to answer the question why the hole is black you need to make a thorough research, you need an expert on the subject who would tell you exactly what should have been the magnitude of the flames. the personal opinion of whoever made this video is just not enough to be considered as evidence or a proof. i can easily imagine a conspiracist rely on this video and say: "it was scientifically proven by scientists from all over the world that the fire was not big enough to melt the steel".
Instead of using this video, I think a more logical approach would be to do some research on the people seen walking around the impact hole just before the collapse and enter into the equation simple common sense.
@muzicmaker2001 sure, you can do that, i accept your doubts. but after you do that small research please don't say it was based on science. a real research requires money, lots of money, and time. there are many videos on youtube where you can clearly see flames (including the moment the north tower collapsed). the huge amount of smoke is an indication of a fire.
@muzicmaker2001 you believe there should have been more flames coming out of the side that the plane crashed into, in science it's called a hypothesis and exact sciences provide a detailed theory based on this hypothesis and a procedure of how to test it's validity. in your case you might need physicists, chemists and software people that would help you to create a computer model of the crash based on the official version.
@muzicmaker2001 you would have to take into account the velocity and direction of the plane, the amount of fuel etc. such model could show how the fuel should have been spread inside the building. after you do that, you would be able to scientifically verify or disprove the official version. if you disprove it, it would be very reliable and would make people stop and think.
To summarize NIST's findings which were supposedly based on science (yes), the plane was carrying approx. 10,000 gals of jet fuel at the time of impact. And temps in the steel beneath the people seen reached 1000 F degrees. My conclusion is the official version is BS...
@muzicmaker2001 it's ok to say that it's your conclusion or your opinion, but it's wrong to say that your opinion is supported by science or by evidence.
Ok, I can play. Because you have no idea as to what the extent of my research is to make my conclusion, your statement is only a opinion also.Although I appreciate your opinion, but making blind assumptions without knowing the degree of my research only shows a bit of ignorance on your part.
@muzicmaker2001 i'm sure you have conducted a vast research that includes almost every conspiracy website and every conspiracy video on youtube. maybe you have also read some books like the one written by richard gage (which is, if you ask me, a total waste of trees) who also doesn't provide us with a detailed physical model that contradicts the nist report. maybe you even talked to other truthers and got more ideas from them.
@muzicmaker2001 but believe me, there is no way your research could have included scientific analysis and complete computer simulation of 9/11. like i said, it costs a lot of money and second, you don't have access to the findings from ground zero and the pentagon that is required to make a real research.
Again, I appreciate your opinion of what you think is needed to be considered a scientific investigation with computer models and the amount of money spent???, but that's all it is...just your opinion. No disrespect, but it means just about as much as any other random guy on YT that just met me..I'm sure there are other debunkers that maybe take your opinion as fact? Good luck..
Was science considered "science" before computer models? I heard Newton had a sweet azz Mac. Or how about the amount of money spent? Again, I'm sure the debunkers all love this logic.
@muzicmaker2001 money was always a part of science, without money there is no research and teaching. i suggest you read a little about the connection between money and science, you have nothing to lose and it has nothing to do with conspiracy or debunking.
@muzicmaker2001 it's funny that you understood from what i wrote that a scientist can't do a research without a computer model. a computer model is just a private case of a more general concept, what scientists call "an experiment". what's common to all experiments is that they have to be formulated mathematically and have to be based on physics principals.
@muzicmaker2001 newton didn't have a computer but he invented a new mathematical field known today as calculus to describe the results of his experiments.he also conducted many experiments to test and valid his theories in optics and mechanics. if newton had published his three rules based on his hunches or based on a claim that he doesn't believe anything else but those three rules, and without a mathematical formulation and experimental evidence then no scientist would have taken him seriously
@muzicmaker2001 that is exactly the case with truthers, they don't believe the official version but they don't offer an acceptable scientific explanation (in terms of math and physics) for why the official story is false or why a different version is true, although i'm sure you think they do have such explanations. richard gage hasn't proposed a rigorous theory for why the buildings shouldn't have collapsed the way they did, although it doesn't stop him from repeating these words over and over.
Ok, you just stated that I don't have access to the findings from ground zero and the Pentagon to conduct real research and then in the same breath, you ask for "an acceptable scientific explanation?" How can anyone offer a scientific explanation without having direct access to all available evidence? Your logic does not make any sense at all. It seems you are only here as some sort of agenda to defend 911.
@muzicmaker2001 you personally don't have that access, other people working for research institutes do have that access, and they are the ones who can come up with scientific explanations, as long as their research meets the standard of reliability and acceptable by most scientists in the specific field.
the onlt thing i'm defending is reason, you want to believe in conspiracy? fine, but remember that as to this moment, conspiracy is not supported by science in any way.
You obviously haven't done YOUR research. Even FEMA did not have total reign over the ground zero site to write their report. And when a significant portion of the physical evidence (WTC steel) is immediately shipped away overseas and destroyed, how can anyone really make a scientific evaluation? But, the conspiracy is based on simple physics, historical data of other plane crashes/steel framed high rise fires, etc and simple common sense.
And based on the available evidence, experts from many different fields (engineers, architects, pilots, firefighters, scientist, military, etc) have banded together against this fairy tale. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is an insult to the American public's intelligence. Some fell for it, some didn't. But, to protect the sanctity of this lie, there are people dedicated to sway us away from the real truth and these people are even more sinister than the perps themselves
@muzicmaker2001 a few experts have banded against the nist report but they don't have scientific evidence to support their claims or their research is not considered reliable by most scientists (like the scandinavian truther who believes he found evidence for thermite). their main argument is that they don't believe the nist report. it's fine with me, but that's not what scientists accept as evidence or proof.
@bellijklh A few experts? Again, please research before making ignorant statements.. patriotsquestion911*com/engineers*html 1,500+ Engineers and Architects 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 400+ Medical Professionals Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Scientists for 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth
If you are refering to the nano-thermite paper, there's more than just one "scandinavian truther" that authored the paper. There's Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen...peer reviewed and and confirmed by Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.
The microspores (nano-thermite chips) found in the ground zero dust were analyzed by some commonly used scientific instruments. The physical composition of the chip was determined by use of a scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The chemical composition, by X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS). The chip's exothermic behavior/energy density was determined by thru differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The fine art of eyeballing the chips and calling it paint was not used.
@muzicmaker2001 those are advanced machines, but the paper written by danish truther Niels Harrit about 9/11 was contraversial and his research hasn't gained recognition by the scientific community,especially because of the fact that the materials he found in the dust (according to him were indicators for the presence of nano thermite) were materials that were expected to be found anyway, without a controlled demolition. he also made exaggerated conclusions that weren't based on the findings.
It seems that every scientist, architects, engineer, pilot, firefighter, etc that questions or challenges the OV is an alleged truther and his expertise is now tainted?
@muzicmaker2001 there is no other way to say it, but yes. questioning is good but i can assure you that in 20 years the truth movement will fade away like the wtc dust. the percentage of architects, engineers and pilots who question the official story is neglectable and the percentage of scientists is even smaller, there is good a reason for that. the no plane and controlled demolition theories are just too ridiculous and not backed with proofs.
1. i don't think there is such a web-site. just like there is no website telling us what is the percentage of priests who believe in god. you can compare the number of scientists who support conspiracy theory with the total number of scientists in the u.s (you can find that number on the net).
2. i read it somewhere, i don't remember where, try to contact NIST, this would be good homework for you, read their report, you might learn something new.
1. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the number of experts who support the OV and who don't to the total create two percentages. Otherwise, we are only making assumptions. Not good stats, huh? And I know how much you "supposedly" endorse good science..snicker..
2. That was your statement, but you want me to find proof to back it up? Great. The new thing I learned is how to pick out BS from debunkers. Actually, nothing new..old hat
@muzicmaker2001 we know what we saw. we saw two airplanes crashing into the wtc, live, you can't cover up something like that. it was nice to speak to a truther who doesn't scream "inside job you asshole" and stuff like that.
BTW, I'm not a truther. I don't even know what a truther is, never been to any meetings, banquets or baseball games. I just have a brain. The evidence and cover-up speaks for themselves..even no planes at the WTC. For examples, simple physics, no real witnesses unrelated to the government or media and no verification of the wreckage.
The two people on opposite sides of the impact hole prove that the (opposite sides of the) impact hole itself and every step both of these people took to get to the impact hole was not heated up to the supposed 1000 degrees or even 500 degrees. Its common sense.
The two people were seen at the North Tower, which collapsed approx 102 mins after impact. People were seen 20 mins before collapse or 80 mins after the 10,000 gals of jet fuel heated the steel up to near failure. Can I get some cookies n milk with this story?
Do a google search for "seismic signal of wtc building 7", this is the STRONGEST evidence that the building fell just under 10 seconds. One researcher even claims that by analyzing the data even more closely he can detect explosives before the building fell.
Do a google search for "seismic signal of wtc building 7", this is the STRONGEST evidence that the building fell just under 10 seconds. One researcher even claims that by analyzing the data even more closely he can detect explosives before the building fell.
I interpret the vidoe to be, clearly, a discussion of the first night, the operations to rescue and look for survivors -- the initial night. Do you think that perhaps they operations would want to limit comments regarding rescue operations? He does not say its and FBI gag order -- but you will interpret this to be a decade long gag order that has silenced every witness since the event.
a lot of assumptions for one witness and one video
this was posted on the firefighters forum when Eric Lawyer showed up
"Do not send me any more messages. You are out of your mind. What you are doing is despicable and is a complete show of disrespect to the FDNY in particular and the fire service in general. You do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Your entire "body of evidence" is based on an utter lack of understanding of science and human behavior. Your posts and your mindset literally sicken me.
oops. I didn't read the first part of your post. Ok, I have no idea what this has to do with the gag order? Its just someone's opinion, correct? I still believe in free speech. This is still America, right?
there is a diffrence between a gag order at the scene during the investigation and during rescue operations and what may be said 10 years after the fact
there is certainly no gag order in place to hold back the fdny ten years after the event -- they do not claim to be under one -- this is a group that saw family murdered that day, do you think they would cower to anyone?
Ok. First, you stated there was no gag order at all and now, you are an authority on what gag order took place and the duration of it? Really? Read your comments back to yourself. Now, can you see why a logical person wouldn't believe a word of your BS?
Do you know anything at all about this gag order? How could you? You fist stated there wasn't one. So, you have no idea what it was related to, crime scene or what? Assumptions are your only "evidence" here.
I think you are smart to know that, right? I'll let you ponder this. First, there's no gag order. Then, oh yes. There's a gag order. Why wouldn't there be one? I know exactly why and how long it lasted too. Funny...
Yes, after you first stating there was no gag order and then later knowing exactly what the gag order pertained to and how long it was.....I thought it was time to let this rest as comedy.
Heat rises, fires suck air into the building through the holes created by the plane. Join a firefighting company and you might see how the fires acted.
"Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,regarding the FBI gag order placed on fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. There were definitely bombs in those buildings."-Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr
Although, I do appreciate your unbiased (lil humor?) opinion, even you weren't there ALSO and have not had an exposure to the FDNY, the video clip shows a firemen directly saying they are all GAGGED. I'm good.
"that was a crime scene -- yeah, there is a gag order at a crime scene"
Again, I do appreciate your opinion, even though you weren't, but it seems you are only here to distort the truth. When proven wrong, you make up more lies to distort the truth. Am I right? And your ploy to stir up sympathy and guilt is not very creative either.
also, she went to the edge of the building to avoid the fire - it was cooler there, because everything flammable was swept to the other side of the building.
Comparing A building built from steel trusses to a concrete building is like proving that wood is not flammable by throwing a rock into a fire. also, did the building you mentioned have a PLANE crash into it?
I will never understand this logic. if we point to the plane impacts as the cause for the collapse of the Towers, can we then logically point to just falling debris damaging only one side of WTC7 for its collapse? Obviously not. The plane supposedly went THRU the building spreading jet fuel along its path, not just one side of the building. And the people seen at the impact hole walked THRU the path of the plane.
@muzicmaker2001 WTC7 was severly damaged, as planes were not the only thing at WTC that could damage buildings. also, about the people, they are going to the edge of the building, because the fire was very hot inside, and it was cooler outside. also, saying the fires were not sustained, and then showing pictues of the buildings just after being hit is incorrect, if you take the videos just before the collapse, you see that they have much more sustained fires.
Severely damaged? WTC6 was in between the North Tower and WTC7, was damaged more severely, but never collapsed. Compare WTC7 damage in the clip below..oh wait. You have already commented on this page. This proves my point. The only people that "believe" the official version are people like yourself who are dedicated to defending the OV and people who haven't researched this...
Fireworks display by Cai Guo-Qiang at the Arab Museum of Modern Art in Dohari demonstrates the lightning speed that detonation charges can be set off using computers. Much in the same way that the 3 WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition in Set 11, 2001 at near free fall speeds. Easy when you have the technology.
Your right dude, those fires were pretty small, those people were not jumping out of the towers because of large fires, no, they probably just liked to skydive huh??
@bubbasteve8 Don't give me smoke bs, smoke would not keep people from reaching a stairwell before jumping to there death. 1st off this woman and man you speak of were on the left side of the hole, you can see that the plans was tilted left, as if in a left hand bank at impact, making the left wing lower than the right wing and lower than the fuselage, the gas tanks in planes are located in the inner part of the wings near and under the fuselage.
There was no fuel entering the building where that woman is standing, the fuel tanks hit on higher floors and to the right, plus fire and heat goes up, not down, so yes, this section where she was might not have fire. Notice even on this video @ 3:01 the huge blazing fire a couple of stories up and even to the left over the left wing tip, far left from where the fuselage hit, now imagine the strength of the fires deeper in towards the center where most of the fuel entered the building...
have you noticed how each of your arguments is destroyed that you just go to a new argument -- its as if the failure of your prior arguments are irrelevant to your position -- almost as if if your failth is more religious than scientific based
@Denierbud11 you're point is that unexisting fires with black smoke that indicates a "cold" fire can melt steel when the highest tempature of fire, in the best conditions are around 2400degrees celcius? and that is bluish flames wich you can SE from a god damn wealding torch. And these fires are "orangish" wich idicates (on those you can se) is ~800degrees celsiyus, wich would weaken the steel on those floors by ~50%. Even tho where is the core after the colaspe if it was pancake, explain that.
@Denierbud11 This was grey smoke, not jet fuel pitch black. This indicates incomplete combustion, which means LOW TEMPS. They were pyrotechnics, b/c SHEET ALUMINUM CAN NOT SHEER STRUCTURAL STEEL.
Again, when people are seen walking directly on this steel heated by this "raging" fire after 80 mins, a logical person would think it was cool. And you don't have to be a truther to have a brain. Try it...you might like it.
Your claim was black smoke meant cool temperature -- this is a truther lie. Who told you this? Or do you admit its just some stupid claim that you cut and paste without thinking.
when fire doesnt get anough fuel or oxigen it dies creating these holles filled whit black smoke. because the fire's where dying the temp of theos fires went down not cappable of melting steel so: fire cant melt steel and in this case bring down the towers.
Enter logic: People were seen at the impact hole approx 20 mins before collapse at the North Tower. From impact to collapse, there was 102 mins. This means that 80 mins went by to heat the ENTIRE STEEL beneath them. Really? Or maybe the last 22 minutes was just enough to make the steel fail? It only takes a brain, right?
Once you can refute anything they are saying, that woukd be a start. But, for right now, its just ranting about truthers...whatever that means. I guess anyone who questions the events of 911 is a truther, huh? Uhh, originally, you did mention the word "brainless?"
The truthers are all morons method is not working, ok? Try something new. Or maybe we should take the word of some random guy on YT over real experts?
patriotsquestion911*com/engineers*html
1,500+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
220+ Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
Yes, I agree. Brainless like thinking the sound of someone's voice is somehow related to intelligence. Keep on with your fight to defend the 911 lie...
all the calls from survivors at the towers complain about the thick smoke, not fire. The people that jump did so because they were unable to breathe not that they were caught in fires
The people in the hole probably came from below, although not far below. You failed to show the picture of the west side of tower 1 which showed flames on one floor all the way across the floor. From what I've seen most of the jumpers were indeed from fire floors or those directly above. Getting higher as time progressed. Fires not intense? Really?
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
Killer game. Letters, numbers, and lifetimes. Devil? court tv censored. World War 1War 2War 3 Armageddon. Nuclear holocaust. Two New York towers. A tower of Milan. Two Roman towers two donkeys. Iasi, T1 T2 T3. T= baptism. Who stole the two letter T Audi to die crushed.04.04.2009 online journal. 06.04.2009 genocidio Aquila 2: 32. 307 dead. The Eagle was sent to steal two T? Mutilation of roller. RomaN,Romania,Roma,SeveN,SromaN,The little Boy Anton Cristian h t t p genocidio.altervista. org
Rio brazil jackass, stop spewing your nonsense. al qaeda could not have orchestrated such an event with all the luck and chance in the world. Our govt did it and they did to to invest in themselves and their partners. The American people have sworn to protect America from both foreign and domestic threats! screw the so called patriot act!
And what was tubular steel towers. Not massive, the towers of the plants is available on Google. He first crack at 600ºC. the beams that had to suffer the weight of the overhead above each 2400T. And the heat was unbearable. The paranoia of his countrymen is degrading. acquit Al Qaeda! London madridm Ankara, Bal and Mumbai have been sacrificed in vain? with the people in the towers? And her fireman? And defiled my country and throughout Latin America. You're burning up for anything
Rio de Janeiro. I do not believe in the conspiracy. I am an engineer with data of what happened. It was a world event. On impact, +5000 T of TNT, the 767 just stopped in the center of the tower to find the central beams. There he exploded and spilled fuel and fire of 980 º C. Who was on the edge was not hit by fire. But he had no chance to escape. The 767 in the center was where the emergency stairs. It scares me to see so many video conspiracy trying to exonerate al Qaeda from their country.
Huge chunks of the building were ripped out by the planes!!!! One of the buildings actually twisted slightly on impact. Massive amount of energy hitting the building not just the fire.... Why do you think the south tower fell first... It got hit lower and couldn't take the weight...
Planes never hit the towers???? Tell that to Betty ong you idiots!!!! You are disrespecful hicks that probably live in Nebraska or something like that, not ny. Imaginary planes.... They sounded like freaking freight trains in the sky you idiot!!!!!!! Move to canada
People are just making loads of money out of turning it into a conspriacy theory!!!
Think about it, if the buildings were rigged up with Explosives, det cord and detonators the plane fuel would have set it off straight away. Not 40 minutes later (or whatever it was)!!!
Ok maybe not the main charge but detonators which are needed would easily be set of with the first fireball. Det cord travels at 6000 feet per second. With our eyes the top would go at the same time as the bottom!
I guess most of these kinds of videos are prior to the NTIS report. That report made it very clear that the impact of the planes themselves caused significant structural damage. No surprise there. After that the fires only needed to weaken the already damaged trusses so as to allow enough buckling of the building that it eventually just snapped under the pressure.
All your footage, your entire argument, is based on WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 is interesting, but what happened there does not in any way change the conditions in WTC 1 and 2. What NTIS made very clear is that there was both structural damage from the impact AND subsequent weakening of the steel from fire. Temperatures only needed to reach 650 degrees to weaken the steel enough to allow buckling. The fires are in limited zones, the buckling is not uniform therefore massive failure.
Just using common sense and a reference here. If we point to structural damage caused by the plane impacts as the reason for the WTC's collapse, we must then show how falling debris only damaging the lower side of WTC7 can lead to a collapse also. Aso, why were people seen standing at the North Tower impact hole if the temps were extreme (650 degrees)? Again, common sense..
Fires are not burning across the whole building. What's hard to understand about having a hot fire on one side of a massive office building and no fire on the other? You know that the temperature of a normal butane gas flame is 2000 degrees? Ever stood a couple of yards away from a big gas BBQ, felt the heat from it, but not been set on fire? Put a steel rod in the flame and it would reach 650 degrees. You could watch this happen from just a few feet away and not be in danger.
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
"These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analysis indicated some zones within the WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures".
FFS dude, you obviously have the report, why not read it and try to understand? It states clearly that only some parts of the steel expected to reach high temperatures. That's precisely WHY the building buckled and failed.
I have read the report. There is no physical evidence that any of the steel directly from the impact zone experienced these temps that you are refering to. Where are you getting your information from?
No, there is no evidence at all. Only 236 pieces of the building were recovered for analysis. None of those displayed "evidence". Then again, you have no evidence that suitable temperatures were not reached, do you? In fact, no one does. The models proposed are just that, models, just as your ideas are only ideas. The problem I have is that your ideas are based on wistful nonsense where as the models proposed in the report stand up to all manner of scientific scrutiny.
The report very clearly works with a model that predicts temperatures around 1000 degrees. You can read it for yourself. Is this "evidence" that the WTC steel reached those temperatures? No, not directly, but then again, what evidence do you have that they didn't? These models are based on plenty of explicit detail and are well scrutinized. They stand up to examination. They leave little doubt that the steel could have been exposed to temps that weakened it enough to fail.
British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
"That piece of metal is still in the same position"
A piece of metal?? What you think is a piece of metal is a woman waving for help. Her name was Edna Cintron. And there were others seen at the North Tower impact hole also. This kinda destroys this crazy debunker idea of raging fires and extreme heat, huh?
@muzicmaker2001 Wow if you consider that entertainment I really don't want to know what your life is like. And I've think you've made, oh many a few thousand more comments on the matter than I have. So yes, I'd call that an obsession. I suppose you need further clarification, by moving on I was referring to discussing WTC's collapse. That's not what were talking about now is it? btw need I remind you that it wasn't me who started our current conversation 12 hours ago.
I think you misunderstood. I find it very amusing that someone who dedicates their time on YT defending 911 also states they have no agenda. Again, I have met many like you on here. Do you really think I'm this stupid? But, I do love how you make excuses for not discussing WTC7. Its obvious that this destroys your theory of how planes brought down steel framed buildings. But, I have never come across someone who intentinally avoids it altogether. That's the entertaining part.
@muzicmaker2001 Spend my time on YT defending 9/11? LOL Please, a few hours is not dedication do not confuse me with yourself. WTC7 is not of the same design as the twin towers. So obviously the dynamics of what brought it down are not the same. Do you think that all aluminum bodied cars behave and deform in the same manner during a crash? Obviously there can be dramatic variation in the results just as can there can be similarities.
If a car had never been totaled by crashing into a wall of feathers and then two Honda Accords and one Toyota Camry was totaled all one the same day from crashing into the feather wall. Then yes, the Hondas as well as the Toyota should be examined to see why ALL cars failed. That is called a simple logical investigation. You can't just eliminate evidence. And note: My last post was 12 hours ago.
to answer the question why the hole is black you need to make a thorough research, you need an expert on the subject who would tell you exactly what should have been the magnitude of the flames. the personal opinion of whoever made this video is just not enough to be considered as evidence or a proof. i can easily imagine a conspiracist rely on this video and say: "it was scientifically proven by scientists from all over the world that the fire was not big enough to melt the steel".
bellijklh 4 days ago
@bellijklh
Instead of using this video, I think a more logical approach would be to do some research on the people seen walking around the impact hole just before the collapse and enter into the equation simple common sense.
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 sure, you can do that, i accept your doubts. but after you do that small research please don't say it was based on science. a real research requires money, lots of money, and time. there are many videos on youtube where you can clearly see flames (including the moment the north tower collapsed). the huge amount of smoke is an indication of a fire.
bellijklh 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 you believe there should have been more flames coming out of the side that the plane crashed into, in science it's called a hypothesis and exact sciences provide a detailed theory based on this hypothesis and a procedure of how to test it's validity. in your case you might need physicists, chemists and software people that would help you to create a computer model of the crash based on the official version.
bellijklh 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 you would have to take into account the velocity and direction of the plane, the amount of fuel etc. such model could show how the fuel should have been spread inside the building. after you do that, you would be able to scientifically verify or disprove the official version. if you disprove it, it would be very reliable and would make people stop and think.
bellijklh 4 days ago
@bellijklh
To summarize NIST's findings which were supposedly based on science (yes), the plane was carrying approx. 10,000 gals of jet fuel at the time of impact. And temps in the steel beneath the people seen reached 1000 F degrees. My conclusion is the official version is BS...
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 it's ok to say that it's your conclusion or your opinion, but it's wrong to say that your opinion is supported by science or by evidence.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Ok, I can play. Because you have no idea as to what the extent of my research is to make my conclusion, your statement is only a opinion also.Although I appreciate your opinion, but making blind assumptions without knowing the degree of my research only shows a bit of ignorance on your part.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 i'm sure you have conducted a vast research that includes almost every conspiracy website and every conspiracy video on youtube. maybe you have also read some books like the one written by richard gage (which is, if you ask me, a total waste of trees) who also doesn't provide us with a detailed physical model that contradicts the nist report. maybe you even talked to other truthers and got more ideas from them.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 but believe me, there is no way your research could have included scientific analysis and complete computer simulation of 9/11. like i said, it costs a lot of money and second, you don't have access to the findings from ground zero and the pentagon that is required to make a real research.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Again, I appreciate your opinion of what you think is needed to be considered a scientific investigation with computer models and the amount of money spent???, but that's all it is...just your opinion. No disrespect, but it means just about as much as any other random guy on YT that just met me..I'm sure there are other debunkers that maybe take your opinion as fact? Good luck..
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 no, it's not my opinion, it's the standard of what's considered valid evidence by the scientific community.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Was science considered "science" before computer models? I heard Newton had a sweet azz Mac. Or how about the amount of money spent? Again, I'm sure the debunkers all love this logic.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 money was always a part of science, without money there is no research and teaching. i suggest you read a little about the connection between money and science, you have nothing to lose and it has nothing to do with conspiracy or debunking.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 it's funny that you understood from what i wrote that a scientist can't do a research without a computer model. a computer model is just a private case of a more general concept, what scientists call "an experiment". what's common to all experiments is that they have to be formulated mathematically and have to be based on physics principals.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 newton didn't have a computer but he invented a new mathematical field known today as calculus to describe the results of his experiments.he also conducted many experiments to test and valid his theories in optics and mechanics. if newton had published his three rules based on his hunches or based on a claim that he doesn't believe anything else but those three rules, and without a mathematical formulation and experimental evidence then no scientist would have taken him seriously
bellijklh 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 that is exactly the case with truthers, they don't believe the official version but they don't offer an acceptable scientific explanation (in terms of math and physics) for why the official story is false or why a different version is true, although i'm sure you think they do have such explanations. richard gage hasn't proposed a rigorous theory for why the buildings shouldn't have collapsed the way they did, although it doesn't stop him from repeating these words over and over.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Ok, you just stated that I don't have access to the findings from ground zero and the Pentagon to conduct real research and then in the same breath, you ask for "an acceptable scientific explanation?" How can anyone offer a scientific explanation without having direct access to all available evidence? Your logic does not make any sense at all. It seems you are only here as some sort of agenda to defend 911.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 you personally don't have that access, other people working for research institutes do have that access, and they are the ones who can come up with scientific explanations, as long as their research meets the standard of reliability and acceptable by most scientists in the specific field.
the onlt thing i'm defending is reason, you want to believe in conspiracy? fine, but remember that as to this moment, conspiracy is not supported by science in any way.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
You obviously haven't done YOUR research. Even FEMA did not have total reign over the ground zero site to write their report. And when a significant portion of the physical evidence (WTC steel) is immediately shipped away overseas and destroyed, how can anyone really make a scientific evaluation? But, the conspiracy is based on simple physics, historical data of other plane crashes/steel framed high rise fires, etc and simple common sense.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
And based on the available evidence, experts from many different fields (engineers, architects, pilots, firefighters, scientist, military, etc) have banded together against this fairy tale. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is an insult to the American public's intelligence. Some fell for it, some didn't. But, to protect the sanctity of this lie, there are people dedicated to sway us away from the real truth and these people are even more sinister than the perps themselves
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 a few experts have banded against the nist report but they don't have scientific evidence to support their claims or their research is not considered reliable by most scientists (like the scandinavian truther who believes he found evidence for thermite). their main argument is that they don't believe the nist report. it's fine with me, but that's not what scientists accept as evidence or proof.
bellijklh 3 days ago
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
If you are refering to the nano-thermite paper, there's more than just one "scandinavian truther" that authored the paper. There's Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen...peer reviewed and and confirmed by Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
The microspores (nano-thermite chips) found in the ground zero dust were analyzed by some commonly used scientific instruments. The physical composition of the chip was determined by use of a scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The chemical composition, by X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS). The chip's exothermic behavior/energy density was determined by thru differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The fine art of eyeballing the chips and calling it paint was not used.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 those are advanced machines, but the paper written by danish truther Niels Harrit about 9/11 was contraversial and his research hasn't gained recognition by the scientific community,especially because of the fact that the materials he found in the dust (according to him were indicators for the presence of nano thermite) were materials that were expected to be found anyway, without a controlled demolition. he also made exaggerated conclusions that weren't based on the findings.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Well, its a good thing the paper had other authors, a peer review and the separate confirmation of the chips by Chemical Engineer Mark Basile, right?
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
It seems that every scientist, architects, engineer, pilot, firefighter, etc that questions or challenges the OV is an alleged truther and his expertise is now tainted?
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
A good clip if you really interested in science and a true investigation..but maybe he's also a truther? Look out! They're everywhere!!!
watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 there is no other way to say it, but yes. questioning is good but i can assure you that in 20 years the truth movement will fade away like the wtc dust. the percentage of architects, engineers and pilots who question the official story is neglectable and the percentage of scientists is even smaller, there is good a reason for that. the no plane and controlled demolition theories are just too ridiculous and not backed with proofs.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Do me a a couple of favors to prove your not full of BS:
1. Post a website where specific names of experts (percentage of scientists??) are given showing support of the official version?
2. Post the reference where a electron microscope, XEDS, and DSC were used to study the WTC dust samples (as you stated).
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. i don't think there is such a web-site. just like there is no website telling us what is the percentage of priests who believe in god. you can compare the number of scientists who support conspiracy theory with the total number of scientists in the u.s (you can find that number on the net).
2. i read it somewhere, i don't remember where, try to contact NIST, this would be good homework for you, read their report, you might learn something new.
bellijklh 2 days ago
@bellijklh
1. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the number of experts who support the OV and who don't to the total create two percentages. Otherwise, we are only making assumptions. Not good stats, huh? And I know how much you "supposedly" endorse good science..snicker..
2. That was your statement, but you want me to find proof to back it up? Great. The new thing I learned is how to pick out BS from debunkers. Actually, nothing new..old hat
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 we know what we saw. we saw two airplanes crashing into the wtc, live, you can't cover up something like that. it was nice to speak to a truther who doesn't scream "inside job you asshole" and stuff like that.
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
BTW, I'm not a truther. I don't even know what a truther is, never been to any meetings, banquets or baseball games. I just have a brain. The evidence and cover-up speaks for themselves..even no planes at the WTC. For examples, simple physics, no real witnesses unrelated to the government or media and no verification of the wreckage.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 the instruments you've mentioned have also been used by nist to study wtc dust. but you don't believe anything they say, right?
bellijklh 3 days ago
@bellijklh
The difference?
12. Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.-NIST's FAQ Aug 30, 2006
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@bellijklh
Please post a reference where the WTC dust was analyzed thru eletron microscope, XEDS and DSC by NIST and their findings? Thanx
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
small fire my ass what about all the smoke did they just have a big ass smoke machine
ryannewman4life1 2 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
The two people on opposite sides of the impact hole prove that the (opposite sides of the) impact hole itself and every step both of these people took to get to the impact hole was not heated up to the supposed 1000 degrees or even 500 degrees. Its common sense.
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 it would have that hot at the time of impact when it fireballed
ryannewman4life1 2 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
The two people were seen at the North Tower, which collapsed approx 102 mins after impact. People were seen 20 mins before collapse or 80 mins after the 10,000 gals of jet fuel heated the steel up to near failure. Can I get some cookies n milk with this story?
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 20 min after the fireball im sure it cooled down enough not to very hot and no i ike my cookies with out milk
ryannewman4life1 2 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
You do know that the official version states it heated up to around 1000 degrees. That's what supposed weakened the structural steel.
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 the fires and your supposed to be against the official report
ryannewman4life1 2 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
The people seen at the impact hole prove that the heat was not as hot as proposed. Do you even know the official version?
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
the 2 people prove nothing
ryannewman4life1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do a google search for "seismic signal of wtc building 7", this is the STRONGEST evidence that the building fell just under 10 seconds. One researcher even claims that by analyzing the data even more closely he can detect explosives before the building fell.
QFT2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do a google search for "seismic signal of wtc building 7", this is the STRONGEST evidence that the building fell just under 10 seconds. One researcher even claims that by analyzing the data even more closely he can detect explosives before the building fell.
