didn't do their job when the biggest attack on America was taking place, no excuse. Why should I do better? its not my job, there is no reason why a jet cant get to NYC
"the fact of the matter is they didn't do their job"
Wrong, you assume NORAD can respond to any event within minutes, that's is COMPLETELY wrong.
NORAD was designed to counter EXTERNAL threats, Soviet Bombers on the horizon, thus there are engagements zones up and down our coasts.
INTERNALLY, it's quite different, there are GAPS in our radar detection, called Class G Airspace, and EVERY plane that takes off within the U.S. is given "FBO" designation "Friendly by origin".
We do NOT know the moment a plane goes off course, as NORAD is NOT given civilian flight plans unless it's relevant to what they're doing. A Plane could be flying circles around in the mid-west, and they wouldn't notice UNLESS the FAA tells them.
The FAA has those records, so if they notice something is up, they try FIRST to handle it THEMSELVES, and only after several minutes of going over the situation do they contact NORAD.
A Muslim trying to teach engineering. It now remains to say that you were the Jews! Will study your ass. The towers and WTC7 were the metallic structures. The concrete was only 15% of the structure. And the fire caused by his brother and faith was to +1000 ° C. You know what thermology steel? It has the Koran. This is only for those who graduated in engineering your ass. You are in the West, hopefully find a Christian who reminds you to return to his homeland of bullshit.
The fire was not uniform Fuel is made to burn Fast and making alots of energy but the most of the fuel burned in few second, in the fireball of the Crash .. now we have a big hole in the building and alots of smoke some people like one girl have been seen around 30 min later in the hole so it was not rly hot in there .. and to make the tower collapsing perfectly on itself you need all the nail and such breaking at the exact same time .. that is impossible
@65465468 and the Core made of very large Steel beam would stop the collapsing + most of the building is flying out that remove alots of weigh to support ...
most high rises have a concrete inner core and/or outer concrete comumns, the wtc's had neither, the steel columns were protected by fireproof foam which was blown off the planes entry, the NIST never claimed that steel melted, steels melts at 2750 dregrees, yet loses 50 % of its strength at 1100, the worst fires that day ware at around 1800, add 10-25 floors of weight, weakened columns, bowed floor truss's, no concrete vs your theory,
@cottoniiijoe yea ok so the floor below gives way but in this world called reality where the laws of physics apply the 90 or so floors below that were still structurally sound would have supported the weight of the deficient floors and the top would have crumbled off the rest of the building but hey that's mathematics and obviously can't be trusted in a country where ignorance reigns supreme. Have a nice day.
@NoGuyComesClose What mystery? An entire fire dept knew this structure was going to collapse. JFC Ashley Banfield of CNN is on air live stating.. "That building there..7 is the next building coming down"... it drops behind her live on air. And without a sound. Ashley is now a psychic is she?
A&E and Richard Gage and all his 911t bum buddies are all out to lunch trying to prove something that simply doesn't exist.
@roquefortfiles Obviously your brain doesn't exist...We should meet face to face, I love to read the facial coding & micro expressions, plus tonality of an individual of your mental status. Everything you stated above proves demolition, fire fighters new it was coming down due to the fact of being told they were gonna blow the building. Why would you deny obvious truth in the matter? Afraid your vote might not make a difference? You know better, but for some reason, denial has taken shape.
@NoGuyComesClose Well Mr Noguycomesclose. There was a team of Controlled Demolition technicians at B7 when it collapsed. You're going to tell me now that trained individuals are not going to know a CD when it takes place in front of them? (Absurd)
Nobody found a thing relating to a CD at ANY of the buildings. And it doesn't just magically happen. The amount of apparatus to do this is considerable.
@roquefortfiles Don't play the youth game, your an easy read. Were not influencing children here, fire fighters do not call in demolition teams. Once again you have proven the point, demolition teams are called in for one purpose, DEMOLITION. We do not call in demolition teams during a fire, proper channels must be taken for explosives. Keep talking....your making it easy for my points to be proven. Be an American & search for TRUTH!
@NoGuyComesClose You're the ignorant idiot here my friend. The CD techs were called because the WTC had just collapsed. 7 came down 5 hours later.. (Hellloooo)
You have no clue about what you are talking about. You think you do which makes you twice as ignorant. Read the fireman oral histories. The FDNY and CD techs watched 7 come down.
I don't need to spell out the significance of that.
"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
@NoGuyComesClose A controlled demolition? With what? Silent explosives? There are half a dozen videos of this building coming down. Find ONE with the sound of charges going off. You won't. I have experience with a CD. Believe me had any of these buildings been rigged with explosives there isn't a person in lower Manhattan who would miss it.
What you nuts are trying to push (CD). Is completely ridiculous. Verging more on a joke really.
@roquefortfiles Silence yourself, explosions were heard by the fire fighters themselves. Your making an attempt to prove yourself by lying on this page. STOP LYING! You do not have experience with controlled demolition, you are a bald face unethical liar. Every expert in demolition knows WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner. Quit wasting peoples time & go punch your ballet. Compulsive lying ignorance!
@NoGuyComesClose You do not have experience with controlled demolition
Yeah I do. Sorry. So you're going to tell me people heard explosions and Frank Papalia (Look him up) of the FDNY said he watched the building drop and he heard nothing. Dan Nigro who was in charge of this building said the same thing.
They're lying are they?
Trust me dude had any of these buildings been rigged for a controlled demolition EVERYONE in lower Manhattan would know about it.
@NoGuyComesClose Every expert in demolition knows WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner
Bald faced liar? There were HUNDREDS of trained individuals at all 3 buildings.
Nobody found one item relating to a CD. Not one blast cap, not a piece of wire, no det chord ZIP.
I don't know if you have ever been to a CD? There is so much material remaining it has to be cleaned up. This would not even require a trained individual to spot.
@roquefortfiles Join the military & gain an honest professional perspective. Youth of today need to ask questions whether it be in grade school continuing through college. Question everything, students of today will become true Americans by gaining their own perspective. Never allow for one sided belief systems to make up ones mind, take both sides perspective & draw ones own conclusion. Knowledge becomes power, ignorance in military terms becomes "Jelly-Head"
it took 15.2 seconds for the first tower come down, thats a fact, using both video and audio, not at freefall, at 9 seconds, 30 floors were still remaing, you truther retards need to learn the facts and stop being so selective
@cottoniiijoe Also if one bothers to examine it,.. you can see the bulk of the building is 5 stories ABOVE column sections that are twisting in the wind in free fall. There does not exist 2 areas of free fall. Either its a column sailing thru the air which is most definitely freefalling (look at the video!!) Or its the collapsing portion of the building running 5 stories above that in the dust cloud.
Impossible for the smaller upper bit to pulverize the larger bottom bit and then pulverize itself.. and all at free fall speed.. impossible natural reaction
ok bd886 lol indeed, so you can watch ANY high rise demolition clip and easily measure the freefall period with complete and absolute accuracy ?...at the local paintball field they measure everyone's muzzle velocity with a device sorta like a cop's radar gun but i dont think it would really work if pointed at your moniter screen ...so then ,what device do YOU use and how many demo clips have you measured ?...oh .and how many ,if any , were wired to detonate soundlessly from the top down ?
are people still arguing if this is a conspiracy? give me a break the us government had knowledge of this attack and coopted it...for you morons that think and jet and fuel weakened steel to bring all 3 building down at nearly free fall speed with no resistance are fluoride drinking sheeple and when black uniformed police come and confiscate your guns you will still be in denial...the government doesnt like stealing and killing people who are armed,...
@Sh33pd0g0800 couldnt of said it better theres still morons that think 9 11 wasnt an inside job what have we gained in this fake war on terror? illegal spying...the rape of our constitution and now with the recent bill congress passed we are all considered terrorist stick that up your sheeple tail pipe
Note that the Truthers use the "2.5 second free-fall" response as proof of a controlled demolition...guess where they got the info...from the NIST report!
So the same people that say that the NIST report is "bullshit government coverup propaganda" use findings from that same report to support their ignorant conspiracy theories...the NIST report does not say due to 2.5 seconds of free-fall that there is reason to suspect a controlled demolition...
@CrazyRay7979 you can not hide the sun with some dust
nist testified to the motion of WTC 7 at freefall for a good 2.5 seconds which is not possible except through demolition because freefall means there is no resistance from the below structure at all
2.5 seconds of freefall is possible, because it happened...or are you calling the FDNY liars? You know, the FDNY who SAW the fires, SAW the weakening, and SAID WTC7 would collapse.
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition.
...and anyways, I thought you Truthers always say the NIST report was "bullshit government propaganda"...but now you're QUOTING it...funny!
@CrazyRay7979 or like most truthers that are not retarded, can go to videos of the WTC Towers collapsing and count how long it was falling at freefall speed?
@CrazyRay7979 Actually there's Mr. Newton who says something doesnt make sense. We can't only talk about free fall speed but also acceleration, which really happened. Explain me how the collapsing accelerated eventho there was no empty space below the the falling tip but steel which should've give even a small resistance? The other tip also tilted, which means the weight and the destructive kinetic energy moved more or less away from the tower. The tower still pulverized all the way down.
@Scumbot404 "Explain me how the collapsing accelerated eventho there was no empty space below the the falling tip but steel which should've give even a small resistance?"
There WAS a "small resistance"; the proof of this is that the towers did NOT collapse in free-fall time, but LONGER. The acceleration was less than gravity.
Resistance does not preclude acceleration; as long as there is a net downward force - if gravity EXCEEDS the resistance - there will be acceleration. F=MA.
@CrazyRay7979 NIST conducted ACTUAL research and then used circular logic and pseudo-science to assert the claim that the cause of the towers fall was the impact of the planes. However the forensic evidence and tests they conduct disprove what they set out to prove. So instead they made a computer simulation and said, "that's what happened."
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
bd866..please link to evidence that demolitions ALWAYS or sometimes produce free fall speed and also any demolition with charges blowing from the top -down ..and also where one finds these new "silent type " explosives ..any demolition clip with top=down ,freefall speed AND no sound demo charges ...surely you guys have a clip demonstrating all of this ..or some of this ..or ..OK ,a single ONE of these very important things ,happening on ANY film ...
To me, momentum plays as well. I mean, its a ratio. 15 floors falls onto the rest of the building, so 15 floors should of been crushed. Or maybe even 20 or so, not the entire 95. Esp since the towers were made in 3 sections so if a tramatic event accured, it would fall depending on which section and slide off into the streets, leaving the rest in tact.
so then bd886... are you saying that all controlled demolitions ALWAYS fall at "free fall " speed ? or that sometimes such events occur at such speeds ?..and also that no structure could EVER fall at such speeds UNLESS explosives were used ? ..
one hears this "free fall" claim ,quite alot from "truthers " so you all must be referring to some PR published scientific data which supports the assertion ..right?
so...ALL controlled demolitions ALWAYS fall at free fall speed ..? and this is ,in fact ,a well established fact in the professional demolition community ?
dont ACTUAL building demolitions ALWAYS have the charges explode from the bottom of the structure and then move upward ? and dont they also create an audible BOOM as each charge explodes ?
so..the bush govt decided that the airlines hitting the towers WOULDN'T be nearly dramatic enough in themselves ,thus, they ALSO planted explosive charges to ensure a "free fall " collapse ..which could be easily installed before hand in all three buildings ..and with little chance of being detected by any WTC tenents ,maintenance staff or security ppl ...is that what you guys believe ..seriously ?
@woodenmajor Of course they planted explosives in the WTC, this would be a much easier task than digging a hole in the middle of the desert in Iraq and planting WMD’s to blame Saddam. After all there are so many people walking around the deserts of Iraq and nobody walking around the streets of Manhattan.
the trusses were heated to the point of warping and then structural failure then the floors pancaked vertically ,exactly as one might expect and ,in fact , we see in the collapse footage ,,.
why is this rather simple event still so hard to believe for so many ppl here?
@woodenmajor No, not exactly as one would have expected. If the pancake collapse truly would have happened, it would have taken much longer to collapse due to the great resistance.
Right. And the man who built this structure has said, "There is no way one floor is going to hold 14 or more stories falling on it. Not possible. It would collapse instantly and to the foundations".
@geiuy Well i can tell you what the metallurgist who examined the steel said. Saw it in a Doc recently.
"the steel failed from a prolonged over exposure to fire which basically rusted the metal rapidly. There was no sign of thermitic or explosive residues on it"
And given the oral histories of the firemen, which too many people seem to not want to pay attention to, this building was entirely expected to fail.
got a bone to pick with the "official " explaination ...then ,if it involves hard SCIENCE ,you need to show your data PROPERLY and get it PEER REVIEWED ..then have it properly PUBLISHED ..of course if you are really into science ,you already KNOW this and thus ...that you are merely BLOWING SMOKE up every unlettered layperson's ass. if this is scientific then stop jerking arround and get it validated SCIENTIFICALLY ...otherwise STFU and sit your lying ass down .
Although I agree with what you're saying (that gravity did NOT bring on the collapse), you're wrong in your assumptions about the 15-floor block above the impact zone. I've seen video footage for one of the Towers where the top 'block' actually disintegrates BEFORE the floors below begin to cascade down. Therefore, the supposed 'weight' above the impact zone wasn't even there to begin with! Which, of course, makes your proof almost a moot point.
@TimReed22222 "Even if this were true, SO WHAT?"... it means that explosives brought the buildings down, not gravity. 1000 tons of skyscraper did NOT become 1000 of rubble; it became 900 tons of scattered debris (most became air-borne and deposited miles away), and 100 tons of rubble (mostly steel). All this does not 'disprove' what the physics show, it just reinforces the thesis that gravity did NOT 'collapse' the Towers - explosives did!
@andybb10 "1000 tons of skyscraper did NOT become 1000 of rubble; it became 900 tons of scattered debris (most became air-borne and deposited miles away), and 100 tons of rubble (mostly steel)"
Oh, really? Where did you get these figures from? Did you find some reliable expert study that determined this? Or (as I suspect) did you JUST MAKE THEM UP? Ooo ooo let me guess - it's "common sense", right? ;-)
@TimReed22222 Not nice to ask the question and answer it yourself in an attempt to mock someone who opposes your view. Breaking the 1000 tons into 900/100 was to illustrate that 'most' of the concrete from the Towers was pulverized and thus became air-borne. Just go back and view the videos - what's the white cloud made of?? Several blocks in the vicinity were subsequently covered with a layer 3-5 inches thick of white powder. Do the research and see for yourself! Or stay uninformed...
@TimReed22222 There have been experts who commented on the fact that the 'rubble' pile was much, much smaller than typical ratios (I don't remember the exact numbers), like 1/4 of what you'd expect from a gravitational collapse of a structure. And, if you do some research, you'll see pictures from many blocks away that have a layer of powderized/pulverized material (ie. concrete), at least 2 inches thick. I've seen them. The only way for that to occur is by explosive energy (not kinetic)
@andybb10 "the 'rubble' pile was much, much smaller than typical ratios"
The response is - you're gonna laugh when you hear this! - those "experts" FORGOT the towers had 7 underground levels! That's right! So when they complain the pile was only 3 stories high, it was really 10 - exactly right!
"The only way for that to occur is by explosive energy (not kinetic)"
Why? Who says only kinetic energy cannot do this? Do you have any IDEA how much kinetic energy was locked up for in those towers?
@TimReed22222 " Why? Who says only kinetic energy cannot do this? Do you have any IDEA how much kinetic energy was locked up for in those towers?"...LOL...this response of yours proves that you have limited understanding of physics principles. Here's an abbreviated lesson: "kinetic" energy is possessed by a moving object/mass. While the building is standing there, kinetic energy=0. It's all 'locked in' as POTENTIAL energy.
@bd886 "I would like to know why you think basics physics doesnt apply here"
NO ONE is saying that. The point is that YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COLLAPSES VIOLATED THEM! I have yet to hear of ANY physicists who make this claim, let alone a significant number (no, Shorty is NOT a physicist).
Remember when I asked if you've familiarized yourself with the towers' design? Have you done this? If not I suggest "WTC: Anatomy of the collapse" available here on youtube. Very good explanation.
@bd886 Really? You think this GROTESQUE OVERSIMPLIFICATION - treating the upper & lower sections of the tower as solid blocks, TOTALLY ignoring the design & construction of the towers, and the flawed notion that a larger mass always beats a smaller mass - is in ANY way valid? Really?
I suggest you call your physics teacher & ask for your money back!
@bd886 "If anyone has a problem with the basic physics of this video... Perhaps you can take it up with Sir Isaac Newton."
Much more sensible to take it up with Shorty - because this analysis is completely bogus and invalid, and anyone who has studied any physics & understood it can see that instantly!
@bd886 I have never yet had a truther lay any physics or Newton's laws on me in a credible manner! They usually just repeat them & say "See??" w/o any real understanding. Like you and your 15%-of-the-structure-cannot-destroy-the-other-85% nonsense, which NO physicist would endorse!
The number of real physicists on the inside-job side of the argument is minuscule at best.
@Daddyo930 I think maybe you don't "dunderstand" English - I said virtually none of the WORLD'S physicists give any credence to the inside-job theory from a physics point of view. If what happened on 9/11 *truly* violated the laws of physics, as you clowns are always claiming, the world's physicists would be all over it!
@TimReed22222 You do have a brain right? Think what would happen to a professor who started saying publicly what most of know already? A good example of that would be physics professor Steven Jones at BYU. He lost tenure for stating the obvious. He was the first to stand up for science and the truth and he lost his job. How many people are willing to do that for the truth?
@Daddyo930 If a single physicist stood up & declared the "truth" - that the events of 9/11 were outside the bounds of physics - he'd be laughed out of the room.
If two did, people would wonder if they're in cahoots & laugh them out of the room, too.
BUT -
If THOUSANDS of physicists around the world saw it, they'd stand up together & there'd be a revolution!
Making excuses for WHY the world's physicists are not on board with the inside-job theory is worthless; the fact is, THEY AREN'T.
@TimReed22222 You speak as if you need someone to explain Newton's laws of motion and gravity to you. I guess if it's not said by a "professional" it has no merit. We who understand the truth, don't need a professional to validate the fact that the first law of thermodynamics was violated on 911. The first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, there was not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble. Simple enough or do you need a professional?
@Daddyo930 "I guess if it's not said by a "professional" it has no merit"
Not at all! Amateurs make scientific discoveries all the time. But to become accepted science, they still must go through the process of convincing the experts that their findings are valid. Why haven't your truther pals succeeded in doing this?
Until you can show me that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the worlds physicsts - even 1%! - agree that the events of 9/11 violated any law of physics, then it ain't so.
@Daddyo930 "there was not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble."
Wait a minute, wait a minute - you skipped the explanation & went straight to the conclusion! Please show us how much potential energy was available and how much would have been necessary to destroy the building - and I'll be checking your math.
@TimReed22222 No need for that. Just google the first law of thermodynamics. You'll find everything there that would explain why a building cannot have enough potential energy to reduce itself to rubble. If you need help understanding the first law of thermodynamics, holla.
@Daddyo930 Complete nonsense! You have to run the numbers & prove that the energy required to destroy the building exceeded the energy available before your statement means anything. Can you do this?
How much energy would have been required? How much was available? If you cannot answer these questions, and say definitively that the former exceeds the latter, you cannot back up your claim that CoE was violated.
@Daddyo930 Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to produce a few REAL physicists who think there was any problem with the 1st law of thermodynamics on 9/11.
@TimReed22222 What's the matter, can't understand it yourself? You need a "qualified" professional to explain it for you? I guess I'm wastin my time talking physics with someone who doesn't understand the basics.
@TimReed22222 I already explained it for you. I'll do it one more time. There is not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble. Here is the math. A construction bolt takes 480,000 of force to break. Lets say there are 1000 of these bolts holding the floor together. In order to simulate to collapse, you would have to break all the connecting bolts on every floor in rapid succession. 800 million pounds of force per second is needed. The building does not have that.
@Daddyo930 ROTFLMAO!!!!! *That's* your "explanation"?? You promised me a discussion on Conservation of ENERGY - then instead you post this shit?
"A construction bolt takes 480,000 of force to break" - What the hell does THIS mean? Reference? What kind of bolt? Is that 480,000 pounds? Tons? Newtons??? And you just made up "1000 of these bolts holding the floor together" as well, didn't you? When did "pounds per second" become a unit of measurement?
The towers were much more robust compared to a 22 story structure! Plus building 7 speaks for itself (or doesn't speak i. e. all the data destroyed in building 7, but I digress). Basic JR HIGH or HIGH School physics are simple, yet on 9-11-2001 basic laws of gravity, basic laws of thermal dynamics, the basic of all basic laws of physics must have been changed that dreadful day. I don't know what happened, but the official story is a FARCE. Peace to all
So killurtv. We don't even have to do any kind of experiment to disprove ur point. There are a few other examples in history of this kind of thing happening. U just don't want to accept facts so u ignore them.
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry to break it to you idiots: steven jones, the idiot who started this free fall conspiracy crap, admitted that he got it wrong. he even admitted that he carried on spreading the free fall theory so as not to disappoint you moron conspiracy theorists. i would say now is a good time to STFU and get over it. Thank you
culturebully3 3 hours ago
Very nice video
Killerkolt88 3 days ago
And the fact that the WTC's columns weren't reinforced with concrete helped even more to cause the collapse.
itzahazylife 4 days ago
@itzahazylife
So you think that a fire affecting some of the top floors weakened the steel beams from top to bottom enough to cause them to collapse?
briantotse3 1 day ago
@briantotse3
Do people even read my comments? I explained this already. You need to understand how structures stand. This video is very misleading. Each floor only holds the vertical load of the floor above it. Once all of the weight of the building above the impact zone finally drops down when the heated steel fails, nothing is stopping it since each floor is only able to hold the floor above it.
itzahazylife 1 day ago
@itzahazylife
Okay, so lets say the floors do collapse from too much weight. That still doesn't account for the central beams collapsing completely on both towers in an identical fashion.
And that definitely doesn't account for what happened at WTC7. Face it, the government is lying to us about what happened. Exactly how much they're lying, I don't know, but their story does not add up.
briantotse3 2 hours ago
This video adheres to a common misconception. It's as follows: Since there is more steel below where the impact zone is then above, the top part dropping down shouldn't have been able to collapse the lower section of the building into its own footprint. The problem with this is that each floor is only designed to carry the weight of the floor above it. So, once all of the weight of the tower above the impact zone dropped down, nothing was stopping the chain reaction.
itzahazylife 4 days ago
Once all the weight above the impact zone drops down nothing will stop it. More bolts will pop, and more steel will snap and more and more weight will keep being added to the chain reaction. When both the towers first started collapsing, they both leaned in the direction where the perimeter columns were bowing due to heat warp. They kept on bowing more and more as the fire went on. This is visible in pics and videos. When they finally gave out, the building temporaily leaned, and then went down.
itzahazylife 4 days ago 2
@itzahazylife
study physics before u spout this nonsense
sjonzor 1 day ago
@sjonzor
I love how you fucking people criticize comments on youtube without any details to back up your criticism. Where the trusses bolt to the perimeter and core columns is where the vertical load of the floor above is held. Each floor only holds the weight of the floor above it. So, when the steel finally failed at the impact zone and everything above the impact zone dropped down, what do YOU supposed could have stopped it?
itzahazylife 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife
"Each floor only holds the weight of the floor above it. "
what do you mean with this ?
the forces and weight of the structure are held by the columns, not the floor
and the column on a floor bears the entire weight of the structure above it.
eg the columns on the 55th floor bear the weights of floor 55 up to the top
if everything above the impact zone dropped down,
the structure under the impact zone would remain intact as it held the weight of it before
sjonzor 1 day ago
@sjonzor
The "bowing theory" is supported by NIST. The National Institute of Standards and Technology. I wonder if their physicists know anything about physics? Hmmm
itzahazylife 1 day ago
@itzahazylife
it defies physics, do some logical thinking yourself
sjonzor 1 day ago
Molten steel? The steel never melted and no one from NIST claimed it melted. The fire proofing foam was blown off during impact and office debris soaked in jet fuel was left to heat the exposed steel trusses. And because of the impact, a lot of the burning debris ended up in the outer corners of the tower, which are the weakest points. The WARPING (not molten) trusses start popping bolts that connected them to the perimeter columns, and bam, you have all that weight dropping down. (cont..)
itzahazylife 4 days ago
@itzahazylife Yes there was molten steel. Nasa even has satellite thermal images showing 2000°+ temperatures central to wtc 1&2 and also building 7. Read about "The Meteor". Its steel and rock fused together that was recovered.
