The second tower hit fell first for one reason; 80% of the fuel burned up outside the structure and in less than 30 minutes, it appeared the fires were going out. They were!
If the fires were out, the demolition experts would not be able to blow the charges under cover of smoke and fire. The airplane, while remotely controlled, missed the center point of the tower and almost missed the building. A gov official going along with the conspiracy, how odd? NOT.
It just might be one of the most rare historical accounts in recorded history. It is uploaded on my channel. A never before released wtc attack video that is a continuous running account. The only such video account that exists. It is a time capsule; it is the answer to the question: what would it have been like to watch that all unfold right before my eyes.. without the media.. just to watch it all from beginning to the end.. in a non-production way. Only one 'Tuesday Morning in September'
"Wow your a bit retarded i see, dropped at birth??"
"bite a curb, btch"
"No you fucking LOWLIFE"
That's some persuasive argumentation here. Maybe there's some truth to the controlled demolition theory if truthers so aggressively try to convince us... *roll-eyes*
@NotableJInx2 Wow your a bit retarded i see, dropped at birth?? It goes like this It WAS a controlled demolition. The temperatures WERE too low for FIRE to melt the steel. The temperatures WERE very high AFTERWARDS due to EXPLOSIVES being used?? The basement was blown FIRST thats where the buildings support is!!!!! Get that through your thick head?? By the way, at least we can handle the TRUTH unlike you morons.
Google 'why did the world trade center collapse' and read the article by TW Eager. I see a lot of BS comments on this video about temperatures, explosives lol just hilarious! WTF do some of you know about metallurgy and how temperature AND heat affect metals? Obviously nothing judging by some of these comments. Especially the dutchmaster8889. The fire didn't bring the building down, it was many other things. Do your own research before you make yourself look like an idiot on youtube.
@MntnPrepper exactly, steel looses 50% of it's strength when under intense heat. If a moron says to you,"why is it the only steel structure to ever come down in a fire" then ask them to look up the oakland bridge fire, it will shut them up.
@86Blessed86 The points were comparisons of the twin tower's destruction to that of a building that is destroyed by fire (which it did not show signs of) and a building destroyed by demolition (which is did show signs of).
@RossetaStoned91 The lead demolition expert at ground zero said it had no signs of being destroyed by demolition. Don't say he's apart of it as well because everyone can't be in this conspiracy, also the fireproofing was sprayed on like paint, and the plane would have knocked nearly all of the fireproofing off around that area. Why did the first building fall when it got hit second? the plane hit lower, which meant there was more weight on top of the impact zone, perfect sense.
@86Blessed86 Oh shit, I thought you meant my other post. I'm taking about comparing a bridge destroyed by fire to a building that is meant to wistand 800x its own weight and is made to be fire proof.
Sorry, but ae911 are nutjobs. Recently they spoke on the Nation of Islam conference. You know, those religious fundamentalist "mother plane" guys with Jew-bashing tendencies and in close in ties with Scientology.
Won't take long and they start spewing their lies on real UFO conventions and KKK meetings. Will you still believe them when it comes to that point?
and building 7, hahahaha, you have to literally be brain-dead and on PCP to actually believe that building just fell because of a fire! hahahaha, DO SOME RESEARCH, 9-11 was the only date in history in which 1 building collapsed 'due to fire and the resulting damage'... oh wait, 3 buildings came down that day due to 'fire'.... you need to question things a little more
@NotableJInx2 what the fuck do you expect, jackoff, when your Government lies to you about everything else, you REALLY REALLY believe that actual pools of liquid steel just happened to form after desks, carpet, and whatever else helped melt them, which also resulted in the collapse (in an oddly similar fashion) of both buildings? you are an ignorant human if you really believe the same bullshit the mainstream media wants you to believe. CIAO, hope you enjoy your final days wishing you believed.
@NotableJInx2 It's clearly Truther B that is correct, because Molten Steel was found in the basement of the South Tower. There are multiple sources that can confirm this as well.
@vanillanigger - desks, chairs, paper, carpet, etc.... won't melt steel, but thermite will.... and fire has NEVER in history brought down a building, 9-11 was the first time that has ever happened.... (look up the Bomber that flew into the Empire State Building in the 1940's)
what idiots are thumbing up the aholes. Thermite explains molten steel found weeks after the collapse. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to burn steel. You clowns either will just never be capable of understanding or you're getting paid to dominate the comments section . Names look like spam too. Explosives were used in all three buildings. Its obvious. Not all explosions create big fire flashes and fireworks. But they were obviously used. You only deny it b/c its psycologically convenient
I don't think USA government was behind this attack. Owners of the towers, who happen to be from zionist cult, earned billions of dollars from insurance companies. 6 months before the attack insurance company was changed. Old company was owned by some relative of Juniour Bush, and the insurance was doubled. As you can easily learn, Bush was also a partner of Bin Laden family. Open your eyes friend. Nobody is against US citizens, people are against imperialists who also own US dollar and FED bank
@NotableJInx2 No you fucking LOWLIFE, the evidence of nanothermit,is the actuall discovery of unreacted nanothermite in 4 different dustsamples! wake up and go hang yourself!
@NotableJInx2 Dozens of witness reported pools of molten steel in the wreckage MONTHS after the implosion.Jet fuel ignited office fires cannot melt steel and cannot cause two 110 story steel frame buildings to explode outward into shredded steel and pulverized concrete in 10 seconds.They also cannot not leave unignited nano-thermite in dust samples or cause the arrest of 5 Israelis for dancing with joy while "recording the event".Thus controlled demolition.Elementary.
Yeah...but did you try to contact actual demolition professionals regarding their opinion on these "visible detonations"? lol. Truthers are fucking morons.
@NotableJInx2 my friend, both are true. Temperatures were not high enough to melt steel but a controlled demolition happened which used Themite to cut the steel cloumns (which can be called an explosive). Thermite didnt rise the temperature of the building or air. Please search for themite in internet and you will understand what I mean. What we try to explain is jet fuel was not enough to melt the steel, only with termite you can cut the steel columns of that magnitude. Google it
@NotableJInx2 and you can also search for actual demolition experts giving their opinions. Even in youtube you can find the opinions of german engineers, or others if you prefer. Also you can search the architects video which he claims that the building was specially designed to withstand airplane crashes. Because airplanes did crash buildings way before than 9/11.
i'd like to dedicate my new videos to the memory of lisa beamers husband, who died valiantly crashing flight 93 into a hole which was already there, may he rest in pieces, where ever they may be.
flight 93 - no wreckage, hole in ground since 1994 where engine dug up, and presumably mr. beamer.
wtc 7 - freefall and evidence of thermite
wtc 1 and 2 - molten steel in basements, evidence of thermite
flight 77 - pentagon photo and video footage clearly shows no plane before wall collapsed
@mattbell555. The Madrid tower has some important differences from WTC. 1. It was not hit by a 767 at 500+ MPH so it wasnt structurally compromised before the fire. 2. the Madrid tower is only approx 32 stories, not 110 so the stresses on it are much different. 3. the Madrid tower was a primarily concrete reinforced steel structure, WTC a lightweight steel structure throughout. However, the upper 12 floors of Madrid did have an outer ring of lighweight steel (like WTC) and they DID collapse.
I am a chemist by profession, but I have also taken many physics courses in my time. The nature of those 3 towers falling at free fall speed proves they were blown up. If they had collapsed via a pancake mechanism, the time to fall would have been 45 seconds, they fell in under 11 seconds. 47 core columns made those towers very solid. Bush prevented an investigation, so therefore the counter intell posters are having a field day. Such people dishonor the dead. God is not mocked.
The fires in the South Tower ( second building hit) were nearly out and that is why even though it was a near miss, just hitting the corner and had small fires that only required two hoses, it was demolished first. The bombers panicked when they realized once the fires were out, there was no excuse for the buildings to fall. My son is a firefighter and he said everyone he knows,knows it was an inside job, but to speak out, one risks hurting your chances of promotion.
@390bullitt1968 Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn ret. said their was nothing wrong with the building coming down the way it did. Richard Cage said "Steel structures are indestructable" although when asked by Chris Mohr "why does the steel have to be fireproofed", Richard Cage said "ahhh ohhh uh well steel can warp, expand and weaken with intense heat, like the heat that would have been in the towers, the red chips found in the dust is also a sketchy arguement, look up Vincent Dunn.
NEVER BEFORE SEEN 130 minute wtc attack video: 'Tuesday Morning in September', is something from that day that you have NOT seen. If you have seen other posts about it on Youtube and not looked into it, please do. It is not like so much other shit that has been put out since 9/11; it is not a propaganda, and or opinion piece. It is something special that has no comparison. You can preview the whole 130 chronicle. It is posted in its entirety on Youtube.
Regarding the jet fuel buring off in the first minutes, of course it did. Ignition fluids, like lighter fluid, always burn of quickly but they can still leave behind a very hot raging fire. In fact, thats the whole point of something like lighter fluid. The teperatures range of 500 - 599 degrees is spurious. that figure does not take into account cumbsutibles. There were tons (literally) of combustibles on each floor. The WTC fires burned above 1000 degrees.
@kghowell65 Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F) of jet fuel that would have been the hottest the fire got not to mention that steel is a great conductor of heat and yes it will heat up in a fire but it alson disipates heat in a few different ways one by radiating heat im sure if u touched a gruder 15 floors below the impact spot on that day ya they might have been warm but given the size of thee gruders theres no wat that building comes down after what 2 hrs of fire
There is no way the towers burned long enough at the Open air burning temperatures 260-315°C (500-599°F) to bring down the buildings 75 % of the fuel was gone in te inatial fire ball the first 5 min max would have been at the Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F)
@MrEddieG420 I just dont think the heat would have been enough to take out the towers on its own steel conducts heat but it disipates it rapidly too, there for I see mabey 5-10 floors below and probally right to the top because heat rises and fire tends to climb up quicker then down that mabey the top of the building falls off and thats it if its a structral fail due too fire below the impact area should have been standing today
@774stefan. Your statement that the towers were built to withstand an impact from a plane is not completely true as it relates to 9/11. The engineers assumed a737 flying at low speed on approach to one of the local airports. The planes that actually hit were slightly larger 767s. Much more importantly, they were flying at more than twice the speed it was assumed the plane would hit at. Velocity has a huge impact on how much damage one object does when striking another object. Simply put, the
HAHAHA YOU STUPID FUCK LOWLIFE!! NO WORD FROM THE PEOPLE WORKING THERE??? YOU ARE MORE STUPID THAN I FIRST THOUGHT !! AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE: DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK . SEARCH FOR 9/11 CRASH COURSE 3 of 4, and listen to ONE of the tenants !!!
@774stefan you said it. One. Overwhelming. You will cling to anything. One woman said she lost her whole family there. That turned out to be crap too. What is your lame point?
A) In controlled demolitionn they dont blow out floors randomly 50 floors away with no effect for some "later" effect. Also the steel piles were NOT 400 meters long, and did NOT get just crushed. The top fell at one side first weakening every vertical joint with lateral force as it arrives. It does NOT then crush the next 8 meters of building, that pile is SNAPPED at the joint and falls. This crap about the top of the building crusing the rest is for primary school level kids
@KowBoySpace Its called PRE-WEAKENING when you take out steel connections,firewalls,staircases etc. BEFORE you cut the loadbearing core-columns. Its done to prevent unnecessary resistence, so its NOT RANDOM ! Come back when you know anything about buildingdemolition !
@774stefan Be serious. They do NOT pre weaken 50 floors away from where your starting the collapse and at a different time to the actual demolition. Also such charges even when placed correct are throughout the whole circumferance not in a few random places. You have no clue what you are talking about. And it shows.
@774stefan Also, in your dumb desperation to think of ways that a few guys cant possibly bring these towers down, why is there no word from the 40,000 people that worked there and didnt die that day of the massive drilling and disruption prior to instal these explosives. You belong in a special place perhaps with medication. Maybe they could give you nano thermite for breakfast and make you drink molten steel till you finally figured out how delusional you are.
@KowBoySpace Have you listend to scott forbes yet ?? one off the 40 000? Are you still in denial ??You still want to debunk "truthers" instead of look at the evidence? If it makes you happy then go ahead!
@774stefan Yes. Amazing. One guy. Well it must be true. I had a dream about planes the night before a plane crash in Spain. Deadly serious. I told everyone at work. Therefore - I did it. Sue me. What a joke bit of evidence that is. One guy. Purleeez
@774stefan what a great video. Showing preciseley something looking and sounding nothing like the WTX collapse. Even better, all that "boom" required would have been even greater for WTC. Are you arguing against yourself??
@774stefan You make me listen to one guy of 40,000, you show me a video of an actual demolition showing explosions and bangs all over the place nothing like WTC and you expect me to believe there is even a shred to anything you say? Dont get angry with the caps, just go find some better evidence and get back to me so I can utterly destroy it
None of the characteristics of destruction by fire: 1.Slow onset with large visible deformations 2.Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
@KowBoySpace the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution 3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction 4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
@KowBoySpace 6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 8.1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found 9.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front 10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
@KowBoySpace 11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
Don't bother trying to convince these uptight government loving Americans, they want to believe that it was muslim terrorists flying jumbo's better than world class pilots who said it is essentially impossible to fly a plane so low and so angeled through buildings, and that a plane hit the Pentagon and not a missile, so let them believe what they want.
dont you guys love how the planes hit near the top of the building and they collapsed like a controlled demolition? I would think that if the buildings would even come close to collapsing down like that the planes would have to hit near the base somewhere. someone should do a test on a building(smaller in scale) and use a small jet and crash it into the top and see if it crumbles down like a demolition. I doubt it would :)
@multimoomoo99 Looking at it superficially sure we were suprised they collapsed but when you look at the fact that each floor could only support 1300 tones of static weight above their own weight and at minimum 45,000 tones (10 floors) fell dynamically (multiply that weight many times) it's easy to see how there was a progressive collapse
Hmmm what did they say: "Fire was not hot enough to melt the steel"...but how it cames that 6 weeks (!!!) after this fireman found still burning Fire's and melted steel in basement floor of WTC? How was it possible if it wasnt hot enough?
Funny part: Government says that the fire made them collapse? So maybe we should forbid smoking in all buildings...it can make them collapse.
Steel did not melt... but it did bend - that's all you need for a collapse. This video should be renamed, "9/11 - North Tower - Barely Visible Plumes of Smoke and Falling Debris"
Did they not teach camera operators how to white balance in 2001? JEEZ maybe if you knew how to operate a camera I would be able to give feedback to this crackpot conspiracy theory you and everyone else on YouTube is cramming down everyone's throats. I can promise you this was because there are large groups of powerful and angry people all over the world, NOT just in Iraq or Afghanistan that hate Americans. That is who did this, not the government, not the mainstream media, not Bush.
why does it matter if it was blown up or if the crash did it? people died, the building crumbled. that's the true fact. It's impossible to outsmart the government. everytime something bad happens in america (IE the levee breech of Katrina) they claim the government blew it up cuz they heard a loud boom. DUH if something STRONG breaks the force of it breaking is gunna be loud. geez, get a grip America.
@Lauryn21090 "why does it matter if it was blown up or if the crash did it? " WHY ? Why because if it was indeed controlled collapse then you have been LIED to , use your fucking brain and get your head out of your fat arse. This would mean someone , Americans authorised the death of Many, starting to get the picture yet ?
@OutlawMCC Your comment made no sense. but, my point is America authorized war. people die there too, so America has always authorized death of many. That's nothing new. and by "why does it matter" my point was, regaurdless if we were lied to, what exactly can you do about it besides call the government a liar? Can't do much about it from youtube anyway. If you're so offended, get off your "FAT ARSE" and do something about it, you've gotten nothing accomplished by arguing on youtube. "DUH"
@Lauryn21090 By Talking and finding out things that have been kept from people, helps to broaden the Case for a proper Senate enquiry Many actions can be taken , calling the Government a liar is not one ( what are you 13 years old ) And yes you can do a great deal using Youtube and the Independent Media Online.I dont need to get off my Arse it happened in America , how about you do it, maybe start with actually Voting.None of this would happen in my Country, you have to live with it
@OutlawMCC if you believe youtube comments make the senate better yu go right on ahead and continue what you're doing, its obviously made the world a better place. my comment about calling the government a liar was, what I thought, an obvious insult to your comment and mocking you. im sorry you didnt detect my sarcastic tone via the internet.. & I am an american who votes for every election, Don't know how yu assumed i wasnt.. but yu know the sayin about assuming cuz yu obviously kno everything.
@OutlawMCC I forgot, on youtube its a fucking spelling bee, fml. fyi; i had to edit it CUZ it was too long. buuuuut, nice to know you can spell a word as simple as "know" high five! get back to your point & argue with someone less educated. its kind of hard to argure about something as irrelevant as your point with someone with common sense.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
Talking about those white puffs seen when collapsing starts. Debunkers say they are caused by pressured air. Truthers say they are caused by bombs. Check out this vid h.t.t.p_youtuDOTbe/wFidciVopu4 and tell me what caused the explosion like blowing at 3:15. Note that the collapsing didnt start yet.
