THE BIGGEST ATROCITY OF THEM ALL, IS THEM NOT ALLOWING THE FIRST RESPONDERS TO THE 9/11 MEMORIAL EITHER? HOW COULD THEY , OR ANYONE LET THAT HAPPEN>?THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT RUN IN, when everyone else RUNS OUT! AND THEY SCREW THEM OUT OF BEING RECOGNIZED AS THE HERO;S OF THIS INCIDENT? ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED OF THE AMERICANS FOR ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN, HOW SHAMEFUL,
DOES EVERYONE KNOW THAT GEORGE BUSH AND TONY BLAIR HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES BY the The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which held a four day hearing in the Malaysia.? WELL THEY DID, FUNNY HOW OUR CENSORED PROPAGANDA MEDIA HAS NEVER LET A PEEP OUT ABOUT THAT? WATCH THIS VID AND GET IT OUT TO AS MANY AS YOU CAN, HE;S RIGHT UP THER WITH HITLER PEOPLE, then we wonder about Bill 1867? /watch?v=pZxa0-IXl_U
to me one of the MOST baffling, is because of 9/11 THAT INCIDENT, Bush went into IRAQ , AND KILLED SUDDAM HUSSEIN, ONLY TO 11 YRS LATER, SAY IT WAS OSAMA BIN LADEN, how could all the masses not even put together the fact that the US military, went in, AND OCCUPIED 2 COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF 9/11. THEY KILLED SUDDAM HUSSEIN FOR WHO? FOR WHAT? they get caught guarding the opium fields and the excuse they give is WELL, THEY WILL TURN TO THE TALIBAN? WTF? THERE TO GUARD OPIUM?
Can someone tell me what exactly is the meaning of Facts and Theories, my English no good,,, in the dictionary it breaks it down to this; some real shit happened that day, who was the real shot caller? funny how the truth sounds like a bell and what we was told up to now never rang, so if u got one that could get something banging in there court room than my bell gonna go bing, me gonna be sooooooooo happy, just for the record, I´m with everything they say in this vid, and me say: DIAAAAAMN
Your "hypothesis" would have to be confirmed as true with controls and variables i.e. action, not conjecture. And it intrigues me that your "hypothesis" does not take into account that jets full of fuel flying at 600 mph, colliding into and destroying the structural sheath of the building where the majority of its strength lay have nothing to do with the collapse.
@MrDasher01 John Skilling :The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
@MrDasher01 John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
@MrDasher01 Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
@MrDasher01 Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center: The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
@MrDasher01 We only assume a plane/fire took down the building because we watched this happen. This is why there are alternative theories, the official theories don't take into account that this was not supposed to happen, it was designed to take this hit.Cruise speed of a 767 is 530mph, of a 707 is 607mph.The reality is controlled demo explains the collapses a hell of a lot easier, where as NIST took 7 years to come up with a final theory, which contradicts the last and is still an assumption.
Let's keep in mind that the official explaination of events on 9/11 is in itself a "conspiracy theory" and the most implausable of them. Furthermore, the alledged suspect(s) in a crime (ie 911) aren't put in charge of the investigation. The 2 parties suspected in the attacks were Al Queda and The Bush Administration. We wouldn't entrust Al Queda to handle an investigation into 911. Why should we trust NIST. Brandon believes whatever the Gov't tells him.
It's refreshing to see someone calmly discussing the issue considering there are so many questions..."conspiracy theorist" or not there are alot of unknowns regarding this day and "sketchy" activity following the events...and many of those companies listed before this post have ties to the government..especially defense...nd the war certainly helped certain interests like most wars do...people have questions and need answers that's all
@TheKmagz Wars doesn't really benefit anyone. I don't mean to sound like a hippie, but really, there are no winners. Religion has benefited from war, but that's about it. Obviously, ethnic cleansing is used to spread and grow a specific religion or belief system, which serves in their interest. Other than that, benefiting from war is extremely rare.
@BrandonPumel I wish i could agree with that but there are definitely companies who profit from war...excluding those directly associated with defense/military (Halliburton is a huge one)...but those that reap the resources of the lands if a country "wins"....idk just something to look in to the corporations are out there which sucks....
@BrandonPumel For one Netanyahu openly stated Israel benefitted from 9-11 since they would be receiving a major increase in military aid as well as the Israeli role in the sandbox. Halliburton received a very significant share of what has become our national debt in the form of no-bid defense contracts, though Halliburton isn't the only one there were many companies that cashed in on the fear-mongering. Every agency that is considered to have dropped the ball have received budget increases.....
I've always felt the United States' response to the devastating events of September 11th should have been peaceful and reflective of our humanity. I created a video and posted it on my channel to honor those who lost their lives that morning and in the wars that followed. Peace is possible, but it has to start somewhere.
NIST's Fire Inspector admitted they never tested for residue of explosives or thermate because it would have required an inordinate quantity of explosives. Yet, the official theory holds fire & structural damage alone were sufficient. The lack of embarrassment at tendering this idiotic foolishness & presumption of credulity re: inherant inconsistency & mutually-contradictory argument are yet more inexplicable red-flags that the truth has been ruthlessly, even fanatically suppressed & covered-up.
" The NIST reports were peer reviewed by "5" individual subject matter experts CONTRACTED by NIST" NCSTR1A xxxi
NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
@69salford69 Bin Laden was rich and powerful? He was a multimillionaire. He wasn't defending the poor and weak. I'm not saying he had bad ideas. He actually had good things to say, but so did Hitler. Bin Laden was tired of the western world invading their countries and trying to change their cultural ways.
Jesus and Bin Laden were NOTHING alike. Jesus believed in peace and forgiving your enemies by "turning the other cheek". Bin Laden believed in redemption and pay back. Complete opposites.
@BrandonPumel Where did the Bin Laden family wealth come from? I'm fairly sure US - Saudi Arabian "relationships" were part of the motivation for his anger towards America....And I'm also fairly sure the Bin Laden family severed all ties with Osama to ensure their "relationship" with USA Inc. wasn't damaged.
Jesus and Bin Laden were murdered in cold blood. Jesus and Bin Laden were a threat to the establishment. Jesus and Bin Laden both used violence against corruption. Some in common i think.
@69salford69 The Bin Laden family earned approximately $5 billion in the construction industry. Osama later inherited $25-30 million. Osama's motivation was purely against the United States foreign policy, which he believed oppressed, harmed, or even killed Muslims in the Middle East.
Jesus did not use violence. He was a peaceful man who believed in forgiving your enemies.
@hgfbob Even if I presented you with documents to prove the wealth of The Bin Laden family, it wouldn't matter to you. You don't care about proof. You don't care about facts. You're no different than any other conspiracy theorist who obnoxiously whines for facts, and then when presented with facts, makes an effort to undermined the facts. It's no different than the arrogant "Birthers", who bitched and moaned for Obama's birth certificate, and when he presented it, "IT WAS A FAKE!". Same shit.
@hgfbob You did care actually. And The Bin Laden family had no ties to any terrorist organization. They ran legitimate businesses, and made a great deal of money. Osama was disowned in 1994 by his family because they strongly disproved of his actions.
I think your mistaken. You are the one claiming The United States government played a key role in the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. You are the one who must present proof. You are the one who must disprove NIST's peer-reviewed research. Not me.
I was NOT bestowed by an act of Congress to find out HOW and WHY 3 building fell on 9-11
NIST was
"You are the one who must disprove NIST's peer-reviewed research."
there was NO PEER review by the structural community in this PUBLIC Investigation --- they HIRED 5 people to do it...which is NOT a true peer review......if YOU think there was then PROVE IT
@BrandonPumel even with many established and irrefutable facts supporting the official story there are gaps that seem to not add up completely. Additionally anytime a person or corporation benefits from the tragedy of others, suspicion is a natural phenomenon. As for making an effort to "undermined" the facts, isn't that what makes them facts that they can hold up to investigation? Without independent confirmation it is merely speculation. Not everybody is the same, how short sighted you are.
@jackpot5283 There is a difference between facts holding up to an investigation, and facts being undermined. That's what a conspiracy theorist does. If I present to you the FACT that there was NO "controlled demolition" style explosions before collapse of either of the three buildings, that fact is undermined by stating the government has control of "silent explosives". The official story does have small gaps, but they aren't significant. They are to cover-up the governments mistakes.
@BrandonPumel There is also a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a conspiracy believer, you seem to have a knee jerk association that anyone who questions motives or acknowledges the existence of corruption is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" who is unable to just accept that it is impossible for multiple parties and individuals to be intentionally involved in a collective effort that JUST SO HAPPENS to exclusively benefit those who perpetuated the collective effort.
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
@BrandonPumel Agreed, I am a theorist. The social problem doesn't lie with independent theorists it is the people who make decisions off what they glean from the surface. When many people encounter a person that is willing to question an "official story" they over-react by either A) clamming up and refusing to hear any facts or B) becoming immediately disillusioned and they start believing anything but the mainstream version still regardless of evidence.
@jackpot5283 Yes, some people do tend to overreact to a conspiracy theory. However, the social problem doesn't lie within individuals NOT listening to the facts presented by conspiracy theorists. It most definitely lies within conspiracy theorist formulating FALSE FACTS and then those false facts being spread like wildfire through conspiracy theory websites, email, etc. I would, however, agree to an extent that some companies/organization received some kind of benefits from 9/11.
@jackpot5283 Please, present to me some facts that make the 9/11 conspiracy plausible. I'm more than willing to listen and debate them. Socrates once said, "All I know, is that I know nothing."
@BrandonPumel what made me think there is so some merit to the conspiracy theory is that news stations were reporting the collapse of WTC 7 long before it happened. I suggest you look up the bbc report of the WTC 7 building collapsing. It was reported 30 minutes before the building fell, and you can actually see it in the background! Prior knowledge of a collapse can only imply a planned demolition.
@mmorrtt As far as I'm aware, this is true, but I believe only BBC made the mistake. It does sound very sketchy at first glance. What conspiracy websites don't tell you, is that this was reported at about 5pm. Prior to this, at about 2pm, FDNY had come to the conclusion that WTC7 was going to collapse, evacuated the building/area, and provided the information to the media. Is it not plausible to assume BBC jumped the gun, or was given the wrong information during a chaotic day/event?
@mmorrtt I'd like to ask you the same thing I've asked at least 48 other people here on various YT channels and have yet to get a reply. Why do you think that the Fire Department gave a final order to abandon the WTC7 building and surrounding area at 2:30 P.M.? (The building collapsed at 5:20:52 P.M.)
@jackpot5283 Let's keep in mind that the official explaination of events on 9/11 is in itself a "conspiracy theory" and the most implausable of them. Furthermore, the alledged suspect in a crime (911 was a crime) aren't put in charge of the investigation. The 2 parties suspected in the attacks were Al Queda and The Bush Administration. We wouldn't task Al Queda to handle an investigation into 911. Why should we trust NIST. Brandon believes whatever the Gov't tells him. A usefull idiot
@jackpot5283@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
@jackpot5283@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
@jackpot5283 And may I ask who exactly benefited from the events that took place on 9/11? I'm not saying that your wrong. I've just heard this argument several times, and I'm having difficulty understanding who exactly could have, or did receive benefits from the attacks on 9/11. Obviously, the contractor and architecture firm that were hired to rebuild the towers at ground zero ended up benefited from it, but I don't think that's what you were referring too.
@jackpot5283 And may I ask who exactly benefited from the events on 9/11? I'm not saying your wrong, but I've heard this argument several times and I'm just having difficulties understand who could have, or did receive benefits from the attacks on 9/11. Obviously, the contractor and architecture firm that were hired to redesign and rebuild The Twin Towers at Ground Zero ended up receiving benefits, but I don't think that's what you were referring too.
@BrandonPumel Larry Silverstein came out OK from 9-11, TSA (a private firm) are doing quite nicely thanks to 9-11, BP EXXON Shell etc are all doing quite well from the destabilization of the sandbox. AS&E (the makers of Backscatter XRAY technology) are doing well, Raytheon, GE, Boeing, BAE armoring, Winchester Ammunition, Xe Systems(formerly Blackwater), SPLC(a "non-profit" extremism analysis firm sponsored by Israel)
@BrandonPumel Jesus was a peaceful man. Jesus WAS also violent to the money-changers by destroying their tables on which they changed their money. So get your facts right.
Osama's motivation was against US foreign policy, which absolutely does harm, kill and oppress poor unfortunate souls.
It's not like you can accuse him of lying, as Israel smashes Palestine like a 1940s dictator addicted to amphetamines
@BrandonPumel I have no position on whether anyone is naive or not but what does spelling naive right or wrong have to do with the accusation, poor attempt at deflection.
A few points. 1. The clip shown at 2:19 was NOT taken on 9/11 nor shortly thereafter. One can tell by the tan coveralls that had not yet been issued to the firefighters working at the site. I'd say that's why the steel has already been cut by the iron workers. 2. The FDNY has no 10-13 code. 3. Von Essen could not order the NYPD to do squat, and was not empowered to do so. Besides, NYPD Comm. Bernard Kerik would give up turf? The interviews were of 503 Firefighters, EMT's, and Paramedics.
Lets see here.....The cointelpro guys want you to believe their selected witness testimony, but dismiss any eyewitness testimony that disputes their assertions. I don't get that. They want you to believe eyewitness testimony of those that said they saw the planes hit the buildings but dismiss any testimony refuting the idea that no planes hit the building. Something just does not add up here.
The towers were taken out by 150 kiloton detonations placed in the basement; that is the only thing that can account for the way the collapse looked; they were disintegrated. Google Dimitri Khalezov for more information.
Don't believe me? What caused the heat in the basement for months afterwards?
Professor Graeme MacQueen? O shit, everybody listen up. This guy is a professor, and has his PhD, he must be an expert on the subject!!! In the video, he sure acts like an expert, why should we question him? Probably has his PhD in either engineering, architecture, or maybe even physics? NOPE! He doesn't have a PhD. in either of these fields. In fact, he has his PhD. in Religious Studies with a focus on Buddhism!!! Which means he doesn't know SHIT about the collapse of a building!! Some expert..
@BrandonPumel And Dick Cheney was a draft dodger who had 5 deferments but became secretary of defense! So cowards who never serve in the military can run the defense dept., but Graeme Mcqueen can't speak about building collapses because he's doesn't have a PhD. in the fields you speak of ? You are a fool Brandy
@ckars I didn't appoint him that position. I more than likely, wouldn't appoint someone that position, without a background in military defense. Just like I wouldn't listen to this guy, on a subject he has no expertise in. Anything else?
@BrandonPumel I would listen to individuals such as Neils Harrit and Richard Gage etc. rather than the stooges at NIST. Why can't Americans just accept that it's possible, and likely that there
gov't is corrupt and would kill it's own people? Naivete is one of the reasons that the whole world laughs at us. Maybe you believe our gov't isn't willing to commit such great evils (assuming you are American) but I believe they are.
@ckars You would rather listen to individuals w/ no expertise in the events of September 11th, rather than those "stooges" at NIST who have years and years of expertise? Your the type of American who the rest of the world is laughing at.
@BrandonPumel I just named a few individuals with expertise. If you did any research you would find out that NIST functions as a political, rather than a scientific agency. The entire world, except for most Americans, which you apparently are among, can't wrap your brain around. Sorry but you are part of the "Sheeple".
@ckars Sorry, but I have done my research. 98% of individuals associated with the "9/11 Truth Movement" are far from experts in the events that took place that day. You've chosen to specify only two individuals. Richard Gage is an architect, and tends to act like an expert in areas that he is not. Neils Harrit is a chemist, yet his paper on "nano-thermite" has been referred to as, "the worst science ever". NIST outsourced portions of their investigation, in order to remain un-bias. Try again
@BrandonPumel So you're a 9/11-offical-story-supporter and I'm a 9/11-truth-movement-supporter. We don't agree on much.
But can we agree on something.....forget about 9/11 for a second.......can we agree that "Operation Northwoods" is evidence that the US Government had/has the potential to inflict a terrorist attack on it's own citizens? I said "has the POTENTIAL to inflict a terrorist attack"
@69salford69 Just food for thought, I was at a speech that former defense secretary and World Bank President Robert MacNamara gave at Harvard University prior to his death. He admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a set up (False Flag) to get the US to escalate the Vietnam conflict. In other words it was a lie and therefore 59000 soldiers lost their lives and countless wounded. Not withstanding the deaths of over 1 million citizens in Indochina.
@69salford69 Just food for thought, I was at a speech that former defense secretary and World Bank President Robert MacNamara gave at Harvard University prior to his death. He admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a set up (False Flag) to get the US to escalate the Vietnam conflict. In other words it was a lie and therefore 59000 soldiers lost their lives and countless wounded. Not withstanding the deaths of over 1 million citizens in Indochina.
@69salford69 I've never researched "Operation Norwoods", so it would be ignorant for me to agree or disagree. Obviously, governments have a great deal of power. Inflicting a terrorist attack on their own people, for political reasons, is by no means out of the question. It's just not the case with 9/11.
@BrandonPumel I'm extremely disappointed to learn you've never researched Operation Northwoods. You would understand why the US Government has absolutely no credibility regarding terrorist attacks.
Nobody will ever prove the sequence of events leading upto 9/11, but history has recorded what happened since.
No evidence has ever been provided to prove Bin Laden's involvement, and the 9/11 commission report admits it has no way of finding the source of funding for 9/11 terrorist attack!
@69salford69 Sorry to disappoint you. "Operation Northwoods" is pretty insignificant. It was a proposal formulated by a select few individuals in 1962. It did propose that the government should create "false terrorist attacks" and blame Cuba for them. It was never accepted, and the proposed actions never took place. It's very dramatic to conclude that 'Operation Northwoods", shows our government has no credibility. It was also in 1962. It would be nearly impossible to accomplish now a days...
@BrandonPumel How could you say Northwoods is insignificant? The reason (as I understand it) that it wasn't accepted back then, is because Kennedy didn't approve of it. The fact that it was created and signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tells you that it was a serious initiative. You have to understand the environment at the time. And for JFK to nix the idea (in conjunction with other actions he made against the military)...
@JohnLeeMD (forcing Lemnitzer out, Dulles, Bissell and others) you have to be ignorant to think that the possibility (after JFK's murder) isn't there that it was a coup, that would then allow those military forces to do what they wanted, and that the President would no longer stand in the way of. You can't be that ignorant.
@JohnLeeMD I hate out government. I sincerely believe political positions should be reserved for individuals with the highest intelligence, but I'm rational. If you know anything about the greatest philosophers to live, you would know a thing or two about the importance of ration.
@JohnLeeMD It never happened. Of course it's insignificant. Not to mention, the document was formulated by a select few individuals from The Department of Defense and The Joint Chiefs of Staff, then presented to The Secretary of Defense, and was rejected. You must understand the environment we live in TODAY. Politicians can't keep their personal life a secret because of technology, let alone the killing of 3,000 Americans.
And Osama Bin Laden's involvement isn't questionable. It isn't like he just attacked the US out of no where. He declared war on the US years and years before 9/11. He was linked to multiple attacks against US citizens and organizations years prior to 9/11. He never denied it. He wanted everyone to know it was him. And funding? Who cares! Although al-Qaeda's sources for support are sometimes questioned, it doesn't effect his level of guilt. He was also an extremely wealthy man.
impacts caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT affected the remaining 250+ support on the impact floor to FAIL.
@hgfbob My Bin Laden comment wasn't directed towards you. And as I've said before, NIST doesn't claim fires were the sole reason for the collapse. It was just a contributing factor.
@BrandonPumel Bin Laden's involvement should have been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with a fair trial. Because that's what righteous civlised societies do.
But no, the US invaded a foreign country without permission in the dead of night and murdered a SUSPECT in cold blood and disposed of his body, and that is acceptable to you?
I care who funded Al Qeada. I care Osama Bin Laden attended Oxford University only 300 miles from where I fucking live and work. Dickhead.
@69salford69 I agree. He should have been put on trial. The United States tried to get him extradited for 11 years. That's the way it should have happened, but he refused to stand trial and that's that. I'm sure he was not killed in "cold blood".
Osama funded the majority of al-Qaeda w/ his millions of dollars in inheritance. Some suspect Pakistan was giving him aid as well. There's just no way of truly knowing. And Osama Bin Laden didn't attend Oxford University. That's a fucking joke!
@BrandonPumel Now part of a fair trial allows a suspect to present their case, to defend themselves. Bin Laden would have said something along the lines of "The US congress is besmerched by the influence of America's most powerful corporations. For too long the righteous leaders of America have been silenced by the power of the greedy. I wanted to defend the poor and weak from the corporate devils bombing Lebanon."
= Jesus said the same things and he was murdered in cold blood too
@hgfbob You just quoted me with something I didn't even say. I haven't mentioned NIST reports.
And a civlised society has a belief that a suspect is INNOCENT until proven guilty. This means we failed to prove in a fair trial in a court of law that Osama Bin Laden was guilty, so we therefore have to conclude he is innocent.
@BrandonPumel and I have done my research as well. 100 % of the people who believe NIST and the official story are out to lunch. NIST's investigation of the collapse of wtc 7 is one example. Barry Jennings rescued at 12:15 PM but giving an interview at 11:57 AM a few blocks away for one example. Sure, NIST outsourced their work to who? NIST also admitted near free fall speed in 2008 after a "6th grade" Physics teacher called them on it. OK Brandy any more jingoism?
and NIST functioned as a political agency rather than a scientific agency. Fire cannot make steel framed buildings collapse (WTC 7). Never has happened before and never will happen in the future. The report by NIST is full of contradictions. Too many to list. NIST is biased because they are an agent of the commerce dept. and therefore an agent of the Bush administration. The work they contracted out was to agencies that were cozy with the Bushes and AEI. Try again.
@BrandonPumel Oh PS try Danny Jowenko. So anyone who is associated with the 911 truth movement doesn't have credibility but the US gov't does? There is also Tom Sullivan formally of CDI. There is also Kevin Ryan. Richard Gage doesn't act like an expert except in areas of Architecture which he is an expert. On other areas he acts like a reporter and has other experts corroborate what he reports. So I suppose Journalists can't report events that they don't have expertise in?
@BrandonPumel If a truly unbiased investigation were sought, why wouldn't they just hire an independent company to do the entire investigation? Just seeking your opinion on that.
really...why don't you tell me what you have found out......judging by your posting here.....not to much...seems to be the typical shill shit ... "remain un-bias"
lol....from WHAT? BRANDON!
they were bestowed by an ACT of Congress to find out HOW and WHY 3 buildings fell on 9-11..what the fuck do they have to be "bais' over?
They sub-contracted work out...that all MORON....why do YOU like to make it seem 'SO MYSTERIOUS'!!!
@hgfbob Yes, I've done a fair amount of research. Obviously I cannot summarize it in a YouTube comment, but please present a topic, and I'll be pleased to tell you what I have found. For starters, I welcome government questioning. I do not, however, welcome false accusations w/ no evidentiary support. Did the government hide certain things because it made them look bad? Yes! Did they mastermind the attacks? Not in the least bit.
@hgfbob The only thing they TRIED to "cover up", which they failed to do, was that they didn't make the necessary preparations to stop the attacks. They should have. They didn't. They didn't want the public to know that they failed to accomplish our militaries FIRST PRIORITY, to keep our citizens safe. That's embarrassing and unacceptable, but much less severe than your accusations.
@hgfbob Evidence to prove NO explosives or accelerators were used? In any situation, proving that something DIDN'T occur, isn't accomplished by presenting evidence. It's accomplished by presenting the lack of evidence for it to have occurred. Which HAS been presented. Also, fire was only one factor that contributed to the collapse. Obviously the steel of the towers failed, but NIST has NEVER concluded that fire was the sole cause. And NIST's report has been accepted in the scientific community.
' proving that something DIDN'T occur, isn't accomplished by presenting evidence'
lol...oh yes there is..it is called TESTING and INVESTIGATION into the mass murder of 3000 innocents...and since NIST already GAVE an OFFICIAL CLAIM that was NONE..THEY MUST have EVIDENCE to DETERMINE that ....don't cha think MORON!!!
well they had fuck n better...prove it's MORE than just as arbitrary statement designed to SHUT PEOPLE UP!
@hgfbob I'm a moron, yet you are trying to say that an event that DOESN'T occur, leaves evidence behind? That is like trying to say an innocent person on trial for murder, leaves evidence at the scene of the crime that proves he's innocent. An event that doesn't occur, won't have evidence.
@hgfbob Investigations are done, to find evidence that something occurred. If they find no evidence, it suggests that the event didn't occur. Investigations aren't just done at random. There must be a reason to believe that an investigation is necessary. In a murder investigation, police don't just start investigating random people in the street for no reason. NIST never investigated for explosives. They couldn't find a reason to believe explosives were used, so an investigation wasn't needed.
" If they find no evidence, it suggests that the event didn't occur'
oh....and what is it when the DON'T LOOK AT ALL, but OFFICIALLY CLAIM...there was NONE?
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
how old are you...12...13....lol....so ignorant...dude, your giving little baby pussy excuses that have NOTHING to do with the Dictum of Debate and LAW...those who assert MUST PROVE.
@hgfbob There was no reason to investigate for explosive. Just because a bunch of sideshow clowns start screaming about explosives, doesn't give reason for investigation.
"There was no reason to investigate for explosive"
then HOW do they know NO residue is there?
Oh...BESIDES the National Fire Protection Agency making testing for explosives and accelerants MANDATORY in Terrorist attacks where fire is involved.....and has been since '93
N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6
HUNDREDS of FDNY report " explosions NOT consistent with office fires", which is all these were...despite the MINIMAL asymmetrical structural damage impacts caused to each tower.
@hgfbob NIST never claims they "didn't find explosive residue". They make it no secret that they never performed testing, because they could find no reason to.
@hgfbob As I have stated multiple times before, NIST never claims to have done investigations to test for explosive residue in the WTC debris. They do not claim, "There were no explosives or accelerants". They just claim that there was no reason to waste time and money by investigating for explosive residue, when they had no reason to believe explosives were used to bring down the towers.
@hgfbob EXACTLY! Evidence is presented to PROVE GUILT! Are you really that naive? Can you image a defense lawyer presenting forensic evidence from a crime scene that proves his client was there, and then try to say it somehow shows his clients innocence? I really want to hear an example of this
"accomplished by presenting the lack of evidence for it to have occurred."
lol really..that is how every forensic scientist determines that....why is it that EVERYONE else MUST perform residue testing to DETERMINE explosives or accelerants?
"Obviously the steel of the towers failed,'
DUH!...YOU just have NO EVIDENCE it was FIRE or NO EXPLOSIVES or ACCELERANTS.
@hgfbob Yup, that's exactly how forensic scientist do it. You'll have to give me an example of any type of evidence a forensic scientist would find at a murder scene, that would prove someone was innocent.
Actually, NIST didn't conclude that fire was the sole cause of WTC7. Might want to actually read the reports, instead of going to your 9/11 Truth Movement websites to get the facts.
@hgfbob The scientific community accepted the NIST's reports, yet the reports skipped vital steps in the process of the scientific method? I doubt it.
Studies proving that "free fall speed" did not occur in any of the three buildings, have been completed and released by NIST.
"The scientific community accepted the NIST's reports"
we are NOT talking about the REPORTS....the REPORTS have NO WTC steel that FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT..if YOU think they do...then POST where this EVIDENCE is.
the HYPOTHESIS / OFFICIAL STORY ignores the FOUND facts of the report and RELIED on UNRELEASED UNVERIFIED data to PROVE their claim....the refusal letter from last Sept is ON MY PAGE....
@hgfbob Again, NIST doesn't claim that WTC steel "failed" from "fires" alone. Fires were only contributing factors. Fire was more of a factor in the collapse of WTC7 though.
In order for the reports to be credible and approved by scientist around the world, the scientific method must be used in the research. The data collected from their research must be provided, and they must include process they took to find that data.
"Studies proving that "free fall speed" did not occur in any of the three buildings, have been completed and released by NIST"
lol....are you that much of a FOOL..
from the WTC 7 NIST report..
"This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity." NCSTAR 1A 3.6
@hgfbob Did you fail to actually read section 3.6 of the report? I'm guessing you got that paragraph from a "credible conspiracy site"? If you actually read the report, you would know this "8 story free fall speed", took place in Stage 2 of the collapse. In Stage 1 of the collapse is much longer than free fall speed. The report also states, "Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40% longer than the computed free fall speed.
FYI..I have burst-ed MANY first timers like yourself, sorry!
"free fall speed", took place in Stage 2"
free fall acceleration is an EVENT....NOT a phase that YOU can add time to so it doesn't occur.....FOOL!
and the ACCELERATION EQUAL to Gravity is NOT computed...it's OBSERVED....MORON!
and it STARTS when the kink forms at 1.75 seconds INTO the collapse to 4.0 seconds OF the collapse....more than 1/3 of the collapse time GAINING speed as it GOES through itself.
" I'm guessing you got that paragraph from a "credible conspiracy site'
STRAIGHT from the NIST reports, that is where I get ALL of my info from.....how about YOU?
HERE is the REASON for HIDING
The key is the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!
@hgfbob Your blunt attempt to warp the NIST reports into whatever fits your agenda, may work on individuals who haven't actually read the report for themselves. Your bullshit won't work on me. Section 3.6 states multiple times that WTC7 collapse at a speed of nearly 40% greater than free fall speed, yet you fail to mention that and quote one paragraph that accounts for only 8 stories of WTC7.
" And NIST's report has been accepted in the scientific community."
and why wouldn't they?
it's the NIST HYPOTHESIS that is UNRELEASED and IGNORES the FOUND FACTS of the report.
you find ONE member of the structural community that is NOT tied to the Gov somehow, who will put the career and Rep. on the line to back something he will NEVER SEE.
the NIST letter they sent me is on my page.......68,000 input and results data NEVER RELEASED to ANYONE!
@hgfbob Ya, why wouldn't the scientific community accept the NIST report's? Who the fuck are they to judge the credibility of scientific research? Impressive...
It's also impressive that you claim the NIST's hypothesis hasn't been released, yet you know it ignores facts they found. You must be pretty special to get to read "unreleased documents".
@hgfbob That's why scientific reports are peer-reviewed. They must be thorough and show where and how they came to the conclusion that they did. Does Galileo ring a bell? The scientific community makes sure the science used in researchers studies, isn't just made up out of thin air. It is the only way scientific reports are given credibility. NIST's reports were peer-reviewed, published, and accepted by 99% of scientists. The report on "nano-thermite in WTC dust", was laughed at.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
To Dr MacQueen a hearty right-on - cogent argument. Some note workers who heard, felt no blasts; saw no residue. To which I gleefully reply: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.. I see a building explode, it has to be because it contained explosives. Feels great. From other of your takes I learned of body found in third-floor closet by firefighter (who"d seen plane strike from stn roof) This male victim Tower 1 (at no blast site) I suggest was WTC sec chief aware of plot, murdered.
A good detective examines the evidence, then draws a conclusion. A bad detective starts with a conclusion, and ignores the evidence that doesn't fit..
awesome, 58k views, 501 likes, and only 24 dislikes. it's truely pathetic how many people are willing to be so nationalistic that they wont entertain reality. I'm american, I served in the army, and im going back - but that doesn't mean i think we should be able to commit crimes against humanity. i've been appauled since i first saw the collapse live on TV. there is NO WAY this could happen in the world we live in - goverened by the laws of physics (unless u consider controlled demo)
on a similar video, i cant remember what it was called, they noted that during the explosion of the impact of the plane, the jet fuel ignited incinerating everything to ashes almost instantly. One of the principle pieces of evidence used during the enquiry was a passport of one of the hijackers found on the floor near ground zero.
how does a passport, a paper document, survive a jet fuel fire, let alone an exploding plane, when the metal of the plane hull itself could not?
I am always struck by the fact that there are two kinds of smoke being generated through the incident. There is a black-to-dark-grey smoke and then there's a whitish smoke. I wish I knew more about fire.
@bushmustgo Hi, the white smoke is in fact dust made up of concrete and asbestos, a remnant of being blasted out by explosives. It was a 'pyroclastic cloud' to give it its technical name. Synonymous with controlled demolition.
@phpexe, thanks for the reply. I'm not so sure. I think we're looking at the result of thermitic action creating the white smoke. But I'm no expert... I wish one would weigh in on this.
@scoretosettle same here. It is just unbelievable that people who believe in this terrorist nonsense even dare to mock people who question the official story, even though the evidence is overwhelming. Many people know that this has been an inside job and many people approve of it. They think it has been in their best interest.
why the hell is the cameraguy at 2:41 saying " i hope i live " he thinks he is going to die from a dustcloud ?? he should never go to arabia he will get a heart attack 4 times a day...anyway i was 12 years old when this happened and I SWEAR even then by watching it on tv i knew and i joke u not i knew this was not a normal building collapsing...the first to my mind was how the hell can a tower that big collapse all the way to the ground symmetricly when just a airplane crashed in there ?
@TurkishMujahid when i was in school we learned about a disaster in the netherlands where a abig airplane crashed in to a civilian apartement building it was a very wide building but not very tall and that building was still standing u could litterally see the hole of 50 meters where the airplane crashed in then at school the teacher said it was probably the fuel in the airplane that melted the iron but even then i asked how come if an airplane hits the upper part of a such a tall building the
@TurkishMujahid entire skycraper comes down ? if it really collapsed due to the airplane then only the upper part would just fell down but not like this this was a controlled demolition..probably set up by israeli mossad..it is not the first time they did something like this in the 60s israeli government staged multiple terrorist attacks on american hotels and other public areas where many americans would be and they tried to blame it on Egypt so that usa would go to war with egypt it is called
@TurkishMujahid " The Lavon Affaire " and we all know about the Uss liberty attack..and still with both the lavon affaire and the uss liberty the usa government did not retalliated or anything no what was the usa's reply ?? send more money and weapons to israel...it is obvious the israeli's controle the usa...not only that they also controle the United nations..anyway afs i grew older i looked more in to 9/11 because i was so interested in studieying the even that has caused millions of muslims
@TurkishMujahid in iraq&afghanistan there lives due to the " heroic " usa army...and ofcrouse i wanted to study about the day that opened the way to " the war on terror " and the global hate and propaganda making about islam and " muslim extremists " as i learned so far it are facts that the cia has hired " muslim " fighters to cause unrest in both bosnia herzogovina kosovo and the former soviet union so it is not far fatched to come up with the facts that osama bin laden was a cia operative
THE BIGGEST ATROCITY OF THEM ALL, IS THEM NOT ALLOWING THE FIRST RESPONDERS TO THE 9/11 MEMORIAL EITHER? HOW COULD THEY , OR ANYONE LET THAT HAPPEN>?THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT RUN IN, when everyone else RUNS OUT! AND THEY SCREW THEM OUT OF BEING RECOGNIZED AS THE HERO;S OF THIS INCIDENT? ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED OF THE AMERICANS FOR ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN, HOW SHAMEFUL,
countessarcadius 3 weeks ago
DOES EVERYONE KNOW THAT GEORGE BUSH AND TONY BLAIR HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES BY the The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which held a four day hearing in the Malaysia.? WELL THEY DID, FUNNY HOW OUR CENSORED PROPAGANDA MEDIA HAS NEVER LET A PEEP OUT ABOUT THAT? WATCH THIS VID AND GET IT OUT TO AS MANY AS YOU CAN, HE;S RIGHT UP THER WITH HITLER PEOPLE, then we wonder about Bill 1867? /watch?v=pZxa0-IXl_U
countessarcadius 4 weeks ago
to me one of the MOST baffling, is because of 9/11 THAT INCIDENT, Bush went into IRAQ , AND KILLED SUDDAM HUSSEIN, ONLY TO 11 YRS LATER, SAY IT WAS OSAMA BIN LADEN, how could all the masses not even put together the fact that the US military, went in, AND OCCUPIED 2 COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF 9/11. THEY KILLED SUDDAM HUSSEIN FOR WHO? FOR WHAT? they get caught guarding the opium fields and the excuse they give is WELL, THEY WILL TURN TO THE TALIBAN? WTF? THERE TO GUARD OPIUM?
countessarcadius 4 weeks ago
Can someone tell me what exactly is the meaning of Facts and Theories, my English no good,,, in the dictionary it breaks it down to this; some real shit happened that day, who was the real shot caller? funny how the truth sounds like a bell and what we was told up to now never rang, so if u got one that could get something banging in there court room than my bell gonna go bing, me gonna be sooooooooo happy, just for the record, I´m with everything they say in this vid, and me say: DIAAAAAMN
califranky 3 months ago
Your "hypothesis" would have to be confirmed as true with controls and variables i.e. action, not conjecture. And it intrigues me that your "hypothesis" does not take into account that jets full of fuel flying at 600 mph, colliding into and destroying the structural sheath of the building where the majority of its strength lay have nothing to do with the collapse.
MrDasher01 4 months ago
@MrDasher01 John Skilling :The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
@MrDasher01 John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
@MrDasher01 Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
@MrDasher01 Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center: The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
Comment removed
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
@MrDasher01 We only assume a plane/fire took down the building because we watched this happen. This is why there are alternative theories, the official theories don't take into account that this was not supposed to happen, it was designed to take this hit.Cruise speed of a 767 is 530mph, of a 707 is 607mph.The reality is controlled demo explains the collapses a hell of a lot easier, where as NIST took 7 years to come up with a final theory, which contradicts the last and is still an assumption.
AlwaysSomething 3 months ago
BTW NIST is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce and therefore an agency of the Bush-Cheney White House at the time of the attack.
ckars 4 months ago
Let's keep in mind that the official explaination of events on 9/11 is in itself a "conspiracy theory" and the most implausable of them. Furthermore, the alledged suspect(s) in a crime (ie 911) aren't put in charge of the investigation. The 2 parties suspected in the attacks were Al Queda and The Bush Administration. We wouldn't entrust Al Queda to handle an investigation into 911. Why should we trust NIST. Brandon believes whatever the Gov't tells him.
ckars 4 months ago
Comment removed
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
It's refreshing to see someone calmly discussing the issue considering there are so many questions..."conspiracy theorist" or not there are alot of unknowns regarding this day and "sketchy" activity following the events...and many of those companies listed before this post have ties to the government..especially defense...nd the war certainly helped certain interests like most wars do...people have questions and need answers that's all
TheKmagz 4 months ago
@TheKmagz Wars doesn't really benefit anyone. I don't mean to sound like a hippie, but really, there are no winners. Religion has benefited from war, but that's about it. Obviously, ethnic cleansing is used to spread and grow a specific religion or belief system, which serves in their interest. Other than that, benefiting from war is extremely rare.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel I wish i could agree with that but there are definitely companies who profit from war...excluding those directly associated with defense/military (Halliburton is a huge one)...but those that reap the resources of the lands if a country "wins"....idk just something to look in to the corporations are out there which sucks....
TheKmagz 4 months ago
Comment removed
jackpot5283 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel For one Netanyahu openly stated Israel benefitted from 9-11 since they would be receiving a major increase in military aid as well as the Israeli role in the sandbox. Halliburton received a very significant share of what has become our national debt in the form of no-bid defense contracts, though Halliburton isn't the only one there were many companies that cashed in on the fear-mongering. Every agency that is considered to have dropped the ball have received budget increases.....
jackpot5283 4 months ago
The official story was a lie.
Downfurlife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've always felt the United States' response to the devastating events of September 11th should have been peaceful and reflective of our humanity. I created a video and posted it on my channel to honor those who lost their lives that morning and in the wars that followed. Peace is possible, but it has to start somewhere.
marcpedraza 4 months ago
Comment removed
ivanhole 4 months ago
NIST's Fire Inspector admitted they never tested for residue of explosives or thermate because it would have required an inordinate quantity of explosives. Yet, the official theory holds fire & structural damage alone were sufficient. The lack of embarrassment at tendering this idiotic foolishness & presumption of credulity re: inherant inconsistency & mutually-contradictory argument are yet more inexplicable red-flags that the truth has been ruthlessly, even fanatically suppressed & covered-up.
starmanskye 5 months ago
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
" The NIST reports were peer reviewed by "5" individual subject matter experts CONTRACTED by NIST" NCSTR1A xxxi
NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
hgfbob 6 months ago
I enjoyed Your Short Clip
datingadult101 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Jesus and Bin Laden were trying to defend the poor and the weak from the rich & powerful
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 Bin Laden was rich and powerful? He was a multimillionaire. He wasn't defending the poor and weak. I'm not saying he had bad ideas. He actually had good things to say, but so did Hitler. Bin Laden was tired of the western world invading their countries and trying to change their cultural ways.
Jesus and Bin Laden were NOTHING alike. Jesus believed in peace and forgiving your enemies by "turning the other cheek". Bin Laden believed in redemption and pay back. Complete opposites.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Where did the Bin Laden family wealth come from? I'm fairly sure US - Saudi Arabian "relationships" were part of the motivation for his anger towards America....And I'm also fairly sure the Bin Laden family severed all ties with Osama to ensure their "relationship" with USA Inc. wasn't damaged.
Jesus and Bin Laden were murdered in cold blood. Jesus and Bin Laden were a threat to the establishment. Jesus and Bin Laden both used violence against corruption. Some in common i think.
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 The Bin Laden family earned approximately $5 billion in the construction industry. Osama later inherited $25-30 million. Osama's motivation was purely against the United States foreign policy, which he believed oppressed, harmed, or even killed Muslims in the Middle East.
Jesus did not use violence. He was a peaceful man who believed in forgiving your enemies.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
'The Bin Laden family'
ohhh..is that a WIKI source.....lol
ssoooo.....whas up?
got anything that PROVES your asserted CLAIMS?
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Sure, just let me go grab The Bin Laden families financial documents from my files real quick...
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"Sure, just let me go grab The Bin Laden families financial documents from my files real quick"
lol...if that's your proof...go for it.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Even if I presented you with documents to prove the wealth of The Bin Laden family, it wouldn't matter to you. You don't care about proof. You don't care about facts. You're no different than any other conspiracy theorist who obnoxiously whines for facts, and then when presented with facts, makes an effort to undermined the facts. It's no different than the arrogant "Birthers", who bitched and moaned for Obama's birth certificate, and when he presented it, "IT WAS A FAKE!". Same shit.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" with documents to prove the wealth of The Bin Laden family"
WHO THE FUCK CARES--NOT ME
hey, they were even partners with the Bush family for 2 failed oil company businesses..and Kissinger was on their payroll also...so--
WHY do YOU continually STEER off in that direction?
I'm asking YOU to PROVE what YOU assert as truth....and you fill your post with diversions...
where is the WTC steel that failed from the FIRES PRESENT to cause the collapse of ALL 3 buildings?
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob You did care actually. And The Bin Laden family had no ties to any terrorist organization. They ran legitimate businesses, and made a great deal of money. Osama was disowned in 1994 by his family because they strongly disproved of his actions.
I think your mistaken. You are the one claiming The United States government played a key role in the mass murder of 3,000 Americans. You are the one who must present proof. You are the one who must disprove NIST's peer-reviewed research. Not me.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"You are the one who must present proof"
NOT in this country...
I was NOT bestowed by an act of Congress to find out HOW and WHY 3 building fell on 9-11
NIST was
"You are the one who must disprove NIST's peer-reviewed research."
there was NO PEER review by the structural community in this PUBLIC Investigation --- they HIRED 5 people to do it...which is NOT a true peer review......if YOU think there was then PROVE IT
those who assert MUST PROVE!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel even with many established and irrefutable facts supporting the official story there are gaps that seem to not add up completely. Additionally anytime a person or corporation benefits from the tragedy of others, suspicion is a natural phenomenon. As for making an effort to "undermined" the facts, isn't that what makes them facts that they can hold up to investigation? Without independent confirmation it is merely speculation. Not everybody is the same, how short sighted you are.
jackpot5283 5 months ago
@jackpot5283 There is a difference between facts holding up to an investigation, and facts being undermined. That's what a conspiracy theorist does. If I present to you the FACT that there was NO "controlled demolition" style explosions before collapse of either of the three buildings, that fact is undermined by stating the government has control of "silent explosives". The official story does have small gaps, but they aren't significant. They are to cover-up the governments mistakes.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel There is also a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a conspiracy believer, you seem to have a knee jerk association that anyone who questions motives or acknowledges the existence of corruption is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" who is unable to just accept that it is impossible for multiple parties and individuals to be intentionally involved in a collective effort that JUST SO HAPPENS to exclusively benefit those who perpetuated the collective effort.
jackpot5283 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel Agreed, I am a theorist. The social problem doesn't lie with independent theorists it is the people who make decisions off what they glean from the surface. When many people encounter a person that is willing to question an "official story" they over-react by either A) clamming up and refusing to hear any facts or B) becoming immediately disillusioned and they start believing anything but the mainstream version still regardless of evidence.
jackpot5283 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 Yes, some people do tend to overreact to a conspiracy theory. However, the social problem doesn't lie within individuals NOT listening to the facts presented by conspiracy theorists. It most definitely lies within conspiracy theorist formulating FALSE FACTS and then those false facts being spread like wildfire through conspiracy theory websites, email, etc. I would, however, agree to an extent that some companies/organization received some kind of benefits from 9/11.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 Please, present to me some facts that make the 9/11 conspiracy plausible. I'm more than willing to listen and debate them. Socrates once said, "All I know, is that I know nothing."
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel what made me think there is so some merit to the conspiracy theory is that news stations were reporting the collapse of WTC 7 long before it happened. I suggest you look up the bbc report of the WTC 7 building collapsing. It was reported 30 minutes before the building fell, and you can actually see it in the background! Prior knowledge of a collapse can only imply a planned demolition.
mmorrtt 4 months ago
@mmorrtt As far as I'm aware, this is true, but I believe only BBC made the mistake. It does sound very sketchy at first glance. What conspiracy websites don't tell you, is that this was reported at about 5pm. Prior to this, at about 2pm, FDNY had come to the conclusion that WTC7 was going to collapse, evacuated the building/area, and provided the information to the media. Is it not plausible to assume BBC jumped the gun, or was given the wrong information during a chaotic day/event?
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mmorrtt I'd like to ask you the same thing I've asked at least 48 other people here on various YT channels and have yet to get a reply. Why do you think that the Fire Department gave a final order to abandon the WTC7 building and surrounding area at 2:30 P.M.? (The building collapsed at 5:20:52 P.M.)
azul8811 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 Let's keep in mind that the official explaination of events on 9/11 is in itself a "conspiracy theory" and the most implausable of them. Furthermore, the alledged suspect in a crime (911 was a crime) aren't put in charge of the investigation. The 2 parties suspected in the attacks were Al Queda and The Bush Administration. We wouldn't task Al Queda to handle an investigation into 911. Why should we trust NIST. Brandon believes whatever the Gov't tells him. A usefull idiot
ckars 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackpot5283 @jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackpot5283 @jackpot5283 The definition of a conspiracy theory, is a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. So, in fact, you are a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and asking questions. There is, however, a big problem with presenting false evidence and facts, in order to make the conspiracy plausible and 98% of the time, that's what conspiracy theorist do.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackpot5283 And may I ask who exactly benefited from the events that took place on 9/11? I'm not saying that your wrong. I've just heard this argument several times, and I'm having difficulty understanding who exactly could have, or did receive benefits from the attacks on 9/11. Obviously, the contractor and architecture firm that were hired to rebuild the towers at ground zero ended up benefited from it, but I don't think that's what you were referring too.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@jackpot5283 And may I ask who exactly benefited from the events on 9/11? I'm not saying your wrong, but I've heard this argument several times and I'm just having difficulties understand who could have, or did receive benefits from the attacks on 9/11. Obviously, the contractor and architecture firm that were hired to redesign and rebuild The Twin Towers at Ground Zero ended up receiving benefits, but I don't think that's what you were referring too.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel Larry Silverstein came out OK from 9-11, TSA (a private firm) are doing quite nicely thanks to 9-11, BP EXXON Shell etc are all doing quite well from the destabilization of the sandbox. AS&E (the makers of Backscatter XRAY technology) are doing well, Raytheon, GE, Boeing, BAE armoring, Winchester Ammunition, Xe Systems(formerly Blackwater), SPLC(a "non-profit" extremism analysis firm sponsored by Israel)
jackpot5283 4 months ago
@BrandonPumel Jesus was a peaceful man. Jesus WAS also violent to the money-changers by destroying their tables on which they changed their money. So get your facts right.
Osama's motivation was against US foreign policy, which absolutely does harm, kill and oppress poor unfortunate souls.
It's not like you can accuse him of lying, as Israel smashes Palestine like a 1940s dictator addicted to amphetamines
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 Your definition of "violent" is pretty broad.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Your definition of "peaceful man" is very niaive
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 Really? If your going to call someone, "naive", you might want to check your spelling.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel I have no position on whether anyone is naive or not but what does spelling naive right or wrong have to do with the accusation, poor attempt at deflection.
jackpot5283 5 months ago
@69salford69
Bin Laden were murdered in cold blood."
actually he dies of natural causes from a condition he had in 2003...
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob allergic reaction to lead or gold?
jackpot5283 5 months ago
A few points. 1. The clip shown at 2:19 was NOT taken on 9/11 nor shortly thereafter. One can tell by the tan coveralls that had not yet been issued to the firefighters working at the site. I'd say that's why the steel has already been cut by the iron workers. 2. The FDNY has no 10-13 code. 3. Von Essen could not order the NYPD to do squat, and was not empowered to do so. Besides, NYPD Comm. Bernard Kerik would give up turf? The interviews were of 503 Firefighters, EMT's, and Paramedics.
azul8811 6 months ago
time for work...see ya later shill
give ya some time go organize yourself
hgfbob 6 months ago
Pause at 3:09 and look at what apperas to be flames possibly from a secondary explosion.
Shep11111 7 months ago
Lets see here.....The cointelpro guys want you to believe their selected witness testimony, but dismiss any eyewitness testimony that disputes their assertions. I don't get that. They want you to believe eyewitness testimony of those that said they saw the planes hit the buildings but dismiss any testimony refuting the idea that no planes hit the building. Something just does not add up here.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
The towers were taken out by 150 kiloton detonations placed in the basement; that is the only thing that can account for the way the collapse looked; they were disintegrated. Google Dimitri Khalezov for more information.
Don't believe me? What caused the heat in the basement for months afterwards?
signalfire6 8 months ago
The official story is preposterous.
niverent 8 months ago
Professor Graeme MacQueen? O shit, everybody listen up. This guy is a professor, and has his PhD, he must be an expert on the subject!!! In the video, he sure acts like an expert, why should we question him? Probably has his PhD in either engineering, architecture, or maybe even physics? NOPE! He doesn't have a PhD. in either of these fields. In fact, he has his PhD. in Religious Studies with a focus on Buddhism!!! Which means he doesn't know SHIT about the collapse of a building!! Some expert..
BrandonPumel 8 months ago
@BrandonPumel And Dick Cheney was a draft dodger who had 5 deferments but became secretary of defense! So cowards who never serve in the military can run the defense dept., but Graeme Mcqueen can't speak about building collapses because he's doesn't have a PhD. in the fields you speak of ? You are a fool Brandy
ckars 7 months ago
@ckars I didn't appoint him that position. I more than likely, wouldn't appoint someone that position, without a background in military defense. Just like I wouldn't listen to this guy, on a subject he has no expertise in. Anything else?
BrandonPumel 7 months ago
@BrandonPumel I would listen to individuals such as Neils Harrit and Richard Gage etc. rather than the stooges at NIST. Why can't Americans just accept that it's possible, and likely that there
gov't is corrupt and would kill it's own people? Naivete is one of the reasons that the whole world laughs at us. Maybe you believe our gov't isn't willing to commit such great evils (assuming you are American) but I believe they are.
ckars 6 months ago
@ckars You would rather listen to individuals w/ no expertise in the events of September 11th, rather than those "stooges" at NIST who have years and years of expertise? Your the type of American who the rest of the world is laughing at.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel I just named a few individuals with expertise. If you did any research you would find out that NIST functions as a political, rather than a scientific agency. The entire world, except for most Americans, which you apparently are among, can't wrap your brain around. Sorry but you are part of the "Sheeple".
ckars 6 months ago
@ckars Sorry, but I have done my research. 98% of individuals associated with the "9/11 Truth Movement" are far from experts in the events that took place that day. You've chosen to specify only two individuals. Richard Gage is an architect, and tends to act like an expert in areas that he is not. Neils Harrit is a chemist, yet his paper on "nano-thermite" has been referred to as, "the worst science ever". NIST outsourced portions of their investigation, in order to remain un-bias. Try again
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel So you're a 9/11-offical-story-supporter and I'm a 9/11-truth-movement-supporter. We don't agree on much.
But can we agree on something.....forget about 9/11 for a second.......can we agree that "Operation Northwoods" is evidence that the US Government had/has the potential to inflict a terrorist attack on it's own citizens? I said "has the POTENTIAL to inflict a terrorist attack"
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 Just food for thought, I was at a speech that former defense secretary and World Bank President Robert MacNamara gave at Harvard University prior to his death. He admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a set up (False Flag) to get the US to escalate the Vietnam conflict. In other words it was a lie and therefore 59000 soldiers lost their lives and countless wounded. Not withstanding the deaths of over 1 million citizens in Indochina.
ckars 6 months ago
@69salford69 Just food for thought, I was at a speech that former defense secretary and World Bank President Robert MacNamara gave at Harvard University prior to his death. He admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a set up (False Flag) to get the US to escalate the Vietnam conflict. In other words it was a lie and therefore 59000 soldiers lost their lives and countless wounded. Not withstanding the deaths of over 1 million citizens in Indochina.
ckars 6 months ago
@69salford69 I've never researched "Operation Norwoods", so it would be ignorant for me to agree or disagree. Obviously, governments have a great deal of power. Inflicting a terrorist attack on their own people, for political reasons, is by no means out of the question. It's just not the case with 9/11.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel I'm extremely disappointed to learn you've never researched Operation Northwoods. You would understand why the US Government has absolutely no credibility regarding terrorist attacks.
Nobody will ever prove the sequence of events leading upto 9/11, but history has recorded what happened since.
No evidence has ever been provided to prove Bin Laden's involvement, and the 9/11 commission report admits it has no way of finding the source of funding for 9/11 terrorist attack!
69salford69 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
What did the USA give the government of Pakistan concerning Bin Laden and 911 in early October of 2001?
How can Operation Northwoods be an example of "false flag terrorism" if it never happened?
ctcole77 6 months ago
@69salford69 Sorry to disappoint you. "Operation Northwoods" is pretty insignificant. It was a proposal formulated by a select few individuals in 1962. It did propose that the government should create "false terrorist attacks" and blame Cuba for them. It was never accepted, and the proposed actions never took place. It's very dramatic to conclude that 'Operation Northwoods", shows our government has no credibility. It was also in 1962. It would be nearly impossible to accomplish now a days...
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel How could you say Northwoods is insignificant? The reason (as I understand it) that it wasn't accepted back then, is because Kennedy didn't approve of it. The fact that it was created and signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tells you that it was a serious initiative. You have to understand the environment at the time. And for JFK to nix the idea (in conjunction with other actions he made against the military)...
JohnLeeMD 5 months ago
@JohnLeeMD (forcing Lemnitzer out, Dulles, Bissell and others) you have to be ignorant to think that the possibility (after JFK's murder) isn't there that it was a coup, that would then allow those military forces to do what they wanted, and that the President would no longer stand in the way of. You can't be that ignorant.
JohnLeeMD 5 months ago
@JohnLeeMD I hate out government. I sincerely believe political positions should be reserved for individuals with the highest intelligence, but I'm rational. If you know anything about the greatest philosophers to live, you would know a thing or two about the importance of ration.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
@JohnLeeMD It never happened. Of course it's insignificant. Not to mention, the document was formulated by a select few individuals from The Department of Defense and The Joint Chiefs of Staff, then presented to The Secretary of Defense, and was rejected. You must understand the environment we live in TODAY. Politicians can't keep their personal life a secret because of technology, let alone the killing of 3,000 Americans.
BrandonPumel 4 months ago
And Osama Bin Laden's involvement isn't questionable. It isn't like he just attacked the US out of no where. He declared war on the US years and years before 9/11. He was linked to multiple attacks against US citizens and organizations years prior to 9/11. He never denied it. He wanted everyone to know it was him. And funding? Who cares! Although al-Qaeda's sources for support are sometimes questioned, it doesn't effect his level of guilt. He was also an extremely wealthy man.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
' Bin Laden's involvement isn't questionable."
WHO THE FUCK CARES...you little distracting SHILL
impacts caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT affected the remaining 250+ support on the impact floor to FAIL.
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
oh and DON"T go ranting how.."those are not representative", POINT OUT what REPRESENTS the OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS of the WTC steel failing.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob My Bin Laden comment wasn't directed towards you. And as I've said before, NIST doesn't claim fires were the sole reason for the collapse. It was just a contributing factor.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Bin Laden's involvement should have been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with a fair trial. Because that's what righteous civlised societies do.
But no, the US invaded a foreign country without permission in the dead of night and murdered a SUSPECT in cold blood and disposed of his body, and that is acceptable to you?
I care who funded Al Qeada. I care Osama Bin Laden attended Oxford University only 300 miles from where I fucking live and work. Dickhead.
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 I agree. He should have been put on trial. The United States tried to get him extradited for 11 years. That's the way it should have happened, but he refused to stand trial and that's that. I'm sure he was not killed in "cold blood".
Osama funded the majority of al-Qaeda w/ his millions of dollars in inheritance. Some suspect Pakistan was giving him aid as well. There's just no way of truly knowing. And Osama Bin Laden didn't attend Oxford University. That's a fucking joke!
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Now part of a fair trial allows a suspect to present their case, to defend themselves. Bin Laden would have said something along the lines of "The US congress is besmerched by the influence of America's most powerful corporations. For too long the righteous leaders of America have been silenced by the power of the greedy. I wanted to defend the poor and weak from the corporate devils bombing Lebanon."
= Jesus said the same things and he was murdered in cold blood too
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69 Comparing Bin Laden and Jesus? Way to swing for the fences!
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@69salford69
"Bin Laden's involvement should have been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with a fair trial'
PROVE IT,your words mean SHIT here, post your source.
you also waste a lot a space...don't cha....clearing the front page huh!
"NIST's reports were peer-reviewed, published, and accepted"
it is NOT the REPORT that is the problem SHILL BOY...it's the UNRELEASED HYPOTHESIS that defies physics that is UNRELEASED and UNVERIFIED.
AGAIN. the letter is on my page
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob You just quoted me with something I didn't even say. I haven't mentioned NIST reports.
And a civlised society has a belief that a suspect is INNOCENT until proven guilty. This means we failed to prove in a fair trial in a court of law that Osama Bin Laden was guilty, so we therefore have to conclude he is innocent.
69salford69 6 months ago
@69salford69
'And a civilized society has a belief that a suspect is INNOCENT until proven guilty."
just as an agenda will not be bullied upon us in lieu of EVIDENCE!
there is an UNRELEASED UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS in place as our OFFICIAL STORY.
a HYPOTHESIS that IGNORES the FOUND facts of the Entity bestowed by Congress to find out HOW and WHY 3 buildings fell on 9-11...
and YOU want WHAT?
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob I want to kill the motherfuckers telling porkie pies
69salford69 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel and I have done my research as well. 100 % of the people who believe NIST and the official story are out to lunch. NIST's investigation of the collapse of wtc 7 is one example. Barry Jennings rescued at 12:15 PM but giving an interview at 11:57 AM a few blocks away for one example. Sure, NIST outsourced their work to who? NIST also admitted near free fall speed in 2008 after a "6th grade" Physics teacher called them on it. OK Brandy any more jingoism?
ckars 6 months ago
and NIST functioned as a political agency rather than a scientific agency. Fire cannot make steel framed buildings collapse (WTC 7). Never has happened before and never will happen in the future. The report by NIST is full of contradictions. Too many to list. NIST is biased because they are an agent of the commerce dept. and therefore an agent of the Bush administration. The work they contracted out was to agencies that were cozy with the Bushes and AEI. Try again.
ckars 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel Oh PS try Danny Jowenko. So anyone who is associated with the 911 truth movement doesn't have credibility but the US gov't does? There is also Tom Sullivan formally of CDI. There is also Kevin Ryan. Richard Gage doesn't act like an expert except in areas of Architecture which he is an expert. On other areas he acts like a reporter and has other experts corroborate what he reports. So I suppose Journalists can't report events that they don't have expertise in?
ckars 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel If a truly unbiased investigation were sought, why wouldn't they just hire an independent company to do the entire investigation? Just seeking your opinion on that.
ckars 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
'Sorry, but I have done my research."
really...why don't you tell me what you have found out......judging by your posting here.....not to much...seems to be the typical shill shit ... "remain un-bias"
lol....from WHAT? BRANDON!
they were bestowed by an ACT of Congress to find out HOW and WHY 3 buildings fell on 9-11..what the fuck do they have to be "bais' over?
They sub-contracted work out...that all MORON....why do YOU like to make it seem 'SO MYSTERIOUS'!!!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Yes, I've done a fair amount of research. Obviously I cannot summarize it in a YouTube comment, but please present a topic, and I'll be pleased to tell you what I have found. For starters, I welcome government questioning. I do not, however, welcome false accusations w/ no evidentiary support. Did the government hide certain things because it made them look bad? Yes! Did they mastermind the attacks? Not in the least bit.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"Did they mastermind the attacks? Not in the least bit."
but they did cove it up.....an embarrassment they would rather sweep under the carpet...but too bad it's not going to happen...
so why are you here?
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob The only thing they TRIED to "cover up", which they failed to do, was that they didn't make the necessary preparations to stop the attacks. They should have. They didn't. They didn't want the public to know that they failed to accomplish our militaries FIRST PRIORITY, to keep our citizens safe. That's embarrassing and unacceptable, but much less severe than your accusations.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"but much less severe than your accusations.'
lol...asking for PROOF is MORE SEVERE than LETTING IT HAPPEN?
little twisted there aren't we shill fuck.
where is the EVIDENCE that leads the HYPOTHESIS to IGNORE the FOUND FACTS of the report?
the report found
NO FLOORS COLLAPSED
NO WTC STEEL failed from the FIRES PRESENT
the only fireproofing missing was on the steel members DIRECTLY involved with impact debris.
The never tested for explosives or accelerants.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"but please present a topic"
The OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS / STORY!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"I welcome government questioning. I do not, however, welcome false accusations w/ no evidential support"
well that is what YOU are defending.....
you have NO WTC STEEL that FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT.
YOU have NO EVIDENCE to back the official claim that "NO explosives or accelerants were used".
and the HYPOTHESIS / OFFICIAL story is UNVERIFIED and unproven....for they REFUSE to release the 68,000 input and results simulation data files.
the letter is on my page
hgfbob 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
How many of Pilots for 911 Truth's professionals have experience flying a Boeing 767?
ctcole77 6 months ago
@hgfbob Evidence to prove NO explosives or accelerators were used? In any situation, proving that something DIDN'T occur, isn't accomplished by presenting evidence. It's accomplished by presenting the lack of evidence for it to have occurred. Which HAS been presented. Also, fire was only one factor that contributed to the collapse. Obviously the steel of the towers failed, but NIST has NEVER concluded that fire was the sole cause. And NIST's report has been accepted in the scientific community.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
' proving that something DIDN'T occur, isn't accomplished by presenting evidence'
lol...oh yes there is..it is called TESTING and INVESTIGATION into the mass murder of 3000 innocents...and since NIST already GAVE an OFFICIAL CLAIM that was NONE..THEY MUST have EVIDENCE to DETERMINE that ....don't cha think MORON!!!
well they had fuck n better...prove it's MORE than just as arbitrary statement designed to SHUT PEOPLE UP!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob I'm a moron, yet you are trying to say that an event that DOESN'T occur, leaves evidence behind? That is like trying to say an innocent person on trial for murder, leaves evidence at the scene of the crime that proves he's innocent. An event that doesn't occur, won't have evidence.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"An event that doesn't occur, won't have evidence"
they HOW is it DENIED, unless it's investigated to DETERMINE either way.
show the TESTING and INVESTIGATION that DETERMINES that OFFICIAL CLAIM.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Investigations are done, to find evidence that something occurred. If they find no evidence, it suggests that the event didn't occur. Investigations aren't just done at random. There must be a reason to believe that an investigation is necessary. In a murder investigation, police don't just start investigating random people in the street for no reason. NIST never investigated for explosives. They couldn't find a reason to believe explosives were used, so an investigation wasn't needed.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" If they find no evidence, it suggests that the event didn't occur'
oh....and what is it when the DON'T LOOK AT ALL, but OFFICIALLY CLAIM...there was NONE?
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
how old are you...12...13....lol....so ignorant...dude, your giving little baby pussy excuses that have NOTHING to do with the Dictum of Debate and LAW...those who assert MUST PROVE.
NIST..and YOU!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob There was no reason to investigate for explosive. Just because a bunch of sideshow clowns start screaming about explosives, doesn't give reason for investigation.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"There was no reason to investigate for explosive"
then HOW do they know NO residue is there?
Oh...BESIDES the National Fire Protection Agency making testing for explosives and accelerants MANDATORY in Terrorist attacks where fire is involved.....and has been since '93
N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6
HUNDREDS of FDNY report " explosions NOT consistent with office fires", which is all these were...despite the MINIMAL asymmetrical structural damage impacts caused to each tower.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob NIST never claims they "didn't find explosive residue". They make it no secret that they never performed testing, because they could find no reason to.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" NIST never claims they "didn't find explosive residue"'
NIST OFFICIALLY CLAIMED there were NO EXPLOSIVES OR ACCELERANTS used to assist the collapses....THAT requires TESTING and INVESTIGATION...
show the EVIDENCE that DETERMINES that claim....
" because they could find no reason to"
because they GAVE THE OFFICIAL CLAIM that NONE WAS THERE.......asshole shill MORON!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob As I have stated multiple times before, NIST never claims to have done investigations to test for explosive residue in the WTC debris. They do not claim, "There were no explosives or accelerants". They just claim that there was no reason to waste time and money by investigating for explosive residue, when they had no reason to believe explosives were used to bring down the towers.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"As I have stated multiple times before, NIST never claims to have done investigations to test for explosive residue"
WHO CARES what YOU STATE MORON...lol....it's NOT about YOU!
NIST gave an OFFICIAL Gov. CLAIM for an INVESTIGATION bestowed by an ACT OF CONGRESS, that there was NO EXPLOSIVES pr ACCELERANTS used to assist.
it is UP TO THEM to PROVE that CLAIM...
and I hope for YOUR sake it's NOT just an arbitrary statement designed to shut people up...
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"That is like trying to say an innocent person on trial for murder'
because he IS INNOCENT till PROVEN GUILTY
that is how it works MORON!!!
you assert claims....PROVE THEM!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob EXACTLY! Evidence is presented to PROVE GUILT! Are you really that naive? Can you image a defense lawyer presenting forensic evidence from a crime scene that proves his client was there, and then try to say it somehow shows his clients innocence? I really want to hear an example of this
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" I really want to hear an example of this'
enter the NIST HYPOTHESIS
where is the WTC STEEL that leads them to HYPOTHESIZE it failed?
your shilly ass can twist this all you want to....
NIST ALREADY claimed "NO explosives and accelerants"....SHOW the testing and investigation that DETERMINES THIS!!!
just as they CLAIM the WTC STEEL FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT....PROVE IT
that is what I do here.....MAKE you asshole PROVE what you claim.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"accomplished by presenting the lack of evidence for it to have occurred."
lol really..that is how every forensic scientist determines that....why is it that EVERYONE else MUST perform residue testing to DETERMINE explosives or accelerants?
"Obviously the steel of the towers failed,'
DUH!...YOU just have NO EVIDENCE it was FIRE or NO EXPLOSIVES or ACCELERANTS.
"NEVER concluded that fire was the sole cause'
they did for WTC7
and HYPOTHESIZE it for the towers
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Yup, that's exactly how forensic scientist do it. You'll have to give me an example of any type of evidence a forensic scientist would find at a murder scene, that would prove someone was innocent.
Actually, NIST didn't conclude that fire was the sole cause of WTC7. Might want to actually read the reports, instead of going to your 9/11 Truth Movement websites to get the facts.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
'actually, NIST didn't conclude that fire was the sole cause of WTC7'
it wasn't debris from the tower...
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
"instead of going to your 9/11 Truth Movement websites"
the NIST report IS MY fact site...what's yours?
it is YOU that MUST PROVE the FIRES PRESENT cause the failure of the WTC steel to cause the collapse.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob It's funny how you believe one sentence summarizes the entire report on the collapse of WTC7.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" It's funny how you believe one sentence summarizes the entire report on the collapse of WTC7. "
No MOPRON...it's the FACT of SYMMETRICAL GLOBAL UNIFIED descent at the rate EQUAL to that of Gravity....
the FACT that there is NO FIRE at the EXACT place where they MUST affect the vertical steel support to ALLOW free fall ACCELERATION to occur.
and the FACT that the 68,000+ input and results data files they use to PROVE the OFFICIAL STORY, is EXEMPT from the FIOA
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob The scientific community accepted the NIST's reports, yet the reports skipped vital steps in the process of the scientific method? I doubt it.
Studies proving that "free fall speed" did not occur in any of the three buildings, have been completed and released by NIST.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"The scientific community accepted the NIST's reports"
we are NOT talking about the REPORTS....the REPORTS have NO WTC steel that FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT..if YOU think they do...then POST where this EVIDENCE is.
the HYPOTHESIS / OFFICIAL STORY ignores the FOUND facts of the report and RELIED on UNRELEASED UNVERIFIED data to PROVE their claim....the refusal letter from last Sept is ON MY PAGE....
fuck n READ IT SHILL!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Again, NIST doesn't claim that WTC steel "failed" from "fires" alone. Fires were only contributing factors. Fire was more of a factor in the collapse of WTC7 though.
In order for the reports to be credible and approved by scientist around the world, the scientific method must be used in the research. The data collected from their research must be provided, and they must include process they took to find that data.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"In order for the reports to be credible and approved by scientist around the world, the scientific method must be used in the research'
so simplistic in your thinking....well, I should say IGNORANT!
the REPORTS don't have to be "APPROVED by ANYONE...they are the 'REPORTS' MORON...
it's the HYPOTHESIS that IGNORES the FOUND FACTS of the report to HYPOTHESIZE in the OTHER direction.
a HYPOTHESIS they REFUSE to validate
AGAIN, the NIST LETTER of denial is on MY PAGE
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"Studies proving that "free fall speed" did not occur in any of the three buildings, have been completed and released by NIST"
lol....are you that much of a FOOL..
from the WTC 7 NIST report..
"This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity." NCSTAR 1A 3.6
you were saying?
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Did you fail to actually read section 3.6 of the report? I'm guessing you got that paragraph from a "credible conspiracy site"? If you actually read the report, you would know this "8 story free fall speed", took place in Stage 2 of the collapse. In Stage 1 of the collapse is much longer than free fall speed. The report also states, "Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40% longer than the computed free fall speed.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
FYI..I have burst-ed MANY first timers like yourself, sorry!
"free fall speed", took place in Stage 2"
free fall acceleration is an EVENT....NOT a phase that YOU can add time to so it doesn't occur.....FOOL!
and the ACCELERATION EQUAL to Gravity is NOT computed...it's OBSERVED....MORON!
and it STARTS when the kink forms at 1.75 seconds INTO the collapse to 4.0 seconds OF the collapse....more than 1/3 of the collapse time GAINING speed as it GOES through itself.
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" I'm guessing you got that paragraph from a "credible conspiracy site'
STRAIGHT from the NIST reports, that is where I get ALL of my info from.....how about YOU?
HERE is the REASON for HIDING
The key is the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Your blunt attempt to warp the NIST reports into whatever fits your agenda, may work on individuals who haven't actually read the report for themselves. Your bullshit won't work on me. Section 3.6 states multiple times that WTC7 collapse at a speed of nearly 40% greater than free fall speed, yet you fail to mention that and quote one paragraph that accounts for only 8 stories of WTC7.
Your reporting is half ass, and obnoxiously bias.
And you were saying?
Look who the real FOOL is...
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"your agenda, may work on individuals who haven't actually read the report for themselves. Your bullshit won't work on me"
I am a 30 year builder of both steel and stick.....I have NO AGENDA but to keep ASKING for the PROOF that is DENIED.
you have NO EVIDENCE for the HYPOTHESIS you are supporting...and YOU have NO CLUE, 'WHAT' you are supporting..
why don't YOU go find out from a REAL S.E. WHAT MUST occur for the symmetrical global unified free fall ACCELERATED descent
hgfbob 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
" And NIST's report has been accepted in the scientific community."
and why wouldn't they?
it's the NIST HYPOTHESIS that is UNRELEASED and IGNORES the FOUND FACTS of the report.
you find ONE member of the structural community that is NOT tied to the Gov somehow, who will put the career and Rep. on the line to back something he will NEVER SEE.
the NIST letter they sent me is on my page.......68,000 input and results data NEVER RELEASED to ANYONE!
you have NOTHING!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob Ya, why wouldn't the scientific community accept the NIST report's? Who the fuck are they to judge the credibility of scientific research? Impressive...
It's also impressive that you claim the NIST's hypothesis hasn't been released, yet you know it ignores facts they found. You must be pretty special to get to read "unreleased documents".
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
@BrandonPumel
"you know it ignores facts they found. You must be pretty special to get to read "unreleased documents"
we KNOW what the HYPOTHESIS CLAIM MORON.....
it is the DATA they PUT IN to get it to do what they TELL IT TO...that they REFUSE to release....MORON!
hgfbob 6 months ago
@hgfbob That's why scientific reports are peer-reviewed. They must be thorough and show where and how they came to the conclusion that they did. Does Galileo ring a bell? The scientific community makes sure the science used in researchers studies, isn't just made up out of thin air. It is the only way scientific reports are given credibility. NIST's reports were peer-reviewed, published, and accepted by 99% of scientists. The report on "nano-thermite in WTC dust", was laughed at.
BrandonPumel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 6 months ago
To Dr MacQueen a hearty right-on - cogent argument. Some note workers who heard, felt no blasts; saw no residue. To which I gleefully reply: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.. I see a building explode, it has to be because it contained explosives. Feels great. From other of your takes I learned of body found in third-floor closet by firefighter (who"d seen plane strike from stn roof) This male victim Tower 1 (at no blast site) I suggest was WTC sec chief aware of plot, murdered.
newsmanbluesman 10 months ago
This video proves that it is a conspiracy. the towers were filled with sandbags.
sethy2004 1 year ago
A good detective examines the evidence, then draws a conclusion. A bad detective starts with a conclusion, and ignores the evidence that doesn't fit..
dougyoolikeme 1 year ago
Check out 3:08 to 3:09 you can actually see the explosion taking out one of the floors of the tower!
anewlow23 1 year ago
ok?? so where are the interviews?????? where is the rest of this???FAIL
MIKEREZIN 1 year ago
@MIKEREZIN PART TWO IS SOME HOW HARD TO FIND BUT ACTUALLY ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS Y T SEARCH THIS: "PROFESSOR MAC QUEEN EXPLOSION EYEWITNESSES"
aburgheim 1 year ago
awesome, 58k views, 501 likes, and only 24 dislikes. it's truely pathetic how many people are willing to be so nationalistic that they wont entertain reality. I'm american, I served in the army, and im going back - but that doesn't mean i think we should be able to commit crimes against humanity. i've been appauled since i first saw the collapse live on TV. there is NO WAY this could happen in the world we live in - goverened by the laws of physics (unless u consider controlled demo)
eTernaLBOWLING 1 year ago 6
@eTernaLBOWLING I give my Respects to you.
wolf7379 1 year ago
Very good story explanation for the sheeple. But they refuse to see. It's so frustrating. Please God, open their eyes.
jbrider555 1 year ago 2
on a similar video, i cant remember what it was called, they noted that during the explosion of the impact of the plane, the jet fuel ignited incinerating everything to ashes almost instantly. One of the principle pieces of evidence used during the enquiry was a passport of one of the hijackers found on the floor near ground zero.
how does a passport, a paper document, survive a jet fuel fire, let alone an exploding plane, when the metal of the plane hull itself could not?
biffington 1 year ago
I am always struck by the fact that there are two kinds of smoke being generated through the incident. There is a black-to-dark-grey smoke and then there's a whitish smoke. I wish I knew more about fire.
bushmustgo 1 year ago
@bushmustgo Hi, the white smoke is in fact dust made up of concrete and asbestos, a remnant of being blasted out by explosives. It was a 'pyroclastic cloud' to give it its technical name. Synonymous with controlled demolition.
phpexe 1 year ago
@phpexe, thanks for the reply. I'm not so sure. I think we're looking at the result of thermitic action creating the white smoke. But I'm no expert... I wish one would weigh in on this.
bushmustgo 1 year ago
INSIDE JOB. but its crazy how many people refuse to believe anything except bin lade did it. terrorist terrorist terrorist. i hate people
scoretosettle 1 year ago
@scoretosettle same here. It is just unbelievable that people who believe in this terrorist nonsense even dare to mock people who question the official story, even though the evidence is overwhelming. Many people know that this has been an inside job and many people approve of it. They think it has been in their best interest.
edicccc 1 year ago 5
great video and audio quality, and great lighting too. as well as substance. good job man.
VinceFoster1 1 year ago
why the hell is the cameraguy at 2:41 saying " i hope i live " he thinks he is going to die from a dustcloud ?? he should never go to arabia he will get a heart attack 4 times a day...anyway i was 12 years old when this happened and I SWEAR even then by watching it on tv i knew and i joke u not i knew this was not a normal building collapsing...the first to my mind was how the hell can a tower that big collapse all the way to the ground symmetricly when just a airplane crashed in there ?
TurkishMujahid 1 year ago
@TurkishMujahid when i was in school we learned about a disaster in the netherlands where a abig airplane crashed in to a civilian apartement building it was a very wide building but not very tall and that building was still standing u could litterally see the hole of 50 meters where the airplane crashed in then at school the teacher said it was probably the fuel in the airplane that melted the iron but even then i asked how come if an airplane hits the upper part of a such a tall building the
TurkishMujahid 1 year ago
@TurkishMujahid entire skycraper comes down ? if it really collapsed due to the airplane then only the upper part would just fell down but not like this this was a controlled demolition..probably set up by israeli mossad..it is not the first time they did something like this in the 60s israeli government staged multiple terrorist attacks on american hotels and other public areas where many americans would be and they tried to blame it on Egypt so that usa would go to war with egypt it is called
TurkishMujahid 1 year ago
@TurkishMujahid " The Lavon Affaire " and we all know about the Uss liberty attack..and still with both the lavon affaire and the uss liberty the usa government did not retalliated or anything no what was the usa's reply ?? send more money and weapons to israel...it is obvious the israeli's controle the usa...not only that they also controle the United nations..anyway afs i grew older i looked more in to 9/11 because i was so interested in studieying the even that has caused millions of muslims
TurkishMujahid 1 year ago
@TurkishMujahid in iraq&afghanistan there lives due to the " heroic " usa army...and ofcrouse i wanted to study about the day that opened the way to " the war on terror " and the global hate and propaganda making about islam and " muslim extremists " as i learned so far it are facts that the cia has hired " muslim " fighters to cause unrest in both bosnia herzogovina kosovo and the former soviet union so it is not far fatched to come up with the facts that osama bin laden was a cia operative
TurkishMujahid 1 year ago