look everybody, the antenna falls to the right, wtc7 is on the left, therefore, no antenna cut the gas lines in wtc7, which was the excuse used to explain why wtc7 collapsed on 9/11, meaning the governments official story is wrong, but not by accident, as this was reported to have been witnessed by the officials present at the wtc7site. this reported evidence is impossible, as you can see, meaning its a deliberate fraud.
@retardedfolks Explosions? Good luck!! Nothing of the sort. What you're hearing there is low frequency stuff. Slabs of concrete falling, that kind of thing.
Trust me if there were shaped charges in these buildings they'd be a hell of allot louder than that.
@retardedfolks Well Mr Retardedfolks (You might want to reconsider that name!!) You don't find it curious at all that a group of firemen who were trapped on the 6th floor stairway of this building and managed to survive the collapse reported nothing to do with any explosive charges going off. They spoke of the floors landing on one and other but have never said one thing about huge explosions.
They are in a stairway. If there were ever a sound channel in a building its the stairs.
If you pause this video at 19 seconds and look, the top of the building is already gone! How was it able to still crush that other 90 stories or so that i am still looking at? Where did that part of the building go?
" The reason WTC 7 Collapsed was because the Antenna from the North Tower sliced through the middle core of the building rupturing it and causing gas explosions. " As you can see here at 0:18 the top of the North tower collapses to the right of Manhattan and WTC 7 is to the left. There is no possible way that statement is true.
over 1500 architects and engineers questions the official story at ae911truth, heaps of evidence against it, do your own research - /watch?v=EgN080yySe0
@TheGamanic the wtc collapse is all physics and this is nearly impossible for all of this to happen so yeah those 1500 know more than the other millions
@azzym1995 Yes, clearly a bunch of engineers, many of whom are now retired or haven't even specialised in structures, know more than the millions of others who say it wasn'ta demo. But tell me, what physics are involved and how do they conclusively prove a demolition
@TheGamanic the official story calls it the pancake theory but it breaks the law of conservation of energy because energy cannot be used twice so it would have take about 45 or more for a callaps not 10.2 which means abot 11 floors collapsed... each second
@azzym1995 Well first it wouldn't collapse at a constant 11 floors/sec and the collapse was estimated to be about 15 to 25 seconds long. Can you provide a model where this is possible, where a collapse should have lasted 45 seconds?
@jjcc3112 look again at WTC 7 buildings do not collapse in this manner from falling debris or office fires. 9/11 is the root cause of the wars abroad, loss of civil liberties at home, and the increased security in our airports, etc. We all deserve to know the truth about 9/11 & there are still many questions that remain.
Large lateral expulsions (not smoke) firing upwards after the tower had fallen well below those levels. How is that possible? A good example is at 0:27 of this video, to the left of the tower. Pure tonnage of steel flying upwards. This video angle shows lift where there shouldn't have been any. The government says the metal must have flexed and jumped like springs. O...k, so that's what must have happened. So much for an investigation into 911. Been nearly 10 years and still no investigation.
"No sound of explosion at :09.Fine!" - excellent. since you can admit that, I would be more than happy to answer the riddle. but I do not understand what you are asking. I'm not busting your balls. if you can rephrase your question and make it more clear, I will gladly try to answer it.
I think you are referring to WTC 7 (the steel building with no plane) and the pentagon (crashed plane, no steel building) but I honestly do not know what the question is.
@abdoshadow2 You dumbass. As you say it's an inside job you're shitting all over the victims of 9/11. You think you're smart, don't you, you fucking hipster? Did you know it would take about 20 tons of military grade thermite to bring down ONE of those towers? Oh, I bet you think aliens used their hologram technology to cloak the trucks that came in with it.
@TehMattz just because something would have been difficult does not mean that people should refute the science based evidence. are you aware of the ACE elevator renovation that was taking place in the months before 9/11? WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. WTC 1 & 2 also have many of the characteristics of controlled demolition and therefore people should ask questions and we should get a full investigation (with subpoena power).
Conspiracy theorists: The secondary explosions were the gas pipes and other flammable things already in the buildings. Please stop accusing our government of plotting to kill us.
@music7564 "If 911 was an inside job, you would expect 911 truth would be an inside job as well"
.
READ CAREFULLY; That makes no sense. It fell in under 15 sec's. There is no way in Dick Cheney's hell it would be that fast without help. Since this has never happened b4 or since, it's impossible to exactly how much longer it would take to crumble, but estimates are at least 45 sec, bc physics deems it neccessary to take 1 second for each floor to smash the next one. 80 floors = 80 seconds DOH!
@atta500 Why I hear a thunder sound...There wasnt cloudy weather"
.
what a great question. Maybe they set off a bomb below the 1st floor lobby's bc they, The Bush Crime Syndicate Cabal run by the VP of disasters Dickless Cheney, wanted to insure the towers would come down fully, considering this had not been attempted b4, bc they knew how well built the towers were based on the results of the failed attempt in 1993 by Yusef.
i like debating deny'rs. they get to a certain point in the debate and then snap. They stop answering the questions we have when they get tough to explain away. Ok let's get started. Answer any of the following;
.
Why did WTC 7 drop like a rock? fate?
What caused massive pools of molten metal? squirrels?
Where is UA flight 1989, sorry 89's passengers at?
@mjimih "i like debating deny'rs. they get to a certain point in the debate and then snap. They stop answering the questions we have when they get tough to explain away."
you mean like the three times I have asked you if you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done?
you haven't answered that. is that because you dont want to know things that make the conspiracy theory even more ridiculous than it already is?
for an anti-truther you sure are full of bs. thanks for proving my point that I don't think you can have an intelligent debate when you don't have "physics" on your side
that's right, NIST and the army of non-govt employee physicists, engineers, and actual scientists are all wrong and you and the rest of the non-scientists and non-engineer truthtards are right.
yeah, ok. that's not a laughable joke or anything.
but if you really believe this, what are you DOING about it? youtube? you think 3000 people were murdered and the wars that followers were phony and this is all you can do about it? pathetic.
You can't hear ANYTHING like explosives. Don't you think that a collapse would create enough noise by itself? You don't need explosives to hear a boom....
@mlrs84 "You can't hear ANYTHING like explosives. "
.
other than the explosives set off in the basements just b4 the demo (that we all could hear), the thermite was doing it's work SILENTLY, THAT IS ONE REASON WHY THEY USED IT. the other reason is it works fast.
@unclesamsnephew666 "how much was needed? do you know? if you did, you'd be mortified."
Not as much as you are insinuating, The stuff is very powerful. It only needed Bush's little bro to shut down the Towers' cctv (only weeks b4 911) to allow mercenaries to plant Thermite on the beams in strategic locations per actual demo protocols without being detected by security. Cheney hand delivered the thermite to his minions.
Why do anti-truthers like to kiss Cheney's butt? Can't you see he is evil?
@mjimih "Not as much as you are insinuating" - in other words, you don't know.
"Bush's little bro to shut down the Towers' cctv " - really? still on that one? that myth was put to bed YEARS ago. can't you truthtards put ANYTHING to rest? quantity over quality, that is the truthtard way. lard up the conspiracy with as much shit that'll stick to truthers and never, EVER let one go. just like religious fundamentalists.
"Cheney hand delivered..." - right, that must be it.
@unclesamsnephew666 ""Not as much as you are insinuating" - in other words, you don't know."
GIMMIE A FUCKIN BREAK! you think I was there actually committing this crime? Do you think Dickless Chainy and the rest of The Bush Crime Syndicate called me up one day and told me! Ok if you were ordered to demo the towers, and bc your so smart, why don't you tell ME how much would be needed? I'm waiting. Stick to the facts or drink another glass of kool-aid
@mjimih "you think I was there actually committing this crime?" no, dummy, but science can explain how much thermite would be needed to do what you imbeciles think was done. look it up. find the FACTS about this, not what bullshit alex jones will say to sell you another t-shirt or DVD.
then realize how fucking stupid this claim is, truthtard.
@mjimih "No one is going to tell me, it's use is restricted bc of how powerful it is."
you missed the point. again.
"dude half the stuff he says is sensationalism and half is probably true."
ok, so you dismiss half, that's good. the other half..."probably true"? what a ringing endorsement! you say it is probably true but repeat it as fact. are you confused?
he truth isn't "mentally challenged" - no, but truthtards are.
@unclesamsnephew666 "lard up the conspiracy with as much shit that'll stick to truthers and never, EVER let one go."
Look up the old TV show Dragnet. I'm Joe Friday, And I say; Stick to the facts Ma'am"
.
btw U should know the Truth sticks like Mollasses, and Falsehoods dry up and wither like an old Apple. Murder investigators never give up!!!!!! They keep on going bc they HAVE the TRUTH in front of them. U obviously don't.
@mjimih "Stick to the facts" you wouldn't know a fact from the point on top of your head (remove the tinfoil and you'll see what I mean).
alex jones' assumptions are not facts. jason bermas' drooling mouthfarts are not facts. marv bush being on the board of the security company equating to him helping plant bombs is not a fact.
you being a gullible, paranoid, nitwit...now THAT is a fact.
@mjimih the FACT is, you don't know how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done. the FACT is you never bothered looking it up (which makes it reasonable to assume you don't look up much, you just take truthtard talking points on faith because you WANT to believe it is true, just like religious fundamentalists). the FACT is you are in way over your head with this and appear to be drowning in silly, poorly-thought out conspiracy theories that make you look like a clown.
And some unbelievably big explosives at that. You can hear them going off, just as scores of witnesses and first responders claimed, before the collapse begins.
I don't know how the few remaining people can still buy such a murderous farce. It boggles my mind ... and the minds of over 700 architects and engineers.
We should all agree that what happened that day is not acceptable. We're all Americans.
i was ten blocks away on john street i heard no explosions the building swayed visibly and the steeled moaned before it fell it broke off diagonally at the middle and collapsed on it self
and where were you mr ill take hearsay as gospel ?
I have had enough of this. When you believe this then there is contradiction, etc. So I will just wait 30 years and then run a simulation in a super computer. Happy endings.
NIST NCSTAR 6.14.4: Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
Yet again the official version is freefall, you can either agree or disagree, but you can't change that. Check it in NIST NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 if you believe I misquoted it:
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."
Sorry Tim, NIST Final Report NCSTAR1 is out since 2005, and that's the only and definitive Official Version on WTC1 & 2 collapses.
Out of 10,000 pages describing the plane crashes, the fires, and the collapse initiations the ONLY page that describes collapse dynamic is the one in section 6.14.4 . You cannot dismiss it by saying it's qualitative, because qualitative > quantitative, and the statement by NIST is a conclusion itself.
I say "qualitative" because it does not specify how long the collapses took, and because of the use of the qualifier "essentially."
Don't you find it ironic that truthers dismiss the NIST report out of hand as government propaganda - yet cling to this one paragraph as the CORNERSTONE of their case? You can't have it both ways.
Myself, I'll put my stock in the evidence RIGHT HERE in this video. I measure the collapse at 22 seconds - LESS THAN HALF the speed of free fall.
Because NIST (the official version) states that the upper block descended essentially in freefall through the path of most resistance, then some portion of the core stood 15-25 seconds more than the istant of collapse initiation, then began collapse themselves.
TOTAL collapse time, and freefall of the upper block are 2 seprate issues! You're using strawman, or being used by it.
The real issue FYI is that NIST clearly states into NCSTAR1 6.14.4 and confirms it into its august 2006 official FAQ that the upper block descended through the path of most resistance essentially in freefall.
This claim defies the Principle of Energy Conservation, since in a gravitational collapse you can account only on potential energy, and if you convert essentially all of it to achieve freefall speed of the upper block, where do the energy to crush the 80 underlying intact floors come from?
You're plotting TOTAL collapse time (22 seconds) over building height, and telling us that the TOTAL BUILDING collapse wasn't freefall. True, and NIST agree: (quoting NIST official FAQ) "From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."
Nope. Still don't see it. Perhaps some math would help here.
Q: Exactly how long would free fall take from the height of the towers? The formula is t = sqrt(2h / g) where h (height of the tower) = 416m (1360') and g (acceleration of gravity) is about 10 m/s².
A: 9.1 sec.
So - you're claiming that the upper block fell ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET in 9.1 seconds? Is that what you're saying?
First: That the upper block went essentially free-fall through the path of most resistance is NIST claim, NOT MINE. It's the Official Version on WTC collapse dynamic, NOT MINE.
Second: freefall of the upper block is even faster than your calculations, as the lower floor of the upper block is just above the impact zone, in south tower at floor 85 (so h is roughly 85/110*416 meters), and in north tower at floor 99 (so h is roughly 99/110*416 meters).
You know, maybe I misunderstood the point of your original post. You seem really wrapped up in what NIST says, but what never mind them, what about YOU - do YOU believe in free fall on 9/11?
I think only 2 out of 3 of the following can be true:
1) You know and understand the official version
2) You accept official version conclusions
3) You are in good faith
For example I'm in good faith and I know the official version, so I can't accept its conclusions, because they defy phyisic.
You instead are in good faith and accept the conclusions, only because you just didn't know the official version in detail. You video, too, prove the official version wrong.
Sure, you support the Official Version conclusions out of plain faith. You never looked at it, you never read it, like I pointed out earlier.
But let's play your game:
a) No, freefall speed through the path of most resistance disproves a gravitational collapse.
b) No, because they wrote "the upper block went down essentially in freefall", you're looking at the whole building collapse INSTEAD, which is not a total freefall
Nope. Still don't see what point you're trying to make.
I'll restate mine just to be clear: It doesn't matter *what* is in the NIST report, free-fall collapse DID NOT HAPPEN. The proof is right here in this video.
man you are very wise. When I'm called a "truther" by deny'rs, I feel good bc I know I'm trying to understand the real reasons behind this horrific act and they are remaining blind from their inability to accept that they would even attempt this "Urban Renewal"
@SertesLC Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass,"
.
note the key phrase "little resistance" - this is a result of Thermite being used to REMOVE the resistance.
from :22-:25 you can see large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed," the building is not. say bye bye to free fall speed or "near free fall speed," truthtards.
from :37-:50 you can clearly see the center core columns still standing before falling down after the rest of the building collapsed around it. say bye bye to cut columns, truthtards. there is undeniable proof you are wrong about that.
@unclesamsnephew666 large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed,"
THEY ARE falling at free fall speed DOH!
" the building is not."
RIGHT DOH! It is falling at near free fall speed. Which btw IS falling straight into what should be a lot of resistance, so YES it IS falling FASTER than it would "naturally" Un-natural MAN caused it to do that... with Thermate.
" :37-:50 you can clearly see the center core columns "
"It (the building) is falling at near free fall speed."
no it isn't. I know you really, really want it to be, but it isn't. regardless, you at least admit the building isn't falling at freefall speed. but many of your fellow truthtards claim it is. will you be telling them that they are wrong?
"side skin, not core columns"
HAHAHA!!! truthtards see what they want to see. what the hell is "side skin" anyway? sorry, truthtard, those are core columns.
dude if the building is perfectly healthy (it still was) and designed to withstand a jet impact, then it would have taken at least 45 seconds to CRUMBLE-DOWN. Explosives sped up the fall as planned by the Bush Crime Syndicate run by Dickless Cheney
"designed to..." is not a guarantee of results. does this really have to be explained to you? search the tacoma-narrows bridge on youtube. think that was designed to handle moderate to high winds? of course it was, and yet it collapsed anyway. so spare me the "designed to..." because it isn't proof of anything.
how do you explain the lack of audio? no detonations. what about all the phone calls from the planes? all faked?
time to let it go. truthtards have proven NOTHING.
@unclesamsnephew666 "narrows bridge on youtube. think that was designed to handle moderate to high winds?"
.
apples n oranges dude. Are you saying both twin towers and WT7 blew over because of wind?
.
"how do you explain the lack of audio?"
.
Thermate n Thermite are silent killers. The don't "explode" they instantly melt metal, the reaction is that fast. Small charges were all that is needed to ignite the awesome powerful force of thermite.
not at all. your point is they were DESIGNED to handle a plane strike, therefore they should have been able to take it without collapsing. the bridge example proves otherwise.
"Are you saying both twin towers and WT7 blew over because of wind?"
I really hope you're kidding.
any idea how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done? if you did know, you wouldn't be saying this because you'd know how stupid it is.
@unclesamsnephew666 " your point is they were DESIGNED to handle a plane strike, therefore they should have been able to take it without collapsing"
.
Um, they DID take it. THEN they blew the base THEN they unleashed the Thermate charges methodically. THEN it came down. Why is it so hard 4 u 2 believe this scenario?
"Um, they DID take it." - no they didn't. they collapsed.
"Why is it so hard 4 u 2 believe this scenario?" - among dozens of reasons is that I know how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done. like I said: "if you did know, you wouldn't be saying this because you'd know how stupid it is"
you need to do more research. most of all, you need to stop wanting this to be true so you can look at the evidence without bias.
@unclesamsnephew666 "what about all the phone calls from the planes? all faked? "
the 2 that hit the towers were real. Phone calls from the Shanksville and the pentagon planes could have been faked or at least made b4 they were diverted to Cleveland and disposed of. It's hard to wrap your brain around it isn't it? it's called a Cabal
"Phone calls from the Shanksville and the pentagon planes could have been faked or at least made b4 they were diverted to Cleveland and disposed of."
so the people on the planes that hit the towers, those were real calls, but the other might have been fake. is that your well-thought out theory?
what's hard to wrap one's brain around is the level of self-deceit truthers will resort to in order to continue believing this horseshit. you have to WANT to believe it.
hardly, after much thought I realized it was possible for ideological greedy oil men with GREAT POWER could have made this happen. Shooter and the draft dodger Brush jr were just the kind of assholes to pull it off too. wake up!
after much thought I realized it was possible for ideological greedy oil men with GREAT POWER could have made this happen"
not enough thought, apparently. and not enough evidence. you can think all day about what you want to believe in, but if the facts and the evidence dont add up then it is just you ruminating on how to be part of the online scooby-doo mystery-solvers. laughable.
I know you know what that means bc you seem to be used to using the English language. everbody can see that part of the "outer skin" (aka: the wall) was left standing for awhile and then most of that eventually as well.
that's not the outer perimeter columns, that is part of the central core columns. they were not cut, they were still standing for a few moments after the rest collapsed.
you dont see it because you dont want to. you want the conspiracy to be true because otherwise you'd have to admit you're wrong, something no truthtard can do.
@unclesamsnephew666 "you can see large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed," the building is not."
.
dude get real, the falling chunks ARE falling AT free fall speed!! Do you see Superman under the chunks trying to slow them down? Are you blind? The only resistance the chunks have is AIR resistance DOH! blind to the truth that's what you are buddy.
your either part of the investigation, or you are part of the cover up. wtc 7 is one of the clues that something was up. missing wreckage from flight 93 and flight 77 also indicates something is wrong. another investigation is needed, and one that isnt worried about the political fallout.
thank you for the new video, and answering my question. i see that the "WHOLE" building took roughly 20sec to fall(i say this because of a portion of the building stayed upright before crumbling) BUT the majority of the building did fall near free fall speed.
i guess thats why there is a debate to who is correct. your job has been good at raising doubt in this matter, but there are many, many more doubts i have.
But then again DCStream, all of these little questions only serve as unpatriotic, sacrilegious distractions, right? How dare I attempted to confuse the poor, uninformed American public about 9/11 when those dreaded terrorists are, at this very moment, plotting their next move.
While you are at it, please explain and clarify for me all of the other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions like the sudden onset, the sliced steel at the base, the TOTAL collapse of both buildings after fires of less than two hours (less than 1 for the South Tower), the pulverization of concrete, and the pools of molten steel found WEEKS after the collapse.
"While you are at it, please explain and clarify for me all of the other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions" Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? You hear very loud and distinct explosions in succession, and you can even see the flashes. They do not go off once the building has begun collapsing - that has never been done before.
It was a pancake collapse, of course concrete would be pulverized. continued
Pools of molten metal? Do you read any sites besides abovetopsecret? 911myths com explains the molten metal very well. Thermite has never been used in a controlled demolition in history either, so the point would be null even if it were true. The cut steel beams at the bottom? Do you even do research? They were cut with thermate AFTER the collapse. You could even tell due to the distinct yellow residue.
I am going to go watch the NEXT video you refer me to now.
"other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions like the sudden onset" -- Did you expect it to collapse gradually?
"the sliced steel at the base" -- was cut by cleanup crews, there's even photos of them making the cuts.
"the TOTAL collapse of both buildings" -- yep, they were really, really heavy.
"the pulverization of concrete" -- happens when you hit it with a sledgehammer
1) With fires burning at varying degrees of intensity at different places in the building (albeit the fires were relatively cool and certainly not hot enough to weaken the steel, particularly within the short amount of time that they burned), if any part of the structure did weaken, it would be localized and, yes, I would expect PARTS of the building collapse. Yet both buildings explode and are reduced to nothing-within 12 seconds.
"2) Check out the video 'WTC7 - Solid steel columns' for evidence of sliced steel. "
I did. That video didn't show any slices at all! It just ranted against Asteneh and showed a box column broken off at it's bolt connection. Sorry, wrong again.
Heavy buildings? Indeed they were. The videos 'WTC Design' will show you just how sturdy they were. The theory which supports the total collapse from the impacts of the planes/fires is truly absurd after watching these.
"The videos 'WTC Design' will show you just how sturdy they were. "
It didn't. It was just some guy (metal cutting SOFTWARE engineer?) complaining that he couldn't wrap his head around thousands of bolts being broken at the same time. Apparently, like you, he didn't know how heavy the towers were either.
4) Almost all of the concrete was not simply pulverized, but turned to dust. After all, if you were to drop a piece of concrete from a point twice as high as the WTC, it would certainly break, but not turn to dust. In the video 'ReOpen 9/11 - Jeff King - controlled demolition' an engineer examines this anomaly and much more evidence that explosive were used to fell the WTC.
No molten steel? Well, then you need to watch 'Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found'.
"Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found"
I just did. Jones starts out stating with utter surprise that "in all three buildings, there's these pools of molten metal!" Did either of you know that aluminum wheels melted off cars in the recent california wildfires? Apparently not. You're both ignorant.
Wow, your point about the California wildfires would be an excellent rebuttal, except for one little problem-the melting point of aluminum is 1,220℉-steel, depending upon the composition, has a melting point of roughly 2,400℉.
Actually steel is more like 2800F. But if you'd read what I quoted, Jones doesn't say 'steel', he says 'METAL'! Are you telling me aluminum is not metal?
You are truly a genius. I feel almost as foolish as you for wasting time with persons as dense as yourself, those who let an obvious polical bias blind them from the transparent. You can't even admit that your point was foolish and utterly irrelevant. Enjoy the rest of your deluded life.
So... you're wrong in every argument you make, you "objective" is clearly within your grasp though you choose not to take it, and you can't give us any evidence to back up your claims... and we're foolish?
Typical twoofer. Wrong about everything, and leaves calling everyone a shill.
Stop asking for evidence. There is no evidence. We have questions. Serious questions that need to be answered and have not even been mentioned by the gov. The molten metal being one of them. And yes. There is plenty of evidence that it existed. So you should ask youself why the government is keeping it locked up somewhere? Why does the government keep all the tapes from the pentagon? Why has there not been a serious scientific debate about this? There are questions. And they need to be answered
Top asking questions, only we get to ask question, and no we don't have to answer anything because we are question askers not answer-er. Because there is no evidence but there also is lots of evidence.
And remember, these are just a handful of the issues and contradictions of the official narrative about 9/11. I don't claim to have the answers, but cannot hide my head in the sand when confronted with this evidence. What I and many other Americans desire is an independent investigation that examines these and many other irregularities about 9/11 that flatly contradict the gov't account. I love my country enough to face the ugly implications that are raised by this evidence.
And independent investigation? You want an independent investigation? THEN DO IT. This is what I hate about truthers. They demand a new independent investigation from the Government. If the government is doing it - it isn't independent. Only someone who isn't in any government funded firm can hold an independent investigation. So please, GO DO IT. Bring your case to court. Let it be the final battle so we can rid America of this stupid movement once and for all.
Let's see. If they'd spend our tax dollars correctly or representatively, like they should, then we would have more than enough to support an new investigation. There are enough truthers out there that have paid taxes and want to see a new one. Go do it? Haha Go fuck yourself. You sheep are so content with a half ass commission that some of the chairmen said was "doomed to fail" from the beginning. You should be ashamed with yourself. You're no American.
No, I was right, and everything after "Go do it?" was you using ad hominem attacks because you know I'm right.
It will not be independent unless truthers all independently pitch in money to fund a new one. After that, they will submit it to the scientific community for critique. That's the process.
I'm sorry I don't think my American governemnt purposely killed American citizens.
I think not wanting to believe we killed American citizens makes me more American then you. Patriots my ass.
Haha. We? I like how you consider yourself part of the representative government. They are not you and frankly I'm sure they don't give a shit about you or me. You don't need to apologize to me. Apologize to the victims families that you are being close minded and not even trying to consider every possible way they died. The families are not convinced. Why are you? You're first sentence is quite a laugh. We will have our investigation. Stop being in such denial. It makes you look like a pussy.
And stop being so thick. It would be independent if our gov gave a private business money to research these questions. When we say independent we mean we don't want the government to just shift cash around to one of its agencies so they can sit on their asses for 5 years and still provide us with nothing. Independent means seperate from any possible bias. You obviously are a well spoken idiot. I wish people like you would drop the pride and just admit you have no place discussing serious things.
"It would be independent if our gov gave a private business money to research these questions."
Now it wouldn't. It would be government funded. If that's independent - then you've already achieved your goal with NIST, but of course it didn't say 9/11 was an inside job and you didn't like it,so we need another.
You're right in the definition of independent. The government controls their money flow.
Why don't you drop the insults when you can barely keep up with me.
Your continued assault on science and reason is eerily similar to that employed by the Bush Administration. Let me make another 'wild guess'-global warming is a crock too, huh? You and Sean Hannity need to get together and tear apart all of these 'liberal myths'.
I hate Sean Hannity. Hannity is nothing but a complete liar and fabricator. And yes - I don't believe in mainstream global warming. Please, f you truly think CO2 emissions are destroying us, stop breathing. Every time you exhale, it's CO2.
Global Warming and 9/11 conspiracies? Wow, it seems like you just want to be part of a cause.
What? The WTC was blown up? Just because they collapsed at free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, and just because they were the first three steel-framed buildings to collapse from fire in history, and just because hundreds of witness heard multiple explosions? Go burn a doobie, you hippie freaks. The buildings collapsed because the terrorists hate our freedom-duh.
Sideways? If it fell sideways, it would eventually encounter resistance, in the form of other buildings, but both of these buildings collapsed INTO THEMSELVES. The path of greatest resistance to which I refer are the many undamaged floors BELOW the impact zones. The buildings came down at nearly free-fall speed; if each floor slowed the collapse even a bit, the speed of the sequence would have been greatly slowed. Yet, what do you see? I see a building imploding with zero resistance.
Glad you didn't notice the tons of debris that fall during the collapse that damaged several buildings, and that you can't tell the difference between slowing down and slowing the rate of acceleration.
Search under 'north tower exploding' and watch the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth video as they examine this 'collapse'. Why do people get so damned defensive when these glaring inconsistencies with the official account are pointed out?
look everybody, the antenna falls to the right, wtc7 is on the left, therefore, no antenna cut the gas lines in wtc7, which was the excuse used to explain why wtc7 collapsed on 9/11, meaning the governments official story is wrong, but not by accident, as this was reported to have been witnessed by the officials present at the wtc7site. this reported evidence is impossible, as you can see, meaning its a deliberate fraud.
SuperKatyd 4 months ago
Wow. The explosions are so audible its scary.
retardedfolks 4 months ago
@retardedfolks Explosions? Good luck!! Nothing of the sort. What you're hearing there is low frequency stuff. Slabs of concrete falling, that kind of thing.
Trust me if there were shaped charges in these buildings they'd be a hell of allot louder than that.
Been there and i know!!
roquefortfiles 3 months ago
@retardedfolks Well Mr Retardedfolks (You might want to reconsider that name!!) You don't find it curious at all that a group of firemen who were trapped on the 6th floor stairway of this building and managed to survive the collapse reported nothing to do with any explosive charges going off. They spoke of the floors landing on one and other but have never said one thing about huge explosions.
They are in a stairway. If there were ever a sound channel in a building its the stairs.
roquefortfiles 3 months ago
If you pause this video at 19 seconds and look, the top of the building is already gone! How was it able to still crush that other 90 stories or so that i am still looking at? Where did that part of the building go?
ron777ish 5 months ago
@ron777ish
It went in to the building... -__- The floors were nowhere near strong enough to hold the load of the dislodged external columns.
Weirdo10o4 5 months ago
Quote from Larry Silverstein:
" The reason WTC 7 Collapsed was because the Antenna from the North Tower sliced through the middle core of the building rupturing it and causing gas explosions. " As you can see here at 0:18 the top of the North tower collapses to the right of Manhattan and WTC 7 is to the left. There is no possible way that statement is true.
GanqActivity 5 months ago
Vastaa tähän videoon...
Weirdo10o4 5 months ago
Comment removed
GanqActivity 5 months ago
Comment removed
GanqActivity 5 months ago
What is the loud duff bang that starts at 0:07?
Abricialio 6 months ago
man when i was watching that i actually saw somebody near me jump into the river
Thestaringcathow 7 months ago
@DanTheBrahman plane > 20 tonnes of thermite... duh.
LibertarianChristian 7 months ago
I wonder what it felt like to be the people in the helicopter! at 0:17
rugbyplayer9100 9 months ago
over 1500 architects and engineers questions the official story at ae911truth, heaps of evidence against it, do your own research - /watch?v=EgN080yySe0
LibertarianChristian 9 months ago
@LibertarianChristian 1500, many of whom specialism is not with skyscrapers, out of millions worldwide? That's alot!
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic the wtc collapse is all physics and this is nearly impossible for all of this to happen so yeah those 1500 know more than the other millions
azzym1995 7 months ago
@azzym1995 Yes, clearly a bunch of engineers, many of whom are now retired or haven't even specialised in structures, know more than the millions of others who say it wasn'ta demo. But tell me, what physics are involved and how do they conclusively prove a demolition
TheGamanic 7 months ago
@TheGamanic the official story calls it the pancake theory but it breaks the law of conservation of energy because energy cannot be used twice so it would have take about 45 or more for a callaps not 10.2 which means abot 11 floors collapsed... each second
azzym1995 7 months ago
@azzym1995 Well first it wouldn't collapse at a constant 11 floors/sec and the collapse was estimated to be about 15 to 25 seconds long. Can you provide a model where this is possible, where a collapse should have lasted 45 seconds?
TheGamanic 7 months ago
Bombs took down the towers. WTC1 and WTC2 were top down implosions and WTC7 was an obvious, classic controlled demolition.
RepublicConstitution 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RepublicConstitution Wrong. You are not a special butterfly who has figured out some great conspiracy. The science proves you wrong.
Oz1976 10 months ago
@RepublicConstitution You're a god damn retard...
SteroidMcbeefy 10 months ago
WTC 7 Collapsed because of the debrie. @abdoshadow2, u have to much time on your hands. Just accept 9/11 for what it was and move on
jjcc3112 1 year ago
@jjcc3112 fuck u Haji, if u are one
928baller 1 year ago
@jjcc3112 look again at WTC 7 buildings do not collapse in this manner from falling debris or office fires. 9/11 is the root cause of the wars abroad, loss of civil liberties at home, and the increased security in our airports, etc. We all deserve to know the truth about 9/11 & there are still many questions that remain.
sustainf 1 year ago
Large lateral expulsions (not smoke) firing upwards after the tower had fallen well below those levels. How is that possible? A good example is at 0:27 of this video, to the left of the tower. Pure tonnage of steel flying upwards. This video angle shows lift where there shouldn't have been any. The government says the metal must have flexed and jumped like springs. O...k, so that's what must have happened. So much for an investigation into 911. Been nearly 10 years and still no investigation.
Missundaztood91 1 year ago
Pause @ 0:09 and play it..
You'll hear a massive explosion..
911 was an inside job indeed
abdoshadow2 1 year ago
@abdoshadow2
only you (and maybe other truthtards) hear an explosion at :09
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 truthtards!!!
Is that even a word???
I'm free to say what I believe ..So please do me a favor and STFU.
abdoshadow2 1 year ago
@abdoshadow2
truthtard immaturity and confusion in a nutshelll....."I'm free so say what I believe" followed by a request to "shut up"
you assclowns are so, so funny. more than you know.
that you are free to speak and make an ass of yourself over and over...who is arguing that point? only someone with nothing else worthwhile to say.
there is no explosion at :09, there is no inside job, and truthers have only proven how gullible they are.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 No sound of explosion at :09.Fine!..But it still an inside job
Solve that riddle for me please Mr Perfect
You've got a collapsed STEEL building but has No CRASHED plane in it!!!!!
& What the odds !!!!..at the same time ,you've got a crashed plane with no steel building ..
What does that mean???
abdoshadow2 1 year ago
@abdoshadow2
"No sound of explosion at :09.Fine!" - excellent. since you can admit that, I would be more than happy to answer the riddle. but I do not understand what you are asking. I'm not busting your balls. if you can rephrase your question and make it more clear, I will gladly try to answer it.
I think you are referring to WTC 7 (the steel building with no plane) and the pentagon (crashed plane, no steel building) but I honestly do not know what the question is.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@abdoshadow2 You dumbass. As you say it's an inside job you're shitting all over the victims of 9/11. You think you're smart, don't you, you fucking hipster? Did you know it would take about 20 tons of military grade thermite to bring down ONE of those towers? Oh, I bet you think aliens used their hologram technology to cloak the trucks that came in with it.
Get the fuck out of here.
TehMattz 1 year ago
@TehMattz just because something would have been difficult does not mean that people should refute the science based evidence. are you aware of the ACE elevator renovation that was taking place in the months before 9/11? WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. WTC 1 & 2 also have many of the characteristics of controlled demolition and therefore people should ask questions and we should get a full investigation (with subpoena power).
sustainf 1 year ago
Conspiracy theorists: The secondary explosions were the gas pipes and other flammable things already in the buildings. Please stop accusing our government of plotting to kill us.
gr00vyl0ve 1 year ago
@gr00vyl0ve "Please stop accusing our government of plotting to kill us. "
.
some folks can't get their head around that possibilty, but the word "cabol" has a meaning
-a secret plot, esp a political one; conspiracy; intrigue.
-a secret or exclusive set of people; clique.
-a clique (often secret) that seeks power.
The Bush Family Crime Syndicate is an EVIL cabol.
mjimih 1 year ago
Comment removed
mjimih 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@music7564 "If 911 was an inside job, you would expect 911 truth would be an inside job as well"
.
READ CAREFULLY; That makes no sense. It fell in under 15 sec's. There is no way in Dick Cheney's hell it would be that fast without help. Since this has never happened b4 or since, it's impossible to exactly how much longer it would take to crumble, but estimates are at least 45 sec, bc physics deems it neccessary to take 1 second for each floor to smash the next one. 80 floors = 80 seconds DOH!
mjimih 1 year ago
@atta500 Why I hear a thunder sound...There wasnt cloudy weather"
.
what a great question. Maybe they set off a bomb below the 1st floor lobby's bc they, The Bush Crime Syndicate Cabal run by the VP of disasters Dickless Cheney, wanted to insure the towers would come down fully, considering this had not been attempted b4, bc they knew how well built the towers were based on the results of the failed attempt in 1993 by Yusef.
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih Do you expect the process of a building tearing itself apart to be silent?
mlrs84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mlrs84 "Do you expect the process of a building tearing itself apart to be silent?"
.
ok dude your smart ;-) crumbling, yes. demo charges, no.
.
1. the Thermite/Thermate charges are quiet enough that they can't be heard from outside.
.
2. Everybody heard the bombs near street level that "walked" the 2 towers' beams, to initiate & facilitate the free fall demo.
mjimih 1 year ago
i like debating deny'rs. they get to a certain point in the debate and then snap. They stop answering the questions we have when they get tough to explain away. Ok let's get started. Answer any of the following;
.
Why did WTC 7 drop like a rock? fate?
What caused massive pools of molten metal? squirrels?
Where is UA flight 1989, sorry 89's passengers at?
mjimih 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjimih "i like debating deny'rs. they get to a certain point in the debate and then snap. They stop answering the questions we have when they get tough to explain away."
you mean like the three times I have asked you if you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done?
you haven't answered that. is that because you dont want to know things that make the conspiracy theory even more ridiculous than it already is?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@mjimih
"Why did WTC 7 drop like a rock?"
gravity. look it up.
"What caused massive pools of molten metal?"
fire and tons of aluminum (airplanes, building facade)
"Where is UA flight 1989, sorry 89's passengers at?"
if you mean UA 93, they're all dead. they aren't in cleveland.
I'm sure fate and squirrels seem like possible reasons to a truther, but you need to do more research.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "Why did WTC 7 drop like a rock?"
gravity. look it up."
for an anti-truther you sure are full of bs. thanks for proving my point that I don't think you can have an intelligent debate when you don't have "physics" on your side
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"when you don't have "physics" on your side"
that's right, NIST and the army of non-govt employee physicists, engineers, and actual scientists are all wrong and you and the rest of the non-scientists and non-engineer truthtards are right.
yeah, ok. that's not a laughable joke or anything.
but if you really believe this, what are you DOING about it? youtube? you think 3000 people were murdered and the wars that followers were phony and this is all you can do about it? pathetic.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
You can't hear ANYTHING like explosives. Don't you think that a collapse would create enough noise by itself? You don't need explosives to hear a boom....
mlrs84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mlrs84 "You can't hear ANYTHING like explosives. "
.
other than the explosives set off in the basements just b4 the demo (that we all could hear), the thermite was doing it's work SILENTLY, THAT IS ONE REASON WHY THEY USED IT. the other reason is it works fast.
mjimih 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjimih
"other than the explosives set off in the basements just b4 the demo (that we all could hear)"
"we" being the truthers desperate to hear what they want to hear even though not a single person in the reality-based community hears it.
"the thermite was doing it's work SILENTLY, THAT IS ONE REASON WHY THEY USED IT"
how much was needed? do you know? if you did, you'd be mortified.
"the other reason is it works fast"
except there is no "they" and there is no thermite.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 ""we" being the truthers desperate to hear what they want to hear.."
I'm desperate to get some congress people to investigate 911 so Cheney can go to the Hague.
"..even though not a single person in the reality-based community hears it."
the "reality-based" community is what discerns fact from fiction. You can't recognize that bc your not in that community.
mjimih 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "how much was needed? do you know? if you did, you'd be mortified."
Not as much as you are insinuating, The stuff is very powerful. It only needed Bush's little bro to shut down the Towers' cctv (only weeks b4 911) to allow mercenaries to plant Thermite on the beams in strategic locations per actual demo protocols without being detected by security. Cheney hand delivered the thermite to his minions.
Why do anti-truthers like to kiss Cheney's butt? Can't you see he is evil?
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih "Not as much as you are insinuating" - in other words, you don't know.
"Bush's little bro to shut down the Towers' cctv " - really? still on that one? that myth was put to bed YEARS ago. can't you truthtards put ANYTHING to rest? quantity over quality, that is the truthtard way. lard up the conspiracy with as much shit that'll stick to truthers and never, EVER let one go. just like religious fundamentalists.
"Cheney hand delivered..." - right, that must be it.
are you even serious?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 ""Not as much as you are insinuating" - in other words, you don't know."
GIMMIE A FUCKIN BREAK! you think I was there actually committing this crime? Do you think Dickless Chainy and the rest of The Bush Crime Syndicate called me up one day and told me! Ok if you were ordered to demo the towers, and bc your so smart, why don't you tell ME how much would be needed? I'm waiting. Stick to the facts or drink another glass of kool-aid
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih "you think I was there actually committing this crime?" no, dummy, but science can explain how much thermite would be needed to do what you imbeciles think was done. look it up. find the FACTS about this, not what bullshit alex jones will say to sell you another t-shirt or DVD.
then realize how fucking stupid this claim is, truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unclesamsnephew666 "but science can explain how much thermite would be needed to do what you imbeciles think was done. look it up. "
.
No one is going to tell me, it's use is restricted bc of how powerful it is.
.
"..not what bullshit Alex Jones will say to sell you another t-shirt or DVD."
dude half the stuff he says is sensationalism and half is probably true.
.
stop using the word retard, it's a disrespectful term. Specially connected to the truth, the truth isn't "mentally challenged"
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih "No one is going to tell me, it's use is restricted bc of how powerful it is."
you missed the point. again.
"dude half the stuff he says is sensationalism and half is probably true."
ok, so you dismiss half, that's good. the other half..."probably true"? what a ringing endorsement! you say it is probably true but repeat it as fact. are you confused?
he truth isn't "mentally challenged" - no, but truthtards are.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unclesamsnephew666 ""Bush's little bro to shut down the Towers' cctv " - really? still on that one? that myth was put to bed YEARS ago"
IT'S FACT
"9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush"
H T T P tinyurl dot com 2u2urql
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih "IT'S FACT "9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush"
would you like to buy a bridge from me?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "lard up the conspiracy with as much shit that'll stick to truthers and never, EVER let one go."
Look up the old TV show Dragnet. I'm Joe Friday, And I say; Stick to the facts Ma'am"
.
btw U should know the Truth sticks like Mollasses, and Falsehoods dry up and wither like an old Apple. Murder investigators never give up!!!!!! They keep on going bc they HAVE the TRUTH in front of them. U obviously don't.
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih "Stick to the facts" you wouldn't know a fact from the point on top of your head (remove the tinfoil and you'll see what I mean).
alex jones' assumptions are not facts. jason bermas' drooling mouthfarts are not facts. marv bush being on the board of the security company equating to him helping plant bombs is not a fact.
you being a gullible, paranoid, nitwit...now THAT is a fact.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@mjimih the FACT is, you don't know how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done. the FACT is you never bothered looking it up (which makes it reasonable to assume you don't look up much, you just take truthtard talking points on faith because you WANT to believe it is true, just like religious fundamentalists). the FACT is you are in way over your head with this and appear to be drowning in silly, poorly-thought out conspiracy theories that make you look like a clown.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
at 0:08 u can hear explosives going off. controlled demolition...
putyourweedup 1 year ago
And some unbelievably big explosives at that. You can hear them going off, just as scores of witnesses and first responders claimed, before the collapse begins.
I don't know how the few remaining people can still buy such a murderous farce. It boggles my mind ... and the minds of over 700 architects and engineers.
We should all agree that what happened that day is not acceptable. We're all Americans.
dallas71 2 years ago 2
i was ten blocks away on john street i heard no explosions the building swayed visibly and the steeled moaned before it fell it broke off diagonally at the middle and collapsed on it self
and where were you mr ill take hearsay as gospel ?
joseph1234727 2 years ago
I have had enough of this. When you believe this then there is contradiction, etc. So I will just wait 30 years and then run a simulation in a super computer. Happy endings.
bigpizza112 2 years ago
note that there was more smoke and dust when the wtc 1 fell down - it needed more explosives as the plane was up too high
HumanityWins 2 years ago
They didn't fall, THE TOWERS TURNED TO DUST.
tubeshok 2 years ago
WTf is that explosion at around 8 sec
NaturalThreat1 2 years ago
NIST NCSTAR 6.14.4: Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
The official version is -FREEFALL-
Period.
SertesLC 2 years ago
Surely you don't give a shit what the "official" version states; the evidence is right here in this video. Time it yourself.
Not even CLOSE to free fall.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Ok, I understand and respect your opinion.
Yet again the official version is freefall, you can either agree or disagree, but you can't change that. Check it in NIST NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 if you believe I misquoted it:
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."
SertesLC 2 years ago
I know you didn't misquote it - and I concede it's a poor choice of words as it is imprecise.
OTOH it's a QUALITATIVE statement, not QUANTITATIVE. So it makes no sense to place any importance on it or to draw any conclusions from it.
Bottom line: Folks who claim that a free-fall collapse is proof of controlled demolition are making a baseless argument - because it didn't happen.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Sorry Tim, NIST Final Report NCSTAR1 is out since 2005, and that's the only and definitive Official Version on WTC1 & 2 collapses.
Out of 10,000 pages describing the plane crashes, the fires, and the collapse initiations the ONLY page that describes collapse dynamic is the one in section 6.14.4 . You cannot dismiss it by saying it's qualitative, because qualitative > quantitative, and the statement by NIST is a conclusion itself.
SertesLC 2 years ago
I say "qualitative" because it does not specify how long the collapses took, and because of the use of the qualifier "essentially."
Don't you find it ironic that truthers dismiss the NIST report out of hand as government propaganda - yet cling to this one paragraph as the CORNERSTONE of their case? You can't have it both ways.
Myself, I'll put my stock in the evidence RIGHT HERE in this video. I measure the collapse at 22 seconds - LESS THAN HALF the speed of free fall.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Because NIST (the official version) states that the upper block descended essentially in freefall through the path of most resistance, then some portion of the core stood 15-25 seconds more than the istant of collapse initiation, then began collapse themselves.
TOTAL collapse time, and freefall of the upper block are 2 seprate issues! You're using strawman, or being used by it.
Check NIST official FAQ, august 2006, point 6
SertesLC 2 years ago
The real issue FYI is that NIST clearly states into NCSTAR1 6.14.4 and confirms it into its august 2006 official FAQ that the upper block descended through the path of most resistance essentially in freefall.
This claim defies the Principle of Energy Conservation, since in a gravitational collapse you can account only on potential energy, and if you convert essentially all of it to achieve freefall speed of the upper block, where do the energy to crush the 80 underlying intact floors come from?
SertesLC 2 years ago
"The real issue FYI is that NIST clearly states... that the upper block descended through the path of most resistance essentially in freefall."
Okay, then, we agree: NIST got it WRONG on that point, since it's obvious the upper block did NOT fall at anything close to free-fall speed.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
No, they're still 2 separate issues:
You're plotting TOTAL collapse time (22 seconds) over building height, and telling us that the TOTAL BUILDING collapse wasn't freefall. True, and NIST agree: (quoting NIST official FAQ) "From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."
Yet, the upper block went free-fall.
SertesLC 2 years ago
"Yet, the upper block went free-fall."
Nope. Still don't see it. Perhaps some math would help here.
Q: Exactly how long would free fall take from the height of the towers? The formula is t = sqrt(2h / g) where h (height of the tower) = 416m (1360') and g (acceleration of gravity) is about 10 m/s².
A: 9.1 sec.
So - you're claiming that the upper block fell ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET in 9.1 seconds? Is that what you're saying?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Not at all.
First: That the upper block went essentially free-fall through the path of most resistance is NIST claim, NOT MINE. It's the Official Version on WTC collapse dynamic, NOT MINE.
Second: freefall of the upper block is even faster than your calculations, as the lower floor of the upper block is just above the impact zone, in south tower at floor 85 (so h is roughly 85/110*416 meters), and in north tower at floor 99 (so h is roughly 99/110*416 meters).
SertesLC 2 years ago
You know, maybe I misunderstood the point of your original post. You seem really wrapped up in what NIST says, but what never mind them, what about YOU - do YOU believe in free fall on 9/11?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
I think only 2 out of 3 of the following can be true:
1) You know and understand the official version
2) You accept official version conclusions
3) You are in good faith
For example I'm in good faith and I know the official version, so I can't accept its conclusions, because they defy phyisic.
You instead are in good faith and accept the conclusions, only because you just didn't know the official version in detail. You video, too, prove the official version wrong.
Never stop asking!
SertesLC 2 years ago
You may be earnest but you're certainly not clear. Even after this long thread I still have no idea what your point is. Is it:
a) Freefall-speed collapse proves controlled demolition?
b) NIST got it wrong when they said "essentially in free fall" and therefore they suck?
c) Other?
Myself, I claim no intimate knowledge of the NIST report; I just enjoy poking holes in truther BS.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Sure, you support the Official Version conclusions out of plain faith. You never looked at it, you never read it, like I pointed out earlier.
But let's play your game:
a) No, freefall speed through the path of most resistance disproves a gravitational collapse.
b) No, because they wrote "the upper block went down essentially in freefall", you're looking at the whole building collapse INSTEAD, which is not a total freefall
SertesLC 2 years ago
Nope. Still don't see what point you're trying to make.
I'll restate mine just to be clear: It doesn't matter *what* is in the NIST report, free-fall collapse DID NOT HAPPEN. The proof is right here in this video.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Ok, you debunked the Official Version on 9/11 WTC Collapses. Congrats, and welcome to 9/11Truth.
SertesLC 2 years ago
Hah! You funny!
TimReed22222 2 years ago
@SertesLC "Never stop asking!"
.
man you are very wise. When I'm called a "truther" by deny'rs, I feel good bc I know I'm trying to understand the real reasons behind this horrific act and they are remaining blind from their inability to accept that they would even attempt this "Urban Renewal"
mjimih 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SertesLC Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass,"
.
note the key phrase "little resistance" - this is a result of Thermite being used to REMOVE the resistance.
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"this is a result of Thermite being used to REMOVE the resistance."
how much thermite was needed to do what you think was done?
you don't know, do you?
if you did, you wouldn't be saying this. you would realize how absurd the accusation is.
but you won't find out how much thermite was needed because you'd rather wallow in ignorance and believe the CT that you want so bad to be true.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
amazing video.
from :22-:25 you can see large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed," the building is not. say bye bye to free fall speed or "near free fall speed," truthtards.
from :37-:50 you can clearly see the center core columns still standing before falling down after the rest of the building collapsed around it. say bye bye to cut columns, truthtards. there is undeniable proof you are wrong about that.
2 more nails in the truthtard coffin.
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago 3
QFT!
RipperYou 2 years ago
thanks.
someone has to stop these truthtards from buying into all this ridiculous horseshit. I'm just glad the person who posted this did.
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
@unclesamsnephew666 large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed,"
THEY ARE falling at free fall speed DOH!
" the building is not."
RIGHT DOH! It is falling at near free fall speed. Which btw IS falling straight into what should be a lot of resistance, so YES it IS falling FASTER than it would "naturally" Un-natural MAN caused it to do that... with Thermate.
" :37-:50 you can clearly see the center core columns "
side skin, not core columns
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"It (the building) is falling at near free fall speed."
no it isn't. I know you really, really want it to be, but it isn't. regardless, you at least admit the building isn't falling at freefall speed. but many of your fellow truthtards claim it is. will you be telling them that they are wrong?
"side skin, not core columns"
HAHAHA!!! truthtards see what they want to see. what the hell is "side skin" anyway? sorry, truthtard, those are core columns.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "no it isn't."
.
dude if the building is perfectly healthy (it still was) and designed to withstand a jet impact, then it would have taken at least 45 seconds to CRUMBLE-DOWN. Explosives sped up the fall as planned by the Bush Crime Syndicate run by Dickless Cheney
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"designed to..." is not a guarantee of results. does this really have to be explained to you? search the tacoma-narrows bridge on youtube. think that was designed to handle moderate to high winds? of course it was, and yet it collapsed anyway. so spare me the "designed to..." because it isn't proof of anything.
how do you explain the lack of audio? no detonations. what about all the phone calls from the planes? all faked?
time to let it go. truthtards have proven NOTHING.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "narrows bridge on youtube. think that was designed to handle moderate to high winds?"
.
apples n oranges dude. Are you saying both twin towers and WT7 blew over because of wind?
.
"how do you explain the lack of audio?"
.
Thermate n Thermite are silent killers. The don't "explode" they instantly melt metal, the reaction is that fast. Small charges were all that is needed to ignite the awesome powerful force of thermite.
.
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"apples n oranges dude
not at all. your point is they were DESIGNED to handle a plane strike, therefore they should have been able to take it without collapsing. the bridge example proves otherwise.
"Are you saying both twin towers and WT7 blew over because of wind?"
I really hope you're kidding.
any idea how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done? if you did know, you wouldn't be saying this because you'd know how stupid it is.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 " your point is they were DESIGNED to handle a plane strike, therefore they should have been able to take it without collapsing"
.
Um, they DID take it. THEN they blew the base THEN they unleashed the Thermate charges methodically. THEN it came down. Why is it so hard 4 u 2 believe this scenario?
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"Um, they DID take it." - no they didn't. they collapsed.
"Why is it so hard 4 u 2 believe this scenario?" - among dozens of reasons is that I know how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done. like I said: "if you did know, you wouldn't be saying this because you'd know how stupid it is"
you need to do more research. most of all, you need to stop wanting this to be true so you can look at the evidence without bias.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unclesamsnephew666 "among dozens of reasons is that I know how much thermite would be needed to do what you think was done."
.
ok so the Cabal only had enough money to buy one box of Thermite? Do you think they went to Wallmart or something?
mjimih 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "what about all the phone calls from the planes? all faked? "
the 2 that hit the towers were real. Phone calls from the Shanksville and the pentagon planes could have been faked or at least made b4 they were diverted to Cleveland and disposed of. It's hard to wrap your brain around it isn't it? it's called a Cabal
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
"Phone calls from the Shanksville and the pentagon planes could have been faked or at least made b4 they were diverted to Cleveland and disposed of."
so the people on the planes that hit the towers, those were real calls, but the other might have been fake. is that your well-thought out theory?
what's hard to wrap one's brain around is the level of self-deceit truthers will resort to in order to continue believing this horseshit. you have to WANT to believe it.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 "is that your well-thought out theory?"
.
yup. and that was a nice meaningless retort too.
.
"self-deceit truthers will resort to"
.
hardly, after much thought I realized it was possible for ideological greedy oil men with GREAT POWER could have made this happen. Shooter and the draft dodger Brush jr were just the kind of assholes to pull it off too. wake up!
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
after much thought I realized it was possible for ideological greedy oil men with GREAT POWER could have made this happen"
not enough thought, apparently. and not enough evidence. you can think all day about what you want to believe in, but if the facts and the evidence dont add up then it is just you ruminating on how to be part of the online scooby-doo mystery-solvers. laughable.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 " it is just you ruminating on how to be part of the online scooby-doo mystery-solvers"
.
If your father told you to jump off a bridge, would you question his authority?
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
you mean like you being a mindless slave to alex jones and the rest of the truther brainbugs?
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
@unclesamsnephew666 " what the hell is "side skin" anyway? "
.
I know you know what that means bc you seem to be used to using the English language. everbody can see that part of the "outer skin" (aka: the wall) was left standing for awhile and then most of that eventually as well.
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih
that's not the outer perimeter columns, that is part of the central core columns. they were not cut, they were still standing for a few moments after the rest collapsed.
you dont see it because you dont want to. you want the conspiracy to be true because otherwise you'd have to admit you're wrong, something no truthtard can do.
unclesamsnephew666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unclesamsnephew666 "you can see large chunks falling to left of the building. THOSE are moving at "near free fall speed," the building is not."
.
dude get real, the falling chunks ARE falling AT free fall speed!! Do you see Superman under the chunks trying to slow them down? Are you blind? The only resistance the chunks have is AIR resistance DOH! blind to the truth that's what you are buddy.
mjimih 1 year ago
your either part of the investigation, or you are part of the cover up. wtc 7 is one of the clues that something was up. missing wreckage from flight 93 and flight 77 also indicates something is wrong. another investigation is needed, and one that isnt worried about the political fallout.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
thank you for the new video, and answering my question. i see that the "WHOLE" building took roughly 20sec to fall(i say this because of a portion of the building stayed upright before crumbling) BUT the majority of the building did fall near free fall speed.
i guess thats why there is a debate to who is correct. your job has been good at raising doubt in this matter, but there are many, many more doubts i have.
danielwvu 2 years ago
But then again DCStream, all of these little questions only serve as unpatriotic, sacrilegious distractions, right? How dare I attempted to confuse the poor, uninformed American public about 9/11 when those dreaded terrorists are, at this very moment, plotting their next move.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
While you are at it, please explain and clarify for me all of the other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions like the sudden onset, the sliced steel at the base, the TOTAL collapse of both buildings after fires of less than two hours (less than 1 for the South Tower), the pulverization of concrete, and the pools of molten steel found WEEKS after the collapse.
jfragghianti 3 years ago 2
"While you are at it, please explain and clarify for me all of the other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions" Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? You hear very loud and distinct explosions in succession, and you can even see the flashes. They do not go off once the building has begun collapsing - that has never been done before.
It was a pancake collapse, of course concrete would be pulverized. continued
DCStream 3 years ago
Pools of molten metal? Do you read any sites besides abovetopsecret? 911myths com explains the molten metal very well. Thermite has never been used in a controlled demolition in history either, so the point would be null even if it were true. The cut steel beams at the bottom? Do you even do research? They were cut with thermate AFTER the collapse. You could even tell due to the distinct yellow residue.
I am going to go watch the NEXT video you refer me to now.
DCStream 3 years ago
Pancake collapse huh? Even NIST has discredited that theory.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
Pancake collapse... not Pancake theory. You might want to point out where NIST said that though, I have a feeling you're lying.
DCStream 3 years ago
"Pancake collapse huh? Even NIST has discredited that theory. "
So you believe NIST, I see.
thedman113 3 years ago
"other features of the collapses of BOTH towers that are typically seen in controlled demolitions like the sudden onset" -- Did you expect it to collapse gradually?
"the sliced steel at the base" -- was cut by cleanup crews, there's even photos of them making the cuts.
"the TOTAL collapse of both buildings" -- yep, they were really, really heavy.
"the pulverization of concrete" -- happens when you hit it with a sledgehammer
"and the pools of molten steel" -- don't exist.
thedman113 3 years ago
1) With fires burning at varying degrees of intensity at different places in the building (albeit the fires were relatively cool and certainly not hot enough to weaken the steel, particularly within the short amount of time that they burned), if any part of the structure did weaken, it would be localized and, yes, I would expect PARTS of the building collapse. Yet both buildings explode and are reduced to nothing-within 12 seconds.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"(albeit the fires were relatively cool and certainly not hot enough to weaken the steel, "
Yeah, fire is often cool. Do you even know what temperature is required to weaken steel? No, you don't.
"if any part of the structure did weaken, it would be localized and, yes, I would expect PARTS of the building collapse."
Which parts? How would you stop the falling parts once they were set in motion?
thedman113 3 years ago
2) Check out the video 'WTC7 - Solid steel columns' for evidence of sliced steel.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"2) Check out the video 'WTC7 - Solid steel columns' for evidence of sliced steel. "
I did. That video didn't show any slices at all! It just ranted against Asteneh and showed a box column broken off at it's bolt connection. Sorry, wrong again.
thedman113 3 years ago
Heavy buildings? Indeed they were. The videos 'WTC Design' will show you just how sturdy they were. The theory which supports the total collapse from the impacts of the planes/fires is truly absurd after watching these.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"The videos 'WTC Design' will show you just how sturdy they were. "
It didn't. It was just some guy (metal cutting SOFTWARE engineer?) complaining that he couldn't wrap his head around thousands of bolts being broken at the same time. Apparently, like you, he didn't know how heavy the towers were either.
thedman113 3 years ago
4) Almost all of the concrete was not simply pulverized, but turned to dust. After all, if you were to drop a piece of concrete from a point twice as high as the WTC, it would certainly break, but not turn to dust. In the video 'ReOpen 9/11 - Jeff King - controlled demolition' an engineer examines this anomaly and much more evidence that explosive were used to fell the WTC.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"Almost all of the concrete was not simply pulverized, but turned to dust"
Do you even know what 'pulverized' means?
"After all, if you were to drop a piece of concrete from a point twice as high as the WTC, it would certainly break, but not turn to dust."
How about if you dropped tons more on top of it?
thedman113 3 years ago
No molten steel? Well, then you need to watch 'Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found'.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found"
I just did. Jones starts out stating with utter surprise that "in all three buildings, there's these pools of molten metal!" Did either of you know that aluminum wheels melted off cars in the recent california wildfires? Apparently not. You're both ignorant.
thedman113 3 years ago
Wow, your point about the California wildfires would be an excellent rebuttal, except for one little problem-the melting point of aluminum is 1,220℉-steel, depending upon the composition, has a melting point of roughly 2,400℉.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
Actually steel is more like 2800F. But if you'd read what I quoted, Jones doesn't say 'steel', he says 'METAL'! Are you telling me aluminum is not metal?
thedman113 3 years ago
You are truly a genius. I feel almost as foolish as you for wasting time with persons as dense as yourself, those who let an obvious polical bias blind them from the transparent. You can't even admit that your point was foolish and utterly irrelevant. Enjoy the rest of your deluded life.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
So... you're wrong in every argument you make, you "objective" is clearly within your grasp though you choose not to take it, and you can't give us any evidence to back up your claims... and we're foolish?
Typical twoofer. Wrong about everything, and leaves calling everyone a shill.
DCStream 3 years ago
Stop asking for evidence. There is no evidence. We have questions. Serious questions that need to be answered and have not even been mentioned by the gov. The molten metal being one of them. And yes. There is plenty of evidence that it existed. So you should ask youself why the government is keeping it locked up somewhere? Why does the government keep all the tapes from the pentagon? Why has there not been a serious scientific debate about this? There are questions. And they need to be answered
bweazel 2 years ago
As soon as I rad your first sentence, I knew I couldn't take you seriously.
DCStream 2 years ago
Good for you ; )
bweazel 2 years ago
Let me fix that for you.
Top asking questions, only we get to ask question, and no we don't have to answer anything because we are question askers not answer-er. Because there is no evidence but there also is lots of evidence.
tokenmac 2 years ago
"those who let an obvious polical bias blind them from the transparent."
Yes, anyone who thinks aluminum is metal must have a political bias. Make some sense.
thedman113 3 years ago
Come back, I get a kick out of you arguing.
DCStream 3 years ago
And remember, these are just a handful of the issues and contradictions of the official narrative about 9/11. I don't claim to have the answers, but cannot hide my head in the sand when confronted with this evidence. What I and many other Americans desire is an independent investigation that examines these and many other irregularities about 9/11 that flatly contradict the gov't account. I love my country enough to face the ugly implications that are raised by this evidence.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
"but cannot hide my head in the sand when confronted with this evidence"
You're doing a heck of a good job of it.
thedman113 3 years ago
And independent investigation? You want an independent investigation? THEN DO IT. This is what I hate about truthers. They demand a new independent investigation from the Government. If the government is doing it - it isn't independent. Only someone who isn't in any government funded firm can hold an independent investigation. So please, GO DO IT. Bring your case to court. Let it be the final battle so we can rid America of this stupid movement once and for all.
DCStream 3 years ago
Let's see. If they'd spend our tax dollars correctly or representatively, like they should, then we would have more than enough to support an new investigation. There are enough truthers out there that have paid taxes and want to see a new one. Go do it? Haha Go fuck yourself. You sheep are so content with a half ass commission that some of the chairmen said was "doomed to fail" from the beginning. You should be ashamed with yourself. You're no American.
bweazel 2 years ago
No, I was right, and everything after "Go do it?" was you using ad hominem attacks because you know I'm right.
It will not be independent unless truthers all independently pitch in money to fund a new one. After that, they will submit it to the scientific community for critique. That's the process.
I'm sorry I don't think my American governemnt purposely killed American citizens.
I think not wanting to believe we killed American citizens makes me more American then you. Patriots my ass.
DCStream 2 years ago
Haha. We? I like how you consider yourself part of the representative government. They are not you and frankly I'm sure they don't give a shit about you or me. You don't need to apologize to me. Apologize to the victims families that you are being close minded and not even trying to consider every possible way they died. The families are not convinced. Why are you? You're first sentence is quite a laugh. We will have our investigation. Stop being in such denial. It makes you look like a pussy.
bweazel 2 years ago
And stop being so thick. It would be independent if our gov gave a private business money to research these questions. When we say independent we mean we don't want the government to just shift cash around to one of its agencies so they can sit on their asses for 5 years and still provide us with nothing. Independent means seperate from any possible bias. You obviously are a well spoken idiot. I wish people like you would drop the pride and just admit you have no place discussing serious things.
bweazel 2 years ago
"It would be independent if our gov gave a private business money to research these questions."
Now it wouldn't. It would be government funded. If that's independent - then you've already achieved your goal with NIST, but of course it didn't say 9/11 was an inside job and you didn't like it,so we need another.
You're right in the definition of independent. The government controls their money flow.
Why don't you drop the insults when you can barely keep up with me.
DCStream 2 years ago
@DCStream "I'm sorry I don't think my American governemnt purposely killed American citizens."
.
And why not? It doesn't need congressional approval to create a secretive cabal.
What happened to WTC 7? Did the wind blow it over? Who dropped it and why?
mjimih 1 year ago
@mjimih God dropped it to punish the infidels.
DCStream 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DCStream God dropped it to punish the infidels"
.
typical non-answer. I repeat what happened to WTC7? the wind?
mjimih 1 year ago
Your continued assault on science and reason is eerily similar to that employed by the Bush Administration. Let me make another 'wild guess'-global warming is a crock too, huh? You and Sean Hannity need to get together and tear apart all of these 'liberal myths'.
jfragghianti 3 years ago 2
I hate Sean Hannity. Hannity is nothing but a complete liar and fabricator. And yes - I don't believe in mainstream global warming. Please, f you truly think CO2 emissions are destroying us, stop breathing. Every time you exhale, it's CO2.
Global Warming and 9/11 conspiracies? Wow, it seems like you just want to be part of a cause.
DCStream 3 years ago
What? The WTC was blown up? Just because they collapsed at free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, and just because they were the first three steel-framed buildings to collapse from fire in history, and just because hundreds of witness heard multiple explosions? Go burn a doobie, you hippie freaks. The buildings collapsed because the terrorists hate our freedom-duh.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
It didn't fall at free-fall speed, the path of greatest resistance would be sideways.
DCStream 3 years ago
Sideways? If it fell sideways, it would eventually encounter resistance, in the form of other buildings, but both of these buildings collapsed INTO THEMSELVES. The path of greatest resistance to which I refer are the many undamaged floors BELOW the impact zones. The buildings came down at nearly free-fall speed; if each floor slowed the collapse even a bit, the speed of the sequence would have been greatly slowed. Yet, what do you see? I see a building imploding with zero resistance.
jfragghianti 3 years ago
Glad you didn't notice the tons of debris that fall during the collapse that damaged several buildings, and that you can't tell the difference between slowing down and slowing the rate of acceleration.
DCStream 3 years ago
Search under 'north tower exploding' and watch the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth video as they examine this 'collapse'. Why do people get so damned defensive when these glaring inconsistencies with the official account are pointed out?
jfragghianti 3 years ago
Nice work showing you know the difference between slowing down and slowing the rate of acceleration, basically just avoiding my comment.
DCStream 3 years ago
I also watched you ae911truth video. Have you ever even seen a controlled demolition?
DCStream 3 years ago