If media coordinate an ON-MESSAGE blitz about a 'GREAT GERBIL IN THE SKY' arriving in huge spaceships with military lasers creating holgrams to back the illusion & if media hosts repeat it with a straight face 24\7 the whole world would soon be forced to recant current religion & we'd be sharing the holy sacrament of the sacred spinach & praising an angry omnipotent hamster in the sky 4 his new bum-fcuk religion & if they deny steel melts above 2700 deg they be heretics.
@ 0:59, this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie.
Apparently the creator of the video chooses to ignore the NUMEROUS examples of fires causing steel column failure in tall buildings across the globe (and that's WITHOUT adding the impact damage of a jetliner). Go ahead, do some research. The reports aren't hard to find....
Aside from other ridiculous "expert claims" stated here, let's focus on your fire statement... "A strong fire tends to spread"... Oh how overtly we simplify matters. In order for fire to spread, one major aspect has to be present... FLAMMABILITY. In order for fire to continue burning, one major aspect must be present... SUPPLY OF OXYGEN. Do you honestly believe that they did not fireproof the towers in their construction? Sure, desks and papers will burn. The building itself won't. De-de-debunk
@iz2sicc - "Do you honestly believe that they did not fireproof the towers in their construction? Sure, desks and papers will burn. The building itself won't."
Right, because paint, drywall, carpeting, wiring, etc. won't burn? Here are some more things to think about: cleaning chemicals (how many cleaning supply rooms do you figure in the towers?), toner (lots of printers in an office-filled skyscraper), the list of flammable materials goes on and on.
@Jim5769 Right, because paint, drywall, carpeting, wiring, etc. won't burn? Here are some more things to think about: cleaning chemicals (how many cleaning supply rooms do you figure in the towers?), toner (lots of printers in an office-filled skyscraper), the list of flammable materials goes on and on.
NONE OF WHICH MELTS STEEL or causes buildings TO COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES.Boy u r 1 dumb fuck.hahaha Even ones that weren't hit by planes. FOOL.. 911 SYNTHETIC TERROR-try reading a book.
@ed11561 - "NONE OF WHICH MELTS STEEL or causes buildings TO COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES..."
Let's see, that post wasn't even directed to you, but did I say that anything I listed would melt steel? No. I was pointing out that the towers were not, as the other poster claimed, "fireproof." No office building is fireproof.
Now, to your comment. Fires in a steel structure can and do get hot enough to weaken (and sometimes melt) steel. Once weakened enough, you get structural failure (i.e. collapse).
@Jim5769 Fires in a steel structure can and do get hot enough to weaken (and sometimes melt) steel. Once weakened enough, you get structural failure (i.e. collapse). BULLSHIT LIES. NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE 911 LIAR. Office fires NEVER EVER even get hot enough to melt steel dummy. Well informed my ass. You are 1 dumb fucking moronic asshole. Fire has NEVER caused a COLLAPSE in a steel structure you lying cunt loser. Now fuck off scumbag & tell someone who will believe your childish LIESasshole
@ed11561 - "...Office fires NEVER EVER even get hot enough to melt steel...Fire has NEVER caused a COLLAPSE in a steel structure..."
If you tell yourself lies enough, you'll believe them. You are walking proof of that concept. Since you're too pathetic to look up anything... Here's some things for you to look at:
/watch?v=rT_gBysqfSo&feature=related
/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
north shore journal (dot) org (backslash) fire-causes-major-collapse-911-truth
In October 2009 I wrote a blog called "9/11 Truthers Exposed". It talks about a variety of things that the Truthers and Truth Movement have discussed in the past. It also talks about the psychological aspect of Truthers and their theories.
So far in almost 2 years not a single Truther has dared to debunk the blog. All they mange to do is not read it or make ad hominems about it.
I challenge any Truther to create a blog to debunk my blog, with sources of their "evidences". Any takers?
Hmm, sounds interesting. Send me a link to the blog and I'll have a look at it. However, I'll likely not address the entire thing, since there's plenty of alternative theories I don't believe in.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
@ctcole77 Technology that the public, even some military is aware of is about 30 years outdated, to what really exists, that we're not aware of, therefore, there may be some type of demolition technology hardly anyone is aware of. We're still trying to understand why 6 of the 911 commissioners have come out and stated it was a complete fraud.
Bldg 7 is what supporters of the official theory WON'T address, and it's what they DON'T want you to ask THEM.
@acidthunder1 Psychology of deniers? l can only speak for myself. Every conspiracy theory l consider both sides and come to what l consider an informed opinion. lf that means the gov is guilty so be it. l think no evidence from either side can be treated as gospel until verified. Certainly there are way too many 9/11 theories that are simply wacky and you have to wonder at the mentality of people who blindly subscribe to many of these theories.
"YT made you change your music? How? Why?" Copyright issues mainly. My main point was that strong fires generally spread and grow bigger. But the fires in the South Tower did not significantly spread and were going out before the building collapsed.
@scottpastry its telling u that the fire couldnt spread across the building therefore not weakening the steel then collapsing.rkowens 1st video was of how the twin towers fell.
@scottpastry because the plane remained in the crash zone and the jet feul burned off and the fire just couldnt apart from the crash site.this couldnt have weakened steel at a point where it finds its breaking point and snaps.explosives could have knocked down the buildings since the fires wernt strong.
If you are actually dumb enough to believe that President Bush would stage such a false flag operation, then you are the stupidest piece of shit I have ever encountered.
9/11 was a inside job. Anyone with half a brain who isn't blinded by patriotism can see that. But whats up with this horrible music?!?!?!?! Bad choice! Made this video unwatchable for me.
I actually had different music, but youtube made me change it to one of their songs. I know the music in some of my vids isn't the best, but I figured it's better than just watching white text on a black background.
@ed11561 - "Good job debunking this asshole rkowens4. The guy is a total moron."
The morons in the equation here are citizensfor911truth1 and you. This video contains easily disproven lies, and it bases its claims on those very lies. If you believe this video, then you are a bigger moron than citizenfor911truth1.
@Jim5769 What lies are you talking about specifically?Name them. Because ANYONE that listens to RKOwens is a total asshole moron.And if you're one of them...have a nice life.I wouldn't waste my time with assholes like him or you if it fits.If you think intelligence in the US Government had nothing to do with 911 then you are a retarded fucking moron.
@ed11561 - "@Jim5769 What lies are you talking about specifically?Name them..."
I specifically identified where to find a lie in the video, in the post to which you responded. I'll go ahead and paste part of my original post here to jog your memory:
"@ 0:59, this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie."
@Jim5769 this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie."
OH REALLY? And your PROOF? Cited source? Scientific journal sourced? SUBMIT PROOF BITCHBOY. Just because YOU say it's a flat out lie i'm supposed to believe that? fuck you asshole.
@ed11561 - "SUBMIT PROOF BITCHBOY. Just because YOU say it's a flat out lie i'm supposed to believe that?"
And just because you insist that it "NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE 911" we should all believe you, right? I'll get back to this in the next reply to other delusional and foul-mouthed rant. (to be continued...)
@1234567654321d it's not about patriotism, sir, it's about knowing that 9/11 truthers are full of shit. Only an idiot like yourself would believe bold-faced half truths without actually doing the research, which based on the evidence, isn't looking very good for your side.
as soon as you said that engineers "claimed that jet fuel melted towers of steel" you failed. No report contains those claims, so you pretty much debunked your own claims. Until you have an honest argument, you have nothing.
Perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote. I said that after the attacks numerous engineers claimed the steel had melted, which is true: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)43opmq2
@citizenfor911truth1 I quoted what you wrote. So, is it your intent to argue against the official report, or to argue against every theory that disagrees with yours? The official report doesn't say anything about steel "melting".
@citizenfor911truth1 You're doing 2 things that most "Truthers" do. 1) You use as evidence reports from the day of the attack or a few days after, when no one knew exactly what was going on or what actually happened. 2) You focus on a single word and exploit it. In this case your link points to a website quoting scientists who were quoted on September 12th, and who used the word "melted" when they meant "weakened." Melted can mean many things: they didn't imply the steel became liquid.
@citizenfor911truth1 Wow, great reference to back up your claim, a conspiracy theory website. What's next? A Nazis website to claim there was no holocaust? Ah, truthers... Always good for a laugh, good luck wasting the next 10 years of your life. (Rescue 1 FDNY Manhattan)
@Jim5769 Hey dummy-there have been websites around for years & books proving the holohoax was bullshit.FOR DECADES. If you're too stupid to research any of it then just keep your head up your ass-right where it is now.
@ed11561 - "there have been websites around for years & books proving the holohoax was bullshit.FOR DECADES."
So you aren't just a 9/11 denier, you're also a holocaust denier? Fascinating. Well, since anti-Semites are generally dimwits, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that you're a 9/11 denier.
I'm sure that we would all be fascinated if you would please share some of the "proof" that the holocaust was "bullshit," as you put it. If it is anywhere near as dumb as the 9/11 denial "proof"...
Your time is almost up Illuminati scum. Your plans to conquer the world are finished. Too bad, so sad. Enjoy the rest of eternity in the netherworld. A fate you so richly deserve for your transgressions.
We know that there was significant bowing and pulling in of the sides of the building, there is only one possible cause of this: heat high enough to weaken the steel. That puts to bed your idea that the fires had little or no effect, unless you have another theory as to what caused this extreme warping that you conveniently leave out?
@TheFlyposter - "...That puts to bed your idea that the fires had little or no effect, unless you have another theory as to what caused this extreme warping that you conveniently leave out?"
Shhh....you'll strain the "truthers" feeble little brains if you point out ACTUAL facts and make them challenge their delusions... I never knew people could live in such a total state of paranoid denial and delusion until I started reading these "truther" conspiracy lies.
The video inside the video that you sent me almost made me laugh. did that look ANYTHING like the collapse of the world trade centers? ANYTHING? Notice the HUGE explosions at the bottom that are clearly visible.
All of the videos inside that video you listed do not look ANYTHING like the collapse of wtc.
And remember, it was YOU truthers that said that free fall speeds HAVE to mean that it was controlled demolition.
Wow. those videos you listed of demolitions, again, look NOTHING like the wtc collapse. Not only do they have obvious explosions, that the wtc doesn't, but they fall MUCH MUCH faster. Notice the where the debri is in all of the videos, then look at the debri in the wtc collapse.
I'm glad you find all this amusing. But the demolition in china certainly looks like the collapse of the Towers. If the Towers being top-down collapses is your best argument, then you don't have much of a case.
@citizenfor911truth1 - "...the demolition in china certainly looks like the collapse of the Towers..."
Sorry, multiple large explosions placed at different levels through the building going off almost simultaneously, resulting in the whole building moving at once. That is NOTHING like the collapse of the Towers. You are very much in denial or just need to open your eyes and pay attention to detail a bit more.
@andrewm153351 - "@citizenfor911truth1 Wow. those videos you listed of demolitions, again, look NOTHING like the wtc collapse..."
Applaud your effort, but the guy is too deeply imbedded into his delusions to see facts or reason without immediately distorting them. It's like how anorexics can see themselves in the mirror and think they look just fine...
@citizenfor911truth1 - "Well, these certainly do: watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8; watch?v=OW9z08ml230; watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c"
That first one - looks nothing like the WTC--huge sequenced explosions are easily noticeable.
The second one - looks nothing like the WTC -- the building sinks down from the bottom, not pancaking down from the top.
The third one - still nothing like the WTC - large explosions in multiple locations make whole building fall at same time, not crumbling and pancaking down from top.
@andrewm153351 OK FINE THEN. Lets just address the question of how a 767, 777, or ANY airliner of that type can do 400 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulance at that altitude would have destroyed the airframe. The official 911 report says that the airliners were doing 410 and 500 knots respectively. ANY pilot or anyone who knows of physics will tell you that you cannot fly an airliner at 410 knots at 2000 feet. IMPOSSIBLE! Just answer me that then. Forget the buildings.
@Daddyo930 - "...400 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulance at that altitude would have destroyed the airframe..."
I don't know where you guys come up with this crap, but there is no structural concern with flying an airliner at 400-500 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulence experienced at higher altitudes is FAR worse than anything that close to ground level under normal conditions (as on 9/11). You don't fly an airliner that fast at low altitude because you have little margin for error at that speed.
"ahhh...i can't believe you twoofers are STILL using that fallacy. It WEAKENED the steel....." I'm fuly aware that the fire didn't melt the steel. My point is that is that numerous engineers after the attacks were the first ones to claim that.
"How do you explain the debri falling FASTER than the towers itself?"
@SnickerFizz123 So believe that Japanese indeed did do a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? You believe that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman (magic bullet theory)? You believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into Vietnam? You must also believe that NORAD could screw up 4 times in one day. You must also know that there is a pop-up air defense missile system at the pentagon that didn't work that day. Oh right, you must also believe that we went to the moon. Wow!
@Daddyo930 Seriously dude, I'm not explaining that stuff to you since you don't want to listen anyway. I guess you're too deep in all that conspiracy shit (apollo 11 moon landing hoax) to even bother.
@SnickerFizz123 So don't even bother to look up why the pentagon's billion dollar pop-up missile defense system did not work on 911. Don't ask yourself how could NORAD, which had a 100 percent interception rate of suspected hijackings prior to 911 messed up 4 times that day and the general got promoted. Just go bury your head in the sand. I was in the military (weapons research and development) what do you know? Nothing it seems.
@Daddyo930 the official call to shoot down passenger planes that were suspected to be hi-jacked went out around 10:15am or somewhere soon after, mind giving me a log of when all 4 planes hit?
@airforcetestpilot According to official records, Dickhead Cheeny was in control of NORAD that day. 3 months prior to 911, memorandum had been sent to NORAD cancelling the standing shoot down orders. All operations were to be cleared by the vice president. Do your own research and look up that bullshit yourself. NORAD did nothing to intercept for 82 minutes. Look that shit up. I won't do it for you. Bunch of fat, lazy, ignorant know nothings.
@Daddyo930 Go get smarter, troll. I've dealt with truthers like you. All you're gonna do is repeat the same idiotic theories that 9/11 was done the government.
@SnickerFizz123 What idiotic theories are you referring to? That NORAD screwed up 4 times that day and no one got fired? Or that the pentagon does not have a pop-up missile defense system that failed to deploy that day? These are facts, not my interpretation of data. Look them up for yourself. I don't post things that can't be backed up by printed literature. What are you referring to?
@andrewm153351 Scientifically speaking, the debris can fall faster than the tower itself because of the explosives used. The explosions pushed the debris out, causing it to fall faster than the building. Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to moron. That's called peer review. When a dummy ask a question, peers in the know answer the question. NIST never submitted its report for peer review. Why?
Aluminum was applied in the facade of the buildings, the planes were made of aluminum, the window frames had aluminum as well as the cars in the garage below.
4:45 This is not true. The fires burned at around 1800 degrees F; steel loses half ot it's structural strength at 1100 degrees F, and it may have been at around 10% at 1800 F.
5:32 are you implying that the fires weren't large enough to cover several floors? Might I direct you to this page covering the fires of the Twin towers:
@citizenfor911truth1 In this video, you try to make the point that only three exterior panels reached temperatures of 250C, but this is impossible, as that is half of the temperature of when a fire is just visible.
Furthermore, the Kerosene was basically just the lighter fluid of the fires, not the main ingredient. The main source of the fires were office materials; office fires can burn at 1800 degrees.
@citizenfor911truth1 Ok, so the engine alone could only have severed one column. However, in your video, you stated that the temperatures of the fire were around 200 degrees F, which is impossible because Fires are just visible at 977 degrees F. The fires are obviously visible, if you've ever seen any photos of the fires in WTC 2, and I wouldn't say how many Steel columns were severed until they create a simulation showing what would have happened, as they did with WTC 1.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that fire is visible starting at 977F. Fires can be visible at temperatures of around 300F. What the temperature depends on what is burning, not the actual size of the fire. Ultimately, NIST has no evidence that any of the steel in the buildings reached 1800F. The burden of proof is on them.
@citizenfor911truth1 According to wikipedia, Fires become "just visible" at 977 degrees F. I searched your claim of fires burning at 300F, but i found nothing. Could you please point me to a reliable source to support you claim?
I'm not trying to say that the size of the fire is what matters, what I'm saying is that the idea of an office fire burning as low as 200 degrees.
The fire from WTC 2 is clearly visible from several pictures, and the presence of UPS batteries, (continued)
You have to remember that even if the fires themselves were that hot, it is not proof that the steel itself was heated to that temperature. The point is that NIST has no evidence that any of the steel in the WTC was heated to 1800 degrees.
0:58 Actually, for a list of steel buildings which have collapsed due to fire before 9/11, please either check my page, RKowens4's videos, or 911debunked. All of them show lists of steel framed buildings which have either partially or wholly collapsed due to fire.
The site and sound theater is just another example of a steel framed failure due to the connections failing. However, NIST claims that the Twin Towers collapsed precisely because their connections didn't fail. I do not claim that steel structures can't fail due to fire. What I am merely pointing out is that no steel framed high rise skyscrapers have collapsed from far severe fires then what we saw on 9/11.
@citizenfor911truth1 Yes, but what about a severe office fire in addition to an airliner impact at 500-600 MPH? Furthermore, were any of those steel high-rise buildings constructed with a tube-in-tube design, with the steel columns on the skin of the building to make room for office space? Also, were any of those high-rise fires burning buildings that have had their insulation knocked off by said impact?
If you had looked at the link I provided, you'd see that I already addressed all those points. Yes, the One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate bank were tube-within-tube designs like the Towers. The insulation argument is irrelevant, as fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours. These other buildings burned for over 5 hours and didn't collapse. And building 7 had all its fireproofing.
@citizenfor911truth1 The One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate bank didn't suffer any damage due to an airliner impact. Also, WTC 7's sprinklers weren't working, and was also uniquely designed in that it was supported by three main trusses; when one collapsed, the other two couldn't handle the redistributed weight.
As for your challange, you're just quoting debunking911. It would be extremely hard to find another building like that. You should actually read the NIST report on WTC7. They go into detail about the differences in the construction of other steel buildings and the severity of the fires. Or, just go here: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)497v3x2
@citizenfor911truth1 Yes, because debunking911 makes a good point; the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was a unique event, in that both the buildings were uniquely designed, and that they were both struck by airliners traveling at 500-600 MPH. It seems to me that we cannot really make any comparisons until there is an event remarkably similar to 9/11.
@citizenfor911truth1 (continued), which would provide both Thousands of Amps of Electricity and Highly Flammable hydrogen (which burns at 4000F), shows that the fires of WTC 2 may have been even higher than 1800F.
@citizenfor911truth1 "Also, one thing that indicates that the fires weren't that sever is because the steel didn't glow. Steel begins to glow at around 700C."
You can't see the steel inside the building, citizen. The dripping, molten aluminum, is a good indicator of the heat that the fires reached, along with the inward bowing of the perimeter columns, leading up to collapse.
"You can't see the steel inside the building, citizen." If the fires were as hot as you claim, then we would see the steel glowing on the side that we can see. If the molten metal was aluminum and was glowing that bright at the perimeter, then don't you think that the perimeter columns next to it should have glowed? That molten metal is almost certainly not molten aluminum: watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI Also, the inward bowing can be caused by other things as well: watch?v=m3CFlRVMs8g
@citizenfor911truth1 "If the fires were as hot as you claim, then we would see the steel glowing on the side that we can see." No you wouldn't and, which side is that? All sides are visible to some degree. "If the molten metal was aluminum and was glowing that bright at the perimeter, then don't you think that the perimeter columns next to it should have glowed? That molten metal is almost certainly not molten aluminum: also the inward bowing can be caused by other things as well" (contd)
@citizenfor911truth1 Listen, I would love to sit here and discuss this with you, but I'm very busy. Thank you for the talk, but i have to go. Goodbye.
0:41 Well, each of the floors WAS a whole acre of concrete, and when it collapsed, it was the weight of the collapsed floor AND the floors above it smashing into another floor, not just the weight of the floors itself... also, instead of forming a web of steel like in most buildings, the structural steel of the Twin Towers had most of it's steel on it's skin to save office space. As in, no steel columns in the office space of the building?
How come none of you fucktards answer any questions?
HOW COME THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ON CIPRO 2 WEEKS B4 THE "TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS"? The Antrax that came from Ft.Dietrick ARMY GERM WARFARE UNIT that WEAPONIZED the Anthrax virus,that was ONLY SENT TO DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR? ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID OR JUST IGNORANT?? lol assholes liars. The Terrorist US government attacks ON ITSELF were so fucking obvious it's ridiculous.USA=TERRORISM=ATTACKS ON ITSELF.
And I didn't say that NIST said the steel melted. But several experts claimed weeks after the attacks that the steel melted. Perhaps you should get your facts straight.
Absolutely. I can't post the links here, but I'll list all the people. I'll message you the links.
"Structural steel is fireproofed to last between one and two hours, which it did, and then steel melts." -Hyman Brown, project engineer for the construction of the Twin Towers.
"Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports." -The Arizona Daily Wildcat
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." -structural engineer Chris Wise
"I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." -M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel
@citizenfor911truth1 Were any of these people there on 9/11? Because it's amazingly ILLOGICAL. You can't melt ANYTHING under stress to a liquid. The stress forces a failure LONG before it becomes a liquid, buddy. Put a weight on a piece of ice, and see if it goes to a liquid before the weight crushes it. Even a third grader SHOULD be able to realize that. I realize that leaves Truthers OUT, but it shouldn't.
Yes, Hyman Brown was interviewed that day. But why should that matter? No one from NIST was there that day. I don't see why you're complaining to me. I don't think the fires melted the steel, and these men probably do not either today. These were their initial beliefs. But regardless, they were the first ones to make claims of steel melting.
The NIST NYC offices are in the NYU subcampus, at WEST Street and Liberty, at the North edge of the WTC campus. The SEANY, offices are right behind them, further north on west. WEST street used to be called "Radio Row", and it's been the center for radio engineering in NYC since before WW2.
NIST coordination, with SEANY, and FEMA began on day ONE.
The national construction safety team act didn't happen till late 2002.
I don't get it. How would the families of the people in the 4 planes magically disapear, have some blood and stuff be found in their DNA, and how come there was no noise if this really was a controlled demolition.
there's no point in either these videos nor the debunking videos. everyone is gonna think their videos are right and accurate. no 9/11 research videos are 100% accurate. while i do think terrorists did 9/11, i do believe the gov. had some knowledge of it.
@every dumbass who commented here. STFU. Its a losing battle both ways. There will ALWAYS be people who beleive in the official story and there will ALWAYS be people who beleive 9/11 was a conspiracy. Nothing you can EVER say or do will change anybodys mind so maybe you should all stop wasting your time with this shit.
a building that was built with reinforced titanium, the strongest metal in exsistance, storng enough to withstand several impacts, was weakend by 1 plane and flames? thats your argument? take a chemistry class before you plant dirty seeds into these viral whores who don't know any better.
#1. Stop with this straw man argument. You 911 truthers keep repeating that "Structural Engineers" official story is that the steel melted. In no way is anyone ever saying that. All they are saying is that the structural integrity of the columns were comprimised through the inferno of fires raging through that place.
#2. You're right, fires have never brought down a tower before, but then again no tower has ever been hit by a 500mph 200,000 lb missle.
You claim in this vid that black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. That's false. Black smoke is indicative of a fuel rich fire. I have seen plenty of fires with thick black smoke that were in the open air at sea level! Would they be oxygen starved? I don't think so. lmfao at you. You fail again!
@terrymanning1 After several weeks of telling citizentard he was wrong about black smoke, he inserts a box admitting that fact. What he should have done is delete this lie and error strewn video and his account. He should be ashamed for the lies he's spreading.
This has been flagged as spam show
If media coordinate an ON-MESSAGE blitz about a 'GREAT GERBIL IN THE SKY' arriving in huge spaceships with military lasers creating holgrams to back the illusion & if media hosts repeat it with a straight face 24\7 the whole world would soon be forced to recant current religion & we'd be sharing the holy sacrament of the sacred spinach & praising an angry omnipotent hamster in the sky 4 his new bum-fcuk religion & if they deny steel melts above 2700 deg they be heretics.
Off with their head.
spacelizardlaw 1 month ago
41 dumb ignorants disliked the video.
xTornado78x 2 months ago
@ 0:59, this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie.
Apparently the creator of the video chooses to ignore the NUMEROUS examples of fires causing steel column failure in tall buildings across the globe (and that's WITHOUT adding the impact damage of a jetliner). Go ahead, do some research. The reports aren't hard to find....
Jim5769 2 months ago
I have to be honest...The music is awful. Almost makes it unbearable to watch.
Joeysnamehere 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RKOwens4 believes transformers is non-fiction
theFunnierWill211187 4 months ago
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory. search youtube 4 it. less than 5mins long. then decide.
CARSONB43 4 months ago in playlist 9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to Internet Debunkers
finnaly someone straightens it out for that kid who thought he knew it all.
theFunnierWill211187 4 months ago
Music sucks, jesus christ
GoPensGo377 4 months ago 2
use song to make money.
PROFIT.
fail
TheMango121 4 months ago 2
Aside from other ridiculous "expert claims" stated here, let's focus on your fire statement... "A strong fire tends to spread"... Oh how overtly we simplify matters. In order for fire to spread, one major aspect has to be present... FLAMMABILITY. In order for fire to continue burning, one major aspect must be present... SUPPLY OF OXYGEN. Do you honestly believe that they did not fireproof the towers in their construction? Sure, desks and papers will burn. The building itself won't. De-de-debunk
iz2sicc 4 months ago in playlist 9/11 VIDEOS 6
@iz2sicc - "Do you honestly believe that they did not fireproof the towers in their construction? Sure, desks and papers will burn. The building itself won't."
Right, because paint, drywall, carpeting, wiring, etc. won't burn? Here are some more things to think about: cleaning chemicals (how many cleaning supply rooms do you figure in the towers?), toner (lots of printers in an office-filled skyscraper), the list of flammable materials goes on and on.
Jim5769 2 months ago
@Jim5769 Right, because paint, drywall, carpeting, wiring, etc. won't burn? Here are some more things to think about: cleaning chemicals (how many cleaning supply rooms do you figure in the towers?), toner (lots of printers in an office-filled skyscraper), the list of flammable materials goes on and on.
NONE OF WHICH MELTS STEEL or causes buildings TO COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES.Boy u r 1 dumb fuck.hahaha Even ones that weren't hit by planes. FOOL.. 911 SYNTHETIC TERROR-try reading a book.
ed11561 2 months ago
@ed11561 - "NONE OF WHICH MELTS STEEL or causes buildings TO COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES..."
Let's see, that post wasn't even directed to you, but did I say that anything I listed would melt steel? No. I was pointing out that the towers were not, as the other poster claimed, "fireproof." No office building is fireproof.
Now, to your comment. Fires in a steel structure can and do get hot enough to weaken (and sometimes melt) steel. Once weakened enough, you get structural failure (i.e. collapse).
Jim5769 2 months ago
@Jim5769 Fires in a steel structure can and do get hot enough to weaken (and sometimes melt) steel. Once weakened enough, you get structural failure (i.e. collapse). BULLSHIT LIES. NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE 911 LIAR. Office fires NEVER EVER even get hot enough to melt steel dummy. Well informed my ass. You are 1 dumb fucking moronic asshole. Fire has NEVER caused a COLLAPSE in a steel structure you lying cunt loser. Now fuck off scumbag & tell someone who will believe your childish LIESasshole
ed11561 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ed11561 - "...Office fires NEVER EVER even get hot enough to melt steel...Fire has NEVER caused a COLLAPSE in a steel structure..."
If you tell yourself lies enough, you'll believe them. You are walking proof of that concept. Since you're too pathetic to look up anything... Here's some things for you to look at:
/watch?v=rT_gBysqfSo&feature=related
/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
north shore journal (dot) org (backslash) fire-causes-major-collapse-911-truth
Jim5769 2 months ago
9/11
was
an
inside
job.
ZionistsRunTheGov 5 months ago 2
In October 2009 I wrote a blog called "9/11 Truthers Exposed". It talks about a variety of things that the Truthers and Truth Movement have discussed in the past. It also talks about the psychological aspect of Truthers and their theories.
So far in almost 2 years not a single Truther has dared to debunk the blog. All they mange to do is not read it or make ad hominems about it.
I challenge any Truther to create a blog to debunk my blog, with sources of their "evidences". Any takers?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions
Hmm, sounds interesting. Send me a link to the blog and I'll have a look at it. However, I'll likely not address the entire thing, since there's plenty of alternative theories I don't believe in.
citizenfor911truth1 5 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
911truthersexposed dot blogspot dot com
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 3 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 3 months ago
@ctcole77 Technology that the public, even some military is aware of is about 30 years outdated, to what really exists, that we're not aware of, therefore, there may be some type of demolition technology hardly anyone is aware of. We're still trying to understand why 6 of the 911 commissioners have come out and stated it was a complete fraud.
Bldg 7 is what supporters of the official theory WON'T address, and it's what they DON'T want you to ask THEM.
We've been lied to.
shawdez 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@WhyAskQuestions what about the psychological aspect of deniers or coincidence theorists, have you considered that too?
acidthunder1 3 weeks ago
@acidthunder1 Psychology of deniers? l can only speak for myself. Every conspiracy theory l consider both sides and come to what l consider an informed opinion. lf that means the gov is guilty so be it. l think no evidence from either side can be treated as gospel until verified. Certainly there are way too many 9/11 theories that are simply wacky and you have to wonder at the mentality of people who blindly subscribe to many of these theories.
Spindry96 1 week ago
@Spindry96 I agree- unless a proper criminal investigation is conducted with subpoena power the full truth will never be known
acidthunder1 1 week ago
@DanTheBrahman
"YT made you change your music? How? Why?" Copyright issues mainly. My main point was that strong fires generally spread and grow bigger. But the fires in the South Tower did not significantly spread and were going out before the building collapsed.
citizenfor911truth1 6 months ago
This guy debunks his own video right off the bat by setting it to this cheesy played-out internet song. booooooooooo
lastagony 6 months ago
Hey. truthers, I have a better idea. Why don't you read WhyAskQuestions's "9/11 TRUTHERS EXPOSED".
SnickerFizz123 7 months ago
did you pull this shit out of your ass? Because it sure smells like it came from there. fucking fail
Zero2Legend 7 months ago
how is this a debunking of RKowens4 videos again??
scottpastry 7 months ago
@scottpastry its telling u that the fire couldnt spread across the building therefore not weakening the steel then collapsing.rkowens 1st video was of how the twin towers fell.
nb45001 7 months ago
@nb45001 why couldnt the fire spread across the building??
scottpastry 7 months ago
@scottpastry because the plane remained in the crash zone and the jet feul burned off and the fire just couldnt apart from the crash site.this couldnt have weakened steel at a point where it finds its breaking point and snaps.explosives could have knocked down the buildings since the fires wernt strong.
nb45001 7 months ago
I fuckin' lol'd at the first part of the video xD
holysoks1 8 months ago
Question: have the U.S. govt ever previously made plans to carry out false-flag attacks against it's own citizens?
Answer: Yes. To substantiate this fact I'll refer you to--
Wikipedia. org /wiki/Operation_Northwoods
AlexTronic777 8 months ago
If you are actually dumb enough to believe that President Bush would stage such a false flag operation, then you are the stupidest piece of shit I have ever encountered.
SnickerFizz123 8 months ago
9/11 was a inside job. Anyone with half a brain who isn't blinded by patriotism can see that. But whats up with this horrible music?!?!?!?! Bad choice! Made this video unwatchable for me.
1234567654321d 8 months ago 7
@1234567654321d
I actually had different music, but youtube made me change it to one of their songs. I know the music in some of my vids isn't the best, but I figured it's better than just watching white text on a black background.
citizenfor911truth1 8 months ago 5
@citizenfor911truth1 Good job debunking this asshole rkowens4. The guy is a total moron.
ed11561 8 months ago
@ed11561 hes george bushs bitch
nb45001 7 months ago
@ed11561 - "Good job debunking this asshole rkowens4. The guy is a total moron."
The morons in the equation here are citizensfor911truth1 and you. This video contains easily disproven lies, and it bases its claims on those very lies. If you believe this video, then you are a bigger moron than citizenfor911truth1.
Jim5769 2 months ago
@Jim5769 What lies are you talking about specifically?Name them. Because ANYONE that listens to RKOwens is a total asshole moron.And if you're one of them...have a nice life.I wouldn't waste my time with assholes like him or you if it fits.If you think intelligence in the US Government had nothing to do with 911 then you are a retarded fucking moron.
ed11561 2 months ago
@ed11561 - "@Jim5769 What lies are you talking about specifically?Name them..."
I specifically identified where to find a lie in the video, in the post to which you responded. I'll go ahead and paste part of my original post here to jog your memory:
"@ 0:59, this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie."
Heeere's your sign... NEXT!
Jim5769 2 months ago
@Jim5769 this video claims that "fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before..." as part of its so-called evidence against the "official theory." That claim is a flat-out lie."
OH REALLY? And your PROOF? Cited source? Scientific journal sourced? SUBMIT PROOF BITCHBOY. Just because YOU say it's a flat out lie i'm supposed to believe that? fuck you asshole.
ed11561 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ed11561 - "SUBMIT PROOF BITCHBOY. Just because YOU say it's a flat out lie i'm supposed to believe that?"
And just because you insist that it "NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE 911" we should all believe you, right? I'll get back to this in the next reply to other delusional and foul-mouthed rant. (to be continued...)
Jim5769 2 months ago
@ed11561 bitchboy lol
Roonoon2 1 month ago
@1234567654321d it's not about patriotism, sir, it's about knowing that 9/11 truthers are full of shit. Only an idiot like yourself would believe bold-faced half truths without actually doing the research, which based on the evidence, isn't looking very good for your side.
JRC3034 7 months ago
@1234567654321d
911 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB!
ctcole77 5 months ago
as soon as you said that engineers "claimed that jet fuel melted towers of steel" you failed. No report contains those claims, so you pretty much debunked your own claims. Until you have an honest argument, you have nothing.
lumpheadthump 9 months ago
@lumpheadthump
Perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote. I said that after the attacks numerous engineers claimed the steel had melted, which is true: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)43opmq2
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago 3
@citizenfor911truth1 I quoted what you wrote. So, is it your intent to argue against the official report, or to argue against every theory that disagrees with yours? The official report doesn't say anything about steel "melting".
lumpheadthump 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You're doing 2 things that most "Truthers" do. 1) You use as evidence reports from the day of the attack or a few days after, when no one knew exactly what was going on or what actually happened. 2) You focus on a single word and exploit it. In this case your link points to a website quoting scientists who were quoted on September 12th, and who used the word "melted" when they meant "weakened." Melted can mean many things: they didn't imply the steel became liquid.
jrvenice1999 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1
"Numerous engineers claimed the steel had melted, which is true:" That's a pretty flimsy understanding of truth.
AlexanderTheGood89 8 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Wow, great reference to back up your claim, a conspiracy theory website. What's next? A Nazis website to claim there was no holocaust? Ah, truthers... Always good for a laugh, good luck wasting the next 10 years of your life. (Rescue 1 FDNY Manhattan)
JoeJ4684 8 months ago
@JoeJ4684 - "...What's next? A Nazis website to claim there was no holocaust? Ah, truthers... Always good for a laugh..."
LMAO! That's a good one!
Jim5769 2 months ago
@Jim5769 Hey dummy-there have been websites around for years & books proving the holohoax was bullshit.FOR DECADES. If you're too stupid to research any of it then just keep your head up your ass-right where it is now.
ed11561 2 months ago
@ed11561 - "there have been websites around for years & books proving the holohoax was bullshit.FOR DECADES."
So you aren't just a 9/11 denier, you're also a holocaust denier? Fascinating. Well, since anti-Semites are generally dimwits, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that you're a 9/11 denier.
I'm sure that we would all be fascinated if you would please share some of the "proof" that the holocaust was "bullshit," as you put it. If it is anywhere near as dumb as the 9/11 denial "proof"...
Jim5769 2 months ago
TLDR
GigaExplosivo 9 months ago
Your time is almost up Illuminati scum. Your plans to conquer the world are finished. Too bad, so sad. Enjoy the rest of eternity in the netherworld. A fate you so richly deserve for your transgressions.
Daddyo930 9 months ago
We know that there was significant bowing and pulling in of the sides of the building, there is only one possible cause of this: heat high enough to weaken the steel. That puts to bed your idea that the fires had little or no effect, unless you have another theory as to what caused this extreme warping that you conveniently leave out?
TheFlyposter 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFlyposter - "...That puts to bed your idea that the fires had little or no effect, unless you have another theory as to what caused this extreme warping that you conveniently leave out?"
Shhh....you'll strain the "truthers" feeble little brains if you point out ACTUAL facts and make them challenge their delusions... I never knew people could live in such a total state of paranoid denial and delusion until I started reading these "truther" conspiracy lies.
Jim5769 2 months ago
The video inside the video that you sent me almost made me laugh. did that look ANYTHING like the collapse of the world trade centers? ANYTHING? Notice the HUGE explosions at the bottom that are clearly visible.
All of the videos inside that video you listed do not look ANYTHING like the collapse of wtc.
And remember, it was YOU truthers that said that free fall speeds HAVE to mean that it was controlled demolition.
andrewm153351 11 months ago
@andrewm153351
"did that look ANYTHING like the collapse of the world trade centers? ANYTHING?"
Well, these certainly do:
watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
watch?v=OW9z08ml230
watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c
"And remember, it was YOU truthers that said that free fall speeds HAVE to mean that it was controlled demolition."
I don't say that, and free fall definitly does not have to happen in a demolition:
watch?v=CTAeKVul3uA
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Wow. those videos you listed of demolitions, again, look NOTHING like the wtc collapse. Not only do they have obvious explosions, that the wtc doesn't, but they fall MUCH MUCH faster. Notice the where the debri is in all of the videos, then look at the debri in the wtc collapse.
I seriously laughed when i saw them.
andrewm153351 11 months ago
@andrewm153351
I'm glad you find all this amusing. But the demolition in china certainly looks like the collapse of the Towers. If the Towers being top-down collapses is your best argument, then you don't have much of a case.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1 - "...the demolition in china certainly looks like the collapse of the Towers..."
Sorry, multiple large explosions placed at different levels through the building going off almost simultaneously, resulting in the whole building moving at once. That is NOTHING like the collapse of the Towers. You are very much in denial or just need to open your eyes and pay attention to detail a bit more.
Jim5769 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andrewm153351 - "@citizenfor911truth1 Wow. those videos you listed of demolitions, again, look NOTHING like the wtc collapse..."
Applaud your effort, but the guy is too deeply imbedded into his delusions to see facts or reason without immediately distorting them. It's like how anorexics can see themselves in the mirror and think they look just fine...
Jim5769 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1 - "Well, these certainly do: watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8; watch?v=OW9z08ml230; watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c"
That first one - looks nothing like the WTC--huge sequenced explosions are easily noticeable.
The second one - looks nothing like the WTC -- the building sinks down from the bottom, not pancaking down from the top.
The third one - still nothing like the WTC - large explosions in multiple locations make whole building fall at same time, not crumbling and pancaking down from top.
Jim5769 2 months ago
@andrewm153351 OK FINE THEN. Lets just address the question of how a 767, 777, or ANY airliner of that type can do 400 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulance at that altitude would have destroyed the airframe. The official 911 report says that the airliners were doing 410 and 500 knots respectively. ANY pilot or anyone who knows of physics will tell you that you cannot fly an airliner at 410 knots at 2000 feet. IMPOSSIBLE! Just answer me that then. Forget the buildings.
Daddyo930 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 - "...400 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulance at that altitude would have destroyed the airframe..."
I don't know where you guys come up with this crap, but there is no structural concern with flying an airliner at 400-500 knots at 2000 feet. The turbulence experienced at higher altitudes is FAR worse than anything that close to ground level under normal conditions (as on 9/11). You don't fly an airliner that fast at low altitude because you have little margin for error at that speed.
Jim5769 2 months ago
This video has no scientific basis whatsoever. How do you explain the debri falling FASTER than the towers itself?
andrewm153351 11 months ago 2
@andrewm153351
"ahhh...i can't believe you twoofers are STILL using that fallacy. It WEAKENED the steel....." I'm fuly aware that the fire didn't melt the steel. My point is that is that numerous engineers after the attacks were the first ones to claim that.
"How do you explain the debri falling FASTER than the towers itself?"
I have better video on the subject:
watch?v=lTccQCTCKsA
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
Your logic is based on nothing but manipulated text and facts. I'm not buying your pro-9/11 Truth bullshit.
SnickerFizz123 10 months ago
@SnickerFizz123
It would be nice if debunkers would try actually addressing the points in the video instead of just trolling.
citizenfor911truth1 10 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 I could care less if you were just joking around....
SnickerFizz123 10 months ago
@SnickerFizz123 So believe that Japanese indeed did do a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? You believe that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman (magic bullet theory)? You believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into Vietnam? You must also believe that NORAD could screw up 4 times in one day. You must also know that there is a pop-up air defense missile system at the pentagon that didn't work that day. Oh right, you must also believe that we went to the moon. Wow!
Daddyo930 9 months ago
Comment removed
SnickerFizz123 9 months ago
@Daddyo930 Since you people don't like to listen, let me make it clear :
9/11 was not an inside job
Apollo 11 was not faked in a studio
Pearl Harbor was not bombed by the government
There is no second gunman that killed Kennedy
etc.
STOP BELIEVING IN SUCH BULLSHIT CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM UP ARE JUST A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
SnickerFizz123 9 months ago
@SnickerFizz123 Yeah, just like the holocaust never happened ! You dumb fuck Snicker, you've got your head
so far up your ass, all you hear is the governments heartbeat.
8Techmaster 8 months ago
Comment removed
SnickerFizz123 8 months ago
@Daddyo930 Seriously dude, I'm not explaining that stuff to you since you don't want to listen anyway. I guess you're too deep in all that conspiracy shit (apollo 11 moon landing hoax) to even bother.
SnickerFizz123 9 months ago
@SnickerFizz123 So don't even bother to look up why the pentagon's billion dollar pop-up missile defense system did not work on 911. Don't ask yourself how could NORAD, which had a 100 percent interception rate of suspected hijackings prior to 911 messed up 4 times that day and the general got promoted. Just go bury your head in the sand. I was in the military (weapons research and development) what do you know? Nothing it seems.
Daddyo930 9 months ago
@Daddyo930 the official call to shoot down passenger planes that were suspected to be hi-jacked went out around 10:15am or somewhere soon after, mind giving me a log of when all 4 planes hit?
airforcetestpilot 8 months ago
@airforcetestpilot According to official records, Dickhead Cheeny was in control of NORAD that day. 3 months prior to 911, memorandum had been sent to NORAD cancelling the standing shoot down orders. All operations were to be cleared by the vice president. Do your own research and look up that bullshit yourself. NORAD did nothing to intercept for 82 minutes. Look that shit up. I won't do it for you. Bunch of fat, lazy, ignorant know nothings.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
@Daddyo930 Go get smarter, troll. I've dealt with truthers like you. All you're gonna do is repeat the same idiotic theories that 9/11 was done the government.
SnickerFizz123 8 months ago
@SnickerFizz123 What idiotic theories are you referring to? That NORAD screwed up 4 times that day and no one got fired? Or that the pentagon does not have a pop-up missile defense system that failed to deploy that day? These are facts, not my interpretation of data. Look them up for yourself. I don't post things that can't be backed up by printed literature. What are you referring to?
Daddyo930 8 months ago
Comment removed
SnickerFizz123 8 months ago
@andrewm153351 Funny, you dont have a channel. Its like you dont even exist really.
Daddyo930 9 months ago
@andrewm153351 Scientifically speaking, the debris can fall faster than the tower itself because of the explosives used. The explosions pushed the debris out, causing it to fall faster than the building. Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to moron. That's called peer review. When a dummy ask a question, peers in the know answer the question. NIST never submitted its report for peer review. Why?
Daddyo930 8 months ago
"that the jet fuel had melted the tower's steel"
ahhh...i can't believe you twoofers are STILL using that fallacy. It WEAKENED the steel.....how do you sleep at night, seriously....
You idiots have NO facts on your side whatsoever. You rely on "first-person" accounts, which not all go with your stories.
You're saying that because the towers had less sway than what they experience in winter, then they couldn't have fallen? HILARIOUS
andrewm153351 11 months ago
There was actually quite a significant number of batteries in the basement of the Twin Towers.
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
Aluminum was applied in the facade of the buildings, the planes were made of aluminum, the window frames had aluminum as well as the cars in the garage below.
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Again, where is your proof that it was actually aluminum. I have shown it was not: watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 It has already been proven to have been aluminum.
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
*of*
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
*sides*
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
dark smoke does not indicate oxygen starved fires it actually means theres a lot of oxygen
mickey201513 11 months ago
@mickey201513
You did see my disclaimer, right?
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
4:45 This is not true. The fires burned at around 1800 degrees F; steel loses half ot it's structural strength at 1100 degrees F, and it may have been at around 10% at 1800 F.
5:32 are you implying that the fires weren't large enough to cover several floors? Might I direct you to this page covering the fires of the Twin towers:
[.]debunking911[.]com/fire[.]htm
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
I show why the fires could not have been severe enough in this video: watch?v=U-taIHZW0RA
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 In this video, you try to make the point that only three exterior panels reached temperatures of 250C, but this is impossible, as that is half of the temperature of when a fire is just visible.
Furthermore, the Kerosene was basically just the lighter fluid of the fires, not the main ingredient. The main source of the fires were office materials; office fires can burn at 1800 degrees.
burninrain1 11 months ago
3:51 Well, when you consider that the plane was going at around 500 MPH, it isn't really surprising that some of the core columns were severed.
For an animated diagram of both of the planes striking the towers to help you understand why so many columns were lost, go to:
[.]debunking911[.]com/impact.htm
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
I go into more detail in this video: watch?v=GfDVm7v2sD4
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Ok, so the engine alone could only have severed one column. However, in your video, you stated that the temperatures of the fire were around 200 degrees F, which is impossible because Fires are just visible at 977 degrees F. The fires are obviously visible, if you've ever seen any photos of the fires in WTC 2, and I wouldn't say how many Steel columns were severed until they create a simulation showing what would have happened, as they did with WTC 1.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
I'm not sure where you got the idea that fire is visible starting at 977F. Fires can be visible at temperatures of around 300F. What the temperature depends on what is burning, not the actual size of the fire. Ultimately, NIST has no evidence that any of the steel in the buildings reached 1800F. The burden of proof is on them.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 According to wikipedia, Fires become "just visible" at 977 degrees F. I searched your claim of fires burning at 300F, but i found nothing. Could you please point me to a reliable source to support you claim?
I'm not trying to say that the size of the fire is what matters, what I'm saying is that the idea of an office fire burning as low as 200 degrees.
The fire from WTC 2 is clearly visible from several pictures, and the presence of UPS batteries, (continued)
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1 "The idea of an office fire burning as low as 200 degrees"
(continued) is incredibly hard to believe.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
You have to remember that even if the fires themselves were that hot, it is not proof that the steel itself was heated to that temperature. The point is that NIST has no evidence that any of the steel in the WTC was heated to 1800 degrees.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
0:58 Actually, for a list of steel buildings which have collapsed due to fire before 9/11, please either check my page, RKowens4's videos, or 911debunked. All of them show lists of steel framed buildings which have either partially or wholly collapsed due to fire.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
I have already addressed this issue: watch?v=k3RnkVzVmQA
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 What about the sight and sound theater in Pennsylvania?
Also, there were other factors involved in the WTC collapses. Find a steel frame building which:
1. Was at least 40 stories high;
2. Takes up a whole city block;
3. Is a "Tube in Tube" design;
4. Was struck by an airliner going at 500 MPH;
5. Was weakened by fire for over 6 hours after having it's insulation knocked off, and;
6. Had trusses that were bolted on with 5/8" bolts
And didn't collapse.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
The site and sound theater is just another example of a steel framed failure due to the connections failing. However, NIST claims that the Twin Towers collapsed precisely because their connections didn't fail. I do not claim that steel structures can't fail due to fire. What I am merely pointing out is that no steel framed high rise skyscrapers have collapsed from far severe fires then what we saw on 9/11.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Yes, but what about a severe office fire in addition to an airliner impact at 500-600 MPH? Furthermore, were any of those steel high-rise buildings constructed with a tube-in-tube design, with the steel columns on the skin of the building to make room for office space? Also, were any of those high-rise fires burning buildings that have had their insulation knocked off by said impact?
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
If you had looked at the link I provided, you'd see that I already addressed all those points. Yes, the One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate bank were tube-within-tube designs like the Towers. The insulation argument is irrelevant, as fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours. These other buildings burned for over 5 hours and didn't collapse. And building 7 had all its fireproofing.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 The One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate bank didn't suffer any damage due to an airliner impact. Also, WTC 7's sprinklers weren't working, and was also uniquely designed in that it was supported by three main trusses; when one collapsed, the other two couldn't handle the redistributed weight.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
"it was supported by three main trusses; when one collapsed, the other two couldn't handle the redistributed weight."
Unfortunately, that's not what NIST says initiated the collapsed. Again, you should actually read the report.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
As for your challange, you're just quoting debunking911. It would be extremely hard to find another building like that. You should actually read the NIST report on WTC7. They go into detail about the differences in the construction of other steel buildings and the severity of the fires. Or, just go here: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)497v3x2
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Yes, because debunking911 makes a good point; the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was a unique event, in that both the buildings were uniquely designed, and that they were both struck by airliners traveling at 500-600 MPH. It seems to me that we cannot really make any comparisons until there is an event remarkably similar to 9/11.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
"It seems to me that we cannot really make any comparisons until there is an event remarkably similar to 9/11."
Or, perhaps we just need a new investigation.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 (continued), which would provide both Thousands of Amps of Electricity and Highly Flammable hydrogen (which burns at 4000F), shows that the fires of WTC 2 may have been even higher than 1800F.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
Even if that were true, that would only have been one area of the the building. It didn't spread throughout.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@burninrain1
Also, one thing that indicates that the fires weren't that severe is because the steel didn't glow. Steel begins to glow at around 700C.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "Also, one thing that indicates that the fires weren't that sever is because the steel didn't glow. Steel begins to glow at around 700C."
You can't see the steel inside the building, citizen. The dripping, molten aluminum, is a good indicator of the heat that the fires reached, along with the inward bowing of the perimeter columns, leading up to collapse.
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"You can't see the steel inside the building, citizen." If the fires were as hot as you claim, then we would see the steel glowing on the side that we can see. If the molten metal was aluminum and was glowing that bright at the perimeter, then don't you think that the perimeter columns next to it should have glowed? That molten metal is almost certainly not molten aluminum: watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI Also, the inward bowing can be caused by other things as well: watch?v=m3CFlRVMs8g
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "If the fires were as hot as you claim, then we would see the steel glowing on the side that we can see." No you wouldn't and, which side is that? All sides are visible to some degree. "If the molten metal was aluminum and was glowing that bright at the perimeter, then don't you think that the perimeter columns next to it should have glowed? That molten metal is almost certainly not molten aluminum: also the inward bowing can be caused by other things as well" (contd)
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
I'm talking about the sides facing the outside of the building.
citizenfor911truth1 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 I'm talking about the sides facing the outside of the building." Which side? There are four.
CaptMandrake360 11 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Listen, I would love to sit here and discuss this with you, but I'm very busy. Thank you for the talk, but i have to go. Goodbye.
burninrain1 11 months ago
0:41 Well, each of the floors WAS a whole acre of concrete, and when it collapsed, it was the weight of the collapsed floor AND the floors above it smashing into another floor, not just the weight of the floors itself... also, instead of forming a web of steel like in most buildings, the structural steel of the Twin Towers had most of it's steel on it's skin to save office space. As in, no steel columns in the office space of the building?
burninrain1 11 months ago
Just goes to show how the American people will fall for anything if the media and Government tells them.
junglemike72 11 months ago
5:03
wrong again. black smoke does not indicate that a fire is starved of oxygen. jet fuel burns a black smoke
vivalaryan54 1 year ago
@vivalaryan54
You did see my disclaimer at the bottom, right?
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
these Debunk the Debunk videos are utter crap. Double fail
chillcrazyman 1 year ago
@chillcrazyman
And they're crap because...?
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
How come none of you fucktards answer any questions?
HOW COME THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ON CIPRO 2 WEEKS B4 THE "TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS"? The Antrax that came from Ft.Dietrick ARMY GERM WARFARE UNIT that WEAPONIZED the Anthrax virus,that was ONLY SENT TO DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR? ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID OR JUST IGNORANT?? lol assholes liars. The Terrorist US government attacks ON ITSELF were so fucking obvious it's ridiculous.USA=TERRORISM=ATTACKS ON ITSELF.
911 was also an insidejob moron
cadu1995 1 year ago
This video is completely illogical. Get your facts straight. NIST nor any other organization ever said that jet fuel melted steel. NEVER
vivalaryan54 1 year ago
@vivalaryan54
And I didn't say that NIST said the steel melted. But several experts claimed weeks after the attacks that the steel melted. Perhaps you should get your facts straight.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Could you detail for us the Experts that claimed steel melted after the attacks?
Name, publication, date please?
Because the only IDIOTS that claim that, as far as I know, are Truthers.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Absolutely. I can't post the links here, but I'll list all the people. I'll message you the links.
"Structural steel is fireproofed to last between one and two hours, which it did, and then steel melts." -Hyman Brown, project engineer for the construction of the Twin Towers.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports." -The Arizona Daily Wildcat
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape." -NewScientist(dot)com
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." -structural engineer Chris Wise
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel." -professor of structural engineering John Knapton
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." -M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Yes, Hyman Brown was interviewed that day. But why should that matter? No one from NIST was there that day. I don't see why you're complaining to me. I don't think the fires melted the steel, and these men probably do not either today. These were their initial beliefs. But regardless, they were the first ones to make claims of steel melting.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
The NIST NYC offices are in the NYU subcampus, at WEST Street and Liberty, at the North edge of the WTC campus. The SEANY, offices are right behind them, further north on west. WEST street used to be called "Radio Row", and it's been the center for radio engineering in NYC since before WW2.
NIST coordination, with SEANY, and FEMA began on day ONE.
The national construction safety team act didn't happen till late 2002.
You don't know history, OR engineering.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
You really do enjoy nit-picking, don't you? Again, plenty of people weren't there that I'm sure you'd agree with.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
I don't get it. How would the families of the people in the 4 planes magically disapear, have some blood and stuff be found in their DNA, and how come there was no noise if this really was a controlled demolition.
USAFFuturePilot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFFuturePilot and how come there was no noise if this really was a controlled demolition.
LOL LMFAO YOU know NOTHING about 911 kid.
Just look up 911 EXPLOSIONS GENIUS.
cadu1995 1 year ago
there's no point in either these videos nor the debunking videos. everyone is gonna think their videos are right and accurate. no 9/11 research videos are 100% accurate. while i do think terrorists did 9/11, i do believe the gov. had some knowledge of it.
TheGodKingOfMusic 1 year ago
@every dumbass who commented here. STFU. Its a losing battle both ways. There will ALWAYS be people who beleive in the official story and there will ALWAYS be people who beleive 9/11 was a conspiracy. Nothing you can EVER say or do will change anybodys mind so maybe you should all stop wasting your time with this shit.
Seanmurf95 1 year ago
@Seanmurf95
rkowens4 videos are very informative and well made...I really like them...and they do completely de-bunk ALL of the conpiracy theories.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel loLOL rkowens is a punk kid who LIES & has fake information on his bullshit debunked videos & has never proved anything moron. lol
I will debunk every fucking 1 of his videos 10x's over. lol
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995
Oh, and RKOwens is still smarter than you.
He actually reads, NOT just visits web sites,
that shows in his vides, and every one of those
vides cites facts extensively, from authoritive
sources, while truthers quote each other.
Like that makes sense.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Seanmurf95 Nothing you can EVER say or do will change anybodys mind
BULLSHIT- WE WANT A REAL 911 COMMISSION GENIUS.
cadu1995 1 year ago
a building that was built with reinforced titanium, the strongest metal in exsistance, storng enough to withstand several impacts, was weakend by 1 plane and flames? thats your argument? take a chemistry class before you plant dirty seeds into these viral whores who don't know any better.
VinnyLT9000 1 year ago
@VinnyLT9000
Sorry, Kooktard, if titanium is the strongest metal, how do you REINFORCE it?
This is NOT PIZZA BOY Engineering, you have to make sense.
The WTC Towers were made of conventional steels, and were 96% air by volume.
THEN comes the 200 TON 767 at 540 mph.
What would you expect if that plane rolled out of the elevator onto that same floor?
Do you really think 200 TONS can sit on ANY skyscraper building floor, even if it's NOT impacting at 540 mph?
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5 Sorry, Kooktard, if titanium is the strongest metal, how do you REINFORCE it?
ASSHOLE TITANIUM IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST METALS MORON. do you always get everything wrong? YES
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995
With structure, dumbass, like you reinforce anything else.
Aluminum is soft, but aluminum honeycomb is strong.
Aluminum skin is THIN and soft, but backed up by stringers
forms and bulkheads, it forms most airplanes.
Put a box structure behind plastic, and even PLASTIC can
resist great impacts and pressure.
Duhhhh.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
#1. Stop with this straw man argument. You 911 truthers keep repeating that "Structural Engineers" official story is that the steel melted. In no way is anyone ever saying that. All they are saying is that the structural integrity of the columns were comprimised through the inferno of fires raging through that place.
#2. You're right, fires have never brought down a tower before, but then again no tower has ever been hit by a 500mph 200,000 lb missle.
slauzon11 1 year ago
I like how the new word "truther" is used as an insult. Pretty telling as to where we are in this society.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
i hate that song its on everything. You should be shot for using it.
Transatlanticism1000 1 year ago
You claim in this vid that black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. That's false. Black smoke is indicative of a fuel rich fire. I have seen plenty of fires with thick black smoke that were in the open air at sea level! Would they be oxygen starved? I don't think so. lmfao at you. You fail again!
terrymanning1 1 year ago
@terrymanning1 After several weeks of telling citizentard he was wrong about black smoke, he inserts a box admitting that fact. What he should have done is delete this lie and error strewn video and his account. He should be ashamed for the lies he's spreading.
terrymanning1 1 year ago
@terrymanning1 Twoofers normally have no shame in lying about 9/11. They make a career out of lying about 9/11.
759009946576 1 year ago
@759009946576
Meanwhile, anti-truthers go around YouTube posting bollocks about Truthers.
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply Meanwhile, Twoofers continue to lie about 9/11 and use idiotic putdowns against people that disagree with them. As is expected.
759009946576 1 year ago
@terrymanning1 so fires brought down the towers eh Terry ? Are you a pancake theory or upper block crushing the lower theorist? let's hear it pussy
mooners40 1 year ago