I love it when truthers claim the mainstream story violates "the laws of physics" when it most certainly does not. It's always the non-physicists that make this claim. If it's so obvious that laws of physics were broken, then how come the world's hundreds of thousands of physicists haven't spoken up about it? Are they all afraid of being assassinated by the CIA? Yeah, sure. That just makes perfect sense.
Is there a debunk-er with any kind of structural engineering degree, or perhaps passed a high-school physics class. There is no argument that any of 'official story' believer can present, that does not break NUMEROUS 'LAWS' of physics and thermodynamics. You CANNOT BREAK THESE LAWS, Especially with BOX CUTTERS, FIRES, OR AN AIRLINER IMPACTS&EXPLOSION. You FUCKERS ARE DUMB, Well, Bill O"REALLY or DOUCHE Limbaugh. They have only opinions and are characters Playing a role, FOX News LIES. SMARTENup
MORON, MORON, MORON that was the next day before anyone cut anything. FUCK man, you are stupid. amazingly dumb, THIS GUY KNOWS LESS THAN NOTHING; IF HE KNEW NOTHING, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, AND HE DON'T EVEN THAT.
I agree that 9/11 was not an inside job. I find that view rediculous and demonstrably false. However, i would advise anyone wanting to research the events of 9/11 to stay away from sites called Debunking911 or Truther.com Both these sites have presuppositional positions. Instead stay away from either and just look at reputable scientific sources. Or look into the science yourself. By doing so, the truth will come out whatever it may be.
@A7X303 Oh its spitting on the grave of those poor people. But worst of all it is terrible for the bereaved. imagine wondering whether your loved one was sacrificed by their country in a needless justification for war (which is rediculous BTW because there are loads of ways to justify war).
@wollclark Firefighter Eric Lawyer quote: “They [NIST] refused to test for explosives or residue of thermite.. On a routine house fire, if we detect even the slightest use of an accelerant we’re going to test for it when there’s no fatalities.. So to not do it on this, there is no excuse.. Why would we not test if something is hard to do [put bombs in the buildings], that’s the exact reason you need to investigate it.. we need to find out how they did it.” AS SEEN ON FIREFIGHTERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
@wollclark Firefighter Eric Lawyer quote: “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested, and thorough investigation of a crime scene in world history.. The majority of the evidence was shipped off… How do you investigate a crime when you’ve destroyed all of the evidence? There are National Standards for an investigation.. NIST violated the most basic of the guidelines.. Spoliation of evidence..” AS SEEN ON FIREFIGHTERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
Blind loyalty caused Germans to follow Hitler's claim of building a Utopia, through 6 yrs. of hell on earth, and the final destruction of Germany. The same mentality rules in Amerika the Blind!
i love it when you go to this guys videos and shit , he is all about debunking all the conspiracy theories, but wait, he has ones of his own! and of course the ones he debunks are wrong but his are the truth! believe that!....
1) United and American airlines stocks were sold SHORT a day BEFORE 9/11, up to 200 times the normal rate. Who bought the stocks? To this day that information is confidential.
2) The 4 black boxes or even parts were never recovered from WTC1 & 2 sites; this has NEVER happened in a LAND base crash.
3) NORAD was running drills or exercises on the day of 9/11 which sent U.S. fighters to Alaska and Canada.
1) United and American airlines stocks were sold SHORT a day BEFORE 9/11, up to 200 times the normal rate. Who bought the stocks? To this day that information is confidential.
2) The 4 black boxes or even parts were never recovered from WTC1 & 2 sites; this has NEVER happened in a LAND base crash.
3) NORAD was running drills or exercises on the day of 9/11 which sent U.S. fighters to Alaska and Canada.
4) Marvin Bush was a principle of the Stratesec (Securacom) company, which oversaw the security for World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
5) On 9/11; Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Washington D.C.) here attended by a brother of Osama "Shafig bin Laden" and former president Bush.
6) A complete power outage (approximately 30 hours) which knocked out ALL security the weekend before 9/11 at both WTC1 & 2 towers; according to Scott Forbes.
4) Marvin Bush was a principle of the Stratesec (Securacom) company, which oversaw the security for World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
5) On 9/11; Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Washington D.C.) here attended by a brother of Osama "Shafig bin Laden" and former president Bush.
6) A complete power outage (approximately 30 hours) which knocked out ALL security the weekend before 9/11 at both WTC1 & 2 towers; according to Scott Forbes.
'how dd the metal become molten', eh what metal? the ONLY metal that melted was Aluminium, which has a melting temperature of some of the recoded temperatures in the towers and the vast majority of the planes were made out of this, NO-ONE has ever stated that the steel melted.
@Stu3100 yeah i dono i seen videos of rescue workers that said they found fires in the rubble underneath stuff weeks after the collapse. this is ridiculous you people are brainwashed, get a clue
I learned this lesson a while ago: There's no point arguing with these conspiracy theorists. Everything that can be debunked has already been debunked, but these people will not be convinced by anything. The only thing that keeps them going is the hope that their beliefs will somehow be validated by an obscure shred of evidence that doesn't exist. The internet just provides a safe haven for these people to anonymously express their views and find a few idiots who are willing to believe them.
@allamericandude15 theres just too much convenient evidence that this shit has all been lied about so why stop at the obvious and just blame them all, this shit was planned , funded, and counted on , to get the american people to agree to enter an undeclared war. bullshit is what it is.
@y0utUBeH8r There is no "convenient evidence", just a bunch of hazy and loosely defined misinterpretations and assumptions of the actual events. But you did hit the nail on the head about the war. That's the real reason why there are so many conspiracy theories. People don't like the war and they particularly don't like Bush, so they look for anything to demonize them--and what better way to do it than to accuse them of orchestrating a conspiracy to kill 3000 civilians?
@y0utUBeH8r There is no "convenient evidence", just a bunch of hazy and loosely defined misinterpretations and assumptions of the actual events. But you did hit the nail on the head about the war. That's the real reason why there are so many conspiracy theories. People don't like the war and they particularly don't like Bush, so they look for anything to demonize them--and what better way to do it than to accuse them of orchestrating a conspiracy to kill 3000 civilians?
Some people lack critical thinking skills. Ok, think about what your video is
showing. You have ONE steel worker trying to cut a SINGLE beam with a cutting torch. How long will that take, for a beam of that size? 20-30 mins. Do know how hot a cutting torch gets? Much hotter than any jet fuel or office furniture fire and also the fires were 80 stories above. The CORE beams of WTC1 & 2 were over 4 inches thick; of which debunkers never want to talk about!
@yhenry77 Well then you should know that steel does not have to melt to loose most of it's structural integrity. Which is exactly what happened and made the steel beams buckle and thus colapsing the building.
@reafdaw01 Your missing the point; it's speed of the collapse of WTC1 & 2; we are to believe that ALL steel critical points failed at the same time. There was NO resistance, we must factor-in at least 1 second per floor; why? STEEL does not break, it bends. Even at 1 second per floor, that is 110 seconds of total collapse time!
Your credentials are? I am ex-steel worker with B.S. degree form Regis University of Colorado.
I worked with massive structural steel used in high-rise buildings.
@yhenry77 Read "a critical analysis of the collapse of wtc towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint" by brent blanchard.
@BillKiernan An excerpt from this report, should tell you everything you need to know:
"Assertion #7 - 6: We don't know how or why WTC7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."
Personally, I would investigate what their contracts were prior to 9/11. Why? This paper looks like a (sold out) whitewash; even my grandmother could tell you that WTC 7 came down because of a controlled demolition. Give me a break! I worked with structural steel for high-rise buildings.
The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later.
What are the odds that they can not recover 6/8 of the black boxes. Only flight 93's were found yet the recording that implicate the muslims were not officially released. Even the families did not get to hear the last 3 minutes.
A plane can get so low to the ground it can hit the pentagon from the side where it has been reinforced? Piloted by amateurs that are still alive yet 0 videos are released.
Americans are war mongers because you people get angry over the BS well committing mass murder and occupying the nations in the name of making yourself feel safe. The BBC and American media may be able to keep you in a bubble of 0 reality but the rest of the world does not live in your propaganda based system of Muslim hate mongering. America and its war of terror are what people should be angry about but that would require a basic understanding of physics
@captaindiesalot Hit with what? I don't see 757 anywhere in the video; the initial hole was only 15 -17 feet in diameter, before Pentagon roof collapse. A 757 airliner tail piece alone is over 40 feet and wing span over 100 feet. There are over 75 video cams outside the Pentagon and this the best shot the can give us? They saw TWO types of aircraft that morning; a small commuter jet type and large 757 type. Some witnesses said the large 757 type pulled up at the last moment before the explosion.
Take your drugs, go back to bed, it will all be over before you know it. Reality is very hard to deal with, it's a common problem with you "9/11 truthers."
@captaindiesalot Evidence is a common problem with debunkers; link me any video of a 757 airliner hitting the Pentagon. How about a photo of the tail section? I noticed you didn't try to explain away any of the issues?
Here it is, you have to add the periods, because YT doesn't allow links. I don't think this evidence will matter to any of your group, however, because you're all a bunch of lunatics. My brother-n-law was in the building, not that that matters to you, either, but he certainly felt the effects of the jet. OK, you can go back to bed now, enjoy your drugs; the rest of us will act responsibly as productive members of society.
@captaindiesalot Yes I have seen this, but did you really look at the evidence? Only one engine? Titanium engines are almost indestructible; didn't shredded aluminum parts (on the lawn) looked planted? No burned marks? What was the perfect round exit hole at the 'C' ring of Pentagon? If know anything about modern aircraft, the nose is the most fragile part; it's made of plastic or fiberglass. Yes, those are airliner wheels, but of what? I never saw 40 foot tailpiece in the photos? Wake up!
@yhenry77 - The round hole in the C ring was made by one of the engines, not the nose. The right wing engine smashed through a fence housing a diesel generator to the right of the impact zone. Check it out in photos. Everything matches up. People thought that the wheels didn't match a 757 because the amount of holes in the design not matching, but they just used a poor photo to compare. The wheels are exactly the same. So much was based on crap evidence and people getting measurements wrong.
henry, you're going to be able to go to the 911 memorial museum and see the evidence in person, not that any of this will ever matter to any of you fools. Wake Up! You're insane.
I love this - the first picture shows you a perfect straight cut at around 30-40 degrees ( the best angle for a controlled demolition collapse a perfect cut) and then later in the video they show a cut at around 50-60 degrees cut by a iron worker (possibly drunk but I'm not judging) - this guy is so wrong it is not true. Shame on you Sir (I may be being generous with the Sir). Oh my god please please try harder to hide the truth - this is important!!!
He's advertising the wearechange section of truthers which has very untruthful leaders.. this should be a red flag right there. I guess next he's gonna say the Warren Commission got it right to. lmao
He's advertising the wearechange section of truthers which has very untruthful leaders.. this should be a red flag right there. I guess next he's gonna say the Warren Commission got it right to.
Just another tidbit for thought. Controlled demolitions are done to keep from damaging surrounding buildings yet the surrounding buildings were all damaged massively. If one looks carefully at the tower one collapse, it's fairly obvious that the supports finally gave way without explosion and that the weight of the upper 29 stories fell somewhat diagonally. Every controlled demolition video has buildings collapsing inwards on themselves.
If it was indeed a planned demolition, why would there be any beams left to cut down? Wouldn't they have all been cut down? Also, there are many videos of demolitions where you hear the charges going off. I've not heard charges going off in ANY of the videos I've seen of ANY of the buildings coming down.
I'm HIGHLY skeptical of my government as well as conspiracy theorists and it just doesn't add up for me.
@barkmaker they only needed to destroy 90% of the building - the bit above the ground! The rest they hoped would be unrecoverable due to the mass of debris collapsing on top of it - they needed to ensure the building could not be saved so people involved could cash in Insurance claims against tiny investments and make Billions (which I am sure was shared..). I would agree with you if they had to cut the building down from say the 20th floor but everything is gone. Like no high rise before!
@dazzer01 You speak with such authority as if you know what's going on. Did you know the building was designed to pancake rather than tumble over to avoid damage to surrounding buildings? They HOPED? If you plan on taking out WTC7, one would think you'd not make such a grandiose plan to demolish it without any debris touching it, but, perhaps you're right. The FEDERAL govt. took out the twin towers so that Larry Silverstein could collect his 4.5 billion dollars? I don't think so though.
@barkmaker If that were true then the building would start to pancake but the lower undamaged floors would slow the decent (resistance) so that it would not crush the lower floors - unless of course all resistance was removed... I think individuals at the top of finance and government had a lot to gain - Larry had obvious gains - look at the new plans (remembering always the twin towers were making huge losses - loads of empty space). The power makers get to pass frightening laws - zero freedom!
@dazzer01 That's what happened. There were survivors as high as the fourth floor. You can't see it slow towards the bottom because of all the debris. Look at the pictures taken after the building collapsed. You can see that much of the lower floors are intact despite the great weight that fell on them. Motive alone NEVER convicts. Your statement about Larry is false. The towers were very profitable. npr.org/2011/09/07/140035272/nyc-firefighters-share-memories-from-ground-zero
It was a planned demolition, planed years in advance in the event of that exact scenario because the plans were known in 1997. Thermite was used, hidden above the drop ceilings. There was a VERY GOOD REASON to allow it to happen and if you don't believe me look at the video of President Bush in the classroom with audio, the class tells you. Kite, Plane, Hit, Must. Sacrifice a few thousand to save millions. The Gov't acted responsibly here, and I fully support their decision on it!
@NobleDarkWater Your a fucking piece or shit to say that. Innocents died that day by the hand of terrorists. I will say the government didn't take this event well at all but it wasn't an "inside job". I think you should burn in hell to say you would have supported your so called "inside job" to kill 3,000 people. The government wouldn't do something like that. There is oppositiion here, some say its a conspiracy, some say it was terrorism. Either way it is terrorism. Go fuck yourself man.
@scarabmasta Governments kill there own people all the time. It is ignorant to say that our government wouldn't do that, although rather unlikely as it seems. Blind faith gets the best of us, and we should always ask questions. Terrorism can be done by a government, Hitler did it to his own parliament building. You should look up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Project for a New American Century. No proof towards 9/11 either way, but it should cast doubt in anyone's mind about our government
Why do they do this? that is an easy question to answer it is because they do not have any real facts to back up all the shit they spew out so they have to make up their "facts"
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smater than Truthers.
Who gives a shit who did it, we can't do shit about it. That's it get over it, move on. The people who know the truth behind 9/11, their died or scare to talk. We got other shit to worry about. R.I.P all does people who died. =P
Thumbs up for the Scientists that FOUND the EXPLOSIVES in the Dust: Neils H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R Larsen, THANK YOU for finding the TRUTH!
I don't know why there is a demolition trade. All you have to do is fly a plane into the building you want to come down, and wala. In fact, this works so well, the building will fall on it's own footprint every time. Takes about an hour or so. A few more if the building didn't get hit by a plane.
@JohnClaypool "All you have to do is fly a plane into the building you want to come down, and wala" - Really? You're spamming this terrible post around all the channels? Because flying a plane into a skyscraper is a simple thing?.... that shouldn't cause much damage?... .odd.
Bullshitting ass videos, you are a complete failure, thumbs the fuck down... No one likes this stupid bullshit you are doing, you fucking Government Troll. Like the guy said on top, this thing isn't going away. My favorite uncle's life was taken from him in that fucking lie you people created. I can't bring him back, but I can help bring you fucking clowns to justice. You can hold out your fucking bloody ass hand long enough so we can slap on the cuffs. You are a fucking clown, debunk that...
This Debunker does not explain how WTC fell at free fall speed or how steel melted by a kerocene fire that burned for less than 2 hours or why everything except the steel was pulverized to a fine dust. Who stood to gain the most from the events of 911? The talabon, bin laden, Iraq, pakistan? Or Halliburton, Carlyle group, Bush, Cheney, Exxon, Chevron, Larry silverstein? The 2.3 trillion unaccounted for by pentagon & next day plane(missle) hits pentagon finance department & destroys records.
@unproudcitizen Who says everything except steel was pulverized to a fine dust?
Is that what happens in a demolition? Everything except steel is pulverized to a fine dust? Do you even know or are you just repeating something you saw on some shitty kookspiracy web site?
What does unaccountabed for Pentagon funds have to do with 9/11? Do you know or are you just repeating some crap from a shitty kookspiracy site?
@PoetryHound Thanks for your reply asking for some clarification and for my information source. As for controlled demolition, I am not an expert. Howeve, it is illogical to think that a building scheduled for controlled demolition would not have been emptied in advance of all furnishings, fixtures, some components of the plumbing and electrical systems and last but not least any people. Please correct me if I am wrong, This is a deduction based only on my own logic but at least Im thinking
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?
How much do you get paid to do this? Can you say cognitive infiltration? If not familiar this is a technique of suppressing conspiracy theories that Regulatory & Information Czar Cass Sunstein proposed in 2008. Google it. Back to you. Thousands of architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, pilots, etc. put their careers & credibility on the line? They need attention? LOL. Think of the consequences of this false flag op and then go locate your soul. THEN do the right thing. Do it for your kids.
In the south tower firemen in the A & B staircases up to the 78th floor. there they reported first fires seen & only small pockets. Physically impossible for 32 floors to destroy 78 structurally sound floors below. Physics. Are you related to Cass Sunstein? LOL. this is not going away. Throw all the disinfo you'd like at it. Too much REAL science. Can you say (unreacted) NANOTHERMITE? When NIST admitted free fall in WTC it admitted CD. Perhaps you will relocate soul someday? Good luck with that.
why are you protecting original 9/11 story without proper knowledge on such matters? Simply put the steel frame was very strong, too strong for most torches, the hottest of torches would take hours too burn through, it was mostly a practice cut where he realizes that going any further would take hours, finding another way to remove pillars of steel, from the foundation and too hard to cut in segments. The strength is so great only controlled demolition could have taken the tower down that fast.
@vilmoroth What are you talking about? Torches were indeed used at ground zero to take down the remaining standing columns and spandrel systems. How else do you think the remaining ones were brought down?
This Video is total Trash! Americans must be total retards to believe this total shit! This Guy - ( monkey ) fails to note one important factor.. Anyone knows what that is? the First one who guesses right get a Burger!
@WordWakNed That's right. They 'conspired' to commit this act of terrorism against the US. Why don't you go and watch the video wills the hijackers made and they'll tell you about it themselves.
Do you think just saying 'well, you believe in a conspiracy too' means anything? Quit playing games and take the shuttle back from Planet X.
Anyone can make a video will, it doesn't mean a thing!
Especially when 9 of the hijackers are still alive today!
One of the accused hijackers, Waleed al-Shehri, who, after allegedly stabbing a stewardess on a flight that crashed into the World Trade Center, returned to Casablanca, gave a press conference and has reportedly been working as a pilot there ever since. Even the the BBC reported on this and confirmed it was indeed the same guy!
@WordWakNed you have the hijackers on video telling you what they're going to do and why they're going to do it and it doesn't 'mean a thing'. All the hijackers are dead...obviously.
BBC reported that days after 9/11 when little information was available and have *never* confirmed it was the same guy.. just the opposite actually.
Ever hear of 'mistaken identity'?
But let's follow through with this thought: are you saying that there were no hijackers?
@bman342 In the truther mind it seems like all the erroneous stories in the weeks following Sept 11, 2001 are the gospel truth and anything/everything after that is a massive MSM cover up.
EXCUSE ME NARRATOR, I AM AN IRONWORKER AND WAS AT THE SITE. THIS IRONWORKER IN THE PHOTO IS NOT CUTTING ANY STEEL! HES LIGHTING A LANCE TORCH THAT BURNS MAGNESIUM RODS THAT IGNITE THRU ANYTHING.
A TORCH COULD NOT CUT SOME OF THOSE , DUE TO THICKNESS AND IT WOULD TAKE MUCH LABOR HRS TO CUT IT ALL.AS I HAD BEEN IN THE GANG THAT HAD TAKEN DOWN THE ENTIRE 2 REMAINING STEEL TOWERS .
@JOHNNYIRON40 So he is not actually cutting the steel but hes lighting a lance torch to cut the fuckin steel Wow your so brilliant man now we no how smart you are can I be part of your group suber humans?
if you still believe that 911 was done by ppl who are proven to still be alive, its because you are in deep denial. pray we dont end up in the fe ma cof fins
Can't see the forest because of the trees? Ok, I agree there is a man with a cutting torch. So how did the thousands of massive beams (some 4 inches thick) fail above without thermite? It took intense heat of a cutting torch to cut just ONE beam. The average temperature of the cutting torch is over 2500 degrees! BTW: I was a steel worker in Oklahoma City; welded, drilled and cut massive steel beams for high-rise and other buildings. (Hint: Search information about the inner cores of WTC 1 & 2).
That's why they sent in Dr Stephen Jones! He had already destroyed cold fusion research. Any knowledgeable demolitions expert would know thermite cannot be used in controlled demolitions. Tritium levels 55X normal can only mean fourth generation micro-nukes! Dr Jones is qualified to work with developing the micro-nukes, from his years of Los Alamos contact.
Well anything prop wash amaturish attempt at debunking. Sorry pal, most of the American people have already awoken to the truth that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION had to used in order to bring the WTC #1, 2, & 7 down at free fall speed. Yes Thermite was used in conjuntion with sulfate making thermate. This is the reason you see the cut steel. Think about steel that thick cut into for anyreason before the hauloff job. Its too late to debunk, we already know the truth.
@paskettle Well considering the fact that 1 and 2 didn't come down at free fall speed and came down at 16 and 22 seconds (time it yourself) already makes your claim false. Quit trying twoofer.
@austinmoore97 Wrong, you guys trying to cover for the official version is pathetic really. Free fall speed is the only way to time the collapes of towers #1 ,2,and bldg 7. In otherwords, demolitons experts had been in these buildings for the week prior, and had staged the detonation/explosives, as they would with any comdemned building being brought down. Thier pros and thier work is evident in all the videos.
They should have done it at night, but too late now, we know the truth.
@austinmoore97 There entire collapse might not have been at free fall but there are measurable periods of free fall in the collapse of both towers as well as bldg 7. NIST admitted as much in their final report (at least for the towers) and in their subsequent FAQs and Q&As on their website for WTC 7.
@austinmoore97 i know, thats what im saying!!!! also time a collapse of a building that has been pulled cos u may find that it does not fall 3fall either!!!
therefore your big claim that because the building didnt fall 3fall means that they couldnt have been pulled has just been blown away.....
@austinmoore97 Again, the buildings did not collapse, in their ENTIRETY, at free fall. True. But all 3 buildings had periods of free fall. 2.25 seconds for WTC 7 and unspecified amounts of time for WTC 1 and 2.
@Ahlywog Look at it this way. You're telling me that the gov put almost 200k tons of explosives inside buildings where 100,000+ people cycle in and out of 24/7 and not ONE person noticed anything? Please. This would have taken hundreds of workers months working 24/7 to do and they would've had to rip up drywall, wiring, etc. Plus a controlled demo would've blown the core to bits yet it is seen standing after the initial collapse of both buildings.
@austinmoore97 That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, despite your repeated assertions that free fall didn't happen, it did, in fact, happen. NIST has stated that it happened in the collapse of the towers in their final report and in WTC 7 in their follow up FAQ almost a year ago. This is old news. Let's move on.
@austinmoore97 As for the possibility of "demolition"... that's subjective. While I agree that performing a standard, commercial demolition under the noses of the WTC tenants, without being noticed, would be a Herculean feat in and of itself, this would hardly be your average demolition. Someone managed to sneak 3 bombs into the Oklahoma City Federal Building without anyone noticing, the same is possible here.
@Ahlywog Haha someone drove a truck up to the Murrah building. No other bombs were ever found. That was simply speculation on the media's part mins after the attack happend.
"the same is possible here"
That is ridiculous. The WTC was by far the most secure commercial office park in the world in 2001. There were also about 99,000 more people who cycled through it daily than the Murrah. And 3 bombs? Try more like 3,000 in the WTC's case. And if bombs blew it up, why was the core still intact?
@austinmoore97 It doesn't matter how improbable the means of destruction, free fall is impossible. A falling object cannot accelerate through another object of equal or greater mass. Another source of energy is required.
As for the core, less than half the core was standing, in each building, after collapse, and what remained fell within moments.
@Ahlywog Its not improbable, its impossible. You can't not notice torn up drywall in the office that you ar in for 8 hours everyday. Nothing was used for acceleration during the collapses. WTC 1 & 2 never fell at freefall speeds. WTC 7 fell at freefall speed near the beginning of the collapse because the truss system supporting it completely failed causing the whole building to fall into a 5 story basement where the only supports were the truss system. No truss system=no resistance in basement.
@austinmoore97 Once again; NIST has stated, through their official report, that there were periods of free fall in both towers. Not just WTC 7. It doesn't matter if the supporting structure failed or not, the mass is still there. A object cannot fall at gravitational free fall and still have energy to move/crush resistance beneath it. Have you never taken physics before? They teach this shit in high school. This is Physics 101.
@Ahlywog Okay, so let's say there was a demo. Where are the shock tubes, det cords, etc. that are found everywhere even in small scale demos? Where are they in the rubble of WTC 1,2, and 7? Out of all the photographs, one demolition expert would've pointed out such findings easily. Plus if WTC 7 was a demolition, the building would have collapsed the whole way down at FF speed just like every other demolition in history, not just 2.25 seconds.
@austinmoore97 Shock tubes, det cords, etc. are not required components of bombs. You're still thinking in terms of a commercial demolition. Something only falls at free fall as far as there is no resistance to slow it. 2.25 seconds equates to roughly 108 feet. That means only 108 feet of resistance was removed. For the entire building to collapse at free fall, in all 3 cases, all structural support would have to be removed for the height of the building.
@Ahlywog You cant just throw some TNT into a building and have it fall like the way WTC7 did. It takes precise explosions to bring it down from a demolition stand point. If taking out 108 ft of WTC7 brings it down, then why don't commercial demo teams save themselves a whole lot of money by blowing up only 1/7 of a building? Because it doesn't work... And the truss system was the only support in the basement. Without supports, you get FF speeds. Denying that would contradict your whole argument.
@austinmoore97 Look up the Verinage demolitions. That should help explain how destroying a fraction of a building can destroy the whole building. It'll also shed some light on the mechanics of a know crush-down collapse.
Secondly: According to NIST the collapse of WTC 7 originated on floor 13. Not in the basement. Even if it did you would have to completely remove those trusses, instantly, to get free fall. Not just cause them to fail.
@Ahlywog Again, how do you plant explosives in a building with almost 15,000-5,000 tenants 24/7? Fire fighters said the building was doomed 3 hours before it collapsed. The whole fucking building was on fire! (Pictures+firefighters) It was missing 25-30% of its base!! There is absolutely no need for using explosives! 7 hours of burning and leaning is enough to do the job! Why would they demolish a building that had no significance and nobody inside!? There was no reason to blow up WTC 7!
@austinmoore97 I honestly don't know how. I'm not here to convince anyone of the controlled demolition theory. I'm simply arguing that the official explanation is wrong and easily proven so with high school or first year college physics. And once again, NIST has specifically stated that the building was NEVER entirely on fire and that the majority of the fires present were on 4-5 of those 47 floors.
@Ahlywog Really? Because I've seen multiple pictures and video clips of heavy smoke coming from EVERY single floor... Your problem is that you are relying on one source for your information. Any rational person looking for an answer to a hypothesis would look over multiple sources in order to come up with a valid conclusion. And please show me an explosive that can resist 1800F+ heat for 7 hours. Oh wait, there isn't one. Another reason why bombs couldn't be used.
@Ahlywog National Institute of Standards and Technology. I'm not saying their report is horseshit, I'm just saying that the two story fire you're proposing is a joke when pictures and firefighters say the whole building was involved in fire.
@austinmoore97 I didn't say two stories. I said 4-5 floors of 47. As in 4 to 5. Not floors 4 and 5. And I have yet to see a single picture of video of WTC 7 burning in its entirety. And *I'm* not proposing anything. I'm simply referencing NISTs official stance. If you think they are incorrect then I think you are on the wrong side of the debate here. It isn't so much about whether or not explosives were used, its about whether the official story is correct or not.
@Ahlywog Oh then go to google images, type in "wtc 7 fires" then look at the pictures of smoke billowing from every floor of the south side of the building. There ya go.
@austinmoore97 Smoke != fire. Go to Google images, type in "wtc 7 fires" and find me a picture of flames on every single floor. On this one I'm going to agree with NIST. The building was never, at any time, burning in its entirety. Not only that but find me a picture of fire ANYWHERE in the building at the onset of collapse. I mean, for a fire induced collapse it shouldn't be that hard....should it?
@Ahlywog But you saw every single part of the south side of WTC 7 billowing smoke right? Without fire, you don't get smoke. Proving that every floor of the building was on fire. Plus every firefighter ever interviewed to this day has said the whole building was engulfed. I'll believe the firefighters who specialize in the field and have been around fires for decades and were witnesses over somebody like the engineers, who don't specialize in fire, at NIST who weren't even there any day.
@austinmoore97 The volume of smoke is in no way a direct indicator of the volume of fire. Hell you CAN have smoke without fire. Smoke grenades, smoke machines. You can get smoke simply from chemical reactions. Smoke is a product of energetic reactions between chemicals, not necessarily fire.
@Ahlywog So what about the fire fighters who went in the building? According to them, they SAW flames EVERYWHERE INSIDE. But I guess those were fancy Bush Administration holograms. And you don't think a 25+ story office fire falling from 1,000 ft on top of a building from won't cause a fire? Please... And smoke grenades and smoke machines would've been noticed by the tenants. The sad determination of a truther is showing in you...
@austinmoore97 It amazes me how much of the official story you don't know. What tenants? WTC 7 was evacuated after the first plane crash. And once again, I never said the building wasn't on fire. Clearly it was. I'm saying that at no point was it ever entirely on fire. Look at the videos of that buildings collapse. Can you see a single flame? Anywhere?
@austinmoore97 Look, if you believe the official story is wrong then you need to contact NIST. They said the building only had major fires on at most 5 of its 47 floors. If you believe the fire fighters there and believe that NIST is wrong in their assessment then you might want to reevaluate which side of the debate you're on. Honestly if NIST got something as simple as the volume of fire in the building wrong...what else could they have gotten wrong?
@Ahlywog They said that fires were present on every floor of the building in the report. Major fires were on only 5 floors, which meant almost every sq ft was totally involved. So you get half credit for that. And there were 15k tenants that everyday occupied the building until 9/11 thus making it impossible for any explosives to be planted. And due to the fact that there are no videos of the south face (where the fires mainly were) is why you don't see them in the collapse.
@austinmoore97 Nope, NIST specifically states that at no time did any of those 5 floors burn in their entirety and they have only committed to "at least 10 floors" having fires but only 5 of those burned out of control. It is those 5 floors that are contributed to the collapse of the building. Not the other small fires scattered throughout the south and west faces. And having fires mainly on those two faces does not make the building "totally involved."
@Ahlywog So firefighters who couldn't even walk into the lobby due to the fires are wrong? The fire was on every floor. Pictures show it and witnesses preach it. But I guess the firefighters don't know what they are talking about.
Ahlywog: "So that means NIST is wrong. Re-investigate!" There's no need for NIST to re-investigate due to the fact that they were right, the building failed due to the truss system because of the fires and major damage to the exterior.
@austinmoore97 No, according to NIST, the building failed because core column 79 failed. None of the core columns were damaged by the falling debris. The fires alone, according to NIST, caused the collapse and the building would have collapsed even without the damage from debris.
There isn't a single picture anywhere showing fire on every single floor and the entire south face of the building covered in smoke doesn't mean there was fire on every floor at the south face.
@Ahlywog Then whats causing the smoke on every floor? Are Bush and his friends up there smoking a few cigars? In the case of 9/11, you can't have smoke without fire. There isn't any other little chemistry project going on besides a 25 story office inferno collapsing on top of another building. And, again, you keep dismissing the firefighters testimony. Each and every one said the same thing: "the whole building is involved" which means a fire, ranging in size, on every story.
@austinmoore97 *I'M* not dismissing it. NIST is. THEY are saying you're wrong. They were the lead investigative body into the collapse of the buildings and THEY say you (e.q the firefighters and other eyewitnesses) are wrong. I'm simply pointing out the irony of your "truther" bashing when what you believe is directly contradicted by the authorities as well.
@Ahlywog They simply reviewed the collapse from an engineering stand point. They proved that nothing was need other than a 25 story office fire collapsing on top of it through evidence that can be backed up. 9So really, it doesn't matter.
And nothing was needed to bring down WTC 1 and 2 besides a 200 ton jet flying at 375+ mph.
@austinmoore97 So how about the firefighters who said they heard bombs going off and saw molten steel in the basements of all three buildings? NIST denied both cases. Should we take the word of eyewitnesses who were there and would know or NIST who didn't begin their investigation until over a year later?
@Ahlywog Well first off, every single quote of somebody saying they heard bombs is taken way out of context. They all say "it sounded like a bomb" which in no case means they are saying what they heard was a bomb. They are simply comparing the sound they heard to a bomb going off. And molten steel was never found in the basements of any building. Molten METAL was, but never molten steel.
@austinmoore97 How do we know it wasn't molten steel? Was it ever tested? Did they test every bit of molten metal to see what type of metal is was? I'm willing to bet no.
As for taken out of context. I like how MY witnesses were either mistaken or taken out of context but YOUR eyewitnesses are 100%, irrefutably, correct. Clearly it isn't possible that firefighters, describing a building that is clearly not burning in its entirety AS burning in its entirety, were taken out of context....
@Ahlywog No need to test it because steel melts at 2700F. The fires in the rubble were no more than 2000F. So its impossible that steel ever melted
& no, thats not how it is. Show me one person who says they SAW/HEARD a bomb & then give me conclusive evidence that they still believe it. The firemen in WTC7 SAW a fire on every floor & still believe it. They are SPECIALISTS in field thus making it credible. Very very very few civilians/firemen have ever heard or seen an ACTUAL bomb in their lives
@austinmoore97 No more than 2000f according to whom? The fact that they were that hot and for WEEKS afterward is another matter entirely.
Can you provide conclusive evidence that they still believe it? I mean you can look at the building and tell it was never FULLY on fire. There isn't a single image or video showing fire above floor 13 on the north and east faces. Small sporadic fires on multiple floors? Sure. The entire building burning at any point in time? Never happened. Clearly.
@Ahlywog Nasa Thermal Imaging. According to the most powerful thermal imaging in the world, there was an average temperature of 1500f underneath the rubble. Nothing more than 2000f in a few hotspots
& ya sure. There are a few History Channel shows where fire fighters mention WTC7 & how "the whole building was a complete inferno". I don't understand how you can look at a building with thick smoke coming from every square inch of the side of it & not say there weren't fires on every floor.
@austinmoore97 Even the most power thermal imagery equipment in the world can't see through the ground. Temperatures recorded by NASA are surface temperatures which means the temperatures beneath them are greater.
I'm not saying there wasn't fire on every floor, I'm saying that at no point was the ENTIRE building on fire. I don't understand how you can look at the collapse videos, in which there isn't a single flame evident, and believe the entire building is on fire.
watch?v=5GEEzHn4tqo&NR=1 Really good view of the south face here. Still no raging inferno...
watch?v=_WJgFc4wIaQ Helo view of the sound face and the news actually reporting that the Taliban don't think OBL has the resources to pull off this attack... huh.
@Ahlywog In every single one of those videos I saw a massive inferno lol. Do you not see the smoke billowing out for almost 40 stories? For a period of 2 and half hours (Port Authority) the whole south side was billowing smoke. It doesn't seem that bad from a chopper 5 miles away. How about we go 3 blocks?
/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=related
Yes, the NEWS did say that. But did they have any idea 5 hours after the attack what really happened on the planes? Nope.
@austinmoore97 Smoke != building encompassing inferno. And look where the flames are in your video: Between floors 7 and 13 just like NIST said. Amazing. Once again, because I keep having to repeat this to you for some reason, I'm not saying there wasn't fire in the building. I'm saying the entire building was never on fire. Small scattered fires? Sure. Large building engulfing fire? Nope.
@Ahlywog Yet the firefighters (the only one's who were in the building after WTC 1, 2 collapsed) said that there were large fires EVERYWHERE from stories 1-47. You can't see these fires from the outside because, according to the fire fighters, they were blazing everywhere in the interior, where most of the office supplies were. The interior was enclosed by small offices that encircled the whole building EXCEPT where WTC1 took off the whole south face which was covered in smoke from the fires.
@austinmoore97 At this point I can only ask you to cite your sources. I would like to hear the testimonies of all these fire fighters that traversed the height of the building to witness these massive raging infernos (that amazingly are not visible from the exterior despite the building missing "the whole south face".) Because I can't help but wonder why NIST would say something completely contradictory to that. I mean they CLAIM to have based their research on eye-witness accounts...
@Ahlywog "It had many heavy fires on the majority of the floors and I ordered an evacuation of an area sufficient around our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time" -Chief Daniel Nigro, head of operation at WTC7
"You see where the white smoke is? (whole building is covered in white smoke in the vid) You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it" -fire fighter known as "Miller"
@austinmoore97 So much for your fires on every floor statement. Even Chief Nigro doesn't agree with that. And "Miller"s statement is in no way indicative of the amount of fire present in the building. So my question is, if NIST is right in their assessment of the collapse of the building then why do their statements directly refute the testimony of witnesses?
if its not an inside job then someone should be jailed for building some fuckin shitty ass skyscrapers then.
BarnabyJonesy 2 weeks ago
I love it when truthers claim the mainstream story violates "the laws of physics" when it most certainly does not. It's always the non-physicists that make this claim. If it's so obvious that laws of physics were broken, then how come the world's hundreds of thousands of physicists haven't spoken up about it? Are they all afraid of being assassinated by the CIA? Yeah, sure. That just makes perfect sense.
PoetryHound 3 weeks ago
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHICH PART OF THE GOVERNMENT THIS GUY WORKS FOR?
justincredibleguy 1 month ago
Is there a debunk-er with any kind of structural engineering degree, or perhaps passed a high-school physics class. There is no argument that any of 'official story' believer can present, that does not break NUMEROUS 'LAWS' of physics and thermodynamics. You CANNOT BREAK THESE LAWS, Especially with BOX CUTTERS, FIRES, OR AN AIRLINER IMPACTS&EXPLOSION. You FUCKERS ARE DUMB, Well, Bill O"REALLY or DOUCHE Limbaugh. They have only opinions and are characters Playing a role, FOX News LIES. SMARTENup
visionary138 2 months ago
@visionary138
1- Box cutters can slash unarmed pilots and civilians
2- Ordinary fires melt (soften) steel and there are numerous examples.
3- On 911 videos your own eyes can see that the debris fell faster the buildings.
4- The "architects and engineers" represent 0.04% of all architects and engineers.
5- Name the laws of physics that were violated on 911.
6- What University of structural engineering did you attend?
JPDisme 3 days ago in playlist Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see
MORON, MORON, MORON that was the next day before anyone cut anything. FUCK man, you are stupid. amazingly dumb, THIS GUY KNOWS LESS THAN NOTHING; IF HE KNEW NOTHING, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, AND HE DON'T EVEN THAT.
visionary138 2 months ago
I agree that 9/11 was not an inside job. I find that view rediculous and demonstrably false. However, i would advise anyone wanting to research the events of 9/11 to stay away from sites called Debunking911 or Truther.com Both these sites have presuppositional positions. Instead stay away from either and just look at reputable scientific sources. Or look into the science yourself. By doing so, the truth will come out whatever it may be.
TacticalHub 3 months ago
@TacticalHub Ifind that claim that it was an inside job to be very insulting to the memory to those who died on that day.
A7X303 2 months ago
@A7X303 Oh its spitting on the grave of those poor people. But worst of all it is terrible for the bereaved. imagine wondering whether your loved one was sacrificed by their country in a needless justification for war (which is rediculous BTW because there are loads of ways to justify war).
TacticalHub 2 months ago
I'm high and mighty and you're all asleep. Wake up, SHEEPLE!
Truthers are idiots. They make themselves look like asses.
wollclark 4 months ago
@wollclark Firefighter Eric Lawyer quote: “They [NIST] refused to test for explosives or residue of thermite.. On a routine house fire, if we detect even the slightest use of an accelerant we’re going to test for it when there’s no fatalities.. So to not do it on this, there is no excuse.. Why would we not test if something is hard to do [put bombs in the buildings], that’s the exact reason you need to investigate it.. we need to find out how they did it.” AS SEEN ON FIREFIGHTERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
dvntcentre 2 months ago
@wollclark Firefighter Eric Lawyer quote: “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested, and thorough investigation of a crime scene in world history.. The majority of the evidence was shipped off… How do you investigate a crime when you’ve destroyed all of the evidence? There are National Standards for an investigation.. NIST violated the most basic of the guidelines.. Spoliation of evidence..” AS SEEN ON FIREFIGHTERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
dvntcentre 2 months ago
well that explains it then. back to sleep everybody.
DINGLEtheBERRY 4 months ago
Blind loyalty caused Germans to follow Hitler's claim of building a Utopia, through 6 yrs. of hell on earth, and the final destruction of Germany. The same mentality rules in Amerika the Blind!
Howie47 4 months ago 6
@Howie47 the same mentality rules in the truther movement of the blind.
MegaYeshua33 2 months ago
i love it when you go to this guys videos and shit , he is all about debunking all the conspiracy theories, but wait, he has ones of his own! and of course the ones he debunks are wrong but his are the truth! believe that!....
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
The Pentagon was only part of the 9/11 issue:
1) United and American airlines stocks were sold SHORT a day BEFORE 9/11, up to 200 times the normal rate. Who bought the stocks? To this day that information is confidential.
2) The 4 black boxes or even parts were never recovered from WTC1 & 2 sites; this has NEVER happened in a LAND base crash.
3) NORAD was running drills or exercises on the day of 9/11 which sent U.S. fighters to Alaska and Canada.
yhenry77 4 months ago
The Pentagon was only part of the 9/11 issue:
1) United and American airlines stocks were sold SHORT a day BEFORE 9/11, up to 200 times the normal rate. Who bought the stocks? To this day that information is confidential.
2) The 4 black boxes or even parts were never recovered from WTC1 & 2 sites; this has NEVER happened in a LAND base crash.
3) NORAD was running drills or exercises on the day of 9/11 which sent U.S. fighters to Alaska and Canada.
yhenry77 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4) Marvin Bush was a principle of the Stratesec (Securacom) company, which oversaw the security for World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
5) On 9/11; Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Washington D.C.) here attended by a brother of Osama "Shafig bin Laden" and former president Bush.
6) A complete power outage (approximately 30 hours) which knocked out ALL security the weekend before 9/11 at both WTC1 & 2 towers; according to Scott Forbes.
yhenry77 4 months ago
4) Marvin Bush was a principle of the Stratesec (Securacom) company, which oversaw the security for World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
5) On 9/11; Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Washington D.C.) here attended by a brother of Osama "Shafig bin Laden" and former president Bush.
6) A complete power outage (approximately 30 hours) which knocked out ALL security the weekend before 9/11 at both WTC1 & 2 towers; according to Scott Forbes.
yhenry77 4 months ago
bullshit, how dd the metal become molten and the fires insicde last weeks and weeks after the collapse?
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r
'how dd the metal become molten', eh what metal? the ONLY metal that melted was Aluminium, which has a melting temperature of some of the recoded temperatures in the towers and the vast majority of the planes were made out of this, NO-ONE has ever stated that the steel melted.
Stu3100 4 months ago
@Stu3100 yeah i dono i seen videos of rescue workers that said they found fires in the rubble underneath stuff weeks after the collapse. this is ridiculous you people are brainwashed, get a clue
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
I learned this lesson a while ago: There's no point arguing with these conspiracy theorists. Everything that can be debunked has already been debunked, but these people will not be convinced by anything. The only thing that keeps them going is the hope that their beliefs will somehow be validated by an obscure shred of evidence that doesn't exist. The internet just provides a safe haven for these people to anonymously express their views and find a few idiots who are willing to believe them.
allamericandude15 4 months ago
@allamericandude15 theres just too much convenient evidence that this shit has all been lied about so why stop at the obvious and just blame them all, this shit was planned , funded, and counted on , to get the american people to agree to enter an undeclared war. bullshit is what it is.
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r There is no "convenient evidence", just a bunch of hazy and loosely defined misinterpretations and assumptions of the actual events. But you did hit the nail on the head about the war. That's the real reason why there are so many conspiracy theories. People don't like the war and they particularly don't like Bush, so they look for anything to demonize them--and what better way to do it than to accuse them of orchestrating a conspiracy to kill 3000 civilians?
allamericandude15 4 months ago 2
@allamericandude15 you are wrong in so many ways
drewsiboberinski 4 months ago
@drewsiboberinski I'm sure you think I am, and I'm sure you have a mountain of reasons why.
allamericandude15 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@y0utUBeH8r There is no "convenient evidence", just a bunch of hazy and loosely defined misinterpretations and assumptions of the actual events. But you did hit the nail on the head about the war. That's the real reason why there are so many conspiracy theories. People don't like the war and they particularly don't like Bush, so they look for anything to demonize them--and what better way to do it than to accuse them of orchestrating a conspiracy to kill 3000 civilians?
allamericandude15 4 months ago
It's not OUR job to prove that a jet hit the Pentagon, it's the "truther's" job to do so. The evidence speaks for itself.
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: THE WEAPON THAT CAN BREAK THE CYCLE OF WAR AND TERRORISM, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
SPREAD THIS BOOK AND CONQUER THE SPREADING EVIL BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - FOR FREEDOM AND PEACE.
TheServiceWeb 4 months ago
Some people lack critical thinking skills. Ok, think about what your video is
showing. You have ONE steel worker trying to cut a SINGLE beam with a cutting torch. How long will that take, for a beam of that size? 20-30 mins. Do know how hot a cutting torch gets? Much hotter than any jet fuel or office furniture fire and also the fires were 80 stories above. The CORE beams of WTC1 & 2 were over 4 inches thick; of which debunkers never want to talk about!
BTW: I am ex-steel building frame worker.
yhenry77 4 months ago 2
@yhenry77 Well then you should know that steel does not have to melt to loose most of it's structural integrity. Which is exactly what happened and made the steel beams buckle and thus colapsing the building.
reafdaw01 4 months ago in playlist WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern On 9/11 2
@reafdaw01 Your missing the point; it's speed of the collapse of WTC1 & 2; we are to believe that ALL steel critical points failed at the same time. There was NO resistance, we must factor-in at least 1 second per floor; why? STEEL does not break, it bends. Even at 1 second per floor, that is 110 seconds of total collapse time!
Your credentials are? I am ex-steel worker with B.S. degree form Regis University of Colorado.
I worked with massive structural steel used in high-rise buildings.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
im with u buddy. good to see some educated people writing logically and about stuff they know. take care
cadizbedini 4 months ago
@yhenry77 Read "a critical analysis of the collapse of wtc towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint" by brent blanchard.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan An excerpt from this report, should tell you everything you need to know:
"Assertion #7 - 6: We don't know how or why WTC7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."
Personally, I would investigate what their contracts were prior to 9/11. Why? This paper looks like a (sold out) whitewash; even my grandmother could tell you that WTC 7 came down because of a controlled demolition. Give me a break! I worked with structural steel for high-rise buildings.
yhenry77 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yhenry77 The firefighters said the building was unstable and likely to collapse.
thx1138aa 4 months ago
@yhenry77 911 coincidences 9 0f 19 inside job!!
werdskantxpress 4 months ago
The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later.
What are the odds that they can not recover 6/8 of the black boxes. Only flight 93's were found yet the recording that implicate the muslims were not officially released. Even the families did not get to hear the last 3 minutes.
A plane can get so low to the ground it can hit the pentagon from the side where it has been reinforced? Piloted by amateurs that are still alive yet 0 videos are released.
megamogx 4 months ago
@megamogx
There's plenty of video showing the Pentagon being hit. The more I hear from you guys, the angrier I get.
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
Comment removed
megamogx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captaindiesalot /watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
Americans are war mongers because you people get angry over the BS well committing mass murder and occupying the nations in the name of making yourself feel safe. The BBC and American media may be able to keep you in a bubble of 0 reality but the rest of the world does not live in your propaganda based system of Muslim hate mongering. America and its war of terror are what people should be angry about but that would require a basic understanding of physics
megamogx 4 months ago
@captaindiesalot Hit with what? I don't see 757 anywhere in the video; the initial hole was only 15 -17 feet in diameter, before Pentagon roof collapse. A 757 airliner tail piece alone is over 40 feet and wing span over 100 feet. There are over 75 video cams outside the Pentagon and this the best shot the can give us? They saw TWO types of aircraft that morning; a small commuter jet type and large 757 type. Some witnesses said the large 757 type pulled up at the last moment before the explosion.
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77
Take your drugs, go back to bed, it will all be over before you know it. Reality is very hard to deal with, it's a common problem with you "9/11 truthers."
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
@captaindiesalot Evidence is a common problem with debunkers; link me any video of a 757 airliner hitting the Pentagon. How about a photo of the tail section? I noticed you didn't try to explain away any of the issues?
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77 abovetopsecret com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Here it is, you have to add the periods, because YT doesn't allow links. I don't think this evidence will matter to any of your group, however, because you're all a bunch of lunatics. My brother-n-law was in the building, not that that matters to you, either, but he certainly felt the effects of the jet. OK, you can go back to bed now, enjoy your drugs; the rest of us will act responsibly as productive members of society.
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
@captaindiesalot Yes I have seen this, but did you really look at the evidence? Only one engine? Titanium engines are almost indestructible; didn't shredded aluminum parts (on the lawn) looked planted? No burned marks? What was the perfect round exit hole at the 'C' ring of Pentagon? If know anything about modern aircraft, the nose is the most fragile part; it's made of plastic or fiberglass. Yes, those are airliner wheels, but of what? I never saw 40 foot tailpiece in the photos? Wake up!
yhenry77 4 months ago
@yhenry77 - The round hole in the C ring was made by one of the engines, not the nose. The right wing engine smashed through a fence housing a diesel generator to the right of the impact zone. Check it out in photos. Everything matches up. People thought that the wheels didn't match a 757 because the amount of holes in the design not matching, but they just used a poor photo to compare. The wheels are exactly the same. So much was based on crap evidence and people getting measurements wrong.
GregOBehave 4 months ago
@yhenry77
henry, you're going to be able to go to the 911 memorial museum and see the evidence in person, not that any of this will ever matter to any of you fools. Wake Up! You're insane.
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
have you seen susan lindauer's presentation in oregon?
ho2cultcha 4 months ago
I love this - the first picture shows you a perfect straight cut at around 30-40 degrees ( the best angle for a controlled demolition collapse a perfect cut) and then later in the video they show a cut at around 50-60 degrees cut by a iron worker (possibly drunk but I'm not judging) - this guy is so wrong it is not true. Shame on you Sir (I may be being generous with the Sir). Oh my god please please try harder to hide the truth - this is important!!!
dazzer01 4 months ago
Watch "Bush Family Nazi Connection"
allenfix1 5 months ago
@allenfix1
Watch: "I'm a dickhead" all about Allenfix1
captaindiesalot 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He's advertising the wearechange section of truthers which has very untruthful leaders.. this should be a red flag right there. I guess next he's gonna say the Warren Commission got it right to. lmao
deshaebeasley 5 months ago in playlist 9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
He's advertising the wearechange section of truthers which has very untruthful leaders.. this should be a red flag right there. I guess next he's gonna say the Warren Commission got it right to.
deshaebeasley 5 months ago in playlist 9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
Just another tidbit for thought. Controlled demolitions are done to keep from damaging surrounding buildings yet the surrounding buildings were all damaged massively. If one looks carefully at the tower one collapse, it's fairly obvious that the supports finally gave way without explosion and that the weight of the upper 29 stories fell somewhat diagonally. Every controlled demolition video has buildings collapsing inwards on themselves.
barkmaker 5 months ago
If it was indeed a planned demolition, why would there be any beams left to cut down? Wouldn't they have all been cut down? Also, there are many videos of demolitions where you hear the charges going off. I've not heard charges going off in ANY of the videos I've seen of ANY of the buildings coming down.
I'm HIGHLY skeptical of my government as well as conspiracy theorists and it just doesn't add up for me.
barkmaker 5 months ago
@barkmaker they only needed to destroy 90% of the building - the bit above the ground! The rest they hoped would be unrecoverable due to the mass of debris collapsing on top of it - they needed to ensure the building could not be saved so people involved could cash in Insurance claims against tiny investments and make Billions (which I am sure was shared..). I would agree with you if they had to cut the building down from say the 20th floor but everything is gone. Like no high rise before!
dazzer01 4 months ago
@dazzer01 You speak with such authority as if you know what's going on. Did you know the building was designed to pancake rather than tumble over to avoid damage to surrounding buildings? They HOPED? If you plan on taking out WTC7, one would think you'd not make such a grandiose plan to demolish it without any debris touching it, but, perhaps you're right. The FEDERAL govt. took out the twin towers so that Larry Silverstein could collect his 4.5 billion dollars? I don't think so though.
barkmaker 4 months ago
@barkmaker If that were true then the building would start to pancake but the lower undamaged floors would slow the decent (resistance) so that it would not crush the lower floors - unless of course all resistance was removed... I think individuals at the top of finance and government had a lot to gain - Larry had obvious gains - look at the new plans (remembering always the twin towers were making huge losses - loads of empty space). The power makers get to pass frightening laws - zero freedom!
dazzer01 4 months ago
@dazzer01 That's what happened. There were survivors as high as the fourth floor. You can't see it slow towards the bottom because of all the debris. Look at the pictures taken after the building collapsed. You can see that much of the lower floors are intact despite the great weight that fell on them. Motive alone NEVER convicts. Your statement about Larry is false. The towers were very profitable. npr.org/2011/09/07/140035272/nyc-firefighters-share-memories-from-ground-zero
barkmaker 4 months ago
It was a planned demolition, planed years in advance in the event of that exact scenario because the plans were known in 1997. Thermite was used, hidden above the drop ceilings. There was a VERY GOOD REASON to allow it to happen and if you don't believe me look at the video of President Bush in the classroom with audio, the class tells you. Kite, Plane, Hit, Must. Sacrifice a few thousand to save millions. The Gov't acted responsibly here, and I fully support their decision on it!
NobleDarkWater 5 months ago
@NobleDarkWater Your a fucking piece or shit to say that. Innocents died that day by the hand of terrorists. I will say the government didn't take this event well at all but it wasn't an "inside job". I think you should burn in hell to say you would have supported your so called "inside job" to kill 3,000 people. The government wouldn't do something like that. There is oppositiion here, some say its a conspiracy, some say it was terrorism. Either way it is terrorism. Go fuck yourself man.
scarabmasta 5 months ago
@scarabmasta Governments kill there own people all the time. It is ignorant to say that our government wouldn't do that, although rather unlikely as it seems. Blind faith gets the best of us, and we should always ask questions. Terrorism can be done by a government, Hitler did it to his own parliament building. You should look up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Project for a New American Century. No proof towards 9/11 either way, but it should cast doubt in anyone's mind about our government
tgt305 5 months ago
Why do they do this? that is an easy question to answer it is because they do not have any real facts to back up all the shit they spew out so they have to make up their "facts"
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smater than Truthers.
12weasel100 5 months ago
Who gives a shit who did it, we can't do shit about it. That's it get over it, move on. The people who know the truth behind 9/11, their died or scare to talk. We got other shit to worry about. R.I.P all does people who died. =P
noelito01 5 months ago
Thumbs up for the Scientists that FOUND the EXPLOSIVES in the Dust: Neils H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R Larsen, THANK YOU for finding the TRUTH!
1nephi13v37 6 months ago
I don't know why there is a demolition trade. All you have to do is fly a plane into the building you want to come down, and wala. In fact, this works so well, the building will fall on it's own footprint every time. Takes about an hour or so. A few more if the building didn't get hit by a plane.
JohnClaypool 6 months ago
@JohnClaypool "All you have to do is fly a plane into the building you want to come down, and wala" - Really? You're spamming this terrible post around all the channels? Because flying a plane into a skyscraper is a simple thing?.... that shouldn't cause much damage?... .odd.
markh1011 6 months ago
Bullshitting ass videos, you are a complete failure, thumbs the fuck down... No one likes this stupid bullshit you are doing, you fucking Government Troll. Like the guy said on top, this thing isn't going away. My favorite uncle's life was taken from him in that fucking lie you people created. I can't bring him back, but I can help bring you fucking clowns to justice. You can hold out your fucking bloody ass hand long enough so we can slap on the cuffs. You are a fucking clown, debunk that...
GUARDIANtrooper 6 months ago
This Debunker does not explain how WTC fell at free fall speed or how steel melted by a kerocene fire that burned for less than 2 hours or why everything except the steel was pulverized to a fine dust. Who stood to gain the most from the events of 911? The talabon, bin laden, Iraq, pakistan? Or Halliburton, Carlyle group, Bush, Cheney, Exxon, Chevron, Larry silverstein? The 2.3 trillion unaccounted for by pentagon & next day plane(missle) hits pentagon finance department & destroys records.
unproudcitizen 6 months ago
@unproudcitizen Who says everything except steel was pulverized to a fine dust?
Is that what happens in a demolition? Everything except steel is pulverized to a fine dust? Do you even know or are you just repeating something you saw on some shitty kookspiracy web site?
What does unaccountabed for Pentagon funds have to do with 9/11? Do you know or are you just repeating some crap from a shitty kookspiracy site?
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@PoetryHound Thanks for your reply asking for some clarification and for my information source. As for controlled demolition, I am not an expert. Howeve, it is illogical to think that a building scheduled for controlled demolition would not have been emptied in advance of all furnishings, fixtures, some components of the plumbing and electrical systems and last but not least any people. Please correct me if I am wrong, This is a deduction based only on my own logic but at least Im thinking
unproudcitizen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unproudcitizen These were my questions in response to your last post.
Who says everything except steel was pulverized to a fine dust?
What does unaccounted for Pentagon funds have to do with 9/11?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 6 months ago
you manage to discredit all your other videos with these opinions...
i hope they pay you! but if you can do this for money, you're not any different from those that did this ugly act.
pgpeachess 6 months ago
so apparaently all witnesses went stupid on 911 and just imagined explosion
drifter402 6 months ago
@drifter402 Absolutely!...DOH
Truthseeker244 6 months ago
How much do you get paid to do this? Can you say cognitive infiltration? If not familiar this is a technique of suppressing conspiracy theories that Regulatory & Information Czar Cass Sunstein proposed in 2008. Google it. Back to you. Thousands of architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, pilots, etc. put their careers & credibility on the line? They need attention? LOL. Think of the consequences of this false flag op and then go locate your soul. THEN do the right thing. Do it for your kids.
jerjr49 6 months ago
In the south tower firemen in the A & B staircases up to the 78th floor. there they reported first fires seen & only small pockets. Physically impossible for 32 floors to destroy 78 structurally sound floors below. Physics. Are you related to Cass Sunstein? LOL. this is not going away. Throw all the disinfo you'd like at it. Too much REAL science. Can you say (unreacted) NANOTHERMITE? When NIST admitted free fall in WTC it admitted CD. Perhaps you will relocate soul someday? Good luck with that.
jerjr49 6 months ago
why are you protecting original 9/11 story without proper knowledge on such matters? Simply put the steel frame was very strong, too strong for most torches, the hottest of torches would take hours too burn through, it was mostly a practice cut where he realizes that going any further would take hours, finding another way to remove pillars of steel, from the foundation and too hard to cut in segments. The strength is so great only controlled demolition could have taken the tower down that fast.
vilmoroth 6 months ago
@vilmoroth What are you talking about? Torches were indeed used at ground zero to take down the remaining standing columns and spandrel systems. How else do you think the remaining ones were brought down?
PoetryHound 6 months ago
This Video is total Trash! Americans must be total retards to believe this total shit! This Guy - ( monkey ) fails to note one important factor.. Anyone knows what that is? the First one who guesses right get a Burger!
blackArt2000 6 months ago
Debunking 9/11 'conspiracy theories'?
You mean debunking the theory of the 9/11 commission?
Because the theory of 19 men that conspire to attack the USA is in fact a conspiracy theory!
Debunk that!
WordWakNed 6 months ago
@WordWakNed That's right. They 'conspired' to commit this act of terrorism against the US. Why don't you go and watch the video wills the hijackers made and they'll tell you about it themselves.
Do you think just saying 'well, you believe in a conspiracy too' means anything? Quit playing games and take the shuttle back from Planet X.
911sausageman 6 months ago
@911sausageman
Anyone can make a video will, it doesn't mean a thing!
Especially when 9 of the hijackers are still alive today!
One of the accused hijackers, Waleed al-Shehri, who, after allegedly stabbing a stewardess on a flight that crashed into the World Trade Center, returned to Casablanca, gave a press conference and has reportedly been working as a pilot there ever since. Even the the BBC reported on this and confirmed it was indeed the same guy!
You'd better get your act together dude!
WordWakNed 6 months ago
@WordWakNed you have the hijackers on video telling you what they're going to do and why they're going to do it and it doesn't 'mean a thing'. All the hijackers are dead...obviously.
BBC reported that days after 9/11 when little information was available and have *never* confirmed it was the same guy.. just the opposite actually.
Ever hear of 'mistaken identity'?
But let's follow through with this thought: are you saying that there were no hijackers?
911sausageman 6 months ago
@911sausageman
I'm getting tired of telling people like you how to do proper research....
But oke, just Google this:
"Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco"
You'll see.
For all I know, the plane could have been a drone.
You tell me, you're the one telling the world there was a conspiracy of Islamic extremist...
WordWakNed 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WordWakNed Like I just told you: that report was one of mistaken identity written in the few days after 9/11 when little information was available.
search "Waleed al-Shehri still alive?" click on the first link.
"For all I know, the plane could have been a drone."
For all you know isn't much.
911sausageman 6 months ago
@WordWakNed
bbc. co. uk/ blogs/ the editors/ 2006/ 10/ 911_ conspiracy_ theory_1. html
cantonear1968 6 months ago
@WordWakNed You mean the same BBC that retracted the story years ago? The original story was from Sept 23, 2001. Can you say 'fog of war'?
bman342 6 months ago
@bman342 In the truther mind it seems like all the erroneous stories in the weeks following Sept 11, 2001 are the gospel truth and anything/everything after that is a massive MSM cover up.
Silly truthers!
911sausageman 6 months ago
@911sausageman How true, and also in the minutes and hours followng the attacks. More's the pity.
bman342 6 months ago
EXCUSE ME NARRATOR, I AM AN IRONWORKER AND WAS AT THE SITE. THIS IRONWORKER IN THE PHOTO IS NOT CUTTING ANY STEEL! HES LIGHTING A LANCE TORCH THAT BURNS MAGNESIUM RODS THAT IGNITE THRU ANYTHING.
A TORCH COULD NOT CUT SOME OF THOSE , DUE TO THICKNESS AND IT WOULD TAKE MUCH LABOR HRS TO CUT IT ALL.AS I HAD BEEN IN THE GANG THAT HAD TAKEN DOWN THE ENTIRE 2 REMAINING STEEL TOWERS .
SO,,,,,,, GET IT RIGHT!
JOHNNYIRON40 7 months ago 14
@JOHNNYIRON40 Sir, first off I want to say bless you for cleaning up that mess made by coward terrorist
You need to talk to some of these idiots who say the towers columns were cut
P.S. 2 of my cousins were apart of the 9/11 clean up
AccessDenied55 6 months ago
@JOHNNYIRON40 Who the fuck is going to believe your dumbass? Other than your group of retards of course.
DKaijuGomoMan 6 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@DKaijuGomoMan you can go and fuck yourself.
firefirefuneralpyre 5 months ago
@JOHNNYIRON40 Yeah, those remaining steel beams cut themselves down. Makes sense.
MazJax 5 months ago
@JOHNNYIRON40 So he is not actually cutting the steel but hes lighting a lance torch to cut the fuckin steel Wow your so brilliant man now we no how smart you are can I be part of your group suber humans?
metapatriot 5 months ago in playlist 9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
if you still believe that 911 was done by ppl who are proven to still be alive, its because you are in deep denial. pray we dont end up in the fe ma cof fins
AMELIA6659 7 months ago
Why does he use the torch? He should use JetFuel.
puurlijknbatsie 7 months ago
Can't see the forest because of the trees? Ok, I agree there is a man with a cutting torch. So how did the thousands of massive beams (some 4 inches thick) fail above without thermite? It took intense heat of a cutting torch to cut just ONE beam. The average temperature of the cutting torch is over 2500 degrees! BTW: I was a steel worker in Oklahoma City; welded, drilled and cut massive steel beams for high-rise and other buildings. (Hint: Search information about the inner cores of WTC 1 & 2).
yhenry77 7 months ago
@yhenry77 They found that the beams failed at the weakest point - the connectors (bolts, etc.).
thx1138aa 7 months ago
@thx1138aa Who did? What evidence? What about the inner core? It was box beam construction (4 inches thick).
yhenry77 7 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 7 months ago
im not a truther by all means, i believe terrorist attacked us on 9/11. but that steel worker photo looks kinda fake to me...
jdogg781517 7 months ago
@jdogg781517 Not fake at all... in fact there's even a video of the cut columns with commentary by a worker here on youtube.
911sausageman 7 months ago
@911sausageman What is the name of that video? I would love to add it to my playlist. If you could send it to me that would be even better.
TheTruthJunkie 7 months ago
@TheTruthJunkie It's called 'WTC Angle Cut Columns during cleanup' watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4 the relevant part starts about 1:20
Glad to help.
911sausageman 7 months ago
That's why they sent in Dr Stephen Jones! He had already destroyed cold fusion research. Any knowledgeable demolitions expert would know thermite cannot be used in controlled demolitions. Tritium levels 55X normal can only mean fourth generation micro-nukes! Dr Jones is qualified to work with developing the micro-nukes, from his years of Los Alamos contact.
goshomg 7 months ago
Well anything prop wash amaturish attempt at debunking. Sorry pal, most of the American people have already awoken to the truth that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION had to used in order to bring the WTC #1, 2, & 7 down at free fall speed. Yes Thermite was used in conjuntion with sulfate making thermate. This is the reason you see the cut steel. Think about steel that thick cut into for anyreason before the hauloff job. Its too late to debunk, we already know the truth.
paskettle 7 months ago
@paskettle Well considering the fact that 1 and 2 didn't come down at free fall speed and came down at 16 and 22 seconds (time it yourself) already makes your claim false. Quit trying twoofer.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Wrong, you guys trying to cover for the official version is pathetic really. Free fall speed is the only way to time the collapes of towers #1 ,2,and bldg 7. In otherwords, demolitons experts had been in these buildings for the week prior, and had staged the detonation/explosives, as they would with any comdemned building being brought down. Thier pros and thier work is evident in all the videos.
They should have done it at night, but too late now, we know the truth.
paskettle 7 months ago
@paskettle Lol sorry pal I'm no agent. Time the collapse. Please.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 There entire collapse might not have been at free fall but there are measurable periods of free fall in the collapse of both towers as well as bldg 7. NIST admitted as much in their final report (at least for the towers) and in their subsequent FAQs and Q&As on their website for WTC 7.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 if u study controlled demolition you may just find out that very few building come down "free fall" speed.
so your comment only backs up "twoofers" claims, many thanks for that knucklehead.....
chunkyboy100 7 months ago
@chunkyboy100 Holy. Fucking. Shit. Time the collapse. The building did not come down at freefall speed.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 i know, thats what im saying!!!! also time a collapse of a building that has been pulled cos u may find that it does not fall 3fall either!!!
therefore your big claim that because the building didnt fall 3fall means that they couldnt have been pulled has just been blown away.....
chunkyboy100 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Again, the buildings did not collapse, in their ENTIRETY, at free fall. True. But all 3 buildings had periods of free fall. 2.25 seconds for WTC 7 and unspecified amounts of time for WTC 1 and 2.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Look at it this way. You're telling me that the gov put almost 200k tons of explosives inside buildings where 100,000+ people cycle in and out of 24/7 and not ONE person noticed anything? Please. This would have taken hundreds of workers months working 24/7 to do and they would've had to rip up drywall, wiring, etc. Plus a controlled demo would've blown the core to bits yet it is seen standing after the initial collapse of both buildings.
Sorry, but the demolition theory is impossible.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, despite your repeated assertions that free fall didn't happen, it did, in fact, happen. NIST has stated that it happened in the collapse of the towers in their final report and in WTC 7 in their follow up FAQ almost a year ago. This is old news. Let's move on.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 As for the possibility of "demolition"... that's subjective. While I agree that performing a standard, commercial demolition under the noses of the WTC tenants, without being noticed, would be a Herculean feat in and of itself, this would hardly be your average demolition. Someone managed to sneak 3 bombs into the Oklahoma City Federal Building without anyone noticing, the same is possible here.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Haha someone drove a truck up to the Murrah building. No other bombs were ever found. That was simply speculation on the media's part mins after the attack happend.
"the same is possible here"
That is ridiculous. The WTC was by far the most secure commercial office park in the world in 2001. There were also about 99,000 more people who cycled through it daily than the Murrah. And 3 bombs? Try more like 3,000 in the WTC's case. And if bombs blew it up, why was the core still intact?
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 It doesn't matter how improbable the means of destruction, free fall is impossible. A falling object cannot accelerate through another object of equal or greater mass. Another source of energy is required.
As for the core, less than half the core was standing, in each building, after collapse, and what remained fell within moments.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Its not improbable, its impossible. You can't not notice torn up drywall in the office that you ar in for 8 hours everyday. Nothing was used for acceleration during the collapses. WTC 1 & 2 never fell at freefall speeds. WTC 7 fell at freefall speed near the beginning of the collapse because the truss system supporting it completely failed causing the whole building to fall into a 5 story basement where the only supports were the truss system. No truss system=no resistance in basement.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Once again; NIST has stated, through their official report, that there were periods of free fall in both towers. Not just WTC 7. It doesn't matter if the supporting structure failed or not, the mass is still there. A object cannot fall at gravitational free fall and still have energy to move/crush resistance beneath it. Have you never taken physics before? They teach this shit in high school. This is Physics 101.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Okay, so let's say there was a demo. Where are the shock tubes, det cords, etc. that are found everywhere even in small scale demos? Where are they in the rubble of WTC 1,2, and 7? Out of all the photographs, one demolition expert would've pointed out such findings easily. Plus if WTC 7 was a demolition, the building would have collapsed the whole way down at FF speed just like every other demolition in history, not just 2.25 seconds.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Shock tubes, det cords, etc. are not required components of bombs. You're still thinking in terms of a commercial demolition. Something only falls at free fall as far as there is no resistance to slow it. 2.25 seconds equates to roughly 108 feet. That means only 108 feet of resistance was removed. For the entire building to collapse at free fall, in all 3 cases, all structural support would have to be removed for the height of the building.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog You cant just throw some TNT into a building and have it fall like the way WTC7 did. It takes precise explosions to bring it down from a demolition stand point. If taking out 108 ft of WTC7 brings it down, then why don't commercial demo teams save themselves a whole lot of money by blowing up only 1/7 of a building? Because it doesn't work... And the truss system was the only support in the basement. Without supports, you get FF speeds. Denying that would contradict your whole argument.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Look up the Verinage demolitions. That should help explain how destroying a fraction of a building can destroy the whole building. It'll also shed some light on the mechanics of a know crush-down collapse.
Secondly: According to NIST the collapse of WTC 7 originated on floor 13. Not in the basement. Even if it did you would have to completely remove those trusses, instantly, to get free fall. Not just cause them to fail.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Again, how do you plant explosives in a building with almost 15,000-5,000 tenants 24/7? Fire fighters said the building was doomed 3 hours before it collapsed. The whole fucking building was on fire! (Pictures+firefighters) It was missing 25-30% of its base!! There is absolutely no need for using explosives! 7 hours of burning and leaning is enough to do the job! Why would they demolish a building that had no significance and nobody inside!? There was no reason to blow up WTC 7!
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 I honestly don't know how. I'm not here to convince anyone of the controlled demolition theory. I'm simply arguing that the official explanation is wrong and easily proven so with high school or first year college physics. And once again, NIST has specifically stated that the building was NEVER entirely on fire and that the majority of the fires present were on 4-5 of those 47 floors.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Really? Because I've seen multiple pictures and video clips of heavy smoke coming from EVERY single floor... Your problem is that you are relying on one source for your information. Any rational person looking for an answer to a hypothesis would look over multiple sources in order to come up with a valid conclusion. And please show me an explosive that can resist 1800F+ heat for 7 hours. Oh wait, there isn't one. Another reason why bombs couldn't be used.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 I get the impression you don't know who NIST is...
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog National Institute of Standards and Technology. I'm not saying their report is horseshit, I'm just saying that the two story fire you're proposing is a joke when pictures and firefighters say the whole building was involved in fire.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 I didn't say two stories. I said 4-5 floors of 47. As in 4 to 5. Not floors 4 and 5. And I have yet to see a single picture of video of WTC 7 burning in its entirety. And *I'm* not proposing anything. I'm simply referencing NISTs official stance. If you think they are incorrect then I think you are on the wrong side of the debate here. It isn't so much about whether or not explosives were used, its about whether the official story is correct or not.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Oh then go to google images, type in "wtc 7 fires" then look at the pictures of smoke billowing from every floor of the south side of the building. There ya go.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Smoke != fire. Go to Google images, type in "wtc 7 fires" and find me a picture of flames on every single floor. On this one I'm going to agree with NIST. The building was never, at any time, burning in its entirety. Not only that but find me a picture of fire ANYWHERE in the building at the onset of collapse. I mean, for a fire induced collapse it shouldn't be that hard....should it?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog But you saw every single part of the south side of WTC 7 billowing smoke right? Without fire, you don't get smoke. Proving that every floor of the building was on fire. Plus every firefighter ever interviewed to this day has said the whole building was engulfed. I'll believe the firefighters who specialize in the field and have been around fires for decades and were witnesses over somebody like the engineers, who don't specialize in fire, at NIST who weren't even there any day.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 The volume of smoke is in no way a direct indicator of the volume of fire. Hell you CAN have smoke without fire. Smoke grenades, smoke machines. You can get smoke simply from chemical reactions. Smoke is a product of energetic reactions between chemicals, not necessarily fire.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog So what about the fire fighters who went in the building? According to them, they SAW flames EVERYWHERE INSIDE. But I guess those were fancy Bush Administration holograms. And you don't think a 25+ story office fire falling from 1,000 ft on top of a building from won't cause a fire? Please... And smoke grenades and smoke machines would've been noticed by the tenants. The sad determination of a truther is showing in you...
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 It amazes me how much of the official story you don't know. What tenants? WTC 7 was evacuated after the first plane crash. And once again, I never said the building wasn't on fire. Clearly it was. I'm saying that at no point was it ever entirely on fire. Look at the videos of that buildings collapse. Can you see a single flame? Anywhere?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Look, if you believe the official story is wrong then you need to contact NIST. They said the building only had major fires on at most 5 of its 47 floors. If you believe the fire fighters there and believe that NIST is wrong in their assessment then you might want to reevaluate which side of the debate you're on. Honestly if NIST got something as simple as the volume of fire in the building wrong...what else could they have gotten wrong?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog They said that fires were present on every floor of the building in the report. Major fires were on only 5 floors, which meant almost every sq ft was totally involved. So you get half credit for that. And there were 15k tenants that everyday occupied the building until 9/11 thus making it impossible for any explosives to be planted. And due to the fact that there are no videos of the south face (where the fires mainly were) is why you don't see them in the collapse.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Nope, NIST specifically states that at no time did any of those 5 floors burn in their entirety and they have only committed to "at least 10 floors" having fires but only 5 of those burned out of control. It is those 5 floors that are contributed to the collapse of the building. Not the other small fires scattered throughout the south and west faces. And having fires mainly on those two faces does not make the building "totally involved."
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog So firefighters who couldn't even walk into the lobby due to the fires are wrong? The fire was on every floor. Pictures show it and witnesses preach it. But I guess the firefighters don't know what they are talking about.
Ahlywog: "So that means NIST is wrong. Re-investigate!" There's no need for NIST to re-investigate due to the fact that they were right, the building failed due to the truss system because of the fires and major damage to the exterior.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 No, according to NIST, the building failed because core column 79 failed. None of the core columns were damaged by the falling debris. The fires alone, according to NIST, caused the collapse and the building would have collapsed even without the damage from debris.
There isn't a single picture anywhere showing fire on every single floor and the entire south face of the building covered in smoke doesn't mean there was fire on every floor at the south face.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Then whats causing the smoke on every floor? Are Bush and his friends up there smoking a few cigars? In the case of 9/11, you can't have smoke without fire. There isn't any other little chemistry project going on besides a 25 story office inferno collapsing on top of another building. And, again, you keep dismissing the firefighters testimony. Each and every one said the same thing: "the whole building is involved" which means a fire, ranging in size, on every story.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 *I'M* not dismissing it. NIST is. THEY are saying you're wrong. They were the lead investigative body into the collapse of the buildings and THEY say you (e.q the firefighters and other eyewitnesses) are wrong. I'm simply pointing out the irony of your "truther" bashing when what you believe is directly contradicted by the authorities as well.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog They simply reviewed the collapse from an engineering stand point. They proved that nothing was need other than a 25 story office fire collapsing on top of it through evidence that can be backed up. 9So really, it doesn't matter.
And nothing was needed to bring down WTC 1 and 2 besides a 200 ton jet flying at 375+ mph.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 So how about the firefighters who said they heard bombs going off and saw molten steel in the basements of all three buildings? NIST denied both cases. Should we take the word of eyewitnesses who were there and would know or NIST who didn't begin their investigation until over a year later?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Well first off, every single quote of somebody saying they heard bombs is taken way out of context. They all say "it sounded like a bomb" which in no case means they are saying what they heard was a bomb. They are simply comparing the sound they heard to a bomb going off. And molten steel was never found in the basements of any building. Molten METAL was, but never molten steel.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 How do we know it wasn't molten steel? Was it ever tested? Did they test every bit of molten metal to see what type of metal is was? I'm willing to bet no.
As for taken out of context. I like how MY witnesses were either mistaken or taken out of context but YOUR eyewitnesses are 100%, irrefutably, correct. Clearly it isn't possible that firefighters, describing a building that is clearly not burning in its entirety AS burning in its entirety, were taken out of context....
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog No need to test it because steel melts at 2700F. The fires in the rubble were no more than 2000F. So its impossible that steel ever melted
& no, thats not how it is. Show me one person who says they SAW/HEARD a bomb & then give me conclusive evidence that they still believe it. The firemen in WTC7 SAW a fire on every floor & still believe it. They are SPECIALISTS in field thus making it credible. Very very very few civilians/firemen have ever heard or seen an ACTUAL bomb in their lives
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 No more than 2000f according to whom? The fact that they were that hot and for WEEKS afterward is another matter entirely.
Can you provide conclusive evidence that they still believe it? I mean you can look at the building and tell it was never FULLY on fire. There isn't a single image or video showing fire above floor 13 on the north and east faces. Small sporadic fires on multiple floors? Sure. The entire building burning at any point in time? Never happened. Clearly.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Nasa Thermal Imaging. According to the most powerful thermal imaging in the world, there was an average temperature of 1500f underneath the rubble. Nothing more than 2000f in a few hotspots
& ya sure. There are a few History Channel shows where fire fighters mention WTC7 & how "the whole building was a complete inferno". I don't understand how you can look at a building with thick smoke coming from every square inch of the side of it & not say there weren't fires on every floor.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Even the most power thermal imagery equipment in the world can't see through the ground. Temperatures recorded by NASA are surface temperatures which means the temperatures beneath them are greater.
I'm not saying there wasn't fire on every floor, I'm saying that at no point was the ENTIRE building on fire. I don't understand how you can look at the collapse videos, in which there isn't a single flame evident, and believe the entire building is on fire.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Hell, there is video footage of the south face of the building. The building is clearly not a giant raging inferno.
watch?v=pAVHbI9CKpU&feature=related Nope, none there.
watch?v=5GEEzHn4tqo&NR=1 Really good view of the south face here. Still no raging inferno...
watch?v=_WJgFc4wIaQ Helo view of the sound face and the news actually reporting that the Taliban don't think OBL has the resources to pull off this attack... huh.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog In every single one of those videos I saw a massive inferno lol. Do you not see the smoke billowing out for almost 40 stories? For a period of 2 and half hours (Port Authority) the whole south side was billowing smoke. It doesn't seem that bad from a chopper 5 miles away. How about we go 3 blocks?
/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=related
Yes, the NEWS did say that. But did they have any idea 5 hours after the attack what really happened on the planes? Nope.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 Smoke != building encompassing inferno. And look where the flames are in your video: Between floors 7 and 13 just like NIST said. Amazing. Once again, because I keep having to repeat this to you for some reason, I'm not saying there wasn't fire in the building. I'm saying the entire building was never on fire. Small scattered fires? Sure. Large building engulfing fire? Nope.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog Yet the firefighters (the only one's who were in the building after WTC 1, 2 collapsed) said that there were large fires EVERYWHERE from stories 1-47. You can't see these fires from the outside because, according to the fire fighters, they were blazing everywhere in the interior, where most of the office supplies were. The interior was enclosed by small offices that encircled the whole building EXCEPT where WTC1 took off the whole south face which was covered in smoke from the fires.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 At this point I can only ask you to cite your sources. I would like to hear the testimonies of all these fire fighters that traversed the height of the building to witness these massive raging infernos (that amazingly are not visible from the exterior despite the building missing "the whole south face".) Because I can't help but wonder why NIST would say something completely contradictory to that. I mean they CLAIM to have based their research on eye-witness accounts...
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog "It had many heavy fires on the majority of the floors and I ordered an evacuation of an area sufficient around our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time" -Chief Daniel Nigro, head of operation at WTC7
"You see where the white smoke is? (whole building is covered in white smoke in the vid) You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it" -fire fighter known as "Miller"
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 So much for your fires on every floor statement. Even Chief Nigro doesn't agree with that. And "Miller"s statement is in no way indicative of the amount of fire present in the building. So my question is, if NIST is right in their assessment of the collapse of the building then why do their statements directly refute the testimony of witnesses?
Ahlywog 7 months ago