Added: 4 months ago
From: physicsandreason
Views: 29,317
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (1,927)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • how many aircraft seats (very strong frame material) & bodies of passengers were found? at least 20 or 30? or none?

  • it was a common sense collapse.

  • george bush is not only a traitor but is a wanted war criminal.

  • The video's from 9/11 were analyzed and look like they are composites, cgi enhanced, and edits. People saw small planes and missiles hit the towers also. Whatever anyone thinks they saw, all they had to do was look at the news to have their belief "confirmed". Google ae911truth for the truth about how the buildings fell. Google "pilots for 911 truth" for more on the reality passenger jets were not used.

  • see "September Clues" video that shows how ALL the videos from 9/11 are fraudulent.

    This is how the Gov't, with compliance of the TV Networks, "sold" the lie of passenger planes hitting towers. You believers of the Gov't story need to get off the Kool-aid

  • @khunopie

    "September Clues" video that shows how ALL the videos from 9/11 are fraudulent"

    No September clues alleges this, it does not show or prove anything -- its total bullshit and just shows how gullible you are

  • @Denierbud11 I'm sure you never watched all 90 minutes of this revealing doc and are so certain that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 airliners that no other facts are required. Keep on drinking the cool-aid, sucker.

    Bet you believe in god and santa too.

  • @khunopie

    I don't have to go to the moon to know its not made of cheese, and no youtube video is going to convince me its made of cheese

    you on the other hand, believe that thousands of witnesses are wrong, and the physical evidence is fake, every media outlet in the world is in on it, and only the voices in your head know the truth

    good luck with life

  • @khunopie

    "September Clues" video .. shows how ALL the videos from 9/11 are fraudulent"

    Sure, kid. And "all the big people in the world are such meanies!"

    Puberty's tough, ain't it.

    Why don't you put a cork in it until the hormones settle down. Soon enough it'll be your turn in the barrel, when the snot-nosed young'uns are explaining to you why "everyone over 30, including you, is stupid, evil, sell-out, etc."

    Then it'll be your turn to write sarcastic, patronizing posts.

    Like this.

  • Wolf,

    The people that wrote the NIST report were highly respected, experienced engineers, contributing WITHIN their field of expertise.

    Unlike water quality inspectors, religious studies professors, particle physicists, lawyers, etc.

    Their results have been accepted by the engineering community.

    AE911T have produced zippo. They have submitted tho the pro community zippo.

    As far as the pro community is concerned, they don't exist.

  • Oh, this just gets better & better...

    forums(dot)randi(dot)org/showp­ost(dot)php?p=8086911&postcoun­t=2

    "Harrit himself admits to never having used the central method of energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXA) in his research before his 2009 paper"

    No wonder it's such an incompetent paper that they couldn't get it published anywhere except a pay-to-publish vanity journal.

  • ,,inside job, innocent civilians die, america yawns...

    =/

  • Comment removed

  • ,,and the perps write books and hide out...

  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency of the............... U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • The truther "experts" show their real colors.

    Ryan & Jones refuse to share samples for independent confirmation.

    Jones has bailed on you. Off to perpetual motion machines & man made earthquakes. Apparently treason & murder ain't so important to him any more.

    Harrit says he won't bother reading or replying to Millette's paper.

    10 years, 0 papers by ae911t Struct. Engrs.

    Now, everyone else bailing out.

    Truthers, how's it feel to be betrayed, left swinging in the wind, by your own "experts"?

  • There was no "Harrit DSC sample". Farrer did the test. IIRC, 1st time he ever used a DSC. Definition of an amateur.

    Farrer was so incompetent that he:

    1. didn't separate red from gray.

    2. ran in in air (not N2 or argon)

    3. did not even record which type of chip he used.

    So you're requesting that Millette do incompetent testing (mix his samples & run the dsc in air) to match Farrer's UNKNOWN material.

    The question: "Are the red/gray chips prevalent in the dust thermite?"

    Answer: "No."

  • @teefkay2

    The Farrer test is rather like another famous conspiracy expert, Fred Leuchter, of Holocaust denier fame, did the same when he tested for residue gas

    basically showed the world he had no frigging idea what he was doing, was destroyed on the stand -- but Holocaust deniers are like truthers, once a lie is spoken, its gospel, no matter how often it is rebuted

  • LOL the only idiot around here is you thinking that it is true, the focus is on thermite and iron-rich microspheres, why don't you go on the no-plane videos and talk to them, they would be right up your alley. If you can't put together a solid arguement together, then fk off twoofer.

  • BTW, an explanation has been found for the iron-rich microspheres:

    alturl(dot)com(slash)sqgso

    "the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron."

    "Melting Point Depression": alturl(dot)com(slash)wnwks

    Conclusion: iron nanospheres in office fires? No mystery.

    Last 2 "Twoofer gotchas" have just flow away, leaving them holding a giant bag filled with "10 years of vacuous stupidity".

  • Nobody seeded any samples.

    They are not different materials. Millette chose his chips to match Harrit's samples a-d. Millette is a long established, experienced professional. He knows how to do this.

    And that is exactly the reason for the discrepancy:

    Millette is a pro, who knows has done this 1000x before.

    Harrit & Jones & Farrer & Gourley & Ryan etc. are all incompetent amateurs who never did it 1x before this fiasco.

    A line-up of Dunning-Kruger poster children.

  • @teefkay2

    The materials in Harrit's & Millette's samples are either different or one or other has erred. There's no way of determining which from the information we have. Simply saying that one is right and the other is wrong is a bare assertion. The material in Harrit's sample contains elemental Al, swells in MEK soak and is exothermic. The Millette material doesn't contain metallic Al, softens in MEK and is not exothermic. You don't know (and neither do I) why the data is different. (2)

  • @teefkay2

    (2) Claiming that Harrit et al are "incompetent amateurs" makes no difference to their data. If you truly claim to want to use science to find out, this is the chance - it involves more testing - that is how science works. Google and watch: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture 28/02/2012 Sir Paul Nurse.

    When more testing is done, to determine what the red chips are (and whether Millette or Harrit are mistaken or, in their testing or by chance or fraud, have tested different materials

  • (6) We can use science to decide because either these samples are different materials OR Harrit OR Millette have erred. If they’re different materials, is this the result of fraud? If so, which one? If Millette’s samples have had (non-WTC) paint added, then that would be easy to achieve – particularly when it doesn’t match the WTC paint. However, if Harrit et al seeded their samples, the question would have to be, “where on Earth did they get the material to do so?”

  • (5)So, we have what appear to be TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Millette appears to be some sort of coating, but one that “does not match the primer paint formula used on iron column members in the World Trade Centre”. Harrit’s appear to be some form of highly-engineered energetic material.

    So, game on! This is where science comes into its own. More testing! Harrit et al and Millette send samples to each other and BOTH send samples to additional, mutually agreed laboratories.  (6)

  • @ThePeage I have seen Mohr and others talking about the so called "Lead Paint" in forums and they didn't even really care about it, this was back in 2007, it's not that big of a glitch.

  • @86Blessed86

    What has that got to do with it? The "paint" claim has been around for years. So what?

  • @ThePeage You tried to bring up the lead paint theory. You're trying to say that Millette made a big deal out of the lead paint but he didn't, go onto a forum and discuss things instead of wiki, it's better.

  • @86Blessed86

    I think you've muddled me up with someone else - I haven't mentioned "Lead paint".

  • @86Blessed86

    There is no point discussing this. Science can now sort it out. We have two scientists making different claims about what superficially appears to be the same material. One or other is in error, or there is fraud by one or the other. It won't be decided by "debate" - this is a scientific question and can be solved through science.

  • Comment removed

  • (3)

    superficially, appear to be the same material. Analysis done by Harrit et al shows material that contains elemental aluminium particles, Millette’s does not. The red layer in Harrit’s sample swells when soaked in MEK, in Millette’s, the red layer softened. Most importantly, the red chips in Harrit’s sample are exothermic and, though an appropriate test was not conducted by Millette, the composition and properties of the chips he tested suggest it would not react exothermically. (4)

  • @ThePeage

    "Harrit ... shows material contains elemental aluminium".

    Wrong. Harrit's a-d chips showed no Al. Chip e had Al.

    Harrit said a-d were thermitic. Millette chose his chips to matched Harrit's a-d.

    "...the composition and properties of the chips suggest [Millette's chips] would not react exothermically"

    More bs pulled right out of your butt.

    Please provide property that you think "suggest it won't be exothermic". Or retract bs.

  • (2) had investigated the dust previously, in 2002. That way, a rebuttal paper would have emerged within a few weeks of Harrit’s if the findings were different.

    Having said that, I want to thank Mr. Mohr. The debate is now on. The Harrit paper is less likely to be “buried” because we now have the possibility science working the way it should – the way it should have done from September 11th 2001….

    We have two laboratories producing different results and conclusions on what, (3)

  • @ThePeage Why are you trying to debate with Chris Mohr, he is over your head. That is like me, trying to go up against Richard Cage, never will happen, the so called secret documents you seem to find over the net are bullshit, secret documents are in secret files and on locked computers, don't try and tell me you've found a paper that no one has hardly taken a look at, please Paege.

  • @86Blessed86

    What "secret documents"? Millette is the third author on this paper -

    "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Centre (WTC) in Lower Manhatten after the collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001

    Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 10. Number 7. July 2002 p 703

    It is in the public domain. Look it up!

  • Who actually owned the samples tested by Millette? i.e. who authorised their use?

    If Dr. Millette owned them,  why did it take nearly three years and the offer of even one dollar to stimulate his professional integrity and/or his personal curiosity when the Harrit paper had claimed the dust contained thermitic material?

    Any honest chemist with ownership of samples and an appropriately equipped lab. would have tested his samples without delay, particularly when that SAME SCIENTIST (2)

  • @ThePeage Well he could have done tests on Kevin Ryans dust, which is what Jones used aswell but they would not give it to him, thats a little bit rediculas if you ask me. Are they trying to hide something. Jim Millette is on the fence and this is known, why would he lie and not collect good dust samples, im sure his source is proper.

  • @86Blessed86

    Why did he ask for Ryan's samples when he clearly had some available to him? Why did Mohr claim Millette was "independent" when he had already tested the dust (for the government) in 2002? I'm pleased you believe his source is "proper". Sadly, believing something doesn't make it true. As I say in my posts below - game on!

  • @ThePeage Because then Millette would have the exact dust samples that Jones and Ryan had, wouldn't it make sense to test the sames samples since they're so incriminating? yessss, why do you ask stupid question. "Sadly, believing something doesn't make it true. As I say in my posts below - game on!" maybe you should take a big dose of your own medicine. Game on? please, Public domain... for idiots.

  • @86Blessed86

    Of course not. I think Ryan did EXACTLY the right thing. I think it is fantastic. The SCIENTIFIC debate is on. I wonder that Millette took three years to find/analyse those samples and he must be pretty hard up if it took $1,000 to stimulate his curiosity but still, I don't know who made the error (and neither do you) and if not error but fraud, I don't know who is guilty of that either (and neither do you). We can use science to settle it.

  • @ThePeage You said "we can use science to settle it twice", you keep trying to debate, why? Oh and a news flash for you Paege, Mohr got into contact with Jim Millette and asked him to do the science, Mohr contacted Millette, so Mohr came up with a thousand which was raised and Jim Millette actually donated atleast another 1000 out of his own pocket, so why do you try and turn the story by saying "he must be pretty hard up if it took $1,000 to stimulate his curiosity"

  • @ThePeage Millette is on the fence and sides with no side, Millette went over all the information about the dust tests and said "ok i'll do the tests" Millette didn't come up with the idea so don't try and put anything on him, saying he's a liar or sketchy.

  • @unRompecabezas lol Paege will strawman comment you all day, he-she isn't worth talking to, 1 word is hypocrit.

  • @pigeonpsycho eventualy 7 more buildings had to be demolished in the WTC complex. WTC 5 had 4-5 floors collapse due to fire on 9/11 aswell. 1,2 and 7 were also the biggest buildings in the complex.

  • 2 world trade center collapses first, but why? The plane hit it second. The plane also struck building 2 lower, leaving more floors (more weight) above the impact zone, which means more stress at the impact zone and the load bearing walls on several floors. The load bearing walls were on the outer perimeter of the twin towers, not the center like some people claim.

  • @86Blessed86 The fucking building started to tip 22 degrees off center and then disappeared in the smoke instead of falling, intact, on the side of the main collapsing structure.

  • @djundadawg Disappeared? The fucking building is made of steel, steel does not turn to dust, cement turns to dust, yes. 1 billion pounds at 180mph, getting pulled down by gravity will do that. What did you expect the buildings to do? Fall over like a tree. The actual tops of the buildings above the plane impact were slowly leaning over more and more before the initial collapse.

  • @86Blessed86

    didn't Harjit also claim there would have been tons of conventional explosives also needed?

  • @Denierbud11 Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

  • @Denierbud11 Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). 

  • @86Blessed86 Listen, the damn building tilted to the side and crumbled in the debris from the explosions. That's not an opinion, you can obviously see the shit happening in front of your eyes. Anyone who looks at that day and don't see anything foul is being ludicrous. It's ridiculous to argue when you see all of this evidence

  • @djundadawg You don't have any real evidence and when you do, ill debate with you, if all you can say is, "it had to be an inside job" but with no proof, then why are we talking? how do you think the inside job went down?

  • @86Blessed86 No real evidence! There is much evidence out. Just look at how won't no media, politicians, or anybody of political position address the truth movement. You want e vidence, look operation Northwoods. Need more than that

  • @djundadawg operation northwoods was in declassified in 1997 so "they" would not use that plan also it was created for a 1962 world..........and if your gona look at that there is operation mongoose operation castro operation freedomfighter the phoenix program......plus all the SAD(special activities division) of the CIA that should keep you busy for a year or two enjoy

  • @staywithaces1984 This has nothing to do with all the other black operations. It only has relevance with northwoods. That operation shows they have the capacity to carry out these shameful incidents. So you look at that capacity for treason, signed by high ranking officials, and still believe the official story? Keep researching. I find more and more out as I keep searching. Hope that you see, but I can't force you to. Be ready to defend the next 9/11.

  • @djundadawg February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba.1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement.

  • @djundadawg COINTELPRO was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by FBI aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."

  • @djundadawg Operation Paperclip was the code name for the 1945 Office of Strategic Services, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency recruitment of Nazi scientists from Germany to the U.S. after VE Day.President Truman authorized Operation Paperclip in August 1945. They were all cleared to work in the U.S. after having their backgrounds "bleached" by the military; false employment histories were provided, and their previous Nazi affiliations were expunged from the record.

  • @djundadawg Big Brother is also called the Deep State. A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event.It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media.For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true.It is also called the Continuity of Government.

  • @djundadawg those are all conspiracy theories that turned out to be true

  • @staywithaces1984 First off, brother. No need to explain these operations to me. I know about everyone you mentioned. What I am asking you is, after all this bullshit you just mentioned, do you believe the official story? Back in the 50's, there were people doing just like you're doing now in response to those conspiracies. What would it take, man?

  • Does anyone know that 5 floors collapsed in WTC 5? perhaps another mind game of the government to suck you into their game lol, truthers get a grip and tell me why they would use thermite or explosives to bring down 5 floors in building 5? perhaps they had some left over.

  • @ThePeage This is my 3rd message, please read the other ones i have left. The 93' bombing was in the basement which is more or less like a bunker, hence - attacking it from above because it can't be destroyed from the basement. Did you know that WTC 5 had 4-5 floors collapse in it?? perhaps just another mind game used by the government, you tell me? why would up to 5 floors give way in WTC 5?? answer that please.

  • @86Blessed86

    I hadn't seen your comments - not trolling enough - clearly!!! Thermite is not "extremely flammable" so everything else that follows is based on an incorrect foundation.

    When you have corrected your misconception about the "flammability" (omg!) of thermite, please post your evidence that Harrit lied about Tillotson's DCS test. I am still waiting.

  • @ThePeage fire can ignite it quite quickly Paege. I sent you a message explaining that. You brang Tillitson into the conversation when i wasn't talking about him, Millette is the chemist, you're trying to run away with this Tillitson thing, but it isn't happening. Like i said, Jim Millette and there is a forum with Chris Mohr raising money to pay for Millette to do tests. good try though.

  • @ThePeage No one is suggesting charges were left in the buildings, but you are suggesting some kind of chemical explosive was left, maybe thermite? Hmmm... Thermite is extremely flammable and the plane would have to hit the correct floor with complete accuracy, otherwise the building could collapse prematurely, which would ruin the conspiracy full stop, also who would be flying the plane? Would a plane being remotely flown have the preciseness to do this, or what? What do you think?

  • @86Blessed86 "Thermite is extremely flammable and the plane would have to hit the correct floor with complete accuracy, otherwise the building could collapse prematurely"

    Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite. It needs to be nearly white hot too react, so flames would not set off the reaction. Magnesium strip is a common fuse but if thermite was put in those buildings, I doubt it would have been used and I also doubt conventional thermite would have been used.

  • @tomwils92 No, flames will actually ignite thermite, it is quite flammable. I dont see what your point was?

  • @86Blessed86 Try it.

  • @tomwils92 If the correct materials are added it will light up quick, once lit it is very erratic and dangerouse.

  • @86Blessed86 Conventional thermite is basically metal and an oxidiser. It needs to be white hot or near to it to start the reaction. Hence why sparklers or magnesium strips are used to ignite it and not a match. You can make a mixture of thermite ignite with matches, but if they did put thermite in those buildings... Do you think they would put that mixture in there, knowing that a plane would be crashing into it?

  • @tomwils92 thermite is self oxidizing and does not need ambient oxygen to burn.... it would still have been burning after the collapse nobody reported that it on ground level......besides thermite cant cut sideways to melt(cut) vertical columns

  • @staywithaces1984 I am fully aware that it is self oxidizing, which is why I said it is made of metal and an oxidizer. If it was set off to demolish the building, the reaction would be finished by the time people got there. Thermite can cut or melt sideways, all you need to do is direct the energy. Thermite has been used in demolition before. It is just a very rare case as it isn't the best thing to use.

  • @staywithaces1984

    Of course they did! Haven't you ever seen the NASA thermal images taken about a week after 9/11? This is one of the reasons some type of energetic (and thermite in particular) was suspected in the first place - before it was looked for (but not by NIST!). The temperatures in the debris under 1, 2 & 7 are HUGE and remained so for weeks. The fires weren't put out until 12/12/01.

  • @ThePeage Wrong.....There is absolutely no reason to link heat with explosives. Explosives are special because they release energy at once, at high speed, not because of their heat. It will be interesting to see you explain how residual heat from explosives can increase with time.

  • @tomwils92 There was no thermite in the buildings at all. Harrits paper with Jones and the likes of Kevin Ryan have done studies on red chips that they thought was thermite, Jim Millette has also done tests and it came back negative. Harrits paper is false, they wouldn't give any of their samples to Jim Millette so he could do tests on their dust samples, instead they denied it constantly, why would you deny a chemist to do tests when you want people to know the truth.

  • @86Blessed86 I never said there was, I said "if there was". I was just calling you out on your false information.

  • @tomwils92 Yes false, because you know what kind of thermite was used? why would they use the less flamable thermite, wouldn't you think they would want it to ignite easy, just incase it didn't? other wise this big conspiracy you think happened wouldn't have panned out and it would have been a waste to fly planes into the twin towers.

  • @86Blessed86 No. But if they did put thermite in there, it would be incredibly idiotic to put a mixture in there that could be set off prematurely by the fires that would be the result of a plane crashing into the building. A demolition is a very tricky operation which they would need full control of. Not controlled by an organic fire. Use some common sense. And do you think they would use some powders they bought off the Internet or would they use something a bit more high tech?

  • @tomwils92 Speaking of common sense, I think a jet fuelled fire would set any kind of thermite of smart one. Second of all, one the strong holds that the 9/11 truth movement actually has is “thermite” and “spheres” a controlled demolition was debunked years ago, only idiots argue about controlled demolition these days. I doubt very much that a scientist would buy his chemicals over the internet.

  • @86Blessed86 It has not been debunked you fool! Stop posting comments you are embarrassing yourself!

  • @kingg213 - Oh your a "truther" - that explains the foul mouthed shouting, ill informed comment you left for me in support of destroying Allied war graves. So 9/11 was an inside job was it and the Muslims should destroy WW2 war graves and you actually say you would be doing the same. What a piece of work you are.

  • Comment removed

  • @86Blessed86 Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?

  • @staywithaces1984 what are you commenting me about? please explain your questions?

  • @86Blessed86

    So you automatically think Harrit's paper is false and Millette's is true with NO evidence which is correct? That is called confirmation bias.

  • @ThePeage I see your trolling, trying turn everyone into the "truth movement". You are wrong about the media, i live in Australia and every channel that covered or covers 9/11 stories are mainstream, i don't know who you are trying to fool with this media nonsense.

  • Okay, controlled... Who did it??

  • @everenferno

    secret super ninja mossad demolition experts, a/k/a "da jews"

  • @Denierbud11 But we protect Israel... What else do they want!?

  • conclusive analysis

  • Woooooooooooooow

    American people are like the rest of the world, under a dictatorship !

  • Tippnotic25 is correct.

    Multiple high-speed explosive charges were registered by digital and analogue video soundtracks. A Fourier transform on the high-speed explosive sounds recorded at ground zero produces the same spectral distribution exhibited by high-speed cutters, while the same attack, sustain, decay and release envelope is evident in the waveform.

    Nothing else will do that.

    No ifs of buts: explosives were recorded.

  • "PART OF NIST REPORT"....Simulations of the behavior of each tower on

    September 11, 2001, in four steps:

    The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents.

    The evolution of multi-floor fires.The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires...Con't-2...

  • @TheDrac3000.Part-2.The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of structural component failures leading to the initiation of the collapse of the towers//..investigators advanced the state-of-the-art in the measurement of construction material properties and in structural finite element modeling. New modeling capability was developed for the mapping of fire-generated environmental temperatures onto the building structural components...(In other words..it's BS)

  • this video exposes the absolute corruptedness of the american "expert " establishment.

    their "experts" are nothing but yea saying priests out to endorse the wishes of their masters.

    this makes America a cult

  • Skyride tower, referred to at 12:14 of this video, was just that, a tower - rather like an electrical tower

    in otherwords, there was no obstruction in reaching the steel, and there is no similaritiy between a steel tower and a steel framed building -- the mechanics differ greatly!

  • Pancake theory???? So now Aunt Jemima is part of the Axis Of Evil???

  • @helicopterraids The words I used in my post about jubilant Urban Moving Systems men, and explosives experts from the IDF--per the U.S. DEA report, discussed on Fox and published on Cryptome--were derived from the primary source reports, and not from my imagination as you so dishonestly portray. Your insistence on a fictional version of history is deeply insulting to those who can read, and those who weren't born literally yesterday.

  • @Bernadotte01 I'd like to see the actual FBI report - not quotes from the uspposed FBI report. Have you guys got a FOI document on this dancing Jews?

  • @Bernadotte01 why do you trust FOX news all of a sudden? I'd like to see the report. I want sources.

  • truthers have massive internal conflicts.

    they are not looking for the truth in a rational, informed and critical sense, they are looking for something to believe in and to understand. when logic and reason interferes with passion and believe they usually chose passion and belief because logic and reason proves to them that they've duped themselves.

    belief= building 7 falls at faster tan free-fall speed, as if explosives were "pushing it down" faster than free-fall physics = illogical.

  • @helicopterraids Check out his other videos in which he conducts experiments with explosives and explores the laws of physics. As he puts it, if your theory doesn't match experimentation, then it's wrong. He also invites viewers to disprove him with experiments of their own.

  • truther - a person obsessed with proving they aren't wrong.

  • @helicopterraids more like thats what you want to believe, and you are free to think that way.

    Much like these people are free to look at it and do serious research. If you still don't buy any of it, again, your choice, your problem. Bye.

  • The jubilant Israeli men caught filming the attack while in possession of false passports and "maps linking them to the bombing plot," who failed polygraphs, and who were shipped back to the gangster hideout apartheid state of Israel under pressure applied by Mayor Ehud Olmert of Jerusalem and Mayor Ghoul of New York, proves nothing at all about the U.N.

    They didn't work for the UN, they worked for Mossad, URBAN MOVING.

    Explosives demolition experts from the IDF were arrested earlier, per DEA.

  • @Bernadotte01 you obviously added in all those extra "facts" yourself. There's one factoid you can add to your lies - you forgot to add they were flicking cigarette lighters and lighting them and giggling as the towers were bruning. You have my full permission to add that to your next spam phase. But i still wont believe you.

    I wanna see the actual FBI report for your dubious claims.

    Also i want you to read the entire NIST report - all 10,0000 pages.

  • @helicopterraids its 1.000, not 10.000.

    And even among all of it, there is not a single page about molten steel, or explosions, or the thermite residues found.

    Makes sense.

  • @Tripnotik25

    "google NIST REPORT 10,000" and you will see consensus from both truther and government cointel supporters that the report is 10,000 pages long.

    also, the thermite ive been told by truthers was discovered by FEMA - now aren't they the big evil NWO mass prison camp people? why do truthers trust stuff from FEMA and CNN/FOX so much?

  • @helicopterraids i got my info from Dr. Shyam Sunder from NIST that said it in a video, and i quote "there are a thousand pages of report". He forgot 9.000 then.

    Quote from here: /watch?v=v90RioFSB4M

    And no, thermite is no part of official investigations, nor are explosives like i mentioned earlier. That video linked above is also nice to see Dr. Shyan Sunder avoid questions about thermite, doesn't answer a thing, instead decides to "move on" or talk about something else.

  • @Tripnotik25 he said 1000 pages of reports - with an S. he might be refering to a whole number of separate reports and the NIST report is a culmination of a whole range of reports given by many different agencies.

    The problem is that neither you or I know how many pages are in the NIST report. It is obvious that neither you or I have ever held, and therefore never read the NIST report. As a truther your first goal in searching for the truth was to get a copy of the NIST report.

  • Comment removed

  • @helicopterraids as i truther, as you call me, i need to look no further than the explosions, even within this video.

    What do you hear at 9:04? right, so why does NIST insist on saying nothing was heard or witnessed and doesn't investigate a thing about it?

    Same for the molten steel, John Gross saying there was nothing of the sort? please. There is no investigation on such occurrences, so you are expected to believe these reports based on what, faith? thats not how it works.

  • @Tripnotik25 i heard an explosion - a series of them. but what caused them i dont know. i would have to had been there at the time to know, and I dont think i would have liked to have been.

    I heard some explosions but that doesnt mean it was a bomb! you believing on faith that it was an inside job! truthers don't look for answers last - the get the answers first then start asking questions. The questions are framed by the answer- which is 'inside job'.

  • @helicopterraids "The questions are framed by the answer- which is 'inside job'."

    People tend to believe that when you come to the understanding that maybe the "official investigation" has something to hide, or so it seems if they are ignoring what you show them, that it could be something more.

    If a thorough, proper investigation had taken place from day 1, i can tell you with a high degree of certainty that these "truthers" wouldn't even have grounds to question 9/11.

  • @helicopterraids

    You heard explosions - you are absolutely right, it doesn't mean it was a bomb - it doesn't mean it wasn't some sort of explosive device (bomb) either. "Truthers" are asking for a proper independent investigation that doesn't deny or ignore evidence and doesn't assume that, because they don't want a blast sound to be a bomb, that it wasn't one. That's what an investigation would do - find out. Don't you see the irony in your comment? You've decided a blast (2)

  • @ThePeage I think scholars for 911 truth, engineers and architects for 911 truth and pilots for 911 truth should assemble anddo the independent investigation. these truth movements have combined a wealth of theory, practical and technical knowledge. This video of experts even knows better than NIST. it is the ONLY solution.

  • @helicopterraids

    Without the financial resources to do such an investigation and/or legal power to obtain, say, MIC(NT) samples from the military for comparison? IF individuals within the US government were involved, the only way to investigate it is with the cooperation of honest members of that administration or of a subsequent one and adequate funding. The only way to get that is if a critical mass of citizens call for an investigation. Glad to see you agree we need an investigation.

  • @ThePeage I dont think we need another investigation because im satisfied that 'the muslims' did it as revenge for US/israel foriegn policy. I know muslism live in caves and cant fly planes but its what i feel. The only real investigation should be why did the Bush administration let the Saudi Arabian royal family get away with organizing the whole thing?

    your investigation seems to look like you want the US gov to do another one and admit what you think you already know.

  • @helicopterraids

    What anyone "feels" should have no part in the investigation - and to base what you believe on how you feel leads to faith and wishful thinking.  I don't "feel" anything either way, I am just aware that there is evidence that does not "fit" the "19 hijackers" hypothesis and so, using the scientific method, we revise the hypothesis.

    I don't think the US government should do the investigation, I'm saying whoever sanctions the investigation would have to have subpeona power.

  • @ThePeage

    hah ha i knew you were going to hook into that word "feel" LMFAO

    but i just got convinced. If you search for the video "9-11 Mossad 'Mural Van' - NYPD Police Radio " you'll see the JEWS had the guile to paint the van with a mural of a plane hitting the WTC on the VERY DAY 911 happened.. and the van was blown up on the same day!!

  • @ThePeage also i wanna add you watch: America Wakes Up. Jews Did 9/11

    and then watch all of it, but watch especially from 1:40 to 2:22

    have a listen to the background music and what the guy says.

    911 was a jew job. you are a true patriot. thanbk you for asaving my life from being a sheep! america loves you!

  • @helicopterraids

    a) Your sarcasm insults your own intelligence.

    b) "Israeli","Mossad" & "The Jews" are not synonymous terms.

    c) At this stage, the "who" is of little importance.

    d) I'm English and not blinded by any need to trust the US government. Since "patriotism" enabled people to believe Bush about Iraq, perhaps you should learn from your mistakes and realise that patriotism relies on faith just as blind as that required to believe in creationism.

  • @ThePeage i got owned. Yes, i ADMIT. 911 WAS an inside job.

  • @ThePeage i was listening to the video and realized that the thermite instantly MELT the steel and make the building implode and turn that steel into dust. when i check about traces of thermite found in the building i thought it was made up until i saw that FEMA (prison camp USA) found it.. and now i believe it.

    "Israeli","Mossad" & "The Jews" are not synonymous terms --- but they al do penny pinch and have funny noses. all are killers and zionists

    you serve the founding fathers USA

  • @ThePeage

    search for video

    Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews

    scholars for truth!

  • @ThePeage please also watch:

    Here's a good 3 min 9-11 Clip worth seeing!

    at 1:50 part wtach when the plane strikes the WTC and dylan avery says "whoah whoah whaoh!, bring it back"

    I can see by the way he narrates it that he has watched the video a few too many times.. go and check it out yourself- he's an excellent researcher and hero to the victims of 911

  • @helicopterraids

    "he's an excellent researcher "

    LOL -- oh, you truthers kill me!

  • @helicopterraids

    (2) sound doesn't mean it was a bomb so you refuse to find out what it WAS. Why? Why would you decide that because it MIGHT not have been a bomb, it wasn't a bomb?

  • @Tripnotik25 google

    "NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event"

    all your associates in teh truth movement are saying it 10,000 pages. because youtube doesnt allow urls to be posted i got that line and googled it so you'd get the 911 review website but one thing i noticed was all the other websites which have plagiarized each other.. recycled the same paragraphs or article

  • @helicopterraids

    Google "Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster". It is all there - read and learn and count the pages if you want. Do you really think it makes a jot of difference to the veracity of NIST's reports whether "truthers" claim NIST's reports consisted of 10,000 pages or 100,000 or mistakenly (or even deliberately) claim there were only 10 pages?

  • "If all "surveillance" is in compliance. The US caught Israelis belonging to the mossad filming it, and dancing as it happened, is one of the evidence."

    The Israelis filming only proves the UN and and some of the most powerful people in the world live in New York . On any day of the week there are people filming in new York. there are some right right now as you read this who is shooting video of New York, and dancing is not evidence of anything but dancing that's why they called dancing.

  • Why let facts or reason stop you. I am sure anyone can get the type of access needed to wire two building with 7/24 surveillance containing banks and trading firms with there own security in the heart of the New York City and the Pentagon with tons of explosive and no one would notice. Sure, our own government would do all this and get hundreds of people to go along is a much simpler answer then terrorism.

  • @Ravengreen1967 it is actually. If all "surveillance" is in compliance, how hard is that to pull off really? what kind of logic is that you're trying to make.

    And everyone also agrees that people that are true to America had nothing to do with 9/11, instead, a group that clearly does not have the best intentions for the US, but still within the govt.

    Zionists, the US caught Israelis belonging to the mossad filming it, and dancing as it happened, is one of the evidence.

  • @Ravengreen1967 you should look up Susan Lindauer, and a couple of people did come out saying that within a month of 911 strange sounds could be heard during work, and that piles of dust would mysteriously appear on top of work stations in the mornings.

  • @Roonoon2

    a few people saw dust? that is your evidence?

    10,000's worked in those towers 24/7 -- the buildings were never unoccupied, and not one security guard, not one maintenance man, not one tenant ever reported seeing this massive work that must have been going on to rig hundreds of thermite cutters

    good lord

  • @Denierbud11 you're completely wrong about everything you said. Strange sounds were heard and specific floors were kept locked during the day time, no workers in the towers between 3am - 7am. The dust reported was described as the kind of dust you get if you drill a hole in concrete. The sounds heard were described as if something was moving a very heavy object from one place to another, then dropping it which made a huge bang.

  • @Roonoon2

    no workers in the towers between 3 am and 7 am -- ok, here is your chance to prove me a liar prove this is true

    NO WORKERS - none

    --- by do I want to see this source

  • @Denierbud11 soz it was 2:30am - 5am, look up 'missing security tapes from the wtc'. The trucks coming in at that time would have probably just been removing the gold below the towers. Much of the planting of the bombs must have been during the power outs and the renovations of the elevator shafts. For everything else /watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8

  • @Roonoon2

    No no no - a second hand account in a youtube tape that is nine minutes long is not proof

    find proof, or real tangible evidence that this is how it was all the time

    because that is your claim -- or are you claiming this was all done in one night?

    Because Scott Fobes even says he was in the tower after the power down working all night!

  • @Denierbud11 so testimony from Will Rodriguez and Gary Corbett is not proof either? If so how do you think they got the bombs in? I mentioned the elevator shaft work which was not done overnight. The 24-36 hour power out could of just been more time to continue that work. what do you think?

  • @Roonoon2

    at what point in that video does a witness state that there were no tenants permited in the building from 2:30 to 5:00?

    and the only person I have seen claiming a power down was Scott Forbes, and when questioned, he admitts that he only certain that it affected the floors his company was on, and that it only affected the tower he was in -- he has no knowledge regarding any other floor or tower.

    How do they get past the bomb sniffing dogs?

  • Where is your Pulitzer? Right; they don't give Pulitzers for delusions.