Well BBC reporters are gonna get fired anyway because UK is bankrupt. And they will be able to debunk that from their bed, if they wish, but nobody will be watching that for sure !
free fall never ever happen to any buildings built since 1950..not one...we seen three buildings in NYC free fall into its own footprint.Thermite was never explained why it was in all the dust...
@ducati0000 It has never been proven to be in the dust. There has only been on independent peer reviewed study and that points to the red/gray chips in the dust being primer paint.
They tested the samples of dust, and the chips that thought was thermite explodes. So is it or is it not thermite? First time hearing of that experiment.
one thing is for sure, the nazis and the kkk are scared of the NDAA. booo! ready to check out the FEMA camps from the inside nazis? your party is history and tolerance for your kind has just about reached its limits. dont think so? throw a 'pride parade' and see what happens.
Dylan Avery famously hired that top detective to investigate Barry Jennings's death only to have the detective return the fee and request Avery never contacted her again saying 'it's a job for the police!' Maybe BBC conspiracy files should investigate seeing as they somehow managed to make Jennings perform a 179degree on his original testimony in their production 'The Third Tower'.
But the BBC and other media will use their 'good reputation' to debunk any theory that goes against the BS that is fed to us. Let's get real, 9/11 was an inside job and the perpetrators left a shedload of evidence that left them wide open, they screwed up big time and anyone who get's in their way will disappear. RIP Barry Jennings
The number of actual shills identified by your mindless cult remains zero. Remember, it would be easy to confront your intellectual and moral superiors if you something other than your discredited lies. But--YOU DON'T.
You have condemned yourself to infest the bowels of the net as an anonymous troll. You can't challenge any of the real science.
The BBC are as crooked as they come, they are 'told' what to put out by the World Order, don't you guys realise that the media are run by this power ? The media, Bush, Blair, all Governments.... these are all just puppets. Unfortunately we will never prove 'officially' anything, the good news is people like those involved in Loose Change, 911 Blueprint for Truth and others have already given us the truth
This page has attracted a notorious 9/11 faithkeeper who has not graduated from the elementary 9/11 class. Care to google "practicing on Wieck", anyone?
Hello, clown. The fatuous Dan Noel was recently destroyed by me in a protracted exchange. He peddled ancient rubbish under the heading "The Baby Page," claiming that WTC 7 was demolished. He juxtaposed two videos, one of a real demolition and the other of WTC 7's collapse. He removed the SOUNDS OF DEMOLITION FROM THE ONE VIDEO. Those sounds didn't require removal from the WTC 7 video as THEY WEREN'T THERE.
The idiot was beaten as badly as any liar has ever been beaten.
I strongly recommened that anyone wanting to see an obnoxious liar get crushed or just hoping for a good laugh follow the mindless Noel's advice. Note that the thread states "to be continued." It was continued. It got a lot worse for the simpleminded twoofer. I will happily supply the missing installments for anyone interested.
I've met plenty of idiots peddling conspiracy nonsense, but you top the list of clueless buffoons. I ripped your scalp off for your amazingly inept attempt at deception and you aren't even aware of your humiliation.
WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE SOUNDS OF DEMOLITION FROM THE REAL DEMOLITION, MORON?
Anyway you look at it, you had three buildings come down on 9/11. Two were virtually the same, and were hit by two planes at different levels, and the third, a more modern 47 story steel framed building not struck by a plane, yet all three collapsed at close to free fall speed. This needs to be investigated by someone other than Ronald Wieck.
I didn't investigate anything. NIST, an agency of the Dept. of Commerce tasked with determining why structures fail, investigated the collapses. Over a thousand structural engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, materials scientists, and computer programmers were consulted.
Tell us what errors of science they made. No buildings free fell. Sixty-percent of free fall isn't good enough. This ancient myth has been debunked.
@RonaldWieck "I didn't investigate anything" Many a true word spoken in jest. Never mind, NIST didn't do much real investigating either, after all, they had virtually no WTC7 steel to work with, didn't look for any accelerants or explosives & relied entirely upon computer models to back up their report. Computer models whose data is top secret & that abrubtly end just as the collapse commences. No answer to my question about why they overloaded the fuel figures for the fire floors either I see!
What "fuel figures"? No plane hit WTC 7. NIST didn't look for pixie dust either. As there was ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES amd the auditory record did NOT contain the characteristic sounds of demolition, how much time should have been spent on an absurd thesis?
Instead of making up bullshit, why not try READING the report?
Please tell us why real engineers can't find the errors that are so obvious to uneducated, agenda-driven dunces.
@RonaldWieck What fuel figures? What a fucking cretin you are, sitting there pretending to be knowledgeable and informed and dismissing anyone else as mere 'twoofer losers' no matter how much they run rings round your fat, hideous arse. I was referring to the fuel loading figures that NIST invented for the office furnishings, supplies, etc. that are meant to have burned hot and long enough to initiate the collapse but which actually were much lower than they claimed as they used the highest.....
contd. figures for each section of a floor and applied them to every part of that floor. Not very scientific but it helped them to make their silly model work. Also, there is the thermograph image that they made that showed an extreme hot spot on the twelfth floor at 16:00 where they asserted that the fire was raging and yet, a photograph taken at 15:50 of that area shows that the fire had burned out there. Please do explain how your wonderful scientists COULD BE SUCH TOTAL FUCKUPS?
@RonaldWieck Wonald Wank, please explain then why NIST took the fuel loading from the densest part of a floor, say the American Express office and then apply it to the entire area occupied by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to which the interviewed AmEx managers presumably had no access and no knowledge of the fuel loading. NIST created computer models of the fires they needed to create their collapse but those models bear little resemblance to reality as their own photos show.
@RonaldWieck Sorry, I am not parroting nonsense, I am asking pertinent questions which you refuse to address as you prefer to fob me off on Mike Newman. You are very good at avoiding actual debate or giving out answers to legitimate questions but prefer to attack the credibility of those asking the questions. I have asked about fuel loading figures, beams being rigid instead of sagging, photos disproving the NIST models & you have singularly failed to say anything positive for NIST. EPIC FAIL!
You ARE parroting nonsense. Mike Newman is the man to talk with. Your evil, mindless cult refuses to debate real engineers for good reason. All your disingenuous questions are answered in the NIST report on WTC 7, which you haven't read. Try reading pages 28-44 and stop pretending that you know things you clearly don't.
@RonaldWieck Wonald the WANK, yet another snake oil selling, OCT supporting, suppurating boil on the arse of humanity who likes to pretend they know it all when even their beloved NIST had to manipulate the figures and facts they had until they managed to make it fit the weird collapse we saw on 911. They had no clue why 7 fell the way it did and had to invent the magic of column 79 in order to explain the inexplicable.
Sure, kid. NIST fooled all the structural engineers in the world, but an ignorant agenda-driven dolt saw right through the deception. Let us know when your mindless cult produces a peer-reviewed paper written by a real engineer that refutes NIST. Let us know when one of the frauds who cons you zombies wants to debate someone who knows the facts.
I'm not jesting, idiot. I didn't investigate anything: REAL scientists and engineers conducted a comprehensive investigation. The results are inconvenient to your stupid fantasies.
Why won't any of the charlatans who lead you ignorant zombies by the nose face any real engineers in an open debate?
When will your evil cult take some actual evidence to a real news outlet?
Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the United States during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
The same scenario of Amalgam Virgo '01 played out from 3:00pm September 10 to 9:00pm September 11, 2001 where Quebec born French Canadian General Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril of the Canadian Forces stationed at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado had command of NORAD Blue Air for thirty hours.
According to page 18 of Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF, Chief of the Defence Staff J.M.G. Baril, General, Canadian Forces and General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a treaty -- Canada-United States Basic Security Document MCC 100-35 -- dated August 20, 1999 to turn over command of NORAD to French speaking Baril. Maurice had control of Blue Air for 30 hours on June 1 to June 2, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida as referenced on page 16 of the 35 page document.
Flight 93's drone the only plane not to reach its target. The drone -- scheduled to strike the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. -- was scraped due to a delay of Jason Dahl's Flight 93 for forty one minutes by an air traffic controller at Newark Liberty International Airport. This unforeseen delay caused the premature destruction of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania while the plane reported to be Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport was actually its drone.
Instead of landing the planes safely after the "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking demonstration, the Canadians that had control of the planes during Global Guardian '01 -- i.e. 9/11 -- swapped the decoys (the passenger planes) for drones. Three of the four drones reached their targets being the Twin Towers and Wedge One of the Pentagon while Flight 11, 175 and 77 were remotely disposed of over Warning Area 386 (W-386) airspace.
The 9/11 hijackings were double hijackings. The nineteen hijackers (orginally twenty -- Zacharias Moussaoui missed his flight; five assigned to each flight) on board four planes were part of simulated hijackings where Boeing Canada demonstrated its "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the United States. They were present to physically hijack the planes then the autopilot is activated remotely and lands the planes safely to a predetermined location ending the demonstration.
You are lying again. When will you frauds learn? NONE of the four hijacked planes were lost to primary radar. Will you debate air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia on the air?
Oh, I forgot: you're an anonymous internet troll. You don't subject your fantasies to serious scrutiny.
Therefore the logical response was to take away our freedoms with the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA 2011. Now we have less freedom, they hate us less, no more attacks have happened.
Obama is a great leader who cares about us. OBAMA 2012!
@RonaldWieck 1,500 architects and engineer for 9/11 truth should be enough for you to understand there is plenty of academic support for a re-investigation. Go to their website and start reading. Why not?
Gage's gaggle of frauds include many America-hating lefties from humanities departments. There are no demolition professionals and the only structural engineers are either demonstrably crazy or long-retired. There is a reason why NONE of these clowns will ever face a real structural engineer in open debate.
Let us know why NOBODY in your deranged cult has ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a technical journal.
@RonaldWieck No one from NIST or the 9/11 Commission will debate anyone. Period. They are the people who wrote the official conspiracy. You obviously have no idea how the peer review process is controlled.
Engineers who disagree with the official conspiracy = 'America-hating lefties'? Even you must understand that is a purely ad hominem attack. Research the official story and compare it with all other available information. There is only one conclusion I've known anyone to come to.
NIST is not a debate club and the 9/11 Commission offered no technical analysis of the collapses. There is no significant dissent from NIST's conclusions in the worldwide community of structural engineers. The engineers and physicists with whom I have been privileged to consult have published many peer-reviewed papers. They understand the peer-review process very well. Charles Pegelow is one of Gage's "engineers." He thinks the towers were nuked.
@RonaldWieck Oh yeah and still quiet about the NDAA. Looking forward to the FEMA Camps and indefinite detention? Section 1031. Read it. And check this out:
@RonaldWieck Oops! You appear to have totally ignored my post that reminded you of a couple of the many inconvenient bits of BULLSHIT in the WTC7 Report. Which direction DID the beams push that vital girder? Why DID NIST exaggerate the fuel loading on the affected floors until they got the result they were looking for? No answer? That's because you have your OCT Goggles on and cannot see any fault with your fucking precious fucking arsehole of a report.
You haven't read a word of the NIST report on building 7. Your frivolous nonsense is intended to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you don't have a clue about what you're trying to claim.
Try glancing at the Executive Summary, page xxvi, for the direction of the collapse.
You forgot to explain why real engineers can't see the "bullshit" that your uneducated eyes notice instantly.
@RonaldWieck Oh dear, more lies from a duhbunker, but we expect nothing less. I am at work now but my home computer has a copy of the fantasy tale, NIST Report into the Collapse of WTC7 and I have read it. Shyam Sunder claims that the heated floor beams under floor 13 expanded and pushed the vital girder off its seat thus allowing the GOLDEN column 79 to fail and bring down the entire building. That is in direct contradiction of experiences of other such fires where the beams sag down. IT'S SHIT
If you have attempted to read the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, then your problem is an inability to comprehend what you read. You understood nothing.
Tell us what happened when you phoned Mike Newman at NIST.
Oh, you've NEVER made any attempt to contact NIST?
Tell us what happened when you submitted a paper to the ASCE journal?
Oh, you have no technical background and know nothing about engineering?
@RonaldWieck Nope, sorry dumbfuck, wrong again, nothing too difficult to understand in that wee fairy tale you love so much, it's just that it is a load of utter bollocks. Quite a bit like you in fact. Why do you never address any of the points that I raise? Too inconvenient for you are they? What a loathsome little shit you are.
Your "points" are nonsense. Speaking of loathsome little shits, you seem to know much more about engineering than real engineers, yet you give the impression of being a typical uneducated twoofer moron. Where did you learn the stuff that real engineers don't know? You have a low opinion of modelling, yet real engineers use the technique all the time. When will you explain why we should trust your fabrications over the real science?
@RonaldWieck I certainly do NOT know more than engineers but I & others have found some glaring anomalies within the comedy fairy tale called the 'Final Report on the Collapse of WTC Building 7'. The fact that you delight in calling people who find such anomalies "uneducated twoofer morons" is testament to your own prejudice & inability to address the points raised. Modelling is fine when it is backed with supporting evidence &, preferably, physical experiments. Assumed figures = bad science.
No, you haven't found ANY "anomalies." You are an ignoramus spouting utter crap on a subject you know nothing about. NIST explained its methodology. You haven't read the report, so you wouldn't know.
Tell us how an uneducated zombie can know that a technical report is flawed, although real engineers can't seem to find those flaws.
@RonaldWieck Then please explain to me why they attributed the same fuel loading to entire floors as the highest level for any SECTION of that floor. Explain TO ME how they managed to overlook the photographic evidence showing that the supposed seat of the collapse on the twelfth floor, which was supposed to be an intense fire right up to the time of the collapse, is shown as a blackened burnt out hole in a photo timed at around 15:30? Stop fobbing me off onto others, can't YOU ANSWER?
Explain what you know that the structural engineers, fire safety experts, metallurgists, materials scientists, and computer programmers don't know. What could they have learned from you? How did you acquire this information? Tell us why scientists employ modelling procedures to understand phenomena.
Don't be shy. You don't want us to think that you're just another twoofer peddling snake oil.
Everyone should know the official 9/11 story we were told is a big lie. We have hundreds of Pilots telling us that its impossible to fly a boeing 757 into the pentagon and WTC towers its call Pilots for 9/11 truth. We have Thousonds of Architects and Engineers who do not agree with the official story. A few fires cannot bring down a 47 story steel skyscraper. Scientists for 9/11 truth, and celebrities for 9/11 truth.
Sorry, liar, the handful of crackpots who make up the bogus "pilots" group are agenda-driven fools. Nobody sane thinks it is impossible to fly a 757 into the Pentagon. The radar tracks, the physical evidence, and the testimony of over a hundred witnesses prove that a 757 WAS flown into the Pentagon. NIST explained how unfought fires brought down WTC 7. The collapse was NOT symmetrical and only a small, insignificant portion was at free fall speed.
Henry Kissinger the NWO advocate, who openly speaks about wanting a New World Order, being appointed to be the chairman of the 911 commission. What an interesting co-incidence.
@davidmas3, I'm with you. Like you I'm a total dumfuk and moron but we know 911 was an onside job because we sawr it on the internet, what more do you nbeed? We need a REVOLUSHUN of the dumfuks!
According to page 18 of Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF, Chief of the Defence Staff J.M.G. Baril, General, Canadian Forces and General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a treaty -- Canada-United States Basic Security Document MCC 100-35 -- dated August 20, 1999 to turn over command of NORAD to French speaking Baril. Maurice had control of Blue Air for 30 hours on June 1 to June 2, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida as referenced on page 16 of the 35 page document.
@OperationMockingbird The same scenario of Amalgam Virgo '01 played out from 3:00pm September 10 to 9:00pm September 11, 2001 where Quebec born French Canadian General Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril of the Canadian Forces stationed at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado had command of NORAD Blue Air for thirty hours.
@OperationMockingbird Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the U.S.A. during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
@OperationMockingbird Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the U.S.A. during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
The 9/11 hijackings were double hijackings. The hijackers on board the four planes were part of simulated hijackings where Boeing Canada demonstrated its "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the USA. They were present to physically hijack the planes then the "uninterruptible" autopilot engages and remotely lands the planes safely to a predetermined location thus ending the demonstration.
Also, NIST has confirmed *periods* of free-fall acceleration for WTC1, 2 and 7. If free-fall acceleration occurs, for more than a floor due a gravitational-collapse, the 1st law is violated. End of. You seem to be getting very upset that people here are disagreeing with your cherished theory. If you want to discuss the science, we can do so, although I doubt you will, because clearly, you are ineffably scientifically-illiterate. So keep up with the ad hominem attacks. That's all you have left.
A very silly response. Your mindless cult was doomed to a pathetic existence in the bowels of the internet by its total inability to grasp the concept of free fall. In order to disagree with a theory, you must first UNDERSTAND it. You find it impossible to come to terms with your cult's overwhelming rejection by demolition professionals. The statement about the alleged "violation" of Newton's 1st law is typical twoofer gibberish. Your mad agenda makes learning impossible
@RonaldWieck 'Nobody can provide a precise number, but neither tower fell in less than 15 seconds.' Thats misleading. NIST admited back in november 2008 that ''a freefall descent over approximately eight storys at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds'' took place with WTC 7. That was released in the NCSTAR 1-9 607.
Your statement was clearly meant to give the false impression that free fall was nowhere to be seen.
Wow, sure looks like an assumption of planes, a foregone conclusion, a necessary evil.
But, I read the constitution and I realize that it tells me who did this.
In 1848, the man who would be responsible for the most unnecessary American in our history afirmed what the constitution told me; the purpose of war is to oppress our people, not to conquer those other people.
Bring back a free press. Put teeth into the 1st amendment. Dismantle the media monopolies/oligopoly.
Great video. Thanks for uploading. The truth will out, sooner or later. Anyone with a scintilla of common sense can see that the BBC is a elite-controlled authoritarian mass-communication propaganda-outlet that perennially shoves disinformation down our throats at every opportunity, albeit it does a moderately more subtle job of it than the America media. It has been set up to communication device to tell us the "truth" in only one direction - from the power-elite to the people they control.
Here on Earth, the BBC is a left-leaning, strongly pro-Palestinian news outlet. The network despised George Bush and allowed its anti-American tilt to grow so perceptible that it finally undertook an in-house reevaluation of its image.
The notion that the BBC covered-up for an administration it loathed is silly to the point of insanity. You are wedded to your fantasy of an absurdly bloated conspiracy--comic book super-villains with limitless resources who leave clues for idiots.
@RonaldWieck That Left-Right crap is totally irrelevant to physics. The human race is irrelevant to physics. Physics is incapable of caring.
But it is rather funny that the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each and every level of buildings designed before 1969.
But your problem is that you are very weak in physics. You're the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. By constantly attempting to debate people far out of your league, you never come to terms with your own incompetence. That is the reason why you struggle with issues that require more knowledge than you have to understand. You insist that you have acquired through magic mastery of technical subjects that mere mortals need to study for years. Your obsession is creepy.
@RonaldWieck WOW! You think you are smart enough to handle psychology.
Physics is incapable of giving a damn about psychology. Are psychologists smart enough for physics?
You interviewed Ryan Mackey talking about modeling the collapse in your Hardfire #3. But he computed the velocity after impact via the conservation of momentum but the stationary mass can't move without bending or breaking the supports. That would absorb energy. His physics is STUPID and INCORRECT. How creepy!
Yeah, an aerospace engineer's understanding of physics is defective. Bazant, a structural engineering superstar, made laughable mistakes. They have much to learn from an internet troll who may or may not be a high school graduate.
@RonaldWieck It is certainly interesting that your aerospace engineer can't build and test the model he describes on your show. Science has been turned into the 9/11 Religion. All you can do is try to browbeat people with insults.
But I pointed out the silly math that Mackey used on your show. Compute the velocity even tho the support has to be destroyed before the mass can even move. LOL Great engineer! When will he build and test his own model? Mackey can just talk like you.
Your bumptious and inept attempt to criticize the work of someone vastly your superior in intelligence and knowledge was slapped down by the engineers on the JREF. You, of course, learned nothing. But as you no doubt disagree with my low opinon of your intellect, feel free to explain why three years later, you remain an anonymous troll spouting discredited drivel on insignificant blogs.
When will you publish in a technical journal? ( Of course, I'm kidding, you silly goose!)
What is really obvious is that you are an agenda-driven fool. Your evil cult has produced bogus science, distorted quotes and a blizzard of outright lies. It has yet to find a shred of evidence for its absurd myths.
@RonaldWieck You're entitled to think that if you wish. Nevertheless, from where I'm standing the evidenec stands up. It can be proven, mathematically that the ostensible 'collapse' of WTC1, 2 and especially 7 are impossible if one accepts the notion of a gravitationally-engendered progressive collapse. It seems to me that the established elite have done good job of brainwashing you. Still, there's always hope. Try watching some of Peter Joseph's documentaries. They may open your mind a-little
No, you are spouting nonsense because you simply don't know what structural engineers and physicists know. They disagree with you not because they serve a fantastic, absurdly bloated conspiracy, but because they know things you don't.
The twoof cult is notorious for shouting down experts. Facts that are inconvenient to the myths get dismissed. Your mathematical "proof" of the impossibility of the collapses should be submitted to a technical journal. You might learn something.
@RonaldWieck The mathematical proofs are straightforward. Here let me show you. According to the 9/11 Commission Report WTC2 and WTC1 of 10 and 8 seconds respectively. The towers were 417 meters high. To calculate the free-fall time from the top of the building the following equation is conventionally applied: S = ut+1/2at^2. Hence free-fall would take 417 = 4.9 = 18/4.9 = 85 (Squared) = 9.2 seconds. Hence the 1st law of thermodynamics has been violated. Enegy has been created. Any objections?
You really have to stop and try to process information. The 9/11 Commission Report did not purport to be a technical analysis of the collapses. The off-the-cuff estimates you cite mean nothing. Nobody can provide a precise number, but neither tower fell in less than 15 seconds. I suggest reading the material here:
The number of irrelevant details about 9/11 is ridiculous. Can an airliner weighing less than 200 tons totally obliterate a building weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than TWO HOURS? Why don't physicists want to know the tons of steel & tons of concrete on every level? Didn't the buildings have to hold themselves up against gravity? 7th graders should be able to figure this out.
And Purdue produces a computer simulation that contradicts what the NIST says happened to the south tower.
Fabulous! You are still raving about utter crapola that the engineers and scientists on the JREF told you over and over how to estimate. Physicists aren't interested because they're MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU.
You are a dimwit even by the abysmal standards of your evil, mindless cult.
@RonaldWieck I notice that your smart engineers can't build a physical model that can completely collapse or come up with data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. Engineers doing physics without accurate data. Brilliant!
I guess they can impress people dumber that they are.
I have never really understood you. So many engineers have explained to you how to obtain the estimates you profess to want yet you doggedly contend that they are all wrong. How many times have you been told how to opbtain a figure that is accurate to within 5%? Why do you believe that they are wrong when they insist that this is how real structural engineers work? What is the source of your secret knowledge?
Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. So some engineers had to figure out how much steel had to be on level 1 of the WTC. And level 2 and 3 etc., etc. So going up the building less weight had to be supported so less steel was required.
So how can any so called ENGINEERS explain a complete collapse in less than 30 seconds less than two hours after impact without accurate data on distributions of steel and concrete? Not even Richard Gage!
Do such comebacks really work in the schoolyard? You cut such a pathetic and ridiculous figure because you dream that you can pit your low level of understanding against people like Bazant. You bore your intellectual superiors with your obtuseness. How many times have Mackey, RWGuinn, Newton's Bit, and other engineers showed you exactly where to look in the NIST reports? Your combination of incompetence, ineducability, and unjustified arrogance defines the cult you serve.
Just remember, lying, manipulative, unsuccessful, irrelevant, insignificant and pathetically puny little microdunce: Wherever you go to spread your shilling disinformation, I will be right there, waiting, watching and dismantling you and your pathetic illuminati funded bullshit songs and dances.
You bring up Mackey, I will rip it apart. You bring up your bibles (NIST/FEMA/PopMech), I will burn it. You bring up your bullshit excuses regarding pentagon footage, I will laugh at it...
*If government/pentagon/shadow government/illuminati have nothing to hide, they should release Pentagon Footage, which they specifically targeted and confiscated.
*If government/pentagon/shadow government/illuminati have nothing to hide, they should engage in open debate with 9/11 truth movement. I am waiting for NIST/FEMA/911 Commission to engage in open, public debate
*Nobody cares about your unsuccessful, poorly executed dunce-show HardFire, you unsuccessful lisping fatso.
*Explain why NIST/FEMA will not engage in open discussion
*Explain why thousands of scientists/engineers/architects/physicists/demolition experts/government employees/lawyers/psychologists/senators/public deny the insane and outrageous government conspiracy theory?
Pentagon security cameras cannot show a clear image of a plane moving 750 feet per secomd.
NIST and FEMA are government agencies, not debate clubs. The frauds you follow so slavishly refuse to debate any of the structural engineers and scientists who would gladly lay bare the twoof cult's errors.
WHAT fake suicides?
Tell us about Aaron Russo's "testimony."
Mineta's testimony was discredited by the phone logs and the other witnesses. His timeline was off by more than 1/2 hour.
Back in April 2009, rationalists wondered if we'd be asking in September when Harrit and Jones would send a sample to an independent lab for verification. Three Septembers have passed amd the frauds will NEVER seek validation. They published in a shady pay-for-play journal and have hunkered down. The twoof zombies will swallow any snake oil as long as no real science is behind it. But the FACT is that the two frauds discovered priimer paint, not sooperdoopernanothermite.
@RonaldWieck do you think NIST defrauded the American tax payer with its 2008 report on WTC7's collapse from office fires started by random 100Metre catapulted burning debris from the 90th floor region of "collapsing"WTC1? Surely the mystery FDNY affiliate engineer who predicted 7's collapse 12.20pm as five hours (FDNY put total faith in this and planned commensurate to it) must have known W-H-Y 7 should collapse CD style from a few office fires? NIST just duplicated his/her calculations.
Publish a paper in an engineering journal explaining what NIST got wrong. Nobody in the twoof cult has ever attempted to behave like a serious researcher. The FDNY concluded that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to fall. Of course, these people merely fight fires for a living and study fire science. What could they possibly know compared to someone who lives in his mother's basement and never took a science course?
@RonaldWieck '...mothers basement' I laugh EVERY time I hear that ancient ribtickler thanx, now hows about answering the question how did the NIST 2008 report differ from the mystery un-named FDNY engineers 12.20 pm 9/11 calculations that 7 would universally collapse from a handful of office fires in five hours? and ...if it was duplication (which it logically must be) did they defraud the US taxpayer? one more question...who is financing you?
e FDNY established a collapse zone around WTC 7 based on a professional assessment that the building was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NIST's job is to explain the collapse mechanism.
@RonaldWieck I don't doubt that the firefighters thought that WTC7 was going to collapse but have you ever asked them if they expected it to collapse symmetrically and at free fall acceleration when it was being damaged by roving office fires heating various parts of the building at different times and by asymmetrical debris damage from the collapse of WTC7? By the way, your offensive use of the word 'twoofer' and calling truth seekers cultists is not doing your case any good at all.
WTC 7 did not collapse symmetrically: it heavily damaged a building across the street. It did not collapse in free fall. There was an insignificant 2.2 second period of free fall within the total collapse time. If you refuse to read the NIST report or even the FAQ page, you cannot expect to know anything. You are attempting to criticize something you don't understand.
@RonaldWieck Err, Yes, it certainly did collapse symmetrically, far more symmetrically than the roving office fires and asymmetrical debris damage would have managed. 2.2 seconds is not an insignificant amount of time in a total collapse time of about eight seconds and the remaining time of the collapse was close to free fall speed. Where did all that structural steel and concrete's resistance disappear to in those 2.2 seconds and how did it ALL disappear at the same instant?
Err, nothing. Try reading the NIST report and stop pretending you know something. YOU DON'T.
Instead of asking idiotic questions that have been answered in the material you are either unable or unwilling to read, why not try a different approach? Read NIST's FAQ page for WTC 7.
@RonaldWieck Which versionof the FAQ page should I read? The heavily altered one or the earlier one? What don't I know? Don't I know that the fuel loading NIST used for some of the floors, and floor 13 in particular, were heavily biased to give a high fuel loading or that they contradict themselves about the direction the girders are supposed to have pushed the beam off its seat at column 79, was it east or west. Why did NIST apply uniform temps all along beams in their model? Not realistic!
You should read the LATEST version. Why don't real structural engineers agree with your uninformed, agenda-driven crapola? Why don't the frauds who lead you ignorant zombies by the nose refute NIST's conclusions by publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a technical journal? Why hasn't anybody except uneducated fools noticed NIST's nonexistent "contradiction"?
Fame and fortune await. Take your revelations to a real news outlet.
@RonaldWieck And why, Mr. Duhbunker idiot extraordinaire, do you ignore my questions and the various examples of NIST's errors and omissions and simply continue questioning my training or knowledge of engineering? How convenient for you to simply ignore the points raised and continue blithely spouting shite.
I don't "question" your knowledge of engineering. It is abuindantly clear that you have none. You haven't shown any examples of errors made by NIST. When you find an error, write a paper and publish it in a technical journal.
Yes, of course I'm joking. How about visiting the JREF and attempting to con the engineers and physicists who post there? That should be easy, right?
The crapola about the studs has been thoroughly debunked, but you can try again.
@RonaldWieck And you would appear to have FUCK ALL knowledge of anything if you cannot see the obvious contradictions in the NIST WTC7 Report. So which direction did the floor beams push the girder off its seat, east or west? Did the beams expand uniformly and therefore exert equal pressure at both ends as expected or only at the girder end as in their model? Why did they assume the highest possible fuel density on the fire affected floors when a little investigation would have given > accuracy?
@RonaldWieck David Proe and Ian Thomas of Victoria University who questioned NIST directly on this matter: "The assessment of WTC 7 appears to conclude that composite beams [i.e., beams connected to floor slabs with shear studs] are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion. This is not our experience at all....We are particularly interested in the finding that the shear studs failed at low temperatures.
contd. Having conducted numerous fire tests on composite beams, we have never observed this. Was there any physical evidence obtained of this type of failure?"
@RonaldWieck Correction, "free fall ACCELERATION".
Furthermore, why is the data that they used to create their computer simulation concealed and marked 'Top Secret'? So much for accountability to the public who pay their wages.
This has been flagged as spam show
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers.
12weasel100 8 hours ago
Well BBC reporters are gonna get fired anyway because UK is bankrupt. And they will be able to debunk that from their bed, if they wish, but nobody will be watching that for sure !
kervennic 1 week ago
free fall never ever happen to any buildings built since 1950..not one...we seen three buildings in NYC free fall into its own footprint.Thermite was never explained why it was in all the dust...
ducati0000 1 week ago
@ducati0000 It has never been proven to be in the dust. There has only been on independent peer reviewed study and that points to the red/gray chips in the dust being primer paint.
xEllessdee25x 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
listening to that british cunt speak makes me sick.
Seigu007 1 week ago
9/11 was mother of all cover up
justicepartyuk 1 week ago
They tested the samples of dust, and the chips that thought was thermite explodes. So is it or is it not thermite? First time hearing of that experiment.
djundadawg 2 weeks ago
FANTASTIC VID....A 1 work
FreedumbFighter28 2 weeks ago
one thing is for sure, the nazis and the kkk are scared of the NDAA. booo! ready to check out the FEMA camps from the inside nazis? your party is history and tolerance for your kind has just about reached its limits. dont think so? throw a 'pride parade' and see what happens.
vengencefrom1979 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why The Military Knows Israel Did 9/11
/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
War By Deception (9/11, Iraq, PNAC , All Roads Lead To Israel) {Full Film}
/watch?v=CP5JfKPoIl4
9/11 - Missing Links ( full movie )
/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4
Israel Betrays America into War with Iran
/watch?v=MnT8bTMN4oU
megamogx 2 weeks ago
Please make this viral:
watch?v=aPEpcjsJKCI
The911watch 2 weeks ago
Dylan Avery famously hired that top detective to investigate Barry Jennings's death only to have the detective return the fee and request Avery never contacted her again saying 'it's a job for the police!' Maybe BBC conspiracy files should investigate seeing as they somehow managed to make Jennings perform a 179degree on his original testimony in their production 'The Third Tower'.
TODB0AMER 3 weeks ago
But the BBC and other media will use their 'good reputation' to debunk any theory that goes against the BS that is fed to us. Let's get real, 9/11 was an inside job and the perpetrators left a shedload of evidence that left them wide open, they screwed up big time and anyone who get's in their way will disappear. RIP Barry Jennings
Cofton25 3 weeks ago
@Cofton25
Excuse me, fraud, but Barry Jennings was not a twoofer.
Reality's a bitch when all you have is your stupid lies, huh, twoofie?
RonaldWieck 3 weeks ago
@RonaldWieck <<< where do these morons come from? some backwoods one room schoolhouse? or is he just another low life shill?
vengencefrom1979 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vengencefrom1979
The number of actual shills identified by your mindless cult remains zero. Remember, it would be easy to confront your intellectual and moral superiors if you something other than your discredited lies. But--YOU DON'T.
You have condemned yourself to infest the bowels of the net as an anonymous troll. You can't challenge any of the real science.
RonaldWieck 2 weeks ago
The BBC are as crooked as they come, they are 'told' what to put out by the World Order, don't you guys realise that the media are run by this power ? The media, Bush, Blair, all Governments.... these are all just puppets. Unfortunately we will never prove 'officially' anything, the good news is people like those involved in Loose Change, 911 Blueprint for Truth and others have already given us the truth
Cofton25 3 weeks ago
Are the BBC actually covertly showing us how bogus the official 9/11 narrative is with their 'conspiracy files' shows?
TODB0AMER 3 weeks ago
the cia are here,nuff said
59raymondo 1 month ago
the backing sound track is annoying. i wish you could take it off or upload this clip again without the backing track
lapajarcita 1 month ago 2
The man from the BBC doing the voice over re; BBC conspiracy road trip should be ashamed of himself.
lapajarcita 1 month ago
The 911 commission report is the only book you can wipe your arse with and more shit comes off of the paper
skiddypantsful 1 month ago
This page has attracted a notorious 9/11 faithkeeper who has not graduated from the elementary 9/11 class. Care to google "practicing on Wieck", anyone?
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 month ago
@DanUuNoel
Hello, clown. The fatuous Dan Noel was recently destroyed by me in a protracted exchange. He peddled ancient rubbish under the heading "The Baby Page," claiming that WTC 7 was demolished. He juxtaposed two videos, one of a real demolition and the other of WTC 7's collapse. He removed the SOUNDS OF DEMOLITION FROM THE ONE VIDEO. Those sounds didn't require removal from the WTC 7 video as THEY WEREN'T THERE.
The idiot was beaten as badly as any liar has ever been beaten.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@DanUuNoel
I strongly recommened that anyone wanting to see an obnoxious liar get crushed or just hoping for a good laugh follow the mindless Noel's advice. Note that the thread states "to be continued." It was continued. It got a lot worse for the simpleminded twoofer. I will happily supply the missing installments for anyone interested.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Hey, folks! The faithkeeper invites you to follow my advice. Don't forget to ask him for the rest of the thread.
And stop bugging him with the fundamentals of 9/11. He is still struggling in the 6th grade class of 911babystep(dot)com.
Love,
DanUuNoel 1 month ago 2
@DanUuNoel
I've met plenty of idiots peddling conspiracy nonsense, but you top the list of clueless buffoons. I ripped your scalp off for your amazingly inept attempt at deception and you aren't even aware of your humiliation.
WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE SOUNDS OF DEMOLITION FROM THE REAL DEMOLITION, MORON?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@DanUuNoel
So, fraud, why DID you remove the sounds of demolition from the video of the real demolition?
Maybe those sounds weren't relevant?
ROTFLMAO
C'mon, twoofie...
Inquiring minds want to know.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@DanUuNoel
You were wise to run away, fraud.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Anyway you look at it, you had three buildings come down on 9/11. Two were virtually the same, and were hit by two planes at different levels, and the third, a more modern 47 story steel framed building not struck by a plane, yet all three collapsed at close to free fall speed. This needs to be investigated by someone other than Ronald Wieck.
MajorBuckSnort 1 month ago 2
@MajorBuckSnort
I didn't investigate anything. NIST, an agency of the Dept. of Commerce tasked with determining why structures fail, investigated the collapses. Over a thousand structural engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, materials scientists, and computer programmers were consulted.
Tell us what errors of science they made. No buildings free fell. Sixty-percent of free fall isn't good enough. This ancient myth has been debunked.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck "I didn't investigate anything" Many a true word spoken in jest. Never mind, NIST didn't do much real investigating either, after all, they had virtually no WTC7 steel to work with, didn't look for any accelerants or explosives & relied entirely upon computer models to back up their report. Computer models whose data is top secret & that abrubtly end just as the collapse commences. No answer to my question about why they overloaded the fuel figures for the fire floors either I see!
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
What "fuel figures"? No plane hit WTC 7. NIST didn't look for pixie dust either. As there was ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES amd the auditory record did NOT contain the characteristic sounds of demolition, how much time should have been spent on an absurd thesis?
Instead of making up bullshit, why not try READING the report?
Please tell us why real engineers can't find the errors that are so obvious to uneducated, agenda-driven dunces.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck What fuel figures? What a fucking cretin you are, sitting there pretending to be knowledgeable and informed and dismissing anyone else as mere 'twoofer losers' no matter how much they run rings round your fat, hideous arse. I was referring to the fuel loading figures that NIST invented for the office furnishings, supplies, etc. that are meant to have burned hot and long enough to initiate the collapse but which actually were much lower than they claimed as they used the highest.....
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
contd. figures for each section of a floor and applied them to every part of that floor. Not very scientific but it helped them to make their silly model work. Also, there is the thermograph image that they made that showed an extreme hot spot on the twelfth floor at 16:00 where they asserted that the fire was raging and yet, a photograph taken at 15:50 of that area shows that the fire had burned out there. Please do explain how your wonderful scientists COULD BE SUCH TOTAL FUCKUPS?
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
You might try reading the NIST report and stop parroting nonsense written by frauds.
You didn't tell us when you intend to call Mike Newman at NIST and explain your revelations to him.
Go ahead--I've spoken with the man several times. It's not hard. Dazzle him.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Wonald Wank, please explain then why NIST took the fuel loading from the densest part of a floor, say the American Express office and then apply it to the entire area occupied by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to which the interviewed AmEx managers presumably had no access and no knowledge of the fuel loading. NIST created computer models of the fires they needed to create their collapse but those models bear little resemblance to reality as their own photos show.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Sorry, I am not parroting nonsense, I am asking pertinent questions which you refuse to address as you prefer to fob me off on Mike Newman. You are very good at avoiding actual debate or giving out answers to legitimate questions but prefer to attack the credibility of those asking the questions. I have asked about fuel loading figures, beams being rigid instead of sagging, photos disproving the NIST models & you have singularly failed to say anything positive for NIST. EPIC FAIL!
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
You ARE parroting nonsense. Mike Newman is the man to talk with. Your evil, mindless cult refuses to debate real engineers for good reason. All your disingenuous questions are answered in the NIST report on WTC 7, which you haven't read. Try reading pages 28-44 and stop pretending that you know things you clearly don't.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
The fraud Kevin Ryan made the same claims about the NIST WTC 7 report. They were answered in this JREF thread:
forums((dot)randi(dot)org/showthread(dot)php?t=215957&page=11
Why not visit the JREF and put those materials scientists and structural engineers in their place?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Wonald the WANK, yet another snake oil selling, OCT supporting, suppurating boil on the arse of humanity who likes to pretend they know it all when even their beloved NIST had to manipulate the figures and facts they had until they managed to make it fit the weird collapse we saw on 911. They had no clue why 7 fell the way it did and had to invent the magic of column 79 in order to explain the inexplicable.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
Sure, kid. NIST fooled all the structural engineers in the world, but an ignorant agenda-driven dolt saw right through the deception. Let us know when your mindless cult produces a peer-reviewed paper written by a real engineer that refutes NIST. Let us know when one of the frauds who cons you zombies wants to debate someone who knows the facts.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
I'm not jesting, idiot. I didn't investigate anything: REAL scientists and engineers conducted a comprehensive investigation. The results are inconvenient to your stupid fantasies.
Why won't any of the charlatans who lead you ignorant zombies by the nose face any real engineers in an open debate?
When will your evil cult take some actual evidence to a real news outlet?
Why NEVER?
(Oh, yeah--they're ALL in on it!)
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the United States during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
The same scenario of Amalgam Virgo '01 played out from 3:00pm September 10 to 9:00pm September 11, 2001 where Quebec born French Canadian General Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril of the Canadian Forces stationed at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado had command of NORAD Blue Air for thirty hours.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
According to page 18 of Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF, Chief of the Defence Staff J.M.G. Baril, General, Canadian Forces and General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a treaty -- Canada-United States Basic Security Document MCC 100-35 -- dated August 20, 1999 to turn over command of NORAD to French speaking Baril. Maurice had control of Blue Air for 30 hours on June 1 to June 2, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida as referenced on page 16 of the 35 page document.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
Flight 93's drone the only plane not to reach its target. The drone -- scheduled to strike the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. -- was scraped due to a delay of Jason Dahl's Flight 93 for forty one minutes by an air traffic controller at Newark Liberty International Airport. This unforeseen delay caused the premature destruction of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania while the plane reported to be Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport was actually its drone.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
@OperationMockingbird
You have been caught lying. No drones were flown anywhere in the U.S. on 9/11/01.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Instead of landing the planes safely after the "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking demonstration, the Canadians that had control of the planes during Global Guardian '01 -- i.e. 9/11 -- swapped the decoys (the passenger planes) for drones. Three of the four drones reached their targets being the Twin Towers and Wedge One of the Pentagon while Flight 11, 175 and 77 were remotely disposed of over Warning Area 386 (W-386) airspace.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
The 9/11 hijackings were double hijackings. The nineteen hijackers (orginally twenty -- Zacharias Moussaoui missed his flight; five assigned to each flight) on board four planes were part of simulated hijackings where Boeing Canada demonstrated its "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the United States. They were present to physically hijack the planes then the autopilot is activated remotely and lands the planes safely to a predetermined location ending the demonstration.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
@OperationMockingbird
You are lying again. When will you frauds learn? NONE of the four hijacked planes were lost to primary radar. Will you debate air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia on the air?
Oh, I forgot: you're an anonymous internet troll. You don't subject your fantasies to serious scrutiny.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
9 11 happened because they hated our freedom.
Therefore the logical response was to take away our freedoms with the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA 2011. Now we have less freedom, they hate us less, no more attacks have happened.
Obama is a great leader who cares about us. OBAMA 2012!
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Someday one of you liars will tell me exactly what freedoms I've lost, but it won't happen anytime soon.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Indefinite detention without trial for all US citizens. The definition of unfreedom. NDAA 2011, signed 31st December 2011. Section 1031.
Go and read it, or are you too lazy? Warrantless wiretapping in the PATRIOT Act.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Rubbish. Stick to conning the other kids.
No NEW warrants are necessary for monitoring calls to suspected foreign terrorists. I think that's a pretty good idea.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck All quiet about the NDAA...
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Yawn. Tell us about FDR's behavior relating to Ex parte Quirin (quick--run to Wikipedia).
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Still quiet about the NDAA...
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck 1,500 architects and engineer for 9/11 truth should be enough for you to understand there is plenty of academic support for a re-investigation. Go to their website and start reading. Why not?
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
Gage's gaggle of frauds include many America-hating lefties from humanities departments. There are no demolition professionals and the only structural engineers are either demonstrably crazy or long-retired. There is a reason why NONE of these clowns will ever face a real structural engineer in open debate.
Let us know why NOBODY in your deranged cult has ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a technical journal.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck No one from NIST or the 9/11 Commission will debate anyone. Period. They are the people who wrote the official conspiracy. You obviously have no idea how the peer review process is controlled.
Engineers who disagree with the official conspiracy = 'America-hating lefties'? Even you must understand that is a purely ad hominem attack. Research the official story and compare it with all other available information. There is only one conclusion I've known anyone to come to.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@historypoliticsbb
NIST is not a debate club and the 9/11 Commission offered no technical analysis of the collapses. There is no significant dissent from NIST's conclusions in the worldwide community of structural engineers. The engineers and physicists with whom I have been privileged to consult have published many peer-reviewed papers. They understand the peer-review process very well. Charles Pegelow is one of Gage's "engineers." He thinks the towers were nuked.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Oh yeah and still quiet about the NDAA. Looking forward to the FEMA Camps and indefinite detention? Section 1031. Read it. And check this out:
goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Oops! You appear to have totally ignored my post that reminded you of a couple of the many inconvenient bits of BULLSHIT in the WTC7 Report. Which direction DID the beams push that vital girder? Why DID NIST exaggerate the fuel loading on the affected floors until they got the result they were looking for? No answer? That's because you have your OCT Goggles on and cannot see any fault with your fucking precious fucking arsehole of a report.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
You haven't read a word of the NIST report on building 7. Your frivolous nonsense is intended to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you don't have a clue about what you're trying to claim.
Try glancing at the Executive Summary, page xxvi, for the direction of the collapse.
You forgot to explain why real engineers can't see the "bullshit" that your uneducated eyes notice instantly.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Oh dear, more lies from a duhbunker, but we expect nothing less. I am at work now but my home computer has a copy of the fantasy tale, NIST Report into the Collapse of WTC7 and I have read it. Shyam Sunder claims that the heated floor beams under floor 13 expanded and pushed the vital girder off its seat thus allowing the GOLDEN column 79 to fail and bring down the entire building. That is in direct contradiction of experiences of other such fires where the beams sag down. IT'S SHIT
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
If you have attempted to read the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, then your problem is an inability to comprehend what you read. You understood nothing.
Tell us what happened when you phoned Mike Newman at NIST.
Oh, you've NEVER made any attempt to contact NIST?
Tell us what happened when you submitted a paper to the ASCE journal?
Oh, you have no technical background and know nothing about engineering?
Yup, another fraud peddling snake oil.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Nope, sorry dumbfuck, wrong again, nothing too difficult to understand in that wee fairy tale you love so much, it's just that it is a load of utter bollocks. Quite a bit like you in fact. Why do you never address any of the points that I raise? Too inconvenient for you are they? What a loathsome little shit you are.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
Your "points" are nonsense. Speaking of loathsome little shits, you seem to know much more about engineering than real engineers, yet you give the impression of being a typical uneducated twoofer moron. Where did you learn the stuff that real engineers don't know? You have a low opinion of modelling, yet real engineers use the technique all the time. When will you explain why we should trust your fabrications over the real science?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck I certainly do NOT know more than engineers but I & others have found some glaring anomalies within the comedy fairy tale called the 'Final Report on the Collapse of WTC Building 7'. The fact that you delight in calling people who find such anomalies "uneducated twoofer morons" is testament to your own prejudice & inability to address the points raised. Modelling is fine when it is backed with supporting evidence &, preferably, physical experiments. Assumed figures = bad science.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
No, you haven't found ANY "anomalies." You are an ignoramus spouting utter crap on a subject you know nothing about. NIST explained its methodology. You haven't read the report, so you wouldn't know.
Tell us how an uneducated zombie can know that a technical report is flawed, although real engineers can't seem to find those flaws.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Then please explain to me why they attributed the same fuel loading to entire floors as the highest level for any SECTION of that floor. Explain TO ME how they managed to overlook the photographic evidence showing that the supposed seat of the collapse on the twelfth floor, which was supposed to be an intense fire right up to the time of the collapse, is shown as a blackened burnt out hole in a photo timed at around 15:30? Stop fobbing me off onto others, can't YOU ANSWER?
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CalumGilhooly
Explain what you know that the structural engineers, fire safety experts, metallurgists, materials scientists, and computer programmers don't know. What could they have learned from you? How did you acquire this information? Tell us why scientists employ modelling procedures to understand phenomena.
Don't be shy. You don't want us to think that you're just another twoofer peddling snake oil.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So nice to be in the conspiracy religion.
Join the club and pray 5 x a day to the holy chemtrail.
koertje 1 month ago
@ScootleRoyale Well done, mate - brilliant video. It was so frustrating to watch the BBC programme. So good that you've done this - great job.
jhodgski 1 month ago
Everyone should know the official 9/11 story we were told is a big lie. We have hundreds of Pilots telling us that its impossible to fly a boeing 757 into the pentagon and WTC towers its call Pilots for 9/11 truth. We have Thousonds of Architects and Engineers who do not agree with the official story. A few fires cannot bring down a 47 story steel skyscraper. Scientists for 9/11 truth, and celebrities for 9/11 truth.
seanh0150 1 month ago
@seanh0150
Sorry, liar, the handful of crackpots who make up the bogus "pilots" group are agenda-driven fools. Nobody sane thinks it is impossible to fly a 757 into the Pentagon. The radar tracks, the physical evidence, and the testimony of over a hundred witnesses prove that a 757 WAS flown into the Pentagon. NIST explained how unfought fires brought down WTC 7. The collapse was NOT symmetrical and only a small, insignificant portion was at free fall speed.
You know nothing.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers.
12weasel100 2 months ago
great vid. PLEASE MAKE MORE
PLEASE!
Flappyization 2 months ago
i too had many reasons to dislike the BBC mockumentary. great job here
Flappyization 2 months ago
who would give this video a thump down?!
818doodooroo 2 months ago 2
@818doodooroo, I crapped my pants watching it. that proves 9/11 was a onside job!
ConspiracyNut 2 months ago
@ConspiracyNut inside amigo.. inside
818doodooroo 2 months ago
@818doodooroo
Only rationalists who care about facts.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Henry Kissinger the NWO advocate, who openly speaks about wanting a New World Order, being appointed to be the chairman of the 911 commission. What an interesting co-incidence.
davidmas0 2 months ago
@davidmas3, I'm with you. Like you I'm a total dumfuk and moron but we know 911 was an onside job because we sawr it on the internet, what more do you nbeed? We need a REVOLUSHUN of the dumfuks!
ConspiracyNut 2 months ago
The mediafire link on your "Here's Tom With The Weather" video no longer works. Any chance that could be fixed?
TheRedqtip 2 months ago
According to page 18 of Amalgam Virgo '01 PDF, Chief of the Defence Staff J.M.G. Baril, General, Canadian Forces and General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a treaty -- Canada-United States Basic Security Document MCC 100-35 -- dated August 20, 1999 to turn over command of NORAD to French speaking Baril. Maurice had control of Blue Air for 30 hours on June 1 to June 2, 2001 at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida as referenced on page 16 of the 35 page document.
OperationMockingbird 3 months ago
@OperationMockingbird The same scenario of Amalgam Virgo '01 played out from 3:00pm September 10 to 9:00pm September 11, 2001 where Quebec born French Canadian General Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril of the Canadian Forces stationed at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado had command of NORAD Blue Air for thirty hours.
OperationMockingbird 3 months ago
@OperationMockingbird Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the U.S.A. during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
OperationMockingbird 3 months ago
@OperationMockingbird Second in command, another Quebec born French Canadian Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles Bouchard, stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. As Baril and Bouchard had control of NORAD's Blue Air, Boeing of Canada demonstrated their "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the U.S.A. during Global Guardian '01 Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal.
OperationMockingbird 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OperationMockingbird
Your ancient falsehoods have been exposed:
911myths(dot)com/index(dot)php/War_Games
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
The 9/11 hijackings were double hijackings. The hijackers on board the four planes were part of simulated hijackings where Boeing Canada demonstrated its "uninterruptible" autopilot anti-hijacking system to the USA. They were present to physically hijack the planes then the "uninterruptible" autopilot engages and remotely lands the planes safely to a predetermined location thus ending the demonstration.
OperationMockingbird 3 months ago
@OperationMockingbird
Nonsensical gibberish. Your fantasy is supported by NOTHING.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
The facts are clear. Now as a society informed, what shall we do about it?
MajorBuckSnort 3 months ago
@MajorBuckSnort
Do what your evil, brain-dead cult has done for ten years: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If you had any real evidence, you'd be famous.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
We've all been had......
dny95 3 months ago
Correction: That should be 9.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
That should read "due to a gravitational-collapse".
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
Also, NIST has confirmed *periods* of free-fall acceleration for WTC1, 2 and 7. If free-fall acceleration occurs, for more than a floor due a gravitational-collapse, the 1st law is violated. End of. You seem to be getting very upset that people here are disagreeing with your cherished theory. If you want to discuss the science, we can do so, although I doubt you will, because clearly, you are ineffably scientifically-illiterate. So keep up with the ad hominem attacks. That's all you have left.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7
A very silly response. Your mindless cult was doomed to a pathetic existence in the bowels of the internet by its total inability to grasp the concept of free fall. In order to disagree with a theory, you must first UNDERSTAND it. You find it impossible to come to terms with your cult's overwhelming rejection by demolition professionals. The statement about the alleged "violation" of Newton's 1st law is typical twoofer gibberish. Your mad agenda makes learning impossible
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck 'Nobody can provide a precise number, but neither tower fell in less than 15 seconds.' Thats misleading. NIST admited back in november 2008 that ''a freefall descent over approximately eight storys at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds'' took place with WTC 7. That was released in the NCSTAR 1-9 607.
Your statement was clearly meant to give the false impression that free fall was nowhere to be seen.
TheJamesrocket 2 months ago
Wow, sure looks like an assumption of planes, a foregone conclusion, a necessary evil.
But, I read the constitution and I realize that it tells me who did this.
In 1848, the man who would be responsible for the most unnecessary American in our history afirmed what the constitution told me; the purpose of war is to oppress our people, not to conquer those other people.
Bring back a free press. Put teeth into the 1st amendment. Dismantle the media monopolies/oligopoly.
1st for a reason
CNN911Fakes 3 months ago
Sorry, my enthusiasm and concern got in the way of my keyboard
"Most unnecessary American deaths"
"War is the most oppressive of all oppressions"
CNN911Fakes 3 months ago
Great video. Thanks for uploading. The truth will out, sooner or later. Anyone with a scintilla of common sense can see that the BBC is a elite-controlled authoritarian mass-communication propaganda-outlet that perennially shoves disinformation down our throats at every opportunity, albeit it does a moderately more subtle job of it than the America media. It has been set up to communication device to tell us the "truth" in only one direction - from the power-elite to the people they control.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
Here on Earth, the BBC is a left-leaning, strongly pro-Palestinian news outlet. The network despised George Bush and allowed its anti-American tilt to grow so perceptible that it finally undertook an in-house reevaluation of its image.
The notion that the BBC covered-up for an administration it loathed is silly to the point of insanity. You are wedded to your fantasy of an absurdly bloated conspiracy--comic book super-villains with limitless resources who leave clues for idiots.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck That Left-Right crap is totally irrelevant to physics. The human race is irrelevant to physics. Physics is incapable of caring.
But it is rather funny that the nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each and every level of buildings designed before 1969.
.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr "Physics is incapable of caring."
Brilliantly said Psik.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr
But your problem is that you are very weak in physics. You're the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. By constantly attempting to debate people far out of your league, you never come to terms with your own incompetence. That is the reason why you struggle with issues that require more knowledge than you have to understand. You insist that you have acquired through magic mastery of technical subjects that mere mortals need to study for years. Your obsession is creepy.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck WOW! You think you are smart enough to handle psychology.
Physics is incapable of giving a damn about psychology. Are psychologists smart enough for physics?
You interviewed Ryan Mackey talking about modeling the collapse in your Hardfire #3. But he computed the velocity after impact via the conservation of momentum but the stationary mass can't move without bending or breaking the supports. That would absorb energy. His physics is STUPID and INCORRECT. How creepy!
LOL
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr
Yeah, an aerospace engineer's understanding of physics is defective. Bazant, a structural engineering superstar, made laughable mistakes. They have much to learn from an internet troll who may or may not be a high school graduate.
Your buffoonish cockiness is amusing.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck It is certainly interesting that your aerospace engineer can't build and test the model he describes on your show. Science has been turned into the 9/11 Religion. All you can do is try to browbeat people with insults.
But I pointed out the silly math that Mackey used on your show. Compute the velocity even tho the support has to be destroyed before the mass can even move. LOL Great engineer! When will he build and test his own model? Mackey can just talk like you.
.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psikeyhackr
Your bumptious and inept attempt to criticize the work of someone vastly your superior in intelligence and knowledge was slapped down by the engineers on the JREF. You, of course, learned nothing. But as you no doubt disagree with my low opinon of your intellect, feel free to explain why three years later, you remain an anonymous troll spouting discredited drivel on insignificant blogs.
When will you publish in a technical journal? ( Of course, I'm kidding, you silly goose!)
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
it is clearly obvious that you are a disinfo agent and an outright liar. how much are they paying you to hide the truth?
davidmas0 3 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@davidmas0
What is really obvious is that you are an agenda-driven fool. Your evil cult has produced bogus science, distorted quotes and a blizzard of outright lies. It has yet to find a shred of evidence for its absurd myths.
If you had anything, you'd be famous.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@davidmas0
You must see this, start to see the last 10 to 15 minnutter.
You YUPE: NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK
CamillioD 2 months ago
@RonaldWieck You're entitled to think that if you wish. Nevertheless, from where I'm standing the evidenec stands up. It can be proven, mathematically that the ostensible 'collapse' of WTC1, 2 and especially 7 are impossible if one accepts the notion of a gravitationally-engendered progressive collapse. It seems to me that the established elite have done good job of brainwashing you. Still, there's always hope. Try watching some of Peter Joseph's documentaries. They may open your mind a-little
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
No, you are spouting nonsense because you simply don't know what structural engineers and physicists know. They disagree with you not because they serve a fantastic, absurdly bloated conspiracy, but because they know things you don't.
The twoof cult is notorious for shouting down experts. Facts that are inconvenient to the myths get dismissed. Your mathematical "proof" of the impossibility of the collapses should be submitted to a technical journal. You might learn something.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck The mathematical proofs are straightforward. Here let me show you. According to the 9/11 Commission Report WTC2 and WTC1 of 10 and 8 seconds respectively. The towers were 417 meters high. To calculate the free-fall time from the top of the building the following equation is conventionally applied: S = ut+1/2at^2. Hence free-fall would take 417 = 4.9 = 18/4.9 = 85 (Squared) = 9.2 seconds. Hence the 1st law of thermodynamics has been violated. Enegy has been created. Any objections?
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7
You really have to stop and try to process information. The 9/11 Commission Report did not purport to be a technical analysis of the collapses. The off-the-cuff estimates you cite mean nothing. Nobody can provide a precise number, but neither tower fell in less than 15 seconds. I suggest reading the material here:
debunking911(dot)com/freefall(dot)htm
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
The number of irrelevant details about 9/11 is ridiculous. Can an airliner weighing less than 200 tons totally obliterate a building weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than TWO HOURS? Why don't physicists want to know the tons of steel & tons of concrete on every level? Didn't the buildings have to hold themselves up against gravity? 7th graders should be able to figure this out.
And Purdue produces a computer simulation that contradicts what the NIST says happened to the south tower.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ScootleRoyale
@psikeyhackr
Fabulous! You are still raving about utter crapola that the engineers and scientists on the JREF told you over and over how to estimate. Physicists aren't interested because they're MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU.
You are a dimwit even by the abysmal standards of your evil, mindless cult.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ScootleRoyale
@RonaldWieck I notice that your smart engineers can't build a physical model that can completely collapse or come up with data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. Engineers doing physics without accurate data. Brilliant!
I guess they can impress people dumber that they are.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr
I have never really understood you. So many engineers have explained to you how to obtain the estimates you profess to want yet you doggedly contend that they are all wrong. How many times have you been told how to opbtain a figure that is accurate to within 5%? Why do you believe that they are wrong when they insist that this is how real structural engineers work? What is the source of your secret knowledge?
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck You have never UNDERSTOOD anything.
Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. So some engineers had to figure out how much steel had to be on level 1 of the WTC. And level 2 and 3 etc., etc. So going up the building less weight had to be supported so less steel was required.
So how can any so called ENGINEERS explain a complete collapse in less than 30 seconds less than two hours after impact without accurate data on distributions of steel and concrete? Not even Richard Gage!
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr
Do such comebacks really work in the schoolyard? You cut such a pathetic and ridiculous figure because you dream that you can pit your low level of understanding against people like Bazant. You bore your intellectual superiors with your obtuseness. How many times have Mackey, RWGuinn, Newton's Bit, and other engineers showed you exactly where to look in the NIST reports? Your combination of incompetence, ineducability, and unjustified arrogance defines the cult you serve.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
very clever
keyholeartists 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck
Just remember, lying, manipulative, unsuccessful, irrelevant, insignificant and pathetically puny little microdunce: Wherever you go to spread your shilling disinformation, I will be right there, waiting, watching and dismantling you and your pathetic illuminati funded bullshit songs and dances.
You bring up Mackey, I will rip it apart. You bring up your bibles (NIST/FEMA/PopMech), I will burn it. You bring up your bullshit excuses regarding pentagon footage, I will laugh at it...
Sidionian 3 months ago
@Sidionian
Just remember that whenever you crawl out from under your bed, I will give you the back of my hand and you will flee, tail between your legs.
I bring up Mackey and you foam at the mouth. Your stupidity prevents you from reading his paper.
Giggling hysterically and setting fires in Mom's basement can't save you, tiny cretin.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ScootleRoyale
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN MICRODUNCE RUN
RUN UNSUCCESSFUL FRAUD, RUN.
RUN YOU LISPING, SHILLING, STUTTERING, TROLLING, UNSUCCESSFUL, UNFAMOUS (INFAMOUS), INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE MICRODUNCE. CHENEY AND ROCKEFELLER THANK YOU.
RUN RUN RUN
Sidionian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
*If government/pentagon/shadow government/illuminati have nothing to hide, they should release Pentagon Footage, which they specifically targeted and confiscated.
*If government/pentagon/shadow government/illuminati have nothing to hide, they should engage in open debate with 9/11 truth movement. I am waiting for NIST/FEMA/911 Commission to engage in open, public debate
*Nobody cares about your unsuccessful, poorly executed dunce-show HardFire, you unsuccessful lisping fatso.
Sidionian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
*Explain Norad's changing of its story 3 times.
*Explain Rumsfeld's slip-up
*Explain Mineta's testimony / Explain Russo's testimony
*Explain fake suicides
*Explain why NIST/FEMA will not engage in open discussion
*Explain why thousands of scientists/engineers/architects/physicists/demolition experts/government employees/lawyers/psychologists/senators/public deny the insane and outrageous government conspiracy theory?
*Explain your lisp.
*Explain camera confiscations.*etc
Sidionian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN MICRODUNCE RUN
RUN UNSUCCESSFUL FRAUD, RUN.
RUN YOU LISPING, SHILLING, STUTTERING, TROLLING, UNSUCCESSFUL, UNFAMOUS (INFAMOUS), INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE MICRODUNCE. CHENEY AND ROCKEFELLER THANK YOU.
RUN RUN RUN
Sidionian 3 months ago
@RonaldWieck
*I love your lies/excuses concerning government confiscation of cameras.
*I love your lies/excuses concerning refusal by NIST/FEMA/911 Commission to engage in live, open debate
*I love your lies/excuses concerning fake suicides by 911 witnesses, testimony givers and exposers of the official government fairy tale story
*I love your lies/excuses concerning Russo/Mineta’s testimony
*I love your Mackey bullshit concoction being destroyed, just like NIST/FEMA were destroyed.
Sidionian 3 months ago
@Sidionian
Pentagon security cameras cannot show a clear image of a plane moving 750 feet per secomd.
NIST and FEMA are government agencies, not debate clubs. The frauds you follow so slavishly refuse to debate any of the structural engineers and scientists who would gladly lay bare the twoof cult's errors.
WHAT fake suicides?
Tell us about Aaron Russo's "testimony."
Mineta's testimony was discredited by the phone logs and the other witnesses. His timeline was off by more than 1/2 hour.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck
*Stop making excuses and quoting ‘experts’. Show the Pentagon footage or shut up.
*Stop making excuses and quoting ‘experts’. Explain Russo’s/Mineta’s testimony, or shut up.
*Stop making excuses and quoting ‘experts’. Explain fake suicides by 911 witnesses/exposers of government cover-up, or shut up.
*Stop making excuses and quoting ‘experts’. Explain NIST/FEMA (Black Budgets/Projects) debunked pseudo-science, or shut up.
*Stop the excuses & lying, you lisping, unsuccessful twat.
Sidionian 3 months ago
Back in April 2009, rationalists wondered if we'd be asking in September when Harrit and Jones would send a sample to an independent lab for verification. Three Septembers have passed amd the frauds will NEVER seek validation. They published in a shady pay-for-play journal and have hunkered down. The twoof zombies will swallow any snake oil as long as no real science is behind it. But the FACT is that the two frauds discovered priimer paint, not sooperdoopernanothermite.
RonaldWieck 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ScootleRoyale
@RonaldWieck do you think NIST defrauded the American tax payer with its 2008 report on WTC7's collapse from office fires started by random 100Metre catapulted burning debris from the 90th floor region of "collapsing"WTC1? Surely the mystery FDNY affiliate engineer who predicted 7's collapse 12.20pm as five hours (FDNY put total faith in this and planned commensurate to it) must have known W-H-Y 7 should collapse CD style from a few office fires? NIST just duplicated his/her calculations.
TODB0AMER 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TODB0AMER
Publish a paper in an engineering journal explaining what NIST got wrong. Nobody in the twoof cult has ever attempted to behave like a serious researcher. The FDNY concluded that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to fall. Of course, these people merely fight fires for a living and study fire science. What could they possibly know compared to someone who lives in his mother's basement and never took a science course?
RonaldWieck 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldWieck '...mothers basement' I laugh EVERY time I hear that ancient ribtickler thanx, now hows about answering the question how did the NIST 2008 report differ from the mystery un-named FDNY engineers 12.20 pm 9/11 calculations that 7 would universally collapse from a handful of office fires in five hours? and ...if it was duplication (which it logically must be) did they defraud the US taxpayer? one more question...who is financing you?
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TODB0AMER
e FDNY established a collapse zone around WTC 7 based on a professional assessment that the building was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NIST's job is to explain the collapse mechanism.
I am financed by Doctor Doom himself.
RonaldWieck 2 months ago
@RonaldWieck I don't doubt that the firefighters thought that WTC7 was going to collapse but have you ever asked them if they expected it to collapse symmetrically and at free fall acceleration when it was being damaged by roving office fires heating various parts of the building at different times and by asymmetrical debris damage from the collapse of WTC7? By the way, your offensive use of the word 'twoofer' and calling truth seekers cultists is not doing your case any good at all.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
WTC 7 did not collapse symmetrically: it heavily damaged a building across the street. It did not collapse in free fall. There was an insignificant 2.2 second period of free fall within the total collapse time. If you refuse to read the NIST report or even the FAQ page, you cannot expect to know anything. You are attempting to criticize something you don't understand.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Err, Yes, it certainly did collapse symmetrically, far more symmetrically than the roving office fires and asymmetrical debris damage would have managed. 2.2 seconds is not an insignificant amount of time in a total collapse time of about eight seconds and the remaining time of the collapse was close to free fall speed. Where did all that structural steel and concrete's resistance disappear to in those 2.2 seconds and how did it ALL disappear at the same instant?
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
Err, nothing. Try reading the NIST report and stop pretending you know something. YOU DON'T.
Instead of asking idiotic questions that have been answered in the material you are either unable or unwilling to read, why not try a different approach? Read NIST's FAQ page for WTC 7.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Which versionof the FAQ page should I read? The heavily altered one or the earlier one? What don't I know? Don't I know that the fuel loading NIST used for some of the floors, and floor 13 in particular, were heavily biased to give a high fuel loading or that they contradict themselves about the direction the girders are supposed to have pushed the beam off its seat at column 79, was it east or west. Why did NIST apply uniform temps all along beams in their model? Not realistic!
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
You should read the LATEST version. Why don't real structural engineers agree with your uninformed, agenda-driven crapola? Why don't the frauds who lead you ignorant zombies by the nose refute NIST's conclusions by publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a technical journal? Why hasn't anybody except uneducated fools noticed NIST's nonexistent "contradiction"?
Fame and fortune await. Take your revelations to a real news outlet.
Oh, I forgot: they're ALL in on it!
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck And why, Mr. Duhbunker idiot extraordinaire, do you ignore my questions and the various examples of NIST's errors and omissions and simply continue questioning my training or knowledge of engineering? How convenient for you to simply ignore the points raised and continue blithely spouting shite.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@CalumGilhooly
I don't "question" your knowledge of engineering. It is abuindantly clear that you have none. You haven't shown any examples of errors made by NIST. When you find an error, write a paper and publish it in a technical journal.
Yes, of course I'm joking. How about visiting the JREF and attempting to con the engineers and physicists who post there? That should be easy, right?
The crapola about the studs has been thoroughly debunked, but you can try again.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck And you would appear to have FUCK ALL knowledge of anything if you cannot see the obvious contradictions in the NIST WTC7 Report. So which direction did the floor beams push the girder off its seat, east or west? Did the beams expand uniformly and therefore exert equal pressure at both ends as expected or only at the girder end as in their model? Why did they assume the highest possible fuel density on the fire affected floors when a little investigation would have given > accuracy?
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck David Proe and Ian Thomas of Victoria University who questioned NIST directly on this matter: "The assessment of WTC 7 appears to conclude that composite beams [i.e., beams connected to floor slabs with shear studs] are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion. This is not our experience at all....We are particularly interested in the finding that the shear studs failed at low temperatures.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
contd. Having conducted numerous fire tests on composite beams, we have never observed this. Was there any physical evidence obtained of this type of failure?"
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck "Oh, I forgot: they're ALL in on it!"
Straw man from a pseudo skeptic. I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
OperationMockingbird 1 month ago
@OperationMockingbird
Yeah, we rationalists have only strawman arguments. That's why you liars are lining up to debate the real engineers and scientists.
ROTFLMAO
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck Correction, "free fall ACCELERATION".
Furthermore, why is the data that they used to create their computer simulation concealed and marked 'Top Secret'? So much for accountability to the public who pay their wages.
CalumGilhooly 1 month ago