Added: 4 years ago
From: IraPopuli
Views: 197,618
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (2,554)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Always, always get goosebumps watching the towers collapse -.- I cant believe I was only 11 when this happened........

  • WTC 7. Some people want to believe conspiracies. From weather machines to political assassinations to false flag operations. Some people want to believe everything their government tells them. The latter is much easier. I tend to be the latter. I can buy every explanation they give for the two towers, the pentagon, and flight 93. But WTC 7 just doesn't make sense, and if they lied about it, they lied about everything. I'm trying hard to find an explanation other than demolition.... no dice aoy

  • 100% INSIDE JOB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

  • YOU MUST GET LYRICS ON THIS DUDE

  • disturbing, sick shit. Bush, cheney and the whole lot of them should be hund from the nearest light pole...

  • I don't think it was JUST Bush responsible, though. Pretty sure the conspiracy is much deeper than just the one man.

  • @TheAndyChandy

    Of course, you are 100% right. A President can't do shit, you need more then few people.

  • I used to ridicule "Truthers". Not anymore....

  • 0:20

    hey its peter griffin

  • Stunning video. This needs to be seen by the whole world.

  • OUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO US! They are using the victims of 9/11, which they attacked and murdered, to "justify" murdering people in other countries. This is absolutely sickening and disgusting! Why isn't Dick Cheney on trial at the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity?! Everyone knows that evil sicko was manning the 9/11 operation from his bunker.

  • Mate great video I got goosebumps at the end!!

  • OK we have an impossible thing if you beleive the official story.

    Theres no such thing as impossible to me and the story is obvuiously wrong.

    WTC7 DID fall at free fall as anyone can tell.

    Will you turd debunkers please tell me how this is possible if NIST cant do it?

    Otherwise youll just have to accept explosives were used.

  • @zenoist2 ya and then they got rid of the evidence

  • NIST approach 9/11 determined to prove the fire damage theory and totally ignore explosives or any mention of them and come up with a half baked theory.

    Unfortunately for them they have wtc7 falling at measured and acknowledged free fall acceleration which doesnt fit the fire story at all.

    In fact its impossible.

    I suggest the official theory is total shit.

    There were explosives going off.

    Not even investigating for them is criminal fraud.

  • Nist would hardly provide any data that can be checked would they?

    As far as they are concerned its a totally unsolved mystery with it falling at free fall due to fire damage.

    It simply never happens in the real world.

    Maybe they should look at explosives? then this apparent impossibility makes sense.

  • FUCK YOU BUSH

  • funny how debunkers magically vanish when im here.

    I guess they dont like uncomfortable facts.

    Their god and temple is NIST and the official story despite it havung more holes in it than a swiss cheese.

    Heres a freindly message to all debunkers." fuck you all you total cunts"Get the gist?

  • Basically fuck off you debunker dickheads.

    You Have NO evidence to prove or support your stupid story and are left with an impossible thing.

    Please tell me how wtc7 collapses at free fall from fire damage?DUH it might have escaped your notice theres a rather large building there directly in the line of most resistance

  • the people waving were superhuman of course dodging in and out all that bending steel.

    Heres an idea. Maybe they were just normal people and the officially high temps are total shit?

    The steel didnt melt at all except from thermite of which traces wew found all over New York.

    In the dust collected from varuois places

    And yes its been peer approved totally unlike the 911 official report were nobody can check anything.

    Great well do a reporty totally un peer revierwed and insists its true.

  • Since WTC 7 was lied about it Naturaaly makes me think all the rest of it was lied about too.

    Notice the wtc buildings collapsing incedibly fast is that really fire damage in a steel framed building?

    When all the othert steel framed buldings on eath have literally withstould an inferno where the burn for days?

    The wtcs averaged around 1 pathetic hour before they fell and people were waving fom the impact zones.

    Does that seem like a building so hot its trusses are bending?

  • I dont see the problem.Since it fell at free fall the fire explanation is inpossible. No ifs maybes possiblys or buts. It was brought down by controlled demolition end of story.

    The sooner those sad fucks at NIST realise it the better.

    Then this apparently impossible event might make sense.

    Until NIST admit explosives they are left with a totally unexplainable story regarding WTC 7

    Its falling at measured free fall.

    WTC7 was brought down by controlled demo it makes sense

  • Oh my government Oh my government Oh my government

  • because it doesnt support the stupid official theory.

  • The real question we should asking (assuming the loose change theory is true) is why would the government destroy WTC 7? What good could come of it?

  • @360Nomad

    Just look at the tenants of WTC 7. Hug banks, huge insurance companies, government entities, and the New York City Office of Emergency Management. All with huge amounts of data that someone, somewhere, could potentially use against somebody important.

  • Comment removed

  • @VideoVerifying "there are alot of videos of airplanes crashing in skycrapers"

    Really? Like which ones?

  • @PoetryHound i'm sonrry was wrong.

  • @PoetryHound i ment cause of fire, go to google type skycraper fire. none of them collapsed. even the biggest fires ucan find

  • So the govt is all powerful and can orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in world history but it can't take down a building without a fucking countdown over a public hand radio channel!?!?. And why wouldn't they have just bring the building down with an uncontrolled demo?! Why take months to plan a "CONTROLLED "demo when, obviously if they brought down the towers with 3000 civillians in them they wouldn't care about casualties. This is why the rest of the world thinks Americans are retards...

  • @durhamdf I love all of the standard, "why would they do a demo" questions. When you find a dead guy with a big bullet hole in the middle of his head do you ask, "Why would they have shot him? It would have made too much noise. Hence, that bullet hole doesn't exist." The evidence points to a CD, therefore you test for explosives and investigate who had access to the buildings. Criminology 101.

  • @GenSButler HAHAH that is exactly the kind of logic I would expect from a thruther. That analogy was useless, a more compatible analogy would be if a mafia was trying to make a murder look like an accident. So they spend hours setting up an elaborate series of events, an untied shoe lace, a crack in the pavement, and a loose manhole cover. But then after the man has tripped into the manhole and is dieing they decide to just shoot him in the face. It makes absolutely no sense!

  • @durhamdf The evidence, the actual tangible evidence, is compatible with the use of incendiaries and explosives. The evidence, the actual tangible evidence, can't squar with a theory of damage from fire and debris. Period, end of story. But keep repeating the word "truther" and "conspiracy theory" and maybe millions who have already figured this out won't be joined by millions more.

  • @GenSButler Because you are a structural engineer? Funny how a bunch of morons suddenly think they are more qualified than the vast majority of the experts in this field! You sound like a fucking creationist explaining how evolution doesn't make sense scientifically :) Sorry buddy, extraordinary claims, that the U.S. government was involved in the most sophisticated conspiracy of all time, requires extraordinary evidence little boy. All you have is retarded assumptions.

  • @durhamdf Oh please, enough of the "you can't draw any conclusions because you're not a structural engineer".

    Look above and search the term I posted (in capital letters). NIST has hidden all the data they used to draw their conclusions about Bldg 7. Now, go ask a PhD structural engineer what they think of peers who refuse to present their primary data. You trust the NIST conclusions when they elude peer review and hide their data? That means you're the one counting on faith, hypocrite.

  • @GenSButler First of all the NIST has made all of the testimonies and all of its findings public so I have no clue where all you retards are getting this. Secondly, all this would prove if true is that more research needs to be done. AGAIN! Extraordinary claims (that wtc7 was brought down by explosives in a massive govt. conspiracy) requires extraordinary evidence! You retards don't even try to prove the findings wrong or prove your findings RIGHT, you just say the current findings aren't enough

  • @durhamdf first of all they havent.nist have been hiding evidence for 10 years or so.

  • @durhamdf "First of all the NIST has made all of the testimonies and all of its findings public so I have no clue where all you retards are getting this."

    You are a liar as can be seen by NIST's own words. Search FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION and read NIST's own letter in which they refuse to provide their input data used to draw their facacta conclusions about a fire collapse.

  • @durhamdf "Extraordinary claims (that wtc7 was brought down by explosives in a massive govt. conspiracy) requires extraordinary evidence!"

    Extraordinary claims that a building falling exactly like it was brought down in a CD was actually caused by fire and random debris DOES require extraordinary evidence. NIST has hidden their data and eluded peer review, private contractors disposed of %99 of the evidence- so the ball is back in your court, apparachik.

  • @GenSButler Which is why the NIST investigation involved 14,000 pieces of film and photographs, hundreds of hours of testimony from experts and eye witnesses, and the general consensus of the structural engineering profession! You can find all of this testimony on the NIST website. As for the data you speak of, the NISTNEVER had a process for storing this massive amount of data after an investigation was over, but if you go to the website all of this data was made available in august

  • @durhamdf NIST omitted all testimony that contradicted their predetermined conclusions. They did no physical testing for explosives. They had the balls to say to the press "we found no evidence of explosives" when that mischaracterized the fact that they had not done any standard tests to seek explosives. They patently contradicted video evidence regarding the when and where of the bldg 7 fires and they failed to address C Metallurgic Examination, which had the indicators of a thermate reaction.

  • @GenSButler LOL pure bullshit kid. Go to NIST, all of the testimony is available regardless of the opinions expressed. All of the data is available on the NIST website. An explosion large enough to severe the WTC7 core would have produced a 150 decible boom that wasn't captured on any of the different videos of the collapse. And kid, thermite is used in building skyscrapers as well! No shit you will find it in the dust of a skyscraper! You need to lay off the Alex Jones and think for youself

  • @durhamdf Again, searching: FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION brings you to a clear and unequivocal statement by NIST with NIST Director Patrick Gallagher's signature saying "we will not release the imput data for our computer simulation cause it will endanger public safety. You cannot scientifically validate a claim without presenting your data. NIST has NOT released this data. Hence they have not validated their claims. Prove me wrong!

  • @durhamdf Regarding explosives, NIST made several absolutely ridiculous presumptions when analyzing cherry picked siesmic/audio data. They presumed that only the loudest types of explosives would have been in their possible scenario (RDX), they presumed that their would be no obstruction of the sound by downtown buildings. Furthermore, National Fire Engineering Protocols (NFPA 921) state clearly and with exclamation that explosives cannot always be detected audibly.

  • @GenSButler Explosions do NOT mean "controlled demolition". In fact, explosions are common in large commercial building fires, and even relatively small residential fires. When you have fire burning around electronics, fuel, natural gas lines and many different kinds of pressurized systems (like furnace tanks) then you're going to have explosions. The explosions heard on 9/11 could have been anything from the fire hitting an open gas line, to one of the many transformers inside the towers.

  • @durhamdf Thermite is used to build skyscrapers? That, then explains why molten metal was found at Ground Zero (FEMA: C Metallurgic Examination) that was mutilated to the point that it looked like shards of swiss cheese?

    FEMA itself said that this metal (compatible with an incendiary thermate reaction) was highly unlikely to have been caused by fires and plane damage. NYT called it 911's greatest mystery. NO ONE has provided an official explanation for these samples.

  • @GenSButler I'd like to see your source but the first thing that comes to mind is that these girders fell thousands of feet and were crushed by hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and other steel girders of course they are going to look like swiss cheese when you dig them out of the rubble

  • @durhamdf C Metallurgic Examination

  • @GenSButler You're correct. BUT the "iron microspheres" found around ground zero was not from thermite. It was proven to be from steel cutting torches uses during the cleanup. Thousands of large steel beems were cut by a cleanup crew to make moving the massive pieces of steel easier.

  • @GenSButler No, thermite is not used to build skyscrapers. The railroads use it to weld the ends of tracks together. Airliners are built of magnesium and aluminum alloys - 2 of the components of thermite - iron oxide is the 3rd. If the alloys caught fire and actually burned, together with the oxygen generators that airliners carry for the passengers, they would have created tremendously high temperatures AND thermite residue.

  • @GenSButler It wasn't NIST's responsibility to test for "explosives". NIST was there to figure out why the building collapsed. The initial 'crime scene' investigation was carried out by the FBI and FEMA under the PENTTBOM operation. And they did in fact test for and look for explosives because they wanted to try every angle of Al-Qaeda's approach. They examined the possibility of Al-Qaeda operatives (or anyone) planting secondary explosives around the WTC Complex, including WTC 7. No explosives.

  • @GenSButler How can NIST hide from peer review when the very process of NIST's investigation is in fact a peer-on-peer professional examination? Are you one of those idiots who thinks NIST is just a bunch of Government employees in black suits who come in and hide everything? LMAO! NIST is a professional organization that is funded by the Government (yes) but they hire private engineers, architects and other professionals for each circumstance, as "standards and technology" is a broad category.

  • Comment removed

  • @NowKillYourself NIST has received requests from the public to simply show their input data that they used to draw the conclusions about bldg 7. Their answer was plain and blunt. "We can't show you how we drew our conclusions or it will endanger public safety." Now go ask a PhD structural engineer what they would surmise about a response like that. Do you think they would be inclined to trust the researcher?

  • @GenSButler lol i would think its possibly a murder scene.

    the logic escapes debunkers

  • NiST are the last thing thing id rely. on

    Theyre government funded and tow the official lne they come out with ridulous crap to support it.

    And then get to real ball breaker like how did wtc7 fall at free fall?

    TheY all fuck off asnd dont answer

    How dId wtc7 fall at free falll?

  • ummmm nice music bro?

  • Occupy Building 7 on November 19 & 20!

    Please show up and show your support for democracy!

    Thursday, 7:00am (or anytime) until late: march from Liberty Plaza to the New York Stock Exchange. At 5pm assemble at Foley Square and march to the Brooklyn Bridge.

    11:00am Saturday: Begin assembling by the tall red sculpture at the southeast corner of Liberty Plaza (the corner of Broadway and Cedar St.)

    Show your support to the thousands who died that day:

    watch?v=3XXEMwhizCE

  • I offer two links where it is not accepted the myth of the conspiracy. 100% of the engineering schools reject the myth of the 9 / 11. I have many beyond those below. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, Europe, Brazil and even in communist China. The only benefit in Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

    Please join to access the link.

  • World Trade Center 7 Relatório Coloca Teoria 11/09 Conspiracy to Rest

    Read more: World Trade Center 7 Relatório Coloca Teoria 11/09 Conspiracy to Rest - Popular Mechanics

    w w w . popularmechanics com. / tecnologia / engenharia / arco hitecture/4278874

  • Comment removed

  • The Real Smoking Gun:

    ..wiki/Project_for_the_New_Ame­rican_Century

    Rumsfeld Cheney and other neoconservatives pleaded America would need a New Pearl Harbor before 9/11 Happened. They must have had at least some mixed emotions when they got what they wanted at 9/11

  • /watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4

  • wtc 7 is where all the information about corruption in the banks and corporations was stored- they had to implode it. Imformation is dangerous. its funny-the man who held the lease bought it for 15 million. but got paid 7 billion cause of two planes hitting-two acts of terrorist. what happened with building 7? it was a controlled demolition- ask any demo. expert

  • all you folks who make these excellent docs, and all the people out there who are trying to expose the truth, you are brilliant!! thankyou for doing the investigation the gov never did!, i salut you !

  • never trust a bush unless its burning

  • Leave the Twin Towers out of it. "Get loud about WTC 7 and the rest will come automatically."

  • see the guy said who it was. it wasnt terrorists, it was SHOCKWAVE!

  • Controlled demoltion beyond a doubt. it fell at at proven free fall and you dont get that from fire damage . EVER its impossible. The official report has it unexplained. since they wont look for explosives.

  • Terrorists or not, innocent people died that day.

  • controlled demolition you can plainly see it why do they keep denying it like we are stupid americans then they had some guy they hired trying to say a new type of progressive collapse yeah! ok

  • ★★★ RON PAUL 2012 - Blackthisout [DOT] com ★★★

  • General George Armstrong Custer blew up Tower-7 on November 27, 1868 on the banks of the Washita River. A medicine man opened an inter-dimensional vortex to deflect cannon balls from his village, sorry

  • Yeah, I love the fireproofing alibi. That's rich.

    Shake fireproofing off of few floors of two one hundred story metal-framed buildings and two hours later the entire structure of both buildings has been weakened sufficiently to collapse over the course of seconds, both dropping like giant lit fuses jutting huge chunks of metal in near-identical, mushrooming cascades. Happens all the time. I thought it was a lovely story, and you tell it with such enthusiasm.

  • @GenSButler Yep, sarcasm aside, that's largely what happened. The main thing you got wrong is that the entire structure of both buildings was weakened. They weren't. Just the floors where the planes impacted and fires raged were weakened. Cheers.

  • @buddyfreakinhoIIy I can't tell what you're advocating with this comment. Official story or no?

  • @buddyfreakinhoIIy Yep, ignoring reality aside, a plane hit and fire on a few floors isn't going to turn WTC's ! and 2 into houses of cards that collapse with almost no resistance, as NIST themselves reported.

  • @GenSButler Right. Surely your intuition is correct. No way could hundreds of structural engineers, fire protection engineers, metallurgists, and forensic engineers know better than some government hating non-experts on YouTube. No way.

  • @buddyfreakinhoIIy The problem with your "hundreds of structural engineers" cliche is that not one of the very small stack of peer reviewed papers on this matter actually provide any definitive conclusions, and the government sponsored end-all-be-all final reports are not peer reviewed at all.

    The NIST report on 7 conceals their data from public view completely, and the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 patently states that the twins collapsed with almost no resistance but don't explain why.

  • @GenSButler Unfortunately for you, it's not a cliche. There really were hundreds of engineers with requisite expertise and experience who participated in the investigation. They came from gov't agencies, private firms, and universities. But I know, they were all "controlled" by the nefarious NWO Zionist Illuminati CIA conspiracy plotters. So were all the Purdue, MIT, Berkeley, Northwestern university researchers who have largely corroborated the NIST analysis. Everyone is controlled! LOL!

  • Comment removed

  • @buddyfreakinhoIIy Unfortunately for all of us, I can type in "FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION" and the first thing that comes up is NIST, in their own words, refusing to provide that data needed to substantiate any of their claims regarding building 7. So I don't care if a 1000 scientists worked on the report. No data, no substantiation. That's how science works, apparachik.

  • @GenSButler Yes, I'm sure all the structural engineers were part of a nefarious plot. So were the forensic engineers and fire protection engineers. So were all the investigators at Purdue and at Berkeley and at MIT and Northwestern, etc. It's a phantasmagorical mega-plot with a cast of thousands!!! Joe Blow's unaccountable, piece-of-shit kookspiracy web site says so! Run for your lives!!!

  • @buddyfreakinhoIIy Hey buddy, do me a favor, enlighten me. Point me to a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of WTC 7. 

  • @GenSButler it's so hilarious that people use NIST's report to validate their argument. NIST's reports are so comically blatantly fraudulent - anyone who has looked at the evidence has to be fooling themselves if they side with the official explanation (which isn't really an explanation of anything).

  • so now that everyone knows that 9/11 was an inside job. what happens next?

  • @bomberZee what happens next? , I suggest you dispose of your Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon DVD collection. You have obviously lost touch with reality .

  • 9-11 an inside job of Illuminati 666 NWO !!! Basta ! anyone intelligent and clairvoyant knows that !!!

  • The buildings that didn't collapse or fall straight down, like wtc 4, 5, and 6, are perfect examples of what is supposed to happen when something massive crushes some of the building. You get a partial collapse. WTC7 did not have anything fall onto it compared to these other buildings, yet it collapsed just like a demo job. Perfect symmetry and free fall speed...

    The crack pot ideas are from the government.. 19 arabs using box cutters outsmarting the entire American military machine!

  • @krankiss outsmarting the entire american military? what is that supposed to mean, obviously you dont remember it was alot easier to get things on a plane back then. they didnt outsmart the military hence why they are all dying over in the middle east for the atrocities they caused.

  • hahahahahahahaha conspiracy theorists. I love the question, "If it was an accident why was the the only other building to collapse" ahaha North Bridge collapsed, St. Nicholas Church collapsed, WTC Marriott hotel Partially collapsed, WTC 4 5 and 6 partially collapsed, but because they didnt fall straight down no one in that region of stupidity cares, because it doesnt support their crack pot ideas. Dumb cunts.

  • Isn't this entire video "cherry picking"? Only show what supports your story? Nothing else?

  • Considering WTC7 having only three columns on a lower floor... Would you not have to "take out" all three at once in order to have the building collapse as it did? Simple fires would cause a GRADUAL collapse, not such a sudden event.. Every action has another reaction just as great. If you clip, blow, or pull all three at once, then you just might see what actually happenend. Super-thermite sounds like the best way to get these results. NIST said they didn't even test for explosives..!

  • If wtc7 had large debris landing on it, wouldn't it have a partial collapse or perhaps topple over? The symmetry is the smoking gun regarding wtc7. Core columns were blown.. you see the penthouse collapse.. then the rest of the building "moves" over and collapses at free fall speed.

    IF wtc7 collapsed from debris, floors would crash into lower floors.. slowing down the entire collapse. The building would not fall at freefall speed LOL

  • @Spindry96, That might be true considering the twin towers however building 7 was not hit by a plane and it also collapsed like the twin towers. The fireproofing in that building should have remained intact. When WTC7 collapsed it sure looked like a controlled demolition to me!!!

  • WTC 7 was hit heavily by debris from the twin towers. Firefighters reported 25% of one side of it was missing. It then caught fire and this was fueled by diesel tanks in the lower floors. WTC 7 also had a unique construction of only 3 main vertical structural beams on it's lover floors that made it more fragile.

  • @dbonomo123, I thought the same thing many times. I believe that flight 93 was SUPPOSED to hit WTC7 but a true hero shot it down. It sure would've been a lot easier to blame its collapse on a plane impact, just like the twin towers.

  • Steel weakens under fire ONLY if it's not fire-proofed. Everyone knows the twin towers were fire proofed with ASBESTOS LOL. Cancerous, yet effective

  • @krankiss Everyone also knows that this protection on the beams was seriously lacking and that much of it was blown off by the planes impact.

  • @Spindry96 and how does 'everyone' know this? do we have photos of the fireproofing on those floors, or eyewitness reports? Even if you were right, it only accounts for the few floors around the impacts - no reason for the whole building to fall apart

  • @zppz Roger G Morse inspected the fireproofing over a 10 year period and he noted much of the fireproofing was lacking in adhesion, cohesion, thickness and density. In places the fireproofing had fallen off in sheets because rust scaling had not been removed before spraying. In elevator shafts fireproofing had been knocked off by elevator cables. The trusses especially were difficult to coat and fireproofing was thin,even missing. The bolts which should have been unidentifiable were identifiable

  • @Spindry96 I meant how do we know "much of it was blown off". And it still doesn't account for the entire building falling apart. There was no fire on the lower floors remember.

    From what you say, this is all the more reason the 'collapse' should not have been symmetrical. Thanks for the info anyway.

  • @zppz NIST found that the floor trusses did not fail en masse. The floor trusses acted as a membrane, holding the exterior columns to the core, as they were designed to do. The collapse was entirely due to blown off fire protection exposing naked columns to fire, which were then heated above their yield strength. The columns bowed in then snapted as can be seen on video. The weight and kinetic energy of the falling floors was too much for each sucessive floor they hit on the way down.

  • @Spindry96 Fireproofing. Yeah, that's it.

    Shake fireproofing off of few floors of two one hundred story metal-framed buildings and two hours later the entire structure of both buildings has been weakened sufficiently to collapse over the course of seconds, both dropping like giant lit fuses jutting huge chunks of metal in near-identical, mushrooming cascades. Happens all the time. I thought it was a lovely story, and you tell it with such enthusiasm.

  • @zppz umm if there is an entire building being supported by a beam and part of the beam weakens the building falls down.... the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.... how hard is that to understand?

  • @FCA88 sure, we are not talking about a chain here, this is compression not tension.

    Entire buildings are not supported by 'a beam' for Christ's sake. If buildings were designed to fall apart if one beam weakened then this would happen every day - I mean how would these towers ever have stood through 30 years of winter storms? You think the designers are complete morons? These buildings in particular had a very strong redundant lattice design, check out some videos on youtube about it.

  • @zppz no but a fire on a single floor can cause that building to collapse.... if the fire is exstensive on that floor and the beams are weakened the more load they carry the less damage it takes for them to give

  • @FCA88 like I said, if that were true then it would be happening all the time

    actually, the more load they carry the stronger they are, so the more damage it would take. I hope to God you are not an architect

  • @godzilla1977, If steel never melted then how would you explain first responders discovering "molten pools of metal" found under the rubble? Why did they describe it as "like a foundry"?? Why was this molten metal still liquid even weeks after 911???

  • i fucking hate you, US Government!!!! you killed thousands of people!!!!! you pay for this!!!!

  • Comment removed

  • I'm confused. First attack - 9:03 a.m. Towