Is the free fall speed argument is moot? Even if support columns were weakened by fire toward the base of building seven, does or doesn't tens of stories of resistance slow down the rate of fall compared to a free falling brick? And wouldn't the building tip a little instead of fall vertically since the debris destroyed only one side of the base of the building?
..so obvious! The NYFD down in the basement were reporting several more explosions as it was happening and even the press was reporting pools of molten metal at the site as told them by the NYFD. he federal gov't has been blowing smoke up the asses of the American people. Their own 'conspiracy theory' is the one that is the most unlikely of all that I've heard from anyone. They've lied about everything from 9-11 onwards. Something is very wrong here.
I watched the 9-11 mass murders happen from when it first popped up on TV. I recalled an interview I saw with the buildings architect before the WTC opened and he claimed they could withstand impacts from SEVERAL planes, not just one, because of the design. Fast forward to 9/11 and they both go down from a single impact (supposedly), and on top of that they collapse straight down. As I watched those buildings go down I said it was a demolition and not a collapse. It was so obvious! cont'd
@TedBronson1918 First off, the impacts didn't bring the towers down, the fires started by fully fueled planes did. Second, the buildings fell straight down because that's the direction that things go when they FALL. (I'm not sure why I'm bothering. The people I've spoken with personally who believe as you do have all been nut cases.)
@youdoitillwatch When someone talks about planes impactin a building common sense tells one that the impact event INCLUDES the fires that may result. Pretending they're 2 different and separate events is dishonest and misleading. I'm not going to rehash free fall speed vs slowed speed arguments or the evidence of demolition vs collapse. I'll take the word of the NYFD personnel who were there and on video speaking to news crews. Believing them and my own eyes and ears is nuts?
I'll end just saying it wasn't just 1 or 2 odd things happening that day- it was one thing after another and then some talking head would get on the news a month later and try to tell me that what I saw and heard didn't happen. They've been at it since. Lets hear Bush/Cheney testify UNDER OATH about that day. "Question Authority" applies here more than ever.
I'm a big believer in the laws of physics....... A pretty basic understanding of those laws tells you that things happened that day that are impossible without assistance. Unless you have figured out a way to boil water on your stove at 75 degreesF, any idea that those buildings were brought down by a fire is a joke.
Well you see, Richard, the problem with your evidence is I'm an American, and Americans don't do science, therefore we should stick to the religious belief structure that proves my brother fighting in Iraq isn't a dupe and a pawn of the elite.
@cryosun Everyone in the video is American, you are an American, and your brother is fighting for America voluntarily. Its called skepticism, and without it we'd ALL believe in stupid conspiracies.
I was in WTC1 for a job interview 2 weeks before 9-11. Fl 75 and 75 were virtually deserted, very dark & creepy & many of the walls were exposed. When I got to 77 to my interview I was told they were doing some kind of maintenance in the walls, fireproofing or such. I asked where all the tenants went. They said many suddenly pulled out about 2 months before. I also got a very dark feeling before even walking into the building and wanted to turn around and walk away. 2 weeks late I found out why.
What a knucklehead the kid is. Architects have to be even MORE precise in their knowledge and calculations than a physicist does because countless lives are depending on them not fucking up their measurements. A&E911Truth has over 1500 members now all staking their reputations, careers and livelihood on their statements that the buildings could NOT have fallen as described. If they're wrong even ONCE, their career as an architect is over. Kid has no clue what he's talking about at all.
@RayAir1@RayAir1 No ass clown has nothing to do with the amount of money I SAID WORK SOMETHING NEITHER YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT KNOW HOW TO DO!! Now get back to your cartoons son
To demo the WTC would have take months of prep work. People who were in the towers and are alive today say they never saw anything to make them think it wasn't the planes. When were the explosives planted? after the planes hit? People were working in that building, you think if a lot of strangers (planting explosives)show up at your office you would notice. I notice when we have a copier tech show up.
@goldenknight777 i will say 2 that i know of,, 1 the tower inferno was based on a true story, it burned for days before they got control of it,, 2 the empire state building was hit by a flying fortress b17 bomber in the 40s. it was on fire for days, the plane that i mentioned is nearly twice the size of a 755 jet. and yet both buildings i mentioned still stand today,, kind makes a guy wonder. either crappy workmen ship on the towers or?
@FGTony ROTFLMAO, Yea, you tell him. Why he is so dumb he doesn't even know the meaning of FYSICS. It is obviously the study of soda pop and how much FYSICS there is in the soda. And to think, you called him a retard. Here is one i'll bet you wish you could get back. BAA HA HA HA HA HA. Too funny!
It goes against everything in my soul to keep from banging my head on the curb.The single most consistent thing about people will always be this one thing. People cannot keep their mouth shut regardless of what the situation may be. If there had been anything premeditated about 9-11 someone would have yapped their asses off and had photos with names of all involved. In order to pull something like that off it would have involved thousands and there is no way they would all stay quiet. Get a grip
@badmoonryzn The myth is that 19 people with box cutters, cell phones, and a lap top from a cave controlled by an X CIA insider undermined the worlds most protected air space, with so called pilots trained in a Cessna! THAT'S WHAT IS UNBELIEVABLE!
@Vegasgodless The fact you don't think a few people who trained for the task wouldn't be able to pull it off. Maybe you are so inept in that area you may not be able to do it, but I know plenty of people who could talk over an airplane without any weapons. Do not judge others on your inabilities.
@Vegasgodless You judge others on your inabilities to do things. I know plenty of people who could have taken over the airplanes with out any weapons. And flying an airplane in to a building is so easy most anyone with a couple of active brain cells could manage. This of course leaves you out. You continue to judge other people on your inept abilities to perform simple tasks and you will always wonder and challenge reality.
What the ----! That guy kevin is a teacher? Please never be my kids teacher! Rich gates is not someone you have the intellect to match. Leave your deep thought to the 2nd graders. Would love to see what he knows or teaches of history...
They will never investigate their selves, get over it. Our government is crooked and the people are a bunch of pissy's. We should demand an explanation and investigation. Plain and simple, no if's and's or but's.
with bombs ,and dancing and celebrating israelis and the vans of other Israelis that admitted on tv that they were "sent there to document the event" even if the buildings did fall from fire and planes it still dont prove anything ,the other evidence pointing to the moussad is much more significant than any of the scientific evidence
it dont matter if they fell at "free fall speed" or not ,because the fact that 7 fell in such a symetrical fashion ,and even had the tell tale "crimp" at the center of the top of the building before the implosion is all too much of a coincidence when combined with silversteins statement and all the other evidence that this was a cia/moussad job, and silversteins huge financial gain and connections to bib netanyahu ,and the moussad front ,moving company connections to the vans of israeilis
I was playing Jinga, and ended up with a pile of saw dust. It fell into its own footprint, so if you don't believe the path of most resistance theory your STUPID! If you try this with two stets of Jinga and pull out the 10 or 12 floor it works every time.
That is not true what he said about the towers falling down at the speed of a freefall.....you can see in videos debrees falling faster than the actual tower is falling.....conspiracy theorists are just plain dumb
@KDubVideos actually the debris you see falling were effectivly launched out with force via the various explosions immediatly prior to the collapse, then seperating from the main structure, therefore classifying it as debris. This would in effect cause the debris to fall faster since force was applied to the object(explosion).
@KDubVideos Furthermore, there is a widely availible equation online to prove that the building did fall at freefall speed. They count on the widespread stupidity of this nation to not take heed to little things us investigators call "evidence".
@KDubVideos the thing that is wrong with your statement is the words towers ...he was not talking about the towers he was talking about building 7.. that was not hit by an air plane.. was taller than most citys tallest sky scrapers and yes it did fall at free fall speed ...6 seconds to be exact ...you should wake up to the truth of 911 ..it took me 10 years ..peace
@VictusMei Correct YT blocks constructs of links. If you are seriously interested in no-spin links I will try to send you a PM but YT just changed everything last night. Refreshing to see someone like me who is actually interested in researching this topic (either side of the debate). :)
@BigChiefMike not true, it happened in South America in the mid 1980s: a plane hit a skyscraper; the building caught fire for about 20+ hours and predictably did not fall at the speed of gravity, UNLIKE the three WTC towers one two and seven. Wake up and/or get a new job, you're spreading lies and idiocy
@BillDaBurgerEater well first off, i can't find anything about the plane crash you are talking about. But I doubt it was as fast or big as the planes that hit the WTC towers. All the other similar situations were involving smaller planes. get a new job? what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The only one spreading lies and idiocy here is you and you conspiracy theory friends.
@BigChiefMike May 1988, Interstate bank building, LA. February 1991, Meridian Tower, Philly. Norman Mineta, testifying in Congress that Dick Cheny allowed the 3rd plane to hit the Pentagon. WTC 7. Bush's unsympathetic reaction. Open your eyes dude, the jet fuel burned off ten minutes after the crash according to the NIST report, a fire just cannot make a building fall at the speed of gravity towards the ground, 9-11 was an inside job. I know it's hard to hear, but don't ignore facts...
@BillDaBurgerEater Those 2 incidences were different situations, namely, they weren't hit by a fucking airliner going over 300mph. Dick Cheney "allowing" the 3rd plane to hit... that's just dumb. Also, your statement makes no sense, "a fire just cannot make a building fall at the speed of gravity towards the ground"... how the fuck else would it fall genius? everything that falls falls at the speed of gravity toward the ground. and obviously a fire CAN cause that because it DID.
@BigChiefMike dude, pertaining to Dick Cheny, you are ignoring evidence. Just search norman mineta 9/11 and you can see the video of the congressional hearing. And if you've ever watched a fire burn something, it will turn it to ash from the top down and the structure will survive, or at least remnants of the structure. It wouldn't burn it instantaneously at the speed of gravity, that's illogical.
@BillDaBurgerEater yeah proof is not some guy saying Cheney did something... maybe to you it is but not to everyone else. Last i checked fire burned up. And what the hell do you mean i wouldn't burn instantaneously at the speed of gravity? How does something burn at the speed of gravity? Assuming you meant "fall", how the fuck else would it fall? in sections? in slow motion? watch the video btw it's not falling at the speed of gravity. debris is falling faster than the collapsing building.
@BillDaBurgerEater Meridian was so badly damaged it had to be demolished. That and all the others had tons of water/firefighters WTC7 had neither. Look into it.
HOw fast is a building supposed to fall?
Show me the facts? Not Bush's (Bush is an idiot) reaction but facts. What facts show it was anything except airplanes/fires?
@MrRexquando let's see...employees testifying on video that a couple of months before large unmarked boxes were delivered to floors off limits, video of firefighters at the time of the attacks saying they hear explosions, the 911 first responders being banned from setting foot around ground zero on the tenth anniversary, that's just off the top of my head...
@BillDaBurgerEater what videos? you have seen these? All thruthers talk big but never deliver. Everyone hrd explosions. Do you hear synchronized thunderous explosions? watch?v=0IvicKnhANs no.. even though he says the word explosion it was the roar of the collapse.. All of that is just nonsense. Show me wires, detonators, nano-thermite spark fountains, detonation cord, pre-cuts, etc. And why bother with airplanes if this was a big setup? Simple truck bombs would have been far more believable no?
@MrRexquando Airplanes look better. Would you be so die-hard if nobody had video of it happening? Speaking of which, where's the video of an airplane hitting the Pentagon? All they released was a grainy video that shows an explosion, but no visible airplane. Do you really believe that the most secure building in the country has fewer surveillance cameras in the parking lot than a convenience store? They actually confiscated all nearby security recordings and "classified" them.
Remember life before videos? 99% of airplane crashes are still investigated and probable causes assigned without ANY video. Why do you think it is -required- here?
On the lack of video this is a mystery to me too?
The one video showing the plane hit is consistent with a security camera resolution and only capture 2 frames as it was going 540KTS.
But for lack of other videos I agree with you. I think there should be more too.
@BillDaBurgerEater Your so smart what did happen if it wasn't airplanes/fires? What happened to WTC3? No one wants to talk about that building? How much does a 53 floor joist expand when heated to 300C for 7 hours?
@GreenFurnNW there is no substantial proof that they did, which is why i said you people spew random facts (that don't prove shit) and claim it's indisputable proof. You say "buildings don't fall at the speed of gravity" or some shit like that and say that right there is proof.
@BigChiefMike nah i think its ok for people to believe what they want. i do hate people who hate me though. but nobody cares what i think, and nobody cares what you think either. and i dont care that nobody cares that i dont care that they could care less.
It's funny how this troll gets refuted in one point and instead of giving a rebuttal to the refutation he quickly moves to another point which happens to be a red herring.
The "boy" is a high school history teacher, he says.
What on earth is he saying to our children in his classes?!
Is your child a student of this history teacher who doesn't know physics enough to answer a junior high school science question about a free fall brick and a brick with a lot of resistance (which one hits the ground first)?
Sorry our government isn't smart enough to pull off something as slick as 911. Thats just what who ever is behind 911 wants you think. Miss-direction.
@keithgmoab You are right there, but they definitely let it happen and also helped cover it up same with the media. Unless you are saying that "terrorists" are smarter than the Government, but I don't think you are. Those who did pull it off have an insane amount of power that makes almost anything possible in their mind
This guy's just dumb. I saw building 7 fall (on tv). It was in no way "fully involved". In fact I would categorize it as "barely on fire at all" which is what a fireman testified to when he was INSIDE building 7. He said he thought the fires could be brought under control in a few hours. No big deal. Then he was ordered out and was told they were going to "pull" the building. Oops! Guess some idiot didn't remember the plan cause it takes MONTHS to install explosives to "pull" a building.
@fxtrader92 umm wrong.. They had no water. Steel frame buildings are only built to withstand any fires over 300C for 2 hours. Look it up in the ASTM and NYC fire code. watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
@MrRexquando "ummm wrong..." What. Wrong that a fireman claimed they could put the fires out? That's what the firemen stated on video.
regarding 2 hours at 300c - that's stupid. Check out the Madrid tower fire which burned in a raging inferno for 22 hours and still the building stood. The fires were far more intense and for far longer.
And you don't address bldg seven which was barely on fire at all.
@fxtrader92 So did you research this or just get it from a troother site? It was a concrete building for Pete sake. The steel portion of the structure failed in less than 2 hours of the start of the fire. Look it up (INTEMAC Spanish engineering) Firemen said was lost hours before it fell. Nothing to save watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Doesn't look like minor fires watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Look up the ASM and NYC fire codes and respond back when you get your head out of the troother sites.
@MrRexquando "Concrete building" That's just stupid. All skyscrapers are steel structured buildings. Hard to have an argument when you literally don't know what you're talking about at all, not even the basics.
All those arguments regarding construction are moot points. Silverstein admitted "pulling the building" - which is standard industry terminology for demolition - at 5PM, 9/11/2001. It takes several months to place charges to demolish a building so the charges were in place BEFORE 9/11.
@MrRexquando What the fuck do you think "reinforced" means? It means it gets it's major strength from something else. That something else isn't fucking cardboard. It's steel.
Ok so if it was an inside job, what are going to do about it?? Vote? Protest? Pull a gun? Bomb the innocent? And, why not do it again. Blow up Vegas, how about a dam! No need to. The wars will continue.
This blonde guy is an obvious lunatic too cowardly to allow himself to face reality. To top it off they put crazy people like him in charge of schooling our children. He needs to wake up and live.
"show me a picture where there is melted iron" Certainly! Both the RJ Lee Group and the USGS have pictures of the (previously) molten iron droplets. The RJ Lee Group determined that more than 5% of the dust was composed of these molten iron droplets, so much so that they included it as a unique identifier to help determine whether or not a certain dust sample came from the WTC destruction.
Now I ask again, what temperature is required to turn iron into liquid??
ok to all the 9/11 Twoofers...Take the tinfoil off and wake up...9/11 WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!!! We wouldve heard something or saw something on the Front page of the New York Times....or in the news media. This whole retared movement was nothing else but a ploy to make money on somebody else suffering...and once again...Firefighters can stay in a fire for as long as there SCBA tanks have air. A typical house fire burns at 800-1000 degrees...and there gear is rated for about 1100 degrees
"This whole retared movement was nothing else but a ploy to make money on somebody else suffering..." Actually, it was started by the family members of victims, you insensitive prick!
"A typical house fire burns at 800-1000 degrees...and there gear is rated for about 1100 degrees" Tell me, at what temperature does iron melt? Because massive quantities of iron were melted into droplets during the deconstruction of the WTC!
The damage from the North Tower offered" no significant factor at all ". That's what NIST says, and yet the debunkers are always saying , "what about the damage from WTC1?" Well, it's no significant factor. But the debunkers can't get it through their thick craniums that they can't use the damage from WTC1 onto WTC7. They almost all use that refuted statement as part of their "strong arguement". So debunkers how do fires take down WTC7? Explain in your own words please.
@charlesfloyb WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started the fires. thats fact. Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure. But fires burned unchecked all day on many floors, some engulfing almost the entire floor on several levels. It was a two stage collapse. the east penthouse collapse first, which caused the rest of the building to collapse about 8 seconds later. about 15-18 sec total.
@lcspies I'll reply to your several points with different posts. You say,"WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started the fires. thats fact. " I agree and everyone I know agrees that WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started fires. You're 100% correct, and 100% correct in calling that a fact. There are pictures and video evidence that supports this. So, let's pause and reflect on this moment of agreement. We can actually agree on something. It's possible.
@lcspies You say," Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure" I respond=>, But now you try to defend the official story, but not by defending NIST who is the official voice of the official story on WTC7, but by answering with a question, an unknown. Why you choose this diversion from NIST should really be explained by you, but it's not. Why? My guess is that if NIST ever mentioned structural damage from 1, the collapse would be lopsided.
@charlesfloyb not a diversion or defending. I don't think anybody from NIST ran into the building to see what kind of damage the debris did or if it aided in the collapse. There are recorded comments of fire fighters talking about how big the hole was but no proof that the damage was a cause to the collapse. At best Its just a guess on NIST's part. Thats why I say no one will ever know for sure. So all I have to go on are the fires with the damage not contributing to the collapse other...
NIST ruled out the debris damage as a cause of collapse for a very good reason: the damage was to the exterior columns, on the SW corner of the building. However, the initial structural failure involved a core column on the NE corner - on the opposite side of the building from the damage!
@lcspies Again, you said, " Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure." See, NIST answered that question without ambiguity. NIST's position is that there was no significant factor at all as far as the structural integrity of WTC7 goes. So, if the damage was significant, it'd make the whole current collapse theory from column 79 look absurd since the damage was not in that area. Also, NIST knows the collapse would've been lopsided.
@lcspies So, when you say, "Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure." We know that if there was significant damage the building wouldn't have fell as it did. So, we know for sure that the damage from WTC1 didn't aid in the collapse. Controlled demolition supporters don't believe it was significant and NIST doesn't believe it was significant. So, for you to say it might be significant, you'd need to provide some evidence.
@lcspies You then say, "But fires burned unchecked all day on many floors, some engulfing almost the entire floor on several levels." Yes, and according to NIST in a meeting they held. Their calculations of combustibles per foot amounted to 4 pounds per square foot. They said that was normal. So, according to their own calcualtions , any fire could only stay active for about 20 minutes maximum before burnout. Now, they said the heat would stay and some smoldering after that but...
well if there is no damage from the debris, other than the fires, and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes. And what is said or calculated on what should have happened does not always work or is correct. So the collapse happened because of fires. notice I am not using a cd option. nothing proves to me it was, yet. If there was solid evidence to that effect, and not Larry saying "pull it", I might buy it.
@lcspies You say, "and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." This is completely different than saying that at any one place the fire could only last for 20 minutes. Do you understand the difference? Sure a building might be on fire for several hours. However, even though the sprinkler system did not work, the fire combustibles would burn out in any room within 20 minutes. Now, I'll concede some fires will smolder, but the flame at any specific spot burns out.
@lcspies again, you said, " and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes". The lead flame moves where ever there is oxygen and stuff that burns. Once the 4 pounds per square foot burns out, the flame moves on to other stuff that didn't burn. This amount was calculated to be about 20 minutes per square foot to burn out. So when you say the fire was burning hours later, yes, but in a completely different area.
@lcspies You said, "other than the fires, and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." With my last posts I showed how NIST even realized that any square foot in the building would only be on fire for about 20 minutes. This is what happened because there wasn't enough materials available for the fire to last longer. Lead members of NIST pushed this comment to the side because they said it's temperature not fire that caused failure...
@lcspies You said, "and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." NIST was saying even though the lead flame didn't have the burnable combustibles to last more than 20 minutes, the remaining smoldering and heat stayed in the building. They claim it didn't cool down. So even though the up to code fireproofing on this steel framed building was good for 2 hours, they're claiming the temperature from these normal office fires achieved a temperature for thermal expansion.
@lcspies " And what is said or calculated on what should have happened does not always work or is correct. " The calculations aren't being argued with here. It's the things that weren't calculated or tested. Supposedly these fires caused a temperture that caused thermal expansion on the area with wide floor spans. This thermal expansion led to failure of girders and beams directly connected to column 79. Once about 9 floors worth of beams failed, they say C79 gave way...
@lcspies "So the collapse happened because of fires" You seem to agree with NIST at the final conclusion, but none of your reasons are the same as NIST's. Also, there were no tests that proved that this "only time in history" event could get the temperatures needed for thermal expansion on the girders and beams. Without evidence of the needed temperature for thermal expansion on the suspected girders, it seems NIST is wildly guessing that fire actually made WTC7 completely collapse.
@lcspies "So the collapse happened because of fires." It seems strange you conclude this, when you don't seem like you want to defend the NIST report. The reason this is important is because NIST makes it clear that if it wasn't for thermal expansion happening to a degree that causes failure on key girders, WTC7 would still be standing. I'm not sure you really believe the NIST story on thermal expansion. But why should you? They didn't provide any evidence this could actually happen.
@lcspies you say, "So the collapse happened because of fires" I just don't see any logical path to this conclusion. One thing, I wanted more of an explanation on and am still waiting, I guess. Is what about structural redundancy in WTC7.In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of critical components of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the case of a backup or fail-safe. So how does one column cause the rest to fail so quickly??????
@charlesfloyb so your only logical path is explosives? Please... and I am not defending anything. just saying things dont always go the way we plan, think they are suppose to happen, or calculate. sometime shit just happens in a way that does not make sense. When the east penthouse fell, the first part of the building to fall, follow by the rest about 8 seconds later. The failure and collapse of the penthouse initiated the second by removing the remaining truss supports.
@charlesfloyb You do realize that house fires flashover temps reach 900-1100 degrees in just a few minutes and can reach 1200-1400 degrees, maybe 2000 degrees depending on the contents. seems repeated shocks of that kind of temp. to steel even for twenty minutes at a time could affect it in some way. I believe fires were the cause of the collapse of the east penthouse and that first collapse took out the rest of the building. Without explosives its the only logical answer I can come up with.
@lcspies You say, " maybe 2000 degrees depending on the contents. seems repeated shocks of that kind of temp. to steel even for twenty minutes at a time could affect it in some way". Well affecting the steel in some way is very vague compared to saying it will cause thermal expansion to key members that cause column 79 to fail. The failure of a single member(column 79) triggers a cascading series of failures that completely levels the skyscraper. So where is the structural redundancy?
@lcspies you say, " I believe fires were the cause of the collapse of the east penthouse and that first collapse took out the rest of the building." Really? Why? How? Simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the symmetry of WTC 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to fall straight down, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
@charlesfloyb you dont think when the penthouse collapsed, it put stress on all the building supports, which then gave way? So where is the structural redundancy? Maybe it was irrelevant when the penthouse collapsed. Well until there is proof of explosives...fire and the damaged it caused brought down 7. You want to explain it go ahead. I will listen to what you think happen. Looks like it fell slightly towards the south and the debris is covered by the north side?
@lcspies "when the penthouse collapsed, it put stress on all the building supports, which then gave way". Yes, but prior to that, NIST says column 79 buckled. One column failed due to the supposed failure due to thermal expansion. So, to believe this, you have to believe that the other 24 core columns and 58 pereimeter columns couldn't handle the load after column 79 collapsed. It seems to border on irresponsibility in design if there was no structrural redundancy after only one column fails
Why the fuck are they talking about sprinklers? Even if the fucking building was made out of matchsticks it still wouldn't collapse at freefall speed.
Debunkers argue if it were demolitioned we'd show evidence in court.
I say if we lived in a democratic society it would go to court. We can only hope and work toward the day we the Citizens have enough power to Demand an impartial investigation into 9/11 and govt officials who were complicit.
Our entire reality is a sham in this country: Kennedy assassination, Okla bombing, West Virginia Tech, even Roswell and ufos, Gulf of Tonkin, Minn. Governor murder. When do we Ever get truth from OUR govt?
Will a brick falling through tons of resistance drop faster than a brick falling through the air...... "Well, I'm not a physicist or an engineer so that's not something I know" Lol
How can he call himself the debunking director if he can't answer simple logic questions?
What do you expect from this state paid teacher, and he teaches what the State wants him to teach and he believes in the shit they put in the text books.
who to believe? it was still a horrible day no matter what
junebickerstaff 1 day ago
Is the free fall speed argument is moot? Even if support columns were weakened by fire toward the base of building seven, does or doesn't tens of stories of resistance slow down the rate of fall compared to a free falling brick? And wouldn't the building tip a little instead of fall vertically since the debris destroyed only one side of the base of the building?
bearcolombia 5 days ago
..so obvious! The NYFD down in the basement were reporting several more explosions as it was happening and even the press was reporting pools of molten metal at the site as told them by the NYFD. he federal gov't has been blowing smoke up the asses of the American people. Their own 'conspiracy theory' is the one that is the most unlikely of all that I've heard from anyone. They've lied about everything from 9-11 onwards. Something is very wrong here.
TedBronson1918 1 week ago
I watched the 9-11 mass murders happen from when it first popped up on TV. I recalled an interview I saw with the buildings architect before the WTC opened and he claimed they could withstand impacts from SEVERAL planes, not just one, because of the design. Fast forward to 9/11 and they both go down from a single impact (supposedly), and on top of that they collapse straight down. As I watched those buildings go down I said it was a demolition and not a collapse. It was so obvious! cont'd
TedBronson1918 1 week ago
@TedBronson1918 First off, the impacts didn't bring the towers down, the fires started by fully fueled planes did. Second, the buildings fell straight down because that's the direction that things go when they FALL. (I'm not sure why I'm bothering. The people I've spoken with personally who believe as you do have all been nut cases.)
youdoitillwatch 1 week ago
@youdoitillwatch When someone talks about planes impactin a building common sense tells one that the impact event INCLUDES the fires that may result. Pretending they're 2 different and separate events is dishonest and misleading. I'm not going to rehash free fall speed vs slowed speed arguments or the evidence of demolition vs collapse. I'll take the word of the NYFD personnel who were there and on video speaking to news crews. Believing them and my own eyes and ears is nuts?
TedBronson1918 1 week ago
I'll end just saying it wasn't just 1 or 2 odd things happening that day- it was one thing after another and then some talking head would get on the news a month later and try to tell me that what I saw and heard didn't happen. They've been at it since. Lets hear Bush/Cheney testify UNDER OATH about that day. "Question Authority" applies here more than ever.
TedBronson1918 1 week ago
Mmmm at 2:12 that nerdy guy just gots him some poon tang
spartanjohn343 2 weeks ago
This guy needs to get laid.
Mrgibbsy72 2 weeks ago
The force is strong with this video.
booyalakasha1 2 weeks ago
I'm a big believer in the laws of physics....... A pretty basic understanding of those laws tells you that things happened that day that are impossible without assistance. Unless you have figured out a way to boil water on your stove at 75 degreesF, any idea that those buildings were brought down by a fire is a joke.
75dogtown 3 weeks ago
@cryosun Awesome...lol
TheFirekraker 3 weeks ago
Well you see, Richard, the problem with your evidence is I'm an American, and Americans don't do science, therefore we should stick to the religious belief structure that proves my brother fighting in Iraq isn't a dupe and a pawn of the elite.
cryosun 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JMB177 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cryosun Everyone in the video is American, you are an American, and your brother is fighting for America voluntarily. Its called skepticism, and without it we'd ALL believe in stupid conspiracies.
JMB177 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whoops I headed into the Twilight Zone of insanity side of Youtube again by accident.
007CTHULHU007 3 weeks ago
I was in WTC1 for a job interview 2 weeks before 9-11. Fl 75 and 75 were virtually deserted, very dark & creepy & many of the walls were exposed. When I got to 77 to my interview I was told they were doing some kind of maintenance in the walls, fireproofing or such. I asked where all the tenants went. They said many suddenly pulled out about 2 months before. I also got a very dark feeling before even walking into the building and wanted to turn around and walk away. 2 weeks late I found out why.
JediWitness 3 weeks ago
What a knucklehead the kid is. Architects have to be even MORE precise in their knowledge and calculations than a physicist does because countless lives are depending on them not fucking up their measurements. A&E911Truth has over 1500 members now all staking their reputations, careers and livelihood on their statements that the buildings could NOT have fallen as described. If they're wrong even ONCE, their career as an architect is over. Kid has no clue what he's talking about at all.
JediWitness 3 weeks ago
@JediWitness Alex Jones & Ron Avery: Excellent 9-11 Analysis 1/5
/watch?v=TCqrU3XzmR0
JediWitness 3 weeks ago
WTC 7 was taken down by controlled demolition. It couldn't be more obvious.
RayAir1 4 weeks ago
@RayAir1 As if you have any clue what a controlled demolition is and how much work it would take
relliknomlas 4 weeks ago
@relliknomlas
Yep. Not too hard to rig up if you have a billion dollar budget like the U.S government does!
RayAir1 4 weeks ago
@RayAir1 @RayAir1 No ass clown has nothing to do with the amount of money I SAID WORK SOMETHING NEITHER YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT KNOW HOW TO DO!! Now get back to your cartoons son
relliknomlas 4 weeks ago
@relliknomlas
You must be a disinformation agent for the government. If not that, then just a complete ignoramus. Which one is it?
RayAir1 3 weeks ago
To demo the WTC would have take months of prep work. People who were in the towers and are alive today say they never saw anything to make them think it wasn't the planes. When were the explosives planted? after the planes hit? People were working in that building, you think if a lot of strangers (planting explosives)show up at your office you would notice. I notice when we have a copier tech show up.
therichardking4242 4 weeks ago
And that fucking moron is a high school teacher....Scary.
JeffnDenmark 1 month ago
but its importnat to remember that wtc1 and 2 didnt not fall identical to a controlled demolition. similar but not the same.
justforpoox 1 month ago
People Wake Up! FREE FAAAAAAAAAAAALL... The smoking gun is Building 7.
firstflyover 1 month ago
dude in sunglasses,what agency did you say you worked for?
troganhourse 1 month ago
What about that skyscraper in that other country that was fully inflamed for like 2 days and did not fall?
goldenknight777 1 month ago
@goldenknight777 i will say 2 that i know of,, 1 the tower inferno was based on a true story, it burned for days before they got control of it,, 2 the empire state building was hit by a flying fortress b17 bomber in the 40s. it was on fire for days, the plane that i mentioned is nearly twice the size of a 755 jet. and yet both buildings i mentioned still stand today,, kind makes a guy wonder. either crappy workmen ship on the towers or?
guppyelf 1 month ago 3
he's a history teacher, yet he's acting like he knows everything about fysics??? what a retard...
FGTony 1 month ago
@FGTony Not to put you down or anything, but did you mean (physics?)
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@FGTony ROTFLMAO, Yea, you tell him. Why he is so dumb he doesn't even know the meaning of FYSICS. It is obviously the study of soda pop and how much FYSICS there is in the soda. And to think, you called him a retard. Here is one i'll bet you wish you could get back. BAA HA HA HA HA HA. Too funny!
badmoonryzn 1 month ago
@badmoonryzn well, I'm sorry, but I'm not a native english speaker, so I may misspell some words.
Tell me, Mister Perfect Speller, how do people TALK over a airplane???
FYI I quote you: "but I know plenty of people who could talk over an airplane without any weapons" LMFAOIYF. Try again troll.
FGTony 1 month ago
I know the truth but I will not share it . I fear the truth would be to much for people like you . And by people like you I mean idiots .
MrTraildust 1 month ago
lol richards tryin to flirt with lesbians
poshuajerkins 1 month ago
aamerican and british public are easily lied to by their own government they are dumb
james7167 1 month ago
It goes against everything in my soul to keep from banging my head on the curb.The single most consistent thing about people will always be this one thing. People cannot keep their mouth shut regardless of what the situation may be. If there had been anything premeditated about 9-11 someone would have yapped their asses off and had photos with names of all involved. In order to pull something like that off it would have involved thousands and there is no way they would all stay quiet. Get a grip
badmoonryzn 1 month ago
@badmoonryzn The myth is that 19 people with box cutters, cell phones, and a lap top from a cave controlled by an X CIA insider undermined the worlds most protected air space, with so called pilots trained in a Cessna! THAT'S WHAT IS UNBELIEVABLE!
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless The fact you don't think a few people who trained for the task wouldn't be able to pull it off. Maybe you are so inept in that area you may not be able to do it, but I know plenty of people who could talk over an airplane without any weapons. Do not judge others on your inabilities.
badmoonryzn 1 month ago
@badmoonryzn Sure dude, Hey! I got a gold Rolex to sell you! want to buy it?
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless You judge others on your inabilities to do things. I know plenty of people who could have taken over the airplanes with out any weapons. And flying an airplane in to a building is so easy most anyone with a couple of active brain cells could manage. This of course leaves you out. You continue to judge other people on your inept abilities to perform simple tasks and you will always wonder and challenge reality.
badmoonryzn 1 month ago
What the ----! That guy kevin is a teacher? Please never be my kids teacher! Rich gates is not someone you have the intellect to match. Leave your deep thought to the 2nd graders. Would love to see what he knows or teaches of history...
getindabus 1 month ago
guess who profited off of the towers......Good ole President Bush
oconoc 1 month ago 2
They will never investigate their selves, get over it. Our government is crooked and the people are a bunch of pissy's. We should demand an explanation and investigation. Plain and simple, no if's and's or but's.
icemaul 2 months ago
Those chicks are very pretty.
ambenitez123 2 months ago
with bombs ,and dancing and celebrating israelis and the vans of other Israelis that admitted on tv that they were "sent there to document the event" even if the buildings did fall from fire and planes it still dont prove anything ,the other evidence pointing to the moussad is much more significant than any of the scientific evidence
bulletproof2353 2 months ago
it dont matter if they fell at "free fall speed" or not ,because the fact that 7 fell in such a symetrical fashion ,and even had the tell tale "crimp" at the center of the top of the building before the implosion is all too much of a coincidence when combined with silversteins statement and all the other evidence that this was a cia/moussad job, and silversteins huge financial gain and connections to bib netanyahu ,and the moussad front ,moving company connections to the vans of israeilis
bulletproof2353 2 months ago
I hope the detention camp conspiracies are true and you knuckleheads are rounded up. Hell I wil help em.
JVRottweil 2 months ago
@JVRottweil & you will be exempt from this fate because................?
DreAmeoba1 2 months ago
Truthers are such friggin idiots
JVRottweil 2 months ago
jews did it
THETRUTHWILLMAKEFREE 2 months ago
i use to do demo and it did look like thoughs were a controlled fall whether it was or not idk
erutis53 2 months ago 2
I was playing Jinga, and ended up with a pile of saw dust. It fell into its own footprint, so if you don't believe the path of most resistance theory your STUPID! If you try this with two stets of Jinga and pull out the 10 or 12 floor it works every time.
Ocy 2 months ago
OP N O RT H WO O DS
conciousness88 2 months ago
Weep. "I'm only a high school physics professor, so I'm not qualified to answer your unfair seventh grade questions." Bursts into tears.
dahanks1 2 months ago
I am a HS history teacher, so I don't understand 7th grade physics...LOL
Mi37591 2 months ago
Architect Vs. Dumbass.. Architect wins.
Mi37591 2 months ago
That is not true what he said about the towers falling down at the speed of a freefall.....you can see in videos debrees falling faster than the actual tower is falling.....conspiracy theorists are just plain dumb
KDubVideos 3 months ago
@KDubVideos actually the debris you see falling were effectivly launched out with force via the various explosions immediatly prior to the collapse, then seperating from the main structure, therefore classifying it as debris. This would in effect cause the debris to fall faster since force was applied to the object(explosion).
123davidshelley 2 months ago
@KDubVideos Furthermore, there is a widely availible equation online to prove that the building did fall at freefall speed. They count on the widespread stupidity of this nation to not take heed to little things us investigators call "evidence".
123davidshelley 2 months ago
@KDubVideos hey now, nobody told you to talk.
elevenames 2 months ago
@KDubVideos the thing that is wrong with your statement is the words towers ...he was not talking about the towers he was talking about building 7.. that was not hit by an air plane.. was taller than most citys tallest sky scrapers and yes it did fall at free fall speed ...6 seconds to be exact ...you should wake up to the truth of 911 ..it took me 10 years ..peace
ally4free1 2 months ago 10
He didn't get his ass handed to him. He got educated.
VictusMei 4 months ago
@VictusMei Educated.. Free-fall, its own footprint? None of that is true. Look at the pictures nothing fell into its own footprint that day.
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando do you happen to have links to specific images which might illustrate your point best? I dunno if YT allows posting links.
VictusMei 3 months ago
@VictusMei Correct YT blocks constructs of links. If you are seriously interested in no-spin links I will try to send you a PM but YT just changed everything last night. Refreshing to see someone like me who is actually interested in researching this topic (either side of the debate). :)
MrRexquando 3 months ago
a fire has never been brought down a steel frame skyscraper... yea, but they have never been hit by a air liner. weird
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike not true, it happened in South America in the mid 1980s: a plane hit a skyscraper; the building caught fire for about 20+ hours and predictably did not fall at the speed of gravity, UNLIKE the three WTC towers one two and seven. Wake up and/or get a new job, you're spreading lies and idiocy
BillDaBurgerEater 3 months ago
@BillDaBurgerEater well first off, i can't find anything about the plane crash you are talking about. But I doubt it was as fast or big as the planes that hit the WTC towers. All the other similar situations were involving smaller planes. get a new job? what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The only one spreading lies and idiocy here is you and you conspiracy theory friends.
BigChiefMike 3 months ago
@BigChiefMike May 1988, Interstate bank building, LA. February 1991, Meridian Tower, Philly. Norman Mineta, testifying in Congress that Dick Cheny allowed the 3rd plane to hit the Pentagon. WTC 7. Bush's unsympathetic reaction. Open your eyes dude, the jet fuel burned off ten minutes after the crash according to the NIST report, a fire just cannot make a building fall at the speed of gravity towards the ground, 9-11 was an inside job. I know it's hard to hear, but don't ignore facts...
BillDaBurgerEater 3 months ago
Comment removed
BigChiefMike 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BillDaBurgerEater Those 2 incidences were different situations, namely, they weren't hit by a fucking airliner going over 300mph. Dick Cheney "allowing" the 3rd plane to hit... that's just dumb. Also, your statement makes no sense, "a fire just cannot make a building fall at the speed of gravity towards the ground"... how the fuck else would it fall genius? everything that falls falls at the speed of gravity toward the ground. and obviously a fire CAN cause that because it DID.
BigChiefMike 3 months ago
@BigChiefMike dude, pertaining to Dick Cheny, you are ignoring evidence. Just search norman mineta 9/11 and you can see the video of the congressional hearing. And if you've ever watched a fire burn something, it will turn it to ash from the top down and the structure will survive, or at least remnants of the structure. It wouldn't burn it instantaneously at the speed of gravity, that's illogical.
BillDaBurgerEater 3 months ago
@BillDaBurgerEater yeah proof is not some guy saying Cheney did something... maybe to you it is but not to everyone else. Last i checked fire burned up. And what the hell do you mean i wouldn't burn instantaneously at the speed of gravity? How does something burn at the speed of gravity? Assuming you meant "fall", how the fuck else would it fall? in sections? in slow motion? watch the video btw it's not falling at the speed of gravity. debris is falling faster than the collapsing building.
BigChiefMike 3 months ago
@BillDaBurgerEater Meridian was so badly damaged it had to be demolished. That and all the others had tons of water/firefighters WTC7 had neither. Look into it.
HOw fast is a building supposed to fall?
Show me the facts? Not Bush's (Bush is an idiot) reaction but facts. What facts show it was anything except airplanes/fires?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando let's see...employees testifying on video that a couple of months before large unmarked boxes were delivered to floors off limits, video of firefighters at the time of the attacks saying they hear explosions, the 911 first responders being banned from setting foot around ground zero on the tenth anniversary, that's just off the top of my head...
BillDaBurgerEater 3 months ago
@BillDaBurgerEater what videos? you have seen these? All thruthers talk big but never deliver. Everyone hrd explosions. Do you hear synchronized thunderous explosions? watch?v=0IvicKnhANs no.. even though he says the word explosion it was the roar of the collapse.. All of that is just nonsense. Show me wires, detonators, nano-thermite spark fountains, detonation cord, pre-cuts, etc. And why bother with airplanes if this was a big setup? Simple truck bombs would have been far more believable no?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando Airplanes look better. Would you be so die-hard if nobody had video of it happening? Speaking of which, where's the video of an airplane hitting the Pentagon? All they released was a grainy video that shows an explosion, but no visible airplane. Do you really believe that the most secure building in the country has fewer surveillance cameras in the parking lot than a convenience store? They actually confiscated all nearby security recordings and "classified" them.
venusbrain 2 months ago
@venusbrain LoL Die-hard? So good questions.
Remember life before videos? 99% of airplane crashes are still investigated and probable causes assigned without ANY video. Why do you think it is -required- here?
On the lack of video this is a mystery to me too?
The one video showing the plane hit is consistent with a security camera resolution and only capture 2 frames as it was going 540KTS.
But for lack of other videos I agree with you. I think there should be more too.
MrRexquando 2 months ago
@BillDaBurgerEater Your so smart what did happen if it wasn't airplanes/fires? What happened to WTC3? No one wants to talk about that building? How much does a 53 floor joist expand when heated to 300C for 7 hours?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
god i hate 9/11 conspiracy theorists
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike do you really dumbass?.. or do you hate that buildings can collapse in 8 seconds, not hit by a plane?
Mi37591 2 months ago
@Mi37591 why do you people spew random information claiming it proves the gov staged 9/11?
BigChiefMike 2 months ago
@BigChiefMike
because that's what happened idiot..US gov blew that shit up...
GreenFurnNW 2 months ago
@GreenFurnNW there is no substantial proof that they did, which is why i said you people spew random facts (that don't prove shit) and claim it's indisputable proof. You say "buildings don't fall at the speed of gravity" or some shit like that and say that right there is proof.
BigChiefMike 2 months ago
@BigChiefMike you are equally hated.
elevenames 2 months ago
@elevenames so you hate everyone who doesn't believe that crap theory?
BigChiefMike 2 months ago
@BigChiefMike nah i think its ok for people to believe what they want. i do hate people who hate me though. but nobody cares what i think, and nobody cares what you think either. and i dont care that nobody cares that i dont care that they could care less.
elevenames 2 months ago
@elevenames i can agree with that, haha
BigChiefMike 2 months ago
both of them are idiots, dont even know simple english; 'implicating' SMH
THEGLASSOFMILK2 4 months ago
'They say, no significant factors at all'
Yes, but try coming up with your own conclusions instead of reading into right-wing propaganda (media)!
fmnma1 4 months ago
This Idiot is an educator?
ge0metr1xx 5 months ago
It's funny how this troll gets refuted in one point and instead of giving a rebuttal to the refutation he quickly moves to another point which happens to be a red herring.
99percentatheist 5 months ago
The "boy" is a high school history teacher, he says.
What on earth is he saying to our children in his classes?!
Is your child a student of this history teacher who doesn't know physics enough to answer a junior high school science question about a free fall brick and a brick with a lot of resistance (which one hits the ground first)?
Phil1stalk 5 months ago
Richard Gage is a book seller. He promotes the conspiracy (9/11) because he makes money on it by keeping it alive! end of story!
Tapps47 5 months ago
This guy is an idiot. Anyone that hears the real facts and then still believes this nonsense has a thinking problem.
thisismyusernamemr 7 months ago
@thisismyusernamemr The thing is no one talking on either side has all the facts. It is all pure speculation from everyone.
zpgJiggleBilly 6 months ago
Sorry our government isn't smart enough to pull off something as slick as 911. Thats just what who ever is behind 911 wants you think. Miss-direction.
keithgmoab 7 months ago
@keithgmoab You are right there, but they definitely let it happen and also helped cover it up same with the media. Unless you are saying that "terrorists" are smarter than the Government, but I don't think you are. Those who did pull it off have an insane amount of power that makes almost anything possible in their mind
Redmeddle 5 months ago
This guy's just dumb. I saw building 7 fall (on tv). It was in no way "fully involved". In fact I would categorize it as "barely on fire at all" which is what a fireman testified to when he was INSIDE building 7. He said he thought the fires could be brought under control in a few hours. No big deal. Then he was ordered out and was told they were going to "pull" the building. Oops! Guess some idiot didn't remember the plan cause it takes MONTHS to install explosives to "pull" a building.
fxtrader92 7 months ago
@fxtrader92 umm wrong.. They had no water. Steel frame buildings are only built to withstand any fires over 300C for 2 hours. Look it up in the ASTM and NYC fire code. watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando "ummm wrong..." What. Wrong that a fireman claimed they could put the fires out? That's what the firemen stated on video.
regarding 2 hours at 300c - that's stupid. Check out the Madrid tower fire which burned in a raging inferno for 22 hours and still the building stood. The fires were far more intense and for far longer.
And you don't address bldg seven which was barely on fire at all.
So when you get your facts right, then respond.
fxtrader92 3 months ago
@fxtrader92 So did you research this or just get it from a troother site? It was a concrete building for Pete sake. The steel portion of the structure failed in less than 2 hours of the start of the fire. Look it up (INTEMAC Spanish engineering) Firemen said was lost hours before it fell. Nothing to save watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Doesn't look like minor fires watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Look up the ASM and NYC fire codes and respond back when you get your head out of the troother sites.
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando "Concrete building" That's just stupid. All skyscrapers are steel structured buildings. Hard to have an argument when you literally don't know what you're talking about at all, not even the basics.
All those arguments regarding construction are moot points. Silverstein admitted "pulling the building" - which is standard industry terminology for demolition - at 5PM, 9/11/2001. It takes several months to place charges to demolish a building so the charges were in place BEFORE 9/11.
fxtrader92 3 months ago
@fxtrader92 Silverstein is a demolition industry guy?
You get all your information from truther sites don't you..
"Reinforced concrete core" You can see he core in pictures post fire.
mace.manchester . ac . uk / project / research / structures / strucfire / CaseStudy/ HistoricFires / BuildingFires / default . h tm
First collapse happened at only 89 minutes of fire.
So all you truthers need to do some home work. All your "arguments" are hollow and generally opposite of the facts.
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@MrRexquando What the fuck do you think "reinforced" means? It means it gets it's major strength from something else. That something else isn't fucking cardboard. It's steel.
venusbrain 2 months ago
Whats a debunker?
Frankyyourpimp 7 months ago
That is called a pimp smack!!!!
dwellergsxr 7 months ago
LOL and he claims to be a history teacher? MAN i am sorry for his kids and the ones he teach
Tamayo1980 9 months ago
Ok so if it was an inside job, what are going to do about it?? Vote? Protest? Pull a gun? Bomb the innocent? And, why not do it again. Blow up Vegas, how about a dam! No need to. The wars will continue.
Thorpe741 9 months ago
@Thorpe741 - yes, yes, no, no, no and no.
maluorno 5 months ago
Yeah a day of first.
The first time a vice president tells N.O.R.A.D to stand down after learning the country is under attack.
dedseason 9 months ago
" wait don't interrupting me, so I can continue interrupting you
!"
people believe what ever they tell them selves
LaurieAnnism 9 months ago
" wait don't interrupting me, so I can continue interrupting you
!"
LaurieAnnism 9 months ago
Building 7 was a weather balloon.
theskyisfalling321 9 months ago
This blonde guy is an obvious lunatic too cowardly to allow himself to face reality. To top it off they put crazy people like him in charge of schooling our children. He needs to wake up and live.
FastBrian1 10 months ago
this is not a debunker, it's a low-life jackass with no education and no intelligence what so ever. irrelevant!
Ph4ntom74 10 months ago
A steel frame high rise would still have its frame after the combustibles burn out.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@smitty121989
ok...show me a picture where there is melted iron. Please show me you little prick.
Northeastbaseball 10 months ago
@Northeastbaseball
"show me a picture where there is melted iron" Certainly! Both the RJ Lee Group and the USGS have pictures of the (previously) molten iron droplets. The RJ Lee Group determined that more than 5% of the dust was composed of these molten iron droplets, so much so that they included it as a unique identifier to help determine whether or not a certain dust sample came from the WTC destruction.
Now I ask again, what temperature is required to turn iron into liquid??
smitty121981 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh by the way...im a Fire Science major...dotn fuck with me.
Northeastbaseball 10 months ago
Oh by te way...im a Fire Science Major...so dont fuck with me.
Northeastbaseball 10 months ago
ok to all the 9/11 Twoofers...Take the tinfoil off and wake up...9/11 WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!!! We wouldve heard something or saw something on the Front page of the New York Times....or in the news media. This whole retared movement was nothing else but a ploy to make money on somebody else suffering...and once again...Firefighters can stay in a fire for as long as there SCBA tanks have air. A typical house fire burns at 800-1000 degrees...and there gear is rated for about 1100 degrees
Northeastbaseball 10 months ago
@Northeastbaseball
"This whole retared movement was nothing else but a ploy to make money on somebody else suffering..." Actually, it was started by the family members of victims, you insensitive prick!
"A typical house fire burns at 800-1000 degrees...and there gear is rated for about 1100 degrees" Tell me, at what temperature does iron melt? Because massive quantities of iron were melted into droplets during the deconstruction of the WTC!
smitty121981 10 months ago
The damage from the North Tower offered" no significant factor at all ". That's what NIST says, and yet the debunkers are always saying , "what about the damage from WTC1?" Well, it's no significant factor. But the debunkers can't get it through their thick craniums that they can't use the damage from WTC1 onto WTC7. They almost all use that refuted statement as part of their "strong arguement". So debunkers how do fires take down WTC7? Explain in your own words please.
charlesfloyb 11 months ago
@charlesfloyb WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started the fires. thats fact. Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure. But fires burned unchecked all day on many floors, some engulfing almost the entire floor on several levels. It was a two stage collapse. the east penthouse collapse first, which caused the rest of the building to collapse about 8 seconds later. about 15-18 sec total.
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies I'll reply to your several points with different posts. You say,"WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started the fires. thats fact. " I agree and everyone I know agrees that WTC1 debris caused damage to 7 and started fires. You're 100% correct, and 100% correct in calling that a fact. There are pictures and video evidence that supports this. So, let's pause and reflect on this moment of agreement. We can actually agree on something. It's possible.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies You say," Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure" I respond=>, But now you try to defend the official story, but not by defending NIST who is the official voice of the official story on WTC7, but by answering with a question, an unknown. Why you choose this diversion from NIST should really be explained by you, but it's not. Why? My guess is that if NIST ever mentioned structural damage from 1, the collapse would be lopsided.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@charlesfloyb not a diversion or defending. I don't think anybody from NIST ran into the building to see what kind of damage the debris did or if it aided in the collapse. There are recorded comments of fire fighters talking about how big the hole was but no proof that the damage was a cause to the collapse. At best Its just a guess on NIST's part. Thats why I say no one will ever know for sure. So all I have to go on are the fires with the damage not contributing to the collapse other...
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies
NIST ruled out the debris damage as a cause of collapse for a very good reason: the damage was to the exterior columns, on the SW corner of the building. However, the initial structural failure involved a core column on the NE corner - on the opposite side of the building from the damage!
smitty121981 10 months ago
@smitty121981 Thanks for the specifics. I knew the damage wasn't near column 79 ( the first core column to fail).
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies Again, you said, " Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure." See, NIST answered that question without ambiguity. NIST's position is that there was no significant factor at all as far as the structural integrity of WTC7 goes. So, if the damage was significant, it'd make the whole current collapse theory from column 79 look absurd since the damage was not in that area. Also, NIST knows the collapse would've been lopsided.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies So, when you say, "Did the structural damage aide in the collapse? who knows. no one with ever know for sure." We know that if there was significant damage the building wouldn't have fell as it did. So, we know for sure that the damage from WTC1 didn't aid in the collapse. Controlled demolition supporters don't believe it was significant and NIST doesn't believe it was significant. So, for you to say it might be significant, you'd need to provide some evidence.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@charlesfloyb than starting the fires.
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies You then say, "But fires burned unchecked all day on many floors, some engulfing almost the entire floor on several levels." Yes, and according to NIST in a meeting they held. Their calculations of combustibles per foot amounted to 4 pounds per square foot. They said that was normal. So, according to their own calcualtions , any fire could only stay active for about 20 minutes maximum before burnout. Now, they said the heat would stay and some smoldering after that but...
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
well if there is no damage from the debris, other than the fires, and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes. And what is said or calculated on what should have happened does not always work or is correct. So the collapse happened because of fires. notice I am not using a cd option. nothing proves to me it was, yet. If there was solid evidence to that effect, and not Larry saying "pull it", I might buy it.
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies You say, "and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." This is completely different than saying that at any one place the fire could only last for 20 minutes. Do you understand the difference? Sure a building might be on fire for several hours. However, even though the sprinkler system did not work, the fire combustibles would burn out in any room within 20 minutes. Now, I'll concede some fires will smolder, but the flame at any specific spot burns out.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies again, you said, " and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes". The lead flame moves where ever there is oxygen and stuff that burns. Once the 4 pounds per square foot burns out, the flame moves on to other stuff that didn't burn. This amount was calculated to be about 20 minutes per square foot to burn out. So when you say the fire was burning hours later, yes, but in a completely different area.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies You said, "other than the fires, and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." With my last posts I showed how NIST even realized that any square foot in the building would only be on fire for about 20 minutes. This is what happened because there wasn't enough materials available for the fire to last longer. Lead members of NIST pushed this comment to the side because they said it's temperature not fire that caused failure...
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies You said, "and fires burned all over the building, for hours, not twenty minutes." NIST was saying even though the lead flame didn't have the burnable combustibles to last more than 20 minutes, the remaining smoldering and heat stayed in the building. They claim it didn't cool down. So even though the up to code fireproofing on this steel framed building was good for 2 hours, they're claiming the temperature from these normal office fires achieved a temperature for thermal expansion.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies " And what is said or calculated on what should have happened does not always work or is correct. " The calculations aren't being argued with here. It's the things that weren't calculated or tested. Supposedly these fires caused a temperture that caused thermal expansion on the area with wide floor spans. This thermal expansion led to failure of girders and beams directly connected to column 79. Once about 9 floors worth of beams failed, they say C79 gave way...
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies "So the collapse happened because of fires" You seem to agree with NIST at the final conclusion, but none of your reasons are the same as NIST's. Also, there were no tests that proved that this "only time in history" event could get the temperatures needed for thermal expansion on the girders and beams. Without evidence of the needed temperature for thermal expansion on the suspected girders, it seems NIST is wildly guessing that fire actually made WTC7 completely collapse.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies "So the collapse happened because of fires." It seems strange you conclude this, when you don't seem like you want to defend the NIST report. The reason this is important is because NIST makes it clear that if it wasn't for thermal expansion happening to a degree that causes failure on key girders, WTC7 would still be standing. I'm not sure you really believe the NIST story on thermal expansion. But why should you? They didn't provide any evidence this could actually happen.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies you say, "So the collapse happened because of fires" I just don't see any logical path to this conclusion. One thing, I wanted more of an explanation on and am still waiting, I guess. Is what about structural redundancy in WTC7.In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of critical components of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the case of a backup or fail-safe. So how does one column cause the rest to fail so quickly??????
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@charlesfloyb so your only logical path is explosives? Please... and I am not defending anything. just saying things dont always go the way we plan, think they are suppose to happen, or calculate. sometime shit just happens in a way that does not make sense. When the east penthouse fell, the first part of the building to fall, follow by the rest about 8 seconds later. The failure and collapse of the penthouse initiated the second by removing the remaining truss supports.
lcspies 10 months ago
@charlesfloyb You do realize that house fires flashover temps reach 900-1100 degrees in just a few minutes and can reach 1200-1400 degrees, maybe 2000 degrees depending on the contents. seems repeated shocks of that kind of temp. to steel even for twenty minutes at a time could affect it in some way. I believe fires were the cause of the collapse of the east penthouse and that first collapse took out the rest of the building. Without explosives its the only logical answer I can come up with.
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies You say, " maybe 2000 degrees depending on the contents. seems repeated shocks of that kind of temp. to steel even for twenty minutes at a time could affect it in some way". Well affecting the steel in some way is very vague compared to saying it will cause thermal expansion to key members that cause column 79 to fail. The failure of a single member(column 79) triggers a cascading series of failures that completely levels the skyscraper. So where is the structural redundancy?
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@lcspies you say, " I believe fires were the cause of the collapse of the east penthouse and that first collapse took out the rest of the building." Really? Why? How? Simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the symmetry of WTC 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to fall straight down, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
@charlesfloyb you dont think when the penthouse collapsed, it put stress on all the building supports, which then gave way? So where is the structural redundancy? Maybe it was irrelevant when the penthouse collapsed. Well until there is proof of explosives...fire and the damaged it caused brought down 7. You want to explain it go ahead. I will listen to what you think happen. Looks like it fell slightly towards the south and the debris is covered by the north side?
lcspies 10 months ago
@lcspies "when the penthouse collapsed, it put stress on all the building supports, which then gave way". Yes, but prior to that, NIST says column 79 buckled. One column failed due to the supposed failure due to thermal expansion. So, to believe this, you have to believe that the other 24 core columns and 58 pereimeter columns couldn't handle the load after column 79 collapsed. It seems to border on irresponsibility in design if there was no structrural redundancy after only one column fails
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
Guy with sunglasses has NO idea what he is talking about.
Gay4U1979 11 months ago
Why the fuck are they talking about sprinklers? Even if the fucking building was made out of matchsticks it still wouldn't collapse at freefall speed.
idontfkinknow1234 11 months ago
Debunkers argue if it were demolitioned we'd show evidence in court.
I say if we lived in a democratic society it would go to court. We can only hope and work toward the day we the Citizens have enough power to Demand an impartial investigation into 9/11 and govt officials who were complicit.
Our entire reality is a sham in this country: Kennedy assassination, Okla bombing, West Virginia Tech, even Roswell and ufos, Gulf of Tonkin, Minn. Governor murder. When do we Ever get truth from OUR govt?
trumpsahead 11 months ago
That guy in the shades is a grinning idiot and a bullshit artist.
chefshitpiece 11 months ago
yes...yes richard but...but...i'm not...not...i dont know...but...richard...when there is smoke there is what???? LOL u failed debunking director!
THE LESBIANS IN THE BACKGROUND ARE SEXY BY THE WAY!
Wileykid2485 11 months ago
it's apples and oranges! GTFOH
Wileykid2485 11 months ago
Will a brick falling through tons of resistance drop faster than a brick falling through the air...... "Well, I'm not a physicist or an engineer so that's not something I know" Lol
How can he call himself the debunking director if he can't answer simple logic questions?
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb lol Thats exactly what I was saying to myself. Some debunking director he can't even understand two falling bricks.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
And this guy is a teacher...
MrDarkTides 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was an inside job, wake the fuck up
MrDarkTides 1 year ago
What do you expect from this state paid teacher, and he teaches what the State wants him to teach and he believes in the shit they put in the text books.
junglemike72 1 year ago
"Sure he was using some sexy language"? ...what a faggot
UnshackledMind86 1 year ago
@UnshackledMind86 Funny wasn't it, what a sheep.
junglemike72 1 year ago