Do they want to explain how the explosives got to every joint? Nobody noticed an enormous amount of people carrying explosives run into and through the smokey building? And then how did they magically know where the joints were midst the smoke? And how did they managed to get a bomb at each one of those joints, on all 110 stories of the building, and get back out in under 15 minutes?
The explosives couldn't have been there beforehand or they would have been destroyed by the plane crash.
@letsgocaps8 I used to think that too. but governments have kept bigger secrets from us. 130,000 people were employed by the Manhattan Project, but they kept it secret until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or just Google Operation Gladio. That one's a little more relevant to 9/11. My point is, it is a lot more possible to do something big without people noticing than most people imagine.
@kcsccrew42 ??? I never said government doesn't keep secrets form us. I said controlled demolition couldn't happen given the facts. Where did I say government doesn't keep secrets?
And there is a difference between keeping a military project secret and intentionally killing thousands of their own citizens.
@letsgocaps8 ik, but my point was that the government has kept bigger things secret from us that we never found out about until a long time later. and dont be so sure about the last statement you made. just look at operation northwoods. our government was going to commit acts of terrorism (hijackings and bombings) in our own cities, and blame it on the cubans in order to gain public support for going to war with cuba
@kcsccrew42 In northwoods most of the victims were planned to be staged. Nobody would actually die had it been carried out. 9/11 had real victims. It's still different.
@letsgocaps8 yea, MOST of the victims were to be staged. but still, they were framing people to intentionally start a war. look at what 9/11 started. a war. and the president at the time of 9/11. bush. definitely more willing to go to war than JFK. not saying 9/11 actually was an operation northwoods kind of thing, but it does seem a little too similar to not be further investigated.
Totally fake attack, all blames goes to Bush and Israel, who started war against muslim countries by this play, they played withmillions of lives around the world, the resposibles must be punished if there are some kind of justice in the World.
@ 2;52 why does the world trade center look white and then @ 2:53 they look blueish green you would think that if everyone filming the wtc on the exact same day at the exact same time at the exact momment the towers fell it would look the same color in both films.
And how come in this NASA footage of Space Shuttle Discovery's launch from 0:00 to 0:10 the sky is a dark blue-green, and in the next 10 seconds it's pale blue? And the next 10 seconds, it's paler still! It's a conspiracy I tells ya!
That is simply a lie. If you look at the structure collapsing you will notice sections of the exterior wall falling through the air. Free falling absolutely. But the rest of the structure is above this and falling much slower. Its falling fast for sure. But it is not free falling. Its not possible to have material in the air falling below the collapse front and then have the rest of the structure 20 stories above this. If you look at the video this is the case.
@TheHungrySnail I don't agree with that statement either, but I don't appreciate your "debunking" which addresses only one out of the many contentions explicitly stated in this video. Another D-Flunker Fallacy.
On top of no plane hitting WTC 7 there are many pilots that attest that they could not have performed the maneuvers on their best day that those supposedly inexperienced high jackers that where trained on single engine planes. Also the speeds exceeded the planes speed rating - it would have been highly unstable to where a rookie pilot would have no chance in controlling much less hit a target perfectly. see: Pilots for 911 truth.
Guys, even when you can't trace back ANY of the evidence. You'd still have to be a complete retard to think the buildings came straight down at nearly free fall speed by some plane hitting it. seriously. ur all freacking brainwashed
The flagrant misrepresentation of the seismic data here 0:04 is another truther lie, because it does NOT time the towers' collapses; just the impact of the falling debris. Who says so? The seismologists who COLLECTED & ANALYZED that data!
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Arthur Lerner-Lam, seismologist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
I have a question. If the buildings' cores of 1 and 2 had supported those top portions for 30+ years, and the only weakening of steel was at the places of impact, then why did the whole thing come down? Did the acceleration of the top part of the building become the factor in 'too much weight'? And why fall so evenly then? And doesn't this indicate poor safety standards for the architect and builders? Eh, just thinking's all.
@JohnsonSocrates exactly one of the points which makes me question EVERYTHING in my comments below! Just think, 4 side supports to the tower and the plane crashes into ONE of them (NOT ALL FOUR OF THEM AT ONCE) so you would have thought that the building would have collapsed side-ways from the top of the building and down to the crash hole (where one steel support is weakened/damaged or had a chunk taken out - like a tree being felled) NOT like a controlled demolition!
@bbbbisthebest You know what really amazes me about "debunkers?" Is that I have repeatedly posted that comment on many 9/11 youtube vids and such, but no reasonable reply ever is made to it. Actually, no reply at all is made. It makes me wonder am I asking the question no one can answer, is there a doubt, or are people dismissing me as a whole because of the implications of what i am asking. Ah well, truth won't be known as long as criminals run investigations.
@JohnsonSocrates another few points which makes me question 9/11 is that apparantly, Bin Laden supposedly sent a video message DENYING 9/11 was caused by him, only for him to admit to causing it a few days later???!!! That just makes me wonder if all the Bin Laden videos were faked for propaganda purposes to intensify the support for war for the further purposes of political gain by American leaders (of ALL sides - not just Republicans)
Also, HOW could FOUR sets of hijackers/bombers get passed FOUR sets of sucurity measures undetected or without at least one of them being stopped, investigated and the whole cover being blown (which would/should have caused a security lockdown)?????
there were thousands of connections. you need to break 400 of them per second. impossible!
highly stressed connections would have to fail first then the next and so on.. it takes time.
the columns at the core were CLOSED (hollow section) too TOUGH to buckle than those open sections (I-beams or channels). again, it takes time before it fails.
granting the fire melted the steel, wow! so UNIFORM.. almost at the SAME TIME! what's that a steak on the oven or something? so evenly cooked.
@tpgphotog Dude, those speeds are not possible to sustain if you want your plane to stay intact. You think the kamikaze pilots wanted their planes to remain intact? Those speeds are possible in a power dive if you have no interest in survival, which is precisely what happened.
How the heck to you place explosives on every single floor without someone noticing you anyway? Besides if it was demolished Stairway B wouldn't have survived. Think for yourself; don't be so gullible.
the government is a dirty fat lie....y they tryin 2 keep everything secret....its only makin pple want to find out more.....its been 10 years n we still dnt kno wat really happened on 9/11/2001....the building obviously did not collapse because of the planes
The thing which continues to make me suspicious of 9/11 is way in which the building came down (aka the laws of gravity, physics and logic). If I were a psychic and pictured this attack happening, before it did, I would have pictured (after the plane strike) that the top of the tower down to the crash would have tipped over like a tree being felled whilst leaving the middle down in-tact! Not "GRACEFULLY" coming down like a "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"!!! It just doesn't fit the logic in my head!!!
@bbbbisthebest Your psychic predictions based on amateur assumptions are not evidence. Office buildings are not trees. Trees are solid and thus there is a lot of resistance to their collapsing straight down, whereas the Towers as office space were 90% air. There simply wouldn't have been enough resistance to make them topple over. Look up Verinage collapses to see other buildings collapsing straight down without explosives.
@Berkeley626 well there were a few mini explosions, shown in other videos, running down the building as it collapsed, but I just would have pictured it like a jenga tower (ie, you take a right supporting piece out and then it tips over/collapses to the right, where the support was removed and where the gap was formed, whilst leaving parts of the bottom in-tact) not gracefully coming down like a controlled demolition!
@bbbbisthebest If you think a building of this size would behave anything like a jenga tower then you simply don't have things in perspective. Steel is not nearly strong enough to allow that sort of behavior. This is why some people believe in these conspiracies I'd say. Because they ignorant expect skyscrapers to behave like jenga towers or stacks of cinder blocks.
@InvernessMoon Read SpaceAudio's comment below... He states another point which makes me question 9/11, also I heard reports of how Bin Ladin originally denied involvement in 9/11, only to admit it later??? Which makes me wonder whether the video of denial could be genuine, whilst the ones after could have been faked for propaganda purposes?! I am not twisting anything, but simply questioning the evidence to the crime when certain holes in the story keep popping up, but are not fully answered!!
im not for or against anyone here, BUT did anyone happen to see the huge structural steel beams sheared off at a 45 degree angle and pointing toward the middle of the building 7? that seem kinda fishy. thats what demo looks like.
@tpgphotog Well.... I asked for factual data, not education advice. If you are so "educated", it shouldn't be any problem for you to post any references....
you are correct in saying that the fact that it is not free fall speed does not mean it couldn't have been a controlled demolition.. but the fact that truthers continually throw out the claim that "the buildings fell at free fall speed" as one of their major arguments, when this claim can be debunked in mere seconds is insane .. the firemen evidence is circumstantial for one, and easily refuted since there are many secondary explosions associated with a building of that size going down
Not accurate timing, if you want the most accurate timing you have to see it collapse from the bottom.
When timed from the bottom, the South Tower, overall, (Excluding the core), It took 15.28 seconds for it to collapse. The North Tower took about 22.02 seconds to collapse,...
Ask any demolition company engineers. When they demolished Texas Stadium it took hundreds of people to work many weeks full time to place and wire all the charges. Drilling concrete and steel, making horrendous amount of of noise, mess, dust and debris, running wires all over the building.
The whole idea that somebody could prepare 2 giant buildings for demolition in TOTAL SECRECY without anybody noticing and asking the questions is beyond ridiculous. It's preposterous.
Think of ahouse of cards, nock the middle of the house out and the rest will fall with it, thats what happened with the world trade centers, niff said
@Daddyo930 It wasn't the smaller portion destroying the bigger portion (if you look at it like that, it will seem impossible).
The truth? It was the smaller portion crashing down on the exterior columns which caused many to be flung to the side in elastic effect (rubber band like), and concrete floors were being pulverized almost one by one as the top half of the building smashes through close to all of the floors on it's way down. This makes sense, for some reason people don't understand.
@theBartone9119 You neglected to mention the 47 core columns. That would have prevented any such catastrophic collapse. If you factor in the strength of the 47 core columns, your assertion does not work. Also, there is no mathematical calculation you could make that would illustrate what you are saying you believed happened. Does that sum it up for you? Go ahead and present a mathematical equation that would illustrate your point. Dont forget to factor in the core columns.
@Daddyo930 Explosions being heard during building fires is common, nobody heard explosIVES (BIG difference). Examples of building fires with explosions heard:
Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:
"Jamie Clark, who was staying about 60m (200ft) from the scene of the fire, said he was woken up by explosions."
Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions
"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"
@Daddyo930 The debris from the Towers fell way faster than the building itself as the collapse was taking place, this could not have been the case if the Towers were falling at free fall, what made the debris fall faster? That would defy the laws of gravity if the buildings were actually falling at free fall speeds. The S Tower fell at around 15.28 seconds, and the N Tower fell at around 22.02 seconds. Proof?
/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
Free fall would have been 9.1 seconds, this was not seen
One question debunkers will answer with another question. In order to prove beyond a reasonable scientific doubt your theory of "progressive collapse", don't you agree that NIST should submit it's reports and data for peer review. They are deathly afraid of peer review. They don't want any one else to check NIST's work. They will never acknowledge that this should be done in the interest of finding the truth. Makes sense to everyone but them.
@Daddyo930 That's a good point, They did actually 'allow' a period of three whole weeks for public review of a HUGE document that took them years to fill with spin and drivel, Plus does anyone ever ask why NIST was running the investigation in the first place? Look at their web site to see what their charter is,,,,it certainly is NOT to investigate fires/explosions. That in itself should trouble everyone, then to know they disregarded NFPA 921 completely and the 'fix' is in.
@Akileze Thank you for pointing that out. The only thing we want is a fair review of the report and now we get labeled as wing nuts, crackpots, retards and other insundry utterances. There are at least 50 questions that logical reasoning people want answered with regard to 911 and we keep getting shit on. When the truth comes out, I have nothing but love for those who willingly lied about this event. They will have to live with what they have done. I feel confident in saying 911 = inside job.
You can't never force people into do or feel nothing they don't want to......So with this mind,we the rest of the world should never have to feel nothing for what happened to the Americans on SEPT-11.This was an '''American tragedy alone'''It was never a world tragedy..No f&%$%$#ng way.
@delxart "I've seen videos filming the base of the towers right before and during the collapse"... so u saw videos b4 n aftr d collapse huh..?? I DOUBT u were one of the CONSPIRATORS man.. are u a CHRISTIAN defending BUSHY..??Get a life dude... U ARE A FOOL..
Guyzzz... ITS PROVED IT WAS A DEMOLITION.. hv sum sense.. search for any demolition procedure n u ll know how similar it is.. And the TOWERS STOOD for sumtym aftr plane crashed.. den explosives started from INSIDE...! and its so obvious terrorists cant afford so much EXPLOSIVES... so fingers crossed.. WHO IS THAT BASTARD RESPONSIBLE..??
Thermite charges do make sense ! But together with a basement explosion! Thermite charges = easy and quick to place, remote detonate the cutting charge.
Obviously the people who believe fire can bring down steel buildings, have no technical experience, understanding or background. If it really did WTC would be the first one lol
Do you realize how many tons of explosives or thermite would have had to been placed in those buildings for it to be a "controlled demolition?" They would have had to tear out huge amounts drywall to get to the support columns to place the explosives or thermite. Do you believe that out of the thousands and thousands of people who worked in those buildings, not one single person noticed them doing that? That alone disproves any "controlled demolition" theory.
@TimothyRaymond1 ABSOLUTELY!! One CD specialist said they would be looking at something on the order of 1000 pounds per FLOOR!! The amount of explosives required to do this would blow the aluminum cladding off the tower!!. And to claim this building is jammed full of explosives and have a professional news crew all of 800 ft away (i measured!!) recording NOTHING in the way of linear charges detonating
Is nothing short of ABSURD!! and you cannot explain away this stuff. Its TOTAL NONSENSE
the funny part is .. you can fucking time it yourself and see with your own ignorant eyes that the towers took approx. 16 and 22 seconds - the south and north respectively .. NOT freefall speed
@mbglosser So your saying that just because free fall speed was not achieved then the whole theory of controlled demolition is out the window? Your saying that it's possible for a smaller portion of a building to smash it's way through the larger bottom portion without encountering resistance? That's why free fall speed was not achieved. The explosions limited the speed of the free fall.
@mbglosser So your saying that just because free fall speed was not achieved then the whole theory of controlled demolition is out the window? Your saying that it's possible for a smaller portion of a building to smash it's way through the larger bottom portion without encountering resistance? That's why free fall speed was not achieved. The explosions limited the speed of the free fall. What about the firemen who said they hear explosions? Are they wacked out conspiracy nuts also?
@Daddyo930 Large jets carrying 98,800 litres of exploding fuel, with the explosive power equal to 100 tons of TNT smashing into Towers at 500 mph, with fires spreading across floors weakening steel trying to support all the weight above crashing down a single floor below it + Debris (multiple steel columns from the North Tower, weighing 6 tons each) smashing into a structure (Building 7) at free fall speed spreading fires across 20 floors for 7 hours= No need for a controlled demolition lol
@Daddyo930 not to mention the massive, massive amounts of pressurized air escaping from the least point of resistance (mainly down an elevator shaft, out an open window) which has been proven, scientifically, many times, as a reason why little secondary explosions were both seen and heard
@mbglosser So fine. Data provided by the NTSB, FEMA, NORAD and the flight data recorders indicate that whatever hit the towers was moving at 420 and 510 knots at 700 feet. Boeing does not design a commercial airliner capable of that kind of speed at that altitude. Aircraft that exceed VMO limits experience structural failure. 30 knots over VMO is enough to destroy the aircraft. We have 100 and 190 knots over VMO. Care to explain how this is possible?
@ssmusic214 Funny how you put those numbers there without any context. Boeing 737 Cruising speed Mach 0.78 (511 mph, 823 km/h) at 35,000 feet. That's what you should have put there. There is no document you can produce that will demonstrate a 767's ability to do 420 knots at 700 feet! Nothing! All VMO/ MMO data on the 767 dictate that it is physically impossible to fly the plane that fast at that altitude. End of story.
look at ANY footage of the collapses including this and you will see the lower floors stay completely intact until the upper falls collapse on them. So it is not demolition.!
Incidentally it was FIRE that did in these towers essentially & NOT any force or impact. Of course there were fires raging after the buildings fell. Saw firemen on tv all that night with hoses on the piles of rubble & the orange glow from underneath. I know jet fuel burns off rapidly but not until its 'fireball' ignites office supplies, desks, chairs, cleaning fluids,etc. It didn't need to burn long. It's like lighter fluid on charcoal, dousing all the STUFF inside the building with accelerant
Seems perfectly logical to me & A&E's 'How the Towers Fell' essentially demonstrates the same forces at work. As to the 'speed' well it seems to me you've got 7 floors hollowed out from the damage to the structural integrity of the building, the thinner weaker trusses heating up bowing downward, pulling at the bolts between core & outer steel wall. The upper undamaged structure would eventually give way from the fire damage, smash thru the open 7 floors & slam into the lower floors like a BOMB
0:51 LOL i really enjoy how stupid twoofers are.. "can a person walk through a closed door? if not, then 9/11 was an inside job!" is this real? i'm pretty sure this video was made to troll retards.
Motorway bdige in UK nearly collapsed after a fire last month in UK. It was stopped because of reinforcements. So proves that fire can do this sort of thing.
can anyone explain to me how bldg 7 collapsed without sayin "fire" please.. i dont have to be an expert in any field to know that fire answer is total bullshit... and how come the BBC reported the collapse 20 mins before it actually happened dont beleive me .. type this is " bbc reports collapse of wtc building 7 early-- twice " in search engine and explain that to me
@fhab525 These attacks and colapsing biulding were reason to create Osama bin Laden, and reason to start wars against so called terror. No one ever seen Osama and nobody did see his body. He was created. It's just weapon industry. They make most of the money selling weapon. A huge insurance claim from WTC owner as well, worth more than 3000 human lifes. For that reason USA created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they call ethnic people living there a TERRORISTS.
@Usionwise " A huge insurance claim from WTC owner as well, worth more than 3000 human lifes. " Would insurance companied pay out on a demolision.? errr NO.
@Usionwise " It could be someone with death penalty, trained and promissed payout to the family. " At anytime after this 'deal' was made you would leave yourself open to it being exposed. Non starter.
@AssaultKalashnikov " the building was worth more than the insurance claim" how do you know. anyow, even if they are underinsured, insurance companies still won't pay out if they suspect foul play. Another nail in the coffin of conspiracy nonsense.
@fhab5251. There was a TONS of debris that hit WTC7 from the North Tower that probably weakened it a lot. 2. Generators in WTC7 **EXPLODED** weakening buildings supports even more then couple hours later it collasped.
P.S. Didnt not use "fire" in that statement at all
@AccessDenied55 To cause a symmetrical collapse and freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds means the structure offered no resistance. That doesn't happen when falling through the path of greatest resistance, if anything it should have toppled over.
@fhab525 "Without sayin fire please" well it was a fire!!! thats the only explanation. There wasnt any controlled demolition -_-. Im pretty sure somebody would see them plant that much explosive especially the employees in the building. There were not explosions at the base like some people claim, I've seen videos filming the base of the towers right before and during the collapse, there were no explosions. No conspiracy, just angry Muslim terrorist.
@fhab525 B7 had multiple columns from the N Tower(weighing 6 tons each) gutting the building like a knife. Firefighters couldn't contain fires, told reporters it was most likely coming down. No mystery.
439 ft. building was the tallest building ever taken down by CD.6 months in an empty, stripped building to prep.
No building over 439ft has ever been brought down in a controlled demolition. No job has ever been done in a building that wasn't stripped, or had employees in them during prep.
@fhab525 Imposionworld upped a pretty long paper confirming my beliefs. The paper was signed by Protec (respected demolition company). No CD company has refuted the paper. There was not 1 sign of a controlled demolition on 911. No river of detonation cords that should have been seen from the base of the buildings, no flashes, no REAL squibs (dust puffs forced out due to air compression don't count), no near deafening sounds of explosions AS the towers fell, only random ones from flammables ect.
@fhab525 The reporter simply got the memo that they building was going to come down, and it was like a game of "broken telephone", she just reported it in the present tense instead of the past tense. The building was so badly damaged fire fighters didn't even want to fight it, the contingent of firefighters was pulled from the building ("pull it") because they heard it groaning, saw it slightly leaning (we can't see it on video, but they are trained, trust me), and predicted it's collapse
@fhab525 Firefighter: "You see where the white smoke is, you see it leaning like this? It's definetley coming down, there's no way to stop it!
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Reporter: "The brown building, the tall one, is number 7 , World Trade Center, I've heard several different reports from several different officers now, that this is the building that is going to come down next"
/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo
Did I explain Building 7 to your liking in all my posts? This whole "conspiracy" is silly. imo
All conspiracy theories seem to revolve around a similar ignorant point- that there has never been a steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire. Well this is true, because before September 11, no building had ever been hit by a fully fueled Boeing 767 that was traveling over 400 miles per hour. To compare the 9/11 fires to those from other office fires in other buildings is completely erroneous. And besides- the amount of explosives needed for both towers could NEVER go unnoticed.
@TMusic5 exactly, ive heard steel i beams breaking, sounds the exact same! i hear them every single night from over 5 miles away. they sound just like explosions. people are too ignorant to understand that. i had a girl tell me "steel doesnt break" (look at my channel comments). I proved her wrong with one simple link showing steel breaking
@TMusic5 contrary to popular belief, the jets that hit the building weren't FULLY LOADED. They had just enough fuel to make a transcontinental flight from Boston to Los Angeles. They actually had room in their fuel tanks for more fuel. Plus, most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs from the impacts. And as far as plane impacts doing damage goes, the central columns were build with solid beams. If a huge number of the beams were suddenly taken out of the equation, the towers could.....
Bush tapped Henry Kissinger (the master of the artful coverup) to chair the 9-11 investigation. But when victims families asked him to disclose a list of his clients (zionists) he stepped down to save himself the embarassment of his bias. Then Senator Max Mclellan who was appointed stepped down and spoke out publically saying he would never be able to look the american public in the eye. The investigation was a sham and the people were being lied to. That the neocons (oil) were thwarting it.
If someone still thinking those 3 buildings was destroy by Ben Ladden please can you explain why those 3 buildings collapse like a controled demolition? If those lies cannot instantly start a revolution in US country nothing can do it.
I think its funny that people say "the buildings fell down demolition style" as if they know how a building should fall "plane in the side style"
how presumptious and illogical...
the plane hit towards the upper part of the building, it withstood for a bit untill the top had no support and all sides collapsed so fast its was virtually simultaneous which caused it to cave in on itself (because of gravity, duh) and that is why the buildings fell that way.
@YBAdick u sayin "that is why the buildings fell that way" like u actually know for a fact tho. but u don't. where u in the planes? im sure u weren't. lookin at other videos and comparing real controlled demolitions to the tragedy of 9/11 they look EXACTLY the same. this is why people believe that the buildings were pulled. fall straight down and neatly is the whole purpose of a controlled demolitions.
I see we have a physics expert here! Thank god you came in with your extensive expertise and shut up all of these credited people. Clearly, YOU know best. :)
@Orchliet I never claimed to be, but than again you assume you know anything about me which makes you a bit of a presumptious follower now doesn't it, what are you like 16? Anyway, controlled demolitions are a SET of simultaneous explosions that run throughout the building, this causes the ENTIRE building to fall simultaniously, not the top of a structure (in which exactly where the planes crashed into)
it doesn't even take physics, it takes basic logic and rational thought.
I would like to paste a link to a report by the demolition industry, but youtube does not allow posting links in comments (and they don't tell you that, either; they'll let you try clicking the "post" button forever, but instead of telling you why you keep getting an error message, they just say : "error, try again"). So, I'll have to describe the link instead (as a workaround): go to the implosion world website and look for the link that says "Read Implosionworld's paper on the WTC collapses"
Additionally, if you know ANYTHING about building demo you would know that all the main supports would have had to have been partially cut and there would have been thousands of feet of detonation wires running throughout the building. Are you telling me all the people working there ignored all this? To prep building of that size the demo teams would have had to have been working for weeks! If you want to investigate something then find Obama's real birth certificate!
Good God, you consipiracy theorists fail to acknowlege so many points that are inconvienent to your hypothesis. First lets assume the upper 40 floors each covering an acre weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of a million pounds. How long do you think the next floor down could withstand a million pounds before it gave way and added it's mass to the downward plunge. The reason some debris from the top is falling slower is due to the wind resistance outside the preimeter of the building.
@FSBONewEgypt On your other post you say that all main supports would have to be partially cut....which is nearly true, then you go on to say that basically all it takes is one floor falling onto the next. Which one is it?
@crisisofconsciousnes No, I said when 30 floors simultaneously fell on the floor below the weight blew through each floor as if it wasn't there. A controlled demolition of the type you are talking about takes an amazing amount of preparation and it would have had to have gone unnoticed by the 10s of thousands of people who worked in the Towers. Just an implosion of a Vegas hotel takes WEEKS of preparation. The reason the supports melted was because they were not coated with asbestos.
@xcited4vids dude, think of how much wieght was resting on those steel beams. i know you probably cant comprehend millions of pounds but thats how much was on them. of course they are going to break when a plane going 515 mphs hits a structure. come on i know your smarter than that
Yep...but I had to rebuff it, at least once... I deal with this sort of mentality in my daily work whenever I come up against a know-it-all in the manufacturing sector... Like a guy asking me if I can put an additive in his propane tank to turn it into methanol so he doesn't have to waste any of it... Or the guy that wanted to know why we don't sell monatomic nitrogen instead of the diatomic type. I should become a transmutation shyster and sell lead disguised as gold brick to people...
A lot of the stuff we are reading here by the conspiracy shills is already totally debunked nonsense and has been for years. As I keep saying this sort of rampant ignorance about my trade in engineering is sickening.
Listen to this douchebag Eric bubble head give his assinine explanation! It makes me sick to know that people like him have actually graduated with some sort of engineering degree..or did he? The top half collapses more slowly than the succeeding floors for an effin' reason and it is not by demolition! What a jack arse...
As for those of you who can't seem to wrap your heads around the temperatures that need to be attained to buckle a steel floor and superstructure under compression, not even necessarily close to melting point, think again. Now you are invading MY EXPERTISE, Metallurgy and failure analysis for over 34 years worth!
You are about as bad as Rosie O'Donnell, the famous structural, materials, and mechanical engineer. DOPES! Conspiracy is like a warm piss in your own pants! Then we all notice
I've personally seen a steel beam, with not much weight on it at all, buckle and give way at much less than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, so I, even though I don't actually have a degree in engineering, know it's possible. You can't exactly argue against what's right in front of your eyes, after all, and that's what Truther idiots have been doing. That's another reason I cannot stand them.
Believe what you wish. These nut jobs are wrong. The weight of collapse was so immense that it sheered quite easily as it picked up momentum as each successive floor pancaked to the next. For example say the top floors, plus the bukcled floor was 100 tons+++ onto another 100 tons, then 200+++ tons on 100tons, then 300+++ tons on 100 tons and so on down to the first floor and the substructure. These morons give my profession a very bad name and are milking conspiracy.
That's why I now make it a policy to make 1, possibly 2, comments to them and just ignore them the rest of the way. In the past, their bogus claims and blatant lies simply made me sick. What is this country coming to if idiots have to come up with completely illogical conspiracies just to make themselves feel better or superior? It makes me sick how stupid some people can be.
@etirvan I hear you but I have got to start somewhere this woman is a shill... demolition wave rushing straight down? It's enough to make one sick, she is rewriting the laws of physices as we speak or confusing them with her preconceived ill conceived notions...WHAT ABJECT BULLSCHITTE!
That's why I simply try to ignore them. Eventually, their stupidity will be seen for what it is. I have seen a few people who have turned away from the idiotic Truth movement because of people like her and their blatant disregard for scientific facts.
A steel frame high rise building has NEVER collapsed from fire in history. The numerous accounts of there being bombs no second plane and the mysterious murders and suicides surrounding 9-11 should raise some questions. People just research the facts from both sides and always keep an open mind.
@Revengeancer89 regardless 30 floors against the rest of the entire superstructure would not fall at free fall speed they would have met with resistance I find it extremely hard to believe neither tower shifted to the side. And that 7 was pulled. Again the whole campaign of terror where we invade foreign countries for their resources one need only realize the federal reserve is privately owned. The Bali Bombings, Waco, the Lusitania, Our foreknowledge of pearl harbor etc. what will it take?
Also man I would say that atleast 90% of that jet fuel would have burned up in the initial explosion. The whole thing was done by a High tech Well funded demolition company one of few in the U.S would of had the capability to do this. But anyways anyone who wants some good info on this whole problem of the FED and the Illuminati / Banksters should check out Max Igan or maybe Esoteric Agenda maybe zeitgeist the film or Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
NO. What should raise questions is your complete idiocy. There were absolutely NO accounts of there being bombs, NO accounts of no second plane, NO mysterious murders, and NO mysterious suicides following 9/11 whatsoever. These are NOTHING but blatant lies on your part. You should take your own advice to research facts and keep an open mind because it is quite clear you haven't researched ANY facts whatsoever and have closed your mind to the truth.
Also, concerning your idiotic no steel frame high rise buildings have ever collapsed argument, tell me this. Tell me one building that is as tall and as big as the WTC building, constructed with a tube in tube design, came off its core columns at the bottom floors, struck by a 200 ton jet flying at nearly 600 mph, and then weakened by fire. Until you give me one example that fits all that criteria, that stupid argument is completely illogical and utterly bogus. Good luck, moron
In the end It does not matter what the government try to tell us happened if the results are always the same, a loss of freedoms and expansion of government that shows the truth.
you all must be the biggest idiots on earth. get a life. the heat from the top floors burning for an hour and weakening the joints and trusses and the sheer weight alone compiled from floor on to floor on to each other with the weight increasing with every floor is more than enough to bring the building straight down at maximum speed. do the math before you speak you bunch of jackasses.
LOOK, why do so many first responders have rare blood cancers never before seen in young people? Ask yourself that.. Asbestos doesnt lead to these rare cancers. evidence is so overwhelming and I still see these self righteous pricks who say "I dont believe all this conspiracy nonsense" like they are taking the moral high ground. Stop being foolish
Well, then, you should quit propagating your outlandishly blatant lies. You do realize that asbestos is a proven leading cause of malignant mesothelioma, the rare cancer you speak of, don't you? In fact, according to experts, malignant mesothelioma is almost always caused by asbestos exposure. You might want to do some research before you make some more idiotically fallacious claims. Jeez, that was an easy debunking. Maybe you should try harder next time.
@etirvan - HAHA actually mulitple Myeloma not mesothelioma. Now my debunking friend 100's of first responders have died post 911 from various cancers there's no proof toxins from ground zero are to blame. Also doctors say most cancers take longer than 9 years to develop.
@etirvan There where also some unusual elements found in the dust and Im talking elements only found from nuclear fission. The organisation that found these elements are a professional body and have this information on their website. If you wish to debunk this let me know and I will get you all the info
I collected articles and video presentations which I put together on my website titled: "My Thoughts On 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism by Bill Woollam" Just Google it.
Basically, once one understands the 'controlled demolition' factor of all three towers that day, and how building seven wasn't even struck by an aircraft, then there is a reason to search out evidence for oneself. Avoiding any government agency reports or commissions seemed obvious,since facts were being skewed and covered up
not to mention they use speakers to weaken the structural integrity of the building so that it can fall like that... research controlled demolition yo... anyone that can't see it was all controlled demolition is a stupid redneck, i'm an academic yo, fucking hillbillies ... look how fast they fell .... you're not scientific.... research what i said about the speaker you fuck wits, your a sheep baaaaah baaaaah baaaaah
@subsonicshit did our government execute the first twin tower failed bombing during Clintons presidency?, or blow up the hotels in India, Bali, the train in Spain, the Jewish center in South America, The attempted bombing of the Eiffel tower in France, slaughter Jews at the Germany Olympics in the 70's, Or the recent bombings in Australia?, or did U.S. gov orchestrate the muslim rade of slaughter across Europe in 732A.D.? Islam did this just like always throughout history, time and again
Do they want to explain how the explosives got to every joint? Nobody noticed an enormous amount of people carrying explosives run into and through the smokey building? And then how did they magically know where the joints were midst the smoke? And how did they managed to get a bomb at each one of those joints, on all 110 stories of the building, and get back out in under 15 minutes?
The explosives couldn't have been there beforehand or they would have been destroyed by the plane crash.
letsgocaps8 2 weeks ago
@letsgocaps8 I used to think that too. but governments have kept bigger secrets from us. 130,000 people were employed by the Manhattan Project, but they kept it secret until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or just Google Operation Gladio. That one's a little more relevant to 9/11. My point is, it is a lot more possible to do something big without people noticing than most people imagine.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 ??? I never said government doesn't keep secrets form us. I said controlled demolition couldn't happen given the facts. Where did I say government doesn't keep secrets?
And there is a difference between keeping a military project secret and intentionally killing thousands of their own citizens.
letsgocaps8 1 week ago
@letsgocaps8 ik, but my point was that the government has kept bigger things secret from us that we never found out about until a long time later. and dont be so sure about the last statement you made. just look at operation northwoods. our government was going to commit acts of terrorism (hijackings and bombings) in our own cities, and blame it on the cubans in order to gain public support for going to war with cuba
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
@kcsccrew42 In northwoods most of the victims were planned to be staged. Nobody would actually die had it been carried out. 9/11 had real victims. It's still different.
letsgocaps8 1 week ago
@letsgocaps8 yea, MOST of the victims were to be staged. but still, they were framing people to intentionally start a war. look at what 9/11 started. a war. and the president at the time of 9/11. bush. definitely more willing to go to war than JFK. not saying 9/11 actually was an operation northwoods kind of thing, but it does seem a little too similar to not be further investigated.
kcsccrew42 1 week ago
1:27 if the collapse is happening faster than gravity, why is there debris out-running the collapse?
Intelligent falling theory?
FAIL
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
the towers bursted into powder
EpicDoucher 3 weeks ago
Totally fake attack, all blames goes to Bush and Israel, who started war against muslim countries by this play, they played withmillions of lives around the world, the resposibles must be punished if there are some kind of justice in the World.
1569ARC 3 weeks ago
@ 2;52 why does the world trade center look white and then @ 2:53 they look blueish green you would think that if everyone filming the wtc on the exact same day at the exact same time at the exact momment the towers fell it would look the same color in both films.
HarvesterofDeathA7X 1 month ago
@HarvesterofDeathA7X they are shot at different angles...?
MrRandomppl 3 weeks ago
@HarvesterofDeathA7X Gee I dunno, Ancient Aliens maybe?
And how come in this NASA footage of Space Shuttle Discovery's launch from 0:00 to 0:10 the sky is a dark blue-green, and in the next 10 seconds it's pale blue? And the next 10 seconds, it's paler still! It's a conspiracy I tells ya!
HERP DERP twoofers are DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@HarvesterofDeathA7X watch?v=4FROxZ5i67k
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
Free fall speed?
That is simply a lie. If you look at the structure collapsing you will notice sections of the exterior wall falling through the air. Free falling absolutely. But the rest of the structure is above this and falling much slower. Its falling fast for sure. But it is not free falling. Its not possible to have material in the air falling below the collapse front and then have the rest of the structure 20 stories above this. If you look at the video this is the case.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
Whoever actually believes that either of those towers fell in 10 seconds is a gullible cunt of the highest order
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail Let's straw man the whole video, why don't we?
NothingAtAllXD 2 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD No thank you, why would we want to do that? I don't even know who you are and don't use those tactics anyway.
"The world trade centre towers came down in approximately 10 seconds"
I recommend you at least take a look at this paper:
w w w . crono911 . net/docs/Bazant2007 . pdf
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail I don't agree with that statement either, but I don't appreciate your "debunking" which addresses only one out of the many contentions explicitly stated in this video. Another D-Flunker Fallacy.
NothingAtAllXD 2 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD Did you read the paper?
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
"911 witnesses murdered" google and youtube that term. They have most of the credible witnesses.
TheChineseEmpire 3 months ago
On top of no plane hitting WTC 7 there are many pilots that attest that they could not have performed the maneuvers on their best day that those supposedly inexperienced high jackers that where trained on single engine planes. Also the speeds exceeded the planes speed rating - it would have been highly unstable to where a rookie pilot would have no chance in controlling much less hit a target perfectly. see: Pilots for 911 truth.
TheChineseEmpire 3 months ago
Guys, even when you can't trace back ANY of the evidence. You'd still have to be a complete retard to think the buildings came straight down at nearly free fall speed by some plane hitting it. seriously. ur all freacking brainwashed
Msagr 3 months ago
The flagrant misrepresentation of the seismic data here 0:04 is another truther lie, because it does NOT time the towers' collapses; just the impact of the falling debris. Who says so? The seismologists who COLLECTED & ANALYZED that data!
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Arthur Lerner-Lam, seismologist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
TimReed22222 3 months ago
I have a question. If the buildings' cores of 1 and 2 had supported those top portions for 30+ years, and the only weakening of steel was at the places of impact, then why did the whole thing come down? Did the acceleration of the top part of the building become the factor in 'too much weight'? And why fall so evenly then? And doesn't this indicate poor safety standards for the architect and builders? Eh, just thinking's all.
JohnsonSocrates 3 months ago
@JohnsonSocrates exactly one of the points which makes me question EVERYTHING in my comments below! Just think, 4 side supports to the tower and the plane crashes into ONE of them (NOT ALL FOUR OF THEM AT ONCE) so you would have thought that the building would have collapsed side-ways from the top of the building and down to the crash hole (where one steel support is weakened/damaged or had a chunk taken out - like a tree being felled) NOT like a controlled demolition!
bbbbisthebest 2 months ago
@bbbbisthebest You know what really amazes me about "debunkers?" Is that I have repeatedly posted that comment on many 9/11 youtube vids and such, but no reasonable reply ever is made to it. Actually, no reply at all is made. It makes me wonder am I asking the question no one can answer, is there a doubt, or are people dismissing me as a whole because of the implications of what i am asking. Ah well, truth won't be known as long as criminals run investigations.
JohnsonSocrates 2 months ago
@JohnsonSocrates another few points which makes me question 9/11 is that apparantly, Bin Laden supposedly sent a video message DENYING 9/11 was caused by him, only for him to admit to causing it a few days later???!!! That just makes me wonder if all the Bin Laden videos were faked for propaganda purposes to intensify the support for war for the further purposes of political gain by American leaders (of ALL sides - not just Republicans)
bbbbisthebest 2 months ago
Also, HOW could FOUR sets of hijackers/bombers get passed FOUR sets of sucurity measures undetected or without at least one of them being stopped, investigated and the whole cover being blown (which would/should have caused a security lockdown)?????
bbbbisthebest 2 months ago
sorry - TYPO ERROR - SECURITY
bbbbisthebest 2 months ago
@bbbbisthebest
Because before 9/11 anyone could go into a terminal with minimal searches.
wrlix 1 week ago
Controlled Demolition? A plane hits a fucking building and you see that as controlled?
MrCheapSk8er 3 months ago
@MrCheapSk8er No plane hit building 7 though you realise?
maleman6344 3 months ago
there were thousands of connections. you need to break 400 of them per second. impossible!
highly stressed connections would have to fail first then the next and so on.. it takes time.
the columns at the core were CLOSED (hollow section) too TOUGH to buckle than those open sections (I-beams or channels). again, it takes time before it fails.
granting the fire melted the steel, wow! so UNIFORM.. almost at the SAME TIME! what's that a steak on the oven or something? so evenly cooked.
SpaceAudio 4 months ago 2
@tpgphotog Dude, those speeds are not possible to sustain if you want your plane to stay intact. You think the kamikaze pilots wanted their planes to remain intact? Those speeds are possible in a power dive if you have no interest in survival, which is precisely what happened.
Berkeley626 4 months ago
How the heck to you place explosives on every single floor without someone noticing you anyway? Besides if it was demolished Stairway B wouldn't have survived. Think for yourself; don't be so gullible.
macsdestroypcs 4 months ago
the government is a dirty fat lie....y they tryin 2 keep everything secret....its only makin pple want to find out more.....its been 10 years n we still dnt kno wat really happened on 9/11/2001....the building obviously did not collapse because of the planes
kiraluvsMB 4 months ago
The thing which continues to make me suspicious of 9/11 is way in which the building came down (aka the laws of gravity, physics and logic). If I were a psychic and pictured this attack happening, before it did, I would have pictured (after the plane strike) that the top of the tower down to the crash would have tipped over like a tree being felled whilst leaving the middle down in-tact! Not "GRACEFULLY" coming down like a "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"!!! It just doesn't fit the logic in my head!!!
bbbbisthebest 4 months ago
@bbbbisthebest Your psychic predictions based on amateur assumptions are not evidence. Office buildings are not trees. Trees are solid and thus there is a lot of resistance to their collapsing straight down, whereas the Towers as office space were 90% air. There simply wouldn't have been enough resistance to make them topple over. Look up Verinage collapses to see other buildings collapsing straight down without explosives.
Berkeley626 4 months ago
Comment removed
bbbbisthebest 4 months ago
@Berkeley626 well there were a few mini explosions, shown in other videos, running down the building as it collapsed, but I just would have pictured it like a jenga tower (ie, you take a right supporting piece out and then it tips over/collapses to the right, where the support was removed and where the gap was formed, whilst leaving parts of the bottom in-tact) not gracefully coming down like a controlled demolition!
bbbbisthebest 4 months ago
@bbbbisthebest If you think a building of this size would behave anything like a jenga tower then you simply don't have things in perspective. Steel is not nearly strong enough to allow that sort of behavior. This is why some people believe in these conspiracies I'd say. Because they ignorant expect skyscrapers to behave like jenga towers or stacks of cinder blocks.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon Read SpaceAudio's comment below... He states another point which makes me question 9/11, also I heard reports of how Bin Ladin originally denied involvement in 9/11, only to admit it later??? Which makes me wonder whether the video of denial could be genuine, whilst the ones after could have been faked for propaganda purposes?! I am not twisting anything, but simply questioning the evidence to the crime when certain holes in the story keep popping up, but are not fully answered!!
bbbbisthebest 3 months ago
im not for or against anyone here, BUT did anyone happen to see the huge structural steel beams sheared off at a 45 degree angle and pointing toward the middle of the building 7? that seem kinda fishy. thats what demo looks like.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 Yes
weathers459 4 months ago
@tpgphotog Well.... I asked for factual data, not education advice. If you are so "educated", it shouldn't be any problem for you to post any references....
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@tpgphotog That was perfect. Finally, someone who understands science and the scientific method. Thank you. Peace love and respect.
Daddyo930 5 months ago 2
@tpgphotog I don't have any "THEORY", just official specs.
Do you have any factual data to support your claims?
ssmusic214 5 months ago
you are correct in saying that the fact that it is not free fall speed does not mean it couldn't have been a controlled demolition.. but the fact that truthers continually throw out the claim that "the buildings fell at free fall speed" as one of their major arguments, when this claim can be debunked in mere seconds is insane .. the firemen evidence is circumstantial for one, and easily refuted since there are many secondary explosions associated with a building of that size going down
mbglosser 5 months ago
Not accurate timing, if you want the most accurate timing you have to see it collapse from the bottom.
When timed from the bottom, the South Tower, overall, (Excluding the core), It took 15.28 seconds for it to collapse. The North Tower took about 22.02 seconds to collapse,...
Don't believe me? than watch this
watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
DKaijuGomoMan 5 months ago
Nonsense!
Ask any demolition company engineers. When they demolished Texas Stadium it took hundreds of people to work many weeks full time to place and wire all the charges. Drilling concrete and steel, making horrendous amount of of noise, mess, dust and debris, running wires all over the building.
The whole idea that somebody could prepare 2 giant buildings for demolition in TOTAL SECRECY without anybody noticing and asking the questions is beyond ridiculous. It's preposterous.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Thank you, someone who understands.
DKaijuGomoMan 5 months ago
Think of ahouse of cards, nock the middle of the house out and the rest will fall with it, thats what happened with the world trade centers, niff said
Twiztidninjas 6 months ago
I Guess These People Have Never Played A Game Of Jenga!!!
danielreha1 6 months ago
@danielreha1 This isn't jenga though. There are massive steel structural supports running through the core.
Neyowolf 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 It wasn't the smaller portion destroying the bigger portion (if you look at it like that, it will seem impossible).
The truth? It was the smaller portion crashing down on the exterior columns which caused many to be flung to the side in elastic effect (rubber band like), and concrete floors were being pulverized almost one by one as the top half of the building smashes through close to all of the floors on it's way down. This makes sense, for some reason people don't understand.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 You neglected to mention the 47 core columns. That would have prevented any such catastrophic collapse. If you factor in the strength of the 47 core columns, your assertion does not work. Also, there is no mathematical calculation you could make that would illustrate what you are saying you believed happened. Does that sum it up for you? Go ahead and present a mathematical equation that would illustrate your point. Dont forget to factor in the core columns.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Explosions being heard during building fires is common, nobody heard explosIVES (BIG difference). Examples of building fires with explosions heard:
Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:
"Jamie Clark, who was staying about 60m (200ft) from the scene of the fire, said he was woken up by explosions."
Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions
"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"
Just a few.......
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 The debris from the Towers fell way faster than the building itself as the collapse was taking place, this could not have been the case if the Towers were falling at free fall, what made the debris fall faster? That would defy the laws of gravity if the buildings were actually falling at free fall speeds. The S Tower fell at around 15.28 seconds, and the N Tower fell at around 22.02 seconds. Proof?
/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
Free fall would have been 9.1 seconds, this was not seen
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here are some reasons that they weren't demolished:
1) You cannot demolish two 500m buidlings with 3000 people inside
2) None except the fire police was allowed to enter buildings
3) There was not much time to plant explosives
And it wasn't the US Government, it was AL QAEDA. Not an inside job or demolition, but it was a TERRORIST ATTACK.
steven1098s 6 months ago
One question debunkers will answer with another question. In order to prove beyond a reasonable scientific doubt your theory of "progressive collapse", don't you agree that NIST should submit it's reports and data for peer review. They are deathly afraid of peer review. They don't want any one else to check NIST's work. They will never acknowledge that this should be done in the interest of finding the truth. Makes sense to everyone but them.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
@Daddyo930 That's a good point, They did actually 'allow' a period of three whole weeks for public review of a HUGE document that took them years to fill with spin and drivel, Plus does anyone ever ask why NIST was running the investigation in the first place? Look at their web site to see what their charter is,,,,it certainly is NOT to investigate fires/explosions. That in itself should trouble everyone, then to know they disregarded NFPA 921 completely and the 'fix' is in.
Akileze 6 months ago
@Akileze Thank you for pointing that out. The only thing we want is a fair review of the report and now we get labeled as wing nuts, crackpots, retards and other insundry utterances. There are at least 50 questions that logical reasoning people want answered with regard to 911 and we keep getting shit on. When the truth comes out, I have nothing but love for those who willingly lied about this event. They will have to live with what they have done. I feel confident in saying 911 = inside job.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 watch?v=_9uB64ghcq8
Akileze 6 months ago
You can't never force people into do or feel nothing they don't want to......So with this mind,we the rest of the world should never have to feel nothing for what happened to the Americans on SEPT-11.This was an '''American tragedy alone'''It was never a world tragedy..No f&%$%$#ng way.
TOLTECAAZTECA 7 months ago
@delxart "I've seen videos filming the base of the towers right before and during the collapse"... so u saw videos b4 n aftr d collapse huh..?? I DOUBT u were one of the CONSPIRATORS man.. are u a CHRISTIAN defending BUSHY..??Get a life dude... U ARE A FOOL..
Aaquil007 7 months ago
Guyzzz... ITS PROVED IT WAS A DEMOLITION.. hv sum sense.. search for any demolition procedure n u ll know how similar it is.. And the TOWERS STOOD for sumtym aftr plane crashed.. den explosives started from INSIDE...! and its so obvious terrorists cant afford so much EXPLOSIVES... so fingers crossed.. WHO IS THAT BASTARD RESPONSIBLE..??
Aaquil007 7 months ago
yea like the 1st 60 floors never caught fire cuz fire rises so why did it all fall apart
jacobb71 7 months ago
Thermite charges do make sense ! But together with a basement explosion! Thermite charges = easy and quick to place, remote detonate the cutting charge.
barthoedemaker 7 months ago
Obviously the people who believe fire can bring down steel buildings, have no technical experience, understanding or background. If it really did WTC would be the first one lol
barthoedemaker 7 months ago
@barthoedemaker "Obviously the people who believe fire can bring down steel buildings, have no technical experience, understanding or background."
Um, right. MIT, ASCE, NIST, Purdue, demo experts, etc. What "technical experience, understanding or background" do THEY possess?
LOL
TimReed22222 7 months ago
Do you realize how many tons of explosives or thermite would have had to been placed in those buildings for it to be a "controlled demolition?" They would have had to tear out huge amounts drywall to get to the support columns to place the explosives or thermite. Do you believe that out of the thousands and thousands of people who worked in those buildings, not one single person noticed them doing that? That alone disproves any "controlled demolition" theory.
TimothyRaymond1 7 months ago
@TimothyRaymond1 ABSOLUTELY!! One CD specialist said they would be looking at something on the order of 1000 pounds per FLOOR!! The amount of explosives required to do this would blow the aluminum cladding off the tower!!. And to claim this building is jammed full of explosives and have a professional news crew all of 800 ft away (i measured!!) recording NOTHING in the way of linear charges detonating
Is nothing short of ABSURD!! and you cannot explain away this stuff. Its TOTAL NONSENSE
roquefortfiles 7 months ago
the funny part is .. you can fucking time it yourself and see with your own ignorant eyes that the towers took approx. 16 and 22 seconds - the south and north respectively .. NOT freefall speed
mbglosser 7 months ago
@mbglosser So your saying that just because free fall speed was not achieved then the whole theory of controlled demolition is out the window? Your saying that it's possible for a smaller portion of a building to smash it's way through the larger bottom portion without encountering resistance? That's why free fall speed was not achieved. The explosions limited the speed of the free fall.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@mbglosser So your saying that just because free fall speed was not achieved then the whole theory of controlled demolition is out the window? Your saying that it's possible for a smaller portion of a building to smash it's way through the larger bottom portion without encountering resistance? That's why free fall speed was not achieved. The explosions limited the speed of the free fall. What about the firemen who said they hear explosions? Are they wacked out conspiracy nuts also?
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Large jets carrying 98,800 litres of exploding fuel, with the explosive power equal to 100 tons of TNT smashing into Towers at 500 mph, with fires spreading across floors weakening steel trying to support all the weight above crashing down a single floor below it + Debris (multiple steel columns from the North Tower, weighing 6 tons each) smashing into a structure (Building 7) at free fall speed spreading fires across 20 floors for 7 hours= No need for a controlled demolition lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 not to mention the massive, massive amounts of pressurized air escaping from the least point of resistance (mainly down an elevator shaft, out an open window) which has been proven, scientifically, many times, as a reason why little secondary explosions were both seen and heard
mbglosser 5 months ago
@mbglosser So fine. Data provided by the NTSB, FEMA, NORAD and the flight data recorders indicate that whatever hit the towers was moving at 420 and 510 knots at 700 feet. Boeing does not design a commercial airliner capable of that kind of speed at that altitude. Aircraft that exceed VMO limits experience structural failure. 30 knots over VMO is enough to destroy the aircraft. We have 100 and 190 knots over VMO. Care to explain how this is possible?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Boeing 737 Cruising speed Mach 0.78 (511 mph, 823 km/h) Maximum speed Mach 0.82 (544 mph, 876 km/h)
ssmusic214 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ssmusic214 Funny how you put those numbers there without any context. Boeing 737 Cruising speed Mach 0.78 (511 mph, 823 km/h) at 35,000 feet. That's what you should have put there. There is no document you can produce that will demonstrate a 767's ability to do 420 knots at 700 feet! Nothing! All VMO/ MMO data on the 767 dictate that it is physically impossible to fly the plane that fast at that altitude. End of story.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
1:26 FUNNY FACE!
AccessDenied55 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look into this if you get time..
It is insane.. how this video,
which is the most complete video
in real time from the attacks.. has
virtually no views.. There is a facebook
page, blog, and website.. along with
five main YouTube channels with trailers.
'Tuesday Morning in September'
TuesdayMorningInSept 8 months ago
@Steelerguy6178 Must be nice to have 2 Cousins who were part of the World Trade Center Clean-Up who sent HUNDREDS of pictures to me.
AccessDenied55 8 months ago
Did the US government ever published the passenger manifesto of the 2 planes which crashed into the tower and details of their crew ?
velgean 8 months ago
that doesnt make any sense... no way.
renzokata 8 months ago
look at ANY footage of the collapses including this and you will see the lower floors stay completely intact until the upper falls collapse on them. So it is not demolition.!
SOAS007 8 months ago
look at the footage 30seconds. The debris is free falling faster than the tower.!
SOAS007 8 months ago
Incidentally it was FIRE that did in these towers essentially & NOT any force or impact. Of course there were fires raging after the buildings fell. Saw firemen on tv all that night with hoses on the piles of rubble & the orange glow from underneath. I know jet fuel burns off rapidly but not until its 'fireball' ignites office supplies, desks, chairs, cleaning fluids,etc. It didn't need to burn long. It's like lighter fluid on charcoal, dousing all the STUFF inside the building with accelerant
jlalewicz 8 months ago
Seems perfectly logical to me & A&E's 'How the Towers Fell' essentially demonstrates the same forces at work. As to the 'speed' well it seems to me you've got 7 floors hollowed out from the damage to the structural integrity of the building, the thinner weaker trusses heating up bowing downward, pulling at the bolts between core & outer steel wall. The upper undamaged structure would eventually give way from the fire damage, smash thru the open 7 floors & slam into the lower floors like a BOMB
jlalewicz 8 months ago
0:51 LOL i really enjoy how stupid twoofers are.. "can a person walk through a closed door? if not, then 9/11 was an inside job!" is this real? i'm pretty sure this video was made to troll retards.
AssaultKalashnikov 8 months ago
Motorway bdige in UK nearly collapsed after a fire last month in UK. It was stopped because of reinforcements. So proves that fire can do this sort of thing.
SOAS007 8 months ago
Except it wasn't a 9 sec free fall more like 16, when the video cut away there is still 40 stories left.
TigerRifle1 9 months ago
can anyone explain to me how bldg 7 collapsed without sayin "fire" please.. i dont have to be an expert in any field to know that fire answer is total bullshit... and how come the BBC reported the collapse 20 mins before it actually happened dont beleive me .. type this is " bbc reports collapse of wtc building 7 early-- twice " in search engine and explain that to me
fhab525 9 months ago 2
@fhab525 you should look up who owns the media, or its most prominent companies i should say
giannaluva65 9 months ago
@fhab525 These attacks and colapsing biulding were reason to create Osama bin Laden, and reason to start wars against so called terror. No one ever seen Osama and nobody did see his body. He was created. It's just weapon industry. They make most of the money selling weapon. A huge insurance claim from WTC owner as well, worth more than 3000 human lifes. For that reason USA created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they call ethnic people living there a TERRORISTS.
Usionwise 8 months ago
@Usionwise " A huge insurance claim from WTC owner as well, worth more than 3000 human lifes. " Would insurance companied pay out on a demolision.? errr NO.
SOAS007 8 months ago
@SOAS007 Of course companies won't pay for demolishion, that's why it's all about. It was easier to create terrorist attack. Errrr YES.
Usionwise 8 months ago
@Usionwise " It was easier to create terrorist attack." yup dead easy. hands up who wants to fly a plane into a building?
SOAS007 8 months ago
@SOAS007 There is plenty of options. It could be someone with death penalty, trained and promissed payout to the family.
Usionwise 8 months ago
@Usionwise " It could be someone with death penalty, trained and promissed payout to the family. " At anytime after this 'deal' was made you would leave yourself open to it being exposed. Non starter.
SOAS007 8 months ago
@SOAS007 the building was worth more than the insurance claim.. dummie.
AssaultKalashnikov 8 months ago
@AssaultKalashnikov " the building was worth more than the insurance claim" how do you know. anyow, even if they are underinsured, insurance companies still won't pay out if they suspect foul play. Another nail in the coffin of conspiracy nonsense.
SOAS007 8 months ago
@fhab5251. There was a TONS of debris that hit WTC7 from the North Tower that probably weakened it a lot. 2. Generators in WTC7 **EXPLODED** weakening buildings supports even more then couple hours later it collasped.
P.S. Didnt not use "fire" in that statement at all
AccessDenied55 8 months ago
@AccessDenied55 To cause a symmetrical collapse and freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds means the structure offered no resistance. That doesn't happen when falling through the path of greatest resistance, if anything it should have toppled over.
TheGrinningSkull 8 months ago
@AccessDenied55 AccessDenied to any intelligent thought HUH? You are your own worst enemy.
grimbattalion 7 months ago
@fhab525 demolition if u see there is a emplosion were at the top it bends so it was clearly a emplosion a fire cannot bring down a steel building
TheBeastClan1 8 months ago
@fhab525 Watch "Dimitri Khalezov WTC Nuclear Demolition" and watch out for "11. September - The third truth" as pdf file.
MainstreamSmasher 7 months ago
@fhab525 "Without sayin fire please" well it was a fire!!! thats the only explanation. There wasnt any controlled demolition -_-. Im pretty sure somebody would see them plant that much explosive especially the employees in the building. There were not explosions at the base like some people claim, I've seen videos filming the base of the towers right before and during the collapse, there were no explosions. No conspiracy, just angry Muslim terrorist.
delxart 7 months ago
@fhab525 no, nobody could. even not chuck norris. cause its fake by your us government
backdoorcracker 7 months ago
@fhab525 B7 had multiple columns from the N Tower(weighing 6 tons each) gutting the building like a knife. Firefighters couldn't contain fires, told reporters it was most likely coming down. No mystery.
439 ft. building was the tallest building ever taken down by CD.6 months in an empty, stripped building to prep.
No building over 439ft has ever been brought down in a controlled demolition. No job has ever been done in a building that wasn't stripped, or had employees in them during prep.
kushsmokkeralt 7 months ago
@fhab525 Imposionworld upped a pretty long paper confirming my beliefs. The paper was signed by Protec (respected demolition company). No CD company has refuted the paper. There was not 1 sign of a controlled demolition on 911. No river of detonation cords that should have been seen from the base of the buildings, no flashes, no REAL squibs (dust puffs forced out due to air compression don't count), no near deafening sounds of explosions AS the towers fell, only random ones from flammables ect.
kushsmokkeralt 7 months ago
@fhab525 The reporter simply got the memo that they building was going to come down, and it was like a game of "broken telephone", she just reported it in the present tense instead of the past tense. The building was so badly damaged fire fighters didn't even want to fight it, the contingent of firefighters was pulled from the building ("pull it") because they heard it groaning, saw it slightly leaning (we can't see it on video, but they are trained, trust me), and predicted it's collapse
kushsmokkeralt 7 months ago
@fhab525 Firefighter: "You see where the white smoke is, you see it leaning like this? It's definetley coming down, there's no way to stop it!
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Reporter: "The brown building, the tall one, is number 7 , World Trade Center, I've heard several different reports from several different officers now, that this is the building that is going to come down next"
/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo
Did I explain Building 7 to your liking in all my posts? This whole "conspiracy" is silly. imo
kushsmokkeralt 7 months ago
All conspiracy theories seem to revolve around a similar ignorant point- that there has never been a steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire. Well this is true, because before September 11, no building had ever been hit by a fully fueled Boeing 767 that was traveling over 400 miles per hour. To compare the 9/11 fires to those from other office fires in other buildings is completely erroneous. And besides- the amount of explosives needed for both towers could NEVER go unnoticed.
TMusic5 9 months ago
@TMusic5 exactly, ive heard steel i beams breaking, sounds the exact same! i hear them every single night from over 5 miles away. they sound just like explosions. people are too ignorant to understand that. i had a girl tell me "steel doesnt break" (look at my channel comments). I proved her wrong with one simple link showing steel breaking
stitchmorg 9 months ago
@TMusic5 contrary to popular belief, the jets that hit the building weren't FULLY LOADED. They had just enough fuel to make a transcontinental flight from Boston to Los Angeles. They actually had room in their fuel tanks for more fuel. Plus, most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs from the impacts. And as far as plane impacts doing damage goes, the central columns were build with solid beams. If a huge number of the beams were suddenly taken out of the equation, the towers could.....
xcited4vids 9 months ago
@TMusic5 still balance the weight above. I will try and find you a link of a computer simulation showing this.
xcited4vids 9 months ago
Bush tapped Henry Kissinger (the master of the artful coverup) to chair the 9-11 investigation. But when victims families asked him to disclose a list of his clients (zionists) he stepped down to save himself the embarassment of his bias. Then Senator Max Mclellan who was appointed stepped down and spoke out publically saying he would never be able to look the american public in the eye. The investigation was a sham and the people were being lied to. That the neocons (oil) were thwarting it.
aimeecurry46 9 months ago
wow thats cool! good jod
ReversePhoneLookup99 10 months ago
If someone still thinking those 3 buildings was destroy by Ben Ladden please can you explain why those 3 buildings collapse like a controled demolition? If those lies cannot instantly start a revolution in US country nothing can do it.
chokfm 10 months ago
This is incorrect. The building is NOT falling at free fall speed
roquefortfiles 10 months ago
I think its funny that people say "the buildings fell down demolition style" as if they know how a building should fall "plane in the side style"
how presumptious and illogical...
the plane hit towards the upper part of the building, it withstood for a bit untill the top had no support and all sides collapsed so fast its was virtually simultaneous which caused it to cave in on itself (because of gravity, duh) and that is why the buildings fell that way.
YBAdick 10 months ago
@YBAdick u sayin "that is why the buildings fell that way" like u actually know for a fact tho. but u don't. where u in the planes? im sure u weren't. lookin at other videos and comparing real controlled demolitions to the tragedy of 9/11 they look EXACTLY the same. this is why people believe that the buildings were pulled. fall straight down and neatly is the whole purpose of a controlled demolitions.
laylay1990 10 months ago
@YBAdick
Oh =D
I see we have a physics expert here! Thank god you came in with your extensive expertise and shut up all of these credited people. Clearly, YOU know best. :)
Orchliet 10 months ago
@Orchliet I never claimed to be, but than again you assume you know anything about me which makes you a bit of a presumptious follower now doesn't it, what are you like 16? Anyway, controlled demolitions are a SET of simultaneous explosions that run throughout the building, this causes the ENTIRE building to fall simultaniously, not the top of a structure (in which exactly where the planes crashed into)
it doesn't even take physics, it takes basic logic and rational thought.
YBAdick 10 months ago
Shape-shifting reptilians are demolitions experts. The Prince of Wales was responsible.
foxyfaefife 10 months ago
@foxyfaefife funny how you students are the most indoctrinated, actually no its not is it, its what one would expect.
crisisofconsciousnes 10 months ago
I would like to paste a link to a report by the demolition industry, but youtube does not allow posting links in comments (and they don't tell you that, either; they'll let you try clicking the "post" button forever, but instead of telling you why you keep getting an error message, they just say : "error, try again"). So, I'll have to describe the link instead (as a workaround): go to the implosion world website and look for the link that says "Read Implosionworld's paper on the WTC collapses"
agent8698 10 months ago
Additionally, if you know ANYTHING about building demo you would know that all the main supports would have had to have been partially cut and there would have been thousands of feet of detonation wires running throughout the building. Are you telling me all the people working there ignored all this? To prep building of that size the demo teams would have had to have been working for weeks! If you want to investigate something then find Obama's real birth certificate!
FSBONewEgypt 11 months ago
@FSBONewEgypt There were parts of the building sealed off because people were working on it prior to 9=11 Many people have reported that.
aimeecurry46 9 months ago
Good God, you consipiracy theorists fail to acknowlege so many points that are inconvienent to your hypothesis. First lets assume the upper 40 floors each covering an acre weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of a million pounds. How long do you think the next floor down could withstand a million pounds before it gave way and added it's mass to the downward plunge. The reason some debris from the top is falling slower is due to the wind resistance outside the preimeter of the building.
FSBONewEgypt 11 months ago
@FSBONewEgypt On your other post you say that all main supports would have to be partially cut....which is nearly true, then you go on to say that basically all it takes is one floor falling onto the next. Which one is it?
crisisofconsciousnes 10 months ago
@crisisofconsciousnes No, I said when 30 floors simultaneously fell on the floor below the weight blew through each floor as if it wasn't there. A controlled demolition of the type you are talking about takes an amazing amount of preparation and it would have had to have gone unnoticed by the 10s of thousands of people who worked in the Towers. Just an implosion of a Vegas hotel takes WEEKS of preparation. The reason the supports melted was because they were not coated with asbestos.
FSBONewEgypt 10 months ago
@FSBONewEgypt google Scott Forbes. And tests have been done that have shown that even without fireproofing, steel continues to withstand.
xcited4vids 9 months ago
@xcited4vids dude, think of how much wieght was resting on those steel beams. i know you probably cant comprehend millions of pounds but thats how much was on them. of course they are going to break when a plane going 515 mphs hits a structure. come on i know your smarter than that
stitchmorg 9 months ago
Yep...but I had to rebuff it, at least once... I deal with this sort of mentality in my daily work whenever I come up against a know-it-all in the manufacturing sector... Like a guy asking me if I can put an additive in his propane tank to turn it into methanol so he doesn't have to waste any of it... Or the guy that wanted to know why we don't sell monatomic nitrogen instead of the diatomic type. I should become a transmutation shyster and sell lead disguised as gold brick to people...
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
A lot of the stuff we are reading here by the conspiracy shills is already totally debunked nonsense and has been for years. As I keep saying this sort of rampant ignorance about my trade in engineering is sickening.
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
Listen to this douchebag Eric bubble head give his assinine explanation! It makes me sick to know that people like him have actually graduated with some sort of engineering degree..or did he? The top half collapses more slowly than the succeeding floors for an effin' reason and it is not by demolition! What a jack arse...
I'l bet my P.E. on it!
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
As for those of you who can't seem to wrap your heads around the temperatures that need to be attained to buckle a steel floor and superstructure under compression, not even necessarily close to melting point, think again. Now you are invading MY EXPERTISE, Metallurgy and failure analysis for over 34 years worth!
You are about as bad as Rosie O'Donnell, the famous structural, materials, and mechanical engineer. DOPES! Conspiracy is like a warm piss in your own pants! Then we all notice
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
@AnAmericanFan
I've personally seen a steel beam, with not much weight on it at all, buckle and give way at much less than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, so I, even though I don't actually have a degree in engineering, know it's possible. You can't exactly argue against what's right in front of your eyes, after all, and that's what Truther idiots have been doing. That's another reason I cannot stand them.
etirvan 11 months ago
Believe what you wish. These nut jobs are wrong. The weight of collapse was so immense that it sheered quite easily as it picked up momentum as each successive floor pancaked to the next. For example say the top floors, plus the bukcled floor was 100 tons+++ onto another 100 tons, then 200+++ tons on 100tons, then 300+++ tons on 100 tons and so on down to the first floor and the substructure. These morons give my profession a very bad name and are milking conspiracy.
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
@AnAmericanFan
That's why I now make it a policy to make 1, possibly 2, comments to them and just ignore them the rest of the way. In the past, their bogus claims and blatant lies simply made me sick. What is this country coming to if idiots have to come up with completely illogical conspiracies just to make themselves feel better or superior? It makes me sick how stupid some people can be.
etirvan 11 months ago
@etirvan I hear you but I have got to start somewhere this woman is a shill... demolition wave rushing straight down? It's enough to make one sick, she is rewriting the laws of physices as we speak or confusing them with her preconceived ill conceived notions...WHAT ABJECT BULLSCHITTE!
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
@AnAmericanFan
That's why I simply try to ignore them. Eventually, their stupidity will be seen for what it is. I have seen a few people who have turned away from the idiotic Truth movement because of people like her and their blatant disregard for scientific facts.
etirvan 11 months ago
A steel frame high rise building has NEVER collapsed from fire in history. The numerous accounts of there being bombs no second plane and the mysterious murders and suicides surrounding 9-11 should raise some questions. People just research the facts from both sides and always keep an open mind.
Revengeancer89 11 months ago
@Revengeancer89 regardless 30 floors against the rest of the entire superstructure would not fall at free fall speed they would have met with resistance I find it extremely hard to believe neither tower shifted to the side. And that 7 was pulled. Again the whole campaign of terror where we invade foreign countries for their resources one need only realize the federal reserve is privately owned. The Bali Bombings, Waco, the Lusitania, Our foreknowledge of pearl harbor etc. what will it take?
Revengeancer89 11 months ago
Also man I would say that atleast 90% of that jet fuel would have burned up in the initial explosion. The whole thing was done by a High tech Well funded demolition company one of few in the U.S would of had the capability to do this. But anyways anyone who wants some good info on this whole problem of the FED and the Illuminati / Banksters should check out Max Igan or maybe Esoteric Agenda maybe zeitgeist the film or Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism.
Revengeancer89 11 months ago
@Revengeancer89
NO. What should raise questions is your complete idiocy. There were absolutely NO accounts of there being bombs, NO accounts of no second plane, NO mysterious murders, and NO mysterious suicides following 9/11 whatsoever. These are NOTHING but blatant lies on your part. You should take your own advice to research facts and keep an open mind because it is quite clear you haven't researched ANY facts whatsoever and have closed your mind to the truth.
etirvan 11 months ago
@Revengeancer89
Also, concerning your idiotic no steel frame high rise buildings have ever collapsed argument, tell me this. Tell me one building that is as tall and as big as the WTC building, constructed with a tube in tube design, came off its core columns at the bottom floors, struck by a 200 ton jet flying at nearly 600 mph, and then weakened by fire. Until you give me one example that fits all that criteria, that stupid argument is completely illogical and utterly bogus. Good luck, moron
etirvan 11 months ago
In the end It does not matter what the government try to tell us happened if the results are always the same, a loss of freedoms and expansion of government that shows the truth.
Revengeancer89 11 months ago
@Revengeancer89 And an invasion of our precious bodily fluids.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you all must be the biggest idiots on earth. get a life. the heat from the top floors burning for an hour and weakening the joints and trusses and the sheer weight alone compiled from floor on to floor on to each other with the weight increasing with every floor is more than enough to bring the building straight down at maximum speed. do the math before you speak you bunch of jackasses.
gloriousfx 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wake up america
reefer0madness 11 months ago
how can fire burning at 800degrees melt steel? shaped charges were used! evidence is there! the american goverment is known for lying!!
xfa86 11 months ago
LOOK, why do so many first responders have rare blood cancers never before seen in young people? Ask yourself that.. Asbestos doesnt lead to these rare cancers. evidence is so overwhelming and I still see these self righteous pricks who say "I dont believe all this conspiracy nonsense" like they are taking the moral high ground. Stop being foolish
crisisofconsciousnes 11 months ago
@crisisofconsciousnes
Well, then, you should quit propagating your outlandishly blatant lies. You do realize that asbestos is a proven leading cause of malignant mesothelioma, the rare cancer you speak of, don't you? In fact, according to experts, malignant mesothelioma is almost always caused by asbestos exposure. You might want to do some research before you make some more idiotically fallacious claims. Jeez, that was an easy debunking. Maybe you should try harder next time.
etirvan 11 months ago
@etirvan - HAHA actually mulitple Myeloma not mesothelioma. Now my debunking friend 100's of first responders have died post 911 from various cancers there's no proof toxins from ground zero are to blame. Also doctors say most cancers take longer than 9 years to develop.
crisisofconsciousnes 11 months ago
@etirvan There where also some unusual elements found in the dust and Im talking elements only found from nuclear fission. The organisation that found these elements are a professional body and have this information on their website. If you wish to debunk this let me know and I will get you all the info
crisisofconsciousnes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I collected articles and video presentations which I put together on my website titled: "My Thoughts On 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism by Bill Woollam" Just Google it.
Basically, once one understands the 'controlled demolition' factor of all three towers that day, and how building seven wasn't even struck by an aircraft, then there is a reason to search out evidence for oneself. Avoiding any government agency reports or commissions seemed obvious,since facts were being skewed and covered up
Chidanandaji 11 months ago
not to mention they use speakers to weaken the structural integrity of the building so that it can fall like that... research controlled demolition yo... anyone that can't see it was all controlled demolition is a stupid redneck, i'm an academic yo, fucking hillbillies ... look how fast they fell .... you're not scientific.... research what i said about the speaker you fuck wits, your a sheep baaaaah baaaaah baaaaah
subsonicshit 11 months ago
@subsonicshit BWAHAHAHA!!!
Booger6995 11 months ago
@subsonicshit whackjob! You're a pinhead with no credibility! Try me asswipe!
AnAmericanFan 11 months ago
@subsonicshit did our government execute the first twin tower failed bombing during Clintons presidency?, or blow up the hotels in India, Bali, the train in Spain, the Jewish center in South America, The attempted bombing of the Eiffel tower in France, slaughter Jews at the Germany Olympics in the 70's, Or the recent bombings in Australia?, or did U.S. gov orchestrate the muslim rade of slaughter across Europe in 732A.D.? Islam did this just like always throughout history, time and again
weseyedwalk 11 months ago
@weseyedwalk massive logical fallacy
crisisofconsciousnes 11 months ago