OOOOOOHH! This looks like it's gonna collapse at any minute! Wait, it's still standing you say? Then how can you explain what happened on 911? I should just shut up and blame the terrorist for leaking this video? I'm confused.
@Daddyo930 WTC was build with 60's engineering skills while CCTV Mandarin Oriental Hotel build after millenium and 911. The building code are slighty improved while vital structure are seal inside concrete and newer design to withstand natural disaster. Unlike WTC which its steel structure expose outward, it melt after jet fuel burn inside the tower for some hour. So what the hell are you comparing?
@Chris58851 Nah. The WTC's were built with the updated 68' New York City Building Code. That was really stupid. Did you think you could just make shtuff up?
@Daddyo930 Look, WTC was build around 60's while CCTV Mandarin Oriental Hotel was build after 911. Between these building, their construction method were also different. Can't you see the changes?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
The effect? Fuck up your stupid piece of shit american economy, kill many important people vital to american society, and most importantly create instability in the government over the long run.
along with many other manuevers performed by elite agents and groups from all over the world whom hates America to the GUT.
but seriously.. americans.. are you fucking stupid enough to think that your very own government would fuck you over? seriously? they need your taxes man
Just because 911 is an inside job, doesn't mean the government did it.
It just means it is an inside job. Lol
Maybe terrorists had many many connections with people with access to the WTC.
Their plan ? drive airplanes into the buildings .. than.. the bomb the building.. so it seems like the whole affair is faked. The typical citizen will believe the terrorist's propaganda .. telling the typical american citizen that their evil government did it.
Something is wrong with the cctv building, in America a real steel building would burn up and collapse straight down in an hour. Now the Chinese have a huge mess to clean up. They need us more and more now, I know we can help.....
@picmario Obviously theorists don't look at everything, because doesn't everyone know that when the plane impacted, one of the elevator shafts had been destroyed and plummited down the building. As fire fighters said as they entered the building going up the floors....thats what could have hurt him, the explosion as the elevator crashed down.
Obviously the theorists only reckon events took place above the impact zone lol, they are funny. As in natural events in a fire.
Hmm yeah well, i would rather believe the honest CNN than any other random news teams. They reported exactly what you could see, and said they were not sure what was going on.
@picmario And how come no one ever came across ANYTHING relevant to a CD? No debris of one on Ground Zero that anyone found, if you think the noise is proof, then you need to get the rest of the 90% of what a CD is like, the flashes? The thin layer of dust when the bombs go off? Collapses bottom down? Directly in it's own footprint? Symmetrical?
None of those things happened except for noises, which is in ANY fire in buildings, plus the amoutn needed to bring down that building would be so
@picmario "No. You fail to understand what I told you twice already. Any strong structure can not be torn down unless you deliberately weaken it."
Are you shitting me???? Yeah it was deliberately weakened by the god damn plane that was crashed into the side of the towers. Yeah alot of people said "explosions" were heard, fire fighters say "we heard other explosions going off in the building, we might need to be more careful" Doesn't say it was explosives.
@picmario What? No the fires for the South tower were at like the 70th floor. North tower was somewhere like 83rd floor.
Anyway, no explosive noises, you cannot say it WAS, because you don't know, as earlier you said "I don't know exactly who did it". There is alot of electricity in those towers, any reactions is obvious. Some of the elevator shafts had fallen, windows of the world in the North tower was a restaurant.
Again, you cannot presume something that might not even be real.
@picmario There are many questions Mr. And i am one of those that does want some small answers, what the Government should do, is in fact rack up all the theories and just settle it all out. If nothing was suspicious, then it would be nice to see them debunk the theories...of course they don't want to because they did it, is a possibility..you never know. Or maybe they think the theories are so dumb, that why even bother? I don't know.. but have your opinion..i have mine :)
@picmario Said by NIST members. After 1993 security at the WTC was higher than ever, the only way Osama would be able to attack it, would be from the outside. Which indeed, not even the U.S would have thought of.
@picmario You can see some videos showing flames all over floors, but most of the serious flames were covered by the smoke, since i worded a fighter say "huge hole and gashes where the thick smoke is coming from."
What substances?
Even if NIST never looked for explosive remains, none were found by NO ONE at Ground Zero, or found anything strange or suspicious. Given the investigation had already been done, they did not need to search for explosives and they said it wasn't possible.
@picmario You wouldn't expect dust from a 1000ft+ building? I would, since 40 storys are falling onto one floor, then another, then another. Concrete turns to dust when crushed, just think about that, and look at the collapse very carefully.
@picmario No explosions happened in the basement either. Nor in the lobby for that matter.
Ah ah ah! Free-fall speed is a no no. That got proved back in 2008 when scientists brought up 9/11 once again, and it was proved that it never fell at free-fall. WTC7 on the other hand did. Free-fall speed: 9-10 seconds, South tower collapsed at 15.27 seconds, North tower collapsed at 25 seconds. Don't believe me? There is a video of counting seconds as the buildings decent.
@picmario Ah yah see again, in any fire, say a house fire there are always, always loud explosive like noises, bits of stuff falling everywhere, reactions with the flames and say someone's heat pump, or even a dozen computers?
Realise, that the towers were office based buildings. Explosive noises would be expected. You wouldn't expect not a single noise after the impact eh? Trust me, i have seen a huge fire before, and it gets loud.
Basement? But no columns were cut in the basement.
@picmario Indeed with the insurance and dismantling..but no one can come to a final conclusion until more is to be shared, because the theories now? They are perfect opinions, as none of them make sense or have been proven.......yet.
@picmario the thick smoke was coming out..it wasn't some small fire..tonnes of steel debris crashing down from more than 1000ft and travelling more than 70mph, going through a roof of 47 story building and most of the debris end up near the 10th floor...funny how strong steel can be eh?
@picmario Body bags....expect the worse, since more than 15,000 people did work in the WTC towers, and 25,000 in the district, fire fighters didn't take toll of how many people were SAFE, just to do their job and get as much people out.
Wait one second, one fire at WTC7? No, numerous fires were at the WTC7 building, thats why fighters never fought the blaze. Fighters said that it looked at though a huge hole had ripped through the corner of the building, as well as slashes on parts where
@picmario I must say, i do agree with you on WTC7, but the talk about the truses, three of them were the main supports to the building, one had already been weakened. The far left one collapsed. As you can see the penthouse falling through the building first, which NIST says the middle truss collapsed, casuing a symmetrical collapse. It is all very odd..but i do not wish to use WTC7 as an exscuse for "Inside Job".
@picmario They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
@picmario Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology".
@picmario You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further.
Now everyone knows two out of the three didn't happen.
Well experts say that the apparent "molten steel" is actually molten aliminium. The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column.
@picmario And said that is proof that thermate was used. Actually no, even fire fighters with the gear couldn't reach that far, so who could have lit it? As well as, the magnitude of the molten "steel" is as big as one whole floor's window...that is ALOT. Plus the obvious sign of failure of some sort was in fact the out beam, the corner beams. They twisted downards, with no molten steel or sparks of any kind.
As well as the bowing of the steel. You can't possibly use thermite at the exact
But you have only explained how thermate is used and what ti does. NYFD said that the fires were out of control and too hot to fight them. Now, the apparent "thermate", would have to be dispersed over nearly every floor, to make it fall the way it did, well more on one side given the South tower's collapse.
There is a video that theorists point out, when the molten "steel" was falling out of a window in the impact zone.
@picmario Exactly, how would the they know if the planes impact wouldn't light off the thermite, or even how would they have lighted the thermite? You might say the heat and fires where the thermite "was".
Interesting story. I suppose they had dozens of loader trucks just zip on in with thermite, and place it in the inner steel frame, without ANYONE asking about it? Nah, just nah.
What makes WTC7 an answer for EVERYTHING on 9/11 done by the government?
No one died in that building.
And for those idiotic people, no plane crashed into this building, blowing off the fireproofing. Nor was it built the same, Mandarin hotel is made to not fall from a fire, as well there was no specific hot point like the impact of the WTC towers, no weight on one area.
@2Trueforyouu ALL skyscrapers are built to resist fire as a means of collapsing. This happens naturally since steel doesn't melt at temperatures delivered by a normal fire. So "knocking off" fireproofing is a pretty stupid explanation since that would have had no effect on the steel anyway. Sorry.
WTC 7 was demolished. So were the Twin Towers. Live in denial or deal with the real issue here. Your choice.
@dallas71 No actually, knocking off the fire proofing led to the bowing of the horizontal columns, NIST report said, the fires were hot enough for the fires in the impact zone to lose 50% of their strenght, as well as the beams partly destroyed.
There is no proof of a Controlled Demolition. WTC7 probably was done by a CD, but NOT the towers.
So back at you, live in denial or deal with the real STORY.
@2Trueforyouu NIST? Are you fucking serious? Your parents also probably told you that Santa Claus was real ... and you probably believed it for awhile. But then you woke up.
Yes, there is proof the Towers were demolished as evidence of nano-thermite has been found in repeated samples. You should already know this. The real story you're talking about is a STORY bro. Sorry.
You think WTC 7 was brought down via demolition but not the towers? You know how long that takes to set up? LOL
Nano-thermite in the samples, doesn't prove jack shit. HOW was it used, why use explosives AND thermite.
Where abouts on the tower was it used? Because only fire fighters were in the towers evacuating people. There is a seen on one video that theorists say there was thermite, but it's IMPOSSIBLE because even fire fighters couldn't make it up to the impact zone area, because it was too hot and out of control.
LOL well they six and half hours if they had to demolish the building. Not like that would be enough time.
Anyway, NO i do not think the towers were brought down by a CD, wait which one do you support, Thermite or a CD? Or both? Actual EXPLOSIVES can't have been done. Proved many times.
You would need TONNES of Thermite to bring down ONE vertical column, and i would love to see how it was done, on a angle. To make the building fall that way.
@dallas71 The "nano thermite" claim seems particularly unbelieveable to me, since that stuff hasn't been used anywhere outside laboratoriums afaik, and has yet to prove it useable for anything remotely like that. Why use such experimental explosive when ordinary thermite would do the job just as well? Not too mention the simple question how you could plant thermite (or other explosive) charges and not have them go off when the planes hit.
@dallas71 How do you think that steel is created in the first place? It is melted iron. And how do you think that happens? Hmm. Fire. How do you think blacksmiths were able to forge steel swords and armor? Hmm. Fire. Learn the properties of materials before you speak.
@fchuangdi WTC was built to sustain multiple jetliner impacts. Fire does not melt steel. Neither of these issues contributed to the collapse. There's a reason steel is used in building skyscrapers. There is no question this is an implosion, period.
@dallas71 How do you think that steel is created in the first place? It is melted iron. And how do you think that happens? Hmm. Fire. How do you think blacksmiths were able to forge steel swords and armor? Hmm. Fire. Learn the properties of materials before you speak.
i guess only in NY buildings fall because of fire!!
why spend so much of explosives when you can pore jet fuel inside a building and light it then you can just wait and it will collapse in couple hours to its footprints!!
Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor". Don't forget that the supposed tank that fed the fires did not even get the fires hot enough to break windows (only 1300ºF)!
>Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor".
Oh, really? I just re-read the PM article & I can't find any such statement. In fact, they cite NIST as a source that building 7 was MORE badly damaged than originally thought:
"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris..."
Can you tell us where this "no significant factor" quote comes from?
Did damage from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the collapse? "...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." Right from NIST's own website!
The top of Building 7 was damaged by debris. If it did contribute, then lets see the south side of the top of 7 topple while the fire causes different damage and an asym. collapse. Is that what happened? Nope.
@TimReed22222 "support the working hypothesis" is a unconclusive phrase that means only it is being considered/investigated as a possibility. It means nothing finite unless/until it is formally declared and proved as a cause. Of course some will jump the gun at the words, take it wholly out of context, and start quoting it as some sort of "evidence"...
At this point the media should just say Building 7 had it's own soul and collapsed on its own after watching his older brother and sister do just that some 8 hours earlier.
WoW!!! Raging Fire !!! Didn't FALL!!! Wow does anyone see something not right with this ? Must be made out of some incredible new material unlike in the United S. were just a little fire, maybe on 1 floor makes the whole building collapse!
How the hell does a building like that turn into an inferno? Were there no sprinklers in the building? No fire suppression at all? From videos Ive seen, it appears to have started on the roof from a wayward firecracker. But how does a fire on the roof of a 40+ storey building engulf the entire complex? Did no one think to call 911 when first seeing the smoke and flame?
macandrew, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, the cold hard fact is that the twin towers were NOT hollow, they had 47 huge steel beams that went vertically from beneath the foundations right to the top of the towers, the towers were in effect a square tube within another square tube making them incredibly strong, so stop with the BS. As for your comment about the writing paper being the culprit for the intense fires at the trade centre, you need medical supervision. It's over dummy.
Perhaps anything sophisticated seems like rambling to you, but all of my commentary is verifiable. You sure seem to need a lot of hand holding when it comes to navigating the web.
Just copy the following and paste it into the google search bar, NOT the address bar: "The UAEs design-led construction" If you do it right it will display only one link, and that link will have the info that it's a concrete building. BTW, most high rises are now concrete.
There are several historical examples of steel structures failing due to fire alone, with video and pictorial evidence. You can't dispute that. There are no exact comparative examples of the WTC burning and failing OR burning and withstanding it. Twoofers have no standards for evidence. At least Wiki scientific evidence to avoid further falling for BS, and posting your own BS. Learn what scientific standards are, and follow logical processes, rather than shit pulled out of asses.
see, thats funny, NIST admitted that there was no precedent for high-rise structures failing due to fire when they postulated about WTC7. besides that, allow me to take you down a notch. The Windsor building, which i have seen you touting around as proof-positive that "twoofers" are idiots, DID NOT FULLY COLAPSE. let me make that easier for you to understand, since i know you are retarded. IT WAS ONLY A PARTIAL COLLAPSE. so WHERE ELSE have buildings fully collapse due to fire alone?
I'M USING CAPS TO MAKE MYSELF RIGHTER!!! I don't need to take YOU down a notch, because you do it to yourself everytime you compare the dissimilar. The portions of the Windsor that didn't collapse were indeed concrete, and those portions that did collapse were indeed steel. Twoofers parroted that it couldn't happen over and over and used the Windsor as one of it's examples, but it turned out that the upper steel portions did in fact collapse due to fire alone. I'm convinced you're disabled.
no, you dont need to take me down a notch because i do not hold myself on such a high pedestal as you. the portions that didnt collapse were STEEL-REINFORCED concrete, not just concrete. the point is that you cannot show another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7. THAT is the point. refute that.
Good god you're not very bright. You really really think concrete and rebar is similar to steel columns and I beams? You really really think if concrete has steel in it, it will behave as steel? You're far to stupid to even bother with.
no, i dont, im just pointing out that it is not concrete alone. please, attack my person more, and ignore the refutation that makes your argument, belief and quite possibly your entire existence irrelevant. you cant do what i tasked you with, and i will pose it once more, in case you decide to become relevant... point out another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7.
That's twice you used the term "steel cladding". You're begging for ridicule. I can't waste my time with someone who can't even use proper terminology.
"point out another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7. "
That wouldn't be valid proof of anything whatsoever, but since you think it is, point out any building built in the manor of the WTC buildings that had the same things happen to them as the WTC buildings. You can't because it's never happened.
NIST said fire was the main cause of collapse. therefore, it would stand to reason that you could draw parallels between WTC and other high-rise buildings, CLAD OR COMPRISED MAINLY OF STEEL that have fallen from fire alone... but you cannot. because no other building has. i wont comment of your use of the word "manor" instead of "manner"
Damn it you used "clad" again, and you forgot to capitalize your I. The stupid, it burns! Now twoofers have over and over again stated that steel supported structures can't fail due to fire alone, but much much smaller structures supporting much much less weight have failed due to fire alone. That alone should clue a laymen in that if it can happen to a structure under light loads, it sure as hell can happen to a structure under very heavy loads.
no, your personal assaults. i concede nothing, but you are accomplishing anything, so until you want to discuss facts, i may or may not return this asinine behavior. i prolly will tho, after i smoke. in the mean time, ponder this: there is another thing that has never happened in history before; and that is for an event remotely similiar to 9/11 (state sponsored terror) to be regarded by so many as such, to be completely wrong. if you think nothing is amiss, then... well, u couldnt possibly...?
macindrew-- 1) The towers 'were' designed for a 707 impact... "multiple" in fact. The "supposed" or "official" aircraft were not 747, but 767s/ The 767 is similar in almost every way to the 707 except for thrust. 2) Most of the fuel was burned up on ignition as evidence by the small fires in both buildings. 3) The towers were not aluminum cans. The towers had a 47 steel beam core.
macindrew verbal abuse about being dumb and ignorant is LOL funny. But probably not as much as the "Masters" megalomaniac. That is ROFL funny. I want you all to recognize my superiority because I spent (wasted) a lot of money (and probably sold their soul in the process).
WTC7 must have gotten "scared" and fell down in its own footprint. These Chinese buildings are built with Kung Fu reinforcement....they can withstand anything!
You don't need a MIT Masters Degree in Physics. But a lot of people just don't know much about the world in general, and about physics in particular. If you ask an ordinary man what happens if you drop a feather and a hammer at the same time from the same height, in vacuum, he will answer that the hammer will drop faster because it's heavier. The truth about 9/11 is not very well hidden, but ignorance blinds people, and they try to "reinvent" physics.
it's beyond amusing that so many people ( mostly rather young ) have opinions here they tout, not as an opinion, but a scientific fact. I get a laugh out of being told by kids in their late teens and early twenties , that I need to go to school and take a course physics then laugh at myself for being a " dumbshit". Here is the fun part kids... I AM A MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GRADUATE ! I hold a Masters in physics ... Who's laughing now ;-)
If you watch the raw Chinese footage of the fireworks celebration can see why the bloody thing caught fire. They bombarded the building. -- Doh! -- Hmmm. Maybe they did want to burn it down to prove THE LIE.
Gotta love the Chinese... they own the west now... they just proved 9/11 official story was b.s. and soon they will prove humans have never been on the moon. Go China!
You're probably right, no other building fell due to a fire (burning the fuel originally available inside the building) but how many of these got hit by a fully laden jet full of fuel. Sort of introduces a bit more heat and damage than a bit of furniture and plastic. Where do you get your evidence from any way? Whats that I hear? The internet! Oh well yes, thats all fact isn't it!!
you simply presume too much here.you even go so far as to tell me where I get my information... LOL jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel. Most of it was burnt off outside the building upon impact and created the massive fire ball. The fuel inside the towers did not burn long enough to build up the heat needed ... The towers were in fact designed to take the impact of being hit dead center by jet aircraft ... The towers did not even sway much when hit.. Then theres building 7... no jet
The problems at WTC were twofold. First, there was the issue of all the inflammables (because at those temperatures, aluminum can actually burst into flame, as proven in Apollo 1...and that certainly helped the process along), and secondly, harmonic vibration, which caused the building to vibrate like a tuning fork and literally shake itself to bits. (Also, the buildings had very few interior (ie auxiliary) supports, and therefore core damage caused problems.)
quit being so dumb. the design was for a 707 hitting a tower, not a 747, and they made no calculation for fuel. So you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Go to school, take a physics course, then you can laugh at yourself for being such a dumbshit.
Yes ... building 7 had NO jet. And that is the size building this is. This fire burned far more intense than all of the WTC fires combined. The only way to solve 9/11 is to rebuild to scale and have a detailed reenactment. We need to reenact 9/11. Think of all we could learn!
the mandarin was a standard steel structure, the towers were hollow. please learn about building construction before you post ignorant comments to youtube. thanks!
china's G.N.P was down 17.5% last month jan 2009 . U.S. can't afford to buy china's goods as readly.maybe the investors in the tvcc hotel did a silverstein like the w.t.c. ?
mmmmmm... a sky scraper caught on fire and it DID NOT collapse !!!! Only Towers in NYC fall down due to fire... Such a pity that this architects dream building was destroyed before it even had a chance to be completed.. it really was a stunning center ...
That bridge is not comparable to a tower. Although the press jumped on it when it happened trying to debunk 9/11 with it. Of course they are apt to do anything to cover up 9/11 and keep the funding going for war. Yesterday I saw bin laden pasted on a picture of the ausitrailian wild fires with an article about forrest terror on fox news. heh, they will stop at nothing.
It would be very interesting to see if it's still salvageable. A concrete underpass in California had a very bad fire that burned for a long time inside it. The rebar under the concrete got so hot it expanded and spalled the concrete off of the walls. I think they didn't have to demolish it, they just had to refinish the inside of it.
Its amusing reading comments left here by those who STILL deny that the WTC was a planned demolition. Even though HUNDREDS of eye & ear witnesses, many seasoned police & firefighters, both saw & heard the MANY explosions from inside the buildings. I have seen & heard them myself on MANY videos & I have seen the huge beams in the rubble that were OBVIOUSLY cut at exact 45 degree angles & still dripping with what once was molten steel. NO ONE is EVER going to convince a FOOL it was an inside job.
Make that building into a national monument. It could be a tourist attraction. The new icon of Beijing. And a reminder not to play fireworks near building.
all of these buildings are made out of steel. this hotel was made out of 10,000 steel beams to be exact. HAHAHAHA. same structure. different result i would say. HAHAHAHHA
the point is in the history of burning buildings no building has ever fell due too fires no matter how long it burns, except on 9/11 where three buildings fell due too fires which is a miracle in physics because it has never happened before or since 9/11.
Get on the internet and start googleing. You're probably still parroting shit from Dylan Avery's first movie even though nearly everything in it was debunked, so he had to make 2 more revisions. In his first movie he shows a high rise that burned uncontrolled until it exhausted all combustibles. His teen ass made the same comments about no building has ever fell due to fires.... blah blah. Avery, you, and all his other cult followers never bothered to do a little research. Winsor was concrete.
Name another high rise like the WTC buildings that burned and didn't collapse. You can't because there aren't any. WTC had a unique design to attract tenants. They opted for a tube in tube for more continuous floor spaces. Leave out comments about false arguments (ad hominem) if you're going to be a hypocrite and use them yourself. ("name a singular high rise building that has completely failed structurally due to fire.") I can't believe there are still adherents to the Dylan Avery cult in 2009
Actually I normally don't debate in the youtube comments section as it's one of the lamest places to debate. Try a social news aggregator to debate in. There's a much higher limit on characters, and one can go back and forth with several folks at a time. Try reddit, but I should warn you in advance that it's not entirely full of ignorant teens. You will be regularly called on your hypocrisy with regards to fallacious arguments as many of the commenters have a higher education than youtubers.
You're here using the inferior youtube comments section for the same reason kindergarten through 5th grade goes to Chuck E Cheese , it's where they and their peers hang out. Try a social news aggregator like reddit where you wont have a bunch of immature idiots hanging out making inane commentary. I can't believe folks use a site with such a small character limit for debate. I've never used youtube for that as you can see by my history. Just this one last sentence and i've maxed out youtube.
You have a nasty hypocrisy thing going on when it comes to pointing out flawed arguments. You note flawed debate tactics and you follow with your own flawed debate tactics. If you want to carry this debate on in an intelligent manor, you can better do it on a site with a much better comment system and we can both share many links. Youtube sucks for it. On social news commentary sites, youtube is oft made fun of for it's lowbrow community and it's worthless comment system. And again out of room
Well, I'll give you this... youTube comment section is horrible. Alot of the time my comments don't go through. But as far a debating with you, I'm not interested. Some people, like you for instance, refuse to open their mind to the obvious no matter how much proof there is. The truth goes through 3 phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.. No one knows how long it takes to get through each phase. I pray you make out of two.
I can't believe that example, used in the first loose change, is still being parroted. It wasn't used in the next two Loose change documentaries because it was easily found that the Windsor was actually had a concrete core support, and the top outer portion, which was steel, did indeed collapse due to the fire. You can plainly see it in stills and vids of the fire. This is very very old news though. It's easily debunked shit like that that was the reason for the Loose Change revisions.
The best picture I've seen is in the wikipedia. I don't know anything about it being used in documentaries. But if they did, it would be a good example. it even had a crane on top the didn't collapse. And the fire was far more intense than all three trade center buildings combined.
This video is good because it proves the point that concrete does not turn to dust after being exposed to fire. And the Madrid tower does too if what you say is correct and it too had a concrete core. I would like to see the trade center rebuilt somewhere and the whole senario reenacted to scale. That is the best way to solve this. I vote for 9/11 reenactment. Think of all we could learn from that.
No one says the fire turns concrete to dust, except for you, silly. WTC was not structurally held together with concrete, it had concrete floors. Even two and three story wooden framed apartments and condos often have concrete floors.
The only portion of the Windsor that did collapse was above the 17th floor, where the steel was unprotected. Below that point, they had been in the process of fireproofing, and all but a couple areas on two floors were fireproofed. On those two floors, there was buckling but no collapse. And the building was fully engulfed for over 20 hours.
Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Something the WTC didn't have, yet you all still want to compare apples and oranges when it's convenient, and you don't want them compared when it's not. Troofers can't have it all ways, either steel can fail due to fire, or it can't. Clearly it can, and clearly it did.
In the case of Windsor, the ONLY place the steel failed was where there was ZERO fireproofing, and it took many hours for it to fail at that, with a raging inferno unseen at WTC 7. You're right, you can't compare 20+ hour raging infernos and zero fireproofing with an intermittent fire of 7 hours and fireproofed steel. I read the report. Fires lasted only 20-30 minutes in any given spot. The only floors they attributed to possible cause of collapse were 6 of only 10 that had fires at all.
Again when it's convienient for twoofers to compare apples to oranges they want to, but when it's not, they don't. First you twoofers said it couldn't happen, and now that it's been pointed out that it can happen, and actually has happened, you want to cherry pick what you think works for your silly theories. Anyway the hotel wasn't constructed the same way, the top portions that collapsed didn't have near the loads as WTC, and yet they still failed. The Delft fire is another great example.
It's incredibly stupid to expect two buildings that are built differently to behave exactly the same way. Twoofers said it couldn't happen, but not only has it happened, its happened in structures like the top floors of Windsor, and Delft, and those two buildings didn't have near the loads on top of them. Not only that, Windsor didn't have concrete floors tied to them that pancaked. Do you really believe that two structures of differing designs should be expected to behave exactly the same way?
You're comparing two PARTIAL collapses, one a 13 story bldg with completely different construction, both with raging fires, one with NO fireproofing, with the complete collapse of WTC 7, and you're accusing me of comparing apples to oranges?
So tell me, how different is the First Interstate Bank building in LA to WTC 7? Other than the fact it didn't collapse?
Are you that retarded that you think First Interstate is also identically constructed to WTC7, and burned unfought for several hours? Tell me, how is it much smaller buildings with much smaller loads can collapse due to fire alone, but enormous buildings can't? You want it both ways, but you can't have it both ways. Twoofer wetards said over and over it couldn't happen, but it has with structures supporting much lighter loads. It's on video, and it's in pictures.
I didn't say it was identical - no two buildings are. I asked 'how different is it?' Name ONE COMPLETE COLLAPSE of ANY steel-framed HIGH-RISE due to fire. High-rises are built much stronger because they hold larger loads. Steel that is heated regains its strength once the heat is removed. Fires lasting 20-30 mins. in any given spot cannot heat protected steel enough to weaken it, let alone collapse it completely.
Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse.
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.
The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
Fire temps reaching 1000 C (briefly) are gas temps, not the temp of the steel.
Calculated fire-elevated temperatures in the interior columns, including Columns 79, 80 and 81, stayed below 200 C on all floors.
NIST says (speculating about the diesel fuel) that even if the entire column (79) had been immersed in a 1400 C (2550 C) flame, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of signficant loss of strength and stiffness.
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS CTCOLE77 DOESN'T WANT YOU TO ASK HIM/SHE/IT
1.Who is paying you?
2.What makes you think your stupid questions are interesting?
3.Does your mother still know you are at your computer after being told to go to bed?
thisisyourwakeup 1 week ago
3 QUESTIONS CTCOLE77 DOESN'T WANT YOU TO ASK HIM/SHE/IT
1.Who is paying you?
2.What makes you think your stupid questions are interesting?
3.Does your mother still know you are at your computer after being told to go to bed?
thisisyourwakeup 1 week ago
OOOOOOHH! This looks like it's gonna collapse at any minute! Wait, it's still standing you say? Then how can you explain what happened on 911? I should just shut up and blame the terrorist for leaking this video? I'm confused.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 WTC was build with 60's engineering skills while CCTV Mandarin Oriental Hotel build after millenium and 911. The building code are slighty improved while vital structure are seal inside concrete and newer design to withstand natural disaster. Unlike WTC which its steel structure expose outward, it melt after jet fuel burn inside the tower for some hour. So what the hell are you comparing?
Chris58851 2 months ago
@Chris58851 Nah. The WTC's were built with the updated 68' New York City Building Code. That was really stupid. Did you think you could just make shtuff up?
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Look, WTC was build around 60's while CCTV Mandarin Oriental Hotel was build after 911. Between these building, their construction method were also different. Can't you see the changes?
Chris58851 2 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 2 months ago
@ctcole77 3 QUESTIONS CTCOLE77 RUNS AWAY FROM OR WON'T ANSWER:
1. How does the first law of thermodynamics apply to 911?
2. How can a 767 fly 420 or 510 knots at 700 feet?
3. What do Newton's laws of motion and gravity have to do with 911?
Daddyo930 2 months ago
LOOK, THE BUILDING COLLAPSED!!! Oh wait, it didn't, even after 6 hours?? But Bush told me it was possible.... hahahaha 9/11 was an inside job!
samurai2828 8 months ago
The effect? Fuck up your stupid piece of shit american economy, kill many important people vital to american society, and most importantly create instability in the government over the long run.
along with many other manuevers performed by elite agents and groups from all over the world whom hates America to the GUT.
but seriously.. americans.. are you fucking stupid enough to think that your very own government would fuck you over? seriously? they need your taxes man
student135 9 months ago
Just because 911 is an inside job, doesn't mean the government did it.
It just means it is an inside job. Lol
Maybe terrorists had many many connections with people with access to the WTC.
Their plan ? drive airplanes into the buildings .. than.. the bomb the building.. so it seems like the whole affair is faked. The typical citizen will believe the terrorist's propaganda .. telling the typical american citizen that their evil government did it.
student135 9 months ago
Something is wrong with the cctv building, in America a real steel building would burn up and collapse straight down in an hour. Now the Chinese have a huge mess to clean up. They need us more and more now, I know we can help.....
IExposeMormonism 11 months ago
@picmario Obviously theorists don't look at everything, because doesn't everyone know that when the plane impacted, one of the elevator shafts had been destroyed and plummited down the building. As fire fighters said as they entered the building going up the floors....thats what could have hurt him, the explosion as the elevator crashed down.
Obviously the theorists only reckon events took place above the impact zone lol, they are funny. As in natural events in a fire.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Dude that first link you gave me was all like in Swis language or something i can't read it.
Second link is interesting though, that huge explosion.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario God damn loud.
Hmm yeah well, i would rather believe the honest CNN than any other random news teams. They reported exactly what you could see, and said they were not sure what was going on.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario And how come no one ever came across ANYTHING relevant to a CD? No debris of one on Ground Zero that anyone found, if you think the noise is proof, then you need to get the rest of the 90% of what a CD is like, the flashes? The thin layer of dust when the bombs go off? Collapses bottom down? Directly in it's own footprint? Symmetrical?
None of those things happened except for noises, which is in ANY fire in buildings, plus the amoutn needed to bring down that building would be so
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario "No. You fail to understand what I told you twice already. Any strong structure can not be torn down unless you deliberately weaken it."
Are you shitting me???? Yeah it was deliberately weakened by the god damn plane that was crashed into the side of the towers. Yeah alot of people said "explosions" were heard, fire fighters say "we heard other explosions going off in the building, we might need to be more careful" Doesn't say it was explosives.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Plus the building fell from the top down, so explosives in the basement would have made it collapse from the bottom.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario What? No the fires for the South tower were at like the 70th floor. North tower was somewhere like 83rd floor.
Anyway, no explosive noises, you cannot say it WAS, because you don't know, as earlier you said "I don't know exactly who did it". There is alot of electricity in those towers, any reactions is obvious. Some of the elevator shafts had fallen, windows of the world in the North tower was a restaurant.
Again, you cannot presume something that might not even be real.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario There are many questions Mr. And i am one of those that does want some small answers, what the Government should do, is in fact rack up all the theories and just settle it all out. If nothing was suspicious, then it would be nice to see them debunk the theories...of course they don't want to because they did it, is a possibility..you never know. Or maybe they think the theories are so dumb, that why even bother? I don't know.. but have your opinion..i have mine :)
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Said by NIST members. After 1993 security at the WTC was higher than ever, the only way Osama would be able to attack it, would be from the outside. Which indeed, not even the U.S would have thought of.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario You can see some videos showing flames all over floors, but most of the serious flames were covered by the smoke, since i worded a fighter say "huge hole and gashes where the thick smoke is coming from."
What substances?
Even if NIST never looked for explosive remains, none were found by NO ONE at Ground Zero, or found anything strange or suspicious. Given the investigation had already been done, they did not need to search for explosives and they said it wasn't possible.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario You wouldn't expect dust from a 1000ft+ building? I would, since 40 storys are falling onto one floor, then another, then another. Concrete turns to dust when crushed, just think about that, and look at the collapse very carefully.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario No explosions happened in the basement either. Nor in the lobby for that matter.
Ah ah ah! Free-fall speed is a no no. That got proved back in 2008 when scientists brought up 9/11 once again, and it was proved that it never fell at free-fall. WTC7 on the other hand did. Free-fall speed: 9-10 seconds, South tower collapsed at 15.27 seconds, North tower collapsed at 25 seconds. Don't believe me? There is a video of counting seconds as the buildings decent.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Ah yah see again, in any fire, say a house fire there are always, always loud explosive like noises, bits of stuff falling everywhere, reactions with the flames and say someone's heat pump, or even a dozen computers?
Realise, that the towers were office based buildings. Explosive noises would be expected. You wouldn't expect not a single noise after the impact eh? Trust me, i have seen a huge fire before, and it gets loud.
Basement? But no columns were cut in the basement.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Indeed with the insurance and dismantling..but no one can come to a final conclusion until more is to be shared, because the theories now? They are perfect opinions, as none of them make sense or have been proven.......yet.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario the thick smoke was coming out..it wasn't some small fire..tonnes of steel debris crashing down from more than 1000ft and travelling more than 70mph, going through a roof of 47 story building and most of the debris end up near the 10th floor...funny how strong steel can be eh?
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Body bags....expect the worse, since more than 15,000 people did work in the WTC towers, and 25,000 in the district, fire fighters didn't take toll of how many people were SAFE, just to do their job and get as much people out.
Wait one second, one fire at WTC7? No, numerous fires were at the WTC7 building, thats why fighters never fought the blaze. Fighters said that it looked at though a huge hole had ripped through the corner of the building, as well as slashes on parts where
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario I must say, i do agree with you on WTC7, but the talk about the truses, three of them were the main supports to the building, one had already been weakened. The far left one collapsed. As you can see the penthouse falling through the building first, which NIST says the middle truss collapsed, casuing a symmetrical collapse. It is all very odd..but i do not wish to use WTC7 as an exscuse for "Inside Job".
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology".
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Yes your right. Three phases:
Now everyone knows two out of the three didn't happen.
Well experts say that the apparent "molten steel" is actually molten aliminium. The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario time when the steel suffered too much stress from the bowing and snapped.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario And said that is proof that thermate was used. Actually no, even fire fighters with the gear couldn't reach that far, so who could have lit it? As well as, the magnitude of the molten "steel" is as big as one whole floor's window...that is ALOT. Plus the obvious sign of failure of some sort was in fact the out beam, the corner beams. They twisted downards, with no molten steel or sparks of any kind.
As well as the bowing of the steel. You can't possibly use thermite at the exact
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario I guess you could say it's possible.
But you have only explained how thermate is used and what ti does. NYFD said that the fires were out of control and too hot to fight them. Now, the apparent "thermate", would have to be dispersed over nearly every floor, to make it fall the way it did, well more on one side given the South tower's collapse.
There is a video that theorists point out, when the molten "steel" was falling out of a window in the impact zone.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@picmario Exactly, how would the they know if the planes impact wouldn't light off the thermite, or even how would they have lighted the thermite? You might say the heat and fires where the thermite "was".
Interesting story. I suppose they had dozens of loader trucks just zip on in with thermite, and place it in the inner steel frame, without ANYONE asking about it? Nah, just nah.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
What makes WTC7 an answer for EVERYTHING on 9/11 done by the government?
No one died in that building.
And for those idiotic people, no plane crashed into this building, blowing off the fireproofing. Nor was it built the same, Mandarin hotel is made to not fall from a fire, as well there was no specific hot point like the impact of the WTC towers, no weight on one area.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu ALL skyscrapers are built to resist fire as a means of collapsing. This happens naturally since steel doesn't melt at temperatures delivered by a normal fire. So "knocking off" fireproofing is a pretty stupid explanation since that would have had no effect on the steel anyway. Sorry.
WTC 7 was demolished. So were the Twin Towers. Live in denial or deal with the real issue here. Your choice.
dallas71 1 year ago
@dallas71 No actually, knocking off the fire proofing led to the bowing of the horizontal columns, NIST report said, the fires were hot enough for the fires in the impact zone to lose 50% of their strenght, as well as the beams partly destroyed.
There is no proof of a Controlled Demolition. WTC7 probably was done by a CD, but NOT the towers.
So back at you, live in denial or deal with the real STORY.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu NIST? Are you fucking serious? Your parents also probably told you that Santa Claus was real ... and you probably believed it for awhile. But then you woke up.
Yes, there is proof the Towers were demolished as evidence of nano-thermite has been found in repeated samples. You should already know this. The real story you're talking about is a STORY bro. Sorry.
You think WTC 7 was brought down via demolition but not the towers? You know how long that takes to set up? LOL
dallas71 1 year ago
@dallas71 Lol like most parents would.
Nano-thermite in the samples, doesn't prove jack shit. HOW was it used, why use explosives AND thermite.
Where abouts on the tower was it used? Because only fire fighters were in the towers evacuating people. There is a seen on one video that theorists say there was thermite, but it's IMPOSSIBLE because even fire fighters couldn't make it up to the impact zone area, because it was too hot and out of control.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@dallas71 I said probably, given how it fell.
LOL well they six and half hours if they had to demolish the building. Not like that would be enough time.
Anyway, NO i do not think the towers were brought down by a CD, wait which one do you support, Thermite or a CD? Or both? Actual EXPLOSIVES can't have been done. Proved many times.
You would need TONNES of Thermite to bring down ONE vertical column, and i would love to see how it was done, on a angle. To make the building fall that way.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@dallas71 The "nano thermite" claim seems particularly unbelieveable to me, since that stuff hasn't been used anywhere outside laboratoriums afaik, and has yet to prove it useable for anything remotely like that. Why use such experimental explosive when ordinary thermite would do the job just as well? Not too mention the simple question how you could plant thermite (or other explosive) charges and not have them go off when the planes hit.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu HEY BABY HOW R U BABY?!
emosuper20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dallas71 How do you think that steel is created in the first place? It is melted iron. And how do you think that happens? Hmm. Fire. How do you think blacksmiths were able to forge steel swords and armor? Hmm. Fire. Learn the properties of materials before you speak.
johnriii44 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnriii44 1 year ago
Oh okay...thank you for the information....
could you give me the link establishing the proof of thermite in dust samples of the WTC?
dallas71, did you watch the video about the aftermath of a building burning in Shanghai?
fchuangdi 1 year ago
but but but i thought it was supposed to collapse like wtc building 7. obvious 9/11 inside job is obvious.
ericucsd 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
911 INSIDE JOB
martinavizcomm 1 year ago
WTC7,,fire,,yeh right
glennirish 1 year ago 14
is this nice building repaired or is asaned ???
jumis6 1 year ago
that suck is close to falling, i mean, look at the buckling walls
oldrestless 1 year ago
@oldrestless
The building was built like that, the buckling was not due to the fire
danthalis 1 year ago
OUCH...THE "penis" was burnt
lizard151103 1 year ago
@lizard151103 then how can i pee
snookeross 1 year ago
beautiful
syrillee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WTC demolished. Proof of thermite exists in all dust samples studied. Any further questions?
dallas71 2 years ago 7
it was anyoen with any combination of knoledge/inteligence can work it out
lynched101 2 years ago
What in your view would be proof of thermite?
CJFCarlsson 1 year ago
@dallas71
WTC is older...maybe its structure wasn't able to withstand the fire?
Another factor to consider is that the Planes that crashed into it were carrying a lot of fuel...
But you are right. its strange this building is still and WTC is collapsed.
fchuangdi 1 year ago
@fchuangdi WTC was built to sustain multiple jetliner impacts. Fire does not melt steel. Neither of these issues contributed to the collapse. There's a reason steel is used in building skyscrapers. There is no question this is an implosion, period.
dallas71 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnriii44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dallas71 How do you think that steel is created in the first place? It is melted iron. And how do you think that happens? Hmm. Fire. How do you think blacksmiths were able to forge steel swords and armor? Hmm. Fire. Learn the properties of materials before you speak.
johnriii44 1 year ago
@dallas71 Lol yep actually, wait it's not a question, but a fact, actually a couple.
Impossible to have used VERTICALLY given the conditions of the WTC, and impossible for ANYONE to have been there. It was too hot.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
hahaha
i guess only in NY buildings fall because of fire!!
why spend so much of explosives when you can pore jet fuel inside a building and light it then you can just wait and it will collapse in couple hours to its footprints!!
xgm199x 2 years ago 2
Don't forget to smash a 150-ton airplane at 500+mph into it first!
TimReed22222 2 years ago
umm what about wtc 7?
xgm199x 2 years ago
"umm what about wtc 7?"
Don't forget to drop a huge chunk of a collapsing 110-story skyscraper on it first!
TimReed22222 2 years ago
that wouldn't make it pulverize into its footprints
xgm199x 2 years ago
"that wouldn't make it pulverize into its footprints"
Don't forget to provide a huge supply of diesel fuel to feed the fires & leave them unfought for 6 hours!
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor". Don't forget that the supposed tank that fed the fires did not even get the fires hot enough to break windows (only 1300ºF)!
thehipsterofnewyork 2 years ago
>Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor".
Oh, really? I just re-read the PM article & I can't find any such statement. In fact, they cite NIST as a source that building 7 was MORE badly damaged than originally thought:
"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris..."
Can you tell us where this "no significant factor" quote comes from?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Did damage from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the collapse? "...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." Right from NIST's own website!
thehipsterofnewyork 2 years ago
>"...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse."
Last I checked, "contribute to" and "initiate" were not the same thing.
Did the falling debris from tower 1 *initiate* the collapse? No.
Did it CONTRIBUTE TO the collapse? Absolutely!
TimReed22222 2 years ago
The top of Building 7 was damaged by debris. If it did contribute, then lets see the south side of the top of 7 topple while the fire causes different damage and an asym. collapse. Is that what happened? Nope.
thehipsterofnewyork 2 years ago
@thehipsterofnewyork thx
snookeross 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 "support the working hypothesis" is a unconclusive phrase that means only it is being considered/investigated as a possibility. It means nothing finite unless/until it is formally declared and proved as a cause. Of course some will jump the gun at the words, take it wholly out of context, and start quoting it as some sort of "evidence"...
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
is the side supposed to be kinked in like that? lol
trucksoner 2 years ago
At this point the media should just say Building 7 had it's own soul and collapsed on its own after watching his older brother and sister do just that some 8 hours earlier.
But you got to admit, China needs to work
with less flammable material collapse or not.
frankiebones01 2 years ago 2
WoW!!! Raging Fire !!! Didn't FALL!!! Wow does anyone see something not right with this ? Must be made out of some incredible new material unlike in the United S. were just a little fire, maybe on 1 floor makes the whole building collapse!
Just like building 7!!! Wow!!!
deec269 2 years ago 2
HAHAHAHAHAHA REM KOOLHAAS RULES!!!!
mondeonero 2 years ago
WTC7?¿?¿
ANY EXPLANATION?
ssooccoo 2 years ago
Can somebody tell me the exact moment in history when Al Qaeda separated itself from the CIA and began to rebel? Thanks.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
Excellent question!!! I've never seen this question asked or any sort of explanation as to why and when Al Qaeda began to rebell against the CIA.
ddmaxlow 1 year ago
How the hell does a building like that turn into an inferno? Were there no sprinklers in the building? No fire suppression at all? From videos Ive seen, it appears to have started on the roof from a wayward firecracker. But how does a fire on the roof of a 40+ storey building engulf the entire complex? Did no one think to call 911 when first seeing the smoke and flame?
DdecC15 2 years ago
Read the news. The building was still under construction.
Karakas4 2 years ago
911 works for US only lol
yurihuski 2 years ago 2
I guess "Thermal expansion" wasn't around that day.
AiresQX4 2 years ago
macandrew, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, the cold hard fact is that the twin towers were NOT hollow, they had 47 huge steel beams that went vertically from beneath the foundations right to the top of the towers, the towers were in effect a square tube within another square tube making them incredibly strong, so stop with the BS. As for your comment about the writing paper being the culprit for the intense fires at the trade centre, you need medical supervision. It's over dummy.
kaferere 2 years ago
-- Finally, yes, I agree... "please learn about building construction before you post ignorant comments to youtube. thanks! "
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
Comment removed
aredditor 2 years ago
lets see it, aredditor. mail me a link of this video, im interested to see what you are rambling about now.
814ck0u7 2 years ago
Perhaps anything sophisticated seems like rambling to you, but all of my commentary is verifiable. You sure seem to need a lot of hand holding when it comes to navigating the web.
Just copy the following and paste it into the google search bar, NOT the address bar: "The UAEs design-led construction" If you do it right it will display only one link, and that link will have the info that it's a concrete building. BTW, most high rises are now concrete.
aredditor 2 years ago
High rises are built with cost in question if steel structures are cheaper it's steel.
BrownsnBuckeyesfan 2 years ago
There are several historical examples of steel structures failing due to fire alone, with video and pictorial evidence. You can't dispute that. There are no exact comparative examples of the WTC burning and failing OR burning and withstanding it. Twoofers have no standards for evidence. At least Wiki scientific evidence to avoid further falling for BS, and posting your own BS. Learn what scientific standards are, and follow logical processes, rather than shit pulled out of asses.
aredditor 2 years ago
see, thats funny, NIST admitted that there was no precedent for high-rise structures failing due to fire when they postulated about WTC7. besides that, allow me to take you down a notch. The Windsor building, which i have seen you touting around as proof-positive that "twoofers" are idiots, DID NOT FULLY COLAPSE. let me make that easier for you to understand, since i know you are retarded. IT WAS ONLY A PARTIAL COLLAPSE. so WHERE ELSE have buildings fully collapse due to fire alone?
814ck0u7 2 years ago
I'M USING CAPS TO MAKE MYSELF RIGHTER!!! I don't need to take YOU down a notch, because you do it to yourself everytime you compare the dissimilar. The portions of the Windsor that didn't collapse were indeed concrete, and those portions that did collapse were indeed steel. Twoofers parroted that it couldn't happen over and over and used the Windsor as one of it's examples, but it turned out that the upper steel portions did in fact collapse due to fire alone. I'm convinced you're disabled.
aredditor 2 years ago
no, you dont need to take me down a notch because i do not hold myself on such a high pedestal as you. the portions that didnt collapse were STEEL-REINFORCED concrete, not just concrete. the point is that you cannot show another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7. THAT is the point. refute that.
814ck0u7 2 years ago
Good god you're not very bright. You really really think concrete and rebar is similar to steel columns and I beams? You really really think if concrete has steel in it, it will behave as steel? You're far to stupid to even bother with.
aredditor 2 years ago
no, i dont, im just pointing out that it is not concrete alone. please, attack my person more, and ignore the refutation that makes your argument, belief and quite possibly your entire existence irrelevant. you cant do what i tasked you with, and i will pose it once more, in case you decide to become relevant... point out another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7.
814ck0u7 2 years ago
That's twice you used the term "steel cladding". You're begging for ridicule. I can't waste my time with someone who can't even use proper terminology.
"point out another high-rise steel-clad building that has fallen in a manner like or unlike WTC7. "
That wouldn't be valid proof of anything whatsoever, but since you think it is, point out any building built in the manor of the WTC buildings that had the same things happen to them as the WTC buildings. You can't because it's never happened.
aredditor 2 years ago
NIST said fire was the main cause of collapse. therefore, it would stand to reason that you could draw parallels between WTC and other high-rise buildings, CLAD OR COMPRISED MAINLY OF STEEL that have fallen from fire alone... but you cannot. because no other building has. i wont comment of your use of the word "manor" instead of "manner"
814ck0u7 2 years ago
Damn it you used "clad" again, and you forgot to capitalize your I. The stupid, it burns! Now twoofers have over and over again stated that steel supported structures can't fail due to fire alone, but much much smaller structures supporting much much less weight have failed due to fire alone. That alone should clue a laymen in that if it can happen to a structure under light loads, it sure as hell can happen to a structure under very heavy loads.
aredditor 2 years ago
does "composed of" work better? continue your dance.
814ck0u7 2 years ago
OK, you just don't know what "clad" even means. I haven't looked at your profile. Are you even an adult?
aredditor 2 years ago
aredditor, its not working.
814ck0u7 2 years ago
Google? Alright I'll do that for you too.
Main Entry:
3clad
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): clad or clad·ded; clad·ding
Date: 1939
: sheathe , face ; specifically : to cover (a metal) with another metal by bonding
You're using "clad" out of context. Your stupid hurts my brain.
aredditor 2 years ago
no, your personal assaults. i concede nothing, but you are accomplishing anything, so until you want to discuss facts, i may or may not return this asinine behavior. i prolly will tho, after i smoke. in the mean time, ponder this: there is another thing that has never happened in history before; and that is for an event remotely similiar to 9/11 (state sponsored terror) to be regarded by so many as such, to be completely wrong. if you think nothing is amiss, then... well, u couldnt possibly...?
814ck0u7 2 years ago
in the mean time, try looking up flight data recorder discrepancies.. for starters. Look up John Lear
814ck0u7 2 years ago
macindrew-- 1) The towers 'were' designed for a 707 impact... "multiple" in fact. The "supposed" or "official" aircraft were not 747, but 767s/ The 767 is similar in almost every way to the 707 except for thrust. 2) Most of the fuel was burned up on ignition as evidence by the small fires in both buildings. 3) The towers were not aluminum cans. The towers had a 47 steel beam core.
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
macindrew verbal abuse about being dumb and ignorant is LOL funny. But probably not as much as the "Masters" megalomaniac. That is ROFL funny. I want you all to recognize my superiority because I spent (wasted) a lot of money (and probably sold their soul in the process).
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
WTC7 must have gotten "scared" and fell down in its own footprint. These Chinese buildings are built with Kung Fu reinforcement....they can withstand anything!
OmarThePug 2 years ago
You don't need a MIT Masters Degree in Physics. But a lot of people just don't know much about the world in general, and about physics in particular. If you ask an ordinary man what happens if you drop a feather and a hammer at the same time from the same height, in vacuum, he will answer that the hammer will drop faster because it's heavier. The truth about 9/11 is not very well hidden, but ignorance blinds people, and they try to "reinvent" physics.
tuzmor 2 years ago
it's beyond amusing that so many people ( mostly rather young ) have opinions here they tout, not as an opinion, but a scientific fact. I get a laugh out of being told by kids in their late teens and early twenties , that I need to go to school and take a course physics then laugh at myself for being a " dumbshit". Here is the fun part kids... I AM A MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GRADUATE ! I hold a Masters in physics ... Who's laughing now ;-)
MasterMark123 2 years ago
If you watch the raw Chinese footage of the fireworks celebration can see why the bloody thing caught fire. They bombarded the building. -- Doh! -- Hmmm. Maybe they did want to burn it down to prove THE LIE.
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
Gotta love the Chinese... they own the west now... they just proved 9/11 official story was b.s. and soon they will prove humans have never been on the moon. Go China!
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
Geez JWall... 47 core columns aren't enough for ya?
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
You're probably right, no other building fell due to a fire (burning the fuel originally available inside the building) but how many of these got hit by a fully laden jet full of fuel. Sort of introduces a bit more heat and damage than a bit of furniture and plastic. Where do you get your evidence from any way? Whats that I hear? The internet! Oh well yes, thats all fact isn't it!!
kagecesa 3 years ago
you simply presume too much here.you even go so far as to tell me where I get my information... LOL jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel. Most of it was burnt off outside the building upon impact and created the massive fire ball. The fuel inside the towers did not burn long enough to build up the heat needed ... The towers were in fact designed to take the impact of being hit dead center by jet aircraft ... The towers did not even sway much when hit.. Then theres building 7... no jet
MasterMark123 3 years ago
The problems at WTC were twofold. First, there was the issue of all the inflammables (because at those temperatures, aluminum can actually burst into flame, as proven in Apollo 1...and that certainly helped the process along), and secondly, harmonic vibration, which caused the building to vibrate like a tuning fork and literally shake itself to bits. (Also, the buildings had very few interior (ie auxiliary) supports, and therefore core damage caused problems.)
JWall416 2 years ago
quit being so dumb. the design was for a 707 hitting a tower, not a 747, and they made no calculation for fuel. So you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Go to school, take a physics course, then you can laugh at yourself for being such a dumbshit.
macindrew 2 years ago
Yes ... building 7 had NO jet. And that is the size building this is. This fire burned far more intense than all of the WTC fires combined. The only way to solve 9/11 is to rebuild to scale and have a detailed reenactment. We need to reenact 9/11. Think of all we could learn!
aheahem2 2 years ago
Actually plastic burns very very hot.
aredditor 2 years ago
A new low income housing opportunity is formed.
luddite333 3 years ago
A way to boost their economy - at the expense of the Jardine group.
grandCentraldepot 2 years ago
keep the camera rolling its gonna collapse onto its fotprint
thats what burnt out steel buildings do right?
douboymk2 3 years ago
the mandarin was a standard steel structure, the towers were hollow. please learn about building construction before you post ignorant comments to youtube. thanks!
macindrew 2 years ago
"Sad Face Emote"
FOOZ3R 3 years ago
china's G.N.P was down 17.5% last month jan 2009 . U.S. can't afford to buy china's goods as readly.maybe the investors in the tvcc hotel did a silverstein like the w.t.c. ?
sammygrapes 3 years ago
mmmmmm... a sky scraper caught on fire and it DID NOT collapse !!!! Only Towers in NYC fall down due to fire... Such a pity that this architects dream building was destroyed before it even had a chance to be completed.. it really was a stunning center ...
MasterMark123 3 years ago
wow, the twin towers fell due to fire....i cannot believe you just said that......
cstank90 3 years ago
That bridge is not comparable to a tower. Although the press jumped on it when it happened trying to debunk 9/11 with it. Of course they are apt to do anything to cover up 9/11 and keep the funding going for war. Yesterday I saw bin laden pasted on a picture of the ausitrailian wild fires with an article about forrest terror on fox news. heh, they will stop at nothing.
aheahem2 3 years ago
It would be very interesting to see if it's still salvageable. A concrete underpass in California had a very bad fire that burned for a long time inside it. The rebar under the concrete got so hot it expanded and spalled the concrete off of the walls. I think they didn't have to demolish it, they just had to refinish the inside of it.
aredditor 3 years ago
It was called Forrest Jihad on fox news. they are trying to start another scare about el queda.
aheahem2 3 years ago
Its amusing reading comments left here by those who STILL deny that the WTC was a planned demolition. Even though HUNDREDS of eye & ear witnesses, many seasoned police & firefighters, both saw & heard the MANY explosions from inside the buildings. I have seen & heard them myself on MANY videos & I have seen the huge beams in the rubble that were OBVIOUSLY cut at exact 45 degree angles & still dripping with what once was molten steel. NO ONE is EVER going to convince a FOOL it was an inside job.
t4705mb6 3 years ago
How come it did not implode and fall down like WTC-7?
ManufacturedThoughts 3 years ago
Make that building into a national monument. It could be a tourist attraction. The new icon of Beijing. And a reminder not to play fireworks near building.
xxrrxx2002 3 years ago
all of these buildings are made out of steel. this hotel was made out of 10,000 steel beams to be exact. HAHAHAHA. same structure. different result i would say. HAHAHAHHA
superbd11 3 years ago
this building was built 60 years later and has modern systems to protect against such things. it also didn't get hit by a jet going at 600 mph
marco114 3 years ago
60? are you sure? They started when I was born and I'm 40! They opened fully in 1973.
socratescafe 3 years ago
the point is in the history of burning buildings no building has ever fell due too fires no matter how long it burns, except on 9/11 where three buildings fell due too fires which is a miracle in physics because it has never happened before or since 9/11.
killuminatiTOS 3 years ago
Get on the internet and start googleing. You're probably still parroting shit from Dylan Avery's first movie even though nearly everything in it was debunked, so he had to make 2 more revisions. In his first movie he shows a high rise that burned uncontrolled until it exhausted all combustibles. His teen ass made the same comments about no building has ever fell due to fires.... blah blah. Avery, you, and all his other cult followers never bothered to do a little research. Winsor was concrete.
aredditor 3 years ago
Windsor was STRUCTURAL STEEL AND CONCRETE.
So, name a singular high rise building that has completely failed structurally due to fire.
I'll be waiting.
And leave the argument ad hominem at home son. It does nothing to reinforce your position.
socratescafe 3 years ago
Name another high rise like the WTC buildings that burned and didn't collapse. You can't because there aren't any. WTC had a unique design to attract tenants. They opted for a tube in tube for more continuous floor spaces. Leave out comments about false arguments (ad hominem) if you're going to be a hypocrite and use them yourself. ("name a singular high rise building that has completely failed structurally due to fire.") I can't believe there are still adherents to the Dylan Avery cult in 2009
aredditor 3 years ago
First, learn what an argument ad hominem is, then bitch about it
2: Who the fuck is Dylan Avery?
Tube in Tube design? Wow, you're serious. You think you can boil down the towers design to something as simplistic as that? Fucking sophists.
You're rhetoric is stale and way off the actual facts.
Hypocrite? LOL, you reall y are an idiot aren't you.
You've picked the wrong guy to argue with in these simplistic terms.
I see you haven't named a singular building that's failed.
Typical
socratescafe 3 years ago
Actually I normally don't debate in the youtube comments section as it's one of the lamest places to debate. Try a social news aggregator to debate in. There's a much higher limit on characters, and one can go back and forth with several folks at a time. Try reddit, but I should warn you in advance that it's not entirely full of ignorant teens. You will be regularly called on your hypocrisy with regards to fallacious arguments as many of the commenters have a higher education than youtubers.
aredditor 3 years ago
Sorry Bubba, but I'm here and could care less as to debating anywhere else.
So:
Who the fuck is Dylan Avery?
Why over-simplify the towers designs with the "Tube in Tube" bullshit when clearly, with very little research, that is easily proven absolutely false?
"hypocrisy with regards to fallacious arguments "
Please stop now, there is nothing "fallacious" in asking for examples of other buildings collapsing. What is, is your "unique design" hubris.
Start again...
socratescafe 3 years ago
You're here using the inferior youtube comments section for the same reason kindergarten through 5th grade goes to Chuck E Cheese , it's where they and their peers hang out. Try a social news aggregator like reddit where you wont have a bunch of immature idiots hanging out making inane commentary. I can't believe folks use a site with such a small character limit for debate. I've never used youtube for that as you can see by my history. Just this one last sentence and i've maxed out youtube.
aredditor 3 years ago
Once again, argument ad hominem.
Chich E Cheese? Please fuck, you're embarassing yourself.
In case you've mistook me for the likely ilk you'll find here, read my user name once again. There's a reason I use it.
I know nothing
And neither do you, you just assume you do.
And there lies the difference between us.
I've formed no opinions or come to any conclusions, whereas you obviously have an agenda.
Speaking of immature idiots...
socratescafe 3 years ago
You have a nasty hypocrisy thing going on when it comes to pointing out flawed arguments. You note flawed debate tactics and you follow with your own flawed debate tactics. If you want to carry this debate on in an intelligent manor, you can better do it on a site with a much better comment system and we can both share many links. Youtube sucks for it. On social news commentary sites, youtube is oft made fun of for it's lowbrow community and it's worthless comment system. And again out of room
aredditor 3 years ago
Well, I'll give you this... youTube comment section is horrible. Alot of the time my comments don't go through. But as far a debating with you, I'm not interested. Some people, like you for instance, refuse to open their mind to the obvious no matter how much proof there is. The truth goes through 3 phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.. No one knows how long it takes to get through each phase. I pray you make out of two.
aheahem2 3 years ago
You pray, well you just proved it only takes faith and not facts for you to believe something. Me - I'm a big fan of science and logic.
aredditor 3 years ago
ok, I'm sorry for the politically incorrect verbage... I "hope" you make it out of two. Shit, I hope hope is acceptable. :-)
aheahem2 3 years ago
" a nasty hypocrisy "
Enough with your sad-sack attempts at a strawman argument.
How is it hypocrisy by me stating "I know nothing"?
As to the rest about social commenting sites, I'm here, if you want to debate this, here I am.
Do as you please, I've not got the time in my life to follow you around the web convincing you that you know nothing except what you've been told.
socratescafe 3 years ago
"Name another high rise like the WTC buildings that burned and didn't collapse. "
Here is one for you aredditor. the windsor tower in madrid
aheahem2 3 years ago
I can't believe that example, used in the first loose change, is still being parroted. It wasn't used in the next two Loose change documentaries because it was easily found that the Windsor was actually had a concrete core support, and the top outer portion, which was steel, did indeed collapse due to the fire. You can plainly see it in stills and vids of the fire. This is very very old news though. It's easily debunked shit like that that was the reason for the Loose Change revisions.
aredditor 3 years ago
The best picture I've seen is in the wikipedia. I don't know anything about it being used in documentaries. But if they did, it would be a good example. it even had a crane on top the didn't collapse. And the fire was far more intense than all three trade center buildings combined.
aheahem2 3 years ago
This video is good because it proves the point that concrete does not turn to dust after being exposed to fire. And the Madrid tower does too if what you say is correct and it too had a concrete core. I would like to see the trade center rebuilt somewhere and the whole senario reenacted to scale. That is the best way to solve this. I vote for 9/11 reenactment. Think of all we could learn from that.
aheahem2 3 years ago
No one says the fire turns concrete to dust, except for you, silly. WTC was not structurally held together with concrete, it had concrete floors. Even two and three story wooden framed apartments and condos often have concrete floors.
aredditor 3 years ago
Yet the WTC towers DID turn the concrete to dust..... AS IT WAS FALLING
MasterMark123 3 years ago
The only portion of the Windsor that did collapse was above the 17th floor, where the steel was unprotected. Below that point, they had been in the process of fireproofing, and all but a couple areas on two floors were fireproofed. On those two floors, there was buckling but no collapse. And the building was fully engulfed for over 20 hours.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Something the WTC didn't have, yet you all still want to compare apples and oranges when it's convenient, and you don't want them compared when it's not. Troofers can't have it all ways, either steel can fail due to fire, or it can't. Clearly it can, and clearly it did.
aredditor 2 years ago
In the case of Windsor, the ONLY place the steel failed was where there was ZERO fireproofing, and it took many hours for it to fail at that, with a raging inferno unseen at WTC 7. You're right, you can't compare 20+ hour raging infernos and zero fireproofing with an intermittent fire of 7 hours and fireproofed steel. I read the report. Fires lasted only 20-30 minutes in any given spot. The only floors they attributed to possible cause of collapse were 6 of only 10 that had fires at all.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
Again when it's convienient for twoofers to compare apples to oranges they want to, but when it's not, they don't. First you twoofers said it couldn't happen, and now that it's been pointed out that it can happen, and actually has happened, you want to cherry pick what you think works for your silly theories. Anyway the hotel wasn't constructed the same way, the top portions that collapsed didn't have near the loads as WTC, and yet they still failed. The Delft fire is another great example.
aredditor 2 years ago
It's incredibly stupid to expect two buildings that are built differently to behave exactly the same way. Twoofers said it couldn't happen, but not only has it happened, its happened in structures like the top floors of Windsor, and Delft, and those two buildings didn't have near the loads on top of them. Not only that, Windsor didn't have concrete floors tied to them that pancaked. Do you really believe that two structures of differing designs should be expected to behave exactly the same way?
aredditor 2 years ago
You're comparing two PARTIAL collapses, one a 13 story bldg with completely different construction, both with raging fires, one with NO fireproofing, with the complete collapse of WTC 7, and you're accusing me of comparing apples to oranges?
So tell me, how different is the First Interstate Bank building in LA to WTC 7? Other than the fact it didn't collapse?
Hm. Won't let me post the link.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
Are you that retarded that you think First Interstate is also identically constructed to WTC7, and burned unfought for several hours? Tell me, how is it much smaller buildings with much smaller loads can collapse due to fire alone, but enormous buildings can't? You want it both ways, but you can't have it both ways. Twoofer wetards said over and over it couldn't happen, but it has with structures supporting much lighter loads. It's on video, and it's in pictures.
aredditor 2 years ago
I didn't say it was identical - no two buildings are. I asked 'how different is it?' Name ONE COMPLETE COLLAPSE of ANY steel-framed HIGH-RISE due to fire. High-rises are built much stronger because they hold larger loads. Steel that is heated regains its strength once the heat is removed. Fires lasting 20-30 mins. in any given spot cannot heat protected steel enough to weaken it, let alone collapse it completely.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
From the NIST report:
Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse.
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.
The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
More from NIST:
Fire temps reaching 1000 C (briefly) are gas temps, not the temp of the steel.
Calculated fire-elevated temperatures in the interior columns, including Columns 79, 80 and 81, stayed below 200 C on all floors.
NIST says (speculating about the diesel fuel) that even if the entire column (79) had been immersed in a 1400 C (2550 C) flame, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of signficant loss of strength and stiffness.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago