So you're saying that building 7 fell over? I've seen video and I have to say it looks like it's coming straights down... and fast. If it fell over I wouldn't cry foul, but to me it certainly didn't look like it fell over. I agree it looked damaged, maybe the firemen could assess that it wasn't worth trying to fight the fire. However, I think everyone who saw it come down was very surprised.
Hey dorky why don't you show building 5 and 6 they have severe damage 100 times more damage than building 7 and 5 and 6 had to be "pulled" if you don't know that term just watch the other videos when they "pull" or controlled demolition" Silverstein admits to it, Barry Jenkins was walking around in that building, BUILDING 7 WAS TAKEN DOWN BY THE USA GOV
LOL, no he doesn't, you still believe that myth? It's funny how long the 9/11 "truth" cult will continue to repeat something that has been long refuted, like the old "pull it" canard.
"w building 5 and 6 they have severe damage 100 times more damage "
That's not a very rigorous or compelling argument. "100 time more damage," lol, are you sure it wasn't more like 90 times more? Maybe it was a 114 'times' more damage. LOL, wtf?
Name another steel structured skyscraper that has fallen due to fire before or after 911. Only three have done this and all three on the same day. If you do not believe it to be a controlled demolition, go and watch known controlled demolitions and compare & contrast those videos to the videos of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7. If you still can not see that it was CD brought those three towers down then you need some help.
@shroomraptor I will name you one when you name me one other time that two jets traveling 500mph crashed into buildings constructed like the WTC towers.
Why do you think watching videos showing how buildings fall down in CD, just like they did on 9/11, prove anything?
Which way were the buildings supposed to fall? Up?
@911sausageman The portion of the buildings above the impact may have fallen that day, if the center core steal columns were severed but the bulk of the building below the impact would not have fallen. It's that simple but I know that is above your head. The buildings fell at near free fall speed, meaning every floor would have to fail instantaneously, which is fucking impossible unless a demolition device(s) were used, which is obvious from watching the numerous videos out there.
@911sausageman Plus the fact, kerosene doesn't even reach a temperature that could weaken the steal in the building, let alone cause it to melt. How did these kerosene induced fires pulverize concrete to dust? Why is it that the steal was removed from the crime scene before any investigation if the story we've been sold is true? The only time evidence is removed from a crime scene is when someone has something to hide. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
@911sausageman And while I can not name another building that has withstood 500mph crashes, I do know the Empire had a plane strike it and is still standing. Thing is, the WTC was built to withstand impacts from fully loaded 707's, which outweigh what did strike that day.
Have you ever heard the phrase, if it walks, talks & acts like a duck, then it's a duck before? Well, I believe that sums up your question concerning the compare & contrast known CD's with 911 now does it not?
@shroomraptor a B-25 lost in the fog hit the Empire State building, a building totally unlike the WTC towers in that it has steel reinforced by concrete.
The WTC DID withstand the impacts from the jetliners. The subsequent fires is what brought the building down.
That you think that because it falls downward IN THE DIRECTION OF GRAVITY like in your precious 'comparison' videos, is simply stupid.
Really impressive how you've learned structural engineering in just a few hours on youtube!
@911sausageman Fire has never brought down a steel structured skyscraper before or after 911, period. Buildings have burned for 20+ hours and were still standing when the fires were put out, so you're fire theory doesn't hold up to reality. Your third paragraph is of your own invention, I do not see where I stated anything you attempt to address in that paragraph. Your fourth isn't even worth the time. Still, tell us what caused the pulverization of the concrete or can you not do this?
How would the Government Recruit so many people for the so called inside Job?? It is impossible to fool the whole World. IT WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB. QUIT SMOKING CRACK
@kguitar765 PNAC paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 63 calls for a New Pearl Harbor to bring about their plans for the US Military. PNAC is the think tank the neo cons came from. Did they not call this a 'New Pearl Harbor' that day?
Too many People would have to have been involved in 911. For it to have been successful. You would have to be Retarded to think no one would have Spilled the Beans by now, you think that the Nypd Fdny that had 343 killed would let that happen?? Then your a Lame ROD!!!
I don't believe these quotes, or clips are genuine. These "proofs" didn't appear until after Gage, and others started to really shed light on the strange collapse of Building 7. If these deformations were present, lets see the pictures.
@thegooserooster "These "proofs" didn't appear until after Gage, and others started to really shed light on the strange collapse of Building 7".
Actually, the FDNY oral histories were conducted well before that. The FDNY statements show that they believed WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse. That pretty much destroys the CD theories. Truthers are forced into the uncomfortable position of having to claim the firefighters were lying or didn't know what they were talking about.
Back when the discussion of building 7 was getting alot of attention (enough for the perps to call out one of their big guns to set the story straight...Popular Mechanics) why weren't we shown any of these obviously very revealing photos, or played this audio? There are plenty of questionable video clips that have made it into the public domain that show, or "document" 9-11 Narrative supporting details. The 9-11 perps obviously created some video clips post facto. This may be one of them
I've been trying to figure out why these latest releases have suddenly, years later, made their appearance. If these videos/audio clips are genuine, they provide a very low quality of evidence for the following reasons. The video clip discusses the deformation, but for some reason elects not to capture it on video. This is the first I've heard of the entire south side of 7 having a huge hole in it. Why isn't there lots of other pictures/videos showing us close ups of the deformation?
What annoys me is that all the debunkers of what happened take the view and word of a fireman who could be just speculating on whats going to happen and those asking questions can clearly see the building fall into its own footprint, ie. the colapse started at the bottom and the top sinks down into it. Of cousre there iwill be spillin and rubble at the base stories high! its a 47 story fuckin building!!! Where else do you think it would all end up? Its the way it fell is the only interesting bit
come on, bulky building like that dont fall in 7 seconds. yeah they know it was going to collapse, but a building like that cant go down unless you try. go look up failed demolitions with buildings falling flat on its face and staying intact. hears a little video i found interesting.
@DRcaprice At the point of collapse, its entirely reasonable to presume that the fires that raged for 7 hours had gradually caused all the major supporting structures (ie the stuff you cant see) to collapse. Thats what the fireman is saying.
Then, with only the outer wall present, you see the penthouse suite collapse, indicative of major structural malfunction, then the facade of the building, as there are no supports left whatsoever to speak of supporting it.
@joefx69 what was fueling the fire? how did the building turn into dust as it was falling? what about the pentagon? your going to tell me that was a 757 that hit? day before 9/11 rumsfeld said they lost 2.3 trillion dollars from the pentagon, next day the pentagon was hit by a "757 jumbo jet" look at the video and the damage and tell me thats a fucking jet. why where all the video tapes confiscated from the pentagon? just dig deeper into this, look at things you dont want to see.
@DRcaprice What was fuelling the fire?! Is that a serious question? The outer facade isnt supporting structure, as explained, so that easily can turn to dust. As stated, the inside burnt for 7 hours. Instead of telling me to watch a video that all "truthers" use as "evidence", how about you research some real evidence yourself, and look at testimonies of structual engineers explaining the damage, the wreckage of plane that the Pentagon keeps as a memorial, the high res reconstruction etc etc etc
@joefx69 structural engineers, architects, and demolitioners have a website expaining how this is impossible, so your point actually proves all the "truthers" right.... ae911truth website if you want proof
@leafs3113 Umm, hate to break it to you, but the "truthers" among professionals are VASTLY outnumbered by the people who accept the NIST report. Why don't you go and ask some FDNY firefighter eyewitnesses, some demolition professionals or some civil engineers, like from a local construction company, yourself? This relying on a website written by a few disgruntled individuals with (sometimes rather irrelevant) credentials is a bit childish, isn't it?
@decnet100 ummmm, hate to break it to you because that's not true... there's lots of videos of fireman coming out of the building claiming there were explosions (and they would know if it were an explosion from fire as its their JOB) the ae911 people have close to 9,000 people (engineers, architects, demolitioners, family members of victims) behind them, there's more than a few and the people who don't believe the NIST report has only continued to grow....
@leafs3113 Let's stay on the ground a bit, AE911 itself only says they have 1588 professional signing their petition, out of which I counted only 78 licensed civil eng's and 18 structural eng's. Not a single article in any properly peer-reviewed scientific journal has come out in favor of CD at 9/11 - and don't mention the "nanothermite" paper without at least googling "CRAP paper" first. Read the Implosion World article for a representative opinion of the demolition industry community.
@decnet100 Of course no actual papers or journals are going to write an article claiming 9/11 was an inside job or CD, only way to solve all of this is put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and company to a lie detector test, if they pass, it's the end of all the conspiracy theories, if they fail then the government has some explaining to do from behind bars.... all I am saying is there are a lot of fishy things that happened that day
@leafs3113 That complete lack of scientific articles I was pointing at exists worldwide (maybe I should point out that over here in Europe we don't only read and search for articles in one language, you know ;) ). You think Bush and his ex-government controlled - and still control - all peer reviewed scientific journals in the world, with 100% effectiveness? Must be one hell of a conspiracy indeed.
@decnet100 No one is ever going to write an article about it, for one all of the scientific evidence was destroyed immediately and actually there was a report b Steve Jones (I think that's his name) who WAS a professor at BYU who lost his job for going against the 9/11 report.... and there has been skeptics of it, it's also pretty crazy to say that 19 highjackers who were amateur pilots flew huge planes into two of the biggest buildings in the world which then came down in 11 seconds
@leafs3113 Sorry, but that is just not how the scientific community works. You write an article with evidence, you publish it somewhere. Dr. Jones who was teaching at BYU indeed, was discussing his non-peer-reviewed thesis under a lot of media attention, which BYU felt was damaging the reputation of the school. He then went to publish the "nanothermite" paper at a Bentham publishing - google "CRAP paper" if you want to know about them, and look Jones up on Wikipedia to make up your mind on him.
@decnet100 I searched crap paper and nothing to do with 9/11 came up.... the scientific community is just as beurocratic as the government... you claim there are no credible people coming forward, I give you a bunch, then you tell me to search on wikipedia where anyone can write anything about anyone, heck, after bieber lost a grammy his fans went and wrote false crap and bad things about the person he lost to, wikipedia doesn't hold much credibility
@leafs3113 The CRAP paper (try in combination with "Bentham") was a prank exposing the publisher (Bentham) of several "peer reviewed" journals, among which was the "Open Physical Chemistry Journal" in which the "nanothermite" paper was published. CRAP basically proved that one could get 100% meaningless junk published there if one paid the fee. The so-called Editor of Jones' paper stepped down immediately, claiming that she had never read it and that it's not up to scientific standards at all.
@decnet100 of course she did, she wasn't willing to lose an entire career over one paper, I guarentee she is an editor somewhere else now, and again, on the wikipedia stuff, anyone can say that about him but the people who haven't are the mainstream media who would be the first ones to do it if it were true, and I'm not saying he for sure is right but my resolution is put all the big wigs to a lie detector test and then we'll see the truth
@leafs3113 On the editor: I'm sure she's an editor somewhere else now, but that's not the point - really, if you look at CRAP, it pretty much shows that Bentham didn't let anybody read or even reject the articles they were supposedly "editing". CRAP provided a paper consisting 100% of meaningless computer-generated garbage, and it was published there without a problem! It's a money-making scam for them - if an author pay $800 to put his pdf online (no further costs), who cares about the quality?
@leafs3113 On the editor: I'm sure she's an editor somewhere else now, but that's not the point - really, if you look at CRAP, it pretty much shows that Bentham didn't let anybody read or even reject the articles they were supposedly "editing". CRAP provided a paper consisting 100% of meaningless computer-generated garbage, and it was published there without a problem! It's a money-making scam for them - if an author pay $800 to put his pdf online (no further costs), who cares about the quality?
@leafs3113 The fact that you don't hear TOO MUCH (there is some) bashing of Steve Jones in the mainstream media (don't they pretty much lie all the time, according to your side?) is actually indicative of one thing - 9/11 conspiracy sells. Seriously though, the cold fusion scandal happened back in the 1980s and is all but forgotten, on the Maya-Jesus connection however you can read his own words from 2005 - "Behold my Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America".
@leafs3113 The fact that you don't hear TOO MUCH (there is some) bashing of Steve Jones in the mainstream media (don't they pretty much lie all the time, according to your side?) is actually indicative of one thing - 9/11 conspiracy sells. Seriously though, the cold fusion scandal happened back in the 1980s and is all but forgotten, on the Maya-Jesus connection however you can read his own words from 2005 - "Behold my Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America".
@decnet100 Whatever, your "side' claims everything is a lie and the government is a good moral body... wake up.... I also don't have a side as I've already said, just point to facts and currently the facts are pointing to an inside job.... the government also has a history, search Operation Northwoods
@leafs3113 Oh trust me, I'm not taking "the government's" side... after all, I'm not even from your country, why would I be caring so much about a past administration of it? They don't pay me, you know... It really angers me when "truthers" behave like they are the keepers of secret information, when actually they didn't conduct one bit of original research and couldn't be bothered to check any "facts" they receive from their leaders. See WTC 6 explosion, Atta passport and so on and on...
@leafs3113 And for the record, I was an am against the Iraq / Afghanistan wars, always thought GW Bush was one of the worst US presidents and do actually think 9/11 still holds several secrets - just not "they brought the buildings down with silent explosives after making it look exactly like terrorists flew planes into them, and then accidentally told everybody about it in an interview". It would take a MASSIVE conspiracy to even prepare this, let alone cover it. It's not plausible.
@decnet100 first off, the Omar Atta thing was a lie because the BBC talked to his dad who said he talked to him and didn't know why his son was on the TV... and they found 7 of the accused terrorists alive and well... I don't neccesarily believe the whole truther thing either, but there are suspicious things, I just think the government at least knew and helped so they could go to war (the explosives were never said to be silent either) search Operation Northwoods and you'll see it is plausible
@leafs3113 Please, try more precision, it helps with appearing reasonable in an argument. Who is Omar Atta? The Hijacker involved in 9/11 was called Mohamed Atta (no Omar middle name or anything like that). His father reported an ever changing story about his son, soon claiming that he hadn't spoken to him at all for over a year, when in fact he had visited him in Florida two weeks before the attacks according to flight tickets and airport security video. This man is lieing to defend his son.
@leafs3113 About the terrorist suspects I already told you before, please don't bring stuff like that up for seven times - they were SUSPECTS, not the actual terrorists, who ARE by now known. On the bright side, it's nice to hear that you don't believe EVERYTHING the truthers say (although I have to say it would take a VERY special kind of man to believe in mini-nukes, explosives, thermite, holographic planes filled with thermite AND a space weapon bringing down WTC all at once).
@decnet100 so now they are just suspects because the FBI was proven wrong even though within hours they claimed these were the 19 most evil men on earth... brutal, yes mohamed atta is what I was meaning, I wa thinking of the accused Canadian who the americans called a terrorist when he was 15 but anyways..... who said anything about space weapons, or mini nukes.... personally I think those are debunkers trying to make the truth movement look stupid but who knows, NO ONE EVER WILL
@leafs3113 I merely told you to look up S. Jones in Wikipedia for a quick overview of his "interesting" career. It's not particularly relevant for my argument, but amusing nevertheless. Hint: Involved in the biggest result-fakery in the history of physics, tries to prove that Jesus visited North America and taught the Mayans. Follow the links and do some research on him, if you're not believing what you see and/or think his opinion matters.
@decnet100 No one is ever going to write an article about it, for one all of the scientific evidence was destroyed immediately and actually there was a report b Steve Jones (I think that's his name) who WAS a professor at BYU who lost his job for going against the 9/11 report.... and there has been skeptics of it, it's also pretty crazy to say that 19 highjackers who were amateur pilots flew huge planes into two of the biggest buildings in the world which then came down in 11 seconds
@decnet100 Oh and I didn't mention that the BBC has interviewed seven of the accused highjackers ALIVE AND WELL, what about the FBI finding a passport in perfect conditon after the towers fell even though there was a huge exposion and no plane parts were found apparently..... also sounds like a huge conspiracy.... again, all I am saying is there are lots of fishy things that went on
@leafs3113 BBC: Distortion of truth. They interviewed people who were suspected of being hijackers, when the actual hijackers were not yet determined 100%. FBI finding passport on rubble after towers collapsed: Mostly false. An unknown man in a business suit brought a passport that he found on the street to a police station right after the first plane impacted. Usually, the CT people even get the name wrong, they say it was Atta's, when actually it was al-Suqami's.
@leafs3113 BBC: Distortion of truth. They interviewed people who were suspected of being hijackers, when the actual hijackers were not yet determined 100%. FBI finding passport on rubble after towers collapsed: Mostly false. An unknown man in a business suit brought a passport that he found on the street to a police station right after the first plane impacted. Usually, the CT people even get the name wrong, they say it was Atta's, when actually it was al-Suqami's.
yes some rubble spilled out into the street. i don't know where you got the notion that 'falling into its own footprint' = 'stacked in a neat, tidy little pile'. OF COURSE it would spill out into the street.
herp derp.
you coincidence theory 'duh-bunkers' are really reaching for every last straw, eh?
It was more than that. WTC 7's collapse seriously damaged Fiterman Hall (30 W. Broadway), requiring its demolition and reconstruction. Just because you don't see it in a YouTube video doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Now watch firefighters there not coached or represented by a whiner trying to still believe that his country is not ran by evil people who would and could easily decieve there own for power and money. "911 firefighters tell what they saw" not a paid coverartist paid to put out more propaganda defending true perpretrators. If these conspiracy people are so whacko why do you spend your time fighting the people who pieced this deception project together. Thank them for exposing the rich and wicked
Just watch one of these many videos that prove firefighters support explosions that day were controlled Demolitian. I'm not gonna call these heroes liars. saying what they are implying is not true when they were there is trully wrong. "Explosive Testimony! /MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses."
i would like to know more about the fire fighter in the video because based upon the fema report which said they stopped fire fighting because they ran out of water due to a burst pipe fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf i would have to suggest someone is lying. as for it falling into it owns footprint, even the best demolitions can't be 100% into their own foot print the other building were all very close to each other
@PoetryHound "Why would the firefighters lie about not having sufficient water to fight the fires?"- your asking the wrong person because it is Silverstein's account which contradicts the firefighters version,even demolitions go wrong sometimes but especially when you consider the randomness of fire mixed in so the fact it wasn't 100% into it's own footprint doesn't over write the fact that it fell at free fall speed of first 10 seconds and was only steel framed building to fall because of fire
@Antibilderberg88 Accoridng to the firefighters, there was insufficient water. They weren't lying about it but you are.
Silverstein's account doesn't contradict the firefighters.
No, it didn't fall at free fall for first 10 secs. It fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds after an initial period slower than free fall and a period afterwards that was likewise slower than free fall.
No, it was not the only steel framed building to fall from fire.
@PoetryHound i agree that the firefighters didn't lie and there was insufficient water but then why did Silerstein say he order the fire fighters out of the building when it wasn''t his call?
my appologies about the speed i was wrong however why don't you explain how any steal frame building can fall at free fall speed for any length of time and have no part of the building resist it. Even NIST said a building as to have nothing resisting it. it was the only steel framed high rise
Only a portion of the building fell at free fall and then only for a brief 2.25 second period. In a building with design redundancy, a weakened column doesn't cause a localized collapse. Instead, its assigned load is transferred to other columns. If multiple columns are weakened and there are insufficient additional columns to which to transfer load, then a number of columns will collapse at about the same time.
@Antibilderberg88 Other steel buildings have collapsed from fire. That's because fire can weaken steel. WTC 7 happens to be the first skyscraper to collapse from fire. And so what? Are you claiming nothing can happen if it's never happened before? That's not very smart.
@PoetryHound it can't happen without an explanation and one had not been provided. but hey you tell me what temp the fire was and how hot steel needs to be before it fails.
@PoetryHound exactly half it's strength not all of it and how does all of the building fail at the same time when on half of the steel lost it's strength? the steel didn't just fail but it failed so fast all att one time that the building was in free fall for a period of time lol. so 1) the steel only lost half it's strength and 2) the steel frame manage to fail so bad it drop at free fall speed for a period lol. That can not be explained by science even fema admitted that.
@Antibilderberg88 It starts weakening at temps as low as 250C. Office fires can reach 1,000C. Whether a column can handle a load depends not only on the temp but on availability of other intact columns to which to transfer load and the amount of kinetic energy from above.
Who says freefall isn't explained by science? No one says freefall can only be caused by demolition. No one except 911 truthers.
@PoetryHound lmfao please show me evidence of steal weakening enough to fail at 250c lol and free fall needs for the columns on a building to be taken away so fast that the path of greatest resistance no longer resists and therefore become the path of least resistance.If this was not to happen then the building would not fall fast enough because the frame would be resisting it. That is called the laws of gravity as Isaac Newton created them or found them however you look at it.
@Antibilderberg88 I never said steel fails at 250C. That's a misread by you. I said it starts WEAKENING at 250C. I don't see what's so difficult to understand. Fire can weaken steel. That's why they coat it with fireproofing. In a building with design redundancy, multiple columns can fail at the same time.
Downward wasn't the path greatest resistance. It was the path of gravity & insufficient resistance.
Only non-physicists claim the mainstream version violates laws of physics.
@PoetryHound another statement made which isn't based on facts physics911 truth you have yet again failed to provide any evidence to anything you claim. "Fire can weaken steel" yes it can but at what temperature and how did building 7 reach this temperature? I'm glad to see that you have admitted that your 250c statement was just a pointless rouse to make the official story sound in anyway plausible. Facts before opinion i refuse to deal with you people any more until you use facts
@Antibilderberg88 I'm very glad to see you have admitted you don't know the first thing about fire and steel and temperature, and that you have no facts on your side, only suspicions. So your beliefs are based on faith, not science.
I've provided facts on the temps at which steel weakens and that office fires can reach. Here's another fact. Exterior columns on the fire floors of the twin towers were observed to buckle and distort shortly before collapse. What temp do you suppose they reached?
@PoetryHound lol that you official story tellers all over isn't, you are asked a straight forward question which should be easy to answer since it should be an important part of why you believe the official story and yet you just can answer it. In fact you have just asked the person who believes the complete opposite to you the same questions back lol. Can you people not think for yourselves or do you wait for the news to tell you what you will be thinking lol. What do you think? lol lol lol
@PoetryHound lol i am the only one who has referenced everything statement made i still have not seen you offer one piece of evidence but hey you just ignore that little fact just like you ignore every other fact. You talk the talk but when it comes to facts and evidence your lot always fall short lol lmfao
@Antibilderberg88 Still no facts on temperature, fire, or steel. Only faith. That's why the twoof movement is in such poor shape. All you have is delusion and faith, no facts. At least you're good for one thing: comedy. LOL!
@PoetryHound what would you like me to educate you then since you clearly have no facts of your own to disprove the truth movement lol. Lets start with watch?v=1oBggYfntEk and you will find the rest of the proof on my blog which has a whole section on the truth about 9/11 - worldundercontrol.blogspot.com/2011/07/911-proof-pack-911-was-inside-job.html
@PoetryHound so where is your facts???? where is your blog explaining your opinion???? where is your videos??? no you people don't bother finding out the fact just burying your head in the sand.
@Antibilderberg88 And STILL no facts from you. You're identical to moon landing deniers demanding that normal people prove there were moon landings. You're like alien abduction believers demanding facts that prove there's no such thing as alien abduction. I'll stick with the facts provided by structural engineers, forensic engineers, materials engineers, and fire protection engineers from government agencies, private firms, and universities. You can stick to the voices in your head.
@PoetryHound You are saying that building 7 fell from fire but you can't prove how and why. who has gave this evidence or proof because i am willing to change my mind if you can show me the evidence.
@Antibilderberg88 No, you're not willing to change your mind. Truthers never change their mind. The proof is that you ignore what is said by people with expertise and experience. If you ignore them or discount what they say, you'll remain lost.
@PoetryHound there is people on all sides with expertise and experience so you can put that card away. there is even firemen who were there and are part of firefighters for 9/11 truth. The problem you have is that you have no proof and not only do you ignore facts you tell people what they think now. you have refused to debate with facts and evidence and so i will ignore you until you do
@Antibilderberg88 "there is people on all sides with expertise and experience"
No there aren't. How many highrise structural engineers say explosives brought down the towers? Zero.
Which FDNY from 9/11 are members of Firefighters for 9/11 truth? Zero
The problem you have is you ignore consistently ignore the facts, including those I provided, and what people with the requisite expertise & experience have to say & instead swallow the BS of kooks and charlatans.
@PoetryHound duh i know how i know the fire fighters were at ground zero but i am ask you for YOUR proof. you people never offer prove or evidence you just say whatever the government/news media tell you without independent thought. that's why you are called sheeple
also, from all the photo's i've seen, the building hasnt got any bulges, and isnt showing any of the signs the supposed firefighter in this video says are there....
“We were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Ctr would collapse…Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, & we had put a transit on that & we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.” –FDNY Dep. Chief Peter Hayden
alright smarty pants when the fireman reported that the whole side of Building 7 was almost completely destroyed, how did that damage get there when tower1 and 2 were still standing? Way too many real firemen that day compared to this idiot heard and experienced explosions that should not have been taking place before collapse of any buildings. So stick that in your pipe it smoke it. Basically you need to open your eyes and quit being stubborn about things when you way off base. Wake up!
@MrMZaccone yes you can. there are many, many pictures both on youtube and google that show damage to the tower-side of WTC 7 BEFORE the towers came down.
They are very common, so you shouldnt have trouble finding them.
@BuckSystem It should be called Firefighter for 911 Truth because it's basically one guy. He went around collected names of other firefighters but he's done no serious analysis. Significantly, the number of NY firefighters who've signed up is zero. Gage intentionally twists the words of the FDNY.
The firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and leaning and likely to collapse. That pretty much kills the demo conspiracy theory right there.
@BuckSystem Gage intentionally misinterpreted the firemen. They heard explosions, sure, which are common in fires. How many of the firemen say they literally believe those were detonation charges & that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition? None.
The firemen said they knew WTC 7 was probably going to collapse. But it wasn't because they had inside knowledge of some fictitious demolition plot. They said the building was unstable.
@thx1138aa well that begs the question about how a steel framed building was taken down by fire after in a rather short space of time compared to the Madrid building fire which lasted 24 hours, the the building still standing afterwards (and the Madrid building wasnt built as strong as any WTC building).
And where did the damage to WTC 7 come from? the towers were still standing, so what happened?
@titytit Some buildings fall quickly from fire. Others take a long time or don't fall at all. There are lots of factors. It doesn't make sense to point to one building that remained standing and claim any building that collapsed is therefore suspicious.
The street isn't the footprint. The verizon building isn't in the footprint. The towers damaged buildings around them, the buildings around them are not part of the footprint. Not that difficult.
Yeah we know, the firefighters miraculously predicted the collapse of an uncompromised building that was coincidentally rigged up with state of the art nano thermite hush-a-bomb technology secretly planted by NWO jews. Keep the laughably preposterous conspiracy cockamamie alive as long as possible! History is no fun without larger-than-life superduper topsecret government plots.
LOL, yeah his 'opinion' turned out to be right too, he must be either psychic, or in on the NWO plot, LOL.
Someone is a little desperate to keep the 9/11 "truth" cult mythology alive aren't they? The firefighters successfully predicted that building 7 was going to collapse and evacuated, which destroys the laughably preposterous theory that the building was uncompromised and had to be demolished by state of the art nano thermite hush-a-bombs....that's all folks.
@IndividualParties I'll be the first to admitt I have no theory as to what really happened. But when it comes to structural integrity, I'll have to side with the opinions of Structural Engineers and Architects over someone with a degree in Fire Science.
um...not all Structural Engineers believe this 9/11 "truth" cockamamie. There are as many "scientists" in the "truth" cult as there are creation "scientists" that believe dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago... the key term here is crackpot. Plus, that "degree in fire science," turned out to be right. He said the building was compromised and about to collapse before it did, and then it collapses. Strange, he's either psychic, an NWO jew, or perhaps he was right.
it's because most of the called "conspiracy theorists" have the same mentality as religious people. They start from a specific point of view, and then search for isolated evidence that confirms that point of view. People don't know shit about physics, about buildings, about explosions, about anything really. Most people would be amazed of the amount of blasting noise you can make with simple home/kitchen products.
"Isolated evidence" No, I would say that ALL evidence supports the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down with explosives. I challenge you to find a SINGLE piece of evidence that directly contradicts this. Just one.
@smitty121981 were you there personally? from the videos I've seen, building 7 was on fire at least since the twin towers wet down, as the antenna hit building 7. There's a video of firefighters talking about how building 7 was too damaged on one side, and that it was not gonna hold up, it would collapse. The thing is, there could be explosives, or there could be aliens inside with lasers, but there was no evidence of it. Everything that happened was plausible with the explanations.
It is incorrect to say that there is no evidence of explosives. Scientists have found tiny fragments of explosives in 4 of four unique dust samples gathered within a week of the event. Please read "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
And a jet fuel and office furnishing fire does NOT explain much of the evidence, such as the high order damage, the large amount of iron or steel melted into droplets, the free fall of WTC7, etc
@smitty121981 There's no firefighters or engineers, to my knowledge, that question the official statements. This is not because people are afraid, check out the story on TWA 800, how there are many, many people questioning the government's and FBI's official statement, in a case where evidence and witness had a more plausible explanation (a missile hitting the plane). Yeah, government is full of bullshit, no question about it, they will try to hide their fuck ups, but they didn't bomb WTC.
@smitty121981 There was plenty of visible fire, on the SOUTH side of the building. There was also a hole gouged into the south side that was at least 30 feet wide and almost 20 stories tall, where debris crashed through WTC7, as well a 6 story hole in the southwest corner. FDNY realized that it was hopeless hours before it actually collapsed, and they said so, several times. Even if you don't trust the government, trust the word of the men who lost 343 brothers that day.
"There was plenty of visible fire, on the SOUTH side of the building. " I'm sorry but I was talking about the time of collapse. No one could see the south side of the building when it collapsed.
If firefighters knew the building would collapse hours ahead of time, then their testimony directly contradicts NIST's theory.
And the hole on the SW corner was the only large hole that debris caused. The collapse initiated on the opposite side of the building from this.
@smitty121981 Since the fires hadn't been contained, and FDNY decided to let them burn, we can assume they went unchecked right up to the moment the building came down. And the SW corner hole was not the only damage; there was a large section of the building "scooped out" (according to FDNY) on the south side. And FDNY saw the building was unstable, which is why they pulled back and didn't try to fight the fires. Like I said -- listen to them, they were the ones who saw it.
"there was a large section of the building 'scooped out' " Yes, when you see this type of language they ARE referring to the SW corner!! If you wish to claim otherwise you need to provide some evidence.
"Like I said -- listen to them, they were the ones who saw it." And like I said, if they knew the building was going to come down, this directly contradict's NIST's theory!! So maybe YOU should listen to them!!
@smitty121981 Wrong. "Pieces of WTC1 hit WTC7, severing 6 columns on floors 7-17 on the south face and 1 column on the west face near the SW corner. The debris also caused structural damage between floor 44 and the roof." (NIST report, p. 16) That's damage to BOTH the south face and the SW corner.
Read the NIST quote that you posted again. It's a little tricky how they worded it, but the damage to the south face and the damage to the west face were BOTH at the SW corner. It's the SAME hole. Look at figure 2-1 on page 17 in NCSTAR 1-A to see what I am talking about.
The failures that NIST claims were the cause of the collapse of WTC7 could not have possibly been visible at 2:30. Not in any way. THAT's the contradiction.
@smitty121981 The diagram in the NIST report on p. 17 shows damage to the center of the south face, not just the corner -- structural damage to columns. And if the decision had been made to keep firefighters out of the building, don't you think that the firefighters would assume it's because the structure is in danger? So when they're asked, "Why are you pulling back?", the answer would be "because the building's in danger of collapse".
@smitty121981 The report also stated that the failure of column 79, which initiated the collapse, happened as a result of the fires spreading toward the northeast end of the building, and the floor failures surrounding the column. This corroborates the reports of creaking being heard from the building between 3 and 5 pm. It also states that removing part of column 79, even without fire, would initiate a collapse of the building. The fire only accelerated the process.
"reports of creaking being heard from the building between 3 and 5 pm." First, didn't you just say that everyone was pulled out by 2:30?? Second, metal creaking in a fire does NOT in any way shape or form mean that an entire skyscraper is about to fall through itself in free fall.
And you do realize that column 79 is on the complete opposite side of the building from the debris damage, right? It is the core column farthest to the NE, and it was NOT weakened by fire either!!
@smitty121981 you obviously haven't read the NIST report, then. The report specifically states that the failure of column 79 initiated the collapse, and that column 79 was compromised by the failure of the floors around it (floors 7- 13). It also states that the fires had spread unckecked to the NE side of the building by mid-afternoon. And the reports of creaking came between 3 and 5 pm, from OUTSIDE the building. Read the report, or go back into the echo chamber and believe whatever you want.
"[the debris damage] was far removed from the buckled column that initiated collapse." NCSTAR 1-A pg. xxxvii
"Calculated fire-elevated temperatures in the interior columns, including Columns 79, 80, and 81, stayed below 200C on all floors...At these temperatures, structural steel experiences relatively little loss of strength or stiffness. Thus, WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns." NCSTAR 1-A pg. 53
@smitty121981 Exactly. The fire had spread through the _floors_, and weakened the _floors_, putting additional load on columns 79-81 they were not designed to handle. The columns didn't fail due to fire _directly_, they failed due to fire _indirectly_. Analysis showed that removing only 2 floors' worth of column 79 would initiate a global collapse, and it showed there was no explosion that could've caused that failure. WTC7 came down because of fire, but not because the columns weakened.
"Analysis showed that removing only 2 floors' worth of column 79 would initiate a global collapse" I'm sorry, but NIST did not show this. They claim they did, but their claim is based on a computer model and standard investigative guidelines (NFPA 921) state that a computer model must be validated by empirical evidence. There is NO prior example of a single column failure leading to global collapse in a highrise, and the model's "collapse" does NOT match the video!!
"it showed there was no explosion that could've caused that failure." This is false. They claim that a single very loud explosive would have been too loud. That is all. Testing for the loudness is VERY unorthodox considering that the sound is NOT necessary when defining an explosion. The correct way to test for explosives, which NIST avoided like the plague, is to perform chemical tests like mass spectroscopy and gas chromatography of properly collected debris samples.
"WTC7 came down because of fire, but not because the columns weakened. " Yes, this is exactly what NIST is trying to claim. Read that sentence again and think very hard about it. This was a building that was designed to have entire floors removed if a tenant wanted higher ceilings. It was built to code and none of the steel was even hot enough to warp or bend... yet it fell straight down through itself in free fall!
@smitty121981 Hmm... somehow I don't think the designers anticipated several floors being removed at the same time, or that their tenants would raise the ceilings by burning them down! And by the way, it wasn't free fall, remember? So I'll tell you what: YOU explain how the penthouse went first, how floors 7-13 went first (exactly where the fire was... again, hmmm....), how the other columns went 10 seconds. What's your explanation of the whole event?
"explain how the penthouse went first" Column 79 failed. The question is HOW did column 79 fail.
"it wasn't free fall" In NIST's draft report they tried saying the same thing. However when a high school physics teacher made the basic measurements that proved otherwise, NIST was forced to include the FACT that Building 7 fell in pure free fall for more than 2 seconds.
"how floors 7-13 went first" How do you know the floors that failed?? Nobody could see those floors!
@smitty121981 7-13 went first because they were the ones on 'fire', that was the first clue. A fire that was 'fully involved' and unfought for 7 hours, as per the NYFD who were on the scene. Chief Nigro made the decision to evacuate as they feared collapse 3 hours before it did. Also, WTC7 fell well resistance at first, then freefall then slowed down again due to resistance. How many controlled demos operate like that? I'll answer that for you...none. 10 years and still no hard evidence.
Floors 7 through 13 were NOT visible at the time of collapse. End of discussion. Any talk about those floors being on fire or collapsing first are SPECULATION.
If the firefighters knew the building would fall, this contradicts NIST's conclusion
Building 7 entered freefall after moving downward only 7 feet!! Even after the free fall period, the building continued to gain speed!
hard evidence: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
@smitty121981 Not speculation based on photographic and video evidence, along with the testimony of fire crews. Ridiculous to say that just because it doesn't serve your purpose. How does it contradict NIST? NIST explained the collapse and it corroborated the fire crews version. Where did you pull that one from? What about the east penthouse? Total collapse time 13 seconds, which is 40% slower than freefall. Even Steven Jones admitted they ignored the evidence. I'll post his quote.
"Not speculation based on photographic and video evidence" NO! There is NO photo or video in existence that shoes floors 7 through 13 at the time of collapse!! The last footage of this area comes from around 4 pm.
"How does it contradict NIST?" Because NIST is claiming that this was an extraordinary phenomenon without precedence, so ANY foreknowledge contradicts this. Sorry.
"What about the east penthouse? " yeah... what about it? (look up average vs instantaneous acceleration)
@hornetgags You're correct that NIST corroborated the fire crews. NIST said the thermal mechanics of what happened was extraordinary, but they never said there wouldn't have been the leaning, creaking, instability reported by the FDNY. Why would the fire department decide to form a collapse zone around the building if they didn't think it could collapse?
"''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein"
"To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete."
@smitty121981 "As early as 11:30 am, FDNY found there was no water supplied by the hydrant system to fight the fires.With the collapses fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC7 too might collapse. In the next 2 hours, serious discussions were underway regarding the cessation of efforts to save WTC7, and the final order to cease was given at 2:30 pm." (NIST, p. 18) So where's the contradiction???
Gage says that deformation is not related to a full scale collapse.He agrees there is deformation and that the top of the tower starts to fall to the side and not straight down on top of the rest of the building. If the top of the building did fall straight down this would mean that all 4 sides gave way at the same time. That would mean that the explosion of the jet fuel had the same impact on 3 sides of the building as the plane did on impact on 1 which would blow the steel out not cave it in.
that's all? one clip of one fireman saying the building wasn't structurally sound??? At the least Gage shows tons of clips from that morning with firemen and bystanders saying there were secondary explosions.. He shows that there were sound bites of explosions from the ground floors, witnesses that say explosions were coming from the basement, etc. I'm not saying that he's right, he just offers much more evidence for his arguement...
911 THE Biiiig coincidence we know a steel frame building had never collapsed ever due to fire yet 3 did on that day just a big coincidence we get it or are you still in shock and don't want to believe what's true that it was all part of the plan.
@shemsdawg1 there's apparently a first time for everything. damn, this guy has footage of a firefighter on the scene saying the building looks like it's gonna come down. was he in on the conspiracy too??
@miamiwax that clip seems dubious to me. First, the guy doesn't seem very high energy considering the events of the day, second some unknown guy dressed as a fireman commenting on the structural integrity of a building at a distance and saying it's gonna come down is hardly convincing evidence of everything. Anyway, that's such a typical thing for a certain kind of person witnessing a disaster to say "she's gonna blow! she's gonna blow!" We all know people like that. Sometimes they're right.
@didleybopp OMFG you fucking idiots will say ANYTHING to keep believing your fucking nonsense!
"That's not obama's REAL birth certificate I want to see the long form (which isn't used and isn't valid and you could always see his birth certificate online but whatever FACTS)"
"That's not obama's long form birth certificate that's a photoshop forgery" (Oh christ here we go).
"bin laden isn't really dead/he's been dead for years the photos are fake it's all fake."
Ok, can you explain the 2.25 sec of 9.8 m/s^2 Acceleration?
In the case of ALL three totally destroyed buildings that day,
the downward acceleration was uniform, HOW do you get uniform
acceleration out of Chaotic damage? May I point out that in the case
of ANY structure being completely destroyed, the investigators start
asking questions immediately .... where was the investigation of the crime of the century? delayed by the "decider" who decided that an investigation was not needed?
@watercup123456 Perhaps you could enlighten me just a bit here, exactly what did I say that motivated the remark about "Alex Jones" ... BTW: I am NOT a member of the Alex Jones fan club.
So you're saying that building 7 fell over? I've seen video and I have to say it looks like it's coming straights down... and fast. If it fell over I wouldn't cry foul, but to me it certainly didn't look like it fell over. I agree it looked damaged, maybe the firemen could assess that it wasn't worth trying to fight the fire. However, I think everyone who saw it come down was very surprised.
Iffy50 1 month ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
Hey dorky why don't you show building 5 and 6 they have severe damage 100 times more damage than building 7 and 5 and 6 had to be "pulled" if you don't know that term just watch the other videos when they "pull" or controlled demolition" Silverstein admits to it, Barry Jenkins was walking around in that building, BUILDING 7 WAS TAKEN DOWN BY THE USA GOV
mrfellowship 2 months ago
@mrfellowship
":Silverstein admits to it"
LOL, no he doesn't, you still believe that myth? It's funny how long the 9/11 "truth" cult will continue to repeat something that has been long refuted, like the old "pull it" canard.
"w building 5 and 6 they have severe damage 100 times more damage "
That's not a very rigorous or compelling argument. "100 time more damage," lol, are you sure it wasn't more like 90 times more? Maybe it was a 114 'times' more damage. LOL, wtf?
IndividualParties 2 months ago
sorry dude
you are a waste of time
why don't you end it now?
WTC7 clearly shows puffs of smoke and crimping in the middle of the building.
Unless there is a demolition company that can lay charges in a few hours amid the 911 panic?
Your inane ramblings suggest the following:
Are you another PATRI-IDIOT who has checked into Hotel DeNILE?
islandbuoy4 2 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
Name another steel structured skyscraper that has fallen due to fire before or after 911. Only three have done this and all three on the same day. If you do not believe it to be a controlled demolition, go and watch known controlled demolitions and compare & contrast those videos to the videos of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7. If you still can not see that it was CD brought those three towers down then you need some help.
shroomraptor 3 months ago
@shroomraptor I will name you one when you name me one other time that two jets traveling 500mph crashed into buildings constructed like the WTC towers.
Why do you think watching videos showing how buildings fall down in CD, just like they did on 9/11, prove anything?
Which way were the buildings supposed to fall? Up?
911sausageman 3 months ago
@911sausageman The portion of the buildings above the impact may have fallen that day, if the center core steal columns were severed but the bulk of the building below the impact would not have fallen. It's that simple but I know that is above your head. The buildings fell at near free fall speed, meaning every floor would have to fail instantaneously, which is fucking impossible unless a demolition device(s) were used, which is obvious from watching the numerous videos out there.
shroomraptor 3 months ago
@911sausageman Plus the fact, kerosene doesn't even reach a temperature that could weaken the steal in the building, let alone cause it to melt. How did these kerosene induced fires pulverize concrete to dust? Why is it that the steal was removed from the crime scene before any investigation if the story we've been sold is true? The only time evidence is removed from a crime scene is when someone has something to hide. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
shroomraptor 3 months ago
@911sausageman And while I can not name another building that has withstood 500mph crashes, I do know the Empire had a plane strike it and is still standing. Thing is, the WTC was built to withstand impacts from fully loaded 707's, which outweigh what did strike that day.
Have you ever heard the phrase, if it walks, talks & acts like a duck, then it's a duck before? Well, I believe that sums up your question concerning the compare & contrast known CD's with 911 now does it not?
shroomraptor 3 months ago
@shroomraptor a B-25 lost in the fog hit the Empire State building, a building totally unlike the WTC towers in that it has steel reinforced by concrete.
The WTC DID withstand the impacts from the jetliners. The subsequent fires is what brought the building down.
That you think that because it falls downward IN THE DIRECTION OF GRAVITY like in your precious 'comparison' videos, is simply stupid.
Really impressive how you've learned structural engineering in just a few hours on youtube!
911sausageman 3 months ago
@911sausageman Fire has never brought down a steel structured skyscraper before or after 911, period. Buildings have burned for 20+ hours and were still standing when the fires were put out, so you're fire theory doesn't hold up to reality. Your third paragraph is of your own invention, I do not see where I stated anything you attempt to address in that paragraph. Your fourth isn't even worth the time. Still, tell us what caused the pulverization of the concrete or can you not do this?
shroomraptor 3 months ago
How would the Government Recruit so many people for the so called inside Job?? It is impossible to fool the whole World. IT WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB. QUIT SMOKING CRACK
kguitar765 3 months ago
@kguitar765 PNAC paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 63 calls for a New Pearl Harbor to bring about their plans for the US Military. PNAC is the think tank the neo cons came from. Did they not call this a 'New Pearl Harbor' that day?
shroomraptor 3 months ago
Too many People would have to have been involved in 911. For it to have been successful. You would have to be Retarded to think no one would have Spilled the Beans by now, you think that the Nypd Fdny that had 343 killed would let that happen?? Then your a Lame ROD!!!
kguitar765 3 months ago
I don't believe these quotes, or clips are genuine. These "proofs" didn't appear until after Gage, and others started to really shed light on the strange collapse of Building 7. If these deformations were present, lets see the pictures.
thegooserooster 3 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
@thegooserooster "These "proofs" didn't appear until after Gage, and others started to really shed light on the strange collapse of Building 7".
Actually, the FDNY oral histories were conducted well before that. The FDNY statements show that they believed WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse. That pretty much destroys the CD theories. Truthers are forced into the uncomfortable position of having to claim the firefighters were lying or didn't know what they were talking about.
buddyfreakinhoIIy 3 months ago
Back when the discussion of building 7 was getting alot of attention (enough for the perps to call out one of their big guns to set the story straight...Popular Mechanics) why weren't we shown any of these obviously very revealing photos, or played this audio? There are plenty of questionable video clips that have made it into the public domain that show, or "document" 9-11 Narrative supporting details. The 9-11 perps obviously created some video clips post facto. This may be one of them
thegooserooster 3 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
I've been trying to figure out why these latest releases have suddenly, years later, made their appearance. If these videos/audio clips are genuine, they provide a very low quality of evidence for the following reasons. The video clip discusses the deformation, but for some reason elects not to capture it on video. This is the first I've heard of the entire south side of 7 having a huge hole in it. Why isn't there lots of other pictures/videos showing us close ups of the deformation?
thegooserooster 3 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
This has been flagged as spam show
As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@harryc25 As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
What annoys me is that all the debunkers of what happened take the view and word of a fireman who could be just speculating on whats going to happen and those asking questions can clearly see the building fall into its own footprint, ie. the colapse started at the bottom and the top sinks down into it. Of cousre there iwill be spillin and rubble at the base stories high! its a 47 story fuckin building!!! Where else do you think it would all end up? Its the way it fell is the only interesting bit
harryc25 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@harryc25 As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@harryc25 As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@harryc25 As it was collapsing, WTC 7 also seriously damaged Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
come on, bulky building like that dont fall in 7 seconds. yeah they know it was going to collapse, but a building like that cant go down unless you try. go look up failed demolitions with buildings falling flat on its face and staying intact. hears a little video i found interesting.
watch?v=owyqt-8RnKI
DRcaprice 4 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
@DRcaprice At the point of collapse, its entirely reasonable to presume that the fires that raged for 7 hours had gradually caused all the major supporting structures (ie the stuff you cant see) to collapse. Thats what the fireman is saying.
Then, with only the outer wall present, you see the penthouse suite collapse, indicative of major structural malfunction, then the facade of the building, as there are no supports left whatsoever to speak of supporting it.
Educate yourself my friend.
joefx69 4 months ago
@joefx69 what was fueling the fire? how did the building turn into dust as it was falling? what about the pentagon? your going to tell me that was a 757 that hit? day before 9/11 rumsfeld said they lost 2.3 trillion dollars from the pentagon, next day the pentagon was hit by a "757 jumbo jet" look at the video and the damage and tell me thats a fucking jet. why where all the video tapes confiscated from the pentagon? just dig deeper into this, look at things you dont want to see.
DRcaprice 4 months ago
@DRcaprice What was fuelling the fire?! Is that a serious question? The outer facade isnt supporting structure, as explained, so that easily can turn to dust. As stated, the inside burnt for 7 hours. Instead of telling me to watch a video that all "truthers" use as "evidence", how about you research some real evidence yourself, and look at testimonies of structual engineers explaining the damage, the wreckage of plane that the Pentagon keeps as a memorial, the high res reconstruction etc etc etc
joefx69 4 months ago
@joefx69 structural engineers, architects, and demolitioners have a website expaining how this is impossible, so your point actually proves all the "truthers" right.... ae911truth website if you want proof
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 Umm, hate to break it to you, but the "truthers" among professionals are VASTLY outnumbered by the people who accept the NIST report. Why don't you go and ask some FDNY firefighter eyewitnesses, some demolition professionals or some civil engineers, like from a local construction company, yourself? This relying on a website written by a few disgruntled individuals with (sometimes rather irrelevant) credentials is a bit childish, isn't it?
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 ummmm, hate to break it to you because that's not true... there's lots of videos of fireman coming out of the building claiming there were explosions (and they would know if it were an explosion from fire as its their JOB) the ae911 people have close to 9,000 people (engineers, architects, demolitioners, family members of victims) behind them, there's more than a few and the people who don't believe the NIST report has only continued to grow....
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 Let's stay on the ground a bit, AE911 itself only says they have 1588 professional signing their petition, out of which I counted only 78 licensed civil eng's and 18 structural eng's. Not a single article in any properly peer-reviewed scientific journal has come out in favor of CD at 9/11 - and don't mention the "nanothermite" paper without at least googling "CRAP paper" first. Read the Implosion World article for a representative opinion of the demolition industry community.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 Of course no actual papers or journals are going to write an article claiming 9/11 was an inside job or CD, only way to solve all of this is put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and company to a lie detector test, if they pass, it's the end of all the conspiracy theories, if they fail then the government has some explaining to do from behind bars.... all I am saying is there are a lot of fishy things that happened that day
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 That complete lack of scientific articles I was pointing at exists worldwide (maybe I should point out that over here in Europe we don't only read and search for articles in one language, you know ;) ). You think Bush and his ex-government controlled - and still control - all peer reviewed scientific journals in the world, with 100% effectiveness? Must be one hell of a conspiracy indeed.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 No one is ever going to write an article about it, for one all of the scientific evidence was destroyed immediately and actually there was a report b Steve Jones (I think that's his name) who WAS a professor at BYU who lost his job for going against the 9/11 report.... and there has been skeptics of it, it's also pretty crazy to say that 19 highjackers who were amateur pilots flew huge planes into two of the biggest buildings in the world which then came down in 11 seconds
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 Sorry, but that is just not how the scientific community works. You write an article with evidence, you publish it somewhere. Dr. Jones who was teaching at BYU indeed, was discussing his non-peer-reviewed thesis under a lot of media attention, which BYU felt was damaging the reputation of the school. He then went to publish the "nanothermite" paper at a Bentham publishing - google "CRAP paper" if you want to know about them, and look Jones up on Wikipedia to make up your mind on him.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 I searched crap paper and nothing to do with 9/11 came up.... the scientific community is just as beurocratic as the government... you claim there are no credible people coming forward, I give you a bunch, then you tell me to search on wikipedia where anyone can write anything about anyone, heck, after bieber lost a grammy his fans went and wrote false crap and bad things about the person he lost to, wikipedia doesn't hold much credibility
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 The CRAP paper (try in combination with "Bentham") was a prank exposing the publisher (Bentham) of several "peer reviewed" journals, among which was the "Open Physical Chemistry Journal" in which the "nanothermite" paper was published. CRAP basically proved that one could get 100% meaningless junk published there if one paid the fee. The so-called Editor of Jones' paper stepped down immediately, claiming that she had never read it and that it's not up to scientific standards at all.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 of course she did, she wasn't willing to lose an entire career over one paper, I guarentee she is an editor somewhere else now, and again, on the wikipedia stuff, anyone can say that about him but the people who haven't are the mainstream media who would be the first ones to do it if it were true, and I'm not saying he for sure is right but my resolution is put all the big wigs to a lie detector test and then we'll see the truth
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 On the editor: I'm sure she's an editor somewhere else now, but that's not the point - really, if you look at CRAP, it pretty much shows that Bentham didn't let anybody read or even reject the articles they were supposedly "editing". CRAP provided a paper consisting 100% of meaningless computer-generated garbage, and it was published there without a problem! It's a money-making scam for them - if an author pay $800 to put his pdf online (no further costs), who cares about the quality?
decnet100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leafs3113 On the editor: I'm sure she's an editor somewhere else now, but that's not the point - really, if you look at CRAP, it pretty much shows that Bentham didn't let anybody read or even reject the articles they were supposedly "editing". CRAP provided a paper consisting 100% of meaningless computer-generated garbage, and it was published there without a problem! It's a money-making scam for them - if an author pay $800 to put his pdf online (no further costs), who cares about the quality?
decnet100 4 months ago
@leafs3113 The fact that you don't hear TOO MUCH (there is some) bashing of Steve Jones in the mainstream media (don't they pretty much lie all the time, according to your side?) is actually indicative of one thing - 9/11 conspiracy sells. Seriously though, the cold fusion scandal happened back in the 1980s and is all but forgotten, on the Maya-Jesus connection however you can read his own words from 2005 - "Behold my Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America".
decnet100 4 months ago
@leafs3113 The fact that you don't hear TOO MUCH (there is some) bashing of Steve Jones in the mainstream media (don't they pretty much lie all the time, according to your side?) is actually indicative of one thing - 9/11 conspiracy sells. Seriously though, the cold fusion scandal happened back in the 1980s and is all but forgotten, on the Maya-Jesus connection however you can read his own words from 2005 - "Behold my Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America".
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 Whatever, your "side' claims everything is a lie and the government is a good moral body... wake up.... I also don't have a side as I've already said, just point to facts and currently the facts are pointing to an inside job.... the government also has a history, search Operation Northwoods
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 Oh trust me, I'm not taking "the government's" side... after all, I'm not even from your country, why would I be caring so much about a past administration of it? They don't pay me, you know... It really angers me when "truthers" behave like they are the keepers of secret information, when actually they didn't conduct one bit of original research and couldn't be bothered to check any "facts" they receive from their leaders. See WTC 6 explosion, Atta passport and so on and on...
decnet100 4 months ago
@leafs3113 And for the record, I was an am against the Iraq / Afghanistan wars, always thought GW Bush was one of the worst US presidents and do actually think 9/11 still holds several secrets - just not "they brought the buildings down with silent explosives after making it look exactly like terrorists flew planes into them, and then accidentally told everybody about it in an interview". It would take a MASSIVE conspiracy to even prepare this, let alone cover it. It's not plausible.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 first off, the Omar Atta thing was a lie because the BBC talked to his dad who said he talked to him and didn't know why his son was on the TV... and they found 7 of the accused terrorists alive and well... I don't neccesarily believe the whole truther thing either, but there are suspicious things, I just think the government at least knew and helped so they could go to war (the explosives were never said to be silent either) search Operation Northwoods and you'll see it is plausible
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 Please, try more precision, it helps with appearing reasonable in an argument. Who is Omar Atta? The Hijacker involved in 9/11 was called Mohamed Atta (no Omar middle name or anything like that). His father reported an ever changing story about his son, soon claiming that he hadn't spoken to him at all for over a year, when in fact he had visited him in Florida two weeks before the attacks according to flight tickets and airport security video. This man is lieing to defend his son.
decnet100 4 months ago
@leafs3113 About the terrorist suspects I already told you before, please don't bring stuff like that up for seven times - they were SUSPECTS, not the actual terrorists, who ARE by now known. On the bright side, it's nice to hear that you don't believe EVERYTHING the truthers say (although I have to say it would take a VERY special kind of man to believe in mini-nukes, explosives, thermite, holographic planes filled with thermite AND a space weapon bringing down WTC all at once).
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 so now they are just suspects because the FBI was proven wrong even though within hours they claimed these were the 19 most evil men on earth... brutal, yes mohamed atta is what I was meaning, I wa thinking of the accused Canadian who the americans called a terrorist when he was 15 but anyways..... who said anything about space weapons, or mini nukes.... personally I think those are debunkers trying to make the truth movement look stupid but who knows, NO ONE EVER WILL
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 I merely told you to look up S. Jones in Wikipedia for a quick overview of his "interesting" career. It's not particularly relevant for my argument, but amusing nevertheless. Hint: Involved in the biggest result-fakery in the history of physics, tries to prove that Jesus visited North America and taught the Mayans. Follow the links and do some research on him, if you're not believing what you see and/or think his opinion matters.
decnet100 4 months ago
@decnet100 No one is ever going to write an article about it, for one all of the scientific evidence was destroyed immediately and actually there was a report b Steve Jones (I think that's his name) who WAS a professor at BYU who lost his job for going against the 9/11 report.... and there has been skeptics of it, it's also pretty crazy to say that 19 highjackers who were amateur pilots flew huge planes into two of the biggest buildings in the world which then came down in 11 seconds
leafs3113 4 months ago
@decnet100 Oh and I didn't mention that the BBC has interviewed seven of the accused highjackers ALIVE AND WELL, what about the FBI finding a passport in perfect conditon after the towers fell even though there was a huge exposion and no plane parts were found apparently..... also sounds like a huge conspiracy.... again, all I am saying is there are lots of fishy things that went on
leafs3113 4 months ago
@leafs3113 BBC: Distortion of truth. They interviewed people who were suspected of being hijackers, when the actual hijackers were not yet determined 100%. FBI finding passport on rubble after towers collapsed: Mostly false. An unknown man in a business suit brought a passport that he found on the street to a police station right after the first plane impacted. Usually, the CT people even get the name wrong, they say it was Atta's, when actually it was al-Suqami's.
decnet100 4 months ago
@leafs3113 BBC: Distortion of truth. They interviewed people who were suspected of being hijackers, when the actual hijackers were not yet determined 100%. FBI finding passport on rubble after towers collapsed: Mostly false. An unknown man in a business suit brought a passport that he found on the street to a police station right after the first plane impacted. Usually, the CT people even get the name wrong, they say it was Atta's, when actually it was al-Suqami's.
decnet100 4 months ago
@DRcaprice "your going to tell me that was a 757 that hit?"
If the government was going to say a 757 hit the Pentagon, then why on Earth would they use anything other than a 757?
PoetryHound 4 months ago
Watch "Bush Family Nazi Connection"
allenfix1 5 months ago
yes some rubble spilled out into the street. i don't know where you got the notion that 'falling into its own footprint' = 'stacked in a neat, tidy little pile'. OF COURSE it would spill out into the street.
herp derp.
you coincidence theory 'duh-bunkers' are really reaching for every last straw, eh?
eleutheromaniac 5 months ago in playlist 9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
@eleutheromaniac "some rubble spilled out into the street."
It was more than that. WTC 7's collapse seriously damaged Fiterman Hall (30 W. Broadway), requiring its demolition and reconstruction. Just because you don't see it in a YouTube video doesn't mean it didn't happen.
PoetryHound 4 months ago
lol, now tell them that Ron Paul is just a Trojan Horse with Rush Limbaugh and the gang hiding up his ass.
and watch them start crying.
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." ~Joseph Stalin
VeritasAmantesVocat 5 months ago
your a fucking asshole.....
aguasalgada1 5 months ago in playlist Gage Tells 9/11 Lies
barry jennings
xBriiittaniiix 5 months ago 2
Now watch firefighters there not coached or represented by a whiner trying to still believe that his country is not ran by evil people who would and could easily decieve there own for power and money. "911 firefighters tell what they saw" not a paid coverartist paid to put out more propaganda defending true perpretrators. If these conspiracy people are so whacko why do you spend your time fighting the people who pieced this deception project together. Thank them for exposing the rich and wicked
vilmoroth 5 months ago
Just watch one of these many videos that prove firefighters support explosions that day were controlled Demolitian. I'm not gonna call these heroes liars. saying what they are implying is not true when they were there is trully wrong. "Explosive Testimony! /MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses."
vilmoroth 5 months ago
i just sent one example to you sir. I don't speak without proper investigation like some.
vilmoroth 5 months ago
i would like to know more about the fire fighter in the video because based upon the fema report which said they stopped fire fighting because they ran out of water due to a burst pipe fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf i would have to suggest someone is lying. as for it falling into it owns footprint, even the best demolitions can't be 100% into their own foot print the other building were all very close to each other
Antibilderberg88 6 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Why would the firefighters lie about not having sufficient water to fight the fires?
WTC 7 not only didn't fall in its footprint, it damaged the building at 30 W. Broadway so severely that it required demolition and reconstruction.
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@PoetryHound "Why would the firefighters lie about not having sufficient water to fight the fires?"- your asking the wrong person because it is Silverstein's account which contradicts the firefighters version,even demolitions go wrong sometimes but especially when you consider the randomness of fire mixed in so the fact it wasn't 100% into it's own footprint doesn't over write the fact that it fell at free fall speed of first 10 seconds and was only steel framed building to fall because of fire
Antibilderberg88 6 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Accoridng to the firefighters, there was insufficient water. They weren't lying about it but you are.
Silverstein's account doesn't contradict the firefighters.
No, it didn't fall at free fall for first 10 secs. It fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds after an initial period slower than free fall and a period afterwards that was likewise slower than free fall.
No, it was not the only steel framed building to fall from fire.
You got a LOT of stuff wrong.
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@PoetryHound i agree that the firefighters didn't lie and there was insufficient water but then why did Silerstein say he order the fire fighters out of the building when it wasn''t his call?
my appologies about the speed i was wrong however why don't you explain how any steal frame building can fall at free fall speed for any length of time and have no part of the building resist it. Even NIST said a building as to have nothing resisting it. it was the only steel framed high rise
Antibilderberg88 6 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Silverstein didn't order firefighters out.
Only a portion of the building fell at free fall and then only for a brief 2.25 second period. In a building with design redundancy, a weakened column doesn't cause a localized collapse. Instead, its assigned load is transferred to other columns. If multiple columns are weakened and there are insufficient additional columns to which to transfer load, then a number of columns will collapse at about the same time.
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Other steel buildings have collapsed from fire. That's because fire can weaken steel. WTC 7 happens to be the first skyscraper to collapse from fire. And so what? Are you claiming nothing can happen if it's never happened before? That's not very smart.
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@PoetryHound it can't happen without an explanation and one had not been provided. but hey you tell me what temp the fire was and how hot steel needs to be before it fails.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 A-36 steel loses half its strength at 600C.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound exactly half it's strength not all of it and how does all of the building fail at the same time when on half of the steel lost it's strength? the steel didn't just fail but it failed so fast all att one time that the building was in free fall for a period of time lol. so 1) the steel only lost half it's strength and 2) the steel frame manage to fail so bad it drop at free fall speed for a period lol. That can not be explained by science even fema admitted that.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 It starts weakening at temps as low as 250C. Office fires can reach 1,000C. Whether a column can handle a load depends not only on the temp but on availability of other intact columns to which to transfer load and the amount of kinetic energy from above.
Who says freefall isn't explained by science? No one says freefall can only be caused by demolition. No one except 911 truthers.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound lmfao please show me evidence of steal weakening enough to fail at 250c lol and free fall needs for the columns on a building to be taken away so fast that the path of greatest resistance no longer resists and therefore become the path of least resistance.If this was not to happen then the building would not fall fast enough because the frame would be resisting it. That is called the laws of gravity as Isaac Newton created them or found them however you look at it.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 I never said steel fails at 250C. That's a misread by you. I said it starts WEAKENING at 250C. I don't see what's so difficult to understand. Fire can weaken steel. That's why they coat it with fireproofing. In a building with design redundancy, multiple columns can fail at the same time.
Downward wasn't the path greatest resistance. It was the path of gravity & insufficient resistance.
Only non-physicists claim the mainstream version violates laws of physics.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound another statement made which isn't based on facts physics911 truth you have yet again failed to provide any evidence to anything you claim. "Fire can weaken steel" yes it can but at what temperature and how did building 7 reach this temperature? I'm glad to see that you have admitted that your 250c statement was just a pointless rouse to make the official story sound in anyway plausible. Facts before opinion i refuse to deal with you people any more until you use facts
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 I'm very glad to see you have admitted you don't know the first thing about fire and steel and temperature, and that you have no facts on your side, only suspicions. So your beliefs are based on faith, not science.
I've provided facts on the temps at which steel weakens and that office fires can reach. Here's another fact. Exterior columns on the fire floors of the twin towers were observed to buckle and distort shortly before collapse. What temp do you suppose they reached?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound lol that you official story tellers all over isn't, you are asked a straight forward question which should be easy to answer since it should be an important part of why you believe the official story and yet you just can answer it. In fact you have just asked the person who believes the complete opposite to you the same questions back lol. Can you people not think for yourselves or do you wait for the news to tell you what you will be thinking lol. What do you think? lol lol lol
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Translation: You STILL have no facts, only faith. Typical brainwashed conspiracy kook.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound lol i am the only one who has referenced everything statement made i still have not seen you offer one piece of evidence but hey you just ignore that little fact just like you ignore every other fact. You talk the talk but when it comes to facts and evidence your lot always fall short lol lmfao
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 Still no facts on temperature, fire, or steel. Only faith. That's why the twoof movement is in such poor shape. All you have is delusion and faith, no facts. At least you're good for one thing: comedy. LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoetryHound what would you like me to educate you then since you clearly have no facts of your own to disprove the truth movement lol. Lets start with watch?v=1oBggYfntEk and you will find the rest of the proof on my blog which has a whole section on the truth about 9/11 - worldundercontrol.blogspot.com/2011/07/911-proof-pack-911-was-inside-job.html
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@PoetryHound so where is your facts???? where is your blog explaining your opinion???? where is your videos??? no you people don't bother finding out the fact just burying your head in the sand.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 And STILL no facts from you. You're identical to moon landing deniers demanding that normal people prove there were moon landings. You're like alien abduction believers demanding facts that prove there's no such thing as alien abduction. I'll stick with the facts provided by structural engineers, forensic engineers, materials engineers, and fire protection engineers from government agencies, private firms, and universities. You can stick to the voices in your head.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound You are saying that building 7 fell from fire but you can't prove how and why. who has gave this evidence or proof because i am willing to change my mind if you can show me the evidence.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 No, you're not willing to change your mind. Truthers never change their mind. The proof is that you ignore what is said by people with expertise and experience. If you ignore them or discount what they say, you'll remain lost.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound there is people on all sides with expertise and experience so you can put that card away. there is even firemen who were there and are part of firefighters for 9/11 truth. The problem you have is that you have no proof and not only do you ignore facts you tell people what they think now. you have refused to debate with facts and evidence and so i will ignore you until you do
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 "there is people on all sides with expertise and experience"
No there aren't. How many highrise structural engineers say explosives brought down the towers? Zero.
Which FDNY from 9/11 are members of Firefighters for 9/11 truth? Zero
The problem you have is you ignore consistently ignore the facts, including those I provided, and what people with the requisite expertise & experience have to say & instead swallow the BS of kooks and charlatans.
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound oh so now only high rise structural engineers are qualified to examin building 7 lol ok then how many were on for nist?
where is your evidence for anything you say i mean how do you know who is a memeber of firefighter for 9/11 truth.
This can go on and on so i will ignore everything you say which is referenced and based on facts.
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88
Your first post: "there is even firemen who were there and are part of firefighters for 9/11 truth"
Second post: "how do you know who is a memeber of firefighter for 9/11 truth."
Hahahahaha!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
@PoetryHound duh i know how i know the fire fighters were at ground zero but i am ask you for YOUR proof. you people never offer prove or evidence you just say whatever the government/news media tell you without independent thought. that's why you are called sheeple
Antibilderberg88 5 months ago
@Antibilderberg88 They list their affiliations. So which FDNY from 9/11 are members of Firefighters for 9/11 truth?
PoetryHound 5 months ago
also, from all the photo's i've seen, the building hasnt got any bulges, and isnt showing any of the signs the supposed firefighter in this video says are there....
titytit 6 months ago
@titytit Is this guy lying?
“We were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Ctr would collapse…Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, & we had put a transit on that & we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.” –FDNY Dep. Chief Peter Hayden
PoetryHound 6 months ago
alright smarty pants when the fireman reported that the whole side of Building 7 was almost completely destroyed, how did that damage get there when tower1 and 2 were still standing? Way too many real firemen that day compared to this idiot heard and experienced explosions that should not have been taking place before collapse of any buildings. So stick that in your pipe it smoke it. Basically you need to open your eyes and quit being stubborn about things when you way off base. Wake up!
vilmoroth 6 months ago
@vilmoroth Which firemen heard explosions at the time of WTC 7's collapse?
PoetryHound 6 months ago
@vilmoroth Can you document that? I don't think so.
MrMZaccone 6 months ago
@MrMZaccone yes you can. there are many, many pictures both on youtube and google that show damage to the tower-side of WTC 7 BEFORE the towers came down.
They are very common, so you shouldnt have trouble finding them.
titytit 6 months ago
@titytit Not the damage I'm talking about, that's minor damage by comparison.
MrMZaccone 6 months ago
@MrMZaccone actually i can respond with their testimonies on video that day and on.
vilmoroth 5 months ago
@vilmoroth Do it.
MrMZaccone 5 months ago
@BuckSystem It should be called Firefighter for 911 Truth because it's basically one guy. He went around collected names of other firefighters but he's done no serious analysis. Significantly, the number of NY firefighters who've signed up is zero. Gage intentionally twists the words of the FDNY.
The firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable and leaning and likely to collapse. That pretty much kills the demo conspiracy theory right there.
thx1138aa 6 months ago
@thx1138aa do some research. Many firefighters signed up, and even others from around the world have signed up.
titytit 6 months ago
@BuckSystem Gage intentionally misinterpreted the firemen. They heard explosions, sure, which are common in fires. How many of the firemen say they literally believe those were detonation charges & that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition? None.
The firemen said they knew WTC 7 was probably going to collapse. But it wasn't because they had inside knowledge of some fictitious demolition plot. They said the building was unstable.
Gage simply twisted their words. How honest.
thx1138aa 6 months ago
@thx1138aa well that begs the question about how a steel framed building was taken down by fire after in a rather short space of time compared to the Madrid building fire which lasted 24 hours, the the building still standing afterwards (and the Madrid building wasnt built as strong as any WTC building).
And where did the damage to WTC 7 come from? the towers were still standing, so what happened?
titytit 6 months ago
@titytit Some buildings fall quickly from fire. Others take a long time or don't fall at all. There are lots of factors. It doesn't make sense to point to one building that remained standing and claim any building that collapsed is therefore suspicious.
PoetryHound 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"OF COURSE THERE'S SHIT IN THE STREET!!!!!!"
The street isn't the footprint. The verizon building isn't in the footprint. The towers damaged buildings around them, the buildings around them are not part of the footprint. Not that difficult.
IndividualParties 7 months ago
@BuckSystem
Yeah we know, the firefighters miraculously predicted the collapse of an uncompromised building that was coincidentally rigged up with state of the art nano thermite hush-a-bomb technology secretly planted by NWO jews. Keep the laughably preposterous conspiracy cockamamie alive as long as possible! History is no fun without larger-than-life superduper topsecret government plots.
-_-
IndividualParties 7 months ago
Gage is full of shit. So are those other 9/11 intellectual elites. Chandler and David Ray Griffin.
roquefortfiles 7 months ago
Since when did a fireman become a structural engineer ? It was his "opinion"...that's all folks.
nerblebun 7 months ago
@nerblebun Yeah, wtf do firemen know about burning, unstable buildings? Those morons established a collapse zone around WTC 7. What nitwits.
thx1138aa 7 months ago
@nerblebun
LOL, yeah his 'opinion' turned out to be right too, he must be either psychic, or in on the NWO plot, LOL.
Someone is a little desperate to keep the 9/11 "truth" cult mythology alive aren't they? The firefighters successfully predicted that building 7 was going to collapse and evacuated, which destroys the laughably preposterous theory that the building was uncompromised and had to be demolished by state of the art nano thermite hush-a-bombs....that's all folks.
IndividualParties 7 months ago
@IndividualParties I'll be the first to admitt I have no theory as to what really happened. But when it comes to structural integrity, I'll have to side with the opinions of Structural Engineers and Architects over someone with a degree in Fire Science.
nerblebun 7 months ago
@nerblebun
um...not all Structural Engineers believe this 9/11 "truth" cockamamie. There are as many "scientists" in the "truth" cult as there are creation "scientists" that believe dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago... the key term here is crackpot. Plus, that "degree in fire science," turned out to be right. He said the building was compromised and about to collapse before it did, and then it collapses. Strange, he's either psychic, an NWO jew, or perhaps he was right.
IndividualParties 7 months ago
I take it building 7 collapsed itself as well.
tintin777ful 7 months ago
it's because most of the called "conspiracy theorists" have the same mentality as religious people. They start from a specific point of view, and then search for isolated evidence that confirms that point of view. People don't know shit about physics, about buildings, about explosions, about anything really. Most people would be amazed of the amount of blasting noise you can make with simple home/kitchen products.
WilliamAztech 8 months ago
@WilliamAztech
"Isolated evidence" No, I would say that ALL evidence supports the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down with explosives. I challenge you to find a SINGLE piece of evidence that directly contradicts this. Just one.
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 two boeings flying into them was pretty "evident" to me...
WilliamAztech 8 months ago
@WilliamAztech
two planes flying into the towers does NOT contradict the hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down with explosives. Try again.
And the two plane impacts do NOT, in any way, explain Building 7 falling through itself in free fall without any visible fire!!!
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 were you there personally? from the videos I've seen, building 7 was on fire at least since the twin towers wet down, as the antenna hit building 7. There's a video of firefighters talking about how building 7 was too damaged on one side, and that it was not gonna hold up, it would collapse. The thing is, there could be explosives, or there could be aliens inside with lasers, but there was no evidence of it. Everything that happened was plausible with the explanations.
WilliamAztech 8 months ago
@WilliamAztech
It is incorrect to say that there is no evidence of explosives. Scientists have found tiny fragments of explosives in 4 of four unique dust samples gathered within a week of the event. Please read "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
And a jet fuel and office furnishing fire does NOT explain much of the evidence, such as the high order damage, the large amount of iron or steel melted into droplets, the free fall of WTC7, etc
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 There's no firefighters or engineers, to my knowledge, that question the official statements. This is not because people are afraid, check out the story on TWA 800, how there are many, many people questioning the government's and FBI's official statement, in a case where evidence and witness had a more plausible explanation (a missile hitting the plane). Yeah, government is full of bullshit, no question about it, they will try to hide their fuck ups, but they didn't bomb WTC.
WilliamAztech 8 months ago
@WilliamAztech
firefightersfor911truth. org
ae911truth. org
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 There was plenty of visible fire, on the SOUTH side of the building. There was also a hole gouged into the south side that was at least 30 feet wide and almost 20 stories tall, where debris crashed through WTC7, as well a 6 story hole in the southwest corner. FDNY realized that it was hopeless hours before it actually collapsed, and they said so, several times. Even if you don't trust the government, trust the word of the men who lost 343 brothers that day.
TarisioConductor 8 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"There was plenty of visible fire, on the SOUTH side of the building. " I'm sorry but I was talking about the time of collapse. No one could see the south side of the building when it collapsed.
If firefighters knew the building would collapse hours ahead of time, then their testimony directly contradicts NIST's theory.
And the hole on the SW corner was the only large hole that debris caused. The collapse initiated on the opposite side of the building from this.
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 Since the fires hadn't been contained, and FDNY decided to let them burn, we can assume they went unchecked right up to the moment the building came down. And the SW corner hole was not the only damage; there was a large section of the building "scooped out" (according to FDNY) on the south side. And FDNY saw the building was unstable, which is why they pulled back and didn't try to fight the fires. Like I said -- listen to them, they were the ones who saw it.
TarisioConductor 8 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"there was a large section of the building 'scooped out' " Yes, when you see this type of language they ARE referring to the SW corner!! If you wish to claim otherwise you need to provide some evidence.
"Like I said -- listen to them, they were the ones who saw it." And like I said, if they knew the building was going to come down, this directly contradict's NIST's theory!! So maybe YOU should listen to them!!
smitty121981 8 months ago
@smitty121981 Wrong. "Pieces of WTC1 hit WTC7, severing 6 columns on floors 7-17 on the south face and 1 column on the west face near the SW corner. The debris also caused structural damage between floor 44 and the roof." (NIST report, p. 16) That's damage to BOTH the south face and the SW corner.
TarisioConductor 8 months ago
@TarisioConductor
Read the NIST quote that you posted again. It's a little tricky how they worded it, but the damage to the south face and the damage to the west face were BOTH at the SW corner. It's the SAME hole. Look at figure 2-1 on page 17 in NCSTAR 1-A to see what I am talking about.
The failures that NIST claims were the cause of the collapse of WTC7 could not have possibly been visible at 2:30. Not in any way. THAT's the contradiction.
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 The diagram in the NIST report on p. 17 shows damage to the center of the south face, not just the corner -- structural damage to columns. And if the decision had been made to keep firefighters out of the building, don't you think that the firefighters would assume it's because the structure is in danger? So when they're asked, "Why are you pulling back?", the answer would be "because the building's in danger of collapse".
TarisioConductor 7 months ago
@smitty121981 The report also stated that the failure of column 79, which initiated the collapse, happened as a result of the fires spreading toward the northeast end of the building, and the floor failures surrounding the column. This corroborates the reports of creaking being heard from the building between 3 and 5 pm. It also states that removing part of column 79, even without fire, would initiate a collapse of the building. The fire only accelerated the process.
TarisioConductor 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"reports of creaking being heard from the building between 3 and 5 pm." First, didn't you just say that everyone was pulled out by 2:30?? Second, metal creaking in a fire does NOT in any way shape or form mean that an entire skyscraper is about to fall through itself in free fall.
And you do realize that column 79 is on the complete opposite side of the building from the debris damage, right? It is the core column farthest to the NE, and it was NOT weakened by fire either!!
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 you obviously haven't read the NIST report, then. The report specifically states that the failure of column 79 initiated the collapse, and that column 79 was compromised by the failure of the floors around it (floors 7- 13). It also states that the fires had spread unckecked to the NE side of the building by mid-afternoon. And the reports of creaking came between 3 and 5 pm, from OUTSIDE the building. Read the report, or go back into the echo chamber and believe whatever you want.
TarisioConductor 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
but what I pointed out IS in the report!
"[the debris damage] was far removed from the buckled column that initiated collapse." NCSTAR 1-A pg. xxxvii
"Calculated fire-elevated temperatures in the interior columns, including Columns 79, 80, and 81, stayed below 200C on all floors...At these temperatures, structural steel experiences relatively little loss of strength or stiffness. Thus, WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns." NCSTAR 1-A pg. 53
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 Exactly. The fire had spread through the _floors_, and weakened the _floors_, putting additional load on columns 79-81 they were not designed to handle. The columns didn't fail due to fire _directly_, they failed due to fire _indirectly_. Analysis showed that removing only 2 floors' worth of column 79 would initiate a global collapse, and it showed there was no explosion that could've caused that failure. WTC7 came down because of fire, but not because the columns weakened.
TarisioConductor 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"Analysis showed that removing only 2 floors' worth of column 79 would initiate a global collapse" I'm sorry, but NIST did not show this. They claim they did, but their claim is based on a computer model and standard investigative guidelines (NFPA 921) state that a computer model must be validated by empirical evidence. There is NO prior example of a single column failure leading to global collapse in a highrise, and the model's "collapse" does NOT match the video!!
smitty121981 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"it showed there was no explosion that could've caused that failure." This is false. They claim that a single very loud explosive would have been too loud. That is all. Testing for the loudness is VERY unorthodox considering that the sound is NOT necessary when defining an explosion. The correct way to test for explosives, which NIST avoided like the plague, is to perform chemical tests like mass spectroscopy and gas chromatography of properly collected debris samples.
smitty121981 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"WTC7 came down because of fire, but not because the columns weakened. " Yes, this is exactly what NIST is trying to claim. Read that sentence again and think very hard about it. This was a building that was designed to have entire floors removed if a tenant wanted higher ceilings. It was built to code and none of the steel was even hot enough to warp or bend... yet it fell straight down through itself in free fall!
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 Hmm... somehow I don't think the designers anticipated several floors being removed at the same time, or that their tenants would raise the ceilings by burning them down! And by the way, it wasn't free fall, remember? So I'll tell you what: YOU explain how the penthouse went first, how floors 7-13 went first (exactly where the fire was... again, hmmm....), how the other columns went 10 seconds. What's your explanation of the whole event?
TarisioConductor 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"explain how the penthouse went first" Column 79 failed. The question is HOW did column 79 fail.
"it wasn't free fall" In NIST's draft report they tried saying the same thing. However when a high school physics teacher made the basic measurements that proved otherwise, NIST was forced to include the FACT that Building 7 fell in pure free fall for more than 2 seconds.
"how floors 7-13 went first" How do you know the floors that failed?? Nobody could see those floors!
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 7-13 went first because they were the ones on 'fire', that was the first clue. A fire that was 'fully involved' and unfought for 7 hours, as per the NYFD who were on the scene. Chief Nigro made the decision to evacuate as they feared collapse 3 hours before it did. Also, WTC7 fell well resistance at first, then freefall then slowed down again due to resistance. How many controlled demos operate like that? I'll answer that for you...none. 10 years and still no hard evidence.
hornetgags 7 months ago
@hornetgags
Floors 7 through 13 were NOT visible at the time of collapse. End of discussion. Any talk about those floors being on fire or collapsing first are SPECULATION.
If the firefighters knew the building would fall, this contradicts NIST's conclusion
Building 7 entered freefall after moving downward only 7 feet!! Even after the free fall period, the building continued to gain speed!
hard evidence: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 Not speculation based on photographic and video evidence, along with the testimony of fire crews. Ridiculous to say that just because it doesn't serve your purpose. How does it contradict NIST? NIST explained the collapse and it corroborated the fire crews version. Where did you pull that one from? What about the east penthouse? Total collapse time 13 seconds, which is 40% slower than freefall. Even Steven Jones admitted they ignored the evidence. I'll post his quote.
hornetgags 7 months ago
@hornetgags
"Not speculation based on photographic and video evidence" NO! There is NO photo or video in existence that shoes floors 7 through 13 at the time of collapse!! The last footage of this area comes from around 4 pm.
"How does it contradict NIST?" Because NIST is claiming that this was an extraordinary phenomenon without precedence, so ANY foreknowledge contradicts this. Sorry.
"What about the east penthouse? " yeah... what about it? (look up average vs instantaneous acceleration)
smitty121981 7 months ago
@hornetgags You're correct that NIST corroborated the fire crews. NIST said the thermal mechanics of what happened was extraordinary, but they never said there wouldn't have been the leaning, creaking, instability reported by the FDNY. Why would the fire department decide to form a collapse zone around the building if they didn't think it could collapse?
thx1138aa 7 months ago
@TarisioConductor
"''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein"
"To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete."
-- NY Times, 1989
smitty121981 7 months ago
@smitty121981 "As early as 11:30 am, FDNY found there was no water supplied by the hydrant system to fight the fires.With the collapses fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC7 too might collapse. In the next 2 hours, serious discussions were underway regarding the cessation of efforts to save WTC7, and the final order to cease was given at 2:30 pm." (NIST, p. 18) So where's the contradiction???
TarisioConductor 8 months ago
Gage says that deformation is not related to a full scale collapse.He agrees there is deformation and that the top of the tower starts to fall to the side and not straight down on top of the rest of the building. If the top of the building did fall straight down this would mean that all 4 sides gave way at the same time. That would mean that the explosion of the jet fuel had the same impact on 3 sides of the building as the plane did on impact on 1 which would blow the steel out not cave it in.
andrewgregory4783 8 months ago
woody allen??
daveh441 8 months ago
Smoke another one idiot
cagoodson70 8 months ago
that's all? one clip of one fireman saying the building wasn't structurally sound??? At the least Gage shows tons of clips from that morning with firemen and bystanders saying there were secondary explosions.. He shows that there were sound bites of explosions from the ground floors, witnesses that say explosions were coming from the basement, etc. I'm not saying that he's right, he just offers much more evidence for his arguement...
SuperCodeman23 9 months ago
When Larry Silverstein says "Pull it." ... you pull it.
manufactured00 9 months ago
911 THE Biiiig coincidence we know a steel frame building had never collapsed ever due to fire yet 3 did on that day just a big coincidence we get it or are you still in shock and don't want to believe what's true that it was all part of the plan.
shemsdawg1 9 months ago
@shemsdawg1 there's apparently a first time for everything. damn, this guy has footage of a firefighter on the scene saying the building looks like it's gonna come down. was he in on the conspiracy too??
miamiwax 9 months ago
@miamiwax that clip seems dubious to me. First, the guy doesn't seem very high energy considering the events of the day, second some unknown guy dressed as a fireman commenting on the structural integrity of a building at a distance and saying it's gonna come down is hardly convincing evidence of everything. Anyway, that's such a typical thing for a certain kind of person witnessing a disaster to say "she's gonna blow! she's gonna blow!" We all know people like that. Sometimes they're right.
didleybopp 9 months ago
@didleybopp OMFG you fucking idiots will say ANYTHING to keep believing your fucking nonsense!
"That's not obama's REAL birth certificate I want to see the long form (which isn't used and isn't valid and you could always see his birth certificate online but whatever FACTS)"
"That's not obama's long form birth certificate that's a photoshop forgery" (Oh christ here we go).
"bin laden isn't really dead/he's been dead for years the photos are fake it's all fake."
Yep its all a conspiracy sure.
watercup123456 9 months ago
Ok, can you explain the 2.25 sec of 9.8 m/s^2 Acceleration?
In the case of ALL three totally destroyed buildings that day,
the downward acceleration was uniform, HOW do you get uniform
acceleration out of Chaotic damage? May I point out that in the case
of ANY structure being completely destroyed, the investigators start
asking questions immediately .... where was the investigation of the crime of the century? delayed by the "decider" who decided that an investigation was not needed?
DeepSpace8andahalf 9 months ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf F=MA, E=MC^2
LEARN PHYSICS PLEASE
And I mean LEARN IT not that fake grade school shit you are watching on youtube and alex jones I MEAN LEARN PHYSICS IN COLLEGE or STFU loser.
watercup123456 9 months ago
@watercup123456 Perhaps you could enlighten me just a bit here, exactly what did I say that motivated the remark about "Alex Jones" ... BTW: I am NOT a member of the Alex Jones fan club.