..some c**t keeps marking legitimate comments as spam, just because it doesn't suit their point of view. This is unacceptable, so can everyone be vigilant about keeping the debate open and unmark any legitimate comments please?
9/11 was a day of magic. Cell phones working on airplanes. Airplanes shrinking to a size of a missile. Airplanes evaporating in the ground like water. And who could forget indestructible red bandanas.
@bunsipod Yes, it was a day of magic alright. An invisible missile that zigzagged around knocking over 5 lamp posts before hitting the Pentagon. Silent, flash-free detonation charges that left no trace in the seismic record. Firefighters mysteriously lying about how WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse. Thousand of first responders in Shanksville inexplicably lying about finding the remains of FL 93.
Let's not forget the invisible demo teams who used Ninja invisibility cloaks.
@PoetryHound Those ninja cloaks must have been insulated and fireproof because, as you know, silverman decided to pull the building and then it collapsed. The ninjas had a 2 hour window to complete the... awe screw it, it gets more retarded as I continue along the truther line of reasoning.
You don't need a degree in metallurgy or steel construction to put two and two together. I know americans are too fat and lazy to stand up to their government, and that's fine, if thats what they want. But those of us who DEMAND THE TRUTH, won't be force fed the BS that mainstream media shoves down our throats. We're not as stupid as our government wishes us to be.
• The shaking resulted from the use of a directed kinetic scalar weapon focused on building 7 using HAARP ELF (Extra Low Frequency) broadcasting. That would have weakened the structure significantly before they "pulled" the building with a small amount of sequentially detonated explosive charges. Building 7 was destroyed last because it was the command center for the 911 psyops.
@Poetryhound truthers are not conspiracy nuts. Watch "explosive evidence" documentary. These are professionals with very valid questions. WTC7 is reason enough to reopen the investigation. There are more truthers than not. Wake up.
Ah yes, an unsubstantiated assertion - the hallmark of truthers. Typical.
Hits on truther web sites have plummeted since 2006. Attendance at truther rallies has likewise plummeted. Even comment activity on YT truther videos has plummeted. Only 15% believe any of the various "inside job" fairy tales. Sure, there are more truthers than not. Keep believing that baseless nonsense.
@PoetryHound It is not an unsubstantiated assertion. A poll taken in NY said that almost 50% of the population now believe there is more to be learnt, and support an independent investigation. As well if you had watched "Explosive Evidence" you would know that there is a LOT of substantiated evidence supported by many professionals. This very evidence is being used to support an investigation. It you you my friend who are believing in baseless nonsense. Do your homework.
@iihippoii Depends what questions you ask, doesn't it? Of course there is more to be learned about 911. I agree with that. But if you ask if people buy any of the many "inside job" conspiracy theories, you only get about 15%, the same percentage that believe all sorts of loony conspiracy theories.
I've seen Explosive Evidence. It's chock full of deception, insinuation, and misinterpretation just like Loose Change & all the other conspiracy videos. Sorry.
@PoetryHound If by deception you mean doubt, by insinuation you mean questions, and by misinterpretation you mean professional opinion then I guess I agree. Explosive Evidence is not "inside job" conspiracy. It is professionals requesting an inquiry based on facts. NIST provided the evidence or lack there of. If in the ENTIRE history of steel framed buildings only THREE have collapsed doesn't that justify inquiry?
@PoetryHound Sorry should have been a little clearer as you have blinders on. Meant: Steel structured high rises. EVERY building you mentioned were either single floor warehouse type buildings where the ROOF collapsed, or high-rises that remained standing after the fire. "Partial collapse" still gave time for the people to evacuate and had to be DEMOLISHED after the fact. You are blind to the truth. Good googling though. Nice try.
@iihippoii The point is that fire can and does weaken steel and cause structures to collapse. There's no mystery to it. WTC 7 happened to be the one and only skyscraper to collapse from fire, and so what? Are you saying nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before? That's not very smart.
@PoetryHound Wrong, wrong and more wrong. You need to get the facts. I feel for you. There is not much I can do for you. Go on blindly believing all that you are told. I will stick with facts and verifiable evidence. Fact is an independent investigation is justified and needed. If there ever is a PROPER investigation you will be one of the ones surprised by the results. I am sure that happens to you a LOT. Good luck on your blind march.
@iihippoii How strange that you'd say I'm wrong without saying what exactly is wrong. You have to admit it's pretty ironic that you're the one that's getting it all wrong. Let's review! You claimed:
1. "There are more truthers than not." FALSE
2. "In the ENTIRE history of steel framed buildings only THREE have collapsed." FALSE
See what happens when you rely on shitty videos & conspiracy site for your "information?" You get utterly lost and remain deluded in your paranoid fantasy world.
@PoetryHound Pretty unlikely that 3 would go in one day, all into their own footprint though!
Do you not think that even if it was a genuine collapse, and was the only one of it's type in history, then it should be investigated fully so it couldn't happen again?
After all, the existing architects assumptions must be wrong, and no steel framed buildings should be built until it is resolved?
@PoetryHound They fell close enough into their own footprints to require proper investigation.
The investigation into the collapse of WTC7 specifically did not test for traces of explosives because the results may have been inconclusive. Not as inconclusive as not testing at all is what I say.
Also WTC7 took with it the Enron and WorldCom files. FISHY!
When Bush first got "elected", it was obvious that something big was coming, and 911 was it!
@Portabledexter "They fell close enough into their own footprints to require proper investigation."
Not really. There was no lateral force, & there was insufficient resistance offered by each lower floor against the upper block floors to cause a fall to the side.
There were no sounds, flashes, or seismic signals of explosives at WTC 7.
Blowing up a bldg to get rid of files? Gee, I hope no one leaves sensitive files at my house. I'd have to blow up my house to get rid of them.
Posts by conspiracy lunatics have really declined. Bye bye, truth movement.
My suggestion to the truthers is to reach out to their brothers-in-arms in the moon landing denial, holocaust denial, and alien abduction camps. If all the lunatics join forces, maybe they can get a decent turn-out at their ragtag little rallies. I'm just trying to be helpful.
US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has come out and blamed the pro-Israel Lobby in America (AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, etc) for ruining her political career. While in congress she refused to sign the pro-Israel pledge and took a pro-Palestinian stance. Because of this, McKinney said “war was declared” on her by the Jewish lobby. In 2009 she told TIU's Ognir that “more than 99% of Congress work for Pro Zionist Israeli interests.”
@zenoist2..."On one side of the argument you have NIST with everything purely hypothetical . They give no data or anything like that so nobody can check it.
Its all non peer approvall" It takes idiots to be ruled by fools
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
Please show up and show your support for democracy!
Thursday, 7:00am (or anytime) until late: march from Liberty Plaza to the New York Stock Exchange. At 5pm assemble at Foley Square and march to the Brooklyn Bridge.
11:00am Saturday: Begin assembling by the tall red sculpture at the southeast corner of Liberty Plaza (the corner of Broadway and Cedar St.)
Show your support to the thousands who died that day:
heh, sure right. Belive that if you refuse to pay attention to the HOW and WHAT happend at the beginning of both fires were. POINT BLANK all truhtere are either IDIOTS or MORONS. Though a small group are conmen taking the money of the first two groups, very similiar to 'Priests' and 'religous mystics'.
You know what helps burning buildings collapse? If the reason they are on fire is because a 747 hit them. Also size difference. Also planes struck the middle and destroyed a link in the chain. Also planes had enough fuel for a coast to coast flight. Also jet fuel has a greater explosive force by far than gasoline. Also "The only thing the government loves more than killing kids in the middle east is killing it's own citizens, especially for financial gain."
If you were to build these steel buildings and someone told you two caught on fire and they both fell down in their footprint and you would say total bullshit. Then you look at the two buildings with smoke smoldering out the buildings then you know something stinks. But I did some inveestigation and I learned those towers were built with aluminum and wood columns. The wood caught on fire and it melt the aluminum. Anyone who thinks those buildings fell down go look at one they are building
This is what happens to steel buildings and why it's time to build them out of wood and solve the problem. Wood is better than steel, because steel is bullshit. Steel will fall down when the upper floors are hit with the same amount the floor weighs. So when 10 floors hit them you can imagine what happened.
what people don't understand is steel melts at 1,500 degrees. Melts like ice and that's why they fell down. Cause they are learning steel is a bunch of bullshit. I mean it turns into wood after twenty years. It loses 90% of it's core strength after 30 years, The rivets lose 98% of their strength and why the buildings failed. Don't you people know anything?
before i was in diapers. wow dude. sounds like you need to get a retirement plan out instead of arguing over some kids youtube video that clearly shows an unbelievable explanation. keep replying all this ignorant kid is doing is laughing at an ignorant old man. im done.
you believing everything the government and media feeds you, is not only embarrassing for you, but for your country. all of the facts you stated were flaw. remember, wikipedia is not a good source on information.
@timboslicer88 I have been seeing false flag operations done by the US since before you were in diapers. This is not one of them. When you were in diapers Islamic terrorists were targeting US servicemen all over the world. If you knew any history you would realize the events of 9/11 was another in a non-stop stream of terrorist activity. You are embarrassing your self by being just a parrot for USA haters that are using the deaths of thousands to persuade ignorant kids to join them.
@lijebaley01, how so? all i did was state facts. too many people who were there, and too many family members of victims question the official explanation. free fall speed is damn near impossible under these circumstances.
I have a question How does it fall at free fall acceleration when its utterly imposssible from fire damage? the official report leaves it unexplained so no joy there.
Does anyone think looking for explosives might make sense instead of all these impossibilities occuring?
Message from Switzerland: You american people should read scientific american otc,issue 2011. /page 42) That will give you and answer, why your goverment took down the building.
and, both towers were built to withstand a plane hit such as a 757. and only three steel structures have collapes because of fire in all of history. wtc 1,2....and 7. 1, and 2 fell directly on top of a mariot hotel, and about 9 other buildings. dispite sever structural damage, all 10 building were still standing on sept 12, 2001. ignorance is bliss, not strength.
@lijebaley01 it has been proven that during this time, cell phone towers generated the signals outwards, not upwards. just google it. also, shortly after being build, one of the towers suffered a fire for about 14 hours, it still stood until 2001. and the government was excerising fake wargames involving planes flying into buildings earlier that morning, causing too many planes to be far away from nyc. please look up your information before you call someone else mis informed.
I know why everyone argues about this topic, and its stupid. Simply put, the government leveled their own building to hype up the fear about terrorists so they could impose more Laws upon us. Terrorists dont even exist, there's just pissed off people in the middle east because of what the US is doing, it is all utterly retarded. I truely feel for those who are blinded by this nonesense, actually im not that sympathetic, if you cant wake up and smell the truth, then you deserve tyranny.
@Heros4gold That is evidence? It is your opinion (or opinion of the truther high priests), nothing more. But contrary to your opinion is the fact there was plenty help to initiate global collapse, eg gravity, weakening steel from fires, damaged support columns from the jets' impact. Try again.
@lijebaley01 either your real dummy or your working for the government...calls em as i sees em, i wont argue with you anymore, in the long run, does it really matter if we dont believe the same thing, probably not. Enjoy your fantasy land, i live in the real world.
@Heros4gold You sure do live in the real world, living in mommy's house, closed up in your room searching youtube and pretending to play the guitar. Get an education and try giving maturity a chance.
Here's 6 reasons why you're dumb Lijebaley01 Reason#1 Cellphones didn't work on planes when this happened, yet people called from the airplane and said they were being held hostage by terroists with boxcutters..scary. #2 If you watch the video that we're commenting about, a steel building can burn for days without collapsing. #3 how come the building fell straight into its own footprint randomly? #4 Steel doesn't melt till it reaches 2,507°F #5 Gravity? come on #6 the plane hit near the Top
@Heros4gold #1 cell phones work as long as towers are in range and they are not the only source of calls. #2 None of the buildings in this building were constructed in any way similar to WTC. One was actively fought by helicopters dropping water on it. Another had its steel constructed parts collapse while the concrete constructed parts remained standing. It fell (actually one started at an angle) due to gravity and damage to B7 is proof that it did not fall in its footprint.
@Heros4gold Well, for starters, maybe since they declared war on us. There was a guy arrested in 1995 that showed plans by al qeuda to destroy 10 US buildings. They tried flying a plane into the Eiffel tower around that time. Bin Laden admits to it.
@getbo Yet you offer no contrary explanations for what I say. You can not come up with one error I have made, yet I am the one laughable? You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetically sad.
Nice comparison. It is my humble belief that the people that can't 'see' what is presented to them in a direct or a comparative way concerning 9/11, is because, their sub-conscience is protecting their outlook on their world. Without this protection, their world would crumble. I feel for them, but at the same time, they anger me. Truth is always better than a manufactured dream IMO.
@tossoutguilt Yeah I agree about the sub-conscious protecting their view of reality from a harsh truth that they are too infantile mentally to face, but it's pathetic how scientists in the field of physics and engineering can turn away from this, I mean I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance required for an engineer to pretend that the official story is scientifically plausible.
Really, my 'kind'? Actually I'm strictly opposed to all forms of dogmatism and if u knew anything about me you'd realize that I loath all beLIEf systems & that ur comment is a pathetic joke. Who is the one beLIEving? Me, someone who has looked at the science of the situation & the sociopolitics from an historical perspective, or you, who has blindly accepted ur fascist governments pathetic explanation for the whole thing. "Most people are walking in their sleep and dreaming that they are awake".
what I don't understand is why we have demolition companies (that charge a lot of money) when all you really have to do to get a building to collapse within its footprints is start a fire in it?
how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???
As soon as the kink is formed, the 'ENTIRE' building,evenly falls at 9.8m/s^2 for 2.25 seconds,(t=1.75s to t=4.0s [NICSTAR 1A 3.6]) Acceleration of gravity...at 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE' building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second(60MPH)...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
A 47 storey building collapses uniformly within 6-7 seconds, with members of the NYPD asking people to retreat as the building is about to collapse,..and the owner, on record, admitting that they had the building demolished. Does anyone need any more information than that to dispell the bullshit from NIST?
@KILLBILDERBURG That's such a persuasive argument, thanks so much for adding to the discussion.
If you're going to criticise me, at least have the balls to back your shit up with evidence instead of rebuking people for no apparent reason. You're a fucktard, if you were any less intelligent I'd have to water you twice a week.
"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79" One critical beam caused wtc 7 to fail, just 1, not a few but only 1, column 79. It wasnt the debris that caused the bldg to fail or despite that fact it burned for hours, it was the failure of column 79. I’d love to speak to the designer of WTC 7 and see what he has to say. To sum it up, if anyone had gone to that one beam with metal saw, they could’ve drop that entire bdg, all it took was 1 beam. lol lol lol
@IwishIknew02 Jesus, why don't you "truthers" ever take other factors into account? If fire is heated at a high temperature and applied to a steel structure; two vitals things occur. Firstly, ignoring specific heat capacity, steel loses 50% of its strength when the same heat of a fire is applied to it. Couple this with the fact that the steel beams expand the critical connection points and exerts further sheer stress on the structure, a single column could very well cause a building to collapse.
@RonBurgundy161 Thank you for proving my point. What did I say that was wrong? Even you agreed "single column could very well cause a building to collapse" Like I wrote,
If anyone had gone to that one beam, or as you wrote... Let me cap it for you... "A SINGLE COLUMN" with metal saw they could’ve drop that entire building, all it took was one beam or one column, cut or burning to be displaced and we have a building falling in under 20 secs. That one beam held up the entire building lol lol lol
@IwishIknew02 Yes but you were being incredibly sarcastic and didn't take the two factors that I mentioned into account. You're analogy and analysis was also shite.
""A SINGLE COLUMN" with metal saw they could've drop that entire building" - Wrong, fire isn't applied in this scenario, and thus 50% of the strength of the structure isn't lost and sheer stress isn't exerted through creep. Even though I've already mentioned this to you, you're still perpetuating the same shit.
@RonBurgundy161 Interesting... 1 displaced beam nobody even knows for sure was burning was dislodged causing the entire bldg to fall in under 20secs. Hum, ok what you're saying is if column 79 was dislodged from being cut with a saw ..."fire isn't applied in this scenario"... The bldg would still be standing, but because that same column, column 79 loss 50% of its strength & was dislodged by fire the bldg could no longer support its weight? Perpetuating the same shit? Yeah I know, I do that lot.
@IwishIknew02 Jesus, why is it so hard to get messages across to people like you? I'm tired of taking people like you seriously and trying to be respectful. READ and UNDERSTAND my last comment, I answered your recent question fully. Fire wasn't ONLY applied to that single beam, and you completely ignored the sheer stress exerted from the expanding steel on the connection points. The WHOLE AREA had 50% loss of strength due to fire, not just that column. Is this so hard to understand?
@RonBurgundy161 What you dont seem to understand is how does a single displace beam cause an entire bldg to fall? I dont understand how that makes sense to you. Is WTC7 the only bldg in the entire world that can have one displaced beam & drop in secs? Did you see a physical experiment using real material replicating the collapse which supports or backs up what you believe, or did you read it & you believe what you read unchallenged without question? Wheres the proof supporting which you believe?
@IwishIknew Right, I give up. I've explained to you THREE times how it occurred, but you decided to either misrepresent me or ignore me each and every time, and now you've just gotten to the point of denial. My evidence for what I claim is the physics I've been explaining to you, which you've been ignoring. The most ironic thing here is that YOU are the one lacking evidence, all you're appealing to is your personal incredulity. You don't accept the NIST report - therefore you claim it's not true
@RonBurgundy161 Yes you did explain it, but don't give up, why would you that? NIST report could be right. But like you said. It’s all explained, why can't it be explained then be proven? However what did the NIST prove, can you point that out? That's all I'm asking.
@IwishIknew02 Wait, wait, wait, what did NIST prove? Now you're asking a completely different question, why won't you address my previous comments regarding the physics behind the collapse of WTC7? You seem to have completely abandoned it.
The evidence you are lacking is for your claim that it wasn't able to cause the building to collapse. All you've pretty much said so far is "Haha! ONE beam?! I don't believe that!".
@RonBurgundy161 What did the NIST prove? u brought them into the convo not me. If u're getting ur info from that report than wheres the proof which supports what they say? Ok wheres the proof which supports what u say? Did u conduct ur own experiment backing up what u believe? lets say I dont have "The evidence you are lacking is for your claim that it wasn't able to cause the building to collapse" Where is ur evidence that proves it was just 1 beam? U know what I dont have, lets see what u have
@IwishIknew02 I've already explained to you how it occurred with...you know...physics, and you've yet to refute anything I've said. I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, now it's you're turn. Stop committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts and actually respond.
@RonBurgundy161 I didn't say you didn't explain how it occured. I asked how was it proven. You want me to prove what I didn't explain? And I already said, you know what I don't have, lets see what you have.
@IwishIknew02 Why do I have to repeat myself at least three times before I can get through to you? As I said...I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, it's your turn for refutation. And as I also said....STOP moving the goalposts! It's a logical fallacy, stop doing it! I've pretty much just repeated my previous comment.
@RonBurgundy161 You presented your evidence? No you didn't, you presented a possible scenario of what you think occurred. If you have the evidence, what does the NIST have? All they have is a theory, like you a possible scenario of what they think occurred. Why would I refute what you're saying? Who knows, you could be right, I didn't say you were wrong. I'm only asked to prove what you're saying. Everything looks good on paper, until the idea is actually tested.
@IwishIknew02 Why do I need observable evidence or that which I could demonstrate? That's not the only form of evidence, I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than observable evidence. Besides, how do you think biologists know that the theory of evolution is correct? Have they witnessed the whole past successive generations of all species? No, they rely on theoretical evidence. But as I said....STOP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS. I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
@RonBurgundy161 Then don't repeat yourself. "Besides, how do you think biologists know that the theory of evolution is correct?" They don't, that's why it's called theory, not a fact. And for one I don't believe in this evolution theory, because it's a theory. "I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than observable evidence" Yeah heart transplant was just a theory until actually experimentation proved that is possible not longer a theory but a fact, a proven claim.
@RonBurgundy161 Which doctor do you want operating on you, the one with an unproven theory which has gone untested or the one who has conducted experiments with testing (observable evidence) and has proven what they claim as an actual fact? You decide.
'I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than'
lol....what use is that.......for YOU have NOTHING to compare with?
YOU HAVE an UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS that FIRE ALONE fell ALL three structures.
IMPACTS caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage in EACH tower leaving over 250 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support remaining on the impact floors...and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT failed a single one.
just make sure YOU release ALL input and results files of the ANSYS 16·story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
and ALL input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."
NIST STILL refuses to provide these 68,000+ data files of it's collapse models
as long as we KNOW what YOU tell the model to do...
'I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, it's your turn for refutation.'
lol...that is an OPINION based on.....?
The towers were one big heat sink of interconnected structural members......why don't YOU stand a SINGLE 32 foot by 5 foot by 3 foot by 4 inch thick core box column in a 1 foot pool of diesel, lite it and come back when it fails.....guess we WON'T see you again!
@hgfbob Much greater has been achieved. In 2007 a truck crashed and ignited on a bridge under a steel structured overpass. From the fire alone, the overpass collapsed under its own weight in a couple of hours. Only kidding....it was in a matter of minutes.
@RonBurgundy161 If youre talking about the bridge fire in Cali, remember that fire was seen for miles around, and that section of the bridge just had a few beams supporting it from below. Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air, unlike WTC 1 2 or 7. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees, (NIST test on the steel from the towers did not exceeded temps of 250) and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle & collapse.
@citilights I wasn't using this example as a comparison to WTC7, I was responding to a claim that pretty much stated that steel structures don't fail from fire.
Show me ANY building that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this phenomena. From my own research only 3 buildings have ever done this, can you guess which ones?
the debris from the collapse was ejected in all directions, this is called symmetry which is not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse. Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance UNTIL IT WAS ejected.
@hgfbob Why must I compare the collapse with others that resemble no significance and is almost unique in terms of design? It's like comparing a plane and a helicopter, apples and oranges. When the inner structure collapsed, it pulled the exterior frame with it at the later stage of collapse which forced it inwards, as is seen on video.
@RonBurgundy161 "When the inner structure collapsed, it pulled the exterior frame with it at the later stage of collapse which forced it inwards, as is seen on video" What video shows exactly what you just wrote? Where are you getting this information from? And how was this proven? Show your source. Are you making this up?
@IwishIknew02 I've already explained this to you. The information was provided by NIST. Go to a video of the collapse of WTC7, make sure that the video is in its entirety since truthers deceptively remove 7 seconds of the beginning of the video. You can see the penthouse collapsing and pulling the upper structure with it, followed by a progressive collapse seven seconds later when the building falls inwards.
@RonBurgundy161 U mean the penthouse, that little structure was able to pull down the entire bldg? Or 1 column displaced, & the entire bldg dropped? "You can see the penthouse collapsing and pulling the upper structure with it, followed by a progressive" or "steel beams expand the critical connection points and exerts further sheer stress on the structure, a single column could very well cause a building to collapse" a little clarity please, what did what, which is responsible for the collaspe?
@IwishIknew02 Gah! I'm really tired of having to repeat myself. The penthouse didn't cause the collapse, it was merely the result of column 79 failing. In fact, I'll just send you a video detailing the whole thing, since I have to repeat myself so much.
Ron: "The nist states they used videos & photos of wtc7. Without examining the actually steel which held the bldg together all they have is a speculation. the NIST autopsied wtc7 externally from videos & pictures. for how can they determine the true cause of failure without a forensic examining the internal components? The steel. How can this be excepted as proof positive & go unchallenged? Examining the actually steel, the guts of the bldg will give a clearer understanding of the collapse.
Ron: "The NIST used no physical evidence of WTC7, so what evidence was used to come to the conclusion column 79 was cause of the failure? The NIST states thermal expansions caused WTC 7 to collapse. How much thermal expansion would steel expand when heated? A few inches a couple of ft? What was physically used to demonstrated which supports that theory? The NIST report offers not one credible fact, its one big computer model (a guess) its like reading science fiction novel based on make believe"
Ron: "How can the NIST investigators who are charged with the collapses tell us that something works or is possible but can’t demonstrate how it’s done or how it works? At least show a physical demonstration of the collapse. The possible cannot be impossible, recreate the events, even on a small scale, what's the problem? It shouldn't be to hard for the experts, They are experts, right?"
@hgfbob There you go again, showing your ignorance. You keep posting NIST facts that nobody disagrees with. You will never understand how these facts fit into the picture because you are to FN stupid.
'just send you a video detailing the whole thing,"
oh...more pretty pics with BEGGING
how about ALL input files with connection material properties and ALL results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."
....that is STILL withheld from validation and review.
@hgfbob gee bob, lets give critical information to a group of government haters affiliated with terrorists. Don't you guys have anyone in your organization who have any computer modeling skills?
cause THAT'S what SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION does...
"When the inner structure collapsed"
uhmmmm...DUH!!!
from WHAT?
you are being TOLD this is something that it is NOT.
you can't USE the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse MORON!
impact caused MINIMAL asymmetrical damage....and NO EVIDENCE the ...FIRES PRESENT,[key words],....failed ANY of the REMAINING 250 FIREPROOFED INTACT vertical support on the impact floor.
'My evidence for what I claim is the physics I've been explaining to you, which you've been ignoring"
A 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION.
If there was resistance the collapses would not have been symmetrical.
@hgfbob By the time the building began collapsing, it had no inner structure...literally. If you look at a non-deceptive video of the WTC7 collapse, seven seconds before it begins collapsing you can see the penthouse begin collapsing and literally remove the complete inner structure, and when the outer trusses could no longer support it, the building collapsed. There were no supporting structures on the inside.
@hgfbob "HOW does that happen and leave the MASSIVE WEIGHT of WHAT it's supporting where it is?"
...it didn't. It collapsed immediately afterwards. This phenomena is blatantly observable on video where the penthouse collapses and drags the rest of the inner structure down with it. As for free fall motion for 2.25 sec, the first 1.75 seconds caused buckling on the lower portion of the building which caused the building to collapse at gravitational acceleration with no support below.
@RonBurgundy161 "Jesus, why is it so hard to get messages across to people like you?" I can explain to you in great detail how you can walk on water, step by step, I can show you how it’s done using computer graphics and animation, but if I can’t demonstrate to you how it’s physical done, then it’s just a bunch of talk with no support. Say what you want, back up and prove what you say. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is asking for proof problematic?
WTC 7 was hit heavily by debris from the twin towers. Firefighters reported 25% of one side of it was missing. It then caught fire and this was fueled by diesel tanks in the lower floors. WTC 7 also had a unique construction of 3 main vertical structural beams on it's lover floors that made it more fragile. All the controled demolition supportes fail to explain why there was no sound of sucessive explosions with any of the towers falling. Total fail.
Whether the NYCFD forwarded a transit or not, or they thought this or that and said this building is unsafe or unstable, and it burned for more than 5 hours. How does that definitively prove there were no explosives of any kind? Where is column 79 the steel beam said to be the cause of the building failing if it was not FOUND or TESTED? How does the NIST know column 79 was ever burning or on fire at all? Did anybody actually witness column 79 fail?
No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
@hgfbob No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
@hgfbob No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
NOT HIT BY A PLANE AND FELL HOURS AFTER THE TOWERS WERE HIT. THE BUILDING FALLS AT FREE FALL ACCELERATION THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE. FIRE HAS NEVER BEFORE 911 OR SINCE 911 MELTED STEEL AND A SINGLE LOCALIZED FAILURE COULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEMATIC AND TOTAL FAILURE OF 400 OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS PER SECOND. --------------------architects and engineers for 9-11 truth
WHERE WAS NORAD AFTER THE FIRST TOWER WAS HIT????????
According to this information, uncontrolled fires have burned steel skyscrapers for longer periods of time than the WTC7, and these buildings did not collapse.
@daveygravey123456 If historically, uncontrolled fires have burned steel skyscrapers for longer periods of time than WTC7, and those buildings did not collapse... then one has a hard time arguing that a fire caused WTC7 to collapse.
Google: 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires. Click on the top link. Read about the steel skyscrapers that burned uncontrolled for hours without collapsing.
why does the penthouse go first? how can a real collapse be so uniform? where are these diesel fires that supposedly melted all the stell collumns at the same time? what are the little puffs of smoke coming out of the windows(cant be pressure as there are plenty of broken windows to relieve that iam sure)? why bbc report 7 collapsed before it actually did? why silverstein use "pull" when explaing events? why was 7 ommited from 9/11 report? why no media coverage of building 7? so many questions.
LOL, just makes me laugh that the government thinks we are so stupid that we would believe building 7 is a real collapse. its a collapse alright with the assistance of some type of high tec explosive severing all steel columns at the same time. strange the NIST or 9/11 commish doesnt mention that. hmmmm.
TO ALL READING THIS FORUM...
..some c**t keeps marking legitimate comments as spam, just because it doesn't suit their point of view. This is unacceptable, so can everyone be vigilant about keeping the debate open and unmark any legitimate comments please?
Portabledexter 3 days ago
9/11 was a day of magic. Cell phones working on airplanes. Airplanes shrinking to a size of a missile. Airplanes evaporating in the ground like water. And who could forget indestructible red bandanas.
bunsipod 1 week ago
@bunsipod Yes, it was a day of magic alright. An invisible missile that zigzagged around knocking over 5 lamp posts before hitting the Pentagon. Silent, flash-free detonation charges that left no trace in the seismic record. Firefighters mysteriously lying about how WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse. Thousand of first responders in Shanksville inexplicably lying about finding the remains of FL 93.
Let's not forget the invisible demo teams who used Ninja invisibility cloaks.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound Those ninja cloaks must have been insulated and fireproof because, as you know, silverman decided to pull the building and then it collapsed. The ninjas had a 2 hour window to complete the... awe screw it, it gets more retarded as I continue along the truther line of reasoning.
lijebaley01 1 week ago
@lijebaley01 i like to lie to myself about what others believe to help my arguments too we should hang out
TheHONKYLIPS 5 days ago
@TheHONKYLIPS You take a trip along the truther scenario as to how the collapses happened, see where it takes you.
lijebaley01 5 days ago
"You don't need a degree in metallurgy or steel construction to put two and two together"
Translation: I'm uneducated and it doesn't matter. The experts are full of shit. Hooray for uneducated dummies!
PoetryHound 2 weeks ago
You don't need a degree in metallurgy or steel construction to put two and two together. I know americans are too fat and lazy to stand up to their government, and that's fine, if thats what they want. But those of us who DEMAND THE TRUTH, won't be force fed the BS that mainstream media shoves down our throats. We're not as stupid as our government wishes us to be.
EricTheAmericanHERO 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
• The shaking resulted from the use of a directed kinetic scalar weapon focused on building 7 using HAARP ELF (Extra Low Frequency) broadcasting. That would have weakened the structure significantly before they "pulled" the building with a small amount of sequentially detonated explosive charges. Building 7 was destroyed last because it was the command center for the 911 psyops.
altgeldrarities 1 month ago
@Poetryhound truthers are not conspiracy nuts. Watch "explosive evidence" documentary. These are professionals with very valid questions. WTC7 is reason enough to reopen the investigation. There are more truthers than not. Wake up.
iihippoii 1 month ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iihippoii "There are more truthers than not"
Ah yes, an unsubstantiated assertion - the hallmark of truthers. Typical.
Hits on truther web sites have plummeted since 2006. Attendance at truther rallies has likewise plummeted. Even comment activity on YT truther videos has plummeted. Only 15% believe any of the various "inside job" fairy tales. Sure, there are more truthers than not. Keep believing that baseless nonsense.
PoetryHound 1 month ago
@PoetryHound It is not an unsubstantiated assertion. A poll taken in NY said that almost 50% of the population now believe there is more to be learnt, and support an independent investigation. As well if you had watched "Explosive Evidence" you would know that there is a LOT of substantiated evidence supported by many professionals. This very evidence is being used to support an investigation. It you you my friend who are believing in baseless nonsense. Do your homework.
iihippoii 1 month ago
@iihippoii Depends what questions you ask, doesn't it? Of course there is more to be learned about 911. I agree with that. But if you ask if people buy any of the many "inside job" conspiracy theories, you only get about 15%, the same percentage that believe all sorts of loony conspiracy theories.
I've seen Explosive Evidence. It's chock full of deception, insinuation, and misinterpretation just like Loose Change & all the other conspiracy videos. Sorry.
PoetryHound 1 month ago
@PoetryHound If by deception you mean doubt, by insinuation you mean questions, and by misinterpretation you mean professional opinion then I guess I agree. Explosive Evidence is not "inside job" conspiracy. It is professionals requesting an inquiry based on facts. NIST provided the evidence or lack there of. If in the ENTIRE history of steel framed buildings only THREE have collapsed doesn't that justify inquiry?
iihippoii 1 month ago
@iihippoii No steel building has ever collapsed from fire? McCormick Place, Chicago,'67 Sight & Sounds Theater, Strasburg PA 97 Dogwood Elementary School, Reston VA Sabena Technics Hangar, Brussels, '06 (collapsed fm aircraft fire) Madrid Windsor Hotel, '05 (steel portion collapsed, concrete didn't) Sandoz storage facility, Basel Switz, '86 Mumbai High North Platform (2005) GM plant, Livonia, 1953 Kmart fire, Falls Twnp PA,June 1982, steel bldg, collapsed in 40 min
PoetryHound 4 weeks ago
@PoetryHound Sorry should have been a little clearer as you have blinders on. Meant: Steel structured high rises. EVERY building you mentioned were either single floor warehouse type buildings where the ROOF collapsed, or high-rises that remained standing after the fire. "Partial collapse" still gave time for the people to evacuate and had to be DEMOLISHED after the fact. You are blind to the truth. Good googling though. Nice try.
iihippoii 3 weeks ago
@iihippoii The point is that fire can and does weaken steel and cause structures to collapse. There's no mystery to it. WTC 7 happened to be the one and only skyscraper to collapse from fire, and so what? Are you saying nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before? That's not very smart.
If you're interested in facts, here are facts:
No booms of 130 db detonation charges.
No flashes of det charges.
No trace of det charges in seismic record.
Magical explosives?
PoetryHound 3 weeks ago
@PoetryHound Wrong, wrong and more wrong. You need to get the facts. I feel for you. There is not much I can do for you. Go on blindly believing all that you are told. I will stick with facts and verifiable evidence. Fact is an independent investigation is justified and needed. If there ever is a PROPER investigation you will be one of the ones surprised by the results. I am sure that happens to you a LOT. Good luck on your blind march.
iihippoii 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iihippoii How strange that you'd say I'm wrong without saying what exactly is wrong. You have to admit it's pretty ironic that you're the one that's getting it all wrong. Let's review! You claimed:
1. "There are more truthers than not." FALSE
2. "In the ENTIRE history of steel framed buildings only THREE have collapsed." FALSE
See what happens when you rely on shitty videos & conspiracy site for your "information?" You get utterly lost and remain deluded in your paranoid fantasy world.
PoetryHound 3 weeks ago
@PoetryHound Pretty unlikely that 3 would go in one day, all into their own footprint though!
Do you not think that even if it was a genuine collapse, and was the only one of it's type in history, then it should be investigated fully so it couldn't happen again?
After all, the existing architects assumptions must be wrong, and no steel framed buildings should be built until it is resolved?
It is extraordinarily fishy in all respects.
Portabledexter 4 days ago
@Portabledexter Who says the buildings fell in their footprints?
There was indeed a lengthy investigation and recommendations came out of it on improved fire safety.
PoetryHound 4 days ago
@PoetryHound They fell close enough into their own footprints to require proper investigation.
The investigation into the collapse of WTC7 specifically did not test for traces of explosives because the results may have been inconclusive. Not as inconclusive as not testing at all is what I say.
Also WTC7 took with it the Enron and WorldCom files. FISHY!
When Bush first got "elected", it was obvious that something big was coming, and 911 was it!
Portabledexter 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Portabledexter "They fell close enough into their own footprints to require proper investigation."
Not really. There was no lateral force, & there was insufficient resistance offered by each lower floor against the upper block floors to cause a fall to the side.
There were no sounds, flashes, or seismic signals of explosives at WTC 7.
Blowing up a bldg to get rid of files? Gee, I hope no one leaves sensitive files at my house. I'd have to blow up my house to get rid of them.
PoetryHound 3 days ago
Posts by conspiracy lunatics have really declined. Bye bye, truth movement.
My suggestion to the truthers is to reach out to their brothers-in-arms in the moon landing denial, holocaust denial, and alien abduction camps. If all the lunatics join forces, maybe they can get a decent turn-out at their ragtag little rallies. I'm just trying to be helpful.
PoetryHound 1 month ago
I am disliking more each day living in this world ruled by evil bastards.
DiggityMcD 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who REALLY runs our world?
US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has come out and blamed the pro-Israel Lobby in America (AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, etc) for ruining her political career. While in congress she refused to sign the pro-Israel pledge and took a pro-Palestinian stance. Because of this, McKinney said “war was declared” on her by the Jewish lobby. In 2009 she told TIU's Ognir that “more than 99% of Congress work for Pro Zionist Israeli interests.”
w(dot)zioncrimefactory com/jew-world-order
LordLindsey12 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
On one side of the argument you have NIST with everything purely hypothetical . They give no data or anything like that so nobody can check it.
Its all non peer approvall.
Fucking idiots!
On the other hand you you have truthers who are pointing out these things and asking perfectly valid questions
If you frame the question right NIST would lose every time in a court of law.
zenoist2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zenoist2..."On one side of the argument you have NIST with everything purely hypothetical . They give no data or anything like that so nobody can check it.
Its all non peer approvall" It takes idiots to be ruled by fools
You got it right..."Fucking idiots!"
IwishIknew02 2 months ago
If a thing is impossible there must be an alernative explanation to get round it possibly thats the way life is.
NIST totally ignore this truth and stick with the fire story they cant explain
.Of its fire but we cant explain it. and cant give good reasons. I wonder how l;ong that pathetic explanation would stand up in a court of law.
It wouldnt. it would be totally laughed at.
zenoist2 2 months ago
HMM why is it falling at acknowledged free speed from fire damage alone?
Its impossible but that sums up the whole 911 official story.
zenoist2 2 months ago
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
for more info...
ae911truth. org
hgfbob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
ctcole77 2 months ago
com/watch?v=tqDgiQIA_j4
zenoist2 3 months ago
it doesnt.
zenoist2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 questions.
why is it falling at acknowledged free fall acceleration when no plane hit it?
Nist cant explain that one.
Why are all 4 corners collapsing simultaneously when the rubble damage is all on one side?
zenoist2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Occupy Building 7 on November 19 & 20!
Please show up and show your support for democracy!
Thursday, 7:00am (or anytime) until late: march from Liberty Plaza to the New York Stock Exchange. At 5pm assemble at Foley Square and march to the Brooklyn Bridge.
11:00am Saturday: Begin assembling by the tall red sculpture at the southeast corner of Liberty Plaza (the corner of Broadway and Cedar St.)
Show your support to the thousands who died that day:
watch?v=3XXEMwhizCE
The911watch 3 months ago
heh, sure right. Belive that if you refuse to pay attention to the HOW and WHAT happend at the beginning of both fires were. POINT BLANK all truhtere are either IDIOTS or MORONS. Though a small group are conmen taking the money of the first two groups, very similiar to 'Priests' and 'religous mystics'.
GrigoriZhukov 3 months ago
@GrigoriZhukov oh you cant spell have trouble with grammar and are so thick you think the official bullshit makes sense?
zenoist2 3 months ago
Comment removed
lijebaley01 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zenoist2 There you go again, hypocrite. You are whining about people that have trouble with grammar in an incomplete sentence with several errors.
lijebaley01 3 months ago
You know what helps burning buildings collapse? If the reason they are on fire is because a 747 hit them. Also size difference. Also planes struck the middle and destroyed a link in the chain. Also planes had enough fuel for a coast to coast flight. Also jet fuel has a greater explosive force by far than gasoline. Also "The only thing the government loves more than killing kids in the middle east is killing it's own citizens, especially for financial gain."
masonnf1 3 months ago
Can you say IMPLOSION?
fmdeligirl 3 months ago
You do realize that the first building was made out of concrete?
MJ4ever911 3 months ago
If you were to build these steel buildings and someone told you two caught on fire and they both fell down in their footprint and you would say total bullshit. Then you look at the two buildings with smoke smoldering out the buildings then you know something stinks. But I did some inveestigation and I learned those towers were built with aluminum and wood columns. The wood caught on fire and it melt the aluminum. Anyone who thinks those buildings fell down go look at one they are building
tubeyou9878 3 months ago
This is what happens to steel buildings and why it's time to build them out of wood and solve the problem. Wood is better than steel, because steel is bullshit. Steel will fall down when the upper floors are hit with the same amount the floor weighs. So when 10 floors hit them you can imagine what happened.
tubeyou9878 4 months ago
@tubeyou9878
'Wood is better than steel, because steel is bullshit. "
too funny!!!
but that MUST have been what happened......I was scared for a minute there.
hgfbob 3 months ago
what people don't understand is steel melts at 1,500 degrees. Melts like ice and that's why they fell down. Cause they are learning steel is a bunch of bullshit. I mean it turns into wood after twenty years. It loses 90% of it's core strength after 30 years, The rivets lose 98% of their strength and why the buildings failed. Don't you people know anything?
tubeyou9878 4 months ago
Comment removed
hgfbob 3 months ago
before i was in diapers. wow dude. sounds like you need to get a retirement plan out instead of arguing over some kids youtube video that clearly shows an unbelievable explanation. keep replying all this ignorant kid is doing is laughing at an ignorant old man. im done.
timboslicer88 4 months ago
@timboslicer88 Bye bye
lijebaley01 4 months ago
you believing everything the government and media feeds you, is not only embarrassing for you, but for your country. all of the facts you stated were flaw. remember, wikipedia is not a good source on information.
timboslicer88 4 months ago
@timboslicer88 I have been seeing false flag operations done by the US since before you were in diapers. This is not one of them. When you were in diapers Islamic terrorists were targeting US servicemen all over the world. If you knew any history you would realize the events of 9/11 was another in a non-stop stream of terrorist activity. You are embarrassing your self by being just a parrot for USA haters that are using the deaths of thousands to persuade ignorant kids to join them.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01, how so? all i did was state facts. too many people who were there, and too many family members of victims question the official explanation. free fall speed is damn near impossible under these circumstances.
timboslicer88 4 months ago
I have a question How does it fall at free fall acceleration when its utterly imposssible from fire damage? the official report leaves it unexplained so no joy there.
Does anyone think looking for explosives might make sense instead of all these impossibilities occuring?
zenoist2 4 months ago
Message from Switzerland: You american people should read scientific american otc,issue 2011. /page 42) That will give you and answer, why your goverment took down the building.
candon1972 4 months ago
and, both towers were built to withstand a plane hit such as a 757. and only three steel structures have collapes because of fire in all of history. wtc 1,2....and 7. 1, and 2 fell directly on top of a mariot hotel, and about 9 other buildings. dispite sever structural damage, all 10 building were still standing on sept 12, 2001. ignorance is bliss, not strength.
timboslicer88 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 it has been proven that during this time, cell phone towers generated the signals outwards, not upwards. just google it. also, shortly after being build, one of the towers suffered a fire for about 14 hours, it still stood until 2001. and the government was excerising fake wargames involving planes flying into buildings earlier that morning, causing too many planes to be far away from nyc. please look up your information before you call someone else mis informed.
timboslicer88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timboslicer88 Stop it... You are embarrassing yourself.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
It is so obvious that the twin towers and building 7 were controlled demolition jobs.
BuxomBabeXOXO 4 months ago
That was a controlled demolition job.
Iobosanchez 4 months ago
@Iobosanchez something weakened the structur when it start collapsing. The acceleration cant be negativ.
number367 4 months ago
I know why everyone argues about this topic, and its stupid. Simply put, the government leveled their own building to hype up the fear about terrorists so they could impose more Laws upon us. Terrorists dont even exist, there's just pissed off people in the middle east because of what the US is doing, it is all utterly retarded. I truely feel for those who are blinded by this nonesense, actually im not that sympathetic, if you cant wake up and smell the truth, then you deserve tyranny.
Heros4gold 4 months ago 2
@Heros4gold Any day you want to add some relevant fact to support what you say, feel free. 10 years and nothing yet.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 Buildings dont pancake like that without help..does that work for you?
Heros4gold 4 months ago
@Heros4gold That is evidence? It is your opinion (or opinion of the truther high priests), nothing more. But contrary to your opinion is the fact there was plenty help to initiate global collapse, eg gravity, weakening steel from fires, damaged support columns from the jets' impact. Try again.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 either your real dummy or your working for the government...calls em as i sees em, i wont argue with you anymore, in the long run, does it really matter if we dont believe the same thing, probably not. Enjoy your fantasy land, i live in the real world.
Heros4gold 4 months ago
@Heros4gold You sure do live in the real world, living in mommy's house, closed up in your room searching youtube and pretending to play the guitar. Get an education and try giving maturity a chance.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 You're a Fool, dont f*ck around with my dog.
Heros4gold 4 months ago
Here's 6 reasons why you're dumb Lijebaley01 Reason#1 Cellphones didn't work on planes when this happened, yet people called from the airplane and said they were being held hostage by terroists with boxcutters..scary. #2 If you watch the video that we're commenting about, a steel building can burn for days without collapsing. #3 how come the building fell straight into its own footprint randomly? #4 Steel doesn't melt till it reaches 2,507°F #5 Gravity? come on #6 the plane hit near the Top
Heros4gold 4 months ago
@Heros4gold #1 cell phones work as long as towers are in range and they are not the only source of calls. #2 None of the buildings in this building were constructed in any way similar to WTC. One was actively fought by helicopters dropping water on it. Another had its steel constructed parts collapse while the concrete constructed parts remained standing. It fell (actually one started at an angle) due to gravity and damage to B7 is proof that it did not fall in its footprint.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 What makes you believe that it was terrorists?
Heros4gold 4 months ago
@Heros4gold Well, for starters, maybe since they declared war on us. There was a guy arrested in 1995 that showed plans by al qeuda to destroy 10 US buildings. They tried flying a plane into the Eiffel tower around that time. Bin Laden admits to it.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 do go on...
Heros4gold 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 I skimmed through your responses to Heros4gold - you are probably the worst DIS-INFO monkey on You Tube.
Your attempt to defend the government's official story is laughable. At least some other DIS-INFO monkeys can bring up a valid point occasionally.
getbo 4 months ago
@getbo Yet you offer no contrary explanations for what I say. You can not come up with one error I have made, yet I am the one laughable? You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetically sad.
lijebaley01 4 months ago
@lijebaley01 your naivety is outstanding. Wake up.
Heros4gold 4 months ago
Comment removed
lijebaley01 4 months ago
One column would not make Building 7 collapse into its own footprint. Moron.
Hells2TheYea 5 months ago
Nice comparison. It is my humble belief that the people that can't 'see' what is presented to them in a direct or a comparative way concerning 9/11, is because, their sub-conscience is protecting their outlook on their world. Without this protection, their world would crumble. I feel for them, but at the same time, they anger me. Truth is always better than a manufactured dream IMO.
tossoutguilt 5 months ago 6
@tossoutguilt You are absolutely right. Just refer to them as cowards, because that is what they are. Cowards cannot accept reality. This is a fact.
msrdrummer 4 months ago
@tossoutguilt Yeah I agree about the sub-conscious protecting their view of reality from a harsh truth that they are too infantile mentally to face, but it's pathetic how scientists in the field of physics and engineering can turn away from this, I mean I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance required for an engineer to pretend that the official story is scientifically plausible.
c23am 3 months ago
@c23am because you are a gullible fool like they are. Not that that's a bad thing, con men and religons LOVE your kind.
GrigoriZhukov 3 months ago
Really, my 'kind'? Actually I'm strictly opposed to all forms of dogmatism and if u knew anything about me you'd realize that I loath all beLIEf systems & that ur comment is a pathetic joke. Who is the one beLIEving? Me, someone who has looked at the science of the situation & the sociopolitics from an historical perspective, or you, who has blindly accepted ur fascist governments pathetic explanation for the whole thing. "Most people are walking in their sleep and dreaming that they are awake".
c23am 3 months ago
@tossoutguilt qfmft
Fixdal 2 months ago
what I don't understand is why we have demolition companies (that charge a lot of money) when all you really have to do to get a building to collapse within its footprints is start a fire in it?
agapemom 5 months ago 15
how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???
As soon as the kink is formed, the 'ENTIRE' building,evenly falls at 9.8m/s^2 for 2.25 seconds,(t=1.75s to t=4.0s [NICSTAR 1A 3.6]) Acceleration of gravity...at 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE' building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second(60MPH)...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way
hgfbob 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
hgfbob 5 months ago
when the kink forms, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
hgfbob 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 Was an inside job....
theyarelying2u 5 months ago
A 47 storey building collapses uniformly within 6-7 seconds, with members of the NYPD asking people to retreat as the building is about to collapse,..and the owner, on record, admitting that they had the building demolished. Does anyone need any more information than that to dispell the bullshit from NIST?
KILLBILDERBURG 5 months ago
Apologies for the insults Ron
KILLBILDERBURG 5 months ago
Reading over some of the people who support NIST conclusions, I despair at how completely stupid sone people can be
KILLBILDERBURG 5 months ago
Ron...you're a thick cunt or a shill, go fuck off you idiot
KILLBILDERBURG 5 months ago
@KILLBILDERBURG That's such a persuasive argument, thanks so much for adding to the discussion.
If you're going to criticise me, at least have the balls to back your shit up with evidence instead of rebuking people for no apparent reason. You're a fucktard, if you were any less intelligent I'd have to water you twice a week.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79" One critical beam caused wtc 7 to fail, just 1, not a few but only 1, column 79. It wasnt the debris that caused the bldg to fail or despite that fact it burned for hours, it was the failure of column 79. I’d love to speak to the designer of WTC 7 and see what he has to say. To sum it up, if anyone had gone to that one beam with metal saw, they could’ve drop that entire bdg, all it took was 1 beam. lol lol lol
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Jesus, why don't you "truthers" ever take other factors into account? If fire is heated at a high temperature and applied to a steel structure; two vitals things occur. Firstly, ignoring specific heat capacity, steel loses 50% of its strength when the same heat of a fire is applied to it. Couple this with the fact that the steel beams expand the critical connection points and exerts further sheer stress on the structure, a single column could very well cause a building to collapse.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Thank you for proving my point. What did I say that was wrong? Even you agreed "single column could very well cause a building to collapse" Like I wrote,
If anyone had gone to that one beam, or as you wrote... Let me cap it for you... "A SINGLE COLUMN" with metal saw they could’ve drop that entire building, all it took was one beam or one column, cut or burning to be displaced and we have a building falling in under 20 secs. That one beam held up the entire building lol lol lol
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Yes but you were being incredibly sarcastic and didn't take the two factors that I mentioned into account. You're analogy and analysis was also shite.
""A SINGLE COLUMN" with metal saw they could've drop that entire building" - Wrong, fire isn't applied in this scenario, and thus 50% of the strength of the structure isn't lost and sheer stress isn't exerted through creep. Even though I've already mentioned this to you, you're still perpetuating the same shit.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Interesting... 1 displaced beam nobody even knows for sure was burning was dislodged causing the entire bldg to fall in under 20secs. Hum, ok what you're saying is if column 79 was dislodged from being cut with a saw ..."fire isn't applied in this scenario"... The bldg would still be standing, but because that same column, column 79 loss 50% of its strength & was dislodged by fire the bldg could no longer support its weight? Perpetuating the same shit? Yeah I know, I do that lot.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Jesus, why is it so hard to get messages across to people like you? I'm tired of taking people like you seriously and trying to be respectful. READ and UNDERSTAND my last comment, I answered your recent question fully. Fire wasn't ONLY applied to that single beam, and you completely ignored the sheer stress exerted from the expanding steel on the connection points. The WHOLE AREA had 50% loss of strength due to fire, not just that column. Is this so hard to understand?
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 What you dont seem to understand is how does a single displace beam cause an entire bldg to fall? I dont understand how that makes sense to you. Is WTC7 the only bldg in the entire world that can have one displaced beam & drop in secs? Did you see a physical experiment using real material replicating the collapse which supports or backs up what you believe, or did you read it & you believe what you read unchallenged without question? Wheres the proof supporting which you believe?
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew Right, I give up. I've explained to you THREE times how it occurred, but you decided to either misrepresent me or ignore me each and every time, and now you've just gotten to the point of denial. My evidence for what I claim is the physics I've been explaining to you, which you've been ignoring. The most ironic thing here is that YOU are the one lacking evidence, all you're appealing to is your personal incredulity. You don't accept the NIST report - therefore you claim it's not true
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Yes you did explain it, but don't give up, why would you that? NIST report could be right. But like you said. It’s all explained, why can't it be explained then be proven? However what did the NIST prove, can you point that out? That's all I'm asking.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Wait, wait, wait, what did NIST prove? Now you're asking a completely different question, why won't you address my previous comments regarding the physics behind the collapse of WTC7? You seem to have completely abandoned it.
The evidence you are lacking is for your claim that it wasn't able to cause the building to collapse. All you've pretty much said so far is "Haha! ONE beam?! I don't believe that!".
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 What did the NIST prove? u brought them into the convo not me. If u're getting ur info from that report than wheres the proof which supports what they say? Ok wheres the proof which supports what u say? Did u conduct ur own experiment backing up what u believe? lets say I dont have "The evidence you are lacking is for your claim that it wasn't able to cause the building to collapse" Where is ur evidence that proves it was just 1 beam? U know what I dont have, lets see what u have
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 I've already explained to you how it occurred with...you know...physics, and you've yet to refute anything I've said. I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, now it's you're turn. Stop committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts and actually respond.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
Comment removed
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonBurgundy161 I didn't say you didn't explain how it occured. I asked how was it proven. You want me to prove what I didn't explain? And I already said, you know what I don't have, lets see what you have.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Why do I have to repeat myself at least three times before I can get through to you? As I said...I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, it's your turn for refutation. And as I also said....STOP moving the goalposts! It's a logical fallacy, stop doing it! I've pretty much just repeated my previous comment.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 You presented your evidence? No you didn't, you presented a possible scenario of what you think occurred. If you have the evidence, what does the NIST have? All they have is a theory, like you a possible scenario of what they think occurred. Why would I refute what you're saying? Who knows, you could be right, I didn't say you were wrong. I'm only asked to prove what you're saying. Everything looks good on paper, until the idea is actually tested.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Why do I need observable evidence or that which I could demonstrate? That's not the only form of evidence, I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than observable evidence. Besides, how do you think biologists know that the theory of evolution is correct? Have they witnessed the whole past successive generations of all species? No, they rely on theoretical evidence. But as I said....STOP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS. I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Then don't repeat yourself. "Besides, how do you think biologists know that the theory of evolution is correct?" They don't, that's why it's called theory, not a fact. And for one I don't believe in this evolution theory, because it's a theory. "I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than observable evidence" Yeah heart transplant was just a theory until actually experimentation proved that is possible not longer a theory but a fact, a proven claim.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Which doctor do you want operating on you, the one with an unproven theory which has gone untested or the one who has conducted experiments with testing (observable evidence) and has proven what they claim as an actual fact? You decide.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
'I'm using theoretical evidence, which has a greater value than'
lol....what use is that.......for YOU have NOTHING to compare with?
YOU HAVE an UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS that FIRE ALONE fell ALL three structures.
IMPACTS caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage in EACH tower leaving over 250 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support remaining on the impact floors...and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT failed a single one.
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@hgfbob I can provide you a computer simulation consistent with the collapse of WTC7, if you'd accept it of course.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
"provide you a computer simulation'
just make sure YOU release ALL input and results files of the ANSYS 16·story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
NIST refuses
hgfbob 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
cont...
and ALL input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."
NIST STILL refuses to provide these 68,000+ data files of it's collapse models
as long as we KNOW what YOU tell the model to do...
go fer it
hgfbob 5 months ago
Comment removed
hgfbob 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
'I've presented my evidence in the form of principles of heat capacity and creep, it's your turn for refutation.'
lol...that is an OPINION based on.....?
The towers were one big heat sink of interconnected structural members......why don't YOU stand a SINGLE 32 foot by 5 foot by 3 foot by 4 inch thick core box column in a 1 foot pool of diesel, lite it and come back when it fails.....guess we WON'T see you again!
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@hgfbob Much greater has been achieved. In 2007 a truck crashed and ignited on a bridge under a steel structured overpass. From the fire alone, the overpass collapsed under its own weight in a couple of hours. Only kidding....it was in a matter of minutes.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 If youre talking about the bridge fire in Cali, remember that fire was seen for miles around, and that section of the bridge just had a few beams supporting it from below. Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air, unlike WTC 1 2 or 7. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees, (NIST test on the steel from the towers did not exceeded temps of 250) and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle & collapse.
citilights 5 months ago
@citilights I wasn't using this example as a comparison to WTC7, I was responding to a claim that pretty much stated that steel structures don't fail from fire.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
Show me ANY building that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this phenomena. From my own research only 3 buildings have ever done this, can you guess which ones?
the debris from the collapse was ejected in all directions, this is called symmetry which is not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse. Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance UNTIL IT WAS ejected.
hgfbob 5 months ago
@hgfbob Why must I compare the collapse with others that resemble no significance and is almost unique in terms of design? It's like comparing a plane and a helicopter, apples and oranges. When the inner structure collapsed, it pulled the exterior frame with it at the later stage of collapse which forced it inwards, as is seen on video.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 "When the inner structure collapsed, it pulled the exterior frame with it at the later stage of collapse which forced it inwards, as is seen on video" What video shows exactly what you just wrote? Where are you getting this information from? And how was this proven? Show your source. Are you making this up?
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 I've already explained this to you. The information was provided by NIST. Go to a video of the collapse of WTC7, make sure that the video is in its entirety since truthers deceptively remove 7 seconds of the beginning of the video. You can see the penthouse collapsing and pulling the upper structure with it, followed by a progressive collapse seven seconds later when the building falls inwards.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 U mean the penthouse, that little structure was able to pull down the entire bldg? Or 1 column displaced, & the entire bldg dropped? "You can see the penthouse collapsing and pulling the upper structure with it, followed by a progressive" or "steel beams expand the critical connection points and exerts further sheer stress on the structure, a single column could very well cause a building to collapse" a little clarity please, what did what, which is responsible for the collaspe?
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@IwishIknew02 Gah! I'm really tired of having to repeat myself. The penthouse didn't cause the collapse, it was merely the result of column 79 failing. In fact, I'll just send you a video detailing the whole thing, since I have to repeat myself so much.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron: "The nist states they used videos & photos of wtc7. Without examining the actually steel which held the bldg together all they have is a speculation. the NIST autopsied wtc7 externally from videos & pictures. for how can they determine the true cause of failure without a forensic examining the internal components? The steel. How can this be excepted as proof positive & go unchallenged? Examining the actually steel, the guts of the bldg will give a clearer understanding of the collapse.
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
Ron: "The NIST used no physical evidence of WTC7, so what evidence was used to come to the conclusion column 79 was cause of the failure? The NIST states thermal expansions caused WTC 7 to collapse. How much thermal expansion would steel expand when heated? A few inches a couple of ft? What was physically used to demonstrated which supports that theory? The NIST report offers not one credible fact, its one big computer model (a guess) its like reading science fiction novel based on make believe"
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
Ron: "How can the NIST investigators who are charged with the collapses tell us that something works or is possible but can’t demonstrate how it’s done or how it works? At least show a physical demonstration of the collapse. The possible cannot be impossible, recreate the events, even on a small scale, what's the problem? It shouldn't be to hard for the experts, They are experts, right?"
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
" result of column 79 failing'
and HOW is that known when there was NO WTC 7 steel to LOOK at to DETERMINE ANYTHING?
NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."no steel was recovered from WTC7"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@hgfbob There you go again, showing your ignorance. You keep posting NIST facts that nobody disagrees with. You will never understand how these facts fit into the picture because you are to FN stupid.
lijebaley01 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
'just send you a video detailing the whole thing,"
oh...more pretty pics with BEGGING
how about ALL input files with connection material properties and ALL results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."
....that is STILL withheld from validation and review.
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@hgfbob gee bob, lets give critical information to a group of government haters affiliated with terrorists. Don't you guys have anyone in your organization who have any computer modeling skills?
lijebaley01 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
'Why must I compare the collapse with others "
cause THAT'S what SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION does...
"When the inner structure collapsed"
uhmmmm...DUH!!!
from WHAT?
you are being TOLD this is something that it is NOT.
you can't USE the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse MORON!
impact caused MINIMAL asymmetrical damage....and NO EVIDENCE the ...FIRES PRESENT,[key words],....failed ANY of the REMAINING 250 FIREPROOFED INTACT vertical support on the impact floor.
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@RonBurgundy161 On and what evidence am I lacking? Could you tell me?
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
'My evidence for what I claim is the physics I've been explaining to you, which you've been ignoring"
A 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION.
If there was resistance the collapses would not have been symmetrical.
what EVIDENCE are you using?
hgfbob 5 months ago
@hgfbob By the time the building began collapsing, it had no inner structure...literally. If you look at a non-deceptive video of the WTC7 collapse, seven seconds before it begins collapsing you can see the penthouse begin collapsing and literally remove the complete inner structure, and when the outer trusses could no longer support it, the building collapsed. There were no supporting structures on the inside.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
"no inner structure"
lol..really
HOW does that happen and leave the MASSIVE WEIGHT of WHAT it's supporting where it is?
does it just 'MAGICALLY' float till the 'ALL CLEAR' is given to fall, GLOBALLY in a unified FREE FALL ACCELERATED descent?
how does it travel as FAST as an object falls through AIR from 1.75 sec. to 4.0 sec. of collapse?
9.8m/s^2
"no supporting structure inside"...ROTFLMAO...do YOU really believe that?
where did it go?
it was there 1.75 seconds ago
hgfbob 5 months ago 2
@hgfbob "HOW does that happen and leave the MASSIVE WEIGHT of WHAT it's supporting where it is?"
...it didn't. It collapsed immediately afterwards. This phenomena is blatantly observable on video where the penthouse collapses and drags the rest of the inner structure down with it. As for free fall motion for 2.25 sec, the first 1.75 seconds caused buckling on the lower portion of the building which caused the building to collapse at gravitational acceleration with no support below.
RonBurgundy161 5 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 "Jesus, why is it so hard to get messages across to people like you?" I can explain to you in great detail how you can walk on water, step by step, I can show you how it’s done using computer graphics and animation, but if I can’t demonstrate to you how it’s physical done, then it’s just a bunch of talk with no support. Say what you want, back up and prove what you say. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is asking for proof problematic?
IwishIknew02 5 months ago
WTC 7 was hit heavily by debris from the twin towers. Firefighters reported 25% of one side of it was missing. It then caught fire and this was fueled by diesel tanks in the lower floors. WTC 7 also had a unique construction of 3 main vertical structural beams on it's lover floors that made it more fragile. All the controled demolition supportes fail to explain why there was no sound of sucessive explosions with any of the towers falling. Total fail.
Spindry96 5 months ago
Whether the NYCFD forwarded a transit or not, or they thought this or that and said this building is unsafe or unstable, and it burned for more than 5 hours. How does that definitively prove there were no explosives of any kind? Where is column 79 the steel beam said to be the cause of the building failing if it was not FOUND or TESTED? How does the NIST know column 79 was ever burning or on fire at all? Did anybody actually witness column 79 fail?
Galanttttt 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's called a cantilevered lateral truss kids. and this is why you will never see that design in a tall building ever again.
these two steel structures are completely different designs.
WTC 7 did not have an internal web configuration like the other buildings in WTC and this one.
If you bother to read a little bit for yourself and look at the construction drafts for the column lay out, the weak point is painfully obvious.
WTC 7 was built over a Conn-Edison substation and had a unique design.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WE HAVE THE VIDEO OF WTC7 BEING DEMOLISHED. THE VIDEO SHOWS THE EXPLOSIONS AND IT HAS THE AUDIO. ...ARREST LARRY SILVERSTEIN, NOW!!!
SEARCH: "!MUST WATCH NOW! Visible Explosions !NEW VIDEO! SEPT 2011 WTC Building 7 Controlled Demolition"
Born2Flesh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
problem officer?
hStRSH 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob No dummy, the FDNY used the transit, not someone else. They told everyone else the building was unstable. What a moron you are. You're really going to claim that the FDNY were told to make fake observations? LOL!
PoetryHound 5 months ago
test
PoetryHound 5 months ago
test
PoetryHound 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT HIT BY A PLANE AND FELL HOURS AFTER THE TOWERS WERE HIT. THE BUILDING FALLS AT FREE FALL ACCELERATION THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE. FIRE HAS NEVER BEFORE 911 OR SINCE 911 MELTED STEEL AND A SINGLE LOCALIZED FAILURE COULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEMATIC AND TOTAL FAILURE OF 400 OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS PER SECOND. --------------------architects and engineers for 9-11 truth
WHERE WAS NORAD AFTER THE FIRST TOWER WAS HIT????????
IluvAmbienttrance 5 months ago
Google: 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires.
According to this information, uncontrolled fires have burned steel skyscrapers for longer periods of time than the WTC7, and these buildings did not collapse.
AscendingParadigm 5 months ago
@AscendingParadigm so what?
daveygravey123456 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daveygravey123456 If historically, uncontrolled fires have burned steel skyscrapers for longer periods of time than WTC7, and those buildings did not collapse... then one has a hard time arguing that a fire caused WTC7 to collapse.
Google: 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires. Click on the top link. Read about the steel skyscrapers that burned uncontrolled for hours without collapsing.
AscendingParadigm 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 5 months ago in playlist More videos from spokanethinker
why does the penthouse go first? how can a real collapse be so uniform? where are these diesel fires that supposedly melted all the stell collumns at the same time? what are the little puffs of smoke coming out of the windows(cant be pressure as there are plenty of broken windows to relieve that iam sure)? why bbc report 7 collapsed before it actually did? why silverstein use "pull" when explaing events? why was 7 ommited from 9/11 report? why no media coverage of building 7? so many questions.
thebluetarp 5 months ago
LOL, just makes me laugh that the government thinks we are so stupid that we would believe building 7 is a real collapse. its a collapse alright with the assistance of some type of high tec explosive severing all steel columns at the same time. strange the NIST or 9/11 commish doesnt mention that. hmmmm.
thebluetarp 5 months ago