Pikkonuos 4 days ago
@Pikkonuos
2000+? it was actually around 1800. Even a little over 2000 isn't enough to melt steel anyway. That hunk of molten metal could have eaisly been mostly aluminum since aluminum has a much lower melting point, and since most of the plane and external sheathing on the towers was made of aluminum. Look at all the steel rebar and steel shards sticking out of "the meteor" in that chunk. None of it is molten. Just twisted up and bent.
itzahazylife 4 days ago
@Pikkonuos
And what's the point of this argument anyway? Normal demolitions using thermite aren't known to create pools of molten steel anyway, so why does everyone push the molten steel thing?
itzahazylife 4 days ago
@718SOLID By the way it's stories not story's
Redrover8431 3 weeks ago
@718SOLID I've heard the one and only story they've ever told.I don't know what your blathering on about,tell me of any other official acount.
Redrover8431 3 weeks ago
718SOLID The goverment has only told one story.
Redrover8431 3 weeks ago
@Redrover8431 You obviously haven't heard all the story's
718SOLID 3 weeks ago
@718SOLID Thanks for the grammar lesson, and there are multiple times were the bush administration gave a line of crap that doesn't even match what was put in the official 9/11 report.
718SOLID 2 weeks ago
Which of you people think the steel supports were 400 meters long and ran top to bottom? Nobody? Good. Because they were not. Second, if supports give way, they dont have to be "Crushed" for free fall, they become detached and "fall" just like the building above. If it were controlled it were the WORST EVER attempt allowing one side to go first. Also, the 15 floors DO NOT NEED to crush all the others, it gathers an extra floor each time like a snow ball. Not a pancake.People still believe some *
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
Thanks, your analysis is correct. The buildings definitely did not "pancake", and couldn't have pancaked because: 1. Hundreds of connect points per floor 2 A horizontal disc (i.e. a floor slab) trying to fall as a unit through a vertical tube must remain perfectly horizontal, or it will jam. Even if broken, it would still jam temporarily, and cause a delay for every floor.
So don't listen to those who believe concrete crushes itself to dust from the friction of falling through air....
Dulcimerea 1 month ago
At the WTC we had 45,000 + tones of floors falling dynamicaly (multiply the falling force hundreds of times according to scientists) on floors that can only support 1,300 tones static weight above their own weight. Seems simple enough to me
Spindry96 1 month ago
You can't convince people who are ignorant of physics by using physics as your argument.
People who are unfamiliar with the scientific method are easily swayed by emotional manipulation. Nothing new here - these techniques have been used to discredit scientific evidence for centuries when it challenges the status quo.
It's unfortunate, but for many people hate and fear will always trump rational, objective thinking. The individual who truly thinks for themselves is a rare bird in today's world.
KDanagger 1 month ago
@KDanagger Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Herman Goering
krzysg1982 1 month ago
The video that you show is a concrete encased rigid tower hitting the planet earth.
I am sure that the planet earth can absorb more kinetic energy than bar joist hangers on a flexible tube frame office floor.
The top doesn't look like it excellerated to 200 mph either (free fall would be about 300 mph)
There is such a thing as critical mass which can cause structures to fail instantaneously
Acceleration is a force multiplier too
The impact (acceleration unknown) is over 1.5 billion ft.lbs.
fuzzywuzy 1 month ago
Idiot truthers 45,000 tonnes fell on floors that can support 1,300 tonnes above their own weight. Thats why the towes collapsed. You truthers can guess and create fantasy theories as much as you want but your amazingly good as ignoring the basic facts
Spindry96 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama, a TERRORIST because I'm against the Bush wars, ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Israel unconditionally, a TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution, a TRUTHER for asking unanswered questions, a TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt government atrocities, a CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts, a TROLL for uploading news, videos, and quotes, and ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting a Constitutionalist like Dr. Ron Paul.
josh71111 1 month ago
Kinda funny it seems like so much work when "they" could have just rigged the building blew it up and blamed it on another country.
steveo1274 1 month ago
Yup it was all a hoax and all of newyork and the government was in on it. Rigging the building under total secrisy. Paying off the media, fake plane. Paying binladin to take the blame even though it ment he would have to hide for the rest of his life, but ended up dead and I I guess he forgot to leave evidence of all this incase of his demise.
steveo1274 1 month ago
Do you add to your calculations energy released during impact?
F= m*a
100 tons @ near speed of sound .
xegos 1 month ago
The rhetoric out there by the uneducated is amazing in it's volume. Yet another sign of the degradation of our education system. If you find negative thoughts in response to this guys words; you are not able to form a scientific thought process. If you have questions you are able to form the process and need facts to investigate it. If you have positive thoughts you can form the process and am in favor of a positive result. The only wrong end is to close your mind to possibilities. Facts only!!
lastman90210 1 month ago
your point at 4:30-on is silly. you're assuming if most of the load bearing capability of that floor is lost when some beams are cut and others are weakened by heat, the few that are undamaged should stand stout and the building above must fall away from them.
I'm sure when you made this video you thought your presentation was insightful and informative.
How long did this delusion last?
batvette 1 month ago
What a Joke of a man you are i'm glad your not a teacher.....
TheMrwildboar 1 month ago
@TheMrwildboar Well unless you can find some flaw in the laws of the universe and physics there isn't much you can say to disprove what he's stated. I passed highschool physics did you?
rezistorXG 1 month ago
@rezistorXG Highschool??? how about a degree in logic, reason and common sense which you don't.
TheMrwildboar 1 month ago
@rezistorXG The only thing correct in this vid is the word SIMPLE.
TheMrwildboar 1 month ago
Tommyv
Well larry levenstien (the owner of many towers) wanted the cash,, u see he got billions from this,, no dought a deal was done with bush.
Philtaylor33 1 month ago
@Philtaylor33
Larry Silverstein...and no, he put ALL of the money plus some into building the new WTC, not a dime of it is in his pocket...in fact, he even sold some land to the Port Authority to help afford the project.
You Truthers are a really unintelligent bunch, aren't you?
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
i know someone here comenting after me will disproove this as to what i am going to say, but if the govorment really did this, why would he take it 1 step further and place something in the building to detinate or take the final blow? for the people who say that they did it to be at war over "oil"i think crashing "planes" into it would be enough to erge the country no? i would love to see what people have to say about my theory. thanks
tommyv166123 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you think I am going to believe this shit when he can't even spell pancake right. Then you might as call yourself a fucking retard.
ryannewman4life1 2 months ago
@ryannewman4life1 pancake is a more sophesticated word than the phrase " you might as call yourself"
shorty40merza 2 months ago 12
@shorty40merza LOL YOU BURNED THAT GUY LOL
LordOrlock 1 month ago
@shorty40merza great video man keep it up!!!
krzysg1982 1 month ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F-15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
If WTC 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, how do you explain firefighters predicting the building's collapse 7 hours in advance?
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 it takes a while to plant the exposives you know.Mineta's Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) testimony 9/11 Commission video archive.Cheney gave look for a video STAND DOWN ORDER... are you done...
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@krzysg1982
Yes, I know.
Since demolition experts estimated it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to place explosives in WTC 1, 2, & 7, how come no one witnessed any strange construction activity, wires, or boxes?
Cheney was NEVER in charge of NORAD moron. You haven't read Mineta's testimony. He CLEARLY says "does the shoot down order still stand".
Cheney replies "yes".
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Danny Jowenko demolition expert form Nederland stated that it is possible to prepare building for a demolitoin in 7h: just 20guys with a cutting torch, just 15min for a column... even faster if you use a cutting charge.
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@krzysg1982 with a cutting charge it is a minute- maybe less for a column.
R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3
or a full video
Nachrichten: Sprengexperte und 9/11 Skeptiker Danny Jowenko ist tot [27.07.2011]
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@krzysg1982
Danny Jowenko demolition expert from the Netherlands also stated WTC 1 & 2 were IN NO WAY A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED (yet again)!
ctcole77 4 weeks ago
@ctcole77 any video too prove it? :)oh i see that all those comments i wrote in last few days changed something...now you believe Danny Jowenko?you made yourself look like an idiot all ready- and still..just like when you said that Dick Cheney didnt gave orders to stand down or whenYOUstated that there wasNOmoltenSteel, or when you said it would take over 100 men 4-6 months to pland explosives :)i dont know what is your problemThose videos are around-its not like i cant check it..
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
@krzysg1982
"911 Twoofers take Danny Jowenko's comments out of context"
/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to
Two words shill: MOLTEN ALUMINUM!
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 4 weeks ago
@ctcole77 do you can tell me when exactly did he said that? :)... you are so stupid it is beyond me. Molten aluminum what? :)
you failed every single time since thursday :) everybody can seen it. Your statements are silly, and after what a seen on your channel i cant really treat you seriously.
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 do you can tell me when exactly did he said that? :)... you are so stupid it is beyond me. Molten aluminum what? :)
you failed every single time since thursday :) everybody can seen it. Your statements are silly, and after what a seen on your channel i cant really treat you seriously.
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 Mineta states "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is50miles out.The plane is30miles out." And when it got down to,"The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said,"Of course the orders still stand.."
name of a video: Dick Cheney Gave Stand Down Orders on 9/11
krzysg1982 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 Mineta states "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is50miles out.The plane is30miles out." And when it got down to,"The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said,"Of course the orders still stand.."
name of a video: Dick Cheney Gave Stand Down Orders on 9/11
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@ctcole77 and you call me a moron, you can even understand English.
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Ok, what makes you think that they didnt do all of this in a matter of months, 9/11 took YEARS of planning. F-15s? what f-15s? You do realize waiting 6 mins is FAR TOO LONG, the second a plane is seen going in a different direction they notify their superiors INSTANTLY, 6mins for something like that is like waiting hours. Im not saying that it was 100% fact that the buildings were bombed but its so blatant and obvious that the govnt is hiding something, why do they tell us 5
718SOLID 3 weeks ago
@718SOLID different story's? You are a mindless drone if you don't see this. Why is it that the Bush admin would NEVER speak about anything 9/11 related unless they were together? Its obvious that something that day is being hidden when the govnt tells you multiple story's with different answers. Dont tell me they wouldnt do this to their own people, history will tell you that the govnt will do ANYTHING to fuel their power WE mean NOTHING to them its all about profit and keeping power
718SOLID 3 weeks ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If explosions were heard in the basement of WTC 1, why did the building fail at the point of impact?
If the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, how did the nanothermite charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the building?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77 You still haven't answered any of my questions in regards to NORAD not responding to the hijacked planes. Ok first of all the charges were more than likely in the basement(if there were bombs) remember 93'? they would not need to be on the floor of the impact. How can 15floors DESTROY 95 floors? Simple physics we learn in the 5th grade would tell you that. ANSWER ME THIS, why is our govnt telling different story's that hold no weight, one guy says this, another says that
718SOLID 3 weeks ago
@718SOLID
"NORAD not responding to the hijacked planes"
NORAD responded, they just couldn't get there in time.
I can show you ATC records that recorded their response, AND interviews of the pilots themselves, like to see them?
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@Alaskaslim Couldn't get there in time? there is a base maybe a couple hundred miles from the WTC and an f-15 can't make it? Whats the point of having them? Were they stopping for donuts or something? I must say we have some great Air force that couldn't stop the biggest attack on America, NORAD may have responded but they took forever and that is not right, that doesn't just happen, especially when they are PREPARED for this exact situation...6mins to respond is far too long
718SOLID 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@718SOLID
"Were they stopping for donuts or something?"
Do you know ANYTHING about how Air traffic control works? Do you know ANYTHING about NORAD's function and structure?
Try to make it sound simple all you want IT'S NOT. Along with coordinating 1,000s of plane to f*cking land somewhere, the aircraft they're trying to track having their beacons off, and thus, on secondary radar, look like EVERY OTHER plane out there, the FAA NOT being NORAD and screwing up themselves, it's just...
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@Alaskaslim
"6mins to respond is far too long "
Yeah, let's see YOU do better asshole.
Did you know no less than TWO aircraft have crashed into the White House?
Did you know in 2002, a THIRD one could have, as NORAD did NOT arrive in time to stop it?
IT"S NOT AS EASY AS YOU F*CKING THINK.
If you don't know how aviation works, or he difficulties involved, you have NO RIGHT to criticize. You're a man off the street, your "opinion" is noted, but it's uniformed, and flawed.
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@Alaskaslim Oh I'm sorry i didn't realize you were an aviation expert. Yes because it takes a genius to see 4 planes go off of their original flight path and then take your sweet time to respond, yea that's very hard. I can care less how many times they avoided a plane crash because the fact of the matter is they didn't do their job when the biggest attack on America was taking place, no excuse. Why should I do better? its not my job, there is no reason why a jet cant get to NYC
718SOLID 2 weeks ago
@718SOLID
"because it takes a genius to see 4 planes go off of their original flight path "
They do not notice right away.
I do NOT care what you've heard or think on this, Air Traffic control manages 1,000s of aircraft, with computer systems largely built in the 1980s.
Each controller is given a set of aircraft to watch, but they CAN and HAVE lost track.
Ever wonder why a plane can crash, and they don't send people out to look for them until the NEXT DAY?
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@718SOLID
"the fact of the matter is they didn't do their job"
Wrong, you assume NORAD can respond to any event within minutes, that's is COMPLETELY wrong.
NORAD was designed to counter EXTERNAL threats, Soviet Bombers on the horizon, thus there are engagements zones up and down our coasts.
INTERNALLY, it's quite different, there are GAPS in our radar detection, called Class G Airspace, and EVERY plane that takes off within the U.S. is given "FBO" designation "Friendly by origin".
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@Alaskaslim
We do NOT know the moment a plane goes off course, as NORAD is NOT given civilian flight plans unless it's relevant to what they're doing. A Plane could be flying circles around in the mid-west, and they wouldn't notice UNLESS the FAA tells them.
The FAA has those records, so if they notice something is up, they try FIRST to handle it THEMSELVES, and only after several minutes of going over the situation do they contact NORAD.
And that's exactly what they did on 9/11.
Alaskaslim 2 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1 Hello Asshat! If the ONLY thing you can bitch about is a 'typo'
then your the one that deserves to be called a retard, you self-centered piece of trash.
xinecallaw 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A Muslim trying to teach engineering. It now remains to say that you were the Jews! Will study your ass. The towers and WTC7 were the metallic structures. The concrete was only 15% of the structure. And the fire caused by his brother and faith was to +1000 ° C. You know what thermology steel? It has the Koran. This is only for those who graduated in engineering your ass. You are in the West, hopefully find a Christian who reminds you to return to his homeland of bullshit.
aczjbr 2 months ago
The fire was not uniform Fuel is made to burn Fast and making alots of energy but the most of the fuel burned in few second, in the fireball of the Crash .. now we have a big hole in the building and alots of smoke some people like one girl have been seen around 30 min later in the hole so it was not rly hot in there .. and to make the tower collapsing perfectly on itself you need all the nail and such breaking at the exact same time .. that is impossible
65465468 2 months ago
@65465468 and the Core made of very large Steel beam would stop the collapsing + most of the building is flying out that remove alots of weigh to support ...
65465468 2 months ago
@65465468 its official , YOU ARE RETARDED
cottoniiijoe 2 months ago
@cottoniiijoe Sure i am :D
65465468 2 months ago
most high rises have a concrete inner core and/or outer concrete comumns, the wtc's had neither, the steel columns were protected by fireproof foam which was blown off the planes entry, the NIST never claimed that steel melted, steels melts at 2750 dregrees, yet loses 50 % of its strength at 1100, the worst fires that day ware at around 1800, add 10-25 floors of weight, weakened columns, bowed floor truss's, no concrete vs your theory,
DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK!
cottoniiijoe 2 months ago
@cottoniiijoe yea ok so the floor below gives way but in this world called reality where the laws of physics apply the 90 or so floors below that were still structurally sound would have supported the weight of the deficient floors and the top would have crumbled off the rest of the building but hey that's mathematics and obviously can't be trusted in a country where ignorance reigns supreme. Have a nice day.
rezistorXG 1 month ago
Pretty obvious
WUDJABEABLE 2 months ago
Youtube this video: Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose What mystery? An entire fire dept knew this structure was going to collapse. JFC Ashley Banfield of CNN is on air live stating.. "That building there..7 is the next building coming down"... it drops behind her live on air. And without a sound. Ashley is now a psychic is she?
A&E and Richard Gage and all his 911t bum buddies are all out to lunch trying to prove something that simply doesn't exist.
Read the firemen oral histories 7 was no surprise
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles Obviously your brain doesn't exist...We should meet face to face, I love to read the facial coding & micro expressions, plus tonality of an individual of your mental status. Everything you stated above proves demolition, fire fighters new it was coming down due to the fact of being told they were gonna blow the building. Why would you deny obvious truth in the matter? Afraid your vote might not make a difference? You know better, but for some reason, denial has taken shape.
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose Well Mr Noguycomesclose. There was a team of Controlled Demolition technicians at B7 when it collapsed. You're going to tell me now that trained individuals are not going to know a CD when it takes place in front of them? (Absurd)
Nobody found a thing relating to a CD at ANY of the buildings. And it doesn't just magically happen. The amount of apparatus to do this is considerable.
Read this facial coding.
You Truthers are retarded people
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles Don't play the youth game, your an easy read. Were not influencing children here, fire fighters do not call in demolition teams. Once again you have proven the point, demolition teams are called in for one purpose, DEMOLITION. We do not call in demolition teams during a fire, proper channels must be taken for explosives. Keep talking....your making it easy for my points to be proven. Be an American & search for TRUTH!
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose You're the ignorant idiot here my friend. The CD techs were called because the WTC had just collapsed. 7 came down 5 hours later.. (Hellloooo)
You have no clue about what you are talking about. You think you do which makes you twice as ignorant. Read the fireman oral histories. The FDNY and CD techs watched 7 come down.
I don't need to spell out the significance of that.
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose This is a controlled demolition. These are linear shaped charges going off in a city setting. Turn up your audio!!
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
Now tell me CNN shooting a block from this in NY is going to shoot Ashley Banfield live on air as 7 drops behind her..
And record nothing. Which they do. Not possible my friend. Not REMOTELY possible.
Show me audio like this from B7. You won't. Prove me wrong.
I am waiting.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose Direct quote from 911 oral histories.
"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose A controlled demolition? With what? Silent explosives? There are half a dozen videos of this building coming down. Find ONE with the sound of charges going off. You won't. I have experience with a CD. Believe me had any of these buildings been rigged with explosives there isn't a person in lower Manhattan who would miss it.
What you nuts are trying to push (CD). Is completely ridiculous. Verging more on a joke really.
Very silly stuff.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles Silence yourself, explosions were heard by the fire fighters themselves. Your making an attempt to prove yourself by lying on this page. STOP LYING! You do not have experience with controlled demolition, you are a bald face unethical liar. Every expert in demolition knows WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner. Quit wasting peoples time & go punch your ballet. Compulsive lying ignorance!
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoGuyComesClose You do not have experience with controlled demolition
Yeah I do. Sorry. So you're going to tell me people heard explosions and Frank Papalia (Look him up) of the FDNY said he watched the building drop and he heard nothing. Dan Nigro who was in charge of this building said the same thing.
They're lying are they?
Trust me dude had any of these buildings been rigged for a controlled demolition EVERYONE in lower Manhattan would know about it.
Silly stuff.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@NoGuyComesClose Every expert in demolition knows WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner
Bald faced liar? There were HUNDREDS of trained individuals at all 3 buildings.
Nobody found one item relating to a CD. Not one blast cap, not a piece of wire, no det chord ZIP.
I don't know if you have ever been to a CD? There is so much material remaining it has to be cleaned up. This would not even require a trained individual to spot.
Who's wasting peoples time here?
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles Join the military & gain an honest professional perspective. Youth of today need to ask questions whether it be in grade school continuing through college. Question everything, students of today will become true Americans by gaining their own perspective. Never allow for one sided belief systems to make up ones mind, take both sides perspective & draw ones own conclusion. Knowledge becomes power, ignorance in military terms becomes "Jelly-Head"
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoGuyComesClose Never allow for one sided belief systems to make up ones mind
A building "allegedly" crammed full of explosives?
A camera crew shooting from a block and a half away? Recording nothing? (No detonations or explosions?) (CNN does)
So do two Gay guys on their balcony. Its on YT.
Not possible my friend. Not even slightly possible.
You're a jellyhead if you think so. I speak from first hand experience.
You're not a Jellyhead are you?
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
it took 15.2 seconds for the first tower come down, thats a fact, using both video and audio, not at freefall, at 9 seconds, 30 floors were still remaing, you truther retards need to learn the facts and stop being so selective
cottoniiijoe 2 months ago
@cottoniiijoe Also if one bothers to examine it,.. you can see the bulk of the building is 5 stories ABOVE column sections that are twisting in the wind in free fall. There does not exist 2 areas of free fall. Either its a column sailing thru the air which is most definitely freefalling (look at the video!!) Or its the collapsing portion of the building running 5 stories above that in the dust cloud.
Lets decide hm?
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
Impossible for the smaller upper bit to pulverize the larger bottom bit and then pulverize itself.. and all at free fall speed.. impossible natural reaction
KungfuFr0g 3 months ago
ok bd886 lol indeed, so you can watch ANY high rise demolition clip and easily measure the freefall period with complete and absolute accuracy ?...at the local paintball field they measure everyone's muzzle velocity with a device sorta like a cop's radar gun but i dont think it would really work if pointed at your moniter screen ...so then ,what device do YOU use and how many demo clips have you measured ?...oh .and how many ,if any , were wired to detonate soundlessly from the top down ?
woodenmajor 3 months ago
are people still arguing if this is a conspiracy? give me a break the us government had knowledge of this attack and coopted it...for you morons that think and jet and fuel weakened steel to bring all 3 building down at nearly free fall speed with no resistance are fluoride drinking sheeple and when black uniformed police come and confiscate your guns you will still be in denial...the government doesnt like stealing and killing people who are armed,...
Sh33pd0g0800 3 months ago
@Sh33pd0g0800 couldnt of said it better theres still morons that think 9 11 wasnt an inside job what have we gained in this fake war on terror? illegal spying...the rape of our constitution and now with the recent bill congress passed we are all considered terrorist stick that up your sheeple tail pipe
paintballforlife06 2 months ago
Note that the Truthers use the "2.5 second free-fall" response as proof of a controlled demolition...guess where they got the info...from the NIST report!
So the same people that say that the NIST report is "bullshit government coverup propaganda" use findings from that same report to support their ignorant conspiracy theories...the NIST report does not say due to 2.5 seconds of free-fall that there is reason to suspect a controlled demolition...
...if it did, wouldn't they "hide" that info??
CrazyRay7979 3 months ago
@CrazyRay7979 you can not hide the sun with some dust
nist testified to the motion of WTC 7 at freefall for a good 2.5 seconds which is not possible except through demolition because freefall means there is no resistance from the below structure at all
shorty40merza 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@shorty40merza
NO...
2.5 seconds of freefall is possible, because it happened...or are you calling the FDNY liars? You know, the FDNY who SAW the fires, SAW the weakening, and SAID WTC7 would collapse.
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition.
...and anyways, I thought you Truthers always say the NIST report was "bullshit government propaganda"...but now you're QUOTING it...funny!
CrazyRay7979 3 months ago
@CrazyRay7979 or like most truthers that are not retarded, can go to videos of the WTC Towers collapsing and count how long it was falling at freefall speed?
cowsrcool04 2 months ago
@CrazyRay7979 Actually there's Mr. Newton who says something doesnt make sense. We can't only talk about free fall speed but also acceleration, which really happened. Explain me how the collapsing accelerated eventho there was no empty space below the the falling tip but steel which should've give even a small resistance? The other tip also tilted, which means the weight and the destructive kinetic energy moved more or less away from the tower. The tower still pulverized all the way down.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
@Scumbot404 "Explain me how the collapsing accelerated eventho there was no empty space below the the falling tip but steel which should've give even a small resistance?"
There WAS a "small resistance"; the proof of this is that the towers did NOT collapse in free-fall time, but LONGER. The acceleration was less than gravity.
Resistance does not preclude acceleration; as long as there is a net downward force - if gravity EXCEEDS the resistance - there will be acceleration. F=MA.
TimReed22222 2 months ago
@CrazyRay7979 NIST conducted ACTUAL research and then used circular logic and pseudo-science to assert the claim that the cause of the towers fall was the impact of the planes. However the forensic evidence and tests they conduct disprove what they set out to prove. So instead they made a computer simulation and said, "that's what happened."
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD
Are you too dumb to realize that BOTH towers fell starting at the floors of impacted by the planes?
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bd886
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
CrazyRay7979 3 months ago
Is pancake spelled pankake? And if you drink a slurpy too fast you get a headache. Very good good day. *in a "kwickiemart" voice.
jeffdj1018 3 months ago
bd866..please link to evidence that demolitions ALWAYS or sometimes produce free fall speed and also any demolition with charges blowing from the top -down ..and also where one finds these new "silent type " explosives ..any demolition clip with top=down ,freefall speed AND no sound demo charges ...surely you guys have a clip demonstrating all of this ..or some of this ..or ..OK ,a single ONE of these very important things ,happening on ANY film ...
woodenmajor 3 months ago
To me, momentum plays as well. I mean, its a ratio. 15 floors falls onto the rest of the building, so 15 floors should of been crushed. Or maybe even 20 or so, not the entire 95. Esp since the towers were made in 3 sections so if a tramatic event accured, it would fall depending on which section and slide off into the streets, leaving the rest in tact.
smeganrocks87 3 months ago
so then bd886... are you saying that all controlled demolitions ALWAYS fall at "free fall " speed ? or that sometimes such events occur at such speeds ?..and also that no structure could EVER fall at such speeds UNLESS explosives were used ? ..
one hears this "free fall" claim ,quite alot from "truthers " so you all must be referring to some PR published scientific data which supports the assertion ..right?
woodenmajor 3 months ago
to bad the wtc were not INTACT when they fell. maybe if has something to do with that plane and fire. funny how you left those factors out. c-
noliesundead 3 months ago
so...ALL controlled demolitions ALWAYS fall at free fall speed ..? and this is ,in fact ,a well established fact in the professional demolition community ?
dont ACTUAL building demolitions ALWAYS have the charges explode from the bottom of the structure and then move upward ? and dont they also create an audible BOOM as each charge explodes ?
woodenmajor 3 months ago
so..the bush govt decided that the airlines hitting the towers WOULDN'T be nearly dramatic enough in themselves ,thus, they ALSO planted explosive charges to ensure a "free fall " collapse ..which could be easily installed before hand in all three buildings ..and with little chance of being detected by any WTC tenents ,maintenance staff or security ppl ...is that what you guys believe ..seriously ?
woodenmajor 3 months ago
@woodenmajor Of course they planted explosives in the WTC, this would be a much easier task than digging a hole in the middle of the desert in Iraq and planting WMD’s to blame Saddam. After all there are so many people walking around the deserts of Iraq and nobody walking around the streets of Manhattan.
Oldschooldan1 3 months ago
the trusses were heated to the point of warping and then structural failure then the floors pancaked vertically ,exactly as one might expect and ,in fact , we see in the collapse footage ,,.
why is this rather simple event still so hard to believe for so many ppl here?
woodenmajor 3 months ago
@woodenmajor No, not exactly as one would have expected. If the pancake collapse truly would have happened, it would have taken much longer to collapse due to the great resistance.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
.youtube.com/watch?v=V0tzmGgWggg&feature=related
check out this video - clearly and absolutely shows "explosives" at work. No structural failure or buckling.
andybb10 3 months ago
Right. And the man who built this structure has said, "There is no way one floor is going to hold 14 or more stories falling on it. Not possible. It would collapse instantly and to the foundations".
Les Robertson.
roquefortfiles 3 months ago 21
@roquefortfiles what did the man that built wtc7 say?
geiuy 3 months ago
@geiuy Well i can tell you what the metallurgist who examined the steel said. Saw it in a Doc recently.
"the steel failed from a prolonged over exposure to fire which basically rusted the metal rapidly. There was no sign of thermitic or explosive residues on it"
And given the oral histories of the firemen, which too many people seem to not want to pay attention to, this building was entirely expected to fail.
roquefortfiles 3 months ago
@roquefortfiles Youtube: Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
NoGuyComesClose 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles Strange, I searched for this quote, but it's nowhere to be found.
All lies with you fuckers.
DiggityMcD 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiggityMcD Strange, I searched for this quote, but it's nowhere to be found.
All lies with you fuckers.
Forward to the 3:53 minute mark.
watch?v=053IpeEBji0&feature=related
At least know what you are talking about before you start calling people liars and fuckers.
When you listen to this i hope you twits start to see the utter and complete bullshit you cling on to in these conspiracy stories..
Suck on that for a while.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
got a bone to pick with the "official " explaination ...then ,if it involves hard SCIENCE ,you need to show your data PROPERLY and get it PEER REVIEWED ..then have it properly PUBLISHED ..of course if you are really into science ,you already KNOW this and thus ...that you are merely BLOWING SMOKE up every unlettered layperson's ass. if this is scientific then stop jerking arround and get it validated SCIENTIFICALLY ...otherwise STFU and sit your lying ass down .
woodenmajor 3 months ago
Although I agree with what you're saying (that gravity did NOT bring on the collapse), you're wrong in your assumptions about the 15-floor block above the impact zone. I've seen video footage for one of the Towers where the top 'block' actually disintegrates BEFORE the floors below begin to cascade down. Therefore, the supposed 'weight' above the impact zone wasn't even there to begin with! Which, of course, makes your proof almost a moot point.
The Towers (all 3), were DEMOLISHED - period.
andybb10 3 months ago
@andybb10 "the top 'block' actually disintegrates BEFORE the floors below begin to cascade down."
Even if this were true, SO WHAT?
"Therefore, the supposed 'weight' above the impact zone wasn't even there to begin with!"
WRONG. Do you think mass disappears? Of course it doesn't! 1000 tons of skyscraper becomes 1000 tons of rubble - but it STILL weighs 1000 tons!
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 "Even if this were true, SO WHAT?"... it means that explosives brought the buildings down, not gravity. 1000 tons of skyscraper did NOT become 1000 of rubble; it became 900 tons of scattered debris (most became air-borne and deposited miles away), and 100 tons of rubble (mostly steel). All this does not 'disprove' what the physics show, it just reinforces the thesis that gravity did NOT 'collapse' the Towers - explosives did!
andybb10 3 months ago
@andybb10 "1000 tons of skyscraper did NOT become 1000 of rubble; it became 900 tons of scattered debris (most became air-borne and deposited miles away), and 100 tons of rubble (mostly steel)"
Oh, really? Where did you get these figures from? Did you find some reliable expert study that determined this? Or (as I suspect) did you JUST MAKE THEM UP? Ooo ooo let me guess - it's "common sense", right? ;-)
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 Not nice to ask the question and answer it yourself in an attempt to mock someone who opposes your view. Breaking the 1000 tons into 900/100 was to illustrate that 'most' of the concrete from the Towers was pulverized and thus became air-borne. Just go back and view the videos - what's the white cloud made of?? Several blocks in the vicinity were subsequently covered with a layer 3-5 inches thick of white powder. Do the research and see for yourself! Or stay uninformed...
andybb10 3 months ago
@andybb10 Please don't misunderstand; I'm not mocking you because you have an opposing viewpoint. I'm mocking you because you are making shit up!
"Breaking the 1000 tons into 900/100 was to illustrate that 'most' of the concrete from the Towers was pulverized"
See? You're implying that the towers were 90% concrete, which is absurd! In fact there was very little.
It's patently ridiculous for you to claim that 90% of the towers just floated away when in fact you have no idea.
TimReed22222 3 months ago 8
@TimReed22222 There have been experts who commented on the fact that the 'rubble' pile was much, much smaller than typical ratios (I don't remember the exact numbers), like 1/4 of what you'd expect from a gravitational collapse of a structure. And, if you do some research, you'll see pictures from many blocks away that have a layer of powderized/pulverized material (ie. concrete), at least 2 inches thick. I've seen them. The only way for that to occur is by explosive energy (not kinetic)
andybb10 3 months ago
@andybb10 "the 'rubble' pile was much, much smaller than typical ratios"
The response is - you're gonna laugh when you hear this! - those "experts" FORGOT the towers had 7 underground levels! That's right! So when they complain the pile was only 3 stories high, it was really 10 - exactly right!
"The only way for that to occur is by explosive energy (not kinetic)"
Why? Who says only kinetic energy cannot do this? Do you have any IDEA how much kinetic energy was locked up for in those towers?
TimReed22222 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimReed22222 " Why? Who says only kinetic energy cannot do this? Do you have any IDEA how much kinetic energy was locked up for in those towers?"...LOL...this response of yours proves that you have limited understanding of physics principles. Here's an abbreviated lesson: "kinetic" energy is possessed by a moving object/mass. While the building is standing there, kinetic energy=0. It's all 'locked in' as POTENTIAL energy.
andybb10 3 months ago
Excellent explaination.
TheErnieLeblanc 3 months ago
It's time for the truth to be told. 911 was an inside job and the cold sore that was 911 will not go away until those held responsible are punished.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@bd886 "I would like to know why you think basics physics doesnt apply here"
NO ONE is saying that. The point is that YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COLLAPSES VIOLATED THEM! I have yet to hear of ANY physicists who make this claim, let alone a significant number (no, Shorty is NOT a physicist).
Remember when I asked if you've familiarized yourself with the towers' design? Have you done this? If not I suggest "WTC: Anatomy of the collapse" available here on youtube. Very good explanation.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@bd886 Really? You think this GROTESQUE OVERSIMPLIFICATION - treating the upper & lower sections of the tower as solid blocks, TOTALLY ignoring the design & construction of the towers, and the flawed notion that a larger mass always beats a smaller mass - is in ANY way valid? Really?
I suggest you call your physics teacher & ask for your money back!
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@bd886 "If anyone has a problem with the basic physics of this video... Perhaps you can take it up with Sir Isaac Newton."
Much more sensible to take it up with Shorty - because this analysis is completely bogus and invalid, and anyone who has studied any physics & understood it can see that instantly!
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@bd886 I have never yet had a truther lay any physics or Newton's laws on me in a credible manner! They usually just repeat them & say "See??" w/o any real understanding. Like you and your 15%-of-the-structure-cannot-destroy-the-other-85% nonsense, which NO physicist would endorse!
The number of real physicists on the inside-job side of the argument is minuscule at best.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 Maybe you just don't dunderstand physics?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I think maybe you don't "dunderstand" English - I said virtually none of the WORLD'S physicists give any credence to the inside-job theory from a physics point of view. If what happened on 9/11 *truly* violated the laws of physics, as you clowns are always claiming, the world's physicists would be all over it!
So why aren't they?
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 You do have a brain right? Think what would happen to a professor who started saying publicly what most of know already? A good example of that would be physics professor Steven Jones at BYU. He lost tenure for stating the obvious. He was the first to stand up for science and the truth and he lost his job. How many people are willing to do that for the truth?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 If a single physicist stood up & declared the "truth" - that the events of 9/11 were outside the bounds of physics - he'd be laughed out of the room.
If two did, people would wonder if they're in cahoots & laugh them out of the room, too.
BUT -
If THOUSANDS of physicists around the world saw it, they'd stand up together & there'd be a revolution!
Making excuses for WHY the world's physicists are not on board with the inside-job theory is worthless; the fact is, THEY AREN'T.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 You speak as if you need someone to explain Newton's laws of motion and gravity to you. I guess if it's not said by a "professional" it has no merit. We who understand the truth, don't need a professional to validate the fact that the first law of thermodynamics was violated on 911. The first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, there was not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble. Simple enough or do you need a professional?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "I guess if it's not said by a "professional" it has no merit"
Not at all! Amateurs make scientific discoveries all the time. But to become accepted science, they still must go through the process of convincing the experts that their findings are valid. Why haven't your truther pals succeeded in doing this?
Until you can show me that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the worlds physicsts - even 1%! - agree that the events of 9/11 violated any law of physics, then it ain't so.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "there was not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble."
Wait a minute, wait a minute - you skipped the explanation & went straight to the conclusion! Please show us how much potential energy was available and how much would have been necessary to destroy the building - and I'll be checking your math.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 No need for that. Just google the first law of thermodynamics. You'll find everything there that would explain why a building cannot have enough potential energy to reduce itself to rubble. If you need help understanding the first law of thermodynamics, holla.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Complete nonsense! You have to run the numbers & prove that the energy required to destroy the building exceeded the energy available before your statement means anything. Can you do this?
How much energy would have been required? How much was available? If you cannot answer these questions, and say definitively that the former exceeds the latter, you cannot back up your claim that CoE was violated.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to produce a few REAL physicists who think there was any problem with the 1st law of thermodynamics on 9/11.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 What's the matter, can't understand it yourself? You need a "qualified" professional to explain it for you? I guess I'm wastin my time talking physics with someone who doesn't understand the basics.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Ha! I knew it - you're just blowing smoke! You can't even show that you UNDERSTAND your theory, let alone explain it.
I checked the 1st law of thermodynamics & it doesn't even mention the towers! lol
TimReed22222 3 months ago
@TimReed22222 I already explained it for you. I'll do it one more time. There is not enough potential energy in the building to reduce itself to rubble. Here is the math. A construction bolt takes 480,000 of force to break. Lets say there are 1000 of these bolts holding the floor together. In order to simulate to collapse, you would have to break all the connecting bolts on every floor in rapid succession. 800 million pounds of force per second is needed. The building does not have that.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 ROTFLMAO!!!!! *That's* your "explanation"?? You promised me a discussion on Conservation of ENERGY - then instead you post this shit?
"A construction bolt takes 480,000 of force to break" - What the hell does THIS mean? Reference? What kind of bolt? Is that 480,000 pounds? Tons? Newtons??? And you just made up "1000 of these bolts holding the floor together" as well, didn't you? When did "pounds per second" become a unit of measurement?
You don't know anything. Go away.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimReed22222 You don't know anything. That's why you ask everyone to explain everything to you. You are the waste of time.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
The towers were much more robust compared to a 22 story structure! Plus building 7 speaks for itself (or doesn't speak i. e. all the data destroyed in building 7, but I digress). Basic JR HIGH or HIGH School physics are simple, yet on 9-11-2001 basic laws of gravity, basic laws of thermal dynamics, the basic of all basic laws of physics must have been changed that dreadful day. I don't know what happened, but the official story is a FARCE. Peace to all
b14w91s7 3 months ago
So killurtv. We don't even have to do any kind of experiment to disprove ur point. There are a few other examples in history of this kind of thing happening. U just don't want to accept facts so u ignore them.
Shamrock3939 3 months ago