Active, unreacted Thermitic material found >Controlled Demolition>INSIDE JOB
You know the science is too powerful to beat; We know it, and YOU know we know!
Just these two facts, out of DOZENS prove it!
Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
Active thrmite huh? Well Mr. Science, maybe you'd like to explain the extremely dubious manner in which
Dr. Steven Jones refused the have his paper peer reviewed? Any moron can write a paper and then not allow academics to review their work. Too bad Steven Jones can't explain where his dust samples were stored from 2001 to 2005. So much for specimen integrity and quality control! And where did the dust samples come from? Rabid 911 twoofers.
@ctcole77 It's funny that you speak of withholding papers from peer review, yet presumably you find it ok that NIST refuse to release both their collapse model and the countless video and photographic evidence they possess. In my work, if I attempted to present a model which required unphysically tuned parameters I'd be laughed out of the room. If only the rubble had been treated like the crime scene it was; we could dispel all these Truther myths. Shame it got ferried away so quickly.
@MrTRICKYmf The model was peer-reviewed, just not in public. Nor is a journal's peer-review public - they most often do not reveal the reviewer's identities. That's standard in science.
You're making specious arguments based on strawmen. There is zero evidence that the WTC 7 collapse was a crime scene, so it wasn't treated like one. You're ridiculous - you would handwave all the NYPD, FBI and FDNY efforts as if they didn't exist. Get real
@AlienEntity1 Ha, you're a joke, WTC7 wasn't a crime scene? Wasn't the whole WTC complex a crime scene, even if it was solely due to terrorists?
Also, I know how scientific peer review works (I work in science), and you're comment might be applicable if this wasn't the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. The whole point of the 911 commission was to investigate and reveal, both to the government and the public, what happened and why. Why should NIST's scientific report be any different?
@MrTRICKYmf Nope, WTC 7 was not a crime scene. It was destroyed because it was hit by WTC 1 and set on fire. That's not a crime, it's no different from damage and destruction to Verizon, Fiterman Hall CUNY, WTC 4, 5 or 6 - NONE of those buildings were treated as crime scenes either.
You simply don't understand the topic you're addressing - you don't understand the investigations or protocols.
The 9/11 Commission was VERY different from the NIST technical reports. Again you don't understand.
@AlienEntity1 As with the other thread I'm not bothering to continue arguing with someone who has no concept of evidence and proof.
Of course the whole WTC centre was a crime scene; all the damage, whether direct or indirect was the result of a crime. It's a poor investigator that destroys evidence in the way they did (or an institution with something to hide).
I didn't claim that the commission and the NIST report were the same you idiot. Do you not understand English?
LOL If it wasn't for David Chandler, NIST would still be stuck with the first BS Constant Speed measurement of 40% FreeFall from the Preliminary Report! It took 7 years for them to admit free-fall. 40% of FreeFall is a big difference. Epic Fail. NIST are a bunch of paid off liars.
So you want to calculate total collapse time, by the start of the collapse of the penthouse. But after it falls through the roof, the time of the falling left part of the penthouse can only be roughly estimated.
This doesn't change the fact that the eintire outer wall still falls in 1% range of freefall for 2.5 s.
You could do this the same way for the towers. If you start timing when the first part of the building fell (at plane impact) the collapse time would be 30 (or 60) minutes.
@Tsutomu6 Besides, the building fell like no CD in history - there was first a virtually silent collapse E to W within the core, then about 8 s later the exterior finally buckled.
But NOT A SINGLE EXPLOSION as the building began to fall. Oops! That's not like a CD at all.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your need to believe in the CD of WTC. You would need to think for yourself, instead of just being an obedient lamb, or a parrot faithfully repeating the lines it has learned.
@Tsutomu6 If you get frustrated trying to articulate your positions, just remember that it has to do with the fact that your positions are ridiculous and not based on reality.
Let go of the stupid ideas and your mind will be released of the burden of idiocy that now owns you.
I'm not getting frustrated. I don't actually care if you understand what I'm saying. Timing 2 different objects might bring you your "total collapse time", but as I said it's a secant method. Your object is "the building". Thats is just a rough estimation, even if the two points are exact.
And I didn't get "the stupid ideas" on the internet. Mechanics was one of my classes at University. So if you can't show me some knowledge in dynamics, I'm not impressed.
@Tsutomu6 btw, it was your extremely lame attempt to use technical jargon without showing the relevance to the start of collapse, and your utterly stupid attempt to create a strawman argument with the tower collapses that did the trick for me.
As before, my response is - get lost. Really, sincerely, beat it.
Another excellent job AE! I am glad to see that as usual the turthers are stuttering and stammering with the typical fail & regurgitation of Gageisms, Griffinisms, & Jonesisms.
Well i'll be.....think this is the first, not to mention possibly the only video, that in the title says either debunked, or proof of...that actually has proof. Thanks alot, even though I never thought it was a controlled demo, you actually TRY to explain it to the, so called, "Truthers". Sadly even though it makes perfect sense to you and I, and other sane people, I am sure the "truthers" will try to find some way to turn this around to attempt to use it in their favor. One last time...good job
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
@ctcole77Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
@ctcole77 Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
@251omega You don't understand what 'iron-rich' microspheres are anyway. The small size and combination of elements allows for a lower melting point (a eutectic) than a pure element.
Only conspiracists who are not materials scientists believe in these ridiculous claims. Remember, Jones is neither a chemist nor a materials scientist - he's a physicist specializing in 'cold fusion'. Totally different field of expertise.
@AlienEntity1 Lower-maybe. BUT NOT as low as office fires or even jet fueled fires. This is like "LYING WITH STATISTICS" You say something that sounds plausible, and then imply the lie. Even NIST documented that NONE of the steel in all three buildings got any hotter than 250 deg Celsius ! Don't ignore key facts.
Next, to draw attention away from your previous dishonesty, you start shooting pejoratives and put-downs, and then you switch to an attack on Jones! Say HI to Cass Sunstien for me.
@251omega Don't be foolish. In fact you can even burn steel if you get it fine enough. You can combust steel powder with a bunsen burner, you can burn steel wool with a lighter. Look it up using google or youtube if you don't believe me.
Many materials contain Fe, and when they burn, small spheres of iron-rich material can form. All this happens at the temps of ordinary fires. That's a fact that truthers don't want you to know.
And, btw, you're misquoting NIST terribly and dishonestly.
First, your claim that eutectics cannot occur at temps as low as office fires is just false. In fact eutectic erosion of steel happens <1000 celsius. It's even in the FEMA report, by materials scientists.
2) You falsely claim that NIST found none of the steel got hotter than 250 celsius. Not true. What they say is all but 3 were 250 celsius or less. That means 3 samples were higher. Learn how to read.
@251omega Plus you're ignoring the scientific fact of viscoplastic buckling. According to empirical tests of steel ''Zeng et al.(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C'
So with the load-path disruption caused by plane damage, critical columns could indeed reach sufficient load to fail under mild heating.
That's why steel has to be sprayed with fire-proofing. Duh.
That's quite right. Jones has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE in nanothermite or chemistry. And Kevin Ryan, while a chemist, is no where near an expert in nanothermite. Harrit is the only one that is even remotely qualified. It's all about money. Why work for a living when gullible shills like 251omega will throw money at you?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
@ctcole77 Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
@whisperinwindcried67 Actually I don't have a channel here, nor am I a disinfo agent; I do, however, have a brother who's been a "truther" for many years and so I am pretty familiar with the arguements. (Perhaps you're confusing me with AlienEntity1; imagine that - a truther drawing false conclusions from inaccurate "facts". Sorry - I couldn't resist!) And one of my first posts here was to encourage others to be nicer to folks such as yourself; I'm sure you mean well - you're just mistaken.
@professorprestodigit ..actually you do have a channel here..its the only way to be registered on youtube. and since you dont have any favorites,or seem to have any other reason to be on youtube except to comment against folks seeking truth,knowledge and peace about 9/11-its not unreasonable to think your a disinfo shill-because there are many...and thankyou so much for encouraging peaceful discourse,very benevolent of you-it is you however that are mistaken.
@whisperinwindcried67 Yes it is unreasonable to call someone a disinfo shill, it is rude, way out of line and incredibly ignorant.
So you are now blocked for being an asshole who cannot present any facts and doesn't even care whether he's right or wrong - you just assume you are - but you're actually wrong.
@whisperinwindcried67 Like most truthers you have no respect for anything - your inflated egos must be protected from reality by living in a reality-distortion bubble, and your entire modus is to lurk around on the internet spreading lies and myths and calling others 'disinfo shills' if they politely (as the professor has been) disagree with your flaky and stupid views.
@whisperinwindcried67 With regard to the firefighters: are you familiar with the quotes from chief Nigro or firefighter Hayden? They were very clear (with many others) that WTC7 had a strong possibility of collapsing; is it possible that they understand the effects of fire (as well as the structural damage from the falling debris from the tower) better than lay people who look at a video and say, "That doesn't look right to me"?
@professorprestodigit -it would appear your only reason for having a channel on youtube is to argue against anyone pointing out facts about the preposterous explanations of the whole 911 tragedy.this discredits you as any kind of real person-do they pay you a salary to distribute disinfo,or is it piece work,how does it work?
AlienEntity1 Though you and I are basically in agreement on this, I'm not conviced that Gage and Jones don't actually believe their story - a lot of educated, otherwise intelligent people believe incredulous things.
i actually completely understand the need and fight of psychological denial-my own father has stated to me-that though the preponderance of evidence leaves alot to be explained,he just cannot accept the thought of this being evidence of corruption at the deepest levels--and cannot sustain a conversation about it non emotionally,so i refrain-its quite distressful for people from the 1950's to fathom- i am a realist.stark and cold and about facts..the official explanations do not add up. period.
@whisperinwindcried67 blah blah blah. You not only don't know what you're talking about, you're long-winded about it as well.
Horrible combination.
by the looks of it you wouldn't recognize a fact if it smacked you upside the head. You seem to have fallen for every truther myth out there without batting an eyelash - you are a complete sucker for this stuff. It's actually sad.
@whisperinwindcried67 So off you go - go get the perps. Get off your dumb ass and put a criminal case together and take it to court.
Or you could just keep 'asking questions' and making vague accusations on internet sites, which will do sweet F all.
Yup, that's exactly what you're going to do. Sweet F all. All talk no action. 10 years and 9/11 Truth is a giant FAIL full of half-baked ideas believed by a cult of idiots like you.
@AlienEntity1 -im not a lawyer,and would be glad to sign a petition or whatever a professional organised committee would need ask of an american citizen-unfortunately i feel this crime is way and above even a mafia type of influence-this is the most powerfull evil in the world-taking them to court is going to be a daunting task- & honestly i dont think it will happen-the proving of corruption in our government of this magnitude-would rock the very core of our existance in usa-talk about big deal
@AlienEntity1-best i can do is share insight and discuss facts,open honest discourse with every possible willing and able person that is capable of understanding.
@whisperinwindcried67 You're not interested in learning what really happened, since you clearly deny anything that contradicts your fixed beliefs.
Further, you began to accuse me and others of being 'disinfo', and being paid a salary.
ie; you can't handle the truth, and your comments were vague, off-topic (WTC 7) and long-winded.
I'm not worried about your judgments concerning my intelligence; in fact your judgment seems fairly weak-minded itself. I just find you to be a fool, that's all.
@whisperinwindcried67 I just find you annoying and feel like slapping you around verbally a bit - which you deserve, btw.
But that's now over. You're blocked, you're gone, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
No doubt you'll keep accusing unknown people of phantom crimes, it's what you do. But it makes you a fool. Oh well. I don't care, and neither do most people.
@AlienEntity1 There are a lot of people who still believe this stuff and I think videos like this one are very important. However, with all due respect, I am disappointed that you blocked whisperinwindcried67. Just blocking someone or telling them that their position is stupid (even if it is) is, I think, not helpful. As the saying goes, just because you have silenced a man, it doesn't mean that you have persuaded him. I'd like to ask you to reconsider.
@AlienEntity1 ..no way you disintegrate hundreds of steel inner support columns,making a building simply collapse as though it were made of balsa wood,instantaneously-all at once-right to the ground,perfectly symmetrical,free-fell into its own footprint-by some debris falling on this building,and it having a few small fires--even if this building(wtc7) were struck by a missle,or plane or king kong..and it were engulfed in a horrendous inferno--the core,inner steel skeleton would still stand.
@whisperinwindcried67 There's no way that can happen, you're right. But that's not what the competent and thorough engineering analysis (backed up by extensive FEM using standard engineering software) is claiming at all.
So yes, your idiotic strawman is incorrect. anything else you want to get wrong? LOL
@whisperinwindcried67 Alright whisper, you've been unblocked, as per the request from professorprestodigit.
Stay on topic and don't you even think about accusing him or me of being paid shills or whatever other dumb and false accusation you come up with. My patience with this kind of crap is getting very thin.
@whisperinwindcried67 this comment is a typical cop-out from a weak and silly movement which is based not on hard science but on speculation, innuendo and adherence to mythology.
If there were some real evidence, 9/11 Truth has had 10 freaking years to gather it and present it in a professional way. Unfortunately they haven't done that.
Not one peer-reviewed engineering paper has been published by a truther in 10 years. That's totally pathetic.
though there are a multitude of websites devoted to showing varying insights into this tragedy--check out "911-coincidences"-i like this series of( i think 14 )or so vids-very thought provoking
@whisperinwindcried67 No steel left? Are you kidding me - have you seen pictures of the debrie pile? Also, even in CD it's gravity that causes most of the damage - the explosions just weaken key areas to permit it to fall. And do you have any idea how much energy is released when a 47 (let alone 110!) story building collapses? No one says the steel had to melt - it expanded and weakened until it couldn't suport the massive weight above.
@professorprestodigit ..steel was melted,lots of pics,molten pool at base of towers that burned for weeks,no core left??..look at the design of this building--steel and concrete everywhere-it was built to withstand-a tremendous amount of casualty and malforce...the bulk of jet fuel was exploded on impact..you are free to remain in denial-there is no way 3 buildings all come down exactly alike leaving none of their core steel/concrete skeletons,and free-fall-that is fuckin impossible.
@whisperinwindcried67 The Madrid Windsor tower had portions which collapsed due to fire - the floors supported by steel colums. Pls. go to 911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower for more info. Here's a quote from the article: "Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed."
@whisperinwindcried67 Some steel structures DO collapse from fire. The design and structure of the WTC buildings were very different from those commonly compared to them in Truther videos. In some of those the portions similar to WTC7 DID, in fact, collapse. Question: do you believe that the firefighters and fire chiefs of FDNY who predicted the collapse of WTC7 were in on the plot? (I'm serious: please answer.)
@professorprestodigit-.i do not know that there was a "prediction" about the entire collapse of building 7 from any firefighter-do i think fire fighters were in on some plot-no. as a matter of fact they are the ones who reported explosions-however all depts. have chain of command like military and during times of total chaos and stress dont question too much,but rather involve themselves in saving lives,and doing the best they can do at their job!..others may have been "advised" -natl. security
@professorprestodigit ..here ya go case you got confused-..some steel structures do collapse from fire?? completely to the ground in seconds?? which ones would those be?? examples??
@whisperinwindcried67 I think you're confusing the development of conditions to collapse with the speed of collapse itself. By nature, collapses are all quick - just seconds in fact.
It's the nature of failures and collapses that they are rapid.
Example Sight and Sound Theater in PA, 1997. Main steel building completely collapsed due to fire. In spite of firefighting efforts and a nominal 2hr fire-rating. Among contributing factors - some SFRM was damaged during renovation, exposing steel.
@whisperinwindcried67 Kader Toy factory in Thailand, 1993. One of the contributing factors was 'the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames.'
Loss of life was over 180 people.
Any loss of SFRM due to debris impacts or plane impacts affects the 2hr nominal fire-rating of steel structure. It is assumed that fires will be fought, but no steel building is designed to withstand fire indefinitely. That's just not feasible
@whisperinwindcried67 My dad used to say that there are three kinds of ignorance in the world. The first is what you don't know, but you know that you don't know it. (I know that I don't know how to speak Chinese.) The second is what you don't know, but you don't know that you don't know it. (My dog doesn't know that he doesn't know how to speak Chinese.) But the third kind of ignorance - and the most dangerous - is what you know ... but just ain't so. (Steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire)
@professorprestodigit ..i dare you to show us one other example that was in anyway similar to these three buildings falling in seconds into dust any other time in history.
I agree that Bush et al did not want a thorough investigation of 911, but I think that's because they would have been revealed to have really f..ked up - not because it was a conspiracy. I don't see Truthers as " bad people" but I do think they practice "bad science" and believe a lot of "facts" which just ain't so. Please google "Good Science and 911 Demolition" for a very good, very respectful, article by Mike King on the subject. (He also has a link to a follow up one from 2010 re. WTC7.)
@AlienEntity1 Gage leaves me extremely unimpressed. His cardboard box "experiment" is .. well, "incredibly stupid" would be overly polite. I don't know much about Neils Harrit but as for Jones, as far as I know he has never published anything in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal regarding his 911 "evidence". Why not? There are any number of non-critical thinkers out there who have advanced degrees - just look at all of the climate-change deniers. What do you think?
@professorprestodigit Personally I think these men have crossed the line into fraud and con artistry. It's not just simple incredulity anymore with them - they actively promote this crap and make money from it now.
Gage is apparently drawing an $80K salary from AE911Truth!!
@whisperinwindcried67 Also, although it may have looked exactly like a controlled demotition, it sounded NOTHING like one. Explosives used in CD's are loud as f..k! (Though I suppose some super secret silent ones may have been used. Or maybe specially CIA - trained hamsters with miniature blow torches. And why? To destroy evidence - whenever I want to destoy paper or electronic files I always demolish my house. Doesn't everyone?)
@professorprestodigit -there are plenty of accredited scholars and field specialists,thousands of them that are calling for a new investigation..nanothermite was found. many people profited big time,far too many strange coincidences-nothing is beyond the scope of power/money.you were there to hear these buildings fall??..because those that were mostly said they heard explosions.who said anything about destroying files..hmm.
@whisperinwindcried67 I don't believe that nanothermite was found; the "peer reviewed journal" that published that was a pay-to-publish one - why haven't any legit ones? And the seismographic evidence isn't there to support CD of WTC7, nor are explosions heard on audio recordings. Yes, people DID hear loud sounds after the planes hit - but that's not unusual under the circumstances. "Truthers" say destoying evidence was reason for WTC7, not me. And finally, the govt. can't hide a bj let alone..
@professorprestodigit well i agree it seems strange that the govt. would spend hundreds of thousands,perhaps millions investigating a fat girls bj-but spent iless then 6 figures to investigate 9/11!-the evidence that suggests things are not what they seem is freakin overwhelming-believe what you will-im absolutely convinced this was a well thought out,very well done crime,with a plethora of pluses for the criminals-why cast people seeking truth as bad people?that makes no sense.time WILL tell.
@whisperinwindcried67 If that were true... in fact there were several investigations, including the FEMA and NIST investigations, additional to the 9/11 commission report.
The NIST investigation alone cost almost $20 million.
@AlienEntity1 .. believe your way wrong on that figure for nist..but ill check up on it--regardless the investigation on clintons presidential priveledges was far more comprehensive then was done on the 9/11 attacks
@whisperinwindcried67 That's a very bold claim, yet when you look closely (which you haven't) you see that it quickly evaporates into a standard argument from authority.
Take a look at the actual number of structural engineers in AE911Truth's list, and see what they actually say. It's not what Richard Gage would like to you think.
Ask yourself why not a single one of those people has bothered to publish, in an engineering journal, an explanation as to why fire couldn't have done it!! Why not?
@AlienEntity1 - i believe their are reports out there-many people are abit skitterish about this,its only possibly the biggest scandel ever..these people are killers,takes strength in numbers to showcase the truth.ask why the vp of usa took control of norad for the only time in history and relinquished it directly after,ask why no released pictures of plane coming in to hit pentagon,what about the black boxes from the plane-have we heard the transcripts? steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire
@whisperinwindcried67 My dad used to say that there are three kinds of ignorance in the world. The first is what you don't know, but you know that you don't know it. (I know that I don't know how to speak Chinese.) The second is what you don't know, but you don't know that you don't know it. (My dog doesn't know that he doesn't know how to speak Chinese.) But the third kind of ignorance - and the most dangerous - is what you know ... but just ain't so. (Steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire)
@AlienEntity1 ..what about silversteins mega billion dollar payout,?what about the evidence of insider trading on the computer hard drives? what about operation northwoods and the need for a new pearl harbor to initiate the patriot act?-which overrides,null and voiding our countries basic core operating principles of the constitution-giving carte blanche power to our government over all its populace..what about the gold being stored under the buildings-recovered??..so many what abouts..?!?
@whisperinwindcried67 Silverstein"s payout didn't even cover his losses: he LOST money on the event, When you want to destroy evidence on a computer, do YOU demolish your house? Op. NW was soundly rejected; nuts in the govt. isn't news. Many govts. used 911 to institute repressive laws: doesn't mean they orchestrated it. The civil rts. movement benefitted from the Ala. church bombing - do you think their leaders were behind it? Did all the gold vanish and its owners just let it slide? Really?
@professorprestodigit ..prove to us he lost money-he purchased the buildings for millions,had a multi-million dollar asbestos clean-up project pending-demolishing the house ive heard that before,reading from a script again?-yes maybe if you really need the information deemed totaly unretrievable and it saved you much more then the house was worth to you-many govts orchestrated repressive laws-EXACTLY-but ours found a way to supersede its nations ultimate creed-its very foundational core of law.
@AlienEntity1 .and yes coincidently enough all the evidence against enron and others involved in insider trading,and bunch of other possibly very damning evidence was unfortunately lost in this tragedy..this could have costs some companies multi-millions..a veritable list of pluses --and an excuse to go to war-woohoo--whats it gonna cost--3,000-10,000 lives?-big deal,drop in the bucket.!.DO IT..were over populated anyway...this could be the start of our final control of the oil..muuhaaahaa!.
if you think modern buildings made of steel and concrete will ever just dissolve,instantaneously into finite particles,leaving no skeleton and completely collapsing in seconds..is a perfectly logical event,requiring no investigation and easily explained..then you obviously aware of new physics that the rest of the world is not-its impossible without a whole lot of engineering to make happen-fact is it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.your selling bridges here-nobodies buying!!
@whisperinwindcried67 The reason it looks "exactly like a controlled demolition" is because the primary destructive force is exactly the same: something called "gravity". CD relies on demolitions to remove the support, here the support was removed by a) the collapsing tower and b) over 7 hrs. of unfought fires. As for "no investigation", are all of the people at NIST a) morons or b) accomplices to mass murder? Or could CD experts and struct. engineers understand this better than you or I?
@xlla First sentence is correct. SEcond sentence is puzzlingly incorrect. Office fires are not made of paper, whatever gave you that idea? In actual fact, normal office fires reach temps of 1100 Celsius, which is more than hot enough to weaken structural steel.
And it's spelled 'steel', not 'steal', btw. That was your second error.
It sounds like you just don't know what you're talking about, frankly. Not promising.
@AlienEntity1 HEY-NOW!! I wasn't trying to be a DICK!!! I KNOW office Fires are NOT entirely made of paper, I was trying to GENERALIZE(simplify) the the sentence. AND-YES!!, My (Dyslexic)grammar is absolutely horrible! You have fully exposed my handicap to the world, congratulations. Have you ever given a thorough OBSERVATION to the Aerial photographs of the WTC complex (aftermath,the Day After). All of this destruction is the result of office fires??? I'm Definitely not a Architect ,.. Are you?
@xlla It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're talking about, haven't taken the time to learn from competent engineering reports etc.
What matters is that properly trained, qualified people have spent years investigating and publishing reports, which can be read by other knowledgeable people, like engineering PhD's, fire safety experts and so on.
Those are the people who have credibility. Go argue with them.
@xlla Your argument from personal incredulity is totally insufficient to convince anybody but another pretty ignorant person.
If that's where you want to live, be my guest. Years ago, many people with appropriate training and resources looked carefully at the collapses and published reports.
Truthers? Not a single report in a peer-reviewed engineering journal has been published by a truther to argue the truther side. Not one. That is incredibly lame.
@AlienEntity Thanks for the video but I do wish you'd refrain from name-calling in your rebuttals to the various Truthers. Mostly they're sincere; I think you need to be more patient and sometimes explain things more clearly. Basically, the point is that fire, (working with gravity) had ALREADY removed most of the support when the external VISIBLE collapse begins. That's when the "straw breaks the camel's back", resulting in virtual freefall for a couple of seconds. Explosives not required.
@professorprestodigit - virual freefall-thats complete bs...even if the fire was a massive all encompassing inferno--the steel would not melt,there would be a skeleton! tons of concretewas blown into dust from the very start of the collapse-meaning no way enough force to exihibit what was captured on video-THATS what they didnt count on..:) all the video evidence!-try as they did to confiscate it all-it got on the internet...done deal,curious how now they want to establish a kill switch,huh.?
@whisperinwindcried67 What "kill switch" do you mean. There are plenty of awful things our govt has done, but I just find it very hard to believe that all of the civil and struct. engineers, who have looked at this with much more understanding than either of us have are morons (or accomplices to mass murder.) Also, are you serious about them not counting on video evidence? People were often filming the wtc's priof to 911, let alone after being hit by planes!
all i know is we have had our spiritual connection with nature educated out of us by this system that drives this negative machine its a virus the ancients knew it.it was materialism,vanity.no longer do we take for the need we take for the greed.the oceans are raped and mismanaged for proffit.forests are cut down animals are displaced,this system is devouring itself and is now putting proffit before people.the planet is on the way to becoming a corporation.scary thought.hay u 2 stop fussin.lovex
Are there any other ENGINEERS reading this blog? I have 'bent over backwards' to be polite while attempting to explain why freefall is significant. I know they teach about "CONSERVATION of MOMENTUM" in High School physics classes, but the response to my efforts is always the same: reject evidence, ignore facts, shun logic, avoid the key points, make nasty, hate-filled, personal attacks.
Please Review my POSTS.
Did I MISS something or am I being conned with carefully constructed STUPIDITY?
@251omega ps, NIST explains the freefall (which didn't happen in either of the towers, interestingly enough, yet truthers claim this also proves explosive CD! :D)
'In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration,[B] as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.'
NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse and p 602
The Key evidence is the measured fall rate of the roof line. Chandler measured and NIST conceded that there was a period of 2.3 seconds, during which the roof line fell at a rate indistinguishable from FREEFALL. All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION, so there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures, allowing FREEFALL.
Nothing here explains the 2.3 seconds of 'FREEFALL', CONFIRMED by NIST.
@251omega The mistake you're making (as all truthers do consistently) is to ASSUME that there had to be explosives to remove the structure.
NIST does explain the mechanism, in great detail, and also by using FEM LS-DYNA engineering models.
The problem is truthers can't or won't understand the explanation. Maybe it's too complicated for some people - they prefer to shout 'burn the witch' (reference to the age-old witch hunts of yore, when ignorance and superstition ruled)
@AlienEntity1 You are the one doing the assuming! Re-read my post.
I said : "All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION, so there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures..."
I said nothing about "EXPLOSIVES". However, something, other than Gravity, WAS involved.
How do YOU explain the 2.3 seconds of 'FREEFALL', CONFIRMED by NIST?
@251omega The assumption, to spell it out, involves your unsupported claim that 'another source of energy' ...'simultaneously remove all supporting structures.'
Could there be any more assumptions in that statement? I don't think so. ;)
Your claim is nothing but a strawman argument based on wild speculation, not engineering.
@AlienEntity1 Again: FREEFALL, by definition, means: "All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION".
The building dropped 8 stories while in freefall for 2.3 seconds. So, 8 stories of supporting structure had to be completely removed, first. Because, If there had been ANY resistance from that structure, it could NOT achieve FREEfall.
THEREFORE, "there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures..." No SPECULATION just Engineering PHYSICS.
@251omega Wow, you've managed to focus on one aspect of the complex event and completely, and I mean completely, ignore the rest of it.
Uhm,, the collapse started internally roughly 8 seconds BEFORE the curtain wall on the N face began to descend.
Gee, what do you think happened to all the internal structure during the 8 seconds while it fell? Hmm, maybe we should refer to a professional FEM analysis of the event to see what it was....
2. The 2.3 seconds of freefall confirmed by the NIST.
Then he proceeded to state the obvious, that the building couldn't drop 8 stories while in freefall if there was no other source of energy simultaneously removing all supporting structures.
Not wild speculation, just a simple application of logic.
The statement is fully supported and you have yet to address it.
@WhereTheyAre The part of his claim which is unsupported is when he makes the strawman argument, as you repeat (its a truther axiom by now) that some 'other source of energy simultaneously removed all support structures'.
That is a nonsense argument made by people who haven't studied the FEM analysis and don't understand the structure. Structural engineers, ie those who are qualified, and who have studied it have explained thoroughly that which you refuse to understand.
@WhereTheyAre Now, as yet another anonymous and ignorant person, you're welcome to deny the truth about structural failure modes. That doesn't make you correct, it just makes you irrelevant and wrong, really.
However, the fact is that the structure was failing for many seconds before the curtain wall (exterior columns) of the North face buckled. So there was no 'simultaneous' removal of 'all supporting structures'.
@251omega Yes, something other than gravity was involved: fire
Guess what Sherlock? We have 100% proof there were large fires. We have 100% proof that fires cause thermal expansion in steel.
Evidence for alleged explosives? Zero or near zero. Not much difference, really. No evidence of another mechanism. You don't have it, neither does anybody else.
But carry on with your allegations and mindless physics-mangling.... it's what truthers do.
@AlienEntity1 So fire can cause the simultaneous and complete removal of 8 floors of steel supporting structure?
Remember, the roof-line made an instant transition from still to freefall. If the supporting structures had NOT been removed AT ONCE, the roof line could not have fallen uniformly, remaining LEVEL for at least 8 floors of collapse.
How did random fires, without the help of GRAVITY, remove ANY steel, let alone ALL the steel, in 8 floors of structure?
@251omega You're piling on strawman after strawman, no wonder you're getting things wrong.
To start with, the roofliine did not move uniformly. The Eastern 3rd sagged before the corners did, and even then you can only see the North face, not the other parts of the building on the videos.
So you dont know what was going on elsewhere. You just don't.
Second, it did not transition 'instantly' to freefall. That is false. The first part of the fall was about 1.25s at slower than freefall.
@251omega Continued...so if you were to get a few facts straight it would help you sort thru the myths and get to the truth.
But I know you won't bother doing that.
Your next question 'how did random fires (without the help of gravity?????) remove any steel, let alone 'all' the steel.
There are so many errors in this question, it shows where you're at. Gravity helped, so let's clarify that. The idea that it didn't is idiotic. Next, fires didn't remove 'all' the steel, and not al atonce either
@AlienEntity1 GOTCHA! You have repeatedly betrayed your ignorance or your agenda. You seem desperate to downplay or obfuscate the significance of FREEFALL!
"Gravity helped, so let's clarify that." <<<NO, BY DEFINITION: In Freefall, ALL of the falling section's Gravitational POTENTIAL Energy is converted to motion and therefore, NONE of the Gravitational POTENTIAL Energy is available for other purposes(like crushing or removing supporting steel structures). EVEN NIST AGREES!
@251omega Oh, put a sock in it. You are confused about the reference to gravity and gravitational potential energy.
Gravity is a force, it exists regardless what object is in question. Of course GPE is variable, but you're entirely ignoring the fact (yes, it is a fact) that the internal structure of the building was already collapsing PRIOR to the curtain wall.
Thus, you have both a removal of structure and an implosion mechanism. Y don't u just read the damn NIST report? It's all there.
@251omega NIST doesn't agree with your bizarre ignorance of the collapse mechanism. No sir.
They specifically modeled the collapse, using standard engineering principles. They explained how they think the internal collapse influenced the failure of the curtain wall.
'Chapter 12, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 p.602
'In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity.*This stage
corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns'
@251omega In terms of failure modes, 'instantaneous' is different from 'less than instantaneous'.
You may not care about such things, but they matter in terms of failure and engineering. So as long as you really don't care, you will just remain wrong, your opinions will remain irrelevant to those who understand these things.
That's where you are in life right now I guess. I can't really help you much, as I suspect you will ignore anything which contradicts your beliefs. Even if it's true...
@AlienEntity1 Chandler DID point that out and explained it, too. He pointed out that the DATA POINTS were made from the video, so they would be subject to variations of +/- 1 pixel. Estimating the location of the same part of the video is another source of variation. Also the timing is approximated by the frame rate of the video. Chandler made several extra calculations involving the upper and lower margins of error, confirming and justifying the "indistinguishable from freefall" statement.
@251omega You truthers seem to have forgotten (down the memory hole where it can't hurt you, huh?) that neither of the towers collapsed at freefall acceleration.
So all your physics baffelgab is not a proof of any kind, esp. of explosive controlled demolition. I wonder why not a a single truther has bothered to measure REAL controlled demols to see if they produce freefall... (the answer is that they don't really do that - only in the truther fairytale)
@251omega The answer to the 'does CD produce freefall?' question is, NO, not necessarily. Freefall itself is not a proof of anything.
That's why the engineering community is largely ignoring the noise from truthers - it's nonsense, basically. You apparently have been fooled by the nonsense. It's not too late to think clearly and use your intelligence. Don't waste it on these idiotic fairy tales of CD.
@AlienEntity1 Does CD produce freefall? not necessarily, but it can. OK so far...
Freefall itself is not a proof of anything. Wrong. Freefall is PROOF that all supporting structures have been COMPLETELY REMOVED by forces OTHER than gravity.
Explosives do a great job of explaining what could do that. Not FIRE! Fires could only have weaken the steel, it would still require gravity to remove the steel.
FREEFALL occurs when ALL of the gravitational potential energy is converted to motion.
@251omega Nonsensical argument: Gravity produces freefall, period. It is not a separate force, it is THE force which causes that to happen. Doesn't matter what causes the failure of structure - it can be an earthquake, a fire, explosives, overloading, a plane collision etc....
Freefall is not a scientific proof of explosive demolition, much as you'd like it to be. It never has been, and it never will be. But I don't expect that to stop you from believing such silliness.
@AlienEntity1 Freefall is PROOF that all supporting structures have been COMPLETELY REMOVED by forces OTHER than gravity. Even if the NIST story, that FIRES caused the steel to loose strength,was true, What REMOVED the steel. No energy from GRAVITY was available, or we would not measure FREEFALL acceleration.
Remember NIST's statement: "For freefall to occur, all of the supporting structure must be removed."
@251omega repeating the same wrong ideas does not help you.
Freefall is entirely a product of gravity. Without it you wouldn't have any downward acceleration - you keep saying that energy from gravity wasn't available, which is obvious nonsense, yet you don't seem to realize this.
Naturally the internal collapse is what removed (via gravity) the structure, allowing other parts of it to fall briefly at freefall.
that's it. Go talk to an engineer if you want to quibble. I'm bored.
If you review all my posts, you will see that I have been trying to explain the involved principles to you!
This is only High School level Physics! It's not that tough!
You have demonstrated, for someone arguing about physical principles, an extraordinary lack of knowledge, or a more sinister, hidden agenda.
I think you know the physics well enough to misdirect attention away from inconvenient facts. Your efforts will only be temporary as more folks wake up.
@251omega Dear Lord... when you make nonsense arguments such as 'fires can't do it', you are not thinking like an engineer, certainly not one who understands structural engineering with regard to building collapse.
If you were correct (and you aren't) you could simply make your case to a major engineering journal and publish your genius findings, changing the entire world in a flash. You can't do that, so it's a moot point to discuss.
You have no real argument aside from strawmen. Just stop.
@AlienEntity1 You never make any effort to support your statements. Are we to accept what you say, just because you say it? You always reject anything I say, without any proof or evidence to justify your opinion. Sorry to inform you, but emotional tantrums and name-calling do not count as supporting evidence. Do you think you can reject evidence, ignore facts, shun logic, avoid the key points, make personal attacks and then be accepted as an authority on 9/11 physics?
251omega No, it is you who needs to wake up and start understanding that this isn't some simplistic 'A=B' concept, but involves complex mechanics of a progressive collapse and weakened structure.
Without addressing those points, your arguments are extremely shallow and frankly silly. For example, the FEM LS-DYNA analysis of NIST used standard, accepted engineering to demonstrate exactly how such a collapse could occur.
Nobody has refuted this in a peer-reviewed engineering journal.......
@251omega Oh frig off you putz. Your arguments are based on a complete ignorance of the fire science and structural engineering analysis.
Fine, be an obnoxious, ignorant twit if you want to. I really don't care. But you're wrong about CD, and you can accuse me of disnfo all you like, it won't change the facts.
The saddest truthers are the intelligent ones who turn their brains off as soon as they contemplate 'conspiracies'. You should know better, but you choose not to. Your loss, not mine.
@2011BearBait How fitting that it is headed by David Ray Griffin, a Theologian. The man who brought both Niels Harrit and Steven Jones into the fold...
@AlienEntity1 Steven Jones is a physicist, and he's on the side of 9/11 Truth, so he must know what he's talking about and is the only physicist in the world not to have been paid off by the governm-oh wait, he's a cold fusion physicist. Not the same area at all. And he worked for Brigham Young University which is owned by the Church of Latter Day Saints, and his only previous widely-known paper was about 'proving' Jesus existed due to some circles in Asian artwork.
@AlienEntity1 "you keep saying that energy from gravity wasn't available"
No, I keep saying that we KNOW that ALL of the GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY (potential energy) is COMPLETELY changed to MOTION (Kinetic Energy), so there was NO gravitational energy left to remove any of the supporting steel. That is why an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE is required to completely remove any supporting structures. The onset of collapse was abrupt and symmetrical, So ALL support MUST have been removed simultaneously.
I find it amusing on how you comment back to me a whole bunch of times but to the other fairly more reputable comments below you have nothing to say - like I said I have no bias and no agenda I see things for how they are and shit just doesn't add up yet you take all of that as just.. coincidence or uncontrollable collateral and you have the gumption to call me a whining child without giving any reference to the quotes about wtc6.. man you need serious help
@Bojoe777NaBl You're rude, ignorant and basically a waste of time. Anything else you want to know?
You are basically a whiner who doesn't know what you're talking about, and yes, you should man-up when you're corrected. Like a grown man, not a girl.
Fact: Richard Gage is an abomination to his "profession". His card board box "experiment" is a travesty. And you idiot Twoofers worship him like God. HI-Larious!
@Bojoe777NaBl You asked for evidence of molten metal in WTC 6, I gave it to you. You repeated a number of other allegations, some of which are known to be false.
And you're blaming ME for my behavior? Look in the mirror. You're the one making the false claims dude.
Are you serious? You provide no evidence. You are not smarter than 1400+ Architects and Engineers. You provide no scientific evidence at all and think you can disprove the research of all the professionals at AE911Truth.
118 witnesses report explosives, NIST says none.
/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk
NIST denies the existence of molten metal, this video completely disproves that:
/watch?v=hb6F_5l_aJQ
NIST admits free fall "gravitational acceleration" they call it. This is a fact. Fire can't do that.
@matPolaschek You deny evidence. that's your problem. If you look at A&E911Truth and see what their members actually endorse, it isn't specifically what Richard Gage is saying. Not only that, but try to find a single paper written by a structural engineer or demolition expert, published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, which argues Gage's position.
There aren't any. If they had a legit argument to make, they can make it in the scientific realm. But they don't.
@matPolaschek So basically, you are relying on a simple argument from authority, assuming that somehow, magically, they have solid evidence, that is scientifically legitimate. but they refuse to use the scientific peer-review process, because they're full of hot air.
There is no real evidence of molten steel. Not one metalurgical test has ever been done, nor is there video evidence of it. You are very gullible.
@matPolaschek Don't forget, neither of the WTC towers fell at freefall acceleration. They fell at about 64% of freefall.
by definition, it rules out CD in their cases, if you insist that freefall is proof of CD (which it isn't, except in Truthers minds)
There is no coherent truther theory, just a bunch of half-baked speculation and misinformation. You appear to believe everything you read, without looking for actual evidence. That makes you a bit of a sucker, frankly.
@Bojoe777NaBl Take a deep breath dude, let's stick to the subject of this video, or as close to it as possible. I am not going to debunk every urban legend that you can throw here.
To start with, there is no direct evidence of any molten steel, but there are some anecdotal reports of molten metal, which some thought might be steel. Was it? Never turned up in the metal recovered as far as we know.
Did you know that there were reports of same at WTC 6 as well? Yup, bet you didn't know that.
Quit acting like BABIES.
Active, unreacted Thermitic material found >Controlled Demolition>INSIDE JOB
You know the science is too powerful to beat; We know it, and YOU know we know!
Just these two facts, out of DOZENS prove it!
Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
251omega 4 months ago
@251omega
Active thrmite huh? Well Mr. Science, maybe you'd like to explain the extremely dubious manner in which
Dr. Steven Jones refused the have his paper peer reviewed? Any moron can write a paper and then not allow academics to review their work. Too bad Steven Jones can't explain where his dust samples were stored from 2001 to 2005. So much for specimen integrity and quality control! And where did the dust samples come from? Rabid 911 twoofers.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 4 months ago
@ctcole77 It's funny that you speak of withholding papers from peer review, yet presumably you find it ok that NIST refuse to release both their collapse model and the countless video and photographic evidence they possess. In my work, if I attempted to present a model which required unphysically tuned parameters I'd be laughed out of the room. If only the rubble had been treated like the crime scene it was; we could dispel all these Truther myths. Shame it got ferried away so quickly.
MrTRICKYmf 4 months ago
@MrTRICKYmf The model was peer-reviewed, just not in public. Nor is a journal's peer-review public - they most often do not reveal the reviewer's identities. That's standard in science.
You're making specious arguments based on strawmen. There is zero evidence that the WTC 7 collapse was a crime scene, so it wasn't treated like one. You're ridiculous - you would handwave all the NYPD, FBI and FDNY efforts as if they didn't exist. Get real
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Ha, you're a joke, WTC7 wasn't a crime scene? Wasn't the whole WTC complex a crime scene, even if it was solely due to terrorists?
Also, I know how scientific peer review works (I work in science), and you're comment might be applicable if this wasn't the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. The whole point of the 911 commission was to investigate and reveal, both to the government and the public, what happened and why. Why should NIST's scientific report be any different?
MrTRICKYmf 3 months ago
@MrTRICKYmf Nope, WTC 7 was not a crime scene. It was destroyed because it was hit by WTC 1 and set on fire. That's not a crime, it's no different from damage and destruction to Verizon, Fiterman Hall CUNY, WTC 4, 5 or 6 - NONE of those buildings were treated as crime scenes either.
You simply don't understand the topic you're addressing - you don't understand the investigations or protocols.
The 9/11 Commission was VERY different from the NIST technical reports. Again you don't understand.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 As with the other thread I'm not bothering to continue arguing with someone who has no concept of evidence and proof.
Of course the whole WTC centre was a crime scene; all the damage, whether direct or indirect was the result of a crime. It's a poor investigator that destroys evidence in the way they did (or an institution with something to hide).
I didn't claim that the commission and the NIST report were the same you idiot. Do you not understand English?
MrTRICKYmf 3 months ago
What the fuck do you want to prove with this? That the WTC7 collapse NOT controlled demolition? Moron!
zenmaster47 5 months ago
LOL If it wasn't for David Chandler, NIST would still be stuck with the first BS Constant Speed measurement of 40% FreeFall from the Preliminary Report! It took 7 years for them to admit free-fall. 40% of FreeFall is a big difference. Epic Fail. NIST are a bunch of paid off liars.
anewascension 5 months ago 2
So this would be the first Progressive Collapse in history? *sniff*
EdwardSkye1 6 months ago
@EdwardSkye1 Hardly. It is well understood, engineers have studied buildings from Ronan Point in the 1960's to the Wedbush bldg in LA in the 1980's.
It's happened many times to different types of buildings. It's an historical fact.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
So you want to calculate total collapse time, by the start of the collapse of the penthouse. But after it falls through the roof, the time of the falling left part of the penthouse can only be roughly estimated.
This doesn't change the fact that the eintire outer wall still falls in 1% range of freefall for 2.5 s.
You could do this the same way for the towers. If you start timing when the first part of the building fell (at plane impact) the collapse time would be 30 (or 60) minutes.
Tsutomu6 6 months ago
@Tsutomu6 Faulty logic:
1) The internal collapse of WTC 7 is evidenced by the fact that the PH could fall into the building (and windows break in a line as this happens)
2) The towers, once they began to collapse (after the bowed columns buckled) fell completely within about 20 seconds, including the core remnants.
You 9/11 deniers don't like truth very much, it seems. maybe you should change your names.
My new video, showing compression and bowing of exterior......
watch?v=0HNMcWk5WpY
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@Tsutomu6 Besides, the building fell like no CD in history - there was first a virtually silent collapse E to W within the core, then about 8 s later the exterior finally buckled.
But NOT A SINGLE EXPLOSION as the building began to fall. Oops! That's not like a CD at all.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your need to believe in the CD of WTC. You would need to think for yourself, instead of just being an obedient lamb, or a parrot faithfully repeating the lines it has learned.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@Tsutomu6 If you get frustrated trying to articulate your positions, just remember that it has to do with the fact that your positions are ridiculous and not based on reality.
Let go of the stupid ideas and your mind will be released of the burden of idiocy that now owns you.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1
I'm not getting frustrated. I don't actually care if you understand what I'm saying. Timing 2 different objects might bring you your "total collapse time", but as I said it's a secant method. Your object is "the building". Thats is just a rough estimation, even if the two points are exact.
And I didn't get "the stupid ideas" on the internet. Mechanics was one of my classes at University. So if you can't show me some knowledge in dynamics, I'm not impressed.
Tsutomu6 6 months ago
@Tsutomu6 What a coincidence, I'm not impressed by you either. I recommend you get lost and bother someone else.
Goodbye.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@Tsutomu6 btw, it was your extremely lame attempt to use technical jargon without showing the relevance to the start of collapse, and your utterly stupid attempt to create a strawman argument with the tower collapses that did the trick for me.
As before, my response is - get lost. Really, sincerely, beat it.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
Another excellent job AE! I am glad to see that as usual the turthers are stuttering and stammering with the typical fail & regurgitation of Gageisms, Griffinisms, & Jonesisms.
grandmastershek 6 months ago
Well i'll be.....think this is the first, not to mention possibly the only video, that in the title says either debunked, or proof of...that actually has proof. Thanks alot, even though I never thought it was a controlled demo, you actually TRY to explain it to the, so called, "Truthers". Sadly even though it makes perfect sense to you and I, and other sane people, I am sure the "truthers" will try to find some way to turn this around to attempt to use it in their favor. One last time...good job
pitt15220 10 months ago 9
@pitt15220 Much appreciated sir.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@pitt15220 No mate Newton's laws of physics and momentum make sense........
and all 3 towers followed path of least resistance.....
ONLy way this can happen is if supporting columns removed.Get used to it
Glenmead 7 months ago
@Glenmead Too bad Newton's Laws only apply as described apply in closed systems. Stop parroting concepts you don' t understand.
grandmastershek 6 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 6 months ago
@ctcole77Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
251omega 4 months ago
@ctcole77 Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
251omega 4 months ago
@251omega You don't understand what 'iron-rich' microspheres are anyway. The small size and combination of elements allows for a lower melting point (a eutectic) than a pure element.
Only conspiracists who are not materials scientists believe in these ridiculous claims. Remember, Jones is neither a chemist nor a materials scientist - he's a physicist specializing in 'cold fusion'. Totally different field of expertise.
You probably don't even understand the problem...
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Lower-maybe. BUT NOT as low as office fires or even jet fueled fires. This is like "LYING WITH STATISTICS" You say something that sounds plausible, and then imply the lie. Even NIST documented that NONE of the steel in all three buildings got any hotter than 250 deg Celsius ! Don't ignore key facts.
Next, to draw attention away from your previous dishonesty, you start shooting pejoratives and put-downs, and then you switch to an attack on Jones! Say HI to Cass Sunstien for me.
251omega 4 months ago
@251omega
"NIST documented that NONE of the steel in all three buildings got any hotter than 250 deg Celsius!"
Nice try gullible liar, now you're LYING WITH STATISTICS.
Please give a reference, report, and page number to support this 911 twoofer LIE.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 4 months ago
@251omega Don't be foolish. In fact you can even burn steel if you get it fine enough. You can combust steel powder with a bunsen burner, you can burn steel wool with a lighter. Look it up using google or youtube if you don't believe me.
Many materials contain Fe, and when they burn, small spheres of iron-rich material can form. All this happens at the temps of ordinary fires. That's a fact that truthers don't want you to know.
And, btw, you're misquoting NIST terribly and dishonestly.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@251omega Let's talk about 'lying' shall we???
First, your claim that eutectics cannot occur at temps as low as office fires is just false. In fact eutectic erosion of steel happens <1000 celsius. It's even in the FEMA report, by materials scientists.
2) You falsely claim that NIST found none of the steel got hotter than 250 celsius. Not true. What they say is all but 3 were 250 celsius or less. That means 3 samples were higher. Learn how to read.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@251omega Plus you're ignoring the scientific fact of viscoplastic buckling. According to empirical tests of steel ''Zeng et al.(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C'
So with the load-path disruption caused by plane damage, critical columns could indeed reach sufficient load to fail under mild heating.
That's why steel has to be sprayed with fire-proofing. Duh.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@251omega And as to Steven Jones' babbling on about nanothermite, he is simply not qualified to make these judgements.
I don't go to my dentist to get my car fixed, for a good reason - people need training in the relevant areas.
Harrit's own slides show that the 'nanothermite' chips actually contain, BY WEIGHT, only:
1) 1.6% Al
2) 2.6% Fe !!!!!!!!
By chemical definition the chips CANNOT BE NANOTHERMITE. Most of the chip is organic binder. (75%)
Don't ignore key facts!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1
That's quite right. Jones has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE in nanothermite or chemistry. And Kevin Ryan, while a chemist, is no where near an expert in nanothermite. Harrit is the only one that is even remotely qualified. It's all about money. Why work for a living when gullible shills like 251omega will throw money at you?
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 4 months ago
@251omega
I'm just searching for the the truth.
Please answer the questions.
911 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB!
ctcole77 4 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 Most of your "gotcha" question assume facts NOT in evidence. The questions with some validity are trivial at best, while the rest are divisive, irrelevant, or just plain STUPID. The science is what you need to understand. Iron-rich Microspheres (documented by TWO government agencies, in addition to Steven Jones) prove the presence of heat, far hotter than any of the office fires or Jet Fuel fires could have achieved. Freefall acceleration - precludes a gravity driven collapse. QED
251omega 4 months ago
Thanks. Though he may no longer be around - but I imagine some other truthers will probably show up.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit I fear you are correct.. :)
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Actually I don't have a channel here, nor am I a disinfo agent; I do, however, have a brother who's been a "truther" for many years and so I am pretty familiar with the arguements. (Perhaps you're confusing me with AlienEntity1; imagine that - a truther drawing false conclusions from inaccurate "facts". Sorry - I couldn't resist!) And one of my first posts here was to encourage others to be nicer to folks such as yourself; I'm sure you mean well - you're just mistaken.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit ..actually you do have a channel here..its the only way to be registered on youtube. and since you dont have any favorites,or seem to have any other reason to be on youtube except to comment against folks seeking truth,knowledge and peace about 9/11-its not unreasonable to think your a disinfo shill-because there are many...and thankyou so much for encouraging peaceful discourse,very benevolent of you-it is you however that are mistaken.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Yes it is unreasonable to call someone a disinfo shill, it is rude, way out of line and incredibly ignorant.
So you are now blocked for being an asshole who cannot present any facts and doesn't even care whether he's right or wrong - you just assume you are - but you're actually wrong.
Bu-bye moron!
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Like most truthers you have no respect for anything - your inflated egos must be protected from reality by living in a reality-distortion bubble, and your entire modus is to lurk around on the internet spreading lies and myths and calling others 'disinfo shills' if they politely (as the professor has been) disagree with your flaky and stupid views.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 With regard to the firefighters: are you familiar with the quotes from chief Nigro or firefighter Hayden? They were very clear (with many others) that WTC7 had a strong possibility of collapsing; is it possible that they understand the effects of fire (as well as the structural damage from the falling debris from the tower) better than lay people who look at a video and say, "That doesn't look right to me"?
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit -it would appear your only reason for having a channel on youtube is to argue against anyone pointing out facts about the preposterous explanations of the whole 911 tragedy.this discredits you as any kind of real person-do they pay you a salary to distribute disinfo,or is it piece work,how does it work?
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Dude go blow it out your ass, ok? You're an idiot. Get lost.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
AlienEntity1 Though you and I are basically in agreement on this, I'm not conviced that Gage and Jones don't actually believe their story - a lot of educated, otherwise intelligent people believe incredulous things.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
i actually completely understand the need and fight of psychological denial-my own father has stated to me-that though the preponderance of evidence leaves alot to be explained,he just cannot accept the thought of this being evidence of corruption at the deepest levels--and cannot sustain a conversation about it non emotionally,so i refrain-its quite distressful for people from the 1950's to fathom- i am a realist.stark and cold and about facts..the official explanations do not add up. period.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 blah blah blah. You not only don't know what you're talking about, you're long-winded about it as well.
Horrible combination.
by the looks of it you wouldn't recognize a fact if it smacked you upside the head. You seem to have fallen for every truther myth out there without batting an eyelash - you are a complete sucker for this stuff. It's actually sad.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 So off you go - go get the perps. Get off your dumb ass and put a criminal case together and take it to court.
Or you could just keep 'asking questions' and making vague accusations on internet sites, which will do sweet F all.
Yup, that's exactly what you're going to do. Sweet F all. All talk no action. 10 years and 9/11 Truth is a giant FAIL full of half-baked ideas believed by a cult of idiots like you.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 -im not a lawyer,and would be glad to sign a petition or whatever a professional organised committee would need ask of an american citizen-unfortunately i feel this crime is way and above even a mafia type of influence-this is the most powerfull evil in the world-taking them to court is going to be a daunting task- & honestly i dont think it will happen-the proving of corruption in our government of this magnitude-would rock the very core of our existance in usa-talk about big deal
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1-best i can do is share insight and discuss facts,open honest discourse with every possible willing and able person that is capable of understanding.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 You're not interested in learning what really happened, since you clearly deny anything that contradicts your fixed beliefs.
Further, you began to accuse me and others of being 'disinfo', and being paid a salary.
ie; you can't handle the truth, and your comments were vague, off-topic (WTC 7) and long-winded.
I'm not worried about your judgments concerning my intelligence; in fact your judgment seems fairly weak-minded itself. I just find you to be a fool, that's all.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 ..well considering you consider me a fool,you sure like engaging me in conversation.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 I just find you annoying and feel like slapping you around verbally a bit - which you deserve, btw.
But that's now over. You're blocked, you're gone, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
No doubt you'll keep accusing unknown people of phantom crimes, it's what you do. But it makes you a fool. Oh well. I don't care, and neither do most people.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 There are a lot of people who still believe this stuff and I think videos like this one are very important. However, with all due respect, I am disappointed that you blocked whisperinwindcried67. Just blocking someone or telling them that their position is stupid (even if it is) is, I think, not helpful. As the saying goes, just because you have silenced a man, it doesn't mean that you have persuaded him. I'd like to ask you to reconsider.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit Really? The guy was calling you and me 'disinfo shills', which is not a relevant argument about anything.
If you wish to engage him here, fine, I'll unblock him, but I'm going to ignore whatever he writes essentially.
If he can't come up with anything but empty ad homs then I'll block him again....
That's the best I can do.. :)
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit OK he's unblocked so if you wish to continue discussion go right ahead.
AE
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Tell you what. Pick your best engineering point regarding WTC 7 and put it forward for discussion.
No off-topic, 'the government is evil, therefore 9/11 was an inside job' quasi-religious piffle. Just a testable concept.
Got one for discussion? Bring it on or go away.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 ..no way you disintegrate hundreds of steel inner support columns,making a building simply collapse as though it were made of balsa wood,instantaneously-all at once-right to the ground,perfectly symmetrical,free-fell into its own footprint-by some debris falling on this building,and it having a few small fires--even if this building(wtc7) were struck by a missle,or plane or king kong..and it were engulfed in a horrendous inferno--the core,inner steel skeleton would still stand.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 There's no way that can happen, you're right. But that's not what the competent and thorough engineering analysis (backed up by extensive FEM using standard engineering software) is claiming at all.
So yes, your idiotic strawman is incorrect. anything else you want to get wrong? LOL
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Alright whisper, you've been unblocked, as per the request from professorprestodigit.
Stay on topic and don't you even think about accusing him or me of being paid shills or whatever other dumb and false accusation you come up with. My patience with this kind of crap is getting very thin.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 this comment is a typical cop-out from a weak and silly movement which is based not on hard science but on speculation, innuendo and adherence to mythology.
If there were some real evidence, 9/11 Truth has had 10 freaking years to gather it and present it in a professional way. Unfortunately they haven't done that.
Not one peer-reviewed engineering paper has been published by a truther in 10 years. That's totally pathetic.
If you want to hitch your wagon to this ur a fool
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
though there are a multitude of websites devoted to showing varying insights into this tragedy--check out "911-coincidences"-i like this series of( i think 14 )or so vids-very thought provoking
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 No steel left? Are you kidding me - have you seen pictures of the debrie pile? Also, even in CD it's gravity that causes most of the damage - the explosions just weaken key areas to permit it to fall. And do you have any idea how much energy is released when a 47 (let alone 110!) story building collapses? No one says the steel had to melt - it expanded and weakened until it couldn't suport the massive weight above.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit ..steel was melted,lots of pics,molten pool at base of towers that burned for weeks,no core left??..look at the design of this building--steel and concrete everywhere-it was built to withstand-a tremendous amount of casualty and malforce...the bulk of jet fuel was exploded on impact..you are free to remain in denial-there is no way 3 buildings all come down exactly alike leaving none of their core steel/concrete skeletons,and free-fall-that is fuckin impossible.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 The Madrid Windsor tower had portions which collapsed due to fire - the floors supported by steel colums. Pls. go to 911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower for more info. Here's a quote from the article: "Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed."
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Some steel structures DO collapse from fire. The design and structure of the WTC buildings were very different from those commonly compared to them in Truther videos. In some of those the portions similar to WTC7 DID, in fact, collapse. Question: do you believe that the firefighters and fire chiefs of FDNY who predicted the collapse of WTC7 were in on the plot? (I'm serious: please answer.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit-.i do not know that there was a "prediction" about the entire collapse of building 7 from any firefighter-do i think fire fighters were in on some plot-no. as a matter of fact they are the ones who reported explosions-however all depts. have chain of command like military and during times of total chaos and stress dont question too much,but rather involve themselves in saving lives,and doing the best they can do at their job!..others may have been "advised" -natl. security
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 ..some steel structures do collapse from fire?? completely to the ground in seconds?? which ones would those be?? examples??
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit ..here ya go case you got confused-..some steel structures do collapse from fire?? completely to the ground in seconds?? which ones would those be?? examples??
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 I think you're confusing the development of conditions to collapse with the speed of collapse itself. By nature, collapses are all quick - just seconds in fact.
It's the nature of failures and collapses that they are rapid.
Example Sight and Sound Theater in PA, 1997. Main steel building completely collapsed due to fire. In spite of firefighting efforts and a nominal 2hr fire-rating. Among contributing factors - some SFRM was damaged during renovation, exposing steel.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Kader Toy factory in Thailand, 1993. One of the contributing factors was 'the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames.'
Loss of life was over 180 people.
Any loss of SFRM due to debris impacts or plane impacts affects the 2hr nominal fire-rating of steel structure. It is assumed that fires will be fought, but no steel building is designed to withstand fire indefinitely. That's just not feasible
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 My dad used to say that there are three kinds of ignorance in the world. The first is what you don't know, but you know that you don't know it. (I know that I don't know how to speak Chinese.) The second is what you don't know, but you don't know that you don't know it. (My dog doesn't know that he doesn't know how to speak Chinese.) But the third kind of ignorance - and the most dangerous - is what you know ... but just ain't so. (Steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit ..i dare you to show us one other example that was in anyway similar to these three buildings falling in seconds into dust any other time in history.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
I agree that Bush et al did not want a thorough investigation of 911, but I think that's because they would have been revealed to have really f..ked up - not because it was a conspiracy. I don't see Truthers as " bad people" but I do think they practice "bad science" and believe a lot of "facts" which just ain't so. Please google "Good Science and 911 Demolition" for a very good, very respectful, article by Mike King on the subject. (He also has a link to a follow up one from 2010 re. WTC7.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit What do you think of people like Richard Gage, Neils Harrit and Steven Jones?
They aren't simply dupes, r they?
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Gage leaves me extremely unimpressed. His cardboard box "experiment" is .. well, "incredibly stupid" would be overly polite. I don't know much about Neils Harrit but as for Jones, as far as I know he has never published anything in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal regarding his 911 "evidence". Why not? There are any number of non-critical thinkers out there who have advanced degrees - just look at all of the climate-change deniers. What do you think?
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit Personally I think these men have crossed the line into fraud and con artistry. It's not just simple incredulity anymore with them - they actively promote this crap and make money from it now.
Gage is apparently drawing an $80K salary from AE911Truth!!
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Also, although it may have looked exactly like a controlled demotition, it sounded NOTHING like one. Explosives used in CD's are loud as f..k! (Though I suppose some super secret silent ones may have been used. Or maybe specially CIA - trained hamsters with miniature blow torches. And why? To destroy evidence - whenever I want to destoy paper or electronic files I always demolish my house. Doesn't everyone?)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit -there are plenty of accredited scholars and field specialists,thousands of them that are calling for a new investigation..nanothermite was found. many people profited big time,far too many strange coincidences-nothing is beyond the scope of power/money.you were there to hear these buildings fall??..because those that were mostly said they heard explosions.who said anything about destroying files..hmm.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 I don't believe that nanothermite was found; the "peer reviewed journal" that published that was a pay-to-publish one - why haven't any legit ones? And the seismographic evidence isn't there to support CD of WTC7, nor are explosions heard on audio recordings. Yes, people DID hear loud sounds after the planes hit - but that's not unusual under the circumstances. "Truthers" say destoying evidence was reason for WTC7, not me. And finally, the govt. can't hide a bj let alone..
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit well i agree it seems strange that the govt. would spend hundreds of thousands,perhaps millions investigating a fat girls bj-but spent iless then 6 figures to investigate 9/11!-the evidence that suggests things are not what they seem is freakin overwhelming-believe what you will-im absolutely convinced this was a well thought out,very well done crime,with a plethora of pluses for the criminals-why cast people seeking truth as bad people?that makes no sense.time WILL tell.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 If that were true... in fact there were several investigations, including the FEMA and NIST investigations, additional to the 9/11 commission report.
The NIST investigation alone cost almost $20 million.
I don't have a figure for the FEMA one.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 .. believe your way wrong on that figure for nist..but ill check up on it--regardless the investigation on clintons presidential priveledges was far more comprehensive then was done on the 9/11 attacks
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 That's a very bold claim, yet when you look closely (which you haven't) you see that it quickly evaporates into a standard argument from authority.
Take a look at the actual number of structural engineers in AE911Truth's list, and see what they actually say. It's not what Richard Gage would like to you think.
Ask yourself why not a single one of those people has bothered to publish, in an engineering journal, an explanation as to why fire couldn't have done it!! Why not?
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 - i believe their are reports out there-many people are abit skitterish about this,its only possibly the biggest scandel ever..these people are killers,takes strength in numbers to showcase the truth.ask why the vp of usa took control of norad for the only time in history and relinquished it directly after,ask why no released pictures of plane coming in to hit pentagon,what about the black boxes from the plane-have we heard the transcripts? steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 My dad used to say that there are three kinds of ignorance in the world. The first is what you don't know, but you know that you don't know it. (I know that I don't know how to speak Chinese.) The second is what you don't know, but you don't know that you don't know it. (My dog doesn't know that he doesn't know how to speak Chinese.) But the third kind of ignorance - and the most dangerous - is what you know ... but just ain't so. (Steel skyscrapers do not fall from fire)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 ..what about silversteins mega billion dollar payout,?what about the evidence of insider trading on the computer hard drives? what about operation northwoods and the need for a new pearl harbor to initiate the patriot act?-which overrides,null and voiding our countries basic core operating principles of the constitution-giving carte blanche power to our government over all its populace..what about the gold being stored under the buildings-recovered??..so many what abouts..?!?
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 Silverstein"s payout didn't even cover his losses: he LOST money on the event, When you want to destroy evidence on a computer, do YOU demolish your house? Op. NW was soundly rejected; nuts in the govt. isn't news. Many govts. used 911 to institute repressive laws: doesn't mean they orchestrated it. The civil rts. movement benefitted from the Ala. church bombing - do you think their leaders were behind it? Did all the gold vanish and its owners just let it slide? Really?
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit ..prove to us he lost money-he purchased the buildings for millions,had a multi-million dollar asbestos clean-up project pending-demolishing the house ive heard that before,reading from a script again?-yes maybe if you really need the information deemed totaly unretrievable and it saved you much more then the house was worth to you-many govts orchestrated repressive laws-EXACTLY-but ours found a way to supersede its nations ultimate creed-its very foundational core of law.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 .and yes coincidently enough all the evidence against enron and others involved in insider trading,and bunch of other possibly very damning evidence was unfortunately lost in this tragedy..this could have costs some companies multi-millions..a veritable list of pluses --and an excuse to go to war-woohoo--whats it gonna cost--3,000-10,000 lives?-big deal,drop in the bucket.!.DO IT..were over populated anyway...this could be the start of our final control of the oil..muuhaaahaa!.
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
if you think modern buildings made of steel and concrete will ever just dissolve,instantaneously into finite particles,leaving no skeleton and completely collapsing in seconds..is a perfectly logical event,requiring no investigation and easily explained..then you obviously aware of new physics that the rest of the world is not-its impossible without a whole lot of engineering to make happen-fact is it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.your selling bridges here-nobodies buying!!
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 The reason it looks "exactly like a controlled demolition" is because the primary destructive force is exactly the same: something called "gravity". CD relies on demolitions to remove the support, here the support was removed by a) the collapsing tower and b) over 7 hrs. of unfought fires. As for "no investigation", are all of the people at NIST a) morons or b) accomplices to mass murder? Or could CD experts and struct. engineers understand this better than you or I?
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
So that's it Then!
Absolutely NO form of Controlled/planed Demolition (conventional OR Unconventional)
Paper & Petrol fires brought Down all of the steal structures in the WTC complex?
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
xlla 10 months ago
@xlla First sentence is correct. SEcond sentence is puzzlingly incorrect. Office fires are not made of paper, whatever gave you that idea? In actual fact, normal office fires reach temps of 1100 Celsius, which is more than hot enough to weaken structural steel.
And it's spelled 'steel', not 'steal', btw. That was your second error.
It sounds like you just don't know what you're talking about, frankly. Not promising.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity1 HEY-NOW!! I wasn't trying to be a DICK!!! I KNOW office Fires are NOT entirely made of paper, I was trying to GENERALIZE(simplify) the the sentence. AND-YES!!, My (Dyslexic)grammar is absolutely horrible! You have fully exposed my handicap to the world, congratulations. Have you ever given a thorough OBSERVATION to the Aerial photographs of the WTC complex (aftermath,the Day After). All of this destruction is the result of office fires??? I'm Definitely not a Architect ,.. Are you?
xlla 10 months ago
@xlla It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're talking about, haven't taken the time to learn from competent engineering reports etc.
What matters is that properly trained, qualified people have spent years investigating and publishing reports, which can be read by other knowledgeable people, like engineering PhD's, fire safety experts and so on.
Those are the people who have credibility. Go argue with them.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@xlla Your argument from personal incredulity is totally insufficient to convince anybody but another pretty ignorant person.
If that's where you want to live, be my guest. Years ago, many people with appropriate training and resources looked carefully at the collapses and published reports.
Truthers? Not a single report in a peer-reviewed engineering journal has been published by a truther to argue the truther side. Not one. That is incredibly lame.
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@AlienEntity Thanks for the video but I do wish you'd refrain from name-calling in your rebuttals to the various Truthers. Mostly they're sincere; I think you need to be more patient and sometimes explain things more clearly. Basically, the point is that fire, (working with gravity) had ALREADY removed most of the support when the external VISIBLE collapse begins. That's when the "straw breaks the camel's back", resulting in virtual freefall for a couple of seconds. Explosives not required.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit - virual freefall-thats complete bs...even if the fire was a massive all encompassing inferno--the steel would not melt,there would be a skeleton! tons of concretewas blown into dust from the very start of the collapse-meaning no way enough force to exihibit what was captured on video-THATS what they didnt count on..:) all the video evidence!-try as they did to confiscate it all-it got on the internet...done deal,curious how now they want to establish a kill switch,huh.?
whisperinwindcried67 10 months ago
@whisperinwindcried67 What "kill switch" do you mean. There are plenty of awful things our govt has done, but I just find it very hard to believe that all of the civil and struct. engineers, who have looked at this with much more understanding than either of us have are morons (or accomplices to mass murder.) Also, are you serious about them not counting on video evidence? People were often filming the wtc's priof to 911, let alone after being hit by planes!
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
all i know is we have had our spiritual connection with nature educated out of us by this system that drives this negative machine its a virus the ancients knew it.it was materialism,vanity.no longer do we take for the need we take for the greed.the oceans are raped and mismanaged for proffit.forests are cut down animals are displaced,this system is devouring itself and is now putting proffit before people.the planet is on the way to becoming a corporation.scary thought.hay u 2 stop fussin.lovex
2housetoa 11 months ago
Are there any other ENGINEERS reading this blog? I have 'bent over backwards' to be polite while attempting to explain why freefall is significant. I know they teach about "CONSERVATION of MOMENTUM" in High School physics classes, but the response to my efforts is always the same: reject evidence, ignore facts, shun logic, avoid the key points, make nasty, hate-filled, personal attacks.
Please Review my POSTS.
Did I MISS something or am I being conned with carefully constructed STUPIDITY?
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega ps, NIST explains the freefall (which didn't happen in either of the towers, interestingly enough, yet truthers claim this also proves explosive CD! :D)
'In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration,[B] as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.'
NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse and p 602
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
The Key evidence is the measured fall rate of the roof line. Chandler measured and NIST conceded that there was a period of 2.3 seconds, during which the roof line fell at a rate indistinguishable from FREEFALL. All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION, so there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures, allowing FREEFALL.
Nothing here explains the 2.3 seconds of 'FREEFALL', CONFIRMED by NIST.
DIS-INFORMATION or Honest Oversight?
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega The mistake you're making (as all truthers do consistently) is to ASSUME that there had to be explosives to remove the structure.
NIST does explain the mechanism, in great detail, and also by using FEM LS-DYNA engineering models.
The problem is truthers can't or won't understand the explanation. Maybe it's too complicated for some people - they prefer to shout 'burn the witch' (reference to the age-old witch hunts of yore, when ignorance and superstition ruled)
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 You are the one doing the assuming! Re-read my post.
I said : "All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION, so there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures..."
I said nothing about "EXPLOSIVES". However, something, other than Gravity, WAS involved.
How do YOU explain the 2.3 seconds of 'FREEFALL', CONFIRMED by NIST?
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega The assumption, to spell it out, involves your unsupported claim that 'another source of energy' ...'simultaneously remove all supporting structures.'
Could there be any more assumptions in that statement? I don't think so. ;)
Your claim is nothing but a strawman argument based on wild speculation, not engineering.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Again: FREEFALL, by definition, means: "All of the potential energy was converted to MOTION".
The building dropped 8 stories while in freefall for 2.3 seconds. So, 8 stories of supporting structure had to be completely removed, first. Because, If there had been ANY resistance from that structure, it could NOT achieve FREEfall.
THEREFORE, "there HAD to be ANOTHER source of energy to simultaneously remove ALL supporting structures..." No SPECULATION just Engineering PHYSICS.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega Wow, you've managed to focus on one aspect of the complex event and completely, and I mean completely, ignore the rest of it.
Uhm,, the collapse started internally roughly 8 seconds BEFORE the curtain wall on the N face began to descend.
Gee, what do you think happened to all the internal structure during the 8 seconds while it fell? Hmm, maybe we should refer to a professional FEM analysis of the event to see what it was....
no, let's just pretend it doesn't exist. LOL
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega
Stage 1 of the curtain wall collapse: slower than freefall
Stage 2 approx freefall
Stage 3 slower than freefall
So, the stage while the columns were buckling was slower than freefall, just as professional engineers expected and demonstrated.
What about this do you not understand? Apparently a hell of a lot!
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1
Unsupported claim?
He gave you 2 facts.
1. The definition of freefall.
2. The 2.3 seconds of freefall confirmed by the NIST.
Then he proceeded to state the obvious, that the building couldn't drop 8 stories while in freefall if there was no other source of energy simultaneously removing all supporting structures.
Not wild speculation, just a simple application of logic.
The statement is fully supported and you have yet to address it.
WhereTheyAre 11 months ago
@WhereTheyAre The part of his claim which is unsupported is when he makes the strawman argument, as you repeat (its a truther axiom by now) that some 'other source of energy simultaneously removed all support structures'.
That is a nonsense argument made by people who haven't studied the FEM analysis and don't understand the structure. Structural engineers, ie those who are qualified, and who have studied it have explained thoroughly that which you refuse to understand.
Your loss.Strawman fail
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@WhereTheyAre Now, as yet another anonymous and ignorant person, you're welcome to deny the truth about structural failure modes. That doesn't make you correct, it just makes you irrelevant and wrong, really.
However, the fact is that the structure was failing for many seconds before the curtain wall (exterior columns) of the North face buckled. So there was no 'simultaneous' removal of 'all supporting structures'.
This claim is an argument from ignorance.
Have I answered the question?
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega Yes, something other than gravity was involved: fire
Guess what Sherlock? We have 100% proof there were large fires. We have 100% proof that fires cause thermal expansion in steel.
Evidence for alleged explosives? Zero or near zero. Not much difference, really. No evidence of another mechanism. You don't have it, neither does anybody else.
But carry on with your allegations and mindless physics-mangling.... it's what truthers do.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So fire can cause the simultaneous and complete removal of 8 floors of steel supporting structure?
Remember, the roof-line made an instant transition from still to freefall. If the supporting structures had NOT been removed AT ONCE, the roof line could not have fallen uniformly, remaining LEVEL for at least 8 floors of collapse.
How did random fires, without the help of GRAVITY, remove ANY steel, let alone ALL the steel, in 8 floors of structure?
YOUR statements are UNSUPPORTED.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega You're piling on strawman after strawman, no wonder you're getting things wrong.
To start with, the roofliine did not move uniformly. The Eastern 3rd sagged before the corners did, and even then you can only see the North face, not the other parts of the building on the videos.
So you dont know what was going on elsewhere. You just don't.
Second, it did not transition 'instantly' to freefall. That is false. The first part of the fall was about 1.25s at slower than freefall.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega Continued...so if you were to get a few facts straight it would help you sort thru the myths and get to the truth.
But I know you won't bother doing that.
Your next question 'how did random fires (without the help of gravity?????) remove any steel, let alone 'all' the steel.
There are so many errors in this question, it shows where you're at. Gravity helped, so let's clarify that. The idea that it didn't is idiotic. Next, fires didn't remove 'all' the steel, and not al atonce either
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 GOTCHA! You have repeatedly betrayed your ignorance or your agenda. You seem desperate to downplay or obfuscate the significance of FREEFALL!
"Gravity helped, so let's clarify that." <<<NO, BY DEFINITION: In Freefall, ALL of the falling section's Gravitational POTENTIAL Energy is converted to motion and therefore, NONE of the Gravitational POTENTIAL Energy is available for other purposes(like crushing or removing supporting steel structures). EVEN NIST AGREES!
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega Oh, put a sock in it. You are confused about the reference to gravity and gravitational potential energy.
Gravity is a force, it exists regardless what object is in question. Of course GPE is variable, but you're entirely ignoring the fact (yes, it is a fact) that the internal structure of the building was already collapsing PRIOR to the curtain wall.
Thus, you have both a removal of structure and an implosion mechanism. Y don't u just read the damn NIST report? It's all there.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega NIST doesn't agree with your bizarre ignorance of the collapse mechanism. No sir.
They specifically modeled the collapse, using standard engineering principles. They explained how they think the internal collapse influenced the failure of the curtain wall.
'Chapter 12, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 p.602
'In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity.*This stage
corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns'
That's what you are avoiding.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
As the int. cols failed, the ext cols on the W face buckled in at the
lwr flrs as a rlt of floor pull-in forces due to the dwnwrd mvmnt of the bldng
core. The floor conn to the cols had not failed in this region .., and the
intact floors were able to pull the ext col inward.
• Ext col buckling began at Col 14, .. The ext col.. were the 1st to
buckle bc addinl load was dist to them...
• The S and west ext cols buckled first, followed by the n and e face
cols.
• All exterior columns buckled..
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega In terms of failure modes, 'instantaneous' is different from 'less than instantaneous'.
You may not care about such things, but they matter in terms of failure and engineering. So as long as you really don't care, you will just remain wrong, your opinions will remain irrelevant to those who understand these things.
That's where you are in life right now I guess. I can't really help you much, as I suspect you will ignore anything which contradicts your beliefs. Even if it's true...
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega Actually the data points show faster accel than freefall as well. Can that be true?
How accurate are the measurements and what is the margin of error in them? Do you know? Chandler doesn't - he provides no such error bands.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Chandler DID point that out and explained it, too. He pointed out that the DATA POINTS were made from the video, so they would be subject to variations of +/- 1 pixel. Estimating the location of the same part of the video is another source of variation. Also the timing is approximated by the frame rate of the video. Chandler made several extra calculations involving the upper and lower margins of error, confirming and justifying the "indistinguishable from freefall" statement.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega You truthers seem to have forgotten (down the memory hole where it can't hurt you, huh?) that neither of the towers collapsed at freefall acceleration.
So all your physics baffelgab is not a proof of any kind, esp. of explosive controlled demolition. I wonder why not a a single truther has bothered to measure REAL controlled demols to see if they produce freefall... (the answer is that they don't really do that - only in the truther fairytale)
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@251omega The answer to the 'does CD produce freefall?' question is, NO, not necessarily. Freefall itself is not a proof of anything.
That's why the engineering community is largely ignoring the noise from truthers - it's nonsense, basically. You apparently have been fooled by the nonsense. It's not too late to think clearly and use your intelligence. Don't waste it on these idiotic fairy tales of CD.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Does CD produce freefall? not necessarily, but it can. OK so far...
Freefall itself is not a proof of anything. Wrong. Freefall is PROOF that all supporting structures have been COMPLETELY REMOVED by forces OTHER than gravity.
Explosives do a great job of explaining what could do that. Not FIRE! Fires could only have weaken the steel, it would still require gravity to remove the steel.
FREEFALL occurs when ALL of the gravitational potential energy is converted to motion.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega Nonsensical argument: Gravity produces freefall, period. It is not a separate force, it is THE force which causes that to happen. Doesn't matter what causes the failure of structure - it can be an earthquake, a fire, explosives, overloading, a plane collision etc....
Freefall is not a scientific proof of explosive demolition, much as you'd like it to be. It never has been, and it never will be. But I don't expect that to stop you from believing such silliness.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Freefall is PROOF that all supporting structures have been COMPLETELY REMOVED by forces OTHER than gravity. Even if the NIST story, that FIRES caused the steel to loose strength,was true, What REMOVED the steel. No energy from GRAVITY was available, or we would not measure FREEFALL acceleration.
Remember NIST's statement: "For freefall to occur, all of the supporting structure must be removed."
FIRES can't do it.
Gravity DIDN'T do it (By def. of FREEFALL).
CD explains it well.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega repeating the same wrong ideas does not help you.
Freefall is entirely a product of gravity. Without it you wouldn't have any downward acceleration - you keep saying that energy from gravity wasn't available, which is obvious nonsense, yet you don't seem to realize this.
Naturally the internal collapse is what removed (via gravity) the structure, allowing other parts of it to fall briefly at freefall.
that's it. Go talk to an engineer if you want to quibble. I'm bored.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1
I am an engineer.
If you review all my posts, you will see that I have been trying to explain the involved principles to you!
This is only High School level Physics! It's not that tough!
You have demonstrated, for someone arguing about physical principles, an extraordinary lack of knowledge, or a more sinister, hidden agenda.
I think you know the physics well enough to misdirect attention away from inconvenient facts. Your efforts will only be temporary as more folks wake up.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega Dear Lord... when you make nonsense arguments such as 'fires can't do it', you are not thinking like an engineer, certainly not one who understands structural engineering with regard to building collapse.
If you were correct (and you aren't) you could simply make your case to a major engineering journal and publish your genius findings, changing the entire world in a flash. You can't do that, so it's a moot point to discuss.
You have no real argument aside from strawmen. Just stop.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 You never make any effort to support your statements. Are we to accept what you say, just because you say it? You always reject anything I say, without any proof or evidence to justify your opinion. Sorry to inform you, but emotional tantrums and name-calling do not count as supporting evidence. Do you think you can reject evidence, ignore facts, shun logic, avoid the key points, make personal attacks and then be accepted as an authority on 9/11 physics?
You are a FRAUD!
251omega 11 months ago
251omega No, it is you who needs to wake up and start understanding that this isn't some simplistic 'A=B' concept, but involves complex mechanics of a progressive collapse and weakened structure.
Without addressing those points, your arguments are extremely shallow and frankly silly. For example, the FEM LS-DYNA analysis of NIST used standard, accepted engineering to demonstrate exactly how such a collapse could occur.
Nobody has refuted this in a peer-reviewed engineering journal.......
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 PURE BS. We can see right through you!
You are NOT baffling anyone, with your BS. A man without honor is betrayed by his own words and deeds.
Sadly, you exposed yourself as a dis-info sell-out.
251omega 11 months ago
@251omega Oh frig off you putz. Your arguments are based on a complete ignorance of the fire science and structural engineering analysis.
Fine, be an obnoxious, ignorant twit if you want to. I really don't care. But you're wrong about CD, and you can accuse me of disnfo all you like, it won't change the facts.
The saddest truthers are the intelligent ones who turn their brains off as soon as they contemplate 'conspiracies'. You should know better, but you choose not to. Your loss, not mine.
AlienEntity1 11 months ago
@AlienEntity1 The 911 "truth" movement is just a new religion.
2011BearBait 6 months ago
@2011BearBait How fitting that it is headed by David Ray Griffin, a Theologian. The man who brought both Niels Harrit and Steven Jones into the fold...
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Steven Jones is a physicist, and he's on the side of 9/11 Truth, so he must know what he's talking about and is the only physicist in the world not to have been paid off by the governm-oh wait, he's a cold fusion physicist. Not the same area at all. And he worked for Brigham Young University which is owned by the Church of Latter Day Saints, and his only previous widely-known paper was about 'proving' Jesus existed due to some circles in Asian artwork.
Oh, and he's a proven liar.
LoafOfPint 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 "you keep saying that energy from gravity wasn't available"
No, I keep saying that we KNOW that ALL of the GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY (potential energy) is COMPLETELY changed to MOTION (Kinetic Energy), so there was NO gravitational energy left to remove any of the supporting steel. That is why an EXTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE is required to completely remove any supporting structures. The onset of collapse was abrupt and symmetrical, So ALL support MUST have been removed simultaneously.
251omega 11 months ago
I find it amusing on how you comment back to me a whole bunch of times but to the other fairly more reputable comments below you have nothing to say - like I said I have no bias and no agenda I see things for how they are and shit just doesn't add up yet you take all of that as just.. coincidence or uncontrollable collateral and you have the gumption to call me a whining child without giving any reference to the quotes about wtc6.. man you need serious help
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl You're rude, ignorant and basically a waste of time. Anything else you want to know?
You are basically a whiner who doesn't know what you're talking about, and yes, you should man-up when you're corrected. Like a grown man, not a girl.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
Fact: Richard Gage is an abomination to his "profession". His card board box "experiment" is a travesty. And you idiot Twoofers worship him like God. HI-Larious!
kangtimelord 1 year ago
have fun refuting the comment below me asshat
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl Grow up, and grow a pair. You act like a whining child.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 and you act like a prestigious know it all self assuring projective assclown
don't even expect me to give you the time of day
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl You asked for evidence of molten metal in WTC 6, I gave it to you. You repeated a number of other allegations, some of which are known to be false.
And you're blaming ME for my behavior? Look in the mirror. You're the one making the false claims dude.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
Are you serious? You provide no evidence. You are not smarter than 1400+ Architects and Engineers. You provide no scientific evidence at all and think you can disprove the research of all the professionals at AE911Truth.
118 witnesses report explosives, NIST says none.
/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk
NIST denies the existence of molten metal, this video completely disproves that:
/watch?v=hb6F_5l_aJQ
NIST admits free fall "gravitational acceleration" they call it. This is a fact. Fire can't do that.
matPolaschek 1 year ago 2
@matPolaschek You deny evidence. that's your problem. If you look at A&E911Truth and see what their members actually endorse, it isn't specifically what Richard Gage is saying. Not only that, but try to find a single paper written by a structural engineer or demolition expert, published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, which argues Gage's position.
There aren't any. If they had a legit argument to make, they can make it in the scientific realm. But they don't.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@matPolaschek So basically, you are relying on a simple argument from authority, assuming that somehow, magically, they have solid evidence, that is scientifically legitimate. but they refuse to use the scientific peer-review process, because they're full of hot air.
There is no real evidence of molten steel. Not one metalurgical test has ever been done, nor is there video evidence of it. You are very gullible.
Freefall? Who says fire can't do it? You? LOL
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@matPolaschek Don't forget, neither of the WTC towers fell at freefall acceleration. They fell at about 64% of freefall.
by definition, it rules out CD in their cases, if you insist that freefall is proof of CD (which it isn't, except in Truthers minds)
There is no coherent truther theory, just a bunch of half-baked speculation and misinformation. You appear to believe everything you read, without looking for actual evidence. That makes you a bit of a sucker, frankly.
I'm a skeptic.:)
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
how can you explain the molten steel and thermal signatures found at the bottom of the trade centers even days after 9/11
how can you explain 4 scrub pilots finding their way to their targets?
how can you explain our air defense changed so only Cheney could give orders to shoot down those planes
how can you explain all of the witnesses being denied to share their testimony
how can you explain silverstein getting terrorist insurance 6 weeks prior to 9/11
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl Take a deep breath dude, let's stick to the subject of this video, or as close to it as possible. I am not going to debunk every urban legend that you can throw here.
To start with, there is no direct evidence of any molten steel, but there are some anecdotal reports of molten metal, which some thought might be steel. Was it? Never turned up in the metal recovered as far as we know.
Did you know that there were reports of same at WTC 6 as well? Yup, bet you didn't know that.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago