Where in the FUCK was the free fall implosion?? Phhhhhh, your silly american fairly tales are BULLLSHIITT, Or do you still believe in your santa clause???
@sargentaaron2004 Liberal Truthers want it both ways. They claim Bush is a moron, who can't speak, but he's genius enough to pull off 9/11 without a shred of hard evidence, without anyone talking, and he did all this under the scrutiny of the press, handlers, secretaries, friends and staff. The people responsible for Watergate couldn't keep their mouth shut, but your assertion is that Bush could do all this, without anyone saying a word, and without one... single... error. Completely stupid.
Those fuckers think they can hurt me! They cant! Im bigger and stonger then them! *falls* OMG MY LEGS! HA Im still standing. You will never defeat the greta mighty legless building!
You are half right...but that doesn't pertain to 911. Only if the fuel was dispensed in equal amounts for the duration of "hours and hours" would it burnt for "hours and hours." Anyway, I don't want to get into it. Everyone claims to know what they are talking about.
It pertains exactly to 9/1l. The fuel spilled out and seeped through floor after floor, soaking into everything, setting half the building on fire. There wasn't just jet fuel, there was furniture, office supplies, carpet, office machines, partitions, wall hangings, and on and on. All this burned for hours and hours, getting hotter and hotter, until the steel simply failed. It's pretty much that simple. Popular mechanics did a piece on it, proving that what was said happened, happened.
There is just too many unanswered questions, I can't believe you. You need to stop looking at the WTC and look before that. But for burning material, fire may spread but it doesn't get hotter and hotter. The fuel soaked into everything? I would check that statement Half the building on fire?...Steel may weaken but the combined strength of all the steel would not allow the building to calapse in that fashion, unless most of the steel was weakened by "fire" which it was not. What about WTC 7?
No, there are no unanswered questions. As I said, reputable scientists have looked at this, many, and have showed — with excellent clarity — how this could happen.
YES, fire does get hotter in the presence of certain materials. For example, certain metals (magnesium, copper, aluminum) and certain oxidizers (chlorates, nitrates, sulfur) all of those materials are present in carpets, office furniture, office machines, office supplies, etc. Learn the science, then argue.
Listen, I'd love to believe everyone is good, that everyone has a heart. Like, I said, look before the WCT. Much suspicious action was taking place for years for people of power. I admit, they are probably the best scientist that came out of MIT but I respectfully disagree about answering all the questions. the 911 commission couldn't even give all the straight answers to the poor families looking for them. I don't know how you can be so accepting when you and me do not know anything. Bye
The finest scientists in the world, many liberal and anti-Bush have shown with scientific evidence and scientific fact that terrorists with commercial jet planes brought down the towers. Meanwhile, "trombonedude" comes along and "respectfully disagrees" with the entirety of the scientific community. Ut-oh! What will we do *now*? Yawn.
There will always be a small group of people that believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories who reside on the fringes of society - exactly where they belong.
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F - Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F - at 1800° it is less than 10 percent - the jet fuel burned for 10 minutes, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. The resulting inferno was more than hot enough to bring the towers down.
For one, steel does not lose 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees. It loses 10%. Try citing a legitmate source rather than a biased article written 4 years ago. (Popular Mechanics) You can find various papers done by architects and professors who emulated the temperatures and the steel did not bend or contort past 1050 degrees. The only people who say that this occurred and can occur are NATO, the people who wrote the initial investigation, and their report is FULL of holes.
No, you are wrong. Sorry. I have worked in construction for over 25 years. I know about steel and it's properties. Secondly, Popular Mechanics brought together experts in many fields to address these issues. It wasn't "biased". This is what Farid Alfawak-hiri, the senior engineer of the American Institute of Steel Construction says: "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,"
I think the senior engineer of the American Institute of Steel Construction knows a bit more than you do.
Conspiracy theorists always claim to have "better" or "new" information. When you ask *what* information, all the sudden you find out it's the same B.S. that has always been out there.
Theorists claim that the 9/11 commission was "biased", that the Popular Mechanics issue was "biased". That MIT is "biased". Why? Because they don't support the nonsensical conspiracy theories that these wackos subscribe to. They aren't "biased" they are scientifically sound, accurate and overwhelmingly final.
And also, just to note. The jet fuel burned up within 3 minutes as it was in gas form. Keep in mind, I'm dealing with much newer and better researched information. If your main source if Popular mechanics, than you're a bit outdated.
No, it wasn't in gas form. The wings broke open and spilled jet fuel, liquid jet fuel. There is no "newer and better researched information" that can turn liquid jet fuel into "gas". Haha. Sorry.
This is what conspiracy theorists do, they claim "new information" and try to argue nonsense against experts with scientific fact. Facts don't become "outdated". A fact is a fact - always. Popular Mechanics is one source, because it is SO good and SO well-researched. What's yours?
@sargentaaron2004 No, I'm suggesting one failed, or two and then the added weight caused the others to fail.
Ask yourself this... do you really believe that President Bush, eight months in office, concocted this plan and pulled off the worst terrorist attack in American history (one of the worst ever) utilizing literally hundreds of people and no one has talked, and no evidence has been found? It means that Bush would have had to begin planning this the day he entered office. It's absurd.
See this is what happens when a building falls under it's own weight when explosives arent used from top to bottom, IT DOES NOT TURN TO DUST. Hmm... one ought to wonder...
This is a reinforced concrete grain silo, quite a different structure than the WTC. Grain silos are designed to withstand explosions, grain dust explosions being a not-uncommon event.
What are you people talking about? Al Qaeda admitted to being behind 9/11. I think Bush is an idiot who started a war he shouldn't have, but come on...even he's not smart enough to do that.
Where in the FUCK was the free fall implosion?? Phhhhhh, your silly american fairly tales are BULLLSHIITT, Or do you still believe in your santa clause???
RoboBagons 2 months ago
@sargentaaron2004 Liberal Truthers want it both ways. They claim Bush is a moron, who can't speak, but he's genius enough to pull off 9/11 without a shred of hard evidence, without anyone talking, and he did all this under the scrutiny of the press, handlers, secretaries, friends and staff. The people responsible for Watergate couldn't keep their mouth shut, but your assertion is that Bush could do all this, without anyone saying a word, and without one... single... error. Completely stupid.
Dallasdeckard 1 year ago
The contructer of this building must have been a genius! :P
porkipig123 1 year ago
Those fuckers think they can hurt me! They cant! Im bigger and stonger then them! *falls* OMG MY LEGS! HA Im still standing. You will never defeat the greta mighty legless building!
xjx2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SUBSCRIBE TO ME!
its worth it!
TimmySaidWhat 2 years ago
lol . . . . . . . gutted
chrisdavidi 2 years ago
FAIL
willj78 3 years ago
EPIC FAILURE
lkibetk 3 years ago
what does that say about 911?
trombonedude85 3 years ago
It says, a few sticks of dynamite are no match for 23,980 gallons of high grade jet fuel, burning inside a bulding for hours and hours.
Dallasdeckard 3 years ago
You are half right...but that doesn't pertain to 911. Only if the fuel was dispensed in equal amounts for the duration of "hours and hours" would it burnt for "hours and hours." Anyway, I don't want to get into it. Everyone claims to know what they are talking about.
trombonedude85 3 years ago
It pertains exactly to 9/1l. The fuel spilled out and seeped through floor after floor, soaking into everything, setting half the building on fire. There wasn't just jet fuel, there was furniture, office supplies, carpet, office machines, partitions, wall hangings, and on and on. All this burned for hours and hours, getting hotter and hotter, until the steel simply failed. It's pretty much that simple. Popular mechanics did a piece on it, proving that what was said happened, happened.
Dallasdeckard 3 years ago
There is just too many unanswered questions, I can't believe you. You need to stop looking at the WTC and look before that. But for burning material, fire may spread but it doesn't get hotter and hotter. The fuel soaked into everything? I would check that statement Half the building on fire?...Steel may weaken but the combined strength of all the steel would not allow the building to calapse in that fashion, unless most of the steel was weakened by "fire" which it was not. What about WTC 7?
trombonedude85 3 years ago
No, there are no unanswered questions. As I said, reputable scientists have looked at this, many, and have showed — with excellent clarity — how this could happen.
YES, fire does get hotter in the presence of certain materials. For example, certain metals (magnesium, copper, aluminum) and certain oxidizers (chlorates, nitrates, sulfur) all of those materials are present in carpets, office furniture, office machines, office supplies, etc. Learn the science, then argue.
Dallasdeckard 3 years ago
Listen, I'd love to believe everyone is good, that everyone has a heart. Like, I said, look before the WCT. Much suspicious action was taking place for years for people of power. I admit, they are probably the best scientist that came out of MIT but I respectfully disagree about answering all the questions. the 911 commission couldn't even give all the straight answers to the poor families looking for them. I don't know how you can be so accepting when you and me do not know anything. Bye
trombonedude85 2 years ago
How about you both shut the hell up and think of the people who died in that building?
Yeah, how about remembering the loss of life instead of acting like a couple of fucking scientists!
spikeasaur1 2 years ago
Well, in all fact,
x(2x + 1) = you're a fuckhead.
trombonedude85 2 years ago
yeah, BOO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
idiot.
964project 2 years ago
The finest scientists in the world, many liberal and anti-Bush have shown with scientific evidence and scientific fact that terrorists with commercial jet planes brought down the towers. Meanwhile, "trombonedude" comes along and "respectfully disagrees" with the entirety of the scientific community. Ut-oh! What will we do *now*? Yawn.
There will always be a small group of people that believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories who reside on the fringes of society - exactly where they belong.
Dallasdeckard 2 years ago
The jet fuel burned up in 3 minutes.
Carpets, couches, etc do not reach an excess of 600 degrees.
The WTC steel becomes weak at 1150 and can remain at that temperature for 4 hours.
You do the math.
CirrowProductions 2 years ago
Sure, here's the math:
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F - Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F - at 1800° it is less than 10 percent - the jet fuel burned for 10 minutes, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. The resulting inferno was more than hot enough to bring the towers down.
Oops. There goes your conspiracy theory.
Dallasdeckard 2 years ago
No need to be rude.
For one, steel does not lose 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees. It loses 10%. Try citing a legitmate source rather than a biased article written 4 years ago. (Popular Mechanics) You can find various papers done by architects and professors who emulated the temperatures and the steel did not bend or contort past 1050 degrees. The only people who say that this occurred and can occur are NATO, the people who wrote the initial investigation, and their report is FULL of holes.
CirrowProductions 2 years ago
No, you are wrong. Sorry. I have worked in construction for over 25 years. I know about steel and it's properties. Secondly, Popular Mechanics brought together experts in many fields to address these issues. It wasn't "biased". This is what Farid Alfawak-hiri, the senior engineer of the American Institute of Steel Construction says: "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,"
I think the senior engineer of the American Institute of Steel Construction knows a bit more than you do.
Dallasdeckard 2 years ago
Conspiracy theorists always claim to have "better" or "new" information. When you ask *what* information, all the sudden you find out it's the same B.S. that has always been out there.
Theorists claim that the 9/11 commission was "biased", that the Popular Mechanics issue was "biased". That MIT is "biased". Why? Because they don't support the nonsensical conspiracy theories that these wackos subscribe to. They aren't "biased" they are scientifically sound, accurate and overwhelmingly final.
Dallasdeckard 2 years ago
And also, just to note. The jet fuel burned up within 3 minutes as it was in gas form. Keep in mind, I'm dealing with much newer and better researched information. If your main source if Popular mechanics, than you're a bit outdated.
CirrowProductions 2 years ago
No, it wasn't in gas form. The wings broke open and spilled jet fuel, liquid jet fuel. There is no "newer and better researched information" that can turn liquid jet fuel into "gas". Haha. Sorry.
This is what conspiracy theorists do, they claim "new information" and try to argue nonsense against experts with scientific fact. Facts don't become "outdated". A fact is a fact - always. Popular Mechanics is one source, because it is SO good and SO well-researched. What's yours?
Dallasdeckard 2 years ago
@Dallasdeckard So... all the support beams failed at the same time? Seriously? Is that what you are suggesting?
sargentaaron2004 1 year ago
@sargentaaron2004 No, I'm suggesting one failed, or two and then the added weight caused the others to fail.
Ask yourself this... do you really believe that President Bush, eight months in office, concocted this plan and pulled off the worst terrorist attack in American history (one of the worst ever) utilizing literally hundreds of people and no one has talked, and no evidence has been found? It means that Bush would have had to begin planning this the day he entered office. It's absurd.
Dallasdeckard 1 year ago
too much solid concrete, they should have put dynamite in the middle parts aswell
Roelandvinken 3 years ago
lmaoooooooooooo thats funny man lol
fukenhoesdougg 3 years ago
lol. Now they've created themselves an even BIGGER problem.
NoUsername00000 3 years ago 4
lol wow
Z28KR 3 years ago
so what happened next? surely far more dangerous to deal with now.
marktopp 3 years ago 3
Epic Fail
F1R3F0X 3 years ago 6
See this is what happens when a building falls under it's own weight when explosives arent used from top to bottom, IT DOES NOT TURN TO DUST. Hmm... one ought to wonder...
retroact1ve 3 years ago 6
it seems the building didnt fall
realcelestialphoenix 3 years ago
retroact1ve: I maybe mistaken, but that didn't look like a 110 story building in this video...
one ought to wonder if you passed high school physics?
kbc2006 3 years ago
oop's lol
tiff5355 3 years ago
looolllllllllllll
COMMANDERzDEVIL 3 years ago
Is this how they made the leaning tower of piza?
Stratattack13 3 years ago 14
LOL!
immigranter 3 years ago 3
Lol, funny
goddamntook 3 years ago 2
Funny comment! xxx
xTomDizfitx 3 years ago
Hahaha! Can't knock us down.
Take THAT, terrorists!
Ninjaeded 3 years ago
Old cement is tough as hell! Tougher than TNT and the redneck viewers too.
VentusConsulting 3 years ago
Old cement is tough as hell! Tougher than TNT and the redneck viewers too.
VentusConsulting 3 years ago
This is why we (people in SD) out-sourced the carving of mount rushmore with tnt.
chight 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah planes work much better !
Sweetdreamsprelude 4 years ago
lllooolll
sgtsnakeeyes11 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
maybe they could use a plane
TheALLtube 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stfu asshole
999legend999 4 years ago
why its funny
jeenyusaut 3 years ago
cos i hate you
Stratattack13 3 years ago
8=====B
jeenyusaut 3 years ago
haha thats awesome
Stratattack13 3 years ago
i lol'd
yaakhee 4 years ago
You should see the other video with the other point of view.
WTCTribute 4 years ago 4
removed from the current times......standing on its own merits as an event...."thats funny right there, I don't care who you are". hahaha
dodgyhingst 4 years ago
bwahahaha!
midaran 4 years ago
LMAO LOL
Kapowzorz066 4 years ago
this demolition took place in sioux falls south dakota.
eazye0512 4 years ago
HAHA, I'm not sure what's funnier, the vid, or the dumbasses who use it for whatever political axe they happen to be grinding...
metricfoot 4 years ago
Try not to be stupid in public, 'kay?
This is a reinforced concrete grain silo, quite a different structure than the WTC. Grain silos are designed to withstand explosions, grain dust explosions being a not-uncommon event.
CosantoirArmach 4 years ago 2
Hmmm... I've seen this same demo from a different angle, and it looks nothing like any grain silo I've ever seen (and I'm a farm boy).
djjimi 4 years ago
It was the Zip Feed tower in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
CosantoirArmach 4 years ago
just be glad that this video isnt full of tinhatter spam like lots of other building implosion videos are.
alphamone 3 years ago
What are you people talking about? Al Qaeda admitted to being behind 9/11. I think Bush is an idiot who started a war he shouldn't have, but come on...even he's not smart enough to do that.
micfishevyt 4 years ago
Bush is a pawn.Does as he's told. ALL 'presidents' do.
t4705mb6 4 years ago
They're paranoid nutcases, what can you expect from them?
CosantoirArmach 4 years ago
Where was this?
rusak24 4 years ago
sioux falls south dakots
eazye0512 4 years ago
haha it's like domino day something went wrong
Toogij 4 years ago
How humiliating!
yaboo100 4 years ago
Tell me about it. I live there...
TAROTSXperience 4 years ago