So I have to put my speakers to the loudest setting and I can barely hear a faint explosion? One that cannot be heard AT ALL on the original video? This is a dubbed version ffs. You conspiracy theorists are so pathetic. You have to dub video and blast your speakers to hear the "massive" explosion that knocked this tower down. Pathetic, but typical.
@eatwoodman People heard heaps of explosions throughout the course of the day before it came down, go watch the interview with Barry Jennings (R.I.P) he was one of 2 men trapped in WTC7 and said he was thrown around by explosions in WTC7 before being rescued. "I can barely hear a faint explosion" So you can hear it! you do realize it can be done with thermite cutter charges there doesn't have to be a huge bang, especially when your trying to cover the control demo up.
Thermite cutter charges LOL. Geeze, you guys are such experts. Thermite is so practical for CD! I mean, that's why all CD use thermite. It works very well! It's no infamous for being absolutely chaotic at all!
@eatwoodman Wow "infamous for being absolutely chaotic" errrrrrrr wrong, you watch to much controlled media BBC docos, that pump that into your brain and you take it as fact because the TV said so LOL. Watch this video, actually watch it, this guy home made his own thermite, and cut through beams: watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g its 14 min long, you can skip the first 4 min if you want. And you will see that "Thermite is so practical for CD!" Please don't bother to write back to me If you don't watch it.
Wrong again. I never said thermite can't cut through beams, it obviously can. It is very impracticable and difficult to the point where it would be virtually impossible to knock down a building using thermite.
@eatwoodman Just keep telling yourself that. 3 buildings fell the same way, in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition? Do you know what the fucking odds are!?!?!?! someone worked it out on some computer insurance companies use to work out proability of an incidence occuring, it gave the answear of: 1 in 1 trectagillion (that is not a made up number) I think it has 48 fucking zeros in it. WAKE UP MAN.... JUST WAKE UP! or do you like those odds?
Fell the same way? 2 of them fell from top to bottom, one of them (WTC7) fell beginning from the penthouse, several seconds later collapsing from the bottom. Could you guys at least pretend to have seen the collapse videos?
@eatwoodman Don't be one of those cock heads who split hairs ok, that justs being a wanker. I've got limited space to write shit and can't go into detail with losing half of what I have to say, "at least pretend to have seen the collapse videos" Pfftttttt HA HA HA HA HA you just made my day. Don't be foolish.
You said 3 building fells the same way. That is completely wrong. Anyone who says they aesthetically fell the same way is either trolling, or is seriously ignorant on the subject. Two towers fell in the same way, but they were damaged in a very similar way. What are the chances of to building being damaged similarly and result in a similar collapse? Geez, I'd be willing to guess not very low as you'd like. WTC 7 didnt fall like any of those.
@eatwoodman Like I said don't be a cock head and start bringing up strawman arguements focussing on one small thing as the central point of my arguement! Will this make you happy: ""Just keep telling yourself that. 2 buildings fell in EXACTLY in the same way and one other WTC7 also fell into its own foortprint from the bottom first this time all three going at free fall speed (NIST), in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition? Do you know what the fucking odds are!?!?""
@eatwoodman "2 buildings fell in EXACTLY in the same way and one other WTC7 also fell into its own foortprint from the bottom first this time all three going at free fall speed (NIST), in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition?" YOU, DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT IS DO YOU. YOU HAVE DONE A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT YOU LAST THREE POSTS. STOP FOCUSSING ON ONE THING. THIS IS THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT!: THE ODDS OF IT HAPPENING COCKSMOKER ARE NEAR IMPOSSIBLE!
@eatwoodman 2 FELL THE SAME WAY 1 DIFFERENT FAGGOT! ITS NOT THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT, YOU FUCKING STRAWMAN COCKSMOKER, "THE FUCKING ODDS OF IT OCCURING" YOU DUMB CUNT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!! 1 IN 1 TRECTAGILLION YOU MUST LOVE THOSE ODDS! YOU WOULD BET YOUR BALLS ON THAT WOULDN'T YOU DUMB CUNT.,
And very good, at least two of the towers fell the same way. I see you're getting better at counting now. I wonder why two towers fell the same way....hmm. It couldn't be because they were DAMAGED the same way, could it? Nah.
@eatwoodman YOUR OBVIOUSLY JUST A CUNT TROLL, OR IF YOU ARE FOR REAL YOU HAVE READ DEBUNKING FOR DUMBIES. NO ONE CAN BE THIS FUCKING SPASTIC AND JUST BRING UP THEW SAME POINT OVER AND OVER LIKE IT WAS THE WHOLE CENTRAL POINT OF MY ARGUEMENT, WHICH IS A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT. TROLL FUCKWIT GOOD BYE: watch?v=DT9g4bggl6w WAY TO HAVE AN ACTUAL DEBATE FUCK HEAD.. IF YOUR NOT A TROLL YOUR JUST A CUNT.
u mad. You said all three fell at free fall. This is false. The twin towers do not fall at free fall because you can clearly see debris (free fall) falling at a faster rate than the building itself. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Damn bro, you are further convincing me that conspiracy theorists are prone to mental disorders. Thorazine, it might help you.
@eatwoodman "And very good, at least two of the towers fell the same way. I see you're getting better at counting now" I corrected that 3 fucking times above you cock head, so you could stop crying about it, but you kept going on and on, about one small comment which wasn't the point of my arguement (typical strawman tactic) I think your just a troll its obvious. OR DID I REALLY HAVE TO WRITE IT IN CAPS BEFORE YOU FUCKING ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WAS WRITING? no your just a troll so fuck off.
I only corrected you the first time, and the second time I mentioned it was in response to your correction, genius. What an angsty teen you must be. But it's okay. You try to make a point using false facts, and when those facts are corrects you cry "STRAW MAN!". You don't even know what straw man means. Quit being so pathetic. It's pretty clear you make all these mistakes because you either like twisting facts or don't know a thing about what happened.
@eatwoodman (READ IT IN FULL) If your not a trying to troll your doing real good at it by not reading through what I've written, you kept going on about the same comment for three posts EVEN after I corrected my comment so you could stop going on about it. PLEASE FUCKING READ what people are writing in full before you write back. But now I think your a fucking troll so fuck off don't writ back to me. (I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WRITE IN CAPS TO GET YOU TO READ)
LOL... there were multiple explosions at wtc 7. David Vanadia's video footage at 26:30 documents this. The explanation at the time was that these were gas leaks....
Sorry, but when I hear explosions and then I see a friggin sky scraper fall like a demolition I am gonna ask some serious questions.
NIST could be correct. The building was said to be leaning by 4:00 PM, and a collapse zone was put in place. But it should also be accepted by NIST that some explosions were heard in the vicinity of Bldg 7, and to omit the video evidence and testimony would be dishonest of NIST. A loud explosion was heard around 11 AM and rumors of a gas leak were later confirmed by bay area scanners. Other explosions were also heard. Watch Vanadia's video at 26:30, that is my answer.
NBC anchor Brian Williams talked to David Restuccio, FDNY lieutenant, by phone to ask him about the collapse of bldg 7. “You guys knew this was coming all day?” asks Williams. Restuccio replies: “We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that it would eventually need to come down on its own, or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on its own.”
This does at the very least imply that there were plans to take the building down...i.e. explosives at some point in time.
It indeed may very well have collapsed on its own, it would be one of the first steel sky scrapers to fall from a fire in history, but I content with NIST it is certainly possible. Anything is possible in my book, even if remote.
The question I have regards the reports of explosions in or near the 7 World Trade tower. The gas leak reports, as shown in Vanadia's eye witness film have not been fully addressed to my knowledge, if they have I must have not heard about them.
The thing is, controlled demolitions always have bombs going off right before and during the actual collapse. They are so loud, you can easily hear them from blocks away. You have a few isolated explosions. That's not a CD.
What we are hearing is the floors collapsing that took out the lateral support for columns 79, 80 and 81. This coincides perfectly with NISTs computer model and shows the accuracy of their theory.
So the fact that the entire fucking twin towers just collapsed behind this building has nothing to do with a little rumbling noise? I think you people need bigger tin foil hats.
@uhohoverflow How is that nuts?! Those buildings were immense and among the tallest in the world. Even after the buildings collapsed, the debris pile was still several stories high. Are you telling me settling and shifting of the wreckage (producing a rumbling sound) just a few hours later is completely implausible?
And no, I'm not claiming absolute certainty that that was the cause of the rumble.
@Skeptic121 are you serious? You have not come up with one piece of evidence examined in harrit's paper that supports the finding of thermite over the finding of paint pigments. Now you seemed to have had your brain removed, and ask stupid questions about how the failure of one column can trigger the global collapse. Read the nist report. You can easily see how the remaining interior columns failed simultaneously. When there is no support, you get a period of freefall.
@Skeptic121 "No I can't, Cutie, that's the whole problem" Why not fix the problem by getting a halfway decent education? Once you do, read the nist report again. I have no respect for morons that make asinine conclusions and use their credentials to support a philosopher scumbag that has used the deaths of thousands of innocents to sell books and to further his political agenda. I now think that they don't even deserve a correct spelling of their names.
@lijebaley01 I'm a structural engineer. I studied how structures work and how they behave. If an interior column magically becomes unbraced for 15 stories like the fairytale in the NIST report claims due to heat (which is a complete crock but I'll humor you) the other columns are in no way compromised. Furthermore, in order to fall without any resistance, ALL columns must fail simultaneously at MULTIPLE points. This is not possible. Even buckled columns still give some resistance. NIST lied.
@chuska8383 If you are a structural engineer, then you should have no problem reading their report and coming to your own conclusion. From what you have said, you have no idea (an unbraced interior column for 15 stories). If this is a conclusion that you came to, then you first should understand reading and writing. In WTC7 the evidence shows the eastern penthouse gave, meaning the support was removed. From this collapse, the steel would have spread all along the base, busting everything.
@lijebaley01 I did read the NIST report. The report says the primary cause of the collapse is buckling of a column due to becoming unbraced for 15 stories. I do understand the report. Do you? Do you have any training in structural theory? Do you know what you're talking about or are you yet another novice trying to lecture me and telling me I'm a kook by pointing out the official story is physically impossible?
@chuska8383 How does what NIST report compare? Well, NIST says sections of floors 13 and 14 collapsed around columns 79, 80 and 81. Floor areas below, also weakened by fires, collapsed from the falling debris until column 79 was unsupported between floors 5 and 14 (columns 81 and 80 were also unsupported between floors 7 and 15). What 15 floors are you talking about? Being a structural engineer, you should find out what these 3 col were holding up.
@chuska8383 NIST never claimed the outer columns (which supported the facade which fell at freefall for 2.2 seconds of it's total 7 second collapse time) was in anyway compromised except for the middle part where a column from one of the WTC's hit it.
This is the point where the facade "kinked" just as it began to fall.
@flanksteak2 I never said it was an outer column. Page 21 of the report, bottom paragraph. I'm telling you that that explanation is a total crock. The thermal expansion wouldn't cause the column to become unbraced - the floorbeams are bolted and welded onto the columns and frame in from all four sides. If anything, you'd see a local buckling of the column at the connection. Notice they didn't even bother to show the connections. Plus, the floor decks have lots of concrete. NIST is all lies.
@chuska8383 "the floorbeams are bolted and welded onto the columns and frame in from all four sides"
A large group of engineers has proven that thermal expansion sheered these connections on a single floor which collapsed knocking out the floors below it allowing the now effectively longer column to buckle. The face of building was also bowing proving substantial creep was present.
You asserting it strongly does not make you correct.
@flanksteak2 What page do in the NIST report do you think these calcs are located? I'm looking at the report right now...they're not there.
What degree do you have in this subject? What experience do you have? Do you even know what a framing detail is? Have you even designed a structure before?
@chuska8383 The freefall speed of the facade occurred 10 seconds after the interior column buckled and failed. The facade columns are clearly visible in videos. Claiming they were removed by explosives is retarded because we would see them going off.
The only liar here is you and the rest of the Truthers who are incapable of logical thought.
@flanksteak2 Are you daft or have you not studied structural engineering? The interior column would not become unbraced for multiple stories due to heat and therefore would not buckle. Furthermore, even if one column buckled due to heat (which again it would not) the rest of the columns would still be braced on two to three sides from other floor beams not connected to the failed column, and a global collapse wouldn't initiate. Lie to yourself all you want - I know what I'm talking about.
NIST claimed that the floor assembly collapsed and pancaked due thermal expansion causing a 60 foot long girder to become dislodged.
The collapsing floors then left the critical column with no lateral bracing for 10 floors which then allowed the now effectively longer column to buckle.
You claim to have a BSCE but clearly you are lying about that as you don't even understand the basic explanation for collapse.
@flanksteak2 I am a BSCE. I also have a master's. What is your educational background? Do you understand that even with a hole in the floor deck the floor beams would still provide lateral bracing? Why didn't they show the connection details? Wouldn't it take a simple calc and diagram to show how the girder walking occured? Even with the loss of a girder, the columns in question still have other girders framing into the column at the same elevation and only one girder or floor beam is needed
@chuska8383 They did show the connection details. NIST isn't claiming there were any floors in the decking, they claimed that the lateral bracing (Girder Truss) expanded and disconnected allowing the floor to collapse.
You expect me to believe you have a masters in civil engineering when you didn't even bother to read the report you claim to be critiquing?
@flanksteak2 There are no connection details in the report. Please tell me the page number you think is a connection detail. Connection details show the shape of column, girders, and floorbeams, number and location of bolts, as well as type and size of welds along with their locations.
DO YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN THIS SUBJECT DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THERMAL EXPANSIVE FORCES?
I'm not lying and I have read the report. Now saddle up and answer.
@chuska8383 No, if you were a sane person you would come with a rational, specific technical point to argue. Instead you resort to vagueries because you are a faker and a liar.
You just told me that a column without lateral bracing for 100 feet of it's height would not bow towards the unsupported side and thus fail.
If that was the case then you wouldn't be a 911 Truther nor would you have made your previous idiotic comments where in you claimed that a buckled column should have provided resistance eluding to the 2.2 freefall of the facade well after the interior of the building around the critical column had already collapsed.
@Skeptic121 Hunny Bunny, you need to capitalize proper names!
Prof. Harrit worked hard for his title so you should include it.
Next, you probably won't be taking chemistry, but anything that ignites at 450 degrees C and leaves iron as a product is a thermitic reaction. It it were a paint pigment it would make product liability lawyers a LOT of money.
You probably have girlfriends whose daddies are lawyers...you know how they are.
Shouldn't the big kaboom happen at 0:24, just before the roofline starts descending? If the "explosion" heard here was what destroyed 8 stories of structural resistance, did the entire upper structure hang in mid-air for several seconds before falling, like Wile E. Coyote?
@lijebaley01 No, I cannot find anything wrong with the NIST "report" or "proof by simulation" because NIST has not released the information necessary for another group to replicate their simulation. For all I know, they assumed steel turns liquid at 100 degrees C.
@Skeptic121 The thing is, architects can create a computer model of a structure in 20 minutes. But they have no clue as to the materials needed for it to work. They need to turn the model over to a structural engineer. If the architects and engineers had any brains, they would be able to replicate the computer model themselves using data easily obtained. A new investigation would only replicate the same findings (as have been done by independent universities).
@lijebaley01 I am not sure I understand your writing. Sorry, I am a former academic scientist...a youthful indiscretion. Could you give me a list of the "independent universities" and maybe references to what they have done? Statements such as "if the architects and engineers had any brains" only cause me to question yours. Is it really so easy to make such a model simulate free fall? Did NIST's model simulate free fall? (Whisper-whispher Hinty-hint: no
@lijebaley01 "Gravity is a given. freefall is not, unless there is no resistace [sic]"
That is the whole point! NO simulation could show WTC7 dropping at freefall acceleration for 25 meters due to a fire UNLESS there were ridiculous assumptions made, such as "Steel liquifies at 100 degrees C"
@Skeptic121 failed from being knock over is failure. No support columns in WTC7 needed to be weakened for it to fail. Haven't you even read the NIST report?
@Skeptic121 If you are supporting the architects and engineers, then you do not fully understand why their opinion has no significance. They are only mimicing, for some unknown reason, the findings of one anti-government philosopher. The fact that this philosopher uses the deaths of thousands to further his politic agenda is immoral, and personally nauseating. The models do not need to simulate freefall, gravity will take care of that. The model just needs to demonstrate failure.
If David Chandler is correct, and 8 stories worth of structural resistance had to be removed instantaneously to allow WTC7 its brief period of freefall, wouldn't we be able to SEE and HEAR such a massive explosion on these videos?
As it is, all we get are faint booming sounds like this one, and no visible evidence that all that thick steel and concrete is being destroyed to precipitate the collapse.
Considering that the "theory" is that WTC7 couldn't fall so fast unless the entire supporting substructure was removed with explosive charges, this seems like a pretty feeble noise.
That explosion must be the thermate, errrrr thermite, errrrr nano-thermite melting, I mean exploding the key column in the building.
Oh wait, the claim is that several hundred charges were placed around the perimeter and that is what led to the freefall speed of the facade for 2.5 seconds.
AE911 Truth fraudsters should be hung for treason.
@flanksteak2 Instead of posting foul language stuff that is of no gain for yourself, try to consider what it means if a building is falling straight down at freefall speed (meaning nothing is slowing down the fall) at it's entire width. And like all those who think no plane hit the Pentagon, you have to consider the massive account of witness testimonies (in this case regarding explosion throughout the buildings and the entire area prior to the collapses).
@flanksteak2 First of all: the ROOF LINE. This means that NOTHING is there to slow down the fall of the building. Moreover, the rest of the time of the fall that can be accurately meassured from existing video evidence, shows fall speed CLOSE TO freefall.
Now, if you look at failed controlled demolitions, you will notice that buildings kind of comes to a halt, leaving an intact prortion of the building standing, or toppled over. But the WTC buildigs were TOTALLY demolished. Without explosives?
@Funkadelic2 I see. So 2.2 seconds of freefall speed of the facade of building 7 means that it was a failed controlled demolition done with nano-thermite?
Sorry, I still have to guess as to what you mean as you're not really making any specific claim.
Here is a question though. During your calculations, how fast did you determine that facade would fall with 20 million pounds of resistance VS say, 50 million pounds of resistance (constant).?
@flanksteak2 What I meant with the example of failed controlled demolitions, is that EVEN in a ongoing controlled demolition (where we DO know there are explosives doing the job to take resistance out of the way), if a series of charges fail to go off, the building comes to a halt, leaving the building halfway intact, or with it falling over partially intact:
/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q
So what force is TOTALLY leveling the WTC buildings on 9/11 (allegedly WITHOUT explosives)..?
@flanksteak2 Don't forget that gravity has to fight RESITANCE. If you are trying to convince somebody that buildings are self-destructing due to gravity once some structural failure has occured, you have lots of work ahead.
I am an ordinary guy, a citizen with strong concerns about justice in this world. What you say about your fellow man is very telling of what kind of a person YOU are. I didn't question anything about the official story of 9/11 until I really started looking at the evidence.
@Funkadelic2 "If you are trying to convince somebody that buildings are self-destructing due to gravity once some structural failure has occured, you have lots of work ahead."
Only because you are an ordinary guy who knows nothing about anything remotely mechanical.
@Funkadelic2 "Don't forget that gravity has to fight RESITANCE"
Which is why I asked you a simply technical question. How fast would the building have fallen if 20 million lbs of resistant were present VS say 50 million.
You didn't answer because you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. Your claims are complete fantasy based on hogwash put forth by people who enjoy tricking fools like you.
@flanksteak2 I didn't answer because of completely different reasons. One being that you ignore the fact of the resistance, the other being that it should be "how far", not "how fast".
In the case of WTC7, being destroyed from the bottom-up, for every floor crushed (having the downward force meeting RESITANCE), the fall should have slowed down, not accelerated. And for it not to fall over, the support columns of the entire depth of the building would have have to been removed .
@Funkadelic2 The fall did slow down. That is why the facade accelerates, falls at freefall for 2.2 seconds and then slows down again for a total 7 second collapse time.
You do realize that you're just another idiot coming along parroting back claims that were debunked over 6 years ago right?
Some Islamists shot up a coffee shop in your country not too long ago right? European racism plays heavily in motivating attacks such as those and those conducted on 7/7 in London.
@flanksteak2 Is your only reply regarding massive resistance - which of course should require far more than 7 seconds for total collapse (if now any collapse at all would be to expect for that building) - talking about European racism (do we have a west-west confilct here..?) and Islamist coffee shops (!) claiming something was debunked six years ago..? You are doing a good job of reducing the number of people willing to debate you in doing so.
@Funkadel "Is your only reply regarding massive resistance"
Massive is not a scientific term nor is it measureable in scientific fashion. Please pull your head out of your rectum.
"which of course should require far more than 7 seconds for total collapse"
WTC 7 took 17 seconds to collapse. See dipshit fucktard, you are just another clueless idiot who has done ZERO research but fervently peddles bullshit he just read off some conspiracy site.
@flanksteak2 It is pretty much of no interest at all if you refer to seismic data to claim that building 7 collapsed in 17 seconds or half a minute. The interesting thing is that the main collapse, as far as it can be visually measured (which is also the data to which NIST refers in it's investigation) happened in merely 7 seconds, and that the building collapsed at freefall for over eight stories (more than 100 feet).
@Funkadelic2 The exterior framing collapsed in 7 seconds. Any damage being caused to these supports would have been visible by people on the street and seen in the videos.
Claiming that 2.2 seconds of freefall of the 7 second collapse time of the facade proves that the building was CD'd is nothing more than pure fantasy.
@flanksteak2 Tell me how you find it a fitting description to call 2,2 seconds of total freefall (i.e nothing is there to slow down the fall - NOTHING) "fantasy"..? Did all of the vertical columns on at least 8 floors give way simultaneously from isolated fires on a few floors? Is that less fantasy than seeking an explanation that for sure could allow for actual freefall?
@flanksteak2 Buckling requires consumption of time far more than freefall.
And of course you know nothing about the research I've done, corresponding wih people of structural engineering qualifications. I'm amazed at the waste of time you are willing to consume calling me liar. My father is retired, but was working at this office:
w w w . wspgroup . se/sv/Kontakt/Kontakt/Kontor-i-Sverige/Gavle/Post.aspx?epslanguage=SV%2cSV&CountryID=SE&City=G%25C3%25A4vle
@flanksteak2 It's also interesting that the concrete was substantially pulverized. What in those buildings provided energy to pulverize concrete? Moreover, was that what happend to building 7 during those additional 10 seconds you referred to..? The top 10-15 floors collpased in 10 seconds while the rest of the building collapsed in 7 seconds? And what had some elements of the steel showing gaping holes in it?
@flanksteak2 That there is virtually nothing to suggest those were "natural" collapses. And someone said: "The explosiveness is quite obvious" (commenting on what can be seen happening to the South Tower above the zone of airplane impact on the side of the building that wasn't even damaged at 0 : 59 into this clip: /watch?v=DifdrPTerhE clip).
@flanksteak2 Most people I've discussed the events of 9/11 with - who embrace the (or most of the) official story - acknowledge at least some of the anomalies, but you just ignore them, flipping it all over and spit out all kinds of disrespectful nicknames for ALL people (of whom many are victims family members) who might have the slightest doubt about what we have been told by official sources about the events surrounding that day.
What is the "huge body of evidence proving" your ideas right?
@Funkadelic2 "Many of whom are victims family members"
As an American, all I can say is that you are clueless and full of absolute shit. You're just another feminized, european, conspiracy-believing male who cannot muster up the courage to pull his head out his ass.
@flanksteak2 I wish one day you will be able to relax your attitude; that you realize you just do not need to dominate and bomb the world to kingdom come in order to be a MAN. It's actually the other way around. And the parallells between the nowadays west US "christian" paternal agenda and the east "muslim" one is painfully obvious. I hope we won't need a WWIII to realize that, becaue it would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet.
Meanwhile I prefer the feminism up my ass, yes. ;)
@Funkadelic2 "It's interesting the concrete was pulverized"
It's interesting that you believe thermite pulverizes concrete but that a building collapsing should leave perfect concrete slabs laying around even though the concrete is poured over steel decking, not vice versa....but your ignorance of basic mechanics and technical subjects allows you to believe any bullshit technical or mechanical claim is possible because you do not possess the skills that it takes to evaluate it.
@flanksteak2 First of all, we already know that thermite can be design to have behave like an explosive, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Just check out experiments already done. Furtermore, I haven't heard anyone say that only thermite might have been used to destroy the WTC buildings, at least I haven't said so.
@flanksteak2 What's your point about concrete being molded on a steel decking? Even most of the steel decking was shredded. I'd expect concrete to crack severely in a collapsing building, but I'm sure you do understand that it would not be substantially pulverized. Where would you suggest the energy for such events came from? Not even in violent earthquakes or confirmed controlled demolitions where buildings were totally destroyed do we see substantially pulverized conrete in the rubble piles.
@flanksteak2 That is your answer to what pulverized the concrete and shredded the steel decking of the floor assemblies? And had + 1000 bodies virtually disappear? Scattering bone fragments having them landing on the roof tops of adjacent buildings?
@Funkadelic2 "That is your answer to what pulverized the concrete and shredded the steel decking of the floor assemblies? And had + 1000 bodies virtually disappear? Scattering bone fragments having them landing on the roof tops of adjacent buildings?"
I may as well be talking to a random phrase generator.
@Funkadelic2 Talking to you is akin to talking to a random phrase generator. I may as well be dealing with a magic 8 ball. Compared to 911 Truthers, it's far more intelligent and useful.
@flanksteak2 My father (who is a retired building engineer of 40 yrs of experince) and I have done quite a bit of research on the issue of collapse mechanisms, and I've discussed the subject with colleagues of his when watching some of the AE works online. What more exactly do you want me to do..?
@flanksteak2 Further, for your information: a good portion of my family are US citizens. And since you brought on the motivation for attacks - what did the FBI agent James Fitzgerald suggest being the incitement for the 9/11 hijackers? Why is it that the US was attacked and not countries like Germany, Poland or Sweden..? Why is the Stars and stripes being burned, and almost never the flags of these mentioned countries? Why is the US fighting a war in Iraq based on false claims?
@Funkadelic2 "I didn't answer because of completely different reasons. One being that you ignore the fact of the resistance, the other being that it should be "how far", not "how fast".
LOL Hey druggy boy, how many volts would it take to get you to unfuck yourself and quit blathering on about things you know absolutely nothing about?
This is wonderful proof of the accuracy of the NIST modeling. Look at the NIST report, NIST NCSTAR 1-9A in chapter 4 4.3.3 Thank you so much for posting this... Should shut up some of those silly truthers.
@lijebaley01 I'll give AE911Truth credit for finally showing the entire collapse sequence: at 0:19, the east penthouse goes, then several seconds later at 0:25 we see the mechanical penthouse drop, and the progressive collapse ensues.
They've essentially demonstrated how little this actually looks like CD.
@wmahlers "You need to prove that an explosive sound, any explosive sound, is an "ambient" noise." Are you deliberately acting stupid for comic-effect?
@wmahlers You wrote "Not to mention the fact this contradicts the nano/thermite/mate hypothesis". No. There is no contradiction here. Because I have never claimed that they were silent. Just quieter than RDX. I do not claim to know exactly how the buildings were demolished or precisely what different types of explosives were used. There may have been an amalgamation for all I know. Whatever the truth may be, I think you should watch this video: watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk It may help you to see sense.
"There is no contradiction here. Because I have never claimed that they were silent. Just quieter than RDX."
.
Really? What does a nano/thermite/mate explosion sounds like? Where is your SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE backing your claim? Does it even exists? Or are you just making things up as we go? And how would your much cherished eyewitnesses know what a much quieter explosion from nano/thermite/mate sounds like?
And what is watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk supposed to prove?
@wmahlers You wrote "As I can, with the click of a button, find proof that space rays have brought the towers down (Judy Wood)". Are you really the imbecile that you are making yourself out to be? Must I spoon-feed you witnesses testifying to explosions in WTC7? Here's a few: watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related And other: watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=related There are more. Please try to be intellectually-honest for once and admit that witnesses heard explosions before and during WTC7's collapse.
@wimahlers You wrote "I provided a report saying so containing the photographic evidence". You cannot seriously cling to that one photograph and present it as evidence that its entire internal structure collapsed. In any case, the photograph shows a majority of the building is still standing. Unlike WTC5, WTC7 collapsed globally in 6-seconds flat and there was nothing left standing. Also that FEMA report was purportedly supported by conceptual models which are merely hypothetical postulates.
@wimahls Do you really need me to provide you with a link explaining how some professional microphones are designed ton exclude ambient noise? Is that really necessary? In any case, there are innumerable videos of low-frequency booms during the collapse of WTC7, as evidenced by the video directly above, and of course witness testimony is abundant. Apparently though, all of this evidence, according to you is meaningless and not evidence at all. Is that American-Idol I can hear in the back-ground?
"Do you really need me to provide you with a link explaining how some professional microphones are designed ton exclude ambient noise? "
.
No! You need to prove that an explosive sound, any explosive sound, is an "ambient " noise.
And also explain why on the day itself not a single television station, or any other news reporter, reported on "explosives". Some indeed did! But all of those reported, none of them were during any of the collapses, and all were vindicated.
That "crap" is called proof and verified and verfiable references.
Something you consistently fail to produce.
And I fully understand that you don't want to be bothered by such "crap" because that "crap" contradicts many, if not all, of your unsupported, unverified, unjustified and unjustifiable claims and accusations.
@wimahlers You wrote "not a single explosive damage incident was ever reported". Oh dear. More lies. You just can't help yourself, can you? Explosive sounds in witness testimony are abundant and as has been explained ad nauseam, professional microphones exclude ambient noise. And I am not confusing WTC5 with WTC7. The confusion is yours only. I am saying that the theory promulgated of an internal structural failure of WTC5 while its façade remained intact is based exclusively on computer models.
@wimahlers There are many eye-witnesses who head explosions I think you will find. Saying that "noone" heard explosions during the collapse is intellectually-dishonest and disingenuous. Witness testimony of chained explosions during the collapse is abundant and spread all over YouTube and available at the click of a button. Type the key-words "explosions witnesses 9/11" into the YouTube's search engine and sift through the thousands of videos yourself. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
"There are many eye-witnesses who head explosions I think you will find. Saying that "noone" heard explosions during the collapse is intellectually-dishonest and disingenuous."
.
Really?
Problem: You cannot name one.
Sure! You can name a few, and no more than a few, claiming it "sounded like an explosion". But a) this does not prove explosives and b) contradicts with the recorded collapse sounds and the majority of other witnesses. Like NYPD and FDNY and all news reporters.
"Explosive sounds in witness testimony are abundant and as has been explained ad nauseam, professional microphones exclude ambient noise."
.
As explained, ad nauseam, there no explosions were reported by any reporter nearby or by the FDNY or NYPD. Not even by the firefighters on the youtube video that illustrated the collapse with the statement that it collapsed, and I praphrase, "one floor at the time ... boom-boom-boom". Even they did NOT say, thus CONFIRM, explosives!
@wimahlers What do you mean by lack of "physical evidence?" To the best of knowledge there is peer-reviewed evidence of thermite that no scientist has refuted. So this stands as evidence until someone publishes a paper refuting it. Maybe you could do it since you are so knowledgeable. You also say "witnesses are a lousy source for proof". Lousy, eh? I guess we may as well just ignore all those witnesses who reported molten-metal and heavy-duty explosions. They must have all been hallucinating.
@CHIPSTERO7, . "there is peer-reviewed evidence of thermite that no scientist has refuted. " . To what do you refer? Harrit's paper? Where is it published? Besides a fringe pay per article online source? Do you mean Jones? What paper? Where published? Or do you mean Jones own followers publishing in their own fringe online sources? And what thermite residu? You mean the dust? Be critical! Examine what you REALLY have. Be critical! Examine how nano/thermite/mate can be REALLY used.
Not to mention the fact that this contradicts the nano/thermite/mate hypothesis. And, additionally, not to mention the fact that you have no explanation how to combine this with fires. I mean, fire and installed explosives do not mix very well!
What you are doing is looking for bias confirmation. And you don't even care that you cannot show a complete hypothesis. Just a string of self-conflicting claims.
"Witness testimony of chained explosions during the collapse is abundant and spread all over YouTube and available at the click of a button."
.
Sure!
As I can, witht the click of a button, find proof that space rays have brought the towers down (Judy Wood). As I can find, with the click of a button, that lizard people are responsible for this crime (Icke). Again, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. They conflict with each other and they conflict with known facts.
@wimahlers You wrote "But many independent experts, have investigated the matter and reached that conclusion". What "independent" investigators may these be? The ones you have mentioned throughout this discussion that ostensibly espouse the official story are not independent, but rather politically-sensitive governmental or quasi-government bodies which automatically renders all of their 'evidence' suspect. There are over 1400 architects and engineers for A&E that reject the official story.
FEMA, all the contributors of NIST, MIT, Purdue and many more.
And concerning your 1400 architects and engineers: What have they to say? Nothing!
None of them have a working hypothesis. None! In that respect it does not matter if there are 14,000 or 14,000,000 architects and engineers or whatever number.
Some individuals claimed explosives, even a police officer. But saying, based on authority, "I know an explosion when I hear one" is just that, an authority fallacy. As any lawyer can CONFIRM, eye witnesses are a lousy source for proof. And, again, the testimonies of these few witnesses are contradicted by the lack of any physical evidence NOT reported to have been found during all those clearing months for any of the WTC buildings. It is also contradicted by claims about WTC6.
@wimahlers You wrote "As explained, ad nauseam, there no explosions were reported by any reporter nearby or by the FDNY or NYPD. Not even by the fire-fighters". This is rationalised self-delusion taken to unprecedented proportions. Type "explosions WTC eyewitnesses" in the YouTube search engine above and you'll be instantly rewarded with hundreds of different witnesses (including fire-fighters as well) all attesting to explosions before and during the collapse. Your denial is quite remarkable.
"Type "explosions WTC eyewitnesses" in the YouTube search engine above and you'll be instantly rewarded with hundreds of different witnesses (including fire-fighters as well) all attesting"
.
Yes! It is quite remarkable.
Quite remarkable that you, like many others, refuse to see and accept the difference between humans expression themselves in strong terms and the literal concept of the source being explosives. They are not the same. Sorry, if this is explosive news for you.
...and you still have to show an accredited VERIFIABLE REFERENCE CONFIRMING your CLAIM that:
"professional microphones exclude ambient noise" AND that "ambient noise" INCLUDES explosive sounds. At the same time you have to explain why none of the WTC survivors of stairwell B ever heard or ever reported to have heard any explosive sound during the collapse of WTC1 in which they were included.
Just a tip, just your personal reasoning without any reliable REFERENCE is worthless.
As to WTC5 ... you completely miss the point. The point was, is and remains that a significant part of the internal structure of WTC5 was gone. How do you explain this? Explosives? Incendiaries?
The fact is that WTC5 did NOT totally collapse and yet it was significantly internally collapsed. All the EVIDENCE showed that this was due to the fires and fires alone. And here is the KEY POINT:
If WTC5 had collapsed there would hardly have been any internal resistence! Like WTC7!
@wimahlers I doubt you have ever seen thermate in action. There are various videos on YouTube showing thermite cutting through steel (of course not instantaneously, relatively slowly while generating very high temperatures) but thermate is a much stronger variant and burns at much higher temperatures. Thermate is regularly used in underwater demolitions as it has the unique characteristic of burning underwater. And I have already been over why these explosions may not have been recorded.
Now you claim that I have not seen thermate in action, which I indeed did not! I saw nanothermite in action. A much more potent incendiary. Even nanothermite was unable to do what you claim. But, I guess, you never VERIFIED the reference of Jesse Venture I listed in which this is CLEARLY demonstrated.
Show me the scientific EXPERIMENT PROVING that thermate can do what you claim it can do. I claim it is physically impossible.
@wimahlers You wrote "the significant part of internal structure of WTC5 was gone". This is something that you have still yet to provide evidence for. So I am afraid I cannot accept it as fact. So I ask again, how has this actually been observed? Can you give me a simple, straightforward answer. Where are the photographs documenting WTC5's internal-collapse? And did it collapse at freefall-acceleration, was there complete steel-framing dismemberment, and eutectic steel, as is the case with WTC7?
Damn, that explosion was so huge I could barely hear it. Wait a minute, I didn't hear it at all.
Gee, what a surprise.
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@eatwoodman 0:16
BDFPA 4 months ago
@BDFPA
Oh yeah bro\. Definitely an enormous bomb. Like I said, that shit was so loud, I couldn't even hear it. Easily could take down a building.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
@eatwoodman Turn up your speakers or GTFO troll.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
So I have to put my speakers to the loudest setting and I can barely hear a faint explosion? One that cannot be heard AT ALL on the original video? This is a dubbed version ffs. You conspiracy theorists are so pathetic. You have to dub video and blast your speakers to hear the "massive" explosion that knocked this tower down. Pathetic, but typical.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman People heard heaps of explosions throughout the course of the day before it came down, go watch the interview with Barry Jennings (R.I.P) he was one of 2 men trapped in WTC7 and said he was thrown around by explosions in WTC7 before being rescued. "I can barely hear a faint explosion" So you can hear it! you do realize it can be done with thermite cutter charges there doesn't have to be a huge bang, especially when your trying to cover the control demo up.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
Thermite cutter charges LOL. Geeze, you guys are such experts. Thermite is so practical for CD! I mean, that's why all CD use thermite. It works very well! It's no infamous for being absolutely chaotic at all!
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman Wow "infamous for being absolutely chaotic" errrrrrrr wrong, you watch to much controlled media BBC docos, that pump that into your brain and you take it as fact because the TV said so LOL. Watch this video, actually watch it, this guy home made his own thermite, and cut through beams: watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g its 14 min long, you can skip the first 4 min if you want. And you will see that "Thermite is so practical for CD!" Please don't bother to write back to me If you don't watch it.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
Wrong again. I never said thermite can't cut through beams, it obviously can. It is very impracticable and difficult to the point where it would be virtually impossible to knock down a building using thermite.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman Just keep telling yourself that. 3 buildings fell the same way, in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition? Do you know what the fucking odds are!?!?!?! someone worked it out on some computer insurance companies use to work out proability of an incidence occuring, it gave the answear of: 1 in 1 trectagillion (that is not a made up number) I think it has 48 fucking zeros in it. WAKE UP MAN.... JUST WAKE UP! or do you like those odds?
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
Fell the same way? 2 of them fell from top to bottom, one of them (WTC7) fell beginning from the penthouse, several seconds later collapsing from the bottom. Could you guys at least pretend to have seen the collapse videos?
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman Don't be one of those cock heads who split hairs ok, that justs being a wanker. I've got limited space to write shit and can't go into detail with losing half of what I have to say, "at least pretend to have seen the collapse videos" Pfftttttt HA HA HA HA HA you just made my day. Don't be foolish.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
You said 3 building fells the same way. That is completely wrong. Anyone who says they aesthetically fell the same way is either trolling, or is seriously ignorant on the subject. Two towers fell in the same way, but they were damaged in a very similar way. What are the chances of to building being damaged similarly and result in a similar collapse? Geez, I'd be willing to guess not very low as you'd like. WTC 7 didnt fall like any of those.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman Like I said don't be a cock head and start bringing up strawman arguements focussing on one small thing as the central point of my arguement! Will this make you happy: ""Just keep telling yourself that. 2 buildings fell in EXACTLY in the same way and one other WTC7 also fell into its own foortprint from the bottom first this time all three going at free fall speed (NIST), in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition? Do you know what the fucking odds are!?!?""
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
That's not a straw man. You said it yourself. Blame yourself. All three did not collapse at free fall. lol, you trolling?
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman "2 buildings fell in EXACTLY in the same way and one other WTC7 also fell into its own foortprint from the bottom first this time all three going at free fall speed (NIST), in the same place, on the same day, without a controlled demolition?" YOU, DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT IS DO YOU. YOU HAVE DONE A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT YOU LAST THREE POSTS. STOP FOCUSSING ON ONE THING. THIS IS THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT!: THE ODDS OF IT HAPPENING COCKSMOKER ARE NEAR IMPOSSIBLE!
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@eatwoodman 2 FELL THE SAME WAY 1 DIFFERENT FAGGOT! ITS NOT THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT, YOU FUCKING STRAWMAN COCKSMOKER, "THE FUCKING ODDS OF IT OCCURING" YOU DUMB CUNT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!! 1 IN 1 TRECTAGILLION YOU MUST LOVE THOSE ODDS! YOU WOULD BET YOUR BALLS ON THAT WOULDN'T YOU DUMB CUNT.,
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
And very good, at least two of the towers fell the same way. I see you're getting better at counting now. I wonder why two towers fell the same way....hmm. It couldn't be because they were DAMAGED the same way, could it? Nah.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman YOUR OBVIOUSLY JUST A CUNT TROLL, OR IF YOU ARE FOR REAL YOU HAVE READ DEBUNKING FOR DUMBIES. NO ONE CAN BE THIS FUCKING SPASTIC AND JUST BRING UP THEW SAME POINT OVER AND OVER LIKE IT WAS THE WHOLE CENTRAL POINT OF MY ARGUEMENT, WHICH IS A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT. TROLL FUCKWIT GOOD BYE: watch?v=DT9g4bggl6w WAY TO HAVE AN ACTUAL DEBATE FUCK HEAD.. IF YOUR NOT A TROLL YOUR JUST A CUNT.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
u mad. You said all three fell at free fall. This is false. The twin towers do not fall at free fall because you can clearly see debris (free fall) falling at a faster rate than the building itself. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Damn bro, you are further convincing me that conspiracy theorists are prone to mental disorders. Thorazine, it might help you.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman "And very good, at least two of the towers fell the same way. I see you're getting better at counting now" I corrected that 3 fucking times above you cock head, so you could stop crying about it, but you kept going on and on, about one small comment which wasn't the point of my arguement (typical strawman tactic) I think your just a troll its obvious. OR DID I REALLY HAVE TO WRITE IT IN CAPS BEFORE YOU FUCKING ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WAS WRITING? no your just a troll so fuck off.
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@MrHangbush
I only corrected you the first time, and the second time I mentioned it was in response to your correction, genius. What an angsty teen you must be. But it's okay. You try to make a point using false facts, and when those facts are corrects you cry "STRAW MAN!". You don't even know what straw man means. Quit being so pathetic. It's pretty clear you make all these mistakes because you either like twisting facts or don't know a thing about what happened.
eatwoodman 3 months ago
@eatwoodman fuck off troll
MrHangbush 3 months ago
@eatwoodman (READ IT IN FULL) If your not a trying to troll your doing real good at it by not reading through what I've written, you kept going on about the same comment for three posts EVEN after I corrected my comment so you could stop going on about it. PLEASE FUCKING READ what people are writing in full before you write back. But now I think your a fucking troll so fuck off don't writ back to me. (I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WRITE IN CAPS TO GET YOU TO READ)
MrHangbush 3 months ago
LOL... there were multiple explosions at wtc 7. David Vanadia's video footage at 26:30 documents this. The explanation at the time was that these were gas leaks....
Sorry, but when I hear explosions and then I see a friggin sky scraper fall like a demolition I am gonna ask some serious questions.
GarfoyleZanderfield 5 months ago
@GarfoyleZanderfield Are you going to listen to the answers? Concerning the collapse mechanism, they have ALL been answered by NIST.
lijebaley01 5 months ago
@lijebaley01
NIST could be correct. The building was said to be leaning by 4:00 PM, and a collapse zone was put in place. But it should also be accepted by NIST that some explosions were heard in the vicinity of Bldg 7, and to omit the video evidence and testimony would be dishonest of NIST. A loud explosion was heard around 11 AM and rumors of a gas leak were later confirmed by bay area scanners. Other explosions were also heard. Watch Vanadia's video at 26:30, that is my answer.
GarfoyleZanderfield 5 months ago
NBC anchor Brian Williams talked to David Restuccio, FDNY lieutenant, by phone to ask him about the collapse of bldg 7. “You guys knew this was coming all day?” asks Williams. Restuccio replies: “We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that it would eventually need to come down on its own, or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on its own.”
This does at the very least imply that there were plans to take the building down...i.e. explosives at some point in time.
GarfoyleZanderfield 5 months ago
It indeed may very well have collapsed on its own, it would be one of the first steel sky scrapers to fall from a fire in history, but I content with NIST it is certainly possible. Anything is possible in my book, even if remote.
The question I have regards the reports of explosions in or near the 7 World Trade tower. The gas leak reports, as shown in Vanadia's eye witness film have not been fully addressed to my knowledge, if they have I must have not heard about them.
GarfoyleZanderfield 5 months ago
@GarfoyleZanderfield
The thing is, controlled demolitions always have bombs going off right before and during the actual collapse. They are so loud, you can easily hear them from blocks away. You have a few isolated explosions. That's not a CD.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
What we are hearing is the floors collapsing that took out the lateral support for columns 79, 80 and 81. This coincides perfectly with NISTs computer model and shows the accuracy of their theory.
lijebaley01 5 months ago
So the fact that the entire fucking twin towers just collapsed behind this building has nothing to do with a little rumbling noise? I think you people need bigger tin foil hats.
falcoperegrinus82 6 months ago
@falcoperegrinus82 Are you nuts? The Twin Towers are already down when this happened. WTC7 collapsed several hours(!) after them.
uhohoverflow 6 months ago
@uhohoverflow How is that nuts?! Those buildings were immense and among the tallest in the world. Even after the buildings collapsed, the debris pile was still several stories high. Are you telling me settling and shifting of the wreckage (producing a rumbling sound) just a few hours later is completely implausible?
And no, I'm not claiming absolute certainty that that was the cause of the rumble.
falcoperegrinus82 6 months ago
Ya, you can hear it
Rock3t138 6 months ago
Hey Skeptic moron.........do you actually believe dudes from a cave did 911 ???
Stop the high IQ fights.
Think logically.
Did the plane in Shankville 'disappear' and the bodies?
Ohhhhhhh dont forget.....same question applies to the Pentagon. Did the plane and bodies disappear?
LOL
Go bomb Afghanistan. Then tie in Afghanistan to Iraq for 'harbouring' terroists lol. Then say WMD's are in Iraq lol. Find any?? Bomb Iraq.
Bin Laden was a 'patsy', like Lee Harvey Oswald was for killing JFK.
S
spencers252511 8 months ago
There's really no use in debating this anymore, building 7 was the key factor in this, you people need to stop lying to yourself.
9/11nside Job
EvilIntentions01 8 months ago
"failed from being knock over is failure."
Honey, you're really cute, but you MUST pay attention in English class.
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 are you serious? You have not come up with one piece of evidence examined in harrit's paper that supports the finding of thermite over the finding of paint pigments. Now you seemed to have had your brain removed, and ask stupid questions about how the failure of one column can trigger the global collapse. Read the nist report. You can easily see how the remaining interior columns failed simultaneously. When there is no support, you get a period of freefall.
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01
"You can easily see how the remaining interior columns failed simultaneously"
No I can't, Cutie, that's the whole problem!
You are "begging the question"
"Begging the question" is a rhetorical technique and it's going to be on your 10th grade English final, so learn it instead of painting your nails.
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 "No I can't, Cutie, that's the whole problem" Why not fix the problem by getting a halfway decent education? Once you do, read the nist report again. I have no respect for morons that make asinine conclusions and use their credentials to support a philosopher scumbag that has used the deaths of thousands of innocents to sell books and to further his political agenda. I now think that they don't even deserve a correct spelling of their names.
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 You are just TOO CUTE when you get mad!
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 I'm a structural engineer. I studied how structures work and how they behave. If an interior column magically becomes unbraced for 15 stories like the fairytale in the NIST report claims due to heat (which is a complete crock but I'll humor you) the other columns are in no way compromised. Furthermore, in order to fall without any resistance, ALL columns must fail simultaneously at MULTIPLE points. This is not possible. Even buckled columns still give some resistance. NIST lied.
chuska8383 9 months ago
@chuska8383 If you are a structural engineer, then you should have no problem reading their report and coming to your own conclusion. From what you have said, you have no idea (an unbraced interior column for 15 stories). If this is a conclusion that you came to, then you first should understand reading and writing. In WTC7 the evidence shows the eastern penthouse gave, meaning the support was removed. From this collapse, the steel would have spread all along the base, busting everything.
lijebaley01 9 months ago
@lijebaley01 I did read the NIST report. The report says the primary cause of the collapse is buckling of a column due to becoming unbraced for 15 stories. I do understand the report. Do you? Do you have any training in structural theory? Do you know what you're talking about or are you yet another novice trying to lecture me and telling me I'm a kook by pointing out the official story is physically impossible?
chuska8383 9 months ago
@chuska8383 How does what NIST report compare? Well, NIST says sections of floors 13 and 14 collapsed around columns 79, 80 and 81. Floor areas below, also weakened by fires, collapsed from the falling debris until column 79 was unsupported between floors 5 and 14 (columns 81 and 80 were also unsupported between floors 7 and 15). What 15 floors are you talking about? Being a structural engineer, you should find out what these 3 col were holding up.
lijebaley01 9 months ago
@chuska8383 NIST never claimed the outer columns (which supported the facade which fell at freefall for 2.2 seconds of it's total 7 second collapse time) was in anyway compromised except for the middle part where a column from one of the WTC's hit it.
This is the point where the facade "kinked" just as it began to fall.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 I never said it was an outer column. Page 21 of the report, bottom paragraph. I'm telling you that that explanation is a total crock. The thermal expansion wouldn't cause the column to become unbraced - the floorbeams are bolted and welded onto the columns and frame in from all four sides. If anything, you'd see a local buckling of the column at the connection. Notice they didn't even bother to show the connections. Plus, the floor decks have lots of concrete. NIST is all lies.
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 "the floorbeams are bolted and welded onto the columns and frame in from all four sides"
A large group of engineers has proven that thermal expansion sheered these connections on a single floor which collapsed knocking out the floors below it allowing the now effectively longer column to buckle. The face of building was also bowing proving substantial creep was present.
You asserting it strongly does not make you correct.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Where are the calcs for the shearing? Where are the connection details?
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 In the NIST report and the original design plans on file in the New York City building department.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 What page do in the NIST report do you think these calcs are located? I'm looking at the report right now...they're not there.
What degree do you have in this subject? What experience do you have? Do you even know what a framing detail is? Have you even designed a structure before?
chuska8383 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 "DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THERMAL EXPANSIVE FORCES?"
Sure, I just go to AE911 Truth and they will tell me how. They have obviously already done that right?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@chuska8383 The freefall speed of the facade occurred 10 seconds after the interior column buckled and failed. The facade columns are clearly visible in videos. Claiming they were removed by explosives is retarded because we would see them going off.
The only liar here is you and the rest of the Truthers who are incapable of logical thought.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Are you daft or have you not studied structural engineering? The interior column would not become unbraced for multiple stories due to heat and therefore would not buckle. Furthermore, even if one column buckled due to heat (which again it would not) the rest of the columns would still be braced on two to three sides from other floor beams not connected to the failed column, and a global collapse wouldn't initiate. Lie to yourself all you want - I know what I'm talking about.
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 LOL
NIST claimed that the floor assembly collapsed and pancaked due thermal expansion causing a 60 foot long girder to become dislodged.
The collapsing floors then left the critical column with no lateral bracing for 10 floors which then allowed the now effectively longer column to buckle.
You claim to have a BSCE but clearly you are lying about that as you don't even understand the basic explanation for collapse.
You're a brick.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 I am a BSCE. I also have a master's. What is your educational background? Do you understand that even with a hole in the floor deck the floor beams would still provide lateral bracing? Why didn't they show the connection details? Wouldn't it take a simple calc and diagram to show how the girder walking occured? Even with the loss of a girder, the columns in question still have other girders framing into the column at the same elevation and only one girder or floor beam is needed
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 They did show the connection details. NIST isn't claiming there were any floors in the decking, they claimed that the lateral bracing (Girder Truss) expanded and disconnected allowing the floor to collapse.
You expect me to believe you have a masters in civil engineering when you didn't even bother to read the report you claim to be critiquing?
When do the lies stop with you truthers?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 There are no connection details in the report. Please tell me the page number you think is a connection detail. Connection details show the shape of column, girders, and floorbeams, number and location of bolts, as well as type and size of welds along with their locations.
DO YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN THIS SUBJECT DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THERMAL EXPANSIVE FORCES?
I'm not lying and I have read the report. Now saddle up and answer.
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 No, if you were a sane person you would come with a rational, specific technical point to argue. Instead you resort to vagueries because you are a faker and a liar.
You just told me that a column without lateral bracing for 100 feet of it's height would not bow towards the unsupported side and thus fail.
Only a complete idiot would make a such a claim.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 You are ignoring my points:
YOU DONT HAVE A BSCE (I do)
YOU DONT HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE IN ENG (I do)
YOU DONT HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH STRUCTURAL DESIGN (I do)
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT A FRAMING DETAIL IS (I do)
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND EULER'S BUCKLING LAWS, OR WHAT CONSTITUTES A LATERAL BRACE (I do)
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE COMPOSITE NATURE OF FLOORING SYSTEMS (I do)
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND DYNAMICS, STATICS, OR MECHANICS OF DEFORMABLE MECHANICS (I do)
You're a fraud (not me)
chuska8383 8 months ago
@chuska8383 LOL
If that was the case then you wouldn't be a 911 Truther nor would you have made your previous idiotic comments where in you claimed that a buckled column should have provided resistance eluding to the 2.2 freefall of the facade well after the interior of the building around the critical column had already collapsed.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@Skeptic121 Hunny Bunny, you need to capitalize proper names!
Prof. Harrit worked hard for his title so you should include it.
Next, you probably won't be taking chemistry, but anything that ignites at 450 degrees C and leaves iron as a product is a thermitic reaction. It it were a paint pigment it would make product liability lawyers a LOT of money.
You probably have girlfriends whose daddies are lawyers...you know how they are.
Skeptic121 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Regardless of which "side" you are on in this debate, don't let yourself resort to mud-throwing! Support the SCIENTIFIC debate:
ae911truth . o r g
gordonssite . tripod . c o m
journalof911studies . c o m
rememberbuilding7.o r g
visibility911 . c o m
911research . c o m
911speakout . o r g
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
Regardless of which "side" you are on in this debate, don't let yourself resort to mud-throwing! Support the SCIENTIFIC debate:
ae911truth . o r g
gordonssite . tripod . c o m
journalof911studies . c o m
rememberbuilding7.o r g
visibility911 . c o m
911research . c o m
911speakout . o r g
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
Shouldn't the big kaboom happen at 0:24, just before the roofline starts descending? If the "explosion" heard here was what destroyed 8 stories of structural resistance, did the entire upper structure hang in mid-air for several seconds before falling, like Wile E. Coyote?
This makes no sense.
unRompecabezas 10 months ago
@unRompecabezas The boom was the sound of the floors collapsing, that caused column 79 to fail.
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 YUP. Column 79 caused the whole 100 meter wide building to drop. Yupper!
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 Yep, exactly as the NIST report demonstrated. Perhaps you can find something wrong with the report?
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 No, I cannot find anything wrong with the NIST "report" or "proof by simulation" because NIST has not released the information necessary for another group to replicate their simulation. For all I know, they assumed steel turns liquid at 100 degrees C.
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 The thing is, architects can create a computer model of a structure in 20 minutes. But they have no clue as to the materials needed for it to work. They need to turn the model over to a structural engineer. If the architects and engineers had any brains, they would be able to replicate the computer model themselves using data easily obtained. A new investigation would only replicate the same findings (as have been done by independent universities).
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 I am not sure I understand your writing. Sorry, I am a former academic scientist...a youthful indiscretion. Could you give me a list of the "independent universities" and maybe references to what they have done? Statements such as "if the architects and engineers had any brains" only cause me to question yours. Is it really so easy to make such a model simulate free fall? Did NIST's model simulate free fall? (Whisper-whispher Hinty-hint: no
Skeptic121 10 months ago
Comment removed
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 "The models do not need to simulate freefall, gravity will take care of that."
PRICELESS
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 so obvious, why don't you understand it? Gravity is a given. freefall is not, unless there is no resistace.
lijebaley01 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 I am hoping you are a really hot young woman because your credulity and ignorance are just so cute!
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@lijebaley01 "Gravity is a given. freefall is not, unless there is no resistace [sic]"
That is the whole point! NO simulation could show WTC7 dropping at freefall acceleration for 25 meters due to a fire UNLESS there were ridiculous assumptions made, such as "Steel liquifies at 100 degrees C"
"Weakened by fire" does not mean zero resistance!
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121 failed from being knock over is failure. No support columns in WTC7 needed to be weakened for it to fail. Haven't you even read the NIST report?
lijebaley01 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skeptic121 If you are supporting the architects and engineers, then you do not fully understand why their opinion has no significance. They are only mimicing, for some unknown reason, the findings of one anti-government philosopher. The fact that this philosopher uses the deaths of thousands to further his politic agenda is immoral, and personally nauseating. The models do not need to simulate freefall, gravity will take care of that. The model just needs to demonstrate failure.
lijebaley01 10 months ago
If David Chandler is correct, and 8 stories worth of structural resistance had to be removed instantaneously to allow WTC7 its brief period of freefall, wouldn't we be able to SEE and HEAR such a massive explosion on these videos?
As it is, all we get are faint booming sounds like this one, and no visible evidence that all that thick steel and concrete is being destroyed to precipitate the collapse.
unRompecabezas 10 months ago
Considering that the "theory" is that WTC7 couldn't fall so fast unless the entire supporting substructure was removed with explosive charges, this seems like a pretty feeble noise.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas
You mean it would probably require something like.... this?
/watch?v=wV69ZByB0xE
CODHVideos 11 months ago
LOL
That explosion must be the thermate, errrrr thermite, errrrr nano-thermite melting, I mean exploding the key column in the building.
Oh wait, the claim is that several hundred charges were placed around the perimeter and that is what led to the freefall speed of the facade for 2.5 seconds.
AE911 Truth fraudsters should be hung for treason.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 Instead of posting foul language stuff that is of no gain for yourself, try to consider what it means if a building is falling straight down at freefall speed (meaning nothing is slowing down the fall) at it's entire width. And like all those who think no plane hit the Pentagon, you have to consider the massive account of witness testimonies (in this case regarding explosion throughout the buildings and the entire area prior to the collapses).
DEBATE is needed - not thug language.
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 What does 2.2 seconds of freefall of building 7's facade mean?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 First of all: the ROOF LINE. This means that NOTHING is there to slow down the fall of the building. Moreover, the rest of the time of the fall that can be accurately meassured from existing video evidence, shows fall speed CLOSE TO freefall.
Now, if you look at failed controlled demolitions, you will notice that buildings kind of comes to a halt, leaving an intact prortion of the building standing, or toppled over. But the WTC buildigs were TOTALLY demolished. Without explosives?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 I see. So 2.2 seconds of freefall speed of the facade of building 7 means that it was a failed controlled demolition done with nano-thermite?
Sorry, I still have to guess as to what you mean as you're not really making any specific claim.
Here is a question though. During your calculations, how fast did you determine that facade would fall with 20 million pounds of resistance VS say, 50 million pounds of resistance (constant).?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 What I meant with the example of failed controlled demolitions, is that EVEN in a ongoing controlled demolition (where we DO know there are explosives doing the job to take resistance out of the way), if a series of charges fail to go off, the building comes to a halt, leaving the building halfway intact, or with it falling over partially intact:
/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q
So what force is TOTALLY leveling the WTC buildings on 9/11 (allegedly WITHOUT explosives)..?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "So what force is TOTALLY leveling the WTC buildings on 9/11 (allegedly WITHOUT explosives)..?"
Gravity. I am NOT surprised you haven't heard of it. Afterall, you're a 911 Truther.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 Don't forget that gravity has to fight RESITANCE. If you are trying to convince somebody that buildings are self-destructing due to gravity once some structural failure has occured, you have lots of work ahead.
I am an ordinary guy, a citizen with strong concerns about justice in this world. What you say about your fellow man is very telling of what kind of a person YOU are. I didn't question anything about the official story of 9/11 until I really started looking at the evidence.
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Funkadelic2 "If you are trying to convince somebody that buildings are self-destructing due to gravity once some structural failure has occured, you have lots of work ahead."
Only because you are an ordinary guy who knows nothing about anything remotely mechanical.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "Don't forget that gravity has to fight RESITANCE"
Which is why I asked you a simply technical question. How fast would the building have fallen if 20 million lbs of resistant were present VS say 50 million.
You didn't answer because you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. Your claims are complete fantasy based on hogwash put forth by people who enjoy tricking fools like you.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 I didn't answer because of completely different reasons. One being that you ignore the fact of the resistance, the other being that it should be "how far", not "how fast".
In the case of WTC7, being destroyed from the bottom-up, for every floor crushed (having the downward force meeting RESITANCE), the fall should have slowed down, not accelerated. And for it not to fall over, the support columns of the entire depth of the building would have have to been removed .
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 The fall did slow down. That is why the facade accelerates, falls at freefall for 2.2 seconds and then slows down again for a total 7 second collapse time.
You do realize that you're just another idiot coming along parroting back claims that were debunked over 6 years ago right?
Some Islamists shot up a coffee shop in your country not too long ago right? European racism plays heavily in motivating attacks such as those and those conducted on 7/7 in London.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 Is your only reply regarding massive resistance - which of course should require far more than 7 seconds for total collapse (if now any collapse at all would be to expect for that building) - talking about European racism (do we have a west-west confilct here..?) and Islamist coffee shops (!) claiming something was debunked six years ago..? You are doing a good job of reducing the number of people willing to debate you in doing so.
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadel "Is your only reply regarding massive resistance"
Massive is not a scientific term nor is it measureable in scientific fashion. Please pull your head out of your rectum.
"which of course should require far more than 7 seconds for total collapse"
WTC 7 took 17 seconds to collapse. See dipshit fucktard, you are just another clueless idiot who has done ZERO research but fervently peddles bullshit he just read off some conspiracy site.
One of you is born every minute.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 It is pretty much of no interest at all if you refer to seismic data to claim that building 7 collapsed in 17 seconds or half a minute. The interesting thing is that the main collapse, as far as it can be visually measured (which is also the data to which NIST refers in it's investigation) happened in merely 7 seconds, and that the building collapsed at freefall for over eight stories (more than 100 feet).
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 The exterior framing collapsed in 7 seconds. Any damage being caused to these supports would have been visible by people on the street and seen in the videos.
Claiming that 2.2 seconds of freefall of the 7 second collapse time of the facade proves that the building was CD'd is nothing more than pure fantasy.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 Tell me how you find it a fitting description to call 2,2 seconds of total freefall (i.e nothing is there to slow down the fall - NOTHING) "fantasy"..? Did all of the vertical columns on at least 8 floors give way simultaneously from isolated fires on a few floors? Is that less fantasy than seeking an explanation that for sure could allow for actual freefall?
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "Did all of the vertical columns on at least 8 floors give way simultaneously from isolated fires on a few floors?"
It was 8 floors, it was eight stories worth of facade mid-collapse. It's the result of the columns buckling.
You are a very poorly researched individual. You are also a liar. It's very clear that you do not come from a family of structural engineers.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 Buckling requires consumption of time far more than freefall.
And of course you know nothing about the research I've done, corresponding wih people of structural engineering qualifications. I'm amazed at the waste of time you are willing to consume calling me liar. My father is retired, but was working at this office:
w w w . wspgroup . se/sv/Kontakt/Kontakt/Kontor-i-Sverige/Gavle/Post.aspx?epslanguage=SV%2cSV&CountryID=SE&City=G%25C3%25A4vle
Structural engineers.
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 It's also interesting that the concrete was substantially pulverized. What in those buildings provided energy to pulverize concrete? Moreover, was that what happend to building 7 during those additional 10 seconds you referred to..? The top 10-15 floors collpased in 10 seconds while the rest of the building collapsed in 7 seconds? And what had some elements of the steel showing gaping holes in it?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 You're asking a lot of really foolish questions. Perhaps you should do research rather than coming on here and making claims?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
Comment removed
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 Sure funktard, what did you and your father conclude?
Notice you just made a post that said nothing.
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 That there is virtually nothing to suggest those were "natural" collapses. And someone said: "The explosiveness is quite obvious" (commenting on what can be seen happening to the South Tower above the zone of airplane impact on the side of the building that wasn't even damaged at 0 : 59 into this clip: /watch?v=DifdrPTerhE clip).
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "That there is virtually nothing to suggest those were "natural" collapses."
Besides a huge body of evidence proving it to be so.
Notice how you claimed a negative. Something pseudoscientists and whack conspiracy theorists do all the time.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 Most people I've discussed the events of 9/11 with - who embrace the (or most of the) official story - acknowledge at least some of the anomalies, but you just ignore them, flipping it all over and spit out all kinds of disrespectful nicknames for ALL people (of whom many are victims family members) who might have the slightest doubt about what we have been told by official sources about the events surrounding that day.
What is the "huge body of evidence proving" your ideas right?
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "Many of whom are victims family members"
As an American, all I can say is that you are clueless and full of absolute shit. You're just another feminized, european, conspiracy-believing male who cannot muster up the courage to pull his head out his ass.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 I wish one day you will be able to relax your attitude; that you realize you just do not need to dominate and bomb the world to kingdom come in order to be a MAN. It's actually the other way around. And the parallells between the nowadays west US "christian" paternal agenda and the east "muslim" one is painfully obvious. I hope we won't need a WWIII to realize that, becaue it would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet.
Meanwhile I prefer the feminism up my ass, yes. ;)
Funkadelic2 10 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "It's interesting the concrete was pulverized"
It's interesting that you believe thermite pulverizes concrete but that a building collapsing should leave perfect concrete slabs laying around even though the concrete is poured over steel decking, not vice versa....but your ignorance of basic mechanics and technical subjects allows you to believe any bullshit technical or mechanical claim is possible because you do not possess the skills that it takes to evaluate it.
Dumbshit
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 First of all, we already know that thermite can be design to have behave like an explosive, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Just check out experiments already done. Furtermore, I haven't heard anyone say that only thermite might have been used to destroy the WTC buildings, at least I haven't said so.
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 Oh ok, what are you claiming then?
Do you even know? Of course you don't. LOL
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 What's your point about concrete being molded on a steel decking? Even most of the steel decking was shredded. I'd expect concrete to crack severely in a collapsing building, but I'm sure you do understand that it would not be substantially pulverized. Where would you suggest the energy for such events came from? Not even in violent earthquakes or confirmed controlled demolitions where buildings were totally destroyed do we see substantially pulverized conrete in the rubble piles.
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 "Where would you suggest the energy for such events came from?"
LOL
The sad part is that you really are this stupid.
Why do idiots always have such big mouths?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 That is your answer to what pulverized the concrete and shredded the steel decking of the floor assemblies? And had + 1000 bodies virtually disappear? Scattering bone fragments having them landing on the roof tops of adjacent buildings?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Funkadelic2 "That is your answer to what pulverized the concrete and shredded the steel decking of the floor assemblies? And had + 1000 bodies virtually disappear? Scattering bone fragments having them landing on the roof tops of adjacent buildings?"
I may as well be talking to a random phrase generator.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@Funkadelic2 Talking to you is akin to talking to a random phrase generator. I may as well be dealing with a magic 8 ball. Compared to 911 Truthers, it's far more intelligent and useful.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flanksteak2 My father (who is a retired building engineer of 40 yrs of experince) and I have done quite a bit of research on the issue of collapse mechanisms, and I've discussed the subject with colleagues of his when watching some of the AE works online. What more exactly do you want me to do..?
How about a bit more thoughtful language?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@flanksteak2 Further, for your information: a good portion of my family are US citizens. And since you brought on the motivation for attacks - what did the FBI agent James Fitzgerald suggest being the incitement for the 9/11 hijackers? Why is it that the US was attacked and not countries like Germany, Poland or Sweden..? Why is the Stars and stripes being burned, and almost never the flags of these mentioned countries? Why is the US fighting a war in Iraq based on false claims?
Funkadelic2 11 months ago
@Funkadelic2 The United States is the main antagonist in the region. Al Quaeda hit targets in Europe at earlier and later dates.
Night club bombing in Germany, shooting up a coffee shop in Sweden, the attack on Mumbai etc.
Your friends like Geert Wilders will only incite more such attacks. What conspiracy do you cede in order to explain 7/7?
Did the IRA do it and say Al Quaeda did it?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Funkadelic2 "I didn't answer because of completely different reasons. One being that you ignore the fact of the resistance, the other being that it should be "how far", not "how fast".
LOL Hey druggy boy, how many volts would it take to get you to unfuck yourself and quit blathering on about things you know absolutely nothing about?
flanksteak2 11 months ago
Just trying to break up the monopoly.
lijebaley01 11 months ago
This is wonderful proof of the accuracy of the NIST modeling. Look at the NIST report, NIST NCSTAR 1-9A in chapter 4 4.3.3 Thank you so much for posting this... Should shut up some of those silly truthers.
lijebaley01 11 months ago
@lijebaley01 I'll give AE911Truth credit for finally showing the entire collapse sequence: at 0:19, the east penthouse goes, then several seconds later at 0:25 we see the mechanical penthouse drop, and the progressive collapse ensues.
They've essentially demonstrated how little this actually looks like CD.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas Wow, really? It is heartening that they will accept undeniable facts. I wonder if they will show it during their conversion seminars.
lijebaley01 11 months ago
@lijebaley01 Whoa there. Let's not talk crazy.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
"Huge explosion" evidently means a loud thud that didn't even bother the people talking in the video.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
Wow i like the part where there was no explosion which = no conspiracy.
tripods1 11 months ago
lots ofillegal bonds coming to term exactly on 9-11-2001
lots of World Com, Enron court evidence
lots of military finances
lots of CIA docs
can see why they blew it up ;)
hauleywood 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wmahlers "You need to prove that an explosive sound, any explosive sound, is an "ambient" noise." Are you deliberately acting stupid for comic-effect?
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@wmahlers You wrote "Not to mention the fact this contradicts the nano/thermite/mate hypothesis". No. There is no contradiction here. Because I have never claimed that they were silent. Just quieter than RDX. I do not claim to know exactly how the buildings were demolished or precisely what different types of explosives were used. There may have been an amalgamation for all I know. Whatever the truth may be, I think you should watch this video: watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk It may help you to see sense.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"There is no contradiction here. Because I have never claimed that they were silent. Just quieter than RDX."
.
Really? What does a nano/thermite/mate explosion sounds like? Where is your SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE backing your claim? Does it even exists? Or are you just making things up as we go? And how would your much cherished eyewitnesses know what a much quieter explosion from nano/thermite/mate sounds like?
And what is watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk supposed to prove?
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wmahlers You wrote "As I can, with the click of a button, find proof that space rays have brought the towers down (Judy Wood)". Are you really the imbecile that you are making yourself out to be? Must I spoon-feed you witnesses testifying to explosions in WTC7? Here's a few: watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related And other: watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=related There are more. Please try to be intellectually-honest for once and admit that witnesses heard explosions before and during WTC7's collapse.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@wimahlers You wrote "I provided a report saying so containing the photographic evidence". You cannot seriously cling to that one photograph and present it as evidence that its entire internal structure collapsed. In any case, the photograph shows a majority of the building is still standing. Unlike WTC5, WTC7 collapsed globally in 6-seconds flat and there was nothing left standing. Also that FEMA report was purportedly supported by conceptual models which are merely hypothetical postulates.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@wimahls Do you really need me to provide you with a link explaining how some professional microphones are designed ton exclude ambient noise? Is that really necessary? In any case, there are innumerable videos of low-frequency booms during the collapse of WTC7, as evidenced by the video directly above, and of course witness testimony is abundant. Apparently though, all of this evidence, according to you is meaningless and not evidence at all. Is that American-Idol I can hear in the back-ground?
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"Do you really need me to provide you with a link explaining how some professional microphones are designed ton exclude ambient noise? "
.
No! You need to prove that an explosive sound, any explosive sound, is an "ambient " noise.
And also explain why on the day itself not a single television station, or any other news reporter, reported on "explosives". Some indeed did! But all of those reported, none of them were during any of the collapses, and all were vindicated.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers As for your other crap, I can't be bothered.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"As for your other crap, I can't be bothered."
.
That "crap" is called proof and verified and verfiable references.
Something you consistently fail to produce.
And I fully understand that you don't want to be bothered by such "crap" because that "crap" contradicts many, if not all, of your unsupported, unverified, unjustified and unjustifiable claims and accusations.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers You wrote "not a single explosive damage incident was ever reported". Oh dear. More lies. You just can't help yourself, can you? Explosive sounds in witness testimony are abundant and as has been explained ad nauseam, professional microphones exclude ambient noise. And I am not confusing WTC5 with WTC7. The confusion is yours only. I am saying that the theory promulgated of an internal structural failure of WTC5 while its façade remained intact is based exclusively on computer models.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"You wrote "not a single explosive damage incident was ever reported". Oh dear. More lies."
.
Prove it!
List the REFERENCE that proves I am a liar.
List the REFERENCE where ANY person REPORTED explosive damage.
I claim it does not exist.
At best you can refer to Jones's "red chips" for which he claims that it is (unreacted) (nano)therm(a)ite residu. And that is all you can refer to.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers There are many eye-witnesses who head explosions I think you will find. Saying that "noone" heard explosions during the collapse is intellectually-dishonest and disingenuous. Witness testimony of chained explosions during the collapse is abundant and spread all over YouTube and available at the click of a button. Type the key-words "explosions witnesses 9/11" into the YouTube's search engine and sift through the thousands of videos yourself. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"There are many eye-witnesses who head explosions I think you will find. Saying that "noone" heard explosions during the collapse is intellectually-dishonest and disingenuous."
.
Really?
Problem: You cannot name one.
Sure! You can name a few, and no more than a few, claiming it "sounded like an explosion". But a) this does not prove explosives and b) contradicts with the recorded collapse sounds and the majority of other witnesses. Like NYPD and FDNY and all news reporters.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"Explosive sounds in witness testimony are abundant and as has been explained ad nauseam, professional microphones exclude ambient noise."
.
As explained, ad nauseam, there no explosions were reported by any reporter nearby or by the FDNY or NYPD. Not even by the firefighters on the youtube video that illustrated the collapse with the statement that it collapsed, and I praphrase, "one floor at the time ... boom-boom-boom". Even they did NOT say, thus CONFIRM, explosives!
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers What do you mean by lack of "physical evidence?" To the best of knowledge there is peer-reviewed evidence of thermite that no scientist has refuted. So this stands as evidence until someone publishes a paper refuting it. Maybe you could do it since you are so knowledgeable. You also say "witnesses are a lousy source for proof". Lousy, eh? I guess we may as well just ignore all those witnesses who reported molten-metal and heavy-duty explosions. They must have all been hallucinating.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
About heavy duty explosions...
.
Where is the prove? There is none!
Not to mention the fact that this contradicts the nano/thermite/mate hypothesis. And, additionally, not to mention the fact that you have no explanation how to combine this with fires. I mean, fire and installed explosives do not mix very well!
What you are doing is looking for bias confirmation. And you don't even care that you cannot show a complete hypothesis. Just a string of self-conflicting claims.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"Witness testimony of chained explosions during the collapse is abundant and spread all over YouTube and available at the click of a button."
.
Sure!
As I can, witht the click of a button, find proof that space rays have brought the towers down (Judy Wood). As I can find, with the click of a button, that lizard people are responsible for this crime (Icke). Again, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. They conflict with each other and they conflict with known facts.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers You wrote "But many independent experts, have investigated the matter and reached that conclusion". What "independent" investigators may these be? The ones you have mentioned throughout this discussion that ostensibly espouse the official story are not independent, but rather politically-sensitive governmental or quasi-government bodies which automatically renders all of their 'evidence' suspect. There are over 1400 architects and engineers for A&E that reject the official story.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"What "independent" investigators may these be?"
.
FEMA, all the contributors of NIST, MIT, Purdue and many more.
And concerning your 1400 architects and engineers: What have they to say? Nothing!
None of them have a working hypothesis. None! In that respect it does not matter if there are 14,000 or 14,000,000 architects and engineers or whatever number.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
Some individuals claimed explosives, even a police officer. But saying, based on authority, "I know an explosion when I hear one" is just that, an authority fallacy. As any lawyer can CONFIRM, eye witnesses are a lousy source for proof. And, again, the testimonies of these few witnesses are contradicted by the lack of any physical evidence NOT reported to have been found during all those clearing months for any of the WTC buildings. It is also contradicted by claims about WTC6.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers You wrote "As explained, ad nauseam, there no explosions were reported by any reporter nearby or by the FDNY or NYPD. Not even by the fire-fighters". This is rationalised self-delusion taken to unprecedented proportions. Type "explosions WTC eyewitnesses" in the YouTube search engine above and you'll be instantly rewarded with hundreds of different witnesses (including fire-fighters as well) all attesting to explosions before and during the collapse. Your denial is quite remarkable.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
"Type "explosions WTC eyewitnesses" in the YouTube search engine above and you'll be instantly rewarded with hundreds of different witnesses (including fire-fighters as well) all attesting"
.
Yes! It is quite remarkable.
Quite remarkable that you, like many others, refuse to see and accept the difference between humans expression themselves in strong terms and the literal concept of the source being explosives. They are not the same. Sorry, if this is explosive news for you.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
...and you still have to show an accredited VERIFIABLE REFERENCE CONFIRMING your CLAIM that:
"professional microphones exclude ambient noise" AND that "ambient noise" INCLUDES explosive sounds. At the same time you have to explain why none of the WTC survivors of stairwell B ever heard or ever reported to have heard any explosive sound during the collapse of WTC1 in which they were included.
Just a tip, just your personal reasoning without any reliable REFERENCE is worthless.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
As to WTC5 ... you completely miss the point. The point was, is and remains that a significant part of the internal structure of WTC5 was gone. How do you explain this? Explosives? Incendiaries?
The fact is that WTC5 did NOT totally collapse and yet it was significantly internally collapsed. All the EVIDENCE showed that this was due to the fires and fires alone. And here is the KEY POINT:
If WTC5 had collapsed there would hardly have been any internal resistence! Like WTC7!
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers I doubt you have ever seen thermate in action. There are various videos on YouTube showing thermite cutting through steel (of course not instantaneously, relatively slowly while generating very high temperatures) but thermate is a much stronger variant and burns at much higher temperatures. Thermate is regularly used in underwater demolitions as it has the unique characteristic of burning underwater. And I have already been over why these explosions may not have been recorded.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7,
.
Oh what a tangled web we weave!
.
Now you claim that I have not seen thermate in action, which I indeed did not! I saw nanothermite in action. A much more potent incendiary. Even nanothermite was unable to do what you claim. But, I guess, you never VERIFIED the reference of Jesse Venture I listed in which this is CLEARLY demonstrated.
Show me the scientific EXPERIMENT PROVING that thermate can do what you claim it can do. I claim it is physically impossible.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers You wrote "the significant part of internal structure of WTC5 was gone". This is something that you have still yet to provide evidence for. So I am afraid I cannot accept it as fact. So I ask again, how has this actually been observed? Can you give me a simple, straightforward answer. Where are the photographs documenting WTC5's internal-collapse? And did it collapse at freefall-acceleration, was there complete steel-framing dismemberment, and eutectic steel, as is the case with WTC7?
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago