its sad that people could get this on tape witness a building falling for no reason at all nothing hit it. there was no plane to hit this building.perfectly fine building go down in a obviously controlled demolition which is so obviously a inside job and yet there is people out there that believe some guy in a cave came up with this grand scheme to use planes is sad then again poeple believe bullshit all the time shit if O.J got away with murder any things possible.
It's unbelievable ppl haven't been investigated over this. It's astounding the insurance company paid out the insurance, because physics doesn't lie, you can't fudge it, you can't twist it, it is what it is, the truth. So where is the rule of law? Or has the whole US legal system been infiltrated to such a level, that no honest decent patriotic Ameican is left? Or what about the politicians,or is there not 1 left in the US govt wilth honor and decency and guts for his country? You ppl must act
"up to, and well beyond the roofline's first downward movement, the exterior of the building showed absolutely no signs of NIST's partial collapse of the core"
-play the video from 6:00 - 6:06 and explain to me all the dark areas apearing on the facade, looks like a visable sign to me.
If you have another theory of how the penthouse collapsed into the roof, without the floors, and collumn 79 buckling beneath, I am all ears.
@ctcole77 making up science? Can you respond to the points made in this video? Please tell me how an invisible fire can make a 47 storey building free-fall
The curtain wall itself would have affected the exterior look of the collapse just like your core muscles give you stability. I don't see that the NIST simulation added the curtain wall, likely so they could see the effect on the main structural components.
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
@ctcole77 everything should be questioned in science - and experiments should be used to prove or disprove theories - NIST used computer simulations - and the data they used for input was changed to effect the desired outcome - this is called FRAUD - a politically motivated team of paid liars who should be on trial with the rest of the bastards
Then maybe you'd like to explain why Jones REFUSED to allow the chief editor to review his paper?
While you're at it, maybe you'd like to explain why the chief editor never even knew of the paper's existance until a week after it was published when she was asked to comment on it by a reporter?
Lastly, if you "paper" is based on "sound science" why hasn't the 911 Truth Movement done ANYTHING in the courts with your so called absoute proof?
Excuse me, but exactly how did he refuse to allow her to review? I know she did not know about it, but how exactly did Dr. Jones cause that? The cheif editor never even criticised the paper's contents: 911blogger(dot)com(slash)node(slash)20412
Jones, not Harrit, was the contact with the journal. Jones know fully well the process of peer review. After all, he has had NUMEROUS papers regarding 911 REJECTED. That's why this time he was careful to only choose conspiracy theorists like David L. Griscom to review his work. And why not circumvent the chief editor's approval!
"he has had NUMEROUS papers regarding 911 REJECTED." Care to cite this claim?
"That's why this time he was careful to only choose conspiracy theorists like David L. Griscom to review his work."
Well, Dr. Jones does understand the peer review process, but you apparently don't: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3kgkhvv
"WHY DIDN'T SHE REVIEW THE PAPER?" Indeed, why were none of her criticisms of the paper about the actual content of the paper? Please, your trolling is probably wanted elsewhere.
remember money talks all the 1%ers dident show up on that day to work HMMMMM........I wonder why? hint hint!
mrdakotamulhearn 1 week ago
its sad that people could get this on tape witness a building falling for no reason at all nothing hit it. there was no plane to hit this building.perfectly fine building go down in a obviously controlled demolition which is so obviously a inside job and yet there is people out there that believe some guy in a cave came up with this grand scheme to use planes is sad then again poeple believe bullshit all the time shit if O.J got away with murder any things possible.
mrdakotamulhearn 1 week ago
The music is what convinced me.
FLICKtheUSA 4 months ago
It's unbelievable ppl haven't been investigated over this. It's astounding the insurance company paid out the insurance, because physics doesn't lie, you can't fudge it, you can't twist it, it is what it is, the truth. So where is the rule of law? Or has the whole US legal system been infiltrated to such a level, that no honest decent patriotic Ameican is left? Or what about the politicians,or is there not 1 left in the US govt wilth honor and decency and guts for his country? You ppl must act
73mandala 1 year ago
"up to, and well beyond the roofline's first downward movement, the exterior of the building showed absolutely no signs of NIST's partial collapse of the core"
-play the video from 6:00 - 6:06 and explain to me all the dark areas apearing on the facade, looks like a visable sign to me.
If you have another theory of how the penthouse collapsed into the roof, without the floors, and collumn 79 buckling beneath, I am all ears.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
No it doesn't mean "column 79 was moving downwards with an acceleration of 4.6 m/s2." You are dismissing how something acts under vertical stress.
in other words you are not taking into account lateral movement, as demostrated in the secong example in this video:
youtube.com/user/TheNMSR#p/a/f/2/jlDghGhVhWk
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
Apologies, that is the incorrect link in the above post, here is the correct one.
youtube.com/watch?v=jlDghGhVhWk&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=wVBnQ0f4UkU
TheFlyposter 1 year ago
watch?v=Mrh5AWFYJ9o some interesting shots of huge beams - and the penthouse was added in 1989? Interesting
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40
GREAT JOB - at totally ignoring the question!
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 what question? you don't even know what a question is - get a grip
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40
The question that has Dr. Steven Jones making up science as he goes while ALL of his colleagues have DEBUNKED his magical theories.
Please DEBUNK.
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 making up science? Can you respond to the points made in this video? Please tell me how an invisible fire can make a 47 storey building free-fall
mooners40 1 year ago
The curtain wall itself would have affected the exterior look of the collapse just like your core muscles give you stability. I don't see that the NIST simulation added the curtain wall, likely so they could see the effect on the main structural components.
boloboffin 1 year ago
NIST the best scientists money can buy
mooners40 1 year ago 2
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
Woodruff Miller, Dept Chair, BYU Engineering
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 everything should be questioned in science - and experiments should be used to prove or disprove theories - NIST used computer simulations - and the data they used for input was changed to effect the desired outcome - this is called FRAUD - a politically motivated team of paid liars who should be on trial with the rest of the bastards
mooners40 1 year ago
@ctcole77 That quote is in reference to his first 9/11 related paper. Things have changed since then.
watch?v=MVtzsRFGN1o
911debunkerschannel 11 months ago
@911debunkerschannel
What's changed?
The fact that Steven Jones FAKED his "peer review" nanothermite paper?
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 10 months ago
@ctcole77
Yes, clearly Steven Jones manipulated BYU into reviewing his paper, and then convinced them that the paper represented sound science. Ya got us.
citizenfor911truth1 10 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Then maybe you'd like to explain why Jones REFUSED to allow the chief editor to review his paper?
While you're at it, maybe you'd like to explain why the chief editor never even knew of the paper's existance until a week after it was published when she was asked to comment on it by a reporter?
Lastly, if you "paper" is based on "sound science" why hasn't the 911 Truth Movement done ANYTHING in the courts with your so called absoute proof?
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 10 months ago
@ctcole77
Excuse me, but exactly how did he refuse to allow her to review? I know she did not know about it, but how exactly did Dr. Jones cause that? The cheif editor never even criticised the paper's contents: 911blogger(dot)com(slash)node(slash)20412
citizenfor911truth1 10 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Jones, not Harrit, was the contact with the journal. Jones know fully well the process of peer review. After all, he has had NUMEROUS papers regarding 911 REJECTED. That's why this time he was careful to only choose conspiracy theorists like David L. Griscom to review his work. And why not circumvent the chief editor's approval!
WHY DIDN'T SHE REVIEW THE PAPER?
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 10 months ago
@ctcole77
"he has had NUMEROUS papers regarding 911 REJECTED." Care to cite this claim?
"That's why this time he was careful to only choose conspiracy theorists like David L. Griscom to review his work."
Well, Dr. Jones does understand the peer review process, but you apparently don't: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3kgkhvv
"WHY DIDN'T SHE REVIEW THE PAPER?" Indeed, why were none of her criticisms of the paper about the actual content of the paper? Please, your trolling is probably wanted elsewhere.
citizenfor911truth1 10 months ago
Good job. May the truth be known soon by all.
73849309378 1 year ago