This is how mini Hydrogen Free Nukes work. Mi-HFN is short name. they turn concrete to dust and leave no radiation marker. 2000 of the 3000 persons who died wee vaporized. not even teeth left over. If this was a pancake collapse, everybody would be recovered.
Europe follows the U.S. war against terrorism, eavesdropping reconnaissance, the FBI is here without permission CIA, Mossad chasing 911 witnesses. Can you kill 3000 Americans with impunity.? A murder is easy work for the police .. 3000 murder should be easier.
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
@halftimesportscards I like that you acknowledge the spectacular sparkles captured in this clip.
Incendiaries, of course, do not have to make a "boom." If a "crackle" and a "woosh" suffices to cut steel beams (v=5d5iIoCiI8g), why not initiate collapse discreetly with that technique?
If your goal is to frame Arabs for your act of terrorism, as in the Lavon Affair and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, would it not make sense to be discreet?
Did Netanyahu say the attacks were benefiting Israel?
@Bernadotte01 You can't cut steel with a "whoosh" or a "crackle." There are no secrets in the demolition business. You have to cut the steel beams by hand (torch) so that a building can fall straight down and not topple over. There are no magical explosives that can cut the work in half when it comes to demolitions. The sparkle here could easily be light reflecting off of a broken window or a piece of debris floating in the air. For the work needed, a demo is impossible here.
@Bernadotte01 Correction, it can easily be burning debris falling (with what you are pointing out). What good would a bomb do OUTSIDE of a building?? It would be useless.
@Bernadotte01 haha, of course. Everything is stupid to a conspiracy theorist. Especially when they make up stories of thermite cutters when all reports show no evidence of thermite at ground zero.
@halftimesportscards Despite the absoulute fact that it fell right in its footprint? When you say "no imprints of a controlled demo", you realize you sound like a fucking moron, right? It fell straight down , you fool - no steel frame building falls in its own footprint unless it was DEMO'ed, you fucking tool.
@RasCricketSmallAxe Of course, when all else fails, go for personal jabs. Next time, focus your energy on research. When a demolition crew describes a building falling into it's own footprint, it is to ensure that no other building is damaged by an implosion. Every building in that block was destroyed by the collapses. Your argument defeats itself when you see the entire complex. It also defeats the purpose of a "controlled" demolition.
@halftimesportscards Kiddo, youre completely an ignorant fool. Youre saying theres no evidence at ground zero of thermite - IT WAS +2000 DEGREES AT GROUND ZERO FOR 8 WEEKS, you little child. Everything you say reeks of a young idiot who doesnt know their ass from a hole in the ground. All your comments point to you being an ignorant ass who could be schooled at any moment - youve been schooled multiple times already. You have pathetically elementary thinking, you know that?
@RasCricketSmallAxe umm i jus read ur convo and u havent shown any evidence to disprove what that guy said. only your own words (that we have to assume is true?) and random insults. so whose really the idiot. do you have any proof that it was an inside job?
@RasCricketSmallAxe Yol told me to do MY research??? The Verison building and the Postel Service building next to Building 7 were fine after the collapse, little guy. How about YOU do some reasearch and quit getting kicked around by every single person who you open your mouth to in this thread.
@RasCricketSmallAxe WTC 5 damaged, St. Nicholas church destroyed, the Marriott destroyed, South Plaza destroyed, U.S. Customs building destroyed. World Financial Center, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street took on fires. The Deutsche Bank Building had to be demolished due to damage. The World Financial Center 3 and Verizon Building took on damage from the collapse. Want more research?? Mine doesn't come from a dimly lit bar full of drunken morons.
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
Yeah you are right! I can't believe that there would be any reason for anything to collapse inside and around the high-rise when a plane hits is and before it collapses. Great investigative reporting..
watch some other vids (with audio) of buildings being demolished using explosives, half of fucking new york city would have heard the explosives, yet there is no audio evidence to support your theory, strange that, government using those new silent bombs hmmm, building 7 was leaning like the tower of pisa before it came down, that's why the fireman got the fuck out of there, get some hard evidence and then come back, until then, keep fucking your cousin
@cottoniiijoe Could you explain the 70 story "spire" that was left standing after the north tower "collapsed"? How is that possible if it was gravity driven? And the damage in the basements? I could go on forever................
@cottoniiijoe First of all there is a lot of eyewittness accounts, of secondary explosions in buildings 1,2 and 7, from firemen and tenants,on youtube,there is even audio of explosions in wtc 7, just search for BARRY JENNINGS, so dont say no one heard any explosions! Secondly, if you dont know anything about building demolition, DONT talk about it !! Thermite-cutter charges was already patented in 1984, and work by thermal heating, so there is no sound !! so DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK!
@sparkey989 I think experienced firemen can tell the difference between falling debris and EXPLOSIONS! Have you ever wondered how "large inner pieces" could break away from the towers? since they were DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE INPACTS FROM JET LINERS? even NIST said the fires was NOT HOT ENOUGH TO MELT THE STEEL! The steel in the towers top-graded A-class steel, most of it was also sprayed with FIREPROOF ASBESTOS !
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE HORRIBLE STENCH , CALLED TRUTH ! VERITATEM !
@774stefan the reason the NIST didtnt say there was metled steel is cuz ther WASNT. the steel didnt need to melt to cause a structural faliure. at about 1100 steel reaches 50% strength more than enough to cause the trusses to bow innward and donwar pulling on the outside frame. you can see just b4 collapes the shell pull inwards then the upper floors come down. in an explosion the forces would be in the opp direction. out and up. the flames you see is the jet fuel that poold being burnd off.
@easypimpin123 No molten steel ??? you have obviously missed the interviews with the firemen in ground zero! (on youtube) or maybe they are liers ? JETFUEL? JETFUEL!? The jetfuel burned off the first couple of minutes according to all experts (NIST INCLUDED) so there is still no way the jetfuel could have produced those kind of temperatures required to melt the steel 1500 DEGREES CELSIUS.
@774stefan you got that right they found pools of melted steel in what was left of the under the underground parking, I will quote a fireman from the video I seen and I quote " It looks like a blast furnace down there" refering to under the rubble at the trade towers he futher went on to say " It is so hot down there when we pull debris out it lets air in and fires are starting" so yea there are lots of people that work on the recovery that will say the same thing
@easypimpin123 again the steel frame did NOT melt. it was softend to the point of critical failure after about 1100 deg. i wish i could draw you a picture of the forces acting on the structure just b4 collapse. they are in no way indicative of a secondary explosion. and you cant rely on statements from ppl made that morning, since its was chaos. i remember that day and there were also dozens of conflicting stories from ppl on site and the news but noone know wat was happening. not even the FBI.
@easypimpin123 also u should read about thermodynamics. wats called specific heat capacity. ppl think that fire needs to burn AS hot as the melting point but thas not tru. it just needs to burn for enough time for the steel to absorb enough heat energy. steel has a far lower specific heat capacity than the surrounding air so as the fire burned the steel absorbed heat at a faster rate than it released into the air, so as long as there was enuf time then the temp of steel could have kept rising
@774stefan Steel FAILS much sooner than it melts. Easily around 800-1000 degrees f. Once you knock off the sprayed on fire retardant, the steel is no longer protected. No such thing as fire proof, just a misnomer used in construction for years. You can knock it off by brushing your hand across it, or a fast moving, giant plane. There are entire sites devoted to debunk all the truther myths with well documented facts, experts, pictures, eyewitness statements, engineering reports etc.
@Fireman27852 Even NIST concluded that the fires were"cold burning" and no way near 1000 degrees celsius. but even if they were hot enough, you would not get that kind of symetric fragmentation of the building without EXPLOSIVES.the fires were concentrated on a few floors, not all 110 floors. You might know a thing or two about fires, but i know a thing or two about building materials,and its behaviour.
@774stefan 800-1000 degrees fahrenheit is when steel easily begins to fail. thats around 420-530 celsius. Usually the weakest points are in the connections of beams to columns etc. the fire didn't have to be on all floors to affect a pancake collapse. Buildings are designed for specific load bearing capabilities per floor. Shock loads such as the floor above collapsing on the floor below can cause a runaway pancake collapse.
@774stefan Also, explosions happen all the time in fires, without some type of planted device. We call em backdrafts, flameover, rollovers, etc. fire rarely burns cleanly and gives off all kinds of gases that build up, and can simultaneously light off in an explosion with great amounts of force. All depends on the fuel, compartmentalization, and many other factors.
@Fireman27852 Ok i can buy that, but its impossible for all conections to fail at the same time,the symetry is clearly a smoking gun in this case. and the fires do not explain the molten steel in the basements (also seen by your colleagues ) you would need temperatures of 1500 degrees celsius or 2732 fahrenheit to melt the steel without accelerants, besides, there were sprinkler systems in the complex., and never before has a steel-structured building collapsed due to fire, but on 911, 3 did
@774stefan many steel building have collapsed from fire prior to this. This is just the biggest and most famous to date. Sprinkler systems are only designed to slow a fire so occupants can get out. They get overrun easily and fail easily as well. Very possible for connections to fail simultaneously in a pancake collapse. The sudden shock load overwhelms the connections not designed for the load and a gravity domino effect happens.
@Fireman27852 Im sorry, but you dont get that kind of pulverization in a normal pancake collapse. But still were did the molten steel come from? you can even see it pour out from the building minutes before collapse, how did it get so hot? And how about the unreacted nanothermite, found in 4 different dust samples, found by scientists at the universety of copenhagen? there is no other reson for it to be there,than as a exotic accelerant.
@Fireman27852 its on youtube just search for it.pancake or not, the buildings were designed to withstand inpacts from jetliners. and you dont get a coollapse, this symetric, it recuiers explosives.The building was not built out of matches!
@774stefan it didn't start symmetrical. the top tilted over until the rest of the core support not already damaged from the impact of the planes failed completely, then the pancake. Many of the videos show the outer building coming down but the inner parts, which came down slower, are blocked by the debris cloud. Once the steel support columns' load capacity were massively overcome, they may as well have been matches.
@Fireman27852 Well it seems like we can go on for ever here, but the fact is, the states has a long history of conducted false flag operations, to get in to war, so it would not be the first, and i can assure you it wont be the last.
@774stefan LOL your joking right? it can stand 60 mph of wind but not a flying jetline who's coming at the building 560 mph which is 450 knots avg. cruising speeds of a boeing. we're not talking about 1 plane, there were 2 planes that smashed the towers smacking the building at 560 mph, different angles, different heights. you have so much plane fuel thats leaking and spreading through out the building the fire would've took a whole day to knock down if it was still standing.
@774stefan The actuall physicist that did the studies was Steven E. Jones, a former physicist of Brigham Young University and founder of "Scholars for 9/11 truth and justice". A steel structure has actually collapsed due to a fire, the Oakland Bridge Fire, it is the only other fire to burn uncontrolled unlike all the other high-rise building fires that had sprinkler systems and fire fighter to control it. Sprinkler systems were not working for some reason, probably damage to watermain
@774stefan I've read up on the claims of melted steel and don't see much proof. There were people who stated they saw molten steel but later said it may have been metal, not necessarily steel. Also, some call glowing metal "molten" as a figure of speech. The only reference from an expert I could find was one demo expert saying he saw some in the bottom of the elevator shafts. His claim was repeated by others who couldn't corroborate.
@774stefan I'm not denying the possibility of some steel melting, but we can't exactly reproduce these events in a lab. It wasn't just jet fuel burning. There were plastics and other materials that can burn extremely hot as well. The references to NASA's temp readings were for the surface temps, not those in the basement levels, burning for many days. It says this on their report.
@Fireman27852 But still no explaination why there were nanothermite in the building, As i said before even Nist concluded that the fires were "cold". So how did it get so hot? Nist also said the karosine burned of the first couple of minutes, so it was not the jet fuel,
@774stefan which fires were cold? i don't understand the term unless it means not hot enough to melt steel? did they stick a thermometer down in the piles that was burning for days? I can't explain any nanothermite. I've read experts that say they found it, I've also read experts that dispute what they found. Up in the air for me on that one.
@774stefan Ok lets Dumb it down for you Take a empty beer can and smash it against a Brick wall who wins every time The wall Does no different during 911 take plane going that fast hitting a building nothing but a fire ball a few broken windows and a black scortch mark for a plane to do this amount of damage un asisted It would simply be to heavy to fly avaition uses some of the lightest materials known to man there is noway that plane transfers enough energy too take out a building
@774stefan Do you like South Park? Yeah well they made so much fun of any dumbass who is ACTUALLY that retarded to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
The second tower hit fell first for one reason; 80% of the fuel burned up outside the structure and in less than 30 minutes, it appeared the fires were going out. They were!
If the fires were out, the demolition experts would not be able to blow the charges under cover of smoke and fire. The airplane, while remotely controlled, missed the center point of the tower and almost missed the building. A gov official going along with the conspiracy, how odd? NOT.
390bullitt1968 2 days ago
@390bullitt1968
blah blah blah..
NotableJInx2 2 days ago
Stupid iPad keys, I meant see and the no pages
legosupremo 3 days ago
God stupid people have to act stupid, anyone with a brain knows that what you say is exactly what it is, 2 page fires and collapses
legosupremo 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It just might be one of the most rare historical accounts in recorded history. It is uploaded on my channel. A never before released wtc attack video that is a continuous running account. The only such video account that exists. It is a time capsule; it is the answer to the question: what would it have been like to watch that all unfold right before my eyes.. without the media.. just to watch it all from beginning to the end.. in a non-production way. Only one 'Tuesday Morning in September'
tusmorninginsept911 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok, let's see..
"Wow your a bit retarded i see, dropped at birth??"
"bite a curb, btch"
"No you fucking LOWLIFE"
That's some persuasive argumentation here. Maybe there's some truth to the controlled demolition theory if truthers so aggressively try to convince us... *roll-eyes*
NotableJInx2 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 Wow your a bit retarded i see, dropped at birth?? It goes like this It WAS a controlled demolition. The temperatures WERE too low for FIRE to melt the steel. The temperatures WERE very high AFTERWARDS due to EXPLOSIVES being used?? The basement was blown FIRST thats where the buildings support is!!!!! Get that through your thick head?? By the way, at least we can handle the TRUTH unlike you morons.
bjm351 6 days ago
Comment removed
bjm351 6 days ago
Google 'why did the world trade center collapse' and read the article by TW Eager. I see a lot of BS comments on this video about temperatures, explosives lol just hilarious! WTF do some of you know about metallurgy and how temperature AND heat affect metals? Obviously nothing judging by some of these comments. Especially the dutchmaster8889. The fire didn't bring the building down, it was many other things. Do your own research before you make yourself look like an idiot on youtube.
MntnPrepper 1 week ago 5
@MntnPrepper exactly, steel looses 50% of it's strength when under intense heat. If a moron says to you,"why is it the only steel structure to ever come down in a fire" then ask them to look up the oakland bridge fire, it will shut them up.
86Blessed86 6 days ago
@86Blessed86 That's comparing apples to oranges my friend.
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@RossetaStoned91 in what way? comparing what?
86Blessed86 3 days ago
@86Blessed86 The points were comparisons of the twin tower's destruction to that of a building that is destroyed by fire (which it did not show signs of) and a building destroyed by demolition (which is did show signs of).
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@RossetaStoned91 The lead demolition expert at ground zero said it had no signs of being destroyed by demolition. Don't say he's apart of it as well because everyone can't be in this conspiracy, also the fireproofing was sprayed on like paint, and the plane would have knocked nearly all of the fireproofing off around that area. Why did the first building fall when it got hit second? the plane hit lower, which meant there was more weight on top of the impact zone, perfect sense.
86Blessed86 2 days ago
@86Blessed86 Oh shit, I thought you meant my other post. I'm taking about comparing a bridge destroyed by fire to a building that is meant to wistand 800x its own weight and is made to be fire proof.
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@RossetaStoned91
Sorry, but ae911 are nutjobs. Recently they spoke on the Nation of Islam conference. You know, those religious fundamentalist "mother plane" guys with Jew-bashing tendencies and in close in ties with Scientology.
Won't take long and they start spewing their lies on real UFO conventions and KKK meetings. Will you still believe them when it comes to that point?
NotableJInx2 2 days ago
and building 7, hahahaha, you have to literally be brain-dead and on PCP to actually believe that building just fell because of a fire! hahahaha, DO SOME RESEARCH, 9-11 was the only date in history in which 1 building collapsed 'due to fire and the resulting damage'... oh wait, 3 buildings came down that day due to 'fire'.... you need to question things a little more
dutchmaster8889 1 week ago
@NotableJInx2 what the fuck do you expect, jackoff, when your Government lies to you about everything else, you REALLY REALLY believe that actual pools of liquid steel just happened to form after desks, carpet, and whatever else helped melt them, which also resulted in the collapse (in an oddly similar fashion) of both buildings? you are an ignorant human if you really believe the same bullshit the mainstream media wants you to believe. CIAO, hope you enjoy your final days wishing you believed.
dutchmaster8889 1 week ago
so if the gov blew twin towers whyed they attack iraq??? im not siding
Diego033100 1 week ago
@Diego033100 oil, control of land, kill Hussein... being the typical "police of the world"
dutchmaster8889 1 week ago
@NotableJInx2 look try this video out where /watch?v=inuo5rfYAHs&feature=related just watch it went on public record saying this
Davers3636 1 week ago
@NotableJInx2 It's clearly Truther B that is correct, because Molten Steel was found in the basement of the South Tower. There are multiple sources that can confirm this as well.
vanillanigger 1 week ago
@vanillanigger - desks, chairs, paper, carpet, etc.... won't melt steel, but thermite will.... and fire has NEVER in history brought down a building, 9-11 was the first time that has ever happened.... (look up the Bomber that flew into the Empire State Building in the 1940's)
dutchmaster8889 1 week ago
@dutchmaster8889 The Empire State was opened 2 days later, it was hardly a massive impact, 2 Days!
86Blessed86 1 week ago
Whats the name of the modern version of COINTELPRO, active on this site???????
774stefan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@notablejnx2 bite a curb, btch
TheSmittel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what idiots are thumbing up the aholes. Thermite explains molten steel found weeks after the collapse. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to burn steel. You clowns either will just never be capable of understanding or you're getting paid to dominate the comments section . Names look like spam too. Explosives were used in all three buildings. Its obvious. Not all explosions create big fire flashes and fireworks. But they were obviously used. You only deny it b/c its psycologically convenient
TheSmittel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think USA government was behind this attack. Owners of the towers, who happen to be from zionist cult, earned billions of dollars from insurance companies. 6 months before the attack insurance company was changed. Old company was owned by some relative of Juniour Bush, and the insurance was doubled. As you can easily learn, Bush was also a partner of Bin Laden family. Open your eyes friend. Nobody is against US citizens, people are against imperialists who also own US dollar and FED bank
cinnah 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VISIBLE YOU CAN SEEM ALL THOSE MICRO EXPLOSIONS OCCURING ALL THE WAY DOWN GOD DAMN THATS WEIRD
carlosreyes08 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 No you fucking LOWLIFE, the evidence of nanothermit,is the actuall discovery of unreacted nanothermite in 4 different dustsamples! wake up and go hang yourself!
774stefan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 Dozens of witness reported pools of molten steel in the wreckage MONTHS after the implosion.Jet fuel ignited office fires cannot melt steel and cannot cause two 110 story steel frame buildings to explode outward into shredded steel and pulverized concrete in 10 seconds.They also cannot not leave unignited nano-thermite in dust samples or cause the arrest of 5 Israelis for dancing with joy while "recording the event".Thus controlled demolition.Elementary.
fakeyf9 2 weeks ago
"North Tower - Visible detonations"
Yeah...but did you try to contact actual demolition professionals regarding their opinion on these "visible detonations"? lol. Truthers are fucking morons.
NotableJInx2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 my friend, both are true. Temperatures were not high enough to melt steel but a controlled demolition happened which used Themite to cut the steel cloumns (which can be called an explosive). Thermite didnt rise the temperature of the building or air. Please search for themite in internet and you will understand what I mean. What we try to explain is jet fuel was not enough to melt the steel, only with termite you can cut the steel columns of that magnitude. Google it
cinnah 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 and you can also search for actual demolition experts giving their opinions. Even in youtube you can find the opinions of german engineers, or others if you prefer. Also you can search the architects video which he claims that the building was specially designed to withstand airplane crashes. Because airplanes did crash buildings way before than 9/11.
cinnah 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'd like to dedicate my new videos to the memory of lisa beamers husband, who died valiantly crashing flight 93 into a hole which was already there, may he rest in pieces, where ever they may be.
flight 93 - no wreckage, hole in ground since 1994 where engine dug up, and presumably mr. beamer.
wtc 7 - freefall and evidence of thermite
wtc 1 and 2 - molten steel in basements, evidence of thermite
flight 77 - pentagon photo and video footage clearly shows no plane before wall collapsed
TheModerator79 2 weeks ago
@mattbell555. The Madrid tower has some important differences from WTC. 1. It was not hit by a 767 at 500+ MPH so it wasnt structurally compromised before the fire. 2. the Madrid tower is only approx 32 stories, not 110 so the stresses on it are much different. 3. the Madrid tower was a primarily concrete reinforced steel structure, WTC a lightweight steel structure throughout. However, the upper 12 floors of Madrid did have an outer ring of lighweight steel (like WTC) and they DID collapse.
kghowell65 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a chemist by profession, but I have also taken many physics courses in my time. The nature of those 3 towers falling at free fall speed proves they were blown up. If they had collapsed via a pancake mechanism, the time to fall would have been 45 seconds, they fell in under 11 seconds. 47 core columns made those towers very solid. Bush prevented an investigation, so therefore the counter intell posters are having a field day. Such people dishonor the dead. God is not mocked.
390bullitt1968 3 weeks ago
The fires in the South Tower ( second building hit) were nearly out and that is why even though it was a near miss, just hitting the corner and had small fires that only required two hoses, it was demolished first. The bombers panicked when they realized once the fires were out, there was no excuse for the buildings to fall. My son is a firefighter and he said everyone he knows,knows it was an inside job, but to speak out, one risks hurting your chances of promotion.
390bullitt1968 3 weeks ago
@390bullitt1968 Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn ret. said their was nothing wrong with the building coming down the way it did. Richard Cage said "Steel structures are indestructable" although when asked by Chris Mohr "why does the steel have to be fireproofed", Richard Cage said "ahhh ohhh uh well steel can warp, expand and weaken with intense heat, like the heat that would have been in the towers, the red chips found in the dust is also a sketchy arguement, look up Vincent Dunn.
86Blessed86 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEVER BEFORE SEEN 130 minute wtc attack video: 'Tuesday Morning in September', is something from that day that you have NOT seen. If you have seen other posts about it on Youtube and not looked into it, please do. It is not like so much other shit that has been put out since 9/11; it is not a propaganda, and or opinion piece. It is something special that has no comparison. You can preview the whole 130 chronicle. It is posted in its entirety on Youtube.
TuesdayMorningInSept 3 weeks ago
Regarding the jet fuel buring off in the first minutes, of course it did. Ignition fluids, like lighter fluid, always burn of quickly but they can still leave behind a very hot raging fire. In fact, thats the whole point of something like lighter fluid. The teperatures range of 500 - 599 degrees is spurious. that figure does not take into account cumbsutibles. There were tons (literally) of combustibles on each floor. The WTC fires burned above 1000 degrees.
kghowell65 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kghowell65 Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F) of jet fuel that would have been the hottest the fire got not to mention that steel is a great conductor of heat and yes it will heat up in a fire but it alson disipates heat in a few different ways one by radiating heat im sure if u touched a gruder 15 floors below the impact spot on that day ya they might have been warm but given the size of thee gruders theres no wat that building comes down after what 2 hrs of fire
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
@kghowell65 for 3 minutes maybe,it couldnt be enough.See the madrid tower 2006 ,it burns for hours without collapsing.
mattbell555 3 weeks ago
9\11 Was A False Flag Controlled Demolition
There is no way the towers burned long enough at the Open air burning temperatures 260-315°C (500-599°F) to bring down the buildings 75 % of the fuel was gone in te inatial fire ball the first 5 min max would have been at the Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F)
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
@MrEddieG420 nist rigged the computer test from the UL ,they change the parameter to make it viable their theory.
mattbell555 3 weeks ago
JET FUEL known as JET Typical physical properties for Jet A
Flash point 38°C
Auto-ignition temperature 210°C
Freezing point -47°C
Open air burning temperatures 260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F)
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
@MrEddieG420 I just dont think the heat would have been enough to take out the towers on its own steel conducts heat but it disipates it rapidly too, there for I see mabey 5-10 floors below and probally right to the top because heat rises and fire tends to climb up quicker then down that mabey the top of the building falls off and thats it if its a structral fail due too fire below the impact area should have been standing today
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
@774stefan. Your statement that the towers were built to withstand an impact from a plane is not completely true as it relates to 9/11. The engineers assumed a737 flying at low speed on approach to one of the local airports. The planes that actually hit were slightly larger 767s. Much more importantly, they were flying at more than twice the speed it was assumed the plane would hit at. Velocity has a huge impact on how much damage one object does when striking another object. Simply put, the
kghowell65 3 weeks ago 7
@kghowell65 Port Authority rated the building to withstand a 707 travelling at 600 MPH, not a 737, and not at landing speeds like NIST claimed.
Regardless, going from the buildings being able to withstand a collision, to the complete pulverization of an entire structure is a huge step.
ThePBass 3 weeks ago
They really underestimated the internet
MrParkinthedark 3 weeks ago
YOU HAVENT DESTROYED ANYTHING YET
774stefan 3 weeks ago
YOU STILL HAVENT BROUGHT ANYTHING TO THE TABLE
774stefan 3 weeks ago
THE POINT: YOU ARE GULLIBLE, YOU HAVENT SHOWED ONE THING THAT SUPPORTS YOUR THEORY
774stefan 3 weeks ago
HAHAHA YOU STUPID FUCK LOWLIFE!! NO WORD FROM THE PEOPLE WORKING THERE??? YOU ARE MORE STUPID THAN I FIRST THOUGHT !! AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE: DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK . SEARCH FOR 9/11 CRASH COURSE 3 of 4, and listen to ONE of the tenants !!!
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan you said it. One. Overwhelming. You will cling to anything. One woman said she lost her whole family there. That turned out to be crap too. What is your lame point?
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
A) In controlled demolitionn they dont blow out floors randomly 50 floors away with no effect for some "later" effect. Also the steel piles were NOT 400 meters long, and did NOT get just crushed. The top fell at one side first weakening every vertical joint with lateral force as it arrives. It does NOT then crush the next 8 meters of building, that pile is SNAPPED at the joint and falls. This crap about the top of the building crusing the rest is for primary school level kids
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
@KowBoySpace Its called PRE-WEAKENING when you take out steel connections,firewalls,staircases etc. BEFORE you cut the loadbearing core-columns. Its done to prevent unnecessary resistence, so its NOT RANDOM ! Come back when you know anything about buildingdemolition !
VERITATEM COGNOSCERE
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan Be serious. They do NOT pre weaken 50 floors away from where your starting the collapse and at a different time to the actual demolition. Also such charges even when placed correct are throughout the whole circumferance not in a few random places. You have no clue what you are talking about. And it shows.
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
@774stefan Also, in your dumb desperation to think of ways that a few guys cant possibly bring these towers down, why is there no word from the 40,000 people that worked there and didnt die that day of the massive drilling and disruption prior to instal these explosives. You belong in a special place perhaps with medication. Maybe they could give you nano thermite for breakfast and make you drink molten steel till you finally figured out how delusional you are.
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
@KowBoySpace Have you listend to scott forbes yet ?? one off the 40 000? Are you still in denial ??You still want to debunk "truthers" instead of look at the evidence? If it makes you happy then go ahead!
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan Yes. Amazing. One guy. Well it must be true. I had a dream about planes the night before a plane crash in Spain. Deadly serious. I told everyone at work. Therefore - I did it. Sue me. What a joke bit of evidence that is. One guy. Purleeez
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
@KowBoySpace SEARCH: 9/11 CONSPIRACY CRASH COURSE 3 OF 4...
AND LISTEN TO SCOTT FORBES.
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan what a great video. Showing preciseley something looking and sounding nothing like the WTX collapse. Even better, all that "boom" required would have been even greater for WTC. Are you arguing against yourself??
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago
@KowBoySpace ARE YOU ON DRUGS? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING MAKES NO SENSE WHATS SO EVER!! YOU MIGHT NEED SOME DRUGS!!
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan You make me listen to one guy of 40,000, you show me a video of an actual demolition showing explosions and bangs all over the place nothing like WTC and you expect me to believe there is even a shred to anything you say? Dont get angry with the caps, just go find some better evidence and get back to me so I can utterly destroy it
KowBoySpace 3 weeks ago 12
@KowBoySpace
None of the characteristics of destruction by fire: 1.Slow onset with large visible deformations 2.Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@KowBoySpace the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution 3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction 4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@KowBoySpace 6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 8.1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found 9.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front 10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@KowBoySpace 11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
@KowBoySpace Straight from proffessional engineers and architects.
RossetaStoned91 3 days ago
Don't bother trying to convince these uptight government loving Americans, they want to believe that it was muslim terrorists flying jumbo's better than world class pilots who said it is essentially impossible to fly a plane so low and so angeled through buildings, and that a plane hit the Pentagon and not a missile, so let them believe what they want.
bye Puppets.
Ravicles 3 weeks ago
@Ravicles SO TRUE.!
774stefan 3 weeks ago
Theres nothing suspicious about flashes floors down during the collapse, or loud explosions, or the buildings falling like a controlled demolition.
The government knows what they're talking about. (See what I did there?)
MegaSlaze 3 weeks ago
dont you guys love how the planes hit near the top of the building and they collapsed like a controlled demolition? I would think that if the buildings would even come close to collapsing down like that the planes would have to hit near the base somewhere. someone should do a test on a building(smaller in scale) and use a small jet and crash it into the top and see if it crumbles down like a demolition. I doubt it would :)
multimoomoo99 3 weeks ago
@multimoomoo99 Looking at it superficially sure we were suprised they collapsed but when you look at the fact that each floor could only support 1300 tones of static weight above their own weight and at minimum 45,000 tones (10 floors) fell dynamically (multiply that weight many times) it's easy to see how there was a progressive collapse
Spindry96 3 weeks ago
Hmmm what did they say: "Fire was not hot enough to melt the steel"...but how it cames that 6 weeks (!!!) after this fireman found still burning Fire's and melted steel in basement floor of WTC? How was it possible if it wasnt hot enough?
Funny part: Government says that the fire made them collapse? So maybe we should forbid smoking in all buildings...it can make them collapse.
PyroIsBack 4 weeks ago
wait, which pixels are these supposed detonations supposed to be?
tcs0658 1 month ago
there is nothing suspicious about flashes cascading down the side of the building, complete with smoking debris shooting out of it
bob8984 1 month ago
Steel did not melt... but it did bend - that's all you need for a collapse. This video should be renamed, "9/11 - North Tower - Barely Visible Plumes of Smoke and Falling Debris"
urcritic 1 month ago
Did they not teach camera operators how to white balance in 2001? JEEZ maybe if you knew how to operate a camera I would be able to give feedback to this crackpot conspiracy theory you and everyone else on YouTube is cramming down everyone's throats. I can promise you this was because there are large groups of powerful and angry people all over the world, NOT just in Iraq or Afghanistan that hate Americans. That is who did this, not the government, not the mainstream media, not Bush.
PghInsider 1 month ago
lol, "explosions" XD
MazJax 1 month ago
don't see detonations, looks like fire to me...
MadBasstid 1 month ago
Comment removed
MadBasstid 1 month ago
When they make the One World Trade Center I think everyone from the 50th floor up should have a parashute provided
rczamara857 1 month ago 5
@rczamara857 haha i would feel sorry for the people that would work on the 49th.
jakeyalmighty 3 weeks ago
why does it matter if it was blown up or if the crash did it? people died, the building crumbled. that's the true fact. It's impossible to outsmart the government. everytime something bad happens in america (IE the levee breech of Katrina) they claim the government blew it up cuz they heard a loud boom. DUH if something STRONG breaks the force of it breaking is gunna be loud. geez, get a grip America.
Lauryn21090 1 month ago
@Lauryn21090 "why does it matter if it was blown up or if the crash did it? " WHY ? Why because if it was indeed controlled collapse then you have been LIED to , use your fucking brain and get your head out of your fat arse. This would mean someone , Americans authorised the death of Many, starting to get the picture yet ?
DUHHHHHHHHHHH
OutlawMCC 1 month ago
@OutlawMCC Your comment made no sense. but, my point is America authorized war. people die there too, so America has always authorized death of many. That's nothing new. and by "why does it matter" my point was, regaurdless if we were lied to, what exactly can you do about it besides call the government a liar? Can't do much about it from youtube anyway. If you're so offended, get off your "FAT ARSE" and do something about it, you've gotten nothing accomplished by arguing on youtube. "DUH"
Lauryn21090 4 weeks ago
@Lauryn21090 By Talking and finding out things that have been kept from people, helps to broaden the Case for a proper Senate enquiry Many actions can be taken , calling the Government a liar is not one ( what are you 13 years old ) And yes you can do a great deal using Youtube and the Independent Media Online.I dont need to get off my Arse it happened in America , how about you do it, maybe start with actually Voting.None of this would happen in my Country, you have to live with it
OutlawMCC 4 weeks ago
@OutlawMCC if you believe youtube comments make the senate better yu go right on ahead and continue what you're doing, its obviously made the world a better place. my comment about calling the government a liar was, what I thought, an obvious insult to your comment and mocking you. im sorry you didnt detect my sarcastic tone via the internet.. & I am an american who votes for every election, Don't know how yu assumed i wasnt.. but yu know the sayin about assuming cuz yu obviously kno everything.
Lauryn21090 2 weeks ago
@Lauryn21090 "cuz yu obviously kno everything." So True and I even can spell KNOW 8-)
OutlawMCC 2 weeks ago
@OutlawMCC I forgot, on youtube its a fucking spelling bee, fml. fyi; i had to edit it CUZ it was too long. buuuuut, nice to know you can spell a word as simple as "know" high five! get back to your point & argue with someone less educated. its kind of hard to argure about something as irrelevant as your point with someone with common sense.
Lauryn21090 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult GO HANG YOURSELF LOWLIFE!!
774stefan 1 month ago
why was the building evidence shipped out so fast and not inspected.
66dizzy 1 month ago
@66dizzy Because the perps had full access to the crimescene.
774stefan 1 month ago
I ate a brownie once
LeonFlint105 1 month ago
@halftimesportscards I agree with you!
MrMarkisaac 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Talking about those white puffs seen when collapsing starts. Debunkers say they are caused by pressured air. Truthers say they are caused by bombs. Check out this vid h.t.t.p_youtuDOTbe/wFidciVopu4 and tell me what caused the explosion like blowing at 3:15. Note that the collapsing didnt start yet.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
This is how mini Hydrogen Free Nukes work. Mi-HFN is short name. they turn concrete to dust and leave no radiation marker. 2000 of the 3000 persons who died wee vaporized. not even teeth left over. If this was a pancake collapse, everybody would be recovered.
390bullitt1968 2 months ago
Europe follows the U.S. war against terrorism, eavesdropping reconnaissance, the FBI is here without permission CIA, Mossad chasing 911 witnesses. Can you kill 3000 Americans with impunity.? A murder is easy work for the police .. 3000 murder should be easier.
Hullujenpieru 2 months ago
@sparkey989 "it's totally capable for glass to shatter from the heat pressure and release pressurized smoke."
i) Glass will neither burn nor emit smoke while falling.
ii) There is no evidence of fire in the undamaged lower region where the flashes and ejections of smoke-emitting objects occur.
Bernadotte01 2 months ago
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago
@halftimesportscards I like that you acknowledge the spectacular sparkles captured in this clip.
Incendiaries, of course, do not have to make a "boom." If a "crackle" and a "woosh" suffices to cut steel beams (v=5d5iIoCiI8g), why not initiate collapse discreetly with that technique?
If your goal is to frame Arabs for your act of terrorism, as in the Lavon Affair and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, would it not make sense to be discreet?
Did Netanyahu say the attacks were benefiting Israel?
Bernadotte01 2 months ago
@Bernadotte01 You can't cut steel with a "whoosh" or a "crackle." There are no secrets in the demolition business. You have to cut the steel beams by hand (torch) so that a building can fall straight down and not topple over. There are no magical explosives that can cut the work in half when it comes to demolitions. The sparkle here could easily be light reflecting off of a broken window or a piece of debris floating in the air. For the work needed, a demo is impossible here.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago 2
@Bernadotte01 Correction, it can easily be burning debris falling (with what you are pointing out). What good would a bomb do OUTSIDE of a building?? It would be useless.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago
@halftimesportscards What a stupid question.
Who said anything about a BOMB?
Is a thermite cutter a "bomb"? Is even a regular high-speed cutting device a "bomb'?
Who said the cause of the flashes and ejections had to be outside the building?
Bernadotte01 2 months ago
@Bernadotte01 haha, of course. Everything is stupid to a conspiracy theorist. Especially when they make up stories of thermite cutters when all reports show no evidence of thermite at ground zero.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago
@halftimesportscards Despite the absoulute fact that it fell right in its footprint? When you say "no imprints of a controlled demo", you realize you sound like a fucking moron, right? It fell straight down , you fool - no steel frame building falls in its own footprint unless it was DEMO'ed, you fucking tool.
RasCricketSmallAxe 1 month ago
@RasCricketSmallAxe Of course, when all else fails, go for personal jabs. Next time, focus your energy on research. When a demolition crew describes a building falling into it's own footprint, it is to ensure that no other building is damaged by an implosion. Every building in that block was destroyed by the collapses. Your argument defeats itself when you see the entire complex. It also defeats the purpose of a "controlled" demolition.
halftimesportscards 1 month ago
Comment removed
RasCricketSmallAxe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halftimesportscards Kiddo, youre completely an ignorant fool. Youre saying theres no evidence at ground zero of thermite - IT WAS +2000 DEGREES AT GROUND ZERO FOR 8 WEEKS, you little child. Everything you say reeks of a young idiot who doesnt know their ass from a hole in the ground. All your comments point to you being an ignorant ass who could be schooled at any moment - youve been schooled multiple times already. You have pathetically elementary thinking, you know that?
RasCricketSmallAxe 1 month ago
@RasCricketSmallAxe umm i jus read ur convo and u havent shown any evidence to disprove what that guy said. only your own words (that we have to assume is true?) and random insults. so whose really the idiot. do you have any proof that it was an inside job?
easypimpin123 1 month ago
@RasCricketSmallAxe Yol told me to do MY research??? The Verison building and the Postel Service building next to Building 7 were fine after the collapse, little guy. How about YOU do some reasearch and quit getting kicked around by every single person who you open your mouth to in this thread.
RasCricketSmallAxe 1 month ago
@RasCricketSmallAxe WTC 5 damaged, St. Nicholas church destroyed, the Marriott destroyed, South Plaza destroyed, U.S. Customs building destroyed. World Financial Center, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street took on fires. The Deutsche Bank Building had to be demolished due to damage. The World Financial Center 3 and Verizon Building took on damage from the collapse. Want more research?? Mine doesn't come from a dimly lit bar full of drunken morons.
halftimesportscards 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago
Have you people ever watched a building demolition? Detonations aren't supposed to be "visible". They are audible and in a series as to weaken the structure. They don't sparkle silently. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..... Pause..... massive detonation of the supports." If you realize the process of demolitions (beam cutting, basement wall clearing, stripping, wiring, planting), you will realize that this absolutely has no imprints of a controlled demolition. Way too far fetched, guys.
halftimesportscards 2 months ago
Leslie Raphael, Serendipity
Inigo37 2 months ago
Yeah you are right! I can't believe that there would be any reason for anything to collapse inside and around the high-rise when a plane hits is and before it collapses. Great investigative reporting..
You truly are a complete buffoon!
pigjubby1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 Atommienen genügen, um die 3 Hochhäuser so einfallen zu lassen, ohne daß viel radioaktive Strahlung an die Erdoberfläche kommt.
4711im 2 months ago
watch some other vids (with audio) of buildings being demolished using explosives, half of fucking new york city would have heard the explosives, yet there is no audio evidence to support your theory, strange that, government using those new silent bombs hmmm, building 7 was leaning like the tower of pisa before it came down, that's why the fireman got the fuck out of there, get some hard evidence and then come back, until then, keep fucking your cousin
DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK
cottoniiijoe 2 months ago
@cottoniiijoe Could you explain the 70 story "spire" that was left standing after the north tower "collapsed"? How is that possible if it was gravity driven? And the damage in the basements? I could go on forever................
countdown72 2 months ago
@cottoniiijoe First of all there is a lot of eyewittness accounts, of secondary explosions in buildings 1,2 and 7, from firemen and tenants,on youtube,there is even audio of explosions in wtc 7, just search for BARRY JENNINGS, so dont say no one heard any explosions! Secondly, if you dont know anything about building demolition, DONT talk about it !! Thermite-cutter charges was already patented in 1984, and work by thermal heating, so there is no sound !! so DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK!
774stefan 2 months ago 22
@774stefan
>Large Inner pieces of towers break away
>Hit the ground at 100+ MPH
>Loud noises
DO YOUR PHYSICS RESEARCH BEFORE YOU GET BUTTHURT
sparkey989 2 months ago
@sparkey989 I think experienced firemen can tell the difference between falling debris and EXPLOSIONS! Have you ever wondered how "large inner pieces" could break away from the towers? since they were DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE INPACTS FROM JET LINERS? even NIST said the fires was NOT HOT ENOUGH TO MELT THE STEEL! The steel in the towers top-graded A-class steel, most of it was also sprayed with FIREPROOF ASBESTOS !
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE HORRIBLE STENCH , CALLED TRUTH ! VERITATEM !
774stefan 2 months ago 17
@774stefan
Yes coz every fireman has at least five planes crashing into highrise buildings in their careers
IIIIIIIIIIIism 2 months ago
@IIIIIIIIIIIism no one talked about the sound of jetliners hitting the building,rather the sound difference between debris falling and explosions,
VERITATEM COGNOSCERE
774stefan 2 months ago
@774stefan the reason the NIST didtnt say there was metled steel is cuz ther WASNT. the steel didnt need to melt to cause a structural faliure. at about 1100 steel reaches 50% strength more than enough to cause the trusses to bow innward and donwar pulling on the outside frame. you can see just b4 collapes the shell pull inwards then the upper floors come down. in an explosion the forces would be in the opp direction. out and up. the flames you see is the jet fuel that poold being burnd off.
easypimpin123 1 month ago
@easypimpin123 No molten steel ??? you have obviously missed the interviews with the firemen in ground zero! (on youtube) or maybe they are liers ? JETFUEL? JETFUEL!? The jetfuel burned off the first couple of minutes according to all experts (NIST INCLUDED) so there is still no way the jetfuel could have produced those kind of temperatures required to melt the steel 1500 DEGREES CELSIUS.
774stefan 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@774stefan you got that right they found pools of melted steel in what was left of the under the underground parking, I will quote a fireman from the video I seen and I quote " It looks like a blast furnace down there" refering to under the rubble at the trade towers he futher went on to say " It is so hot down there when we pull debris out it lets air in and fires are starting" so yea there are lots of people that work on the recovery that will say the same thing
MrEddieG420 3 weeks ago
@easypimpin123 again the steel frame did NOT melt. it was softend to the point of critical failure after about 1100 deg. i wish i could draw you a picture of the forces acting on the structure just b4 collapse. they are in no way indicative of a secondary explosion. and you cant rely on statements from ppl made that morning, since its was chaos. i remember that day and there were also dozens of conflicting stories from ppl on site and the news but noone know wat was happening. not even the FBI.
easypimpin123 1 month ago
@easypimpin123 also u should read about thermodynamics. wats called specific heat capacity. ppl think that fire needs to burn AS hot as the melting point but thas not tru. it just needs to burn for enough time for the steel to absorb enough heat energy. steel has a far lower specific heat capacity than the surrounding air so as the fire burned the steel absorbed heat at a faster rate than it released into the air, so as long as there was enuf time then the temp of steel could have kept rising
easypimpin123 1 month ago
@774stefan Anyone will defy the truth because they think they're so smart and they're uncertain about the size of their penis.
s8erbouy 1 month ago
@774stefan Steel FAILS much sooner than it melts. Easily around 800-1000 degrees f. Once you knock off the sprayed on fire retardant, the steel is no longer protected. No such thing as fire proof, just a misnomer used in construction for years. You can knock it off by brushing your hand across it, or a fast moving, giant plane. There are entire sites devoted to debunk all the truther myths with well documented facts, experts, pictures, eyewitness statements, engineering reports etc.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fireman27852 Even NIST concluded that the fires were"cold burning" and no way near 1000 degrees celsius. but even if they were hot enough, you would not get that kind of symetric fragmentation of the building without EXPLOSIVES.the fires were concentrated on a few floors, not all 110 floors. You might know a thing or two about fires, but i know a thing or two about building materials,and its behaviour.
VERITATEM COGNOSCERE
774stefan 3 weeks ago 6
@774stefan 800-1000 degrees fahrenheit is when steel easily begins to fail. thats around 420-530 celsius. Usually the weakest points are in the connections of beams to columns etc. the fire didn't have to be on all floors to affect a pancake collapse. Buildings are designed for specific load bearing capabilities per floor. Shock loads such as the floor above collapsing on the floor below can cause a runaway pancake collapse.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@774stefan Also, explosions happen all the time in fires, without some type of planted device. We call em backdrafts, flameover, rollovers, etc. fire rarely burns cleanly and gives off all kinds of gases that build up, and can simultaneously light off in an explosion with great amounts of force. All depends on the fuel, compartmentalization, and many other factors.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 Ok i can buy that, but its impossible for all conections to fail at the same time,the symetry is clearly a smoking gun in this case. and the fires do not explain the molten steel in the basements (also seen by your colleagues ) you would need temperatures of 1500 degrees celsius or 2732 fahrenheit to melt the steel without accelerants, besides, there were sprinkler systems in the complex., and never before has a steel-structured building collapsed due to fire, but on 911, 3 did
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan many steel building have collapsed from fire prior to this. This is just the biggest and most famous to date. Sprinkler systems are only designed to slow a fire so occupants can get out. They get overrun easily and fail easily as well. Very possible for connections to fail simultaneously in a pancake collapse. The sudden shock load overwhelms the connections not designed for the load and a gravity domino effect happens.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 Im sorry, but you dont get that kind of pulverization in a normal pancake collapse. But still were did the molten steel come from? you can even see it pour out from the building minutes before collapse, how did it get so hot? And how about the unreacted nanothermite, found in 4 different dust samples, found by scientists at the universety of copenhagen? there is no other reson for it to be there,than as a exotic accelerant.
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan where do you "see" molten steel pouring out? How many other pancake collapses are like this that you can classify as normal?
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 its on youtube just search for it.pancake or not, the buildings were designed to withstand inpacts from jetliners. and you dont get a coollapse, this symetric, it recuiers explosives.The building was not built out of matches!
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan it didn't start symmetrical. the top tilted over until the rest of the core support not already damaged from the impact of the planes failed completely, then the pancake. Many of the videos show the outer building coming down but the inner parts, which came down slower, are blocked by the debris cloud. Once the steel support columns' load capacity were massively overcome, they may as well have been matches.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@774stefan there's a lot of debunking videos on youtube as well that sensibly explain many of the common issues. I don't have all the answers.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 Well it seems like we can go on for ever here, but the fact is, the states has a long history of conducted false flag operations, to get in to war, so it would not be the first, and i can assure you it wont be the last.
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan - Amen. you are correct.
390bullitt1968 3 weeks ago
@774stefan LOL your joking right? it can stand 60 mph of wind but not a flying jetline who's coming at the building 560 mph which is 450 knots avg. cruising speeds of a boeing. we're not talking about 1 plane, there were 2 planes that smashed the towers smacking the building at 560 mph, different angles, different heights. you have so much plane fuel thats leaking and spreading through out the building the fire would've took a whole day to knock down if it was still standing.
jasonbsa 3 weeks ago
@774stefan The actuall physicist that did the studies was Steven E. Jones, a former physicist of Brigham Young University and founder of "Scholars for 9/11 truth and justice". A steel structure has actually collapsed due to a fire, the Oakland Bridge Fire, it is the only other fire to burn uncontrolled unlike all the other high-rise building fires that had sprinkler systems and fire fighter to control it. Sprinkler systems were not working for some reason, probably damage to watermain
86Blessed86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@86Blessed86 "Sprinkler systems not working for some reason" Yes probably just another coincidence !
774stefan 6 days ago
@Fireman27852 You are incorrect, no steel building has ever collapsed from just a fire
718SOLID 3 weeks ago
@718SOLID many steel buildings have failed. I don't think I said high rises. There were alot of "firsts" with the wtc attack.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@774stefan I've read up on the claims of melted steel and don't see much proof. There were people who stated they saw molten steel but later said it may have been metal, not necessarily steel. Also, some call glowing metal "molten" as a figure of speech. The only reference from an expert I could find was one demo expert saying he saw some in the bottom of the elevator shafts. His claim was repeated by others who couldn't corroborate.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@774stefan I'm not denying the possibility of some steel melting, but we can't exactly reproduce these events in a lab. It wasn't just jet fuel burning. There were plastics and other materials that can burn extremely hot as well. The references to NASA's temp readings were for the surface temps, not those in the basement levels, burning for many days. It says this on their report.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 But still no explaination why there were nanothermite in the building, As i said before even Nist concluded that the fires were "cold". So how did it get so hot? Nist also said the karosine burned of the first couple of minutes, so it was not the jet fuel,
774stefan 3 weeks ago
@774stefan which fires were cold? i don't understand the term unless it means not hot enough to melt steel? did they stick a thermometer down in the piles that was burning for days? I can't explain any nanothermite. I've read experts that say they found it, I've also read experts that dispute what they found. Up in the air for me on that one.
Fireman27852 3 weeks ago
@774stefan Of course. Every 9/11 truther becomes a demolition/fire/explosions expert when they're on YouTube.
dw1992 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@774stefan Ok lets Dumb it down for you Take a empty beer can and smash it against a Brick wall who wins every time The wall Does no different during 911 take plane going that fast hitting a building nothing but a fire ball a few broken windows and a black scortch mark for a plane to do this amount of damage un asisted It would simply be to heavy to fly avaition uses some of the lightest materials known to man there is noway that plane transfers enough energy too take out a building
MrEddieG420 1 month ago
@774stefan Do you like South Park? Yeah well they made so much fun of any dumbass who is ACTUALLY that retarded to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
MidnightGrunt 1 month ago
@MidnightGrunt right, because tv trash like south park is a great thing to make you decide what to believe.
Dillon1108 1 month ago