@kcsccrew42 Well really, all "tests" about the WTC buildings should be thrown out anyways. No test is completely accurate because they are only using a small scale model that is nowhere near the size of the buildng. It is only a small portion, when clearly, the damage sustained by the entire crash was very large and throughout the impact zone and core. And no one can completely distribute the damage to the building/model the exact same way ait happened on that day. Its practically impossible.
@Devilchild103195 yes exactly. thats why they made the conditions worse than on 9/11, and still only got 3" of sag. so i dont see why you would throw out physical tests for computer simulations
@kcsccrew42 A computer simulation is much more accurate no matter what then a small scale test. I understand that they punched up the damage because they were not sure what the exact amount of damage really was, but a computer simulation can make the full scale building, AND come even closer to what the real amount of damage was. And also, I'm not saying I don't believe you, but could you send me a link to where you got that info because I'd like to see for myself.
@Devilchild103195 yea no problem. fire(dot)nist(dot)gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042(dot)pdf or if you dont want to read all that, check out the book "9/11: The Simple Facts" by Arthur Naimon. It doesn't point fingers as to who did it, it just disproves the official story. and he cites all his sources in footnotes on every page. again though, i disagree I do not think computer simulations are accurate enough to simply throw out physical data
@kcsccrew42 Then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about all this. You have your beliefs and I have mine, we can leave it at that. Thanks for not going crazy on me though and spewing out crap that you can't back up. I truly do appreciate that.
@Devilchild103195 yea ik haha i was about to say the same. i guess were both just too stuborn. but yea man no problem i dont get too worked up about things and thanks for not labeling me as some crazy tinfoil hat wearer dude
@kcsccrew42 No problem. Talk about crazy though, you should look talk to this guy thisisfunny88 who I've been talking to on another video. He can't back up any of his shit and when I confront him about it, he either changes the subject, starts telling me I'm stalling for idk what, or just completely ignores my comments or messages. now that is a guy who wears tinfoil as his apparel. :)
@Devilchild103195 Oh yeaaaaaaah... John Malkovich. i couldn't remember his name at first but the movie has Bruce willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, that russian dude, the older chick and whoever the girl was. I liked that movie though. It was full of pure badassness and made me laugh.
@kcsccrew42 But seriously, thisisfunny88. He is such a fucktard that he has been asking me and many others for "evidence" of a steel framed building falling from fire and fire alone, and a steel framed building that fell in seven seconds. He wont stop even though we one, proved to him that the wtc 7 didnt fall in seven seconds, and two, that buildings can fall from fire and fire alone, yet he still asks for "evidence". I'm about ready to just drop the topic all together cuz he's a lost cause.
@kcsccrew42 Oh, I almost forgot that he thinks that all evidence we present to him is paid for by the gov't therefore LIES, as he has said to me. I don't know what else I'm supposed to say to him.
To shut everyone up, there were pre-drilled holes found in the remaining chunks of concrete after the collapse of tower 7. The only reason these holes were discovered if it was a controlled demolition was because they were not filled with explosives so they were able to survive. But if it was not a controlled demolition then why were there holes drilled into the concrete. This information can from a documentary on national geographic channel.
Thanks for posting this. So many people argue that WTC7 in no way fell down like controlled demolition. You can argue what caused it, maybe. But you can't argue that it's not similar to controlled demolition... thanks to this videot. If you do, you just discredit yourself. Coincidence theorists.
for those of you who are wondering. the the WTC7 was evacuated countless times 2 weeks before the incident for "SECURITY" reasons. thats how the bombs got there
I was watching NBC (I think) the night of 9/11 and they said, ON THE NEWS, that building 7 was unstable and they were taking it down via controlled demolition. That raised eyebrows because it takes DAYS to plan and implement a controlled demolition of this nature - not hours ... ALL THREE BUILDINGS WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS PEOPLE. If you look into it you will find that the buildings themselves were old and needed complete asbestos removal, which was going to cost MILLIONS ...
Let me get this straight - the diabolical government agents, in plotting this evil deed, decided that destroying two 110-story buildings with people inside them would not produce suffice outrage from the public, so they threw in another 47-story building for good measure? Hmmmm...
I guess I'll start my own new controlled demolition company. When my clients ask me what specific methods I use, I'll just tell them, "Hell, we just start random fires in the building. No expertise needed. No planning. No carefully placed explosives needed. No computer models needed. Our "random fires" method has the EXACT SAME effect. Building falls STRAIGHT DOWN, perfectly!" Yup, and my business card will say, "Acme Controlled Demolition Service -- Random Fire Method, Our Specialty!"
@TimothyWenk So 2 planes crash into the twin towers, causing raging intense fires, jet fuel everywhere & people are surprised there are further explosions. Unbelievable!!!
Do you realise the amount of preparation that would go into demolishing 2 buildings of that size & the amount of people that would need to be involved. Yet none of the 50,000 people that work there noticed a thing. I suppose they were all in on it as well were they? Fucking Morons!!!
@thegreenghost1000 I don't follow this subject, I'm Australian I just stumbled across this video. Are you saying this building fell like this because of an incredible coincidence? Because the damage wasn't symmetrical yet the fall was so symmetrical that it simulated the controlled demolition in this video. Surly this is so unlikely that it must be a miracle. I like watching controlled demos which is how I found this video you must admit WTC 7 building does lool like a controlled demolition.
sorry,if some sheep here still believe that NIST explained the wtc7 collapse, watch this:
watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
See that in 2008 Shyam Sunder from NIST said "the public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said" and "the obvious stares you in the face" LOL!
That's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion... Plenty of people thought the world was flat despite the evidence... Kind of like you who is convinced of something there is no REAL evidence to support and a metric shit ton to contradict you... LOL!
Your evidence is "look the building collapsed down!". "This is the first time buildings fell from fire!" Which is BS and only morons hold on to that argument... The list goes on, there is no evidence to indicate that the US was in on it in any fashion unless you can make huge leaps of illogic and disregard real evidence...
@alfimon u r a fucker son of americunts go read some physics and metallurgy and answer the reserchers of mit who says that symmetrical demolition is not possible by apllying different blast of plane on wtc check it on youtube u ignorant dont answer me i does not argue with the ignorant.
So no other cases of jet airliners striking buildings? Still pretending that youtube is a definitive source of facts? Seems like you are just another retard....
this building collapse started in the basement as seen..ive spent 30 yrs as a mechanical contractor working on and installing boilers and heating systems..we use analyzers in the exhaust to get the correct o2 and co2 of the flame..i can tell you fires reach for oxygen..this building was a controlled demo..the fires will not cause a symetrical fall..if the subasement was damaged the builing will fall towards the damage..not straight down..this building had help..ny eyes tell me this no news crew.
Right, because of your extensive knowledge and experience in (insert whatever here) you are an expert in buildings collapsing and controlled demolition. Despite the fact that the only evidence you actually have seen is a building that collapsed. That's it, you only saw a video of the building collapse and you give us expert testimony... I think you're just another phony liar.....
@alfimon i design and install and repair large industrial boilers..ive dealt with many melt downs and boiler explosions most all are in mechanical room basements with explosion proof doors for code. my opinion is isolated fires will not bring down a concrete and steel building into the basement..if your a fire expert prove it..you only want opinions that suit you closed eyes..its my opinions deal with it. your attacks are immature . this is a comment page this is my comment...
I'm feeling a little bit like I came off as a first rate ass and I apologize. My comment and opinion is that no matter what your expertise you really can't determine what happened from videos that do not show the bottom 20 stories or the facade near street level where the north tower according to eyewitnesses did extensive damage.
@alfimon u ignorant ffuck three buildings with planes of one building untouched u retard cant u see u blindeyed human these can not be done by some ordinary terrorist attack only by us goverment which have involved in it i have thousands of proofs right fact what u have
Your entire post is unintelligible. Speaking of ignorant, the building you claim was untouched had the north tower of the world trade center fall on it. Yea, you are a fucking genius.... Seems to me that if you were a big fan of facts you wouldn't ignore so many of them...
1) No, when they struck the towers they shredded, damaging the towers. I thought we established that.
2) That is not what I asked. &, "pull it" is industry jargon for building demolition. I'm sorry, but it just is, regardless what silverstein might have meant. The use of that colloquialism is an unfortunate one for the government truthers.
3) Yes, I told you poorly build steel framed structures have collapsed by fire. We've established this.
@alfimon First, I meant it LOOKED like a controlled demolition. (I wasn't there). I don't remember the north tower falling into WTC 7. Send me a link of some clear footage of that. I'd like to see it. As for the fire burning for 7 hours... There have only ever been 3 steel frame buildings that have fallen from fire. Oddly enough, they were WTC 1, 2 & 7. Do I think this was a planned effort? Yes. Do I think Govt. was the lone actor? No... not at all. Follow the money.
See, you aren't paying attention and you don't care for the truth. Anyone can find all evidence and reports of the north tower impacting WTC 7. Then there's the outright lie about steel framed buildings never collapsing from fire prior to 9-11. I already pointed one instance out. Look up Kader toy factory in thailand it burned and collapsed from fire ALONE.(that means no 767's or high rises struck it)
@alfimon Do you work for the feds or something that you only believe what is hand fed by the govt. media? I just found this video on YouTube. It compares. Video title: 9/11 Explanations: Other Steel Structure Failures I watched it and took into considerations the comparisons. I still haven't seen the video of the North Tower hitting #7 yet. Still looking for that video. As I said, follow the money. A lot of people made lots of money from this. Lives mean nothing to them.
I thought we established that opinions, particularly yours were irrelevant? Does your disagreeing with me mean you work for al qaeda? The money... what money fruity ass?
@alfimon Well, I guess if my opinion is irrelevant, this conversation just ended. I don't work for Al Quaida. Someday, you'll see it all come unraveling. The full truths, etc. Until then, since my opinions are irrelevant... I'll go forward cautiously not trusting... and you can take your own path.
I apologize for being such an opinionated short tempered cur. It irks me to no end when people accuse of me of working for the government because I don't agree with them.
my eyes dont decieve me. it was a controlled demo. planned for along time..just like the wars and patriot act..we are lied to by the bought and paid for polititians and media
I dunno, the politicians/news said it had 'all the hall marks of bin Laden' (who some call Tim). If he wasn't in the pay of the US and wasn't a terminal cancer patient would he be capable?
The politicians/news certainly lied about Saddam having WsMD and Murdoch does seem to be having problems expanding his empire. Even if he isn't a 'puppetmaster' of the political systems in Britain and America for the last two decades, it does make one not want to trust the MSM. 'specially when it ends in wars
No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. trying to compare the Towers to Kader Toy Factory is like comparing apples to oranges. makes no sense. Kader was a small four story building made of reinforced concrete.
"the factory was poorly designed and built. The steel frame-work was weak and none of the steel was insulated. The building also lacked any sprinklers. Also, the factory had apparently been damaged by a series of other smaller fires in the past. At the time of the May 10 fire, parts of the building were still being repaired from a fire which occurred in February of that same year." -thats right from the Kader wiki page. I am not the one telling lies here, that is you
Hilarious... You nutjobs say "no steel framed building has ever collapsed"... Then when someone points out the obvious and easily proven lie for what it is you change it to "poorly designed and built". Intellectual honesty is so far out of your reach NO ONE takes you seriously... You are still the liar....
"The factory was poorly designed and built. Fire exits drawn in the building plans were not in fact constructed, and the existing external doors were locked. Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames."
Perfect analogue to WTC 1, 2 & the reinforced building 7. Makes perfect sense.
Oh, I didn't read where the Kader toy factory was struck by aircraft or other falling buildings.... What i did read was how tinfoil hat brigade and other nutjobs claimed that there had never been a steel structure collapse from fire.
It doesn't matter if the Star Ship Enterprise hit the WTC. Your shift to "airplanes" is a strawman argument. Go back to your statement: ". . .never been a steel structure collapse from fire." Don't be an argumentative weasel shifting from physical objects (aircraft) to fires, & back again. Besides, those aircraft shredded on impact, both vertically & horizontally.
ROFLMAO!!! I didn't shift anything. You said "never before blah blah bla...." I merely pointed out that was flat out lie. Don't get all pussy hurt because you fell for a lie and don't take it out on me for pointing it out to you.
Incoherent statement and ad hominem attacks. Your assertions are null & void. Thank you for playing.
Btw, what government agency do you work for? You understand when asked by a tax payer you must disclose by law what agency of the U.S. government you work for? Just so you understand.
I'm glad I don't have high expectations from the tinhat brigade or I would be very disappointed very frequently. I didn't make assertions, you did that. I merely used facts to refute your assertions which led you to try to misdirect the conversation by making an inane accusation that anyone who disagrees with your fictional story must be a government employee... sad and disappointing....
my statement "no high rise steel frame building...." so yes, you are still the liar and all you seem to do are ad hominem attacks. All I did was tell the information about the Kader toy factory you oh so conveniently left out. you debunkers need some new material. Go ahead and shift to the Site and Sound Theater, McCormick Place or one of those other places debunkers like to cite as evidence. Because they've all been shot down :)
Ok, so in other words you are just willfully ignorant and you will continue down your path no matter what facts, evidence or logic may impede you... Don't worry, the intellectually honest and reasonable people usually don't pay attention to you and your kind all the time so you will have a shot at promoting your fiction based theory again....
1) you implying that these airliners did nothing to the towers?
2) as in the north tower did enough structural damage that firefighters evacuated the building"pulled" other firefighters out because they were sure the structural integrity was compromised (plenty of testimony from firefighters and chiefs to this effect)
3) so the statement about a steel framed building never collapsing from fire is... WRONG
It's sad to see the arrogance and ignorance of some "believers",maybe they think that their opinion or NIST fake research are more serious than the opinion of firefighters that was there.I thought that FF who died and who survived were heroes,maybe not for some believer;and as consequence they don't respect victims and their families that r asking for a new investigation.Visit here and think about it(cut space before ORG):
Sorry pal, fake movements by fake groups don't count. I'm talking about the fire fighters who were there. I'm talking about the guys who gave OFFICIAL on the record accounts because they WITNESSED what happened. To bring up tiny little fringe groups who do not represent even 1% of the people who were affected shows your complete and utter neglect of reality and truth....
@alfimon u are a moron u doesnt check the goverment report they also now consider that jet and office fire can't melt the steel structure especially the mostly unaffected internel core structure. made of giant structure truss and weight not the old bad quality steel u better check the fact that those factories doesn't fall in two hours of weak jet fuel fire against the steel.
I bet you can even show us all the other cases of jet airliners crashing into buildings that didn't collapse right? Oh wait you are an idiot who doesn't realize that never happened before... moron
@alfimon except that on July 25,1945, a fully fueled, fully loaded B-25 bomber hit the 79th floor of the Empire State Building, and a fire engulfing 5 floors raged for over 3 hours. There was serious damage. In fact, one of the bombers engines went completely through the building. However, the building didn't even begin to collapse. Nice try though.
@alfimon yea ik, the B-25 is much smaller, but the point is, because of this incident, the WTC buildings were overbuilt specifically to withstand multiple Boeing 707's hitting them. and the twin towers were 110 floors each with over 80,000 tons of structural steel and over 90,000 tons of structural concrete in each, and 40 years more current engineering. the empire state building has over 57,000 tons of structural steel and about 62,000 cubic yards of concrete.
Still not sure what your point is. I did notice your little attempt at fudging things though. Listing the weight of concrete used on one vs the yardage on the other is the kind of deception I expect from people who push conspiracies. The empire state building relied on sheer strength for it's structure and used much more concrete that withstands fire much better than steel. Keep going, you guys are entertaining.
@alfimon actually i wasnt trying to fudge it, that was the only figure i could find, but i figured it was better than leaving it out completely and if you really wanted to you could convert it to tons. but my point is that the twin towers where specifically engineered to withstand commercial airliners hitting them. it wasnt the jets alone that brought them down
@kcsccrew42 Well technically they were built to withstand commercial airliners yes. But the type of airliners that hit the buildings were not invented when the WTC's were built. So they actually were not built to withstand the planes that hit, just a 707, not a 767. That's why they did as much damage as they did.
@Devilchild103195 yes and no. the 767 is much bigger and i believe a little faster than the 707, but overall it still wouldn't have been enough to have brought down the towers. and for the record i dont believe any of the conspiracy theories, i just don't believe the official story.
@kcsccrew42 Well at least you aren't a wack-job like the other conspiracy theorists that I have been arguing with over the past month. You just have some questions about the official story that you would like answered. I can respect that.
Down to business now. To be honest, I disagree with you entirely. The plane was not the only factor as to what brought down the building. It was the plane that started the large chain re-action.(continued)
@kcsccrew42 The plane hit, knocking the fire protection/foam stuff (can't remember the name) off the steel supports and on down the building. The jet fuel ignited and which in turn ignited the majority of the area around the crash site. The fire then quickly spread either through the core or just by floor to floor. It burned those exposed beams the entire time and after the amount of time it was exposed, caused the supports to weaken and collapse, also collapsing the building.(continued)
@kcsccrew42 If you do respond, please do it respectfully. I did not try to offend you and if I did, I am sorry. I told you this because I have had many times where I am respectful tot another conspiracy theorist and they go out of their way to be rude.
@Devilchild103195 dont worry man im not disrectful unless other people disrespect me. but i dont really agree with your story. NIST, who did the official story, employed Underwriters Laboratories to build floor trusses like the ones in the twin towers, subject them to fires much hotter than were experienced on 9/11, and pile on twice the weight they would have bore. UL's findings, they could only produce a maximum of 3" of sag. NIST's response, they threw out this (cont.)
@Devilchild103195 physical data, and instead claimed that based on their computer simulations, the floor trusses should have sagged 42", 14x more than UL's physical tests proved. and even if your story was true, every support would've had to fail at the exact same time for the buildings to fall like they did.
What do you mean by "every support would've had to fail at the exact same time for the buildings to fall like they did"? They fell all over the place hitting buildings as far away as WTC 7 and a everything between.
@alfimon i mean that buildings dont just fall straight down through their path of greatest resistance unless all their support has been taken away. thats why i say all supports had to have failed at the exact same time to fall like that. and that doesnt happen from a plane crash and office fires
Have you not seen videos or pictures of what happened? The towers fell OUTWARD and down just like they are supposed to in earths gravity. Parts of the north tower hit WTC 7 which was blocks away yet here you are telling us that they fell straight down. I don't think you want any answers, I think you made up your mind and are selling your snake oil.
@alfimon right. im just trying to sell random people on youtube my "snake oil". when i say they fell straight down, I mean they didnt topple over to one side like what normally happens when a building collapses. and you said it yourself. if this were a gravitational collapse, how could steel girders weighing tons be propelled outwards more than 600 yards?
So now you are going back on your earlier assertion that they went straight down? Which is it? They go straight down or did they collapse like buildings that suffered major structural failures? I know you are trying to sell random people your snake oil... You CT'ers bounce around when ever people point out your theories basic flaws...
@alfimon ok let me clarify this for you. the buildings fell straight down through themselves, but pieces were shot out almost horizontally. does that help? and again I'm not a conspiracy theorist. if i was I would be trying to convince you it was actually the israeli mossad or the bush administration or some bullshit like that did this. but I'm not am I? Like I said the official story just doesn't make any sense to me
No it doesn't help, you seem to think that if the buildings go down that it doesn't create forces that would push the vertical structure out. The buildings wee struck by airliners, that is irrefutable, the part some people can't come to grips with is how something like this has never occurred in history and how there is no bases for comparison.
@alfimon i agree, there are certain parts that are indeed irrefutable. but if they had come down from the plane crash and office fires, they wouldn't have come down so smoothly and vertically. and also, watch a video of them collapsing again. notice how the debris cloud goes out first instead of down. that's not just gravity bringing down a building. if it were the top sections would have just toppled off of the lower, heavier, undamaged parts of the building. also please explain (cont)
The nanothermite claim was discredited long ago. There was noting smooth or vertical about the collapses. You yourself said debris landed 600 yards away. Why would the top sections topple off instead of down if the core structure was damaged and weakened by fire? Remember the building had an outer support structure that mainly damaged on just 1 side while the entire core suffered damage. The building started in on itself and pushed the outer structure out.
@alfimon how was it discredited? i hadn't heard that. and yes the core was damaged, on the floors hit by the plane. the remaining 80-90 floors were completely undamaged, outer support columns, everything. so thats why the top sections would topple off. they wouldnt have been able to produce enough force to crush the rest of the floors
If the collapse starts downward why would it veer off? The top 30 stories land on the floor below and you think that one floor will stop it and send it sideways? As far as I can tell all it will do is increase momentum as the falling mass increases in size and weight. It didn't crush all the floors at once but one at time a growing rate of speed. There's a video where you can hear the floors pancaking together faster and faster.
@alfimon but what caused it too start downwards in the first place? the top floors were much lighter than the bottom floors, and the bottom floors easily should have supported the top ones. it just doesn't make sense to me. if you could send me a link proving the pancake theory, that would be nice. and thanks for the info on the nanothermite, i hadnt heard about that.
@kcsccrew42 I would say having a 767 crash into the building and damage most of the entire core structure and some of the outer and then burning for a while caused it to start downwards. The floors easily support the top ones since they were built that way. You can't expect the same floors to "catch" the upper floors though. They were designed to support static loads not to arrest the momentum of 30 or 40 stories coming down.
As for the nanothermite the dust they analyzed was sheetrock with a composition similar to unreacted nanothermite, a material used extensively in the construction of the towers interior.
Did you look up the kader toy factory? That is just ONE among other examples of steel structure building collapsing to fire ALONE without benefit of a commercial airliner or the north tower falling into it... Yet your firefraudsfor911 forfiction are still telling people it never happened before... Keep eating the shit your fed like a good lemming
Are you aware that your firefraudsfor911fiction also stated that all 3 buildings fell neatly into their own basements? Completely ignoring the fact the the towers destroyed buildings all around them? Matter of fact there numerous reports from firefighters and their chiefs (the real ones who were there) that the damage to WTC 7 from the norht tower striking it was so massive and serious that they believed the building would collapse HOURS before it came down?
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman
At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman
Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connor
Oh, and just in case you get bright ideas.... Explosions are COMMON in fires. EVERYTHING that is under pressure will explode in a fire. Electrical junction boxes and back generator fuel explodes in fire. Explosion DOES NOT = EXPLOSIVES in fires.... I know that may be hard to grasp when you have sold your sould to the lie but try and grasp it...
@alfimon oh u moron 1. the wtc1and 2 was made of highest quality of steel u moron take that one piece of steel structure and burn for one week it will not melt no jetfuel fire can liquidate the steel u moron jetfuel burns at no so much temperature that melt the steel in two hours and if it is possible plane wil go down ith the engine u idiot 1500 engineers formed a group and asked how can it go down like a controlled demolition if the inner steel structure doesnt get a heat of the crash .
So some massive conspiracy to start a war somehow overlooked those buildings to focus on one further out? Did they neglect those buildings? Maybe the everything that day was not as choreographed as you believe?
@alfimon if you really think that a stainless steel building can collapse for fires and debris in this way,from top to base at freefall speed,like all columns disappear at the same time,you only have to search and find another steel building that collapsed in that way,lots of buildings had fires or collapses,it will be easy for you to find one.A fact now is that this CD is very similar to wtc7,but if you can prove that buildings can collapse at freefall speed with no explosives,just do it.
"...from top to base at freefall speed..." wrong in 2 ways
doofus, FFA does NOT occur in CD.
and where the FUCK did you get stainless steel from? how ridiculous.
and there was only 2.25 sec of free fall at 7. far from "top to base." why must you truthtards pad the actual events? do you want inside job to be true so badly that you make shit up to convince yourselves?
they need to make shit up because they are so bad at basic research. also, they read shit on truther sites and never check it out. so once a gigantic hole in their theory is pointed out, they must fill it with bullshit because admitting they might be wrong about even one minor detail is, apparently, worse than getting cancer of the prick.
these little boys just want to rage against the machine and if you don't believe inside job, you MUST trust EVERYTHING the govt says. binary morons.
@unclesamsnephew666 does only steel change anything in your theories?now, if YOU don't want to be ridicolous, you have to prove that a steel structure can collapse at freefall acceleration without explosives, a lot of buildings in the past collapsed for fires or damages, you moron only have to find ONE video of a collapse without explosives that is more similar to wtc7 than a controlled demolition.By the way,freefall acceleration was declared by NIST moron,Come back with proofs or shut up
"does only steel change anything in your theories?" - wanna try that again in English?
"YOU don't want to be ridicolous" - from a truther's point of view? why not? who cares? truthers are usually 100% wrong, so being "ridicolous" to a truther is similar to being called a genius by a human.
show me all the controlled demo videos that feature free fall acceleration. you have a long list of them, correct?
@unclesamsnephew666 BLABLABLA HERE WE HAVE A VIDEO THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WTC7 COLLAPSE, U ONLY HAVE TO FIND A MORE SIMILAR VIDEO OF A COLLAPSE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES,IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND,BUT MAYBE U R LIKE ALL OTHERS SHEEPS JUST BLABLABLA BUT NEVER 1 PROOF
@unclesamsnephew666 here we have another sheep, so, why don't u answer?Why don't you prove that a building can collapse in this way without explosives?you only have to find one video but....let me guess.....u can't right?and so?it was something never happened before?yes,sure...hahahaaha
there is a 10,000 page document put together by 1000 world-class scientists and engineers but you think the reality-based side has to prove something and not the kook fantasist illiterate side?
is that better than admitting you're wrong and the paranoia industry played you for a fool and tricked you into believing this idiotic nonsense? what happened? were you all caught up in the anti-bush stuff? did michael moore's piece of shit make you a paranoid? is it basic anti-american inferiority complex stuff? islamic? anti-semitism?
what is it that makes you want inside job to be true so much?
@unclesamsnephew666 WHY U DON'T WANT VICTIM'S FAMILIES TO HAVE A REAL AND NEW INVESTIGATION TO MAKE THEM KNOW THE TRUTH.THEY R ASKING FOR, BUT YOU DON'T WANT.
You, the moonbat who is trying to prove their is fictional boogy man is going to drag the victims families into this? How disgusting and despicable. You are a loathsome and vile prick who has been deceived by a fictional theory and are pissed off that not everyone as is stupid as you are... Keep drinking the kool aid moron...
@alfimon hahahahaha, here you have been exposed AGAIN no proofs,no answers,only ridicolous theories, keep dreaming and looking for terrorists in caverns you moron
There you go again with your fiction.... I do not expose myself... I haven't offered a single theory, you did. The fact is the north tower fell INTO WTC 7 and it burned for hours. The fact is that firefighters evacuated the building and went on record right after the collapse of the north tower that the bldg was structurally compromised. Those are facts, not some FFA theory some retard concocted...
@alfimon the fact is that you don't proof anything you only say bullshits and u can't find a video like I asked cause there's no way for a building to collapse like wtc7 without explosives.Keep believing in us gov. fake research for 600000usd against 40milions for clinton blowjob.EXPOSED
What are you going on about? Did you miss the video of the north tower falling into WTC 7? Are you retarded or just stupid? Are yuo saying that WTC 7 did not get struck by the north tower? Are you saying all the firefighters in NYC who were there lied?
not only that, he uses no qualifiers on the claim the victim's families want whatever.
he wants you to think ALL the victim's families are truthtards. in reality, a tiny number want another investigation and most families hate truthers for shitting on their loved one's graves and making excuses for the religious fanatics who murdered them.
I can't believe that people can willfully ignore reality and facts t push there fictional boogy man and the get mad when not everyone believes there bullshit... amazing
Exactly you fucking idiot.... Never happened before, first time anyone ever hijacked commercial airliners and used them as weapons... First time a steel structure was struck by a large commercial airliner...
OH! Are you spewing that worn out lie that a steel strucutre never collapsed from fire line? ROFLMAO!!!! Look up the kader toy factory and you will see what a fool you are to believe your silly story.....
So now it's stainless steel? Next it's going to be titanium alloy and then what? According to the tinhat brigade the WTC is/was indestructible... Keep dreaming...
@alfimon same thing for you, you were already exposed,but it seems you still don't understand, you can help the other sheep believer in finding a collapse without explosives at freefall acceleration.More proof pls and less theories from debunkers.
I see that fools believers always talks and talks,but never show facts, is there anybody that can find a collapse without explosives that is more similar ti wtc1 2 collapses of this?:
watch?v=nJ6_WBwgNuM
I don't think so because phisycs rules and not fools believers in us gov. BS
9/11 was not made by 19hijackers, and was not made by American people, it was made by people from shadow government, this people is human only ouside, that's why for the most of people is so hard to believe that somebody can do this to his own country.Facts talks, after 9/11 government also let the people come back to work knowing that the air was contaminated in NY, that's why other 8000innocent people now got serious deseases,and also send young guys to kill and die for their interests.
@zenoist2 "Don't knock an Idea unless you have a better one" "when there is no other option, less of two evils"
You have no idea what you guys are doing. Yall need to get together, write a story based on facts, confirmed by all truthers, to take to the courts and combat the "official story" ,I would be 100% down with that. You guys just poke holes and leach off of society. We have no other "story" than the one we have I'd rather believe in something with "holes", than one BIG hole itself lol
@theBartone9119 my sister is a prime example of how people think,.
Shes a nice person bless her. she keeps saying she can see there are lots of things wrong with the official story but cant beleive the USA would attack its own people.
Because the "new evidence" is wacky nut jobs who claim to be experts in some field and pot youtube vids with their moonbat theories and reatrds take them as gospel? ROFLMAO!
@alfimon Based on new evidence NIST had to agree to free fall for 2.5 seconds. You cannot have free fall in a natural collapse which makes NIST collapse theory obsolete, so they simply ignored this evidence. Free fall acceleration is only possible through controlled demolition, based on this and eutectic formations NIST must test for explosives, which they will not do, this is in direct violation of the fire investigation code, not only making NIST fraudulent, but criminal.
@kcsccrew42 Well really, all "tests" about the WTC buildings should be thrown out anyways. No test is completely accurate because they are only using a small scale model that is nowhere near the size of the buildng. It is only a small portion, when clearly, the damage sustained by the entire crash was very large and throughout the impact zone and core. And no one can completely distribute the damage to the building/model the exact same way ait happened on that day. Its practically impossible.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 yes exactly. thats why they made the conditions worse than on 9/11, and still only got 3" of sag. so i dont see why you would throw out physical tests for computer simulations
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 A computer simulation is much more accurate no matter what then a small scale test. I understand that they punched up the damage because they were not sure what the exact amount of damage really was, but a computer simulation can make the full scale building, AND come even closer to what the real amount of damage was. And also, I'm not saying I don't believe you, but could you send me a link to where you got that info because I'd like to see for myself.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 yea no problem. fire(dot)nist(dot)gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042(dot)pdf or if you dont want to read all that, check out the book "9/11: The Simple Facts" by Arthur Naimon. It doesn't point fingers as to who did it, it just disproves the official story. and he cites all his sources in footnotes on every page. again though, i disagree I do not think computer simulations are accurate enough to simply throw out physical data
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 Then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about all this. You have your beliefs and I have mine, we can leave it at that. Thanks for not going crazy on me though and spewing out crap that you can't back up. I truly do appreciate that.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 yea ik haha i was about to say the same. i guess were both just too stuborn. but yea man no problem i dont get too worked up about things and thanks for not labeling me as some crazy tinfoil hat wearer dude
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 No problem. Talk about crazy though, you should look talk to this guy thisisfunny88 who I've been talking to on another video. He can't back up any of his shit and when I confront him about it, he either changes the subject, starts telling me I'm stalling for idk what, or just completely ignores my comments or messages. now that is a guy who wears tinfoil as his apparel. :)
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 hahhaa thats some funny shit man. he's like that Marvin dude from the movie R.E.D. you seen that movie?
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 Its been awhile but your talking about that guy who lives in the woods by the lake and almost shot them with da crossbow right?
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 Oh yeaaaaaaah... John Malkovich. i couldn't remember his name at first but the movie has Bruce willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, that russian dude, the older chick and whoever the girl was. I liked that movie though. It was full of pure badassness and made me laugh.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 yea haha i love that guy, but everytime someone says tinfoil hat thats who i think of
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 But seriously, thisisfunny88. He is such a fucktard that he has been asking me and many others for "evidence" of a steel framed building falling from fire and fire alone, and a steel framed building that fell in seven seconds. He wont stop even though we one, proved to him that the wtc 7 didnt fall in seven seconds, and two, that buildings can fall from fire and fire alone, yet he still asks for "evidence". I'm about ready to just drop the topic all together cuz he's a lost cause.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 Oh, I almost forgot that he thinks that all evidence we present to him is paid for by the gov't therefore LIES, as he has said to me. I don't know what else I'm supposed to say to him.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
To shut everyone up, there were pre-drilled holes found in the remaining chunks of concrete after the collapse of tower 7. The only reason these holes were discovered if it was a controlled demolition was because they were not filled with explosives so they were able to survive. But if it was not a controlled demolition then why were there holes drilled into the concrete. This information can from a documentary on national geographic channel.
MONEYBOY512 1 month ago
TROLLS ALL OVER THE YOUTUBE SOCIETY!
show this a 3y old. he tells u what happened!
stop argueing with fools. no matter who or if s/e gets payed. it is obvious. everybody knows. so stop argueing!
lachmichweg 1 month ago
WTC 7 is lacking explosives, minor point apparently for controlled demolitions.
RonBurgundy161 3 months ago
Thanks for posting this. So many people argue that WTC7 in no way fell down like controlled demolition. You can argue what caused it, maybe. But you can't argue that it's not similar to controlled demolition... thanks to this videot. If you do, you just discredit yourself. Coincidence theorists.
eddiechinglives 3 months ago
for those of you who are wondering. the the WTC7 was evacuated countless times 2 weeks before the incident for "SECURITY" reasons. thats how the bombs got there
Cruchto 4 months ago
I was watching NBC (I think) the night of 9/11 and they said, ON THE NEWS, that building 7 was unstable and they were taking it down via controlled demolition. That raised eyebrows because it takes DAYS to plan and implement a controlled demolition of this nature - not hours ... ALL THREE BUILDINGS WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS PEOPLE. If you look into it you will find that the buildings themselves were old and needed complete asbestos removal, which was going to cost MILLIONS ...
ThePeaceKitten 4 months ago 2
Let me get this straight - the diabolical government agents, in plotting this evil deed, decided that destroying two 110-story buildings with people inside them would not produce suffice outrage from the public, so they threw in another 47-story building for good measure? Hmmmm...
Grvthang 4 months ago
@Grvthang oops- I meant SUFFICIENT outrage
Grvthang 4 months ago
I guess I'll start my own new controlled demolition company. When my clients ask me what specific methods I use, I'll just tell them, "Hell, we just start random fires in the building. No expertise needed. No planning. No carefully placed explosives needed. No computer models needed. Our "random fires" method has the EXACT SAME effect. Building falls STRAIGHT DOWN, perfectly!" Yup, and my business card will say, "Acme Controlled Demolition Service -- Random Fire Method, Our Specialty!"
TimothyWenk 4 months ago 2
@TimothyWenk You're an idiot.
godzilla1077 4 months ago
@TimothyWenk So 2 planes crash into the twin towers, causing raging intense fires, jet fuel everywhere & people are surprised there are further explosions. Unbelievable!!!
Do you realise the amount of preparation that would go into demolishing 2 buildings of that size & the amount of people that would need to be involved. Yet none of the 50,000 people that work there noticed a thing. I suppose they were all in on it as well were they? Fucking Morons!!!
thegreenghost1000 4 months ago
@thegreenghost1000 Do you know what took place there a week before??
BigNeonGlitterGirl 4 months ago
@thegreenghost1000 I don't follow this subject, I'm Australian I just stumbled across this video. Are you saying this building fell like this because of an incredible coincidence? Because the damage wasn't symmetrical yet the fall was so symmetrical that it simulated the controlled demolition in this video. Surly this is so unlikely that it must be a miracle. I like watching controlled demos which is how I found this video you must admit WTC 7 building does lool like a controlled demolition.
movieklump 4 months ago
@thegreenghost1000 agreed!!!
kaloosh420 4 months ago
Comment removed
sveller1221 4 months ago
sorry,if some sheep here still believe that NIST explained the wtc7 collapse, watch this:
watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
See that in 2008 Shyam Sunder from NIST said "the public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said" and "the obvious stares you in the face" LOL!
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
That's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion... Plenty of people thought the world was flat despite the evidence... Kind of like you who is convinced of something there is no REAL evidence to support and a metric shit ton to contradict you... LOL!
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon the evidence is real and not brainwashed people or disinfo agents like you, can see it.
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
Your evidence is "look the building collapsed down!". "This is the first time buildings fell from fire!" Which is BS and only morons hold on to that argument... The list goes on, there is no evidence to indicate that the US was in on it in any fashion unless you can make huge leaps of illogic and disregard real evidence...
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga then prove it using your own knowledge of the situation.
thegreenghost1000 4 months ago
@alfimon u r a fucker son of americunts go read some physics and metallurgy and answer the reserchers of mit who says that symmetrical demolition is not possible by apllying different blast of plane on wtc check it on youtube u ignorant dont answer me i does not argue with the ignorant.
78945612336266 4 months ago
@78945612336266
So no other cases of jet airliners striking buildings? Still pretending that youtube is a definitive source of facts? Seems like you are just another retard....
alfimon 4 months ago
this building collapse started in the basement as seen..ive spent 30 yrs as a mechanical contractor working on and installing boilers and heating systems..we use analyzers in the exhaust to get the correct o2 and co2 of the flame..i can tell you fires reach for oxygen..this building was a controlled demo..the fires will not cause a symetrical fall..if the subasement was damaged the builing will fall towards the damage..not straight down..this building had help..ny eyes tell me this no news crew.
camaro517 6 months ago
@camaro517
Right, because of your extensive knowledge and experience in (insert whatever here) you are an expert in buildings collapsing and controlled demolition. Despite the fact that the only evidence you actually have seen is a building that collapsed. That's it, you only saw a video of the building collapse and you give us expert testimony... I think you're just another phony liar.....
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon i design and install and repair large industrial boilers..ive dealt with many melt downs and boiler explosions most all are in mechanical room basements with explosion proof doors for code. my opinion is isolated fires will not bring down a concrete and steel building into the basement..if your a fire expert prove it..you only want opinions that suit you closed eyes..its my opinions deal with it. your attacks are immature . this is a comment page this is my comment...
camaro517 6 months ago
@camaro517
I'm feeling a little bit like I came off as a first rate ass and I apologize. My comment and opinion is that no matter what your expertise you really can't determine what happened from videos that do not show the bottom 20 stories or the facade near street level where the north tower according to eyewitnesses did extensive damage.
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon u ignorant ffuck three buildings with planes of one building untouched u retard cant u see u blindeyed human these can not be done by some ordinary terrorist attack only by us goverment which have involved in it i have thousands of proofs right fact what u have
78945612336266 3 months ago
@78945612336266
Your entire post is unintelligible. Speaking of ignorant, the building you claim was untouched had the north tower of the world trade center fall on it. Yea, you are a fucking genius.... Seems to me that if you were a big fan of facts you wouldn't ignore so many of them...
alfimon 3 months ago
1) No, when they struck the towers they shredded, damaging the towers. I thought we established that.
2) That is not what I asked. &, "pull it" is industry jargon for building demolition. I'm sorry, but it just is, regardless what silverstein might have meant. The use of that colloquialism is an unfortunate one for the government truthers.
3) Yes, I told you poorly build steel framed structures have collapsed by fire. We've established this.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
I said it was a controlled implosion the moment I saw the video.
thelazycomic 6 months ago
@thelazycomic
Did you say it was a controlled demolition right after the north tower fell into it or after it burned for 7 hours?
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon First, I meant it LOOKED like a controlled demolition. (I wasn't there). I don't remember the north tower falling into WTC 7. Send me a link of some clear footage of that. I'd like to see it. As for the fire burning for 7 hours... There have only ever been 3 steel frame buildings that have fallen from fire. Oddly enough, they were WTC 1, 2 & 7. Do I think this was a planned effort? Yes. Do I think Govt. was the lone actor? No... not at all. Follow the money.
thelazycomic 6 months ago
@thelazycomic
See, you aren't paying attention and you don't care for the truth. Anyone can find all evidence and reports of the north tower impacting WTC 7. Then there's the outright lie about steel framed buildings never collapsing from fire prior to 9-11. I already pointed one instance out. Look up Kader toy factory in thailand it burned and collapsed from fire ALONE.(that means no 767's or high rises struck it)
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon Do you work for the feds or something that you only believe what is hand fed by the govt. media? I just found this video on YouTube. It compares. Video title: 9/11 Explanations: Other Steel Structure Failures I watched it and took into considerations the comparisons. I still haven't seen the video of the North Tower hitting #7 yet. Still looking for that video. As I said, follow the money. A lot of people made lots of money from this. Lives mean nothing to them.
thelazycomic 6 months ago
@thelazycomic
I thought we established that opinions, particularly yours were irrelevant? Does your disagreeing with me mean you work for al qaeda? The money... what money fruity ass?
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon Well, I guess if my opinion is irrelevant, this conversation just ended. I don't work for Al Quaida. Someday, you'll see it all come unraveling. The full truths, etc. Until then, since my opinions are irrelevant... I'll go forward cautiously not trusting... and you can take your own path.
thelazycomic 6 months ago
@thelazycomic
I apologize for being such an opinionated short tempered cur. It irks me to no end when people accuse of me of working for the government because I don't agree with them.
alfimon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thelazycomic
Are you waiting for a link or are you incapable of finding the video and pics on your own?
alfimon 6 months ago
my eyes dont decieve me. it was a controlled demo. planned for along time..just like the wars and patriot act..we are lied to by the bought and paid for polititians and media
camaro517 6 months ago 2
@camaro517
Your eyes are experts on controlled demolition or an experienced highrise fire and structural expert? Your opinion is irrelevant....
alfimon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The military knows that Israel did 911. It is 100% certain that 9-11 was a Mossad operation – period."
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College
melvinkowznowsky 6 months ago
I dunno, the politicians/news said it had 'all the hall marks of bin Laden' (who some call Tim). If he wasn't in the pay of the US and wasn't a terminal cancer patient would he be capable?
The politicians/news certainly lied about Saddam having WsMD and Murdoch does seem to be having problems expanding his empire. Even if he isn't a 'puppetmaster' of the political systems in Britain and America for the last two decades, it does make one not want to trust the MSM. 'specially when it ends in wars
lifeformalien 6 months ago
No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. trying to compare the Towers to Kader Toy Factory is like comparing apples to oranges. makes no sense. Kader was a small four story building made of reinforced concrete.
Iceman78985 6 months ago 2
@Iceman78985
Sorry pal, Kader toy factory had a steel frame. Lying through your rotten teeth doesn't get you closer to proving you're stupid theory...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon
"the factory was poorly designed and built. The steel frame-work was weak and none of the steel was insulated. The building also lacked any sprinklers. Also, the factory had apparently been damaged by a series of other smaller fires in the past. At the time of the May 10 fire, parts of the building were still being repaired from a fire which occurred in February of that same year." -thats right from the Kader wiki page. I am not the one telling lies here, that is you
Iceman78985 6 months ago
@Iceman78985
Hilarious... You nutjobs say "no steel framed building has ever collapsed"... Then when someone points out the obvious and easily proven lie for what it is you change it to "poorly designed and built". Intellectual honesty is so far out of your reach NO ONE takes you seriously... You are still the liar....
alfimon 6 months ago
Comment removed
Iceman78985 6 months ago
Kader Toy Factory:
"The factory was poorly designed and built. Fire exits drawn in the building plans were not in fact constructed, and the existing external doors were locked. Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames."
Perfect analogue to WTC 1, 2 & the reinforced building 7. Makes perfect sense.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
Oh, I didn't read where the Kader toy factory was struck by aircraft or other falling buildings.... What i did read was how tinfoil hat brigade and other nutjobs claimed that there had never been a steel structure collapse from fire.
alfimon 6 months ago
Comment removed
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
It doesn't matter if the Star Ship Enterprise hit the WTC. Your shift to "airplanes" is a strawman argument. Go back to your statement: ". . .never been a steel structure collapse from fire." Don't be an argumentative weasel shifting from physical objects (aircraft) to fires, & back again. Besides, those aircraft shredded on impact, both vertically & horizontally.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
ROFLMAO!!! I didn't shift anything. You said "never before blah blah bla...." I merely pointed out that was flat out lie. Don't get all pussy hurt because you fell for a lie and don't take it out on me for pointing it out to you.
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon
Incoherent statement and ad hominem attacks. Your assertions are null & void. Thank you for playing.
Btw, what government agency do you work for? You understand when asked by a tax payer you must disclose by law what agency of the U.S. government you work for? Just so you understand.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
I'm glad I don't have high expectations from the tinhat brigade or I would be very disappointed very frequently. I didn't make assertions, you did that. I merely used facts to refute your assertions which led you to try to misdirect the conversation by making an inane accusation that anyone who disagrees with your fictional story must be a government employee... sad and disappointing....
alfimon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alfimon
my statement "no high rise steel frame building...." so yes, you are still the liar and all you seem to do are ad hominem attacks. All I did was tell the information about the Kader toy factory you oh so conveniently left out. you debunkers need some new material. Go ahead and shift to the Site and Sound Theater, McCormick Place or one of those other places debunkers like to cite as evidence. Because they've all been shot down :)
Iceman78985 6 months ago
@alfimon
Nice attempt at a retreat from the factually nutritious statement: "'You said "never before blah blah bla...."'
Try again.
Btw, where are "the facts" in you last two comments? I must have missed them.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
Ok, so in other words you are just willfully ignorant and you will continue down your path no matter what facts, evidence or logic may impede you... Don't worry, the intellectually honest and reasonable people usually don't pay attention to you and your kind all the time so you will have a shot at promoting your fiction based theory again....
alfimon 6 months ago
Comment removed
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
Fact one... WTC towers were struck by commercial airliners, do you refute this?
Fact two... WTC 7 was struck by the north towers collapse and burned for 7 hours, do you deny this?
Fact three... there have been steel framed structures that have collapsed from fire alone (kader toy factory,
Try, just try to focus on those and not start doing your little river dance of adhominem attacks and other foibles...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon
1) Sure, commercial airliners were shredded by WTC 1&2.
2) You need to define the parameters of "struck." If the "magic pancake theory" is true then WTC 7 could have not been severely damaged.
3) Sure, there have been poorly build steel framed structures that have collapsed by fire.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker
1) you implying that these airliners did nothing to the towers?
2) as in the north tower did enough structural damage that firefighters evacuated the building"pulled" other firefighters out because they were sure the structural integrity was compromised (plenty of testimony from firefighters and chiefs to this effect)
3) so the statement about a steel framed building never collapsing from fire is... WRONG
alfimon 6 months ago
It's sad to see the arrogance and ignorance of some "believers",maybe they think that their opinion or NIST fake research are more serious than the opinion of firefighters that was there.I thought that FF who died and who survived were heroes,maybe not for some believer;and as consequence they don't respect victims and their families that r asking for a new investigation.Visit here and think about it(cut space before ORG):
firefightersfor911truth. org/
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
Sorry pal, fake movements by fake groups don't count. I'm talking about the fire fighters who were there. I'm talking about the guys who gave OFFICIAL on the record accounts because they WITNESSED what happened. To bring up tiny little fringe groups who do not represent even 1% of the people who were affected shows your complete and utter neglect of reality and truth....
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon u are a moron u doesnt check the goverment report they also now consider that jet and office fire can't melt the steel structure especially the mostly unaffected internel core structure. made of giant structure truss and weight not the old bad quality steel u better check the fact that those factories doesn't fall in two hours of weak jet fuel fire against the steel.
78945612336266 4 months ago
@78945612336266
I bet you can even show us all the other cases of jet airliners crashing into buildings that didn't collapse right? Oh wait you are an idiot who doesn't realize that never happened before... moron
alfimon 4 months ago
@alfimon except that on July 25,1945, a fully fueled, fully loaded B-25 bomber hit the 79th floor of the Empire State Building, and a fire engulfing 5 floors raged for over 3 hours. There was serious damage. In fact, one of the bombers engines went completely through the building. However, the building didn't even begin to collapse. Nice try though.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
You are going to compare a B-25 to a 767? Then compare the empire state building to the twin towers? That's not even a good try, that's pathetic.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon yea ik, the B-25 is much smaller, but the point is, because of this incident, the WTC buildings were overbuilt specifically to withstand multiple Boeing 707's hitting them. and the twin towers were 110 floors each with over 80,000 tons of structural steel and over 90,000 tons of structural concrete in each, and 40 years more current engineering. the empire state building has over 57,000 tons of structural steel and about 62,000 cubic yards of concrete.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
Still not sure what your point is. I did notice your little attempt at fudging things though. Listing the weight of concrete used on one vs the yardage on the other is the kind of deception I expect from people who push conspiracies. The empire state building relied on sheer strength for it's structure and used much more concrete that withstands fire much better than steel. Keep going, you guys are entertaining.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon actually i wasnt trying to fudge it, that was the only figure i could find, but i figured it was better than leaving it out completely and if you really wanted to you could convert it to tons. but my point is that the twin towers where specifically engineered to withstand commercial airliners hitting them. it wasnt the jets alone that brought them down
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 Well technically they were built to withstand commercial airliners yes. But the type of airliners that hit the buildings were not invented when the WTC's were built. So they actually were not built to withstand the planes that hit, just a 707, not a 767. That's why they did as much damage as they did.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 yes and no. the 767 is much bigger and i believe a little faster than the 707, but overall it still wouldn't have been enough to have brought down the towers. and for the record i dont believe any of the conspiracy theories, i just don't believe the official story.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 Well at least you aren't a wack-job like the other conspiracy theorists that I have been arguing with over the past month. You just have some questions about the official story that you would like answered. I can respect that.
Down to business now. To be honest, I disagree with you entirely. The plane was not the only factor as to what brought down the building. It was the plane that started the large chain re-action.(continued)
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 The plane hit, knocking the fire protection/foam stuff (can't remember the name) off the steel supports and on down the building. The jet fuel ignited and which in turn ignited the majority of the area around the crash site. The fire then quickly spread either through the core or just by floor to floor. It burned those exposed beams the entire time and after the amount of time it was exposed, caused the supports to weaken and collapse, also collapsing the building.(continued)
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 If you do respond, please do it respectfully. I did not try to offend you and if I did, I am sorry. I told you this because I have had many times where I am respectful tot another conspiracy theorist and they go out of their way to be rude.
Devilchild103195 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 dont worry man im not disrectful unless other people disrespect me. but i dont really agree with your story. NIST, who did the official story, employed Underwriters Laboratories to build floor trusses like the ones in the twin towers, subject them to fires much hotter than were experienced on 9/11, and pile on twice the weight they would have bore. UL's findings, they could only produce a maximum of 3" of sag. NIST's response, they threw out this (cont.)
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@Devilchild103195 physical data, and instead claimed that based on their computer simulations, the floor trusses should have sagged 42", 14x more than UL's physical tests proved. and even if your story was true, every support would've had to fail at the exact same time for the buildings to fall like they did.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
What do you mean by "every support would've had to fail at the exact same time for the buildings to fall like they did"? They fell all over the place hitting buildings as far away as WTC 7 and a everything between.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon i mean that buildings dont just fall straight down through their path of greatest resistance unless all their support has been taken away. thats why i say all supports had to have failed at the exact same time to fall like that. and that doesnt happen from a plane crash and office fires
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 \
Have you not seen videos or pictures of what happened? The towers fell OUTWARD and down just like they are supposed to in earths gravity. Parts of the north tower hit WTC 7 which was blocks away yet here you are telling us that they fell straight down. I don't think you want any answers, I think you made up your mind and are selling your snake oil.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon right. im just trying to sell random people on youtube my "snake oil". when i say they fell straight down, I mean they didnt topple over to one side like what normally happens when a building collapses. and you said it yourself. if this were a gravitational collapse, how could steel girders weighing tons be propelled outwards more than 600 yards?
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
So now you are going back on your earlier assertion that they went straight down? Which is it? They go straight down or did they collapse like buildings that suffered major structural failures? I know you are trying to sell random people your snake oil... You CT'ers bounce around when ever people point out your theories basic flaws...
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon ok let me clarify this for you. the buildings fell straight down through themselves, but pieces were shot out almost horizontally. does that help? and again I'm not a conspiracy theorist. if i was I would be trying to convince you it was actually the israeli mossad or the bush administration or some bullshit like that did this. but I'm not am I? Like I said the official story just doesn't make any sense to me
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
No it doesn't help, you seem to think that if the buildings go down that it doesn't create forces that would push the vertical structure out. The buildings wee struck by airliners, that is irrefutable, the part some people can't come to grips with is how something like this has never occurred in history and how there is no bases for comparison.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon i agree, there are certain parts that are indeed irrefutable. but if they had come down from the plane crash and office fires, they wouldn't have come down so smoothly and vertically. and also, watch a video of them collapsing again. notice how the debris cloud goes out first instead of down. that's not just gravity bringing down a building. if it were the top sections would have just toppled off of the lower, heavier, undamaged parts of the building. also please explain (cont)
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@alfimon the nanothermite particles that made up about 5-6% of the dust after the collapses
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
The nanothermite claim was discredited long ago. There was noting smooth or vertical about the collapses. You yourself said debris landed 600 yards away. Why would the top sections topple off instead of down if the core structure was damaged and weakened by fire? Remember the building had an outer support structure that mainly damaged on just 1 side while the entire core suffered damage. The building started in on itself and pushed the outer structure out.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon how was it discredited? i hadn't heard that. and yes the core was damaged, on the floors hit by the plane. the remaining 80-90 floors were completely undamaged, outer support columns, everything. so thats why the top sections would topple off. they wouldnt have been able to produce enough force to crush the rest of the floors
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
If the collapse starts downward why would it veer off? The top 30 stories land on the floor below and you think that one floor will stop it and send it sideways? As far as I can tell all it will do is increase momentum as the falling mass increases in size and weight. It didn't crush all the floors at once but one at time a growing rate of speed. There's a video where you can hear the floors pancaking together faster and faster.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon but what caused it too start downwards in the first place? the top floors were much lighter than the bottom floors, and the bottom floors easily should have supported the top ones. it just doesn't make sense to me. if you could send me a link proving the pancake theory, that would be nice. and thanks for the info on the nanothermite, i hadnt heard about that.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 I would say having a 767 crash into the building and damage most of the entire core structure and some of the outer and then burning for a while caused it to start downwards. The floors easily support the top ones since they were built that way. You can't expect the same floors to "catch" the upper floors though. They were designed to support static loads not to arrest the momentum of 30 or 40 stories coming down.
alfimon 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
I would love to find videos that prove anything conclusively.... If you have any luck let me know.
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon search "Blueprint For Truth" 2 hours long, for as much INFORMATION you can handle on how the towers fell.
eseoficial 21 hours ago
@kcsccrew42
As for the nanothermite the dust they analyzed was sheetrock with a composition similar to unreacted nanothermite, a material used extensively in the construction of the towers interior.
alfimon 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42
More to the point there is absolutely no evidence of anything but airliners and disaster....
alfimon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kcsccrew42
"buildings dont just fall straight down through their path of greatest resistance unless all their support has been taken away"
"how could steel girders weighing tons be propelled outwards more than 600 yards?"
Same person, same thread... 2 stories.....
alfimon 1 week ago
@alfimon so i dont see how comparing those 2 is pathetic.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@bernuga
Did you look up the kader toy factory? That is just ONE among other examples of steel structure building collapsing to fire ALONE without benefit of a commercial airliner or the north tower falling into it... Yet your firefraudsfor911 forfiction are still telling people it never happened before... Keep eating the shit your fed like a good lemming
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
Are you aware that your firefraudsfor911fiction also stated that all 3 buildings fell neatly into their own basements? Completely ignoring the fact the the towers destroyed buildings all around them? Matter of fact there numerous reports from firefighters and their chiefs (the real ones who were there) that the damage to WTC 7 from the norht tower striking it was so massive and serious that they believed the building would collapse HOURS before it came down?
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman
At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connor
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
Oh, and just in case you get bright ideas.... Explosions are COMMON in fires. EVERYTHING that is under pressure will explode in a fire. Electrical junction boxes and back generator fuel explodes in fire. Explosion DOES NOT = EXPLOSIVES in fires.... I know that may be hard to grasp when you have sold your sould to the lie but try and grasp it...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon oh u moron 1. the wtc1and 2 was made of highest quality of steel u moron take that one piece of steel structure and burn for one week it will not melt no jetfuel fire can liquidate the steel u moron jetfuel burns at no so much temperature that melt the steel in two hours and if it is possible plane wil go down ith the engine u idiot 1500 engineers formed a group and asked how can it go down like a controlled demolition if the inner steel structure doesnt get a heat of the crash .
78945612336266 4 months ago
@78945612336266
You have got to be one of the stupidest drones I have ever had the misfortune of reading...
alfimon 4 months ago
wow!now wtc1 and 2 jumped wtc 3 4 5 and 6 only to fall on wtc7 that was out of the perimeter.
p.s. wtc 3 4 5 6 had real damages from 1 and 2 debris, but they didn't collapse
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
So some massive conspiracy to start a war somehow overlooked those buildings to focus on one further out? Did they neglect those buildings? Maybe the everything that day was not as choreographed as you believe?
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon if you really think that a stainless steel building can collapse for fires and debris in this way,from top to base at freefall speed,like all columns disappear at the same time,you only have to search and find another steel building that collapsed in that way,lots of buildings had fires or collapses,it will be easy for you to find one.A fact now is that this CD is very similar to wtc7,but if you can prove that buildings can collapse at freefall speed with no explosives,just do it.
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
"..a stainless steel building..." wrong
"...from top to base at freefall speed..." wrong in 2 ways
doofus, FFA does NOT occur in CD.
and where the FUCK did you get stainless steel from? how ridiculous.
and there was only 2.25 sec of free fall at 7. far from "top to base." why must you truthtards pad the actual events? do you want inside job to be true so badly that you make shit up to convince yourselves?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
Yes, the tinhat brigade do make things up in order to support their silly little stories...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon
they need to make shit up because they are so bad at basic research. also, they read shit on truther sites and never check it out. so once a gigantic hole in their theory is pointed out, they must fill it with bullshit because admitting they might be wrong about even one minor detail is, apparently, worse than getting cancer of the prick.
these little boys just want to rage against the machine and if you don't believe inside job, you MUST trust EVERYTHING the govt says. binary morons.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 does only steel change anything in your theories?now, if YOU don't want to be ridicolous, you have to prove that a steel structure can collapse at freefall acceleration without explosives, a lot of buildings in the past collapsed for fires or damages, you moron only have to find ONE video of a collapse without explosives that is more similar to wtc7 than a controlled demolition.By the way,freefall acceleration was declared by NIST moron,Come back with proofs or shut up
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
"does only steel change anything in your theories?" - wanna try that again in English?
"YOU don't want to be ridicolous" - from a truther's point of view? why not? who cares? truthers are usually 100% wrong, so being "ridicolous" to a truther is similar to being called a genius by a human.
show me all the controlled demo videos that feature free fall acceleration. you have a long list of them, correct?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 blablablablablablablabla WHERE IS VIDEO THAT CONFIRMS YOUR BULLSHITS?
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
where is the video that confirms FFA occurs in CD?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 BLABLABLA HERE WE HAVE A VIDEO THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WTC7 COLLAPSE, U ONLY HAVE TO FIND A MORE SIMILAR VIDEO OF A COLLAPSE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES,IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND,BUT MAYBE U R LIKE ALL OTHERS SHEEPS JUST BLABLABLA BUT NEVER 1 PROOF
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga "VERY SIMILAR" - wow, that is so impressive.
now, where is the video of CD that features FFA, timed and confirmed?
where is it?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 above your blind eyes, so, for you this collapse is not similar to wtc7?are you saying that black is white or what?
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
"similar"
that is good enough for you?
LMAO!!!
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
when you did your research, what happened when all the real CD videos you looked at did not feature FFA?
how did you explain that away? you must have seen dozens and dozens of videos of real CD and none of them have FFA.
so why do you think you still have a point?
no FFA in CD. what part of that don't you get?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 here we have another sheep, so, why don't u answer?Why don't you prove that a building can collapse in this way without explosives?you only have to find one video but....let me guess.....u can't right?and so?it was something never happened before?yes,sure...hahahaaha
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
you realize you are basing the veracity of your laughable position on video availability and me caring enough to find one.
but your "VERY SIMILAR" video holds up your side of the argument.
what are you, 11 years old?
time to grow up, santino.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
there is a 10,000 page document put together by 1000 world-class scientists and engineers but you think the reality-based side has to prove something and not the kook fantasist illiterate side?
hilarious.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@bernuga
why do you WANT inside job to be true?
is that better than admitting you're wrong and the paranoia industry played you for a fool and tricked you into believing this idiotic nonsense? what happened? were you all caught up in the anti-bush stuff? did michael moore's piece of shit make you a paranoid? is it basic anti-american inferiority complex stuff? islamic? anti-semitism?
what is it that makes you want inside job to be true so much?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 WHY U DON'T WANT VICTIM'S FAMILIES TO HAVE A REAL AND NEW INVESTIGATION TO MAKE THEM KNOW THE TRUTH.THEY R ASKING FOR, BUT YOU DON'T WANT.
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
why won't you show me a video of actual CD that shows FFA timed and confirmed?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@bernuga
You, the moonbat who is trying to prove their is fictional boogy man is going to drag the victims families into this? How disgusting and despicable. You are a loathsome and vile prick who has been deceived by a fictional theory and are pissed off that not everyone as is stupid as you are... Keep drinking the kool aid moron...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon hahahahaha, here you have been exposed AGAIN no proofs,no answers,only ridicolous theories, keep dreaming and looking for terrorists in caverns you moron
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
when did you convert to islam?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666 when did u convirt to terrorists?
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
There you go again with your fiction.... I do not expose myself... I haven't offered a single theory, you did. The fact is the north tower fell INTO WTC 7 and it burned for hours. The fact is that firefighters evacuated the building and went on record right after the collapse of the north tower that the bldg was structurally compromised. Those are facts, not some FFA theory some retard concocted...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon the fact is that you don't proof anything you only say bullshits and u can't find a video like I asked cause there's no way for a building to collapse like wtc7 without explosives.Keep believing in us gov. fake research for 600000usd against 40milions for clinton blowjob.EXPOSED
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
What are you going on about? Did you miss the video of the north tower falling into WTC 7? Are you retarded or just stupid? Are yuo saying that WTC 7 did not get struck by the north tower? Are you saying all the firefighters in NYC who were there lied?
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon do we have video showing this?
reaperjd 6 months ago
@alfimon
not only that, he uses no qualifiers on the claim the victim's families want whatever.
he wants you to think ALL the victim's families are truthtards. in reality, a tiny number want another investigation and most families hate truthers for shitting on their loved one's graves and making excuses for the religious fanatics who murdered them.
truthers are scum.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
I can't believe that people can willfully ignore reality and facts t push there fictional boogy man and the get mad when not everyone believes there bullshit... amazing
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon the reality and the fact is that you r believing in something that never happened before, and it happened 3 times in a day you blind fools
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
Exactly you fucking idiot.... Never happened before, first time anyone ever hijacked commercial airliners and used them as weapons... First time a steel structure was struck by a large commercial airliner...
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
OH! Are you spewing that worn out lie that a steel strucutre never collapsed from fire line? ROFLMAO!!!! Look up the kader toy factory and you will see what a fool you are to believe your silly story.....
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
Anyway, you have proven that reality and facts aren't really part of your vocabulary.
alfimon 6 months ago
@bernuga
So now it's stainless steel? Next it's going to be titanium alloy and then what? According to the tinhat brigade the WTC is/was indestructible... Keep dreaming...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon same thing for you, you were already exposed,but it seems you still don't understand, you can help the other sheep believer in finding a collapse without explosives at freefall acceleration.More proof pls and less theories from debunkers.
bernuga 6 months ago
@bernuga
Sorry pal, I don't expose myself. Keep dreaming though and posting it here, I love comedy...
alfimon 6 months ago
@alfimon BLABLBLABLABLA DON'T CHANGE DIRECTION POOR SHEEP, PROVE YOUR BULLSHITS
bernuga 6 months ago
I see that fools believers always talks and talks,but never show facts, is there anybody that can find a collapse without explosives that is more similar ti wtc1 2 collapses of this?:
watch?v=nJ6_WBwgNuM
I don't think so because phisycs rules and not fools believers in us gov. BS
bernuga 6 months ago
9/11 was not made by 19hijackers, and was not made by American people, it was made by people from shadow government, this people is human only ouside, that's why for the most of people is so hard to believe that somebody can do this to his own country.Facts talks, after 9/11 government also let the people come back to work knowing that the air was contaminated in NY, that's why other 8000innocent people now got serious deseases,and also send young guys to kill and die for their interests.
bernuga 6 months ago
I think I found the best wtc collapse simulation ever!!!watch
watch?v=nJ6_WBwgNuM
can any believer find a collapse without explosives that is more similar to wtc collapses than than this one?
bernuga 6 months ago
No sound?..There were no sounds of explosions anyway.
blueshadow1996 6 months ago
evidence is hard to get since the area was sealed off immediately.
Why did they do that?
Dust samples were collected near the site in peoples homes sand ERVERY single one off them showed thermite
It doesnt take Sherlock Holmes to admit thermite is at least a posssibility but NIST Flat out deny it.
Nice one Guys.
zenoist2 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 the story is already there. . the official fairy tale is total bullshit.
You might think with all this unknowness and new evidence theyed want to open a new inquest. to get to the truth.
But nope it stinks of a cover up.
Truth seems to be the last thing the 9/11 comission wants.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2 "Don't knock an Idea unless you have a better one" "when there is no other option, less of two evils"
You have no idea what you guys are doing. Yall need to get together, write a story based on facts, confirmed by all truthers, to take to the courts and combat the "official story" ,I would be 100% down with that. You guys just poke holes and leach off of society. We have no other "story" than the one we have I'd rather believe in something with "holes", than one BIG hole itself lol
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 my sister is a prime example of how people think,.
Shes a nice person bless her. she keeps saying she can see there are lots of things wrong with the official story but cant beleive the USA would attack its own people.
I think they did exactly that.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 People have written books and there is AE911 dedicated to the truth.
What really seals the cover up for me is the government will NOT start any new investigitation based on fresh evidence
.3000 people dead i would call a murder enquiry but they just dont want to know at all. It stinks
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2
Because the "new evidence" is wacky nut jobs who claim to be experts in some field and pot youtube vids with their moonbat theories and reatrds take them as gospel? ROFLMAO!
alfimon 7 months ago
@alfimon Based on new evidence NIST had to agree to free fall for 2.5 seconds. You cannot have free fall in a natural collapse which makes NIST collapse theory obsolete, so they simply ignored this evidence. Free fall acceleration is only possible through controlled demolition, based on this and eutectic formations NIST must test for explosives, which they will not do, this is in direct violation of the fire investigation code, not only making NIST fraudulent, but criminal.
YSBCITTAR 7 months ago