QFT2 1 month ago
I interpret the vidoe to be, clearly, a discussion of the first night, the operations to rescue and look for survivors -- the initial night. Do you think that perhaps they operations would want to limit comments regarding rescue operations? He does not say its and FBI gag order -- but you will interpret this to be a decade long gag order that has silenced every witness since the event.
a lot of assumptions for one witness and one video
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
He does not say its a crime scene gag order-- but you will interpret this to be....
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
if its not a crime scene gag order, then what is it? who issued it? what are they hiding?
c'mon, have fun with it
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Yes, it is funny. Thanx for that...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
this was posted on the firefighters forum when Eric Lawyer showed up
"Do not send me any more messages. You are out of your mind. What you are doing is despicable and is a complete show of disrespect to the FDNY in particular and the fire service in general. You do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Your entire "body of evidence" is based on an utter lack of understanding of science and human behavior. Your posts and your mindset literally sicken me.
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
oops. I didn't read the first part of your post. Ok, I have no idea what this has to do with the gag order? Its just someone's opinion, correct? I still believe in free speech. This is still America, right?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
was ground zero a crime scene? yes or no
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
was ground zero a crime scene?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Was it a crime scene when you stated there was no gag order?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
there is a diffrence between a gag order at the scene during the investigation and during rescue operations and what may be said 10 years after the fact
there is certainly no gag order in place to hold back the fdny ten years after the event -- they do not claim to be under one -- this is a group that saw family murdered that day, do you think they would cower to anyone?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Ok. First, you stated there was no gag order at all and now, you are an authority on what gag order took place and the duration of it? Really? Read your comments back to yourself. Now, can you see why a logical person wouldn't believe a word of your BS?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
you failed to answer the question again -- was Ground Zero a crime scene?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Do you know anything at all about this gag order? How could you? You fist stated there wasn't one. So, you have no idea what it was related to, crime scene or what? Assumptions are your only "evidence" here.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
was ground zero a crime scene? can't seem to get an answer from you, why is that?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I think you are smart to know that, right? I'll let you ponder this. First, there's no gag order. Then, oh yes. There's a gag order. Why wouldn't there be one? I know exactly why and how long it lasted too. Funny...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
still can't bring yourself to actually answer can you?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
not even sure how we left this -- oh, that's right, you not answering a direct question
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Yes, after you first stating there was no gag order and then later knowing exactly what the gag order pertained to and how long it was.....I thought it was time to let this rest as comedy.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
so why is it truthers hide from direct questions?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
No, just obvious nonsense.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
Heat rises, fires suck air into the building through the holes created by the plane. Join a firefighting company and you might see how the fires acted.
Rangerbelt 1 month ago
@Rangerbelt
Check it out: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
any FDNY members join that firefighters for 9/11 truth?
what;s that ?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
"Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,regarding the FBI gag order placed on fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. There were definitely bombs in those buildings."-Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
Isaac was not there on 9/11 -- he retired long before, he has no direct knowledge and cannot speak for others
there is no FBI gag order -- the FDNY derailed Guilaini's presidential campaign -- they do not gag
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Although, I do appreciate your unbiased (lil humor?) opinion, even you weren't there ALSO and have not had an exposure to the FDNY, the video clip shows a firemen directly saying they are all GAGGED. I'm good.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
that was during the cleanup
that was a crime scene -- yeah, there is a gag order at a crime scene
good God are you desperate
thousands of fireman, many lost brothers, fathers or sons
not ONE fireman has come forth with evidence of bombs, not one that was there is a member of firefighters for 911 truth
go to any verifiable blog or forum, they do not support the movement, and they do not for a reason
its a lie
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
"that was during the cleanup"
So, there WAS a gag order? You stated there wasn't? Like changing underwear...what's that?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
"that was a crime scene -- yeah, there is a gag order at a crime scene"
Again, I do appreciate your opinion, even though you weren't, but it seems you are only here to distort the truth. When proven wrong, you make up more lies to distort the truth. Am I right? And your ploy to stir up sympathy and guilt is not very creative either.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
so it was not a crime scene ??
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
To add to that...
Incoming FDNY Chaplain Forced to Resign After Doubting 9/11
911truth*org/article*php?story=20051001023512308
FDNY Gag Order:
watch?v=Y41DnwHBsaE
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
the FDNY forced him to resign -- they don't want that crap, don't blaim them
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
"they don't want that crap, don't blaim them"
by crap, do you mean free speech?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
Where ate you getting these facts?
inyaneck1 2 months ago
also, she went to the edge of the building to avoid the fire - it was cooler there, because everything flammable was swept to the other side of the building.
KIEflipROX 2 months ago
Comparing A building built from steel trusses to a concrete building is like proving that wood is not flammable by throwing a rock into a fire. also, did the building you mentioned have a PLANE crash into it?
KIEflipROX 2 months ago
@KIEflipROX
I will never understand this logic. if we point to the plane impacts as the cause for the collapse of the Towers, can we then logically point to just falling debris damaging only one side of WTC7 for its collapse? Obviously not. The plane supposedly went THRU the building spreading jet fuel along its path, not just one side of the building. And the people seen at the impact hole walked THRU the path of the plane.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 WTC7 was severly damaged, as planes were not the only thing at WTC that could damage buildings. also, about the people, they are going to the edge of the building, because the fire was very hot inside, and it was cooler outside. also, saying the fires were not sustained, and then showing pictues of the buildings just after being hit is incorrect, if you take the videos just before the collapse, you see that they have much more sustained fires.
KIEflipROX 2 months ago
@KIEflipROX
Severely damaged? WTC6 was in between the North Tower and WTC7, was damaged more severely, but never collapsed. Compare WTC7 damage in the clip below..oh wait. You have already commented on this page. This proves my point. The only people that "believe" the official version are people like yourself who are dedicated to defending the OV and people who haven't researched this...
watch?v=WfWSjb8R7lk
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How anyone can say that this destruction was casued by fires and failing steel is beyond me.
Watch the high quality video below and observe how all those steel beams are being blasted horizontally outward, hundreds of feet in the air.
What kind of force was required to do that?
Its pretty obvious!
/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
TyroneSandalphon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fireworks display by Cai Guo-Qiang at the Arab Museum of Modern Art in Dohari demonstrates the lightning speed that detonation charges can be set off using computers. Much in the same way that the 3 WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition in Set 11, 2001 at near free fall speeds. Easy when you have the technology.
watch?v=bR5NmbHdUUs
TyroneSandalphon 2 months ago
Your right dude, those fires were pretty small, those people were not jumping out of the towers because of large fires, no, they probably just liked to skydive huh??
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 Don't give me smoke bs, smoke would not keep people from reaching a stairwell before jumping to there death. 1st off this woman and man you speak of were on the left side of the hole, you can see that the plans was tilted left, as if in a left hand bank at impact, making the left wing lower than the right wing and lower than the fuselage, the gas tanks in planes are located in the inner part of the wings near and under the fuselage.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
There was no fuel entering the building where that woman is standing, the fuel tanks hit on higher floors and to the right, plus fire and heat goes up, not down, so yes, this section where she was might not have fire. Notice even on this video @ 3:01 the huge blazing fire a couple of stories up and even to the left over the left wing tip, far left from where the fuselage hit, now imagine the strength of the fires deeper in towards the center where most of the fuel entered the building...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 plane not plans
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
have you noticed how each of your arguments is destroyed that you just go to a new argument -- its as if the failure of your prior arguments are irrelevant to your position -- almost as if if your failth is more religious than scientific based
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
Uhh, what? I made two post about people walking on the steel??? Are you alright? Keep trying. Very entertaining...
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 you're point is that unexisting fires with black smoke that indicates a "cold" fire can melt steel when the highest tempature of fire, in the best conditions are around 2400degrees celcius? and that is bluish flames wich you can SE from a god damn wealding torch. And these fires are "orangish" wich idicates (on those you can se) is ~800degrees celsiyus, wich would weaken the steel on those floors by ~50%. Even tho where is the core after the colaspe if it was pancake, explain that.
Ironfan100 2 months ago
@Ironfan100
black smoke does not indicate a cold fire
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 This was grey smoke, not jet fuel pitch black. This indicates incomplete combustion, which means LOW TEMPS. They were pyrotechnics, b/c SHEET ALUMINUM CAN NOT SHEER STRUCTURAL STEEL.
Fake as hollywood's best!
cheerdiver 2 months ago
@cheerdiver
no it does not, this is a truther lie -- don't know who started this lie but every truther falls for it
if you think black smoke indicates a cool fire the cite the authority -- tell you right now, you can't
why do truthers not educate each other?
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
Again, when people are seen walking directly on this steel heated by this "raging" fire after 80 mins, a logical person would think it was cool. And you don't have to be a truther to have a brain. Try it...you might like it.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
Your claim was black smoke meant cool temperature -- this is a truther lie. Who told you this? Or do you admit its just some stupid claim that you cut and paste without thinking.
Denierbud11 2 months ago
Hey this is from 9/11 lose brains !
Mikester1200 3 months ago
That woman was just trying to embarrass our President in time of war. She should have set herself on fire or stayed out of sight.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121 I really hope you were being sacastic with comment.
dott1981 3 months ago
@dott1981 Congratulations!
Skeptic121 3 months ago
when fire doesnt get anough fuel or oxigen it dies creating these holles filled whit black smoke. because the fire's where dying the temp of theos fires went down not cappable of melting steel so: fire cant melt steel and in this case bring down the towers.
7249xxl 3 months ago
@7249xxl
black smoke does NOT indicate oxygen starved fires
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
People seen walking around the impact hole DOES indicate the fires did not heat the steel beneath them to total failure..
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
people walking in an area only demonstrate the current conditions in that area at that time
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
Enter logic: People were seen at the impact hole approx 20 mins before collapse at the North Tower. From impact to collapse, there was 102 mins. This means that 80 mins went by to heat the ENTIRE STEEL beneath them. Really? Or maybe the last 22 minutes was just enough to make the steel fail? It only takes a brain, right?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
there are visible flames above and around the hole, how do you figure there are no flames?
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 no but the lack of flames does if the fire was that intense where where al the flames?
7249xxl 2 months ago
@lascienvacas
Good luck on the next 911 page. You didn't do so well here..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
Once you can refute anything they are saying, that woukd be a start. But, for right now, its just ranting about truthers...whatever that means. I guess anyone who questions the events of 911 is a truther, huh? Uhh, originally, you did mention the word "brainless?"
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
Again, its an easy choice. Shills or experts...
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
As spoken from the expert on YT? Try your BS somewhere else. I've heard it all before and get off the payroll already, ok?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
The truthers are all morons method is not working, ok? Try something new. Or maybe we should take the word of some random guy on YT over real experts?
patriotsquestion911*com/engineers*html
1,500+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
220+ Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
400+ Medical Professionals
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
Ok, that explains it...thanx. No wonder debunkers have made such an impact on defending 911 on YT...Logic will always prevail..But, good luck anyway
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@lascienvacas
Yes, I agree. Brainless like thinking the sound of someone's voice is somehow related to intelligence. Keep on with your fight to defend the 911 lie...
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
all the calls from survivors at the towers complain about the thick smoke, not fire. The people that jump did so because they were unable to breathe not that they were caught in fires
capitanaguamala 3 months ago
The people in the hole probably came from below, although not far below. You failed to show the picture of the west side of tower 1 which showed flames on one floor all the way across the floor. From what I've seen most of the jumpers were indeed from fire floors or those directly above. Getting higher as time progressed. Fires not intense? Really?
volodia07 3 months ago
@volodia07
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Killer game. Letters, numbers, and lifetimes. Devil? court tv censored. World War 1War 2War 3 Armageddon. Nuclear holocaust. Two New York towers. A tower of Milan. Two Roman towers two donkeys. Iasi, T1 T2 T3. T= baptism. Who stole the two letter T Audi to die crushed.04.04.2009 online journal. 06.04.2009 genocidio Aquila 2: 32. 307 dead. The Eagle was sent to steal two T? Mutilation of roller. RomaN,Romania,Roma,SeveN,SromaN,The little Boy Anton Cristian h t t p genocidio.altervista. org
Genocidioaquila 4 months ago
Rio brazil jackass, stop spewing your nonsense. al qaeda could not have orchestrated such an event with all the luck and chance in the world. Our govt did it and they did to to invest in themselves and their partners. The American people have sworn to protect America from both foreign and domestic threats! screw the so called patriot act!
gregsees 4 months ago
dumbass theyre from the otherside of the building
eurovisionairtv 4 months ago
Omg hahaha
ajpianoman1 4 months ago
And what was tubular steel towers. Not massive, the towers of the plants is available on Google. He first crack at 600ºC. the beams that had to suffer the weight of the overhead above each 2400T. And the heat was unbearable. The paranoia of his countrymen is degrading. acquit Al Qaeda! London madridm Ankara, Bal and Mumbai have been sacrificed in vain? with the people in the towers? And her fireman? And defiled my country and throughout Latin America. You're burning up for anything
aczjbr 5 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 5 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 5 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 5 months ago
Rio de Janeiro. I do not believe in the conspiracy. I am an engineer with data of what happened. It was a world event. On impact, +5000 T of TNT, the 767 just stopped in the center of the tower to find the central beams. There he exploded and spilled fuel and fire of 980 º C. Who was on the edge was not hit by fire. But he had no chance to escape. The 767 in the center was where the emergency stairs. It scares me to see so many video conspiracy trying to exonerate al Qaeda from their country.
aczjbr 5 months ago
Huge chunks of the building were ripped out by the planes!!!! One of the buildings actually twisted slightly on impact. Massive amount of energy hitting the building not just the fire.... Why do you think the south tower fell first... It got hit lower and couldn't take the weight...
lojudah845 5 months ago
Planes never hit the towers???? Tell that to Betty ong you idiots!!!! You are disrespecful hicks that probably live in Nebraska or something like that, not ny. Imaginary planes.... They sounded like freaking freight trains in the sky you idiot!!!!!!! Move to canada
lojudah845 5 months ago
@lojudah845
Its called research and I don't mean by watching your TV...
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 its called smoke
5150Zombieslayer 4 months ago
Planes never hit the towers. There were no planes.
Mozartmostly 5 months ago
lol, almost reply to the video.. Thank God, I've stopped myself
wildnorm 5 months ago
well doesnt it take time for a fire to spread though?
superjam18 5 months ago
People are just making loads of money out of turning it into a conspriacy theory!!!
Think about it, if the buildings were rigged up with Explosives, det cord and detonators the plane fuel would have set it off straight away. Not 40 minutes later (or whatever it was)!!!
Ok maybe not the main charge but detonators which are needed would easily be set of with the first fireball. Det cord travels at 6000 feet per second. With our eyes the top would go at the same time as the bottom!
Johnnyeod33 5 months ago
Al Qaeda endorses this video.
onebadgs400 5 months ago
poor woman
bambumbang 5 months ago
I guess most of these kinds of videos are prior to the NTIS report. That report made it very clear that the impact of the planes themselves caused significant structural damage. No surprise there. After that the fires only needed to weaken the already damaged trusses so as to allow enough buckling of the building that it eventually just snapped under the pressure.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@adfraggs
See WTC7's collapse. No plane impact but it collapsed in seconds.
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
All your footage, your entire argument, is based on WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 is interesting, but what happened there does not in any way change the conditions in WTC 1 and 2. What NTIS made very clear is that there was both structural damage from the impact AND subsequent weakening of the steel from fire. Temperatures only needed to reach 650 degrees to weaken the steel enough to allow buckling. The fires are in limited zones, the buckling is not uniform therefore massive failure.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@adfraggs
Just using common sense and a reference here. If we point to structural damage caused by the plane impacts as the reason for the WTC's collapse, we must then show how falling debris only damaging the lower side of WTC7 can lead to a collapse also. Aso, why were people seen standing at the North Tower impact hole if the temps were extreme (650 degrees)? Again, common sense..
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
Fires are not burning across the whole building. What's hard to understand about having a hot fire on one side of a massive office building and no fire on the other? You know that the temperature of a normal butane gas flame is 2000 degrees? Ever stood a couple of yards away from a big gas BBQ, felt the heat from it, but not been set on fire? Put a steel rod in the flame and it would reach 650 degrees. You could watch this happen from just a few feet away and not be in danger.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@adfraggs
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
"These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analysis indicated some zones within the WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures".
FFS dude, you obviously have the report, why not read it and try to understand? It states clearly that only some parts of the steel expected to reach high temperatures. That's precisely WHY the building buckled and failed.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@adfraggs
I have read the report. There is no physical evidence that any of the steel directly from the impact zone experienced these temps that you are refering to. Where are you getting your information from?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
No, there is no evidence at all. Only 236 pieces of the building were recovered for analysis. None of those displayed "evidence". Then again, you have no evidence that suitable temperatures were not reached, do you? In fact, no one does. The models proposed are just that, models, just as your ideas are only ideas. The problem I have is that your ideas are based on wistful nonsense where as the models proposed in the report stand up to all manner of scientific scrutiny.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
The report very clearly works with a model that predicts temperatures around 1000 degrees. You can read it for yourself. Is this "evidence" that the WTC steel reached those temperatures? No, not directly, but then again, what evidence do you have that they didn't? These models are based on plenty of explicit detail and are well scrutinized. They stand up to examination. They leave little doubt that the steel could have been exposed to temps that weakened it enough to fail.
adfraggs 5 months ago
@adfraggs
"Twenty-three pieces were identified as being parts of trusses, although it was not possible to identify their locations."(p 137)- NIST
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@adfraggs
British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
that's not a woman... look at other photos from different times of the event. That piece of metal is still in the same position.
rickyseabra 6 months ago
@rickyseabra
watch?v=3151MqXu52s
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@rickyseabra
"That piece of metal is still in the same position"
A piece of metal?? What you think is a piece of metal is a woman waving for help. Her name was Edna Cintron. And there were others seen at the North Tower impact hole also. This kinda destroys this crazy debunker idea of raging fires and extreme heat, huh?
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
Bud that plane weighed ALOT MORE THAN 80 tons
Bradster863 7 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Wow if you consider that entertainment I really don't want to know what your life is like. And I've think you've made, oh many a few thousand more comments on the matter than I have. So yes, I'd call that an obsession. I suppose you need further clarification, by moving on I was referring to discussing WTC's collapse. That's not what were talking about now is it? btw need I remind you that it wasn't me who started our current conversation 12 hours ago.
vejet 8 months ago
@vejet
I think you misunderstood. I find it very amusing that someone who dedicates their time on YT defending 911 also states they have no agenda. Again, I have met many like you on here. Do you really think I'm this stupid? But, I do love how you make excuses for not discussing WTC7. Its obvious that this destroys your theory of how planes brought down steel framed buildings. But, I have never come across someone who intentinally avoids it altogether. That's the entertaining part.
muzicmaker2001 8 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Spend my time on YT defending 9/11? LOL Please, a few hours is not dedication do not confuse me with yourself. WTC7 is not of the same design as the twin towers. So obviously the dynamics of what brought it down are not the same. Do you think that all aluminum bodied cars behave and deform in the same manner during a crash? Obviously there can be dramatic variation in the results just as can there can be similarities.
vejet 8 months ago
@vejet
If a car had never been totaled by crashing into a wall of feathers and then two Honda Accords and one Toyota Camry was totaled all one the same day from crashing into the feather wall. Then yes, the Hondas as well as the Toyota should be examined to see why ALL cars failed. That is called a simple logical investigation. You can't just eliminate evidence. And note: My last post was 12 hours ago.
muzicmaker2001 8 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 /watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY&feature=related
rickyseabra 6 months ago
@rickyseabra
Debunker: The collapse of the BOTH Towers can be explained by the two massive planes crashing into them at 500 mph.
Logic: But, there was no plane impact on WTC7 and it collapsed in the same manner in secs.
Debunker: Um, that's different. It was debris from the North Tower that caused the collapse of WTC7.
Logic: But WTC6 was in between the North Tower and WTC7, was damaged more than WTC7 and never collapsed?
Debunker: I hate you meddling twoofers and your damn logic!
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago