@LordBalto "surveillance video that should have been available at the Pentagon"
Why? They have armed guards at every entrance, the windows are bulletproof Plexi (and alarmed), and the perimeter is patrolled 24/7 by armed units.
Give it up. hundreds of thousands of people would have seen these mysterious cameras if they existed, but so far .... nobody. And no pictures of one of the most photographed office bldgs on earth.
@Robodav64 "What does 9/11 have to do with a controlled building demolition"
Nothing at all, really.
But a tiny minority of conspiracy freaks, mostly uneducated & bat-shit crazy, are convinced that the towers were demo'd .... apparently by magic explosives that are completely silent and don't show up on seismographs.
It's roughly the same group of idiots who think UFOs are here, aliens walk among us, and that evil Jew Bankers are controlling the entire world.
it's funny' if the world trade center collapse was a controlled demolition then why were there no loud explosions like in this one? think about it 9/11 truthers
@BlazingFerret you really should go and do some research before you speak. Thermite has been and used used to cut though metal. Also they have proven that it could have been used on the trade centre beams with great effect
@memberHD "Thermite has been and used used to cut though metal"
The point is, you idiot, that it has never in history been used by ANY company in ANY controlled demolition. Any fool can see why it won't work there.
No demo professional on earth believes the Towers were demo'd, and your idea of "proven" is undoubtedly bullshit, because you don't even understand the issue.
@kaspernon Smaller buildings in your links, they didn't need as large a charge as this one or the WTC would have, and still we can hear the explosions, BEFORE the collapse.
A lot of the firemen claim they heard just such explosions. A good analogy is the Zapruder film, where the Kennedy limousine doesn't even slow down, whereas the witnesses consistently say the car came to a stop. Cleraly, these folks are capable of collecting and doctoring the photographic evidence. Do you really think that mass murdering psychopaths would somehow shrink from altering a little bit of photographic evidence? I think not.
@LordBalto They managed to get all photos, videos, and audio recordings without a single piece of it being leaked? That's like trying to capture a rainstorm in your fist.
Controlled demo on WTC would have been heard all over the city, not just by people inside the buildings.
@MakeFoodNow They did pretty good with the Kennedy assassination films. Considering virtually everybody saw the motorcade come to a stop, there isn't a single photo or home movie that shows it. Remember, these guys are professional murderers, not amateurs like you coincidence theorists seem to think.
@LordBalto@LordBalto Whether or not the Zapruder film was doctored, it's a completely different situation from 9/11. It wasn't the 60s, people have cameras built into their phones, and proper camcorders that are small enough to fit in a pocket. Furthermore, they can instantly make digital copies and backups, and wirelessly transmit them to a global network for anyone to see. You can't intercept ALL of that data and simultaneously intimidate everyone into silence.
@MakeFoodNow Not in 2001. And remember all of the surveillance video that should have been available at the Pentagon, none of which was ever released except for a few frames that show nothing. Just another Coincidence Theorist, I guess.
@duchashes "the pentagon security cameras were and probably still are shit"
What security cameras? A camera monitored the parking lot, but there was no point in outside cameras since the windows are bulletprood Plexiflas and armed guards are at every entrance and patrolling outside 24/7.
So what's the point of outside cameras? Those of us that worked there know there weren't any, and understand why.
@thatguy2012 No need to think about it, I didn't hear any explosions nor saw flashes as the buildings went down. Read the top-rated comments for more details, they're there for a reason.
There were numerous, numerous witness accounts of multiple explosions to the lower levels of the 2 WTC towers that weakened the main supports. The rest of the demolition was nano thermite which doesn't require an explosive detonation. Friggin' educate yourselves...Zombies....before you make fools of yourselves and suggest ridiculously uneducated opinions.
did anyone notice how this is texas march 18 2006? it was obviously a controlled explosion, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or the government
Why is it that there is always some fucking idiot on every controlled demo video comparing it to WTC. Funny how they compare vids like this to WTC as a perfect replication of what happened but then spew out shit like molten metal and entire building pulverized to dust. If the two were the same where is the molten "steel" here or why was this building not turned to complete dust. Shit truthers are fucking idiots that see only what they want to see and make up stories to fill in the gaps.
@12weasel100 They certainly are!! and i have brought this up many a time. It just moves in to the whole.. "Your a government Shill" Bullshit that they spew when faced with questions they don't like or don't want to answer.
One thing to notice here is that the building is not laid out for blocks in every direction. It all falls directly to its footprint because the explosives are removing the resistance on lower floors.
The size and shape of charge required to make a straight cut through the support columns in the trade center would have created a detonation that could be heard across the hudson river. It would have also left anyone in the general vicinity nearly deaf. Yet firefighters in the B stairwell survived the collapse with no hearing damage or any injuries at all. Explosives would have torn them apart.
@usindependent50 I know. I am agreeing with you!! Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Richard Gage and David Chandler don't have a clue with this stuff. I get a little tired of all these white collar geeks and their "I am an Architect".. blah
Yeah? Well I'll give you my news camera and you can stand 800 feet away from a real one see what that's like. Then come and talk to us about Controlled Demolition and watch ABC news shoot WTC without a sound.
Yeah, I can understand how people could believe these conspiracies because these people are very good at misinforming people and make a hefty profit out of doing so. But in all reality you need a large understanding of many sciences to understand the collapse and its just easier to say there were explosives than try to actually understand this complex event.
@usindependent50 Exactly. And well put. One thing to notice in this vid as opposed to WTC 2. Is to understand how explosives aid the collapse. If you notice this building falls cohesively together to its own footprint. Because the explosives are removing resistance below the falling mass. There is no need or reason for material to be launched 3 blocks. The WTC is anything but Controlled. All the lower floors are intact until the falling portion lands on it.. Collapses on it!!
Indeed. The Twin Towers in essence peeled apart. The outer perimeter fell outward while the falling debris damaged the core, which can be seen in videos after the perimeter has fully collapsed. Thus leaving a really uncontrolled collapse.
Kind of? In what way? I suppose the buildings fell in both cases, so that counts as a similarity... but other than the obvious fact they fall there's really no similiratity between this and 911.
Its amazing how they can plan it to go straight down so the buildings just a few feet away don't even get touched. And stop talking about 911 and what you believe. This video has nothing to do with 911!!
@c22dividedby7: The twin towers didnt have tons of loud explosions like in this video, nor where there any visable flashes throughout the building like in this video. If the twin towers were destroyed by contolled demolition, the loud explosions and flahses would have been visable in all the footage.
@athabascka they are clearly filmed in so many videos near the towers. and there are a lot of people silenced by the media, that survived to the explosions that happened in the underground floors of the towers... Stop believing a lie... WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! Look at how this tower goes down, its exactly the way of the WTCs!!
@flompy69: The amount of people who would know would be too great to keep it a secret. Now all you have to do is watch this video again. The explosions in this demolition are loud, they echo off the buildings. They would have been about as loud as the impact of the planes. The problem with conspiracy theorists is you either make shit up, or you put the facts together in a way which reflects paranoia. You also like to pretend you are free thinkers when youre believing delusions.
@athabascka before the WTC7 fell there were several explosions heard, as reported by many witnesses, among others the famous Barry Jennings. Regarding the towers, you can not really compare with this, as the demolition was happening from the top. For WTC1&2 you can see many flames on many videos which could be explosions, but the most annoying is of course that the falls in itself can hardly be motivated happening like that at all, based upon simple physical principles, without explosives.
@aim2free: Can you become an expert in physics, or building mechanics, or explosives on the internet? If so, then why do we have universities? Witness reports are among the most unreliable sources you can have. And as I always say, even if 9/11 was an inside job, who cares. The US government may have killed anywhere from half a million to 1 million people in the last few decades. 3000 is just a drop in the river compared what the US govt. has actually done.
@MrBenson3436: I dont agree with you. I think this is information knowable to anybody interested. All it takes is a little critical thinking. As for the idea that America rules, I would say I live living in America because we have very diverse landscapes. We have deserts, mountains, plains, tropics, rain forest, European style moderate climate, and a good infustructure to see it all. But unfortunetly, the American government has committed many war crimes and atrocities for over one hundred years
@athabascka Were All Human Here And We Need To Think About Our KInd Were All The Same Were Humans The Same Thing Right? We Need To Stop Fighting About Where We Live And What Our Religion Is. Btw I Believen Religion lol.
@athabascka They were visible in all the footage, but the twin towers had hard curtains all around, the footage where the flashes are shown in close up and ejections were withheld by NIST for 9 years, you have obviously not looked for them.
As for the explosions, every recorder that was able to pick up sound far away, recorded explosions so extreme that the entire sound system overloaded, you could not even hear the ambulances and policecars when the towers came down. Those close enough died.
@LAGG3R: Actually, it was unclear if the dust tested was actually from the WTC. And even if it was, similar compounds found in thermite are found in paint and electrical equipment, two common things found in modern office buildings. Every single truther argument has been debunked over and over again. Its so old. Its still funny sometimes, but right now I'm tired of you people and your laughable beliefs.
@waiotahi52: Most of the firemen said they heard what can be attributed to floors crashing, electrical explosions caused by the fire, fire traveling down elevators, ect. And firemen are clearly seen in video footage discussing the lack of structural integrity in building 7 hours before it collapsed.
@athabascka Oh no, the "truthers" will just say that the footage was edited, and the sound and flashes from the charges were removed. I tried telling these morons the same thing, but even when the see it with their own eyes they don't believe it. They just say they used thermite. I dont think they could have timed thermite that well for the towers to fall straight down and not lean in one direction or the other. Would be nearly impossible to get it that perfect.
@minimal4minds Termite was used? On the 80th floor? After a plane had COLLIDED into and EXPLODED within the towers… o-kay there bud. Oh and I'll suppose this is where you'll say the termite was used on the lower levels, right? Because as we all known, columns cut in the basement will cause the 81ths floor to collapse onto the 80th floor. riiiiiiiiight... You know, I could of really used a 'rolls eyes' icon here Youtube.
They should have flown a drone into that building. That and the subsequent office fires would have brought the whole thing down without any need to wire the whole thing with explosives.
You just get sillier and sillier. Explosives are cheaper and easier than flying a drone into the building, plus they bring the buildings down far neater.
And you still need to learn English.
Regardless, what "calculations" would you like them to have made on the final, global collapse? Other than the fact that such collapse was inevitable once the upper floors fell down onto the lower floors there's not much else they can calculate....
@Mystylplx Ten thousand pages in a report specifically titled Report on the Collapse of WTC's 1 and 2. Not one single calculation of the actual collapse. You, yourself, said that this was absurd for me to claim and yet its absolutely one hundred percent true and easily verified. The only thing that the WTC 1 and 2 report said about the actual collapse was that it was "inevitable" (how scientific!!!!) and that the bottom floors offered almost no resistance (NO SHIT?!).
You still need to learn English I see. Again, although steel is metal, not all metals are steel.
And I'll ask again, just what kind of "calculations" do you want to see about the final global collapse? Do you get there just aren't much in the way of "calculations" that even CAN be done on something like that? Do you also get that there's a difference between "No" and "very little?"
@Mystylplx You seemed quite confident when you called me a liar and said that it was absurd that no calculations were done on the actual collapse. I completely agree with you, at least about the second part. It IS absurd that absolutely no calculations would be done on the actual collapse. Rate of acceleration, calculation of column resistance, calculation of tube-structure resistance, calculation of truss resistance- in short mathematical prediction showing model imitates reality.
@Mystylplx 20 million dollars, ten thousand pages, the best and brightest engineers, not one single calculation on the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2. I completely agree!!! Its absurd!!!!
See? You're doing it again. Once again you are confused by the difference between the meaning of the phrase "very little" and "not one single calculation."
@Mystylplx NIST did "little analysis" on the actual collapse. They did NO CALCULATIONS on the actual collapse. Their analysis is a half page description of the buildings falling with no resistance. There is not one calculation of the rate of descent. There is not one calculation of the lateral and vertical structural resistance. You know this is ridiculous and you said so yourself.
@Mystylplx This is the NIST response to a letter requesting correction. I realize that you will respond to this letter by calling me a liar and other name calling. Others should check for themselves. Those who check this document will see that in SECTION F, NIST clearly and unequivocally acknowledges, WORD for WORD "NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation." 911proof dot com foreslash NIST.pdf
@nealkassanoff You mean this NIST report? *wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6C.pdf* Hmmm, don't quite now how you would mistake a 7.84 megabyte pdf file full of mathemetical calculations on why and how the buildings collapsed as, quote "Their analysis is a half page description of the buildings falling with no resistance". It's a little more than that. And this is but one chapter in the total report.
@Mystylplx FIRST you say: ""NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." Amazing you can spout such nonsense with a straight face.
THEN you say: Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?"
@Mystylplx YOU also SAID: Your claim was "NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." which was absurd.
WHICH CONTRADICTED: Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?"
@Mystylplx So to reiterate what can be easily verified. NIST provided a 10,000 page final report specifically on the collapse of WTC's 1 and 2. They did an elaborate computer model of the planes and the buildings. They did no simulations and no calculations of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE only the events PRIOR TO the collapse. The reason they did this is because the official explanation is a lie that cannot be repeated in a scientific and mathematical model. NIST are liars running cover for criminals.
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Leslie Robertson: Structrual Engineer WTC “As of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Sarah Atlas: NJ Search and Rescue: “Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet.”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Chaplain Herb Trimpe: I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal- beams had just totally melted because of the heat”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Alison Geyh PhD In some pockets, they’re finding molten steel.
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Burger: Disaster Relief Professional: “shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of subfloors”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Guy Loomsbury of NY Air Nat Guard 199th: “There was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
William Langwiesche: Journalist: “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole”
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Lee Turner: Boon county firefighter: “seeing in darkness a distant pinkish glow molten metal dripping from a beam- but found no signs of life”
Because you're blind? It looks nothing like the wtc collapse. The WTC collapse started at the top and pancaked down. This starts at the bottom like all controlled demo's do.
Other than that though, I suppose buildings falling down all look alike to some people. I mean it fell... just like WTC!
@Mystylplx There was no pancake collapse at WTC. There was no pancake like stack of floors at the base of the building following the collapse. Furthermore, a pancake collapse could not account for the matrix super-netting that enveloped the building and the separate construction of the core as separate from the structure of the horizontally oriented floors. Lets look at the evidence further. Oh, that's right! We can't since Ashcroft and Giuliani destroyed the evidence.
It was obviously a pancake collapse. Every video shows it. The top floors fall onto the lower floors and then they start pancaking down.
Obviously that would not result in a neat "pancake like stack of floors at the base of the building." That's kindergarten cartoon stuff. Seriously, cartoon land that's what would happen. In the real world the floors break apart during the collapse and upon final impact.
And "super netting?" More kindergarten cartoon stuff.
@Mystylplx "that's cartoon stuff" means absolutely nothing. Frank Demartini, one of the project engineers of WTC described the outer load baring walls as "an intense grid" that would absorb a plane hit like a screen door would take a puncture from a pencil. Hmmm. Who should I take seriously? You or him?
Demartini is exactly right. It did take the plane hit like a screen door would take a puncture from a pencil. Calling it "supper-netting" is kindergarten cartoon stuff.
And unlike the buildings, a screen door doesn't have to hold up it's own weight. And a shattering exploding airplane makes a lt bigger hole than a pencil.
@Mystylplx Let me remind you that the context of DeMartini's comment was specifically with regard to the ability of the towers to withstand multiple strikes by jet airliners. The weight of a jet airliner is no match for load baring exterior, the forty seven core columns, the thousands of trusses reinforced by cement casing., the maintenance floors built on giant metal slabs. Your simplistic ridicule or a WTC structural engineer. Tough choice.
Demartini didn't say anything about the 911 attacks since he was killed in them. He didn't take into account fully loaded fuel tanks, the explosions from same, the loss of insulation, etc.
Plus all he said was "probably." You are attempting to base a lot on what one guy speculated was "probably" true prior to the actual events. And you are ignoring what thousands of engineers and scientists have said in peer-reviewed papers since then.
@Mystylplx I not only trust DeMartini's pre 911 speculation more than your delusion, but trust that the three bldg's destroyed on 911 were not some magical exception to the rule that fires won't cause tall metal framed buildings to collapse, much less in a matter of seconds.
@Mystylplx NIST has never ever, ever explained or described the collapse of Bldg's 1 and 2. With 10,000 pages and 20 million dollars, and a report entitled something like "final report on the collapse of wtc 1 and 2", they do not do one single structural engineering calculation on the actual collapse. They described the plane hitting the building, they described (hypothetically) what happened before the collapse. Not one calculation about the actual collapse.
@Mystylplx You really like that word "cartoonish" don't you? Gov't run audio analysis was specious at best. They played loose with decibel level criteria by saying, essentially, that sound would follow a completely unimpeded path (in downtown New York?). They also tested only for levels appropriate for highly brissant explosives, even though the accusation (based on material evidence: CLimited Metallurgical Examination) is that thermate, a less brissant (less loud) explosive was used.
Firts of all, thermate is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. Second of all you don't even need gov. analysis to understand that any explosive capable of taking out a steel column would be LOUD (see (or listen) above) and would be heard by 100's of thousands of people in NY City. It's normal for there to be a few small explosions in office fires, and the witness testimony is perfectly consistent with those normal small explosions.
@Mystylplx The analysis of audio was plainly flawed and blatantly biased for a predetermined outcome.. Anything that didn't fit with the official shite was ignored. You can trust that all you want.
Look genius--if you need the Gov. to analyze the audio for you then you are a lost cause. Listen to the audio in the above video--THAT'S what explosions capable of severing steel columns sound like. Less brisant means less powerful, is that concept too hard for your little brain to understand?
And the fact you keep saying it was solely the fires while ignoring the massive damage from the impacts is a clue to your selective view of reality--you see only what you want to see.
@Mystylplx If the government lies to me about what happened, which is implicit in the way the researched it., then I am going to think that they are hiding things. If you have research to back up what you say that's not government bullshit, then show it to me cause your word means nothing to me.
@Mystylplx Regarding fires, they are explicitly central to the official story, though the heat and damage they claim can not be anywhere near substantiated. Contradictory evidence was obvious and omitted.
@Mystylplx It takes a few minutes of web research to find primary source info on patents for thermite devices that facilitate the use of the incendiary as little different from the use of demolition explosives. NIST disingenuously says that thermite "can take a long time to cut through metal" but ignores the patents of devices that "don't" take a long time to cut through metal.
Now you are changing your argument. First it was less brisant explosives, now thermite. Thermite is not an explosive and makes little or no sound at all, so all your talk of witnesses who heard explosives was pointless.
And no, there are no patents for thermite devices suitable for a demolition such as this, where the device would have to be reasonably small and capable of cutting through a VERTICAL 70' steel columns. No such devices exist.
@Mystylplx Yes, they should have done audibility tests for less b-r-i-s-a-n-t explosives. That story hasn't changed one iota. They should have also done tests for thermite/thermate residue. They should have done audibility tests that did not presume no audibility impediment in downtown NYC. In short, they did not do a thorough investigation.
Try to grasp the concept--a less brisant explosive wouldn't sever 70' steel columns. Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. If you can't even grasp that basic concept then there's really no point in this discussion.
@Mystylplx I understand the concept. Let me remind you that the 2002 FEMA report itself said that the fires plus planes plus random damage is a hypothesis with a very low probability of being correct. So, by your own standard, why would you default to this hypothesis? I am only saying there needs to be a thorough and honest test for explosives as well as incendiaries. You can't possibly say that the fires plus planes plus random damage hypothesis has borne out, therefore.....
@Mystylplx .... therefore, you test for other possibilities. You're telling me that you subscribe to a hypothesis in which a cocktail of factors converged, despite their low probability and lack of precedent. If you subscribe to the official story, that's what you subscribe to. I would like to know if there is evidence of less b-r-i-s-a-n-t explosives and I would like to know if there is evidence of incendiaries. It may not explain every thing but the possibility must be investigated.
@Mystylplx NIST has lied and been caught red handed lying about both primary evidence and the calculations that they have done on models. Type in John Gross and Molten Metal to you tube and you can see John Gross, one of the heads of the collapse investigation lying with unfathomable bravado. Look into the underwriter's lab data that NIST dismissed in favor of unsubstantiated calculations. The starting point is an open and thorough investigation.
@Mystylplx As I was saying the starting point is an open and thorough investigation, not unscientific presentations to justify predetermined conclusions.
When someone gets shot in the head they generally don't do tests for poison, or cancer, or heart disease to see if he really died for some other reason.
There were flaws in the investigation (what do you expect? it was conducted by the government!) But that's no excuse to get all hysterical and make all kinds of absurd claims.
@Mystylplx John Gross of NIST was asked about the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so” This is a lie. There is video of testimony of fireman describing "pools of molten steel like hot lava" at Ground Zero. Even Giuliani said that there were temperatures of 2000 F at Ground Zero.
There was molten metal, no molten steel. The fireman was simply mistaken. He was not expert enough to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead or aluminum. And steel doesn't melt at 2000 F, so even if Giuliani was right (he's no expert either) there still wouldn't have been molten steel. .
@Mystylplx If you listen to Gross's full response, he dismisses not only molten steel but also the possibility the fires were so hot, ergo Giuliani's statement is relevant. Gross did not say that the firemen were mistaken, he said that he knew of absolutely no witnesses who said such things. To claim this is either a lie or absurd incompetence.
Gross most likely hadn't heard the fireman's statement, and again--Giuliani is (was) a mayer, not an expert. It's not exactly unheard of for politicians to exaggerate. Or too simply be wrong.
@Mystylplx If gross hadn't heard about Molten steel claims by the time this video was shot then he should never have been in charge of investigating 911. He's a liar or an unfathomably incompetent boob.
@Mystylplx Kevin Ryan blew the whistle on the Underwriter Lab tests that were omitted from the final report that shows that the buildings should have remained standing. UL did mock samples of the flooring, and applied 2000 F of heat and twice the amount of load that was known to have been in the twin towers. Not one of the mock samples feil. Only 3 inches of deformation. NIST throws the data out and claims 10 X's that amount of deformation. Ryan was fired for making this public.
Kevin Ryan was fired for lying. Underwriters Lab never did any tests on the steel and even Ryan never claimed they did. Ryan wrote a letter saying the SPECIFICATIONS for said steel would not have collapsed under those circumstances, and made it sound as if it were an official U.L. statement. U.L. doesn't certify structural steel. Ryan was fired because he expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL.
@Mystylplx UL and Popular Mechanics (keepers of the Hearst tradition of Yellow journalism) have chirped like mockingbirds about how Kevin Ryan has no credibility. David Dunbar of PM went so far as to say "UL does not test structural steel". Spec tests? Tests specific to the WTC investigation? Bottom line is Ryan's claim that physical tests showed minimal damage to flooring from 2000 F flames and super heavy load. Is Ryan a self destructive paranoid or is UL trying to cover their lying asses?
Considering the fact that U.L. doesn't test structural steel and had no part in the 911 investigations, I'm thinking it's more likely that Ryan is a self-destructive paranoid. There are, you know, a lot of them out there.
@Mystylplx More wholesale denial to which Ryan has rebutted. Hmmm the "paranoid" who lost his job for his delusion or UL trying to cover their lying asses.
@Mystylplx NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers. 10,000 pages and 20 million dollars to do a report specifically on the collapse of the towers, and they wrote a half page on the actual collapse, saying simply that "collapse was inevitable". Omission AND a lie. How can they call a phenomenon with no historical precedent "inevitable"? How can you call a report "Final Report on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower" and not report on the collapse?
@Mystylplx AE 911 truth has written formal letters of protest to NIST about exactly this. The responses from NIST don't jibe with your denial. Although, surely the folks at AE911 are more self destructive paranoids who are probably forging NIST letterhead.
AE 911 truth is basically Richard Gage with some petition signers. Gage may not be a paranoid but he is an idiot. He thinks there were pyroclastic flows and that the buildings fell at free fall "right into their own footprints."
Ryan is a flat out liar. Try to grasp the concept--Underwriters Laboratories had nothing to do with 911 investigation. They performed no experiments, no tests, no nothing. Ryan lied. This makes him a typical 911 "truther."
@Mystylplx I quoted form the actual NIST report that whole thing about "for purposes of brevity".... etc..." after you essentially called me a liar as well. That and the J. Gross bullshit statement is primary source- no Richard Gage or K Ryan standing in between that. Somehow you believe that John Gross is being honest when he makes a claim on par with a fourteen year old trying to dissemble when he's been caught cheating on a test.
You are sounding hysterical. What makes you think John Gross had heard every single statement made by all the thousands of people that were there?
And the initiation of the collapse is the interesting part. Once the upper floors fell onto the lower floors the rest was inevitable, as a number of peer reviewed papers have pointed out.
@Mystylplx Once you start contradicting your own argument, you really don't have a leg to stand on. You approve of NIST's omissions (only reporting on the "initiation of collapse"), while saying I'm a liar for pointing out that.... (drum roll) they only reported on the initiation of collapse. Now that's a head full of mush. Doublethink in classic Orwellian fashion.
Learn English. You said NIST did NO calculations on the collapse. Then you changed your story to they only did "a little" calculations on the actual collapse (once collapse became inevitable) and the rest was on the "initiation of collapse" (part of the collapse.)
Talk about a head full of mush... if you had another brain it would die of loneliness.
@Mystylplx NIST: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The "little analysis" of the collapse? One half page out of 10,000.
@Mystylplx That's one half a page: surely a microfiche novel of "calculations".
Regardless, you're free to be satisfied with the report. Its your life, discern as you wish. The objective fact remains that in ten thousand pages there was only room for a half page on the actual collapse. No calculations, just a statement that the collapse "became inevitable" even though such a collapse had never happened before in all of history.
@Mystylplx NIST: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The "little analysis" of the collapse? One half page out of 10,000.
Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?" Every paper which passed peer review by respected scientific journals calculates the massive weight of the top sections would crush the buildings as seen.
Your claim was "NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." which was absurd.
@Mystylplx You're contradicting yourself: Do you want to justify the omissions of the NIST report or claim that the calculations were not omitted? Which is it?
@Mystylplx NIST, as you point out, is quite clear that they will only focus on "the initiation of collapse" (except for a half page out of 10,000). You continue to contradict yourself. You justify their failure to report on the actual collapse. You call me a liar for pointing this out.
@Mystylplx I think a more apt comparison is: someone gets shot in the head and is found with their hands tied behind their back and a bullet through their temple. The sheriff conceals crime scene evidence (based on some vague declaration about the public interest) and calls the event a suicide.
@BlazingFerret
HEY!
I agree with you 98%........
Evil jew bankers control the aliens....get it right,bro..
cadetsumthin 1 week ago
Just like the world trade centers went down... Controlled demolition
DAZOR555 2 weeks ago
@LordBalto "surveillance video that should have been available at the Pentagon"
Why? They have armed guards at every entrance, the windows are bulletproof Plexi (and alarmed), and the perimeter is patrolled 24/7 by armed units.
Give it up. hundreds of thousands of people would have seen these mysterious cameras if they existed, but so far .... nobody. And no pictures of one of the most photographed office bldgs on earth.
You lose.
BlazingFerret 2 weeks ago
What does 9/11 have to do with a controlled building demolition? O_o
Robodav64 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Robodav64 "What does 9/11 have to do with a controlled building demolition"
Nothing at all, really.
But a tiny minority of conspiracy freaks, mostly uneducated & bat-shit crazy, are convinced that the towers were demo'd .... apparently by magic explosives that are completely silent and don't show up on seismographs.
It's roughly the same group of idiots who think UFOs are here, aliens walk among us, and that evil Jew Bankers are controlling the entire world.
BlazingFerret 2 weeks ago
@chevyRDC WHY DID THEY DESTROY IT FOR!?.
TLJAWSIMIB 1 month ago
@FastUnit4 shut up ok, 9/11 is over already and no one wants to bring up that day
DXwwechamp 2 months ago
it's funny' if the world trade center collapse was a controlled demolition then why were there no loud explosions like in this one? think about it 9/11 truthers
FastUnit4 2 months ago
@FastUnit4 because they used thermite, which burns silently but is still able to cut through the metal
memberHD 2 months ago
been debunked MANY times. @memberHD
Mgorky 2 months ago
@memberHD "they used thermite"
Except that no one in history has used thermite for a controlled demo, and for good reason -- it won't work.
Timing to the microsecond is impossible with messy-ass, unpredictable thermite, or any of its relationis.
BlazingFerret 2 weeks ago
@BlazingFerret you really should go and do some research before you speak. Thermite has been and used used to cut though metal. Also they have proven that it could have been used on the trade centre beams with great effect
memberHD 1 week ago
@memberHD "Thermite has been and used used to cut though metal"
The point is, you idiot, that it has never in history been used by ANY company in ANY controlled demolition. Any fool can see why it won't work there.
No demo professional on earth believes the Towers were demo'd, and your idea of "proven" is undoubtedly bullshit, because you don't even understand the issue.
BlazingFerret 1 week ago
There are many films on this page that shows a demolition that does NOT look like this ..! So this demolition proves nothing!!!
watch?v=fHQOqnaIce0 - No flash...
watch?v=syzKBBB_THE
etc. etc. etc.
kaspernon 3 months ago
@kaspernon Smaller buildings in your links, they didn't need as large a charge as this one or the WTC would have, and still we can hear the explosions, BEFORE the collapse.
Mgorky 2 months ago
This is what buildings look like when they collapse, folks. Truthers seem to think that buildings are supposed to tip over or something.
RevengeOfTheKaizer 3 months ago 4
A lot of the firemen claim they heard just such explosions. A good analogy is the Zapruder film, where the Kennedy limousine doesn't even slow down, whereas the witnesses consistently say the car came to a stop. Cleraly, these folks are capable of collecting and doctoring the photographic evidence. Do you really think that mass murdering psychopaths would somehow shrink from altering a little bit of photographic evidence? I think not.
LordBalto 4 months ago
@LordBalto They managed to get all photos, videos, and audio recordings without a single piece of it being leaked? That's like trying to capture a rainstorm in your fist.
Controlled demo on WTC would have been heard all over the city, not just by people inside the buildings.
MakeFoodNow 4 months ago
@MakeFoodNow They did pretty good with the Kennedy assassination films. Considering virtually everybody saw the motorcade come to a stop, there isn't a single photo or home movie that shows it. Remember, these guys are professional murderers, not amateurs like you coincidence theorists seem to think.
LordBalto 4 months ago
@LordBalto @LordBalto Whether or not the Zapruder film was doctored, it's a completely different situation from 9/11. It wasn't the 60s, people have cameras built into their phones, and proper camcorders that are small enough to fit in a pocket. Furthermore, they can instantly make digital copies and backups, and wirelessly transmit them to a global network for anyone to see. You can't intercept ALL of that data and simultaneously intimidate everyone into silence.
MakeFoodNow 4 months ago 3
@MakeFoodNow Not in 2001. And remember all of the surveillance video that should have been available at the Pentagon, none of which was ever released except for a few frames that show nothing. Just another Coincidence Theorist, I guess.
LordBalto 4 months ago
@LordBalto I'm pretty sure the internet DID exist in 2001.
MakeFoodNow 4 months ago
@LordBalto yeah i never liked that fact, but it really doesn't prove any thing except the pentagon security cameras were and probably still are shit
duchashes 2 months ago
@duchashes "the pentagon security cameras were and probably still are shit"
What security cameras? A camera monitored the parking lot, but there was no point in outside cameras since the windows are bulletprood Plexiflas and armed guards are at every entrance and patrolling outside 24/7.
So what's the point of outside cameras? Those of us that worked there know there weren't any, and understand why.
Truthies, however, are rather confused.
BlazingFerret 2 weeks ago
Hey that fell just like the World Trade Center buildings......HMMM
thatguy2012 4 months ago
@thatguy2012 No need to think about it, I didn't hear any explosions nor saw flashes as the buildings went down. Read the top-rated comments for more details, they're there for a reason.
NCONiall 4 months ago
Fort Worth ROCKS! I been thier many times. Thats why ESPN CHOOSE FORT WORTH OVER DALLAS DURING THE SUPER BOWL IN Arlington!
tinysmallgirl 4 months ago
There were numerous, numerous witness accounts of multiple explosions to the lower levels of the 2 WTC towers that weakened the main supports. The rest of the demolition was nano thermite which doesn't require an explosive detonation. Friggin' educate yourselves...Zombies....before you make fools of yourselves and suggest ridiculously uneducated opinions.
HullScott7 4 months ago
just like building 7. OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS
zanzabarify 4 months ago
did anyone notice how this is texas march 18 2006? it was obviously a controlled explosion, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or the government
darrkstar666 4 months ago
Why is it that there is always some fucking idiot on every controlled demo video comparing it to WTC. Funny how they compare vids like this to WTC as a perfect replication of what happened but then spew out shit like molten metal and entire building pulverized to dust. If the two were the same where is the molten "steel" here or why was this building not turned to complete dust. Shit truthers are fucking idiots that see only what they want to see and make up stories to fill in the gaps.
12weasel100 4 months ago 2
@12weasel100 They certainly are!! and i have brought this up many a time. It just moves in to the whole.. "Your a government Shill" Bullshit that they spew when faced with questions they don't like or don't want to answer.
One thing to notice here is that the building is not laid out for blocks in every direction. It all falls directly to its footprint because the explosives are removing the resistance on lower floors.
WTC is nothing like this.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
but the towers fell at FREE FALL SPEED fools . just as fast as this building . it have to of been prepared to fall straight down. isaac newton fools
atxh8tedninja 5 months ago
Please let me know if the next milestone will be 500,000 views!!!
CraigFoye80 7 months ago
Reminds me of september 11, 2001. Sad..
xMDP78x 9 months ago
The size and shape of charge required to make a straight cut through the support columns in the trade center would have created a detonation that could be heard across the hudson river. It would have also left anyone in the general vicinity nearly deaf. Yet firefighters in the B stairwell survived the collapse with no hearing damage or any injuries at all. Explosives would have torn them apart.
usindependent50 10 months ago 22
@usindependent50(You said) created a detonation that could be heard across the hudson river. (ABSOLUTELY!!)
LOL.. I video taped a similar sized building being imploded. Let me assure you and anyone else that thinks the WTC was a CD. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!
The amount of explosives required to do this would blast the aluminum cladding off the tower.. WITH EASE!!
And you don't have a camera crew (or 10) shooting within a 1000 feet and have No explosions recorded.
Utter nonsense!!
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
@roquefortfiles
My comment was written to explain that the collapse of the World Trade Centers was not caused by explosives.
usindependent50 8 months ago
@usindependent50 I know. I am agreeing with you!! Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Richard Gage and David Chandler don't have a clue with this stuff. I get a little tired of all these white collar geeks and their "I am an Architect".. blah
Yeah? Well I'll give you my news camera and you can stand 800 feet away from a real one see what that's like. Then come and talk to us about Controlled Demolition and watch ABC news shoot WTC without a sound.
See what he says then
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
@roquefortfiles
Hahaha my bad.
Yeah, I can understand how people could believe these conspiracies because these people are very good at misinforming people and make a hefty profit out of doing so. But in all reality you need a large understanding of many sciences to understand the collapse and its just easier to say there were explosives than try to actually understand this complex event.
usindependent50 8 months ago
@usindependent50 Exactly. And well put. One thing to notice in this vid as opposed to WTC 2. Is to understand how explosives aid the collapse. If you notice this building falls cohesively together to its own footprint. Because the explosives are removing resistance below the falling mass. There is no need or reason for material to be launched 3 blocks. The WTC is anything but Controlled. All the lower floors are intact until the falling portion lands on it.. Collapses on it!!
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
@roquefortfiles
Indeed. The Twin Towers in essence peeled apart. The outer perimeter fell outward while the falling debris damaged the core, which can be seen in videos after the perimeter has fully collapsed. Thus leaving a really uncontrolled collapse.
usindependent50 8 months ago
@usindependent50 maybe it wasn't traditional explosives. something else.
xcited4vids 7 months ago
@xcited4vids
Haha? Explosives generate alot of energy which in turn creates a lot of noise. There is no such thing as quiet explosives.
usindependent50 7 months ago
@usindependent50 thermite might have bn used, no loud boom there!!! =D
FxOxC 6 months ago
@FxOxC
Incendiaries do not have enough directed power to make a straight cut through the supports within the World Trade Centers.
usindependent50 6 months ago
This video kinda reminds me of what I watched happen to WTC 1, 2, and 7.
nubonyx 10 months ago
@nubonyx
Kind of? In what way? I suppose the buildings fell in both cases, so that counts as a similarity... but other than the obvious fact they fall there's really no similiratity between this and 911.
Mystylplx 9 months ago
unbelievable!
desjaraah 11 months ago
Its amazing how they can plan it to go straight down so the buildings just a few feet away don't even get touched. And stop talking about 911 and what you believe. This video has nothing to do with 911!!
skte2die 11 months ago
@skte2die This video has everything to do with 911 .
hanksnow82 11 months ago
@skte2die , I beg to differ. This video has everything to do with 9/11/01.
nubonyx 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't see a plane hit the building! I'm being ironic by the way
ASDAmadjohn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't see a plane hit the building! (irony)
ASDAmadjohn 1 year ago
unbelievable unbelievable unbelievable
ijustwatchvids1 1 year ago
wow looks just like the twin towers.
c22dividedby7 1 year ago
@c22dividedby7: The twin towers didnt have tons of loud explosions like in this video, nor where there any visable flashes throughout the building like in this video. If the twin towers were destroyed by contolled demolition, the loud explosions and flahses would have been visable in all the footage.
athabascka 1 year ago 26
@athabascka they are clearly filmed in so many videos near the towers. and there are a lot of people silenced by the media, that survived to the explosions that happened in the underground floors of the towers... Stop believing a lie... WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! Look at how this tower goes down, its exactly the way of the WTCs!!
flompy69 11 months ago
@flompy69: The amount of people who would know would be too great to keep it a secret. Now all you have to do is watch this video again. The explosions in this demolition are loud, they echo off the buildings. They would have been about as loud as the impact of the planes. The problem with conspiracy theorists is you either make shit up, or you put the facts together in a way which reflects paranoia. You also like to pretend you are free thinkers when youre believing delusions.
athabascka 11 months ago
@athabascka before the WTC7 fell there were several explosions heard, as reported by many witnesses, among others the famous Barry Jennings. Regarding the towers, you can not really compare with this, as the demolition was happening from the top. For WTC1&2 you can see many flames on many videos which could be explosions, but the most annoying is of course that the falls in itself can hardly be motivated happening like that at all, based upon simple physical principles, without explosives.
aim2free 11 months ago
@aim2free: Can you become an expert in physics, or building mechanics, or explosives on the internet? If so, then why do we have universities? Witness reports are among the most unreliable sources you can have. And as I always say, even if 9/11 was an inside job, who cares. The US government may have killed anywhere from half a million to 1 million people in the last few decades. 3000 is just a drop in the river compared what the US govt. has actually done.
athabascka 11 months ago
@aim2free Thank you.
nubonyx 10 months ago
@athabascka well hey man, the only people to know that, would be the government and the people that were in 9/11 and passed. AMERICA RULES!!! (:
MrBenson3436 10 months ago
@MrBenson3436: I dont agree with you. I think this is information knowable to anybody interested. All it takes is a little critical thinking. As for the idea that America rules, I would say I live living in America because we have very diverse landscapes. We have deserts, mountains, plains, tropics, rain forest, European style moderate climate, and a good infustructure to see it all. But unfortunetly, the American government has committed many war crimes and atrocities for over one hundred years
athabascka 10 months ago
@athabascka Were All Human Here And We Need To Think About Our KInd Were All The Same Were Humans The Same Thing Right? We Need To Stop Fighting About Where We Live And What Our Religion Is. Btw I Believen Religion lol.
FusionFallDancer 10 months ago
@athabascka
ya but the sound of the twin towers exploding would of been heard from miles away (proof) right there that there was no demo
GeckoKing44 10 months ago
@athabascka dude i saw them and i could hear them in some video
dialga265 9 months ago
@athabascka They were visible in all the footage, but the twin towers had hard curtains all around, the footage where the flashes are shown in close up and ejections were withheld by NIST for 9 years, you have obviously not looked for them.
As for the explosions, every recorder that was able to pick up sound far away, recorded explosions so extreme that the entire sound system overloaded, you could not even hear the ambulances and policecars when the towers came down. Those close enough died.
Xendrius 9 months ago
@athabascka And that's because no traces of TNT were found in the site.
Ever heard of nano-thermite? The last time I've checked, they don't produce loud explosions.
LAGG3R 9 months ago
@LAGG3R: LOL, a silent explosion? I'm laughing at you truthtards everytime you guys open your idiot mouths.
athabascka 9 months ago
@athabascka Not whisper-silent, but quiet enough to be muffled by the busy streets of NY and the chaos surrounding the building.
Also, traces of nano-thermites and the byproducts of its exothermic reaction were found in the debris of WTC7. Mind explaining why were they there?
LAGG3R 9 months ago
@LAGG3R: Actually, it was unclear if the dust tested was actually from the WTC. And even if it was, similar compounds found in thermite are found in paint and electrical equipment, two common things found in modern office buildings. Every single truther argument has been debunked over and over again. Its so old. Its still funny sometimes, but right now I'm tired of you people and your laughable beliefs.
athabascka 9 months ago
@athabascka Ask the firemen what they heard
waiotahi52 8 months ago
@waiotahi52: Most of the firemen said they heard what can be attributed to floors crashing, electrical explosions caused by the fire, fire traveling down elevators, ect. And firemen are clearly seen in video footage discussing the lack of structural integrity in building 7 hours before it collapsed.
athabascka 8 months ago
@athabascka This isn't the world trade center.
matrixfan127 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@athabascka look up videos. you will see plenty of videos of flashes.
xcited4vids 7 months ago
@athabascka You can see the detonations going off in the wtc prior to them coming down.
TSOrocker1 6 months ago
@TSOrocker1 You Sir are an Idiot.
EntertaningAmerica 4 months ago
@athabascka Oh no, the "truthers" will just say that the footage was edited, and the sound and flashes from the charges were removed. I tried telling these morons the same thing, but even when the see it with their own eyes they don't believe it. They just say they used thermite. I dont think they could have timed thermite that well for the towers to fall straight down and not lean in one direction or the other. Would be nearly impossible to get it that perfect.
pitt15220 6 months ago
there are small explosions seen on the twin towers and thermite was used to cut the supports
minimal4minds 6 months ago
@minimal4minds No and no. There is not at all. Do you hear this before the towers collapsed? I don't think so.
2Trueforyouu 5 months ago
@minimal4minds Termite was used? On the 80th floor? After a plane had COLLIDED into and EXPLODED within the towers… o-kay there bud. Oh and I'll suppose this is where you'll say the termite was used on the lower levels, right? Because as we all known, columns cut in the basement will cause the 81ths floor to collapse onto the 80th floor. riiiiiiiiight... You know, I could of really used a 'rolls eyes' icon here Youtube.
vejet 5 months ago
@athabascka there is a thing that is called technology. you never know mate, u never know :)
aerexenn 5 months ago
@c22dividedby7 Actually it does not. The twin towers peeled apart, and they look very different coming down.
TalksWithDirt 1 year ago
They should have flown a drone into that building. That and the subsequent office fires would have brought the whole thing down without any need to wire the whole thing with explosives.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
You just get sillier and sillier. Explosives are cheaper and easier than flying a drone into the building, plus they bring the buildings down far neater.
And you still need to learn English.
Regardless, what "calculations" would you like them to have made on the final, global collapse? Other than the fact that such collapse was inevitable once the upper floors fell down onto the lower floors there's not much else they can calculate....
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Ten thousand pages in a report specifically titled Report on the Collapse of WTC's 1 and 2. Not one single calculation of the actual collapse. You, yourself, said that this was absurd for me to claim and yet its absolutely one hundred percent true and easily verified. The only thing that the WTC 1 and 2 report said about the actual collapse was that it was "inevitable" (how scientific!!!!) and that the bottom floors offered almost no resistance (NO SHIT?!).
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
You still need to learn English I see. Again, although steel is metal, not all metals are steel.
And I'll ask again, just what kind of "calculations" do you want to see about the final global collapse? Do you get there just aren't much in the way of "calculations" that even CAN be done on something like that? Do you also get that there's a difference between "No" and "very little?"
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Seriously, the blood the gore, get that petard out of your gut!
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
Comment removed
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You seemed quite confident when you called me a liar and said that it was absurd that no calculations were done on the actual collapse. I completely agree with you, at least about the second part. It IS absurd that absolutely no calculations would be done on the actual collapse. Rate of acceleration, calculation of column resistance, calculation of tube-structure resistance, calculation of truss resistance- in short mathematical prediction showing model imitates reality.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx 20 million dollars, ten thousand pages, the best and brightest engineers, not one single calculation on the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2. I completely agree!!! Its absurd!!!!
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
See? You're doing it again. Once again you are confused by the difference between the meaning of the phrase "very little" and "not one single calculation."
Learn English.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST did "little analysis" on the actual collapse. They did NO CALCULATIONS on the actual collapse. Their analysis is a half page description of the buildings falling with no resistance. There is not one calculation of the rate of descent. There is not one calculation of the lateral and vertical structural resistance. You know this is ridiculous and you said so yourself.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff Correction: not "no resistance" but "little resistance" I believe was the actual term.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
You continue to be confused between "little calculations'" and "no calculations."
Try the Sylvan Learning Center. I hear they have programs for people like you.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx This is the NIST response to a letter requesting correction. I realize that you will respond to this letter by calling me a liar and other name calling. Others should check for themselves. Those who check this document will see that in SECTION F, NIST clearly and unequivocally acknowledges, WORD for WORD "NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation." 911proof dot com foreslash NIST.pdf
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealkassanoff You mean this NIST report? *wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6C.pdf* Hmmm, don't quite now how you would mistake a 7.84 megabyte pdf file full of mathemetical calculations on why and how the buildings collapsed as, quote "Their analysis is a half page description of the buildings falling with no resistance". It's a little more than that. And this is but one chapter in the total report.
Daneoid81 1 year ago
@Mystylplx FIRST you say: ""NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." Amazing you can spout such nonsense with a straight face.
THEN you say: Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?"
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mystylplx YOU also SAID: Your claim was "NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." which was absurd.
WHICH CONTRADICTED: Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?"
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx So to reiterate what can be easily verified. NIST provided a 10,000 page final report specifically on the collapse of WTC's 1 and 2. They did an elaborate computer model of the planes and the buildings. They did no simulations and no calculations of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE only the events PRIOR TO the collapse. The reason they did this is because the official explanation is a lie that cannot be repeated in a scientific and mathematical model. NIST are liars running cover for criminals.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Leslie Robertson: Structrual Engineer WTC “As of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff John Gross: "I'm a a liar and a blathering idiot running scientific cover for my criminal bosses"
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Sarah Atlas: NJ Search and Rescue: “Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet.”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Chaplain Herb Trimpe: I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal- beams had just totally melted because of the heat”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Alison Geyh PhD In some pockets, they’re finding molten steel.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Burger: Disaster Relief Professional: “shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of subfloors”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Guy Loomsbury of NY Air Nat Guard 199th: “There was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
William Langwiesche: Journalist: “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mystylplx John Gross: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so”
Lee Turner: Boon county firefighter: “seeing in darkness a distant pinkish glow molten metal dripping from a beam- but found no signs of life”
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
just like wtc. :|
sidperoviz 1 year ago
whoo...
i guess implosion has become an ENTERTAINMENT
scarycatsscaringcats 1 year ago
why these idiots talk in such a retarded way?
liftooo 1 year ago
Looks like WTC collapse... wonder why :)
UsagiVeg 1 year ago
@UsagiVeg
Because you're blind? It looks nothing like the wtc collapse. The WTC collapse started at the top and pancaked down. This starts at the bottom like all controlled demo's do.
Other than that though, I suppose buildings falling down all look alike to some people. I mean it fell... just like WTC!
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx There was no pancake collapse at WTC. There was no pancake like stack of floors at the base of the building following the collapse. Furthermore, a pancake collapse could not account for the matrix super-netting that enveloped the building and the separate construction of the core as separate from the structure of the horizontally oriented floors. Lets look at the evidence further. Oh, that's right! We can't since Ashcroft and Giuliani destroyed the evidence.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
It was obviously a pancake collapse. Every video shows it. The top floors fall onto the lower floors and then they start pancaking down.
Obviously that would not result in a neat "pancake like stack of floors at the base of the building." That's kindergarten cartoon stuff. Seriously, cartoon land that's what would happen. In the real world the floors break apart during the collapse and upon final impact.
And "super netting?" More kindergarten cartoon stuff.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx "that's cartoon stuff" means absolutely nothing. Frank Demartini, one of the project engineers of WTC described the outer load baring walls as "an intense grid" that would absorb a plane hit like a screen door would take a puncture from a pencil. Hmmm. Who should I take seriously? You or him?
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Demartini is exactly right. It did take the plane hit like a screen door would take a puncture from a pencil. Calling it "supper-netting" is kindergarten cartoon stuff.
And unlike the buildings, a screen door doesn't have to hold up it's own weight. And a shattering exploding airplane makes a lt bigger hole than a pencil.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Let me remind you that the context of DeMartini's comment was specifically with regard to the ability of the towers to withstand multiple strikes by jet airliners. The weight of a jet airliner is no match for load baring exterior, the forty seven core columns, the thousands of trusses reinforced by cement casing., the maintenance floors built on giant metal slabs. Your simplistic ridicule or a WTC structural engineer. Tough choice.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Demartini didn't say anything about the 911 attacks since he was killed in them. He didn't take into account fully loaded fuel tanks, the explosions from same, the loss of insulation, etc.
Plus all he said was "probably." You are attempting to base a lot on what one guy speculated was "probably" true prior to the actual events. And you are ignoring what thousands of engineers and scientists have said in peer-reviewed papers since then.
Tough choice indeed.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I not only trust DeMartini's pre 911 speculation more than your delusion, but trust that the three bldg's destroyed on 911 were not some magical exception to the rule that fires won't cause tall metal framed buildings to collapse, much less in a matter of seconds.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST has never ever, ever explained or described the collapse of Bldg's 1 and 2. With 10,000 pages and 20 million dollars, and a report entitled something like "final report on the collapse of wtc 1 and 2", they do not do one single structural engineering calculation on the actual collapse. They described the plane hitting the building, they described (hypothetically) what happened before the collapse. Not one calculation about the actual collapse.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You really like that word "cartoonish" don't you? Gov't run audio analysis was specious at best. They played loose with decibel level criteria by saying, essentially, that sound would follow a completely unimpeded path (in downtown New York?). They also tested only for levels appropriate for highly brissant explosives, even though the accusation (based on material evidence: CLimited Metallurgical Examination) is that thermate, a less brissant (less loud) explosive was used.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Firts of all, thermate is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. Second of all you don't even need gov. analysis to understand that any explosive capable of taking out a steel column would be LOUD (see (or listen) above) and would be heard by 100's of thousands of people in NY City. It's normal for there to be a few small explosions in office fires, and the witness testimony is perfectly consistent with those normal small explosions.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx The analysis of audio was plainly flawed and blatantly biased for a predetermined outcome.. Anything that didn't fit with the official shite was ignored. You can trust that all you want.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Look genius--if you need the Gov. to analyze the audio for you then you are a lost cause. Listen to the audio in the above video--THAT'S what explosions capable of severing steel columns sound like. Less brisant means less powerful, is that concept too hard for your little brain to understand?
And the fact you keep saying it was solely the fires while ignoring the massive damage from the impacts is a clue to your selective view of reality--you see only what you want to see.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx If the government lies to me about what happened, which is implicit in the way the researched it., then I am going to think that they are hiding things. If you have research to back up what you say that's not government bullshit, then show it to me cause your word means nothing to me.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Regarding fires, they are explicitly central to the official story, though the heat and damage they claim can not be anywhere near substantiated. Contradictory evidence was obvious and omitted.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx It takes a few minutes of web research to find primary source info on patents for thermite devices that facilitate the use of the incendiary as little different from the use of demolition explosives. NIST disingenuously says that thermite "can take a long time to cut through metal" but ignores the patents of devices that "don't" take a long time to cut through metal.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Now you are changing your argument. First it was less brisant explosives, now thermite. Thermite is not an explosive and makes little or no sound at all, so all your talk of witnesses who heard explosives was pointless.
And no, there are no patents for thermite devices suitable for a demolition such as this, where the device would have to be reasonably small and capable of cutting through a VERTICAL 70' steel columns. No such devices exist.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Yes, they should have done audibility tests for less b-r-i-s-a-n-t explosives. That story hasn't changed one iota. They should have also done tests for thermite/thermate residue. They should have done audibility tests that did not presume no audibility impediment in downtown NYC. In short, they did not do a thorough investigation.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Try to grasp the concept--a less brisant explosive wouldn't sever 70' steel columns. Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. If you can't even grasp that basic concept then there's really no point in this discussion.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I understand the concept. Let me remind you that the 2002 FEMA report itself said that the fires plus planes plus random damage is a hypothesis with a very low probability of being correct. So, by your own standard, why would you default to this hypothesis? I am only saying there needs to be a thorough and honest test for explosives as well as incendiaries. You can't possibly say that the fires plus planes plus random damage hypothesis has borne out, therefore.....
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx .... therefore, you test for other possibilities. You're telling me that you subscribe to a hypothesis in which a cocktail of factors converged, despite their low probability and lack of precedent. If you subscribe to the official story, that's what you subscribe to. I would like to know if there is evidence of less b-r-i-s-a-n-t explosives and I would like to know if there is evidence of incendiaries. It may not explain every thing but the possibility must be investigated.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST has lied and been caught red handed lying about both primary evidence and the calculations that they have done on models. Type in John Gross and Molten Metal to you tube and you can see John Gross, one of the heads of the collapse investigation lying with unfathomable bravado. Look into the underwriter's lab data that NIST dismissed in favor of unsubstantiated calculations. The starting point is an open and thorough investigation.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx As I was saying the starting point is an open and thorough investigation, not unscientific presentations to justify predetermined conclusions.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
When someone gets shot in the head they generally don't do tests for poison, or cancer, or heart disease to see if he really died for some other reason.
There were flaws in the investigation (what do you expect? it was conducted by the government!) But that's no excuse to get all hysterical and make all kinds of absurd claims.
Where do you you think NIST was "caught lying?"
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx John Gross of NIST was asked about the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero: “I know of absolutely nobody. No eye witnesses who said so. Nobody who has produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yard so I don’t know that that’s so” This is a lie. There is video of testimony of fireman describing "pools of molten steel like hot lava" at Ground Zero. Even Giuliani said that there were temperatures of 2000 F at Ground Zero.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
There was molten metal, no molten steel. The fireman was simply mistaken. He was not expert enough to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead or aluminum. And steel doesn't melt at 2000 F, so even if Giuliani was right (he's no expert either) there still wouldn't have been molten steel. .
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx If you listen to Gross's full response, he dismisses not only molten steel but also the possibility the fires were so hot, ergo Giuliani's statement is relevant. Gross did not say that the firemen were mistaken, he said that he knew of absolutely no witnesses who said such things. To claim this is either a lie or absurd incompetence.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Gross most likely hadn't heard the fireman's statement, and again--Giuliani is (was) a mayer, not an expert. It's not exactly unheard of for politicians to exaggerate. Or too simply be wrong.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx If gross hadn't heard about Molten steel claims by the time this video was shot then he should never have been in charge of investigating 911. He's a liar or an unfathomably incompetent boob.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Kevin Ryan blew the whistle on the Underwriter Lab tests that were omitted from the final report that shows that the buildings should have remained standing. UL did mock samples of the flooring, and applied 2000 F of heat and twice the amount of load that was known to have been in the twin towers. Not one of the mock samples feil. Only 3 inches of deformation. NIST throws the data out and claims 10 X's that amount of deformation. Ryan was fired for making this public.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Kevin Ryan was fired for lying. Underwriters Lab never did any tests on the steel and even Ryan never claimed they did. Ryan wrote a letter saying the SPECIFICATIONS for said steel would not have collapsed under those circumstances, and made it sound as if it were an official U.L. statement. U.L. doesn't certify structural steel. Ryan was fired because he expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx UL and Popular Mechanics (keepers of the Hearst tradition of Yellow journalism) have chirped like mockingbirds about how Kevin Ryan has no credibility. David Dunbar of PM went so far as to say "UL does not test structural steel". Spec tests? Tests specific to the WTC investigation? Bottom line is Ryan's claim that physical tests showed minimal damage to flooring from 2000 F flames and super heavy load. Is Ryan a self destructive paranoid or is UL trying to cover their lying asses?
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Considering the fact that U.L. doesn't test structural steel and had no part in the 911 investigations, I'm thinking it's more likely that Ryan is a self-destructive paranoid. There are, you know, a lot of them out there.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx More wholesale denial to which Ryan has rebutted. Hmmm the "paranoid" who lost his job for his delusion or UL trying to cover their lying asses.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers. 10,000 pages and 20 million dollars to do a report specifically on the collapse of the towers, and they wrote a half page on the actual collapse, saying simply that "collapse was inevitable". Omission AND a lie. How can they call a phenomenon with no historical precedent "inevitable"? How can you call a report "Final Report on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower" and not report on the collapse?
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealkassanoff
"NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers. "
It's amazing you can spout such complete nonsense with a straight face.
Here's some advice--stop getting all your information from 911 truther sites. 99% of what they say are lies and the rest is ignorant BS.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealkassanoff
""NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers.""
Amazing you can spout such nonsense with a straight face.
Here's a clue--stop getting all your information from 911 truther sites. 90% of what they say are lies and the rest is ignorant BS.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Amazing you can spout such nonsense with a straight face. NIST did a huge number of calculations on the collapse of the towers.
Here's a clue--stop getting all your information from 911 truther sites. 90% of what they say are lies and the rest is ignorant BS.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx AE 911 truth has written formal letters of protest to NIST about exactly this. The responses from NIST don't jibe with your denial. Although, surely the folks at AE911 are more self destructive paranoids who are probably forging NIST letterhead.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
AE 911 truth is basically Richard Gage with some petition signers. Gage may not be a paranoid but he is an idiot. He thinks there were pyroclastic flows and that the buildings fell at free fall "right into their own footprints."
Ryan is a flat out liar. Try to grasp the concept--Underwriters Laboratories had nothing to do with 911 investigation. They performed no experiments, no tests, no nothing. Ryan lied. This makes him a typical 911 "truther."
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I quoted form the actual NIST report that whole thing about "for purposes of brevity".... etc..." after you essentially called me a liar as well. That and the J. Gross bullshit statement is primary source- no Richard Gage or K Ryan standing in between that. Somehow you believe that John Gross is being honest when he makes a claim on par with a fourteen year old trying to dissemble when he's been caught cheating on a test.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
You are sounding hysterical. What makes you think John Gross had heard every single statement made by all the thousands of people that were there?
And the initiation of the collapse is the interesting part. Once the upper floors fell onto the lower floors the rest was inevitable, as a number of peer reviewed papers have pointed out.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I think you've foisted yourself on your own petard, sir. Best of luck getting that thing out of your gut.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
So let's review--
You think John Gross must have been "lying" if he didn't hear every statement by every person who was at ground zero.
You think Richard Gage is credible.
You think Underwriters Laboratories had something to do with investigating 911.
You think NIST did NO calculations on the collapse of the towers.
You think less brisant explosives could do the job of more brisant explosives....
If there's a "petard" here then you're sitting on it.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Once you start contradicting your own argument, you really don't have a leg to stand on. You approve of NIST's omissions (only reporting on the "initiation of collapse"), while saying I'm a liar for pointing out that.... (drum roll) they only reported on the initiation of collapse. Now that's a head full of mush. Doublethink in classic Orwellian fashion.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Learn English. You said NIST did NO calculations on the collapse. Then you changed your story to they only did "a little" calculations on the actual collapse (once collapse became inevitable) and the rest was on the "initiation of collapse" (part of the collapse.)
Talk about a head full of mush... if you had another brain it would die of loneliness.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The "little analysis" of the collapse? One half page out of 10,000.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx That's one half a page: surely a microfiche novel of "calculations".
Regardless, you're free to be satisfied with the report. Its your life, discern as you wish. The objective fact remains that in ten thousand pages there was only room for a half page on the actual collapse. No calculations, just a statement that the collapse "became inevitable" even though such a collapse had never happened before in all of history.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx And again, really, get that thing out of your gut before it gets infected.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The "little analysis" of the collapse? One half page out of 10,000.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
Why should they analyze the "structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable?" Every paper which passed peer review by respected scientific journals calculates the massive weight of the top sections would crush the buildings as seen.
Your claim was "NIST did not do a single calculation on the actual collapse of the twin towers." which was absurd.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You're contradicting yourself: Do you want to justify the omissions of the NIST report or claim that the calculations were not omitted? Which is it?
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx NIST, as you point out, is quite clear that they will only focus on "the initiation of collapse" (except for a half page out of 10,000). You continue to contradict yourself. You justify their failure to report on the actual collapse. You call me a liar for pointing this out.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I think a more apt comparison is: someone gets shot in the head and is found with their hands tied behind their back and a bullet through their temple. The sheriff conceals crime scene evidence (based on some vague declaration about the public interest) and calls the event a suicide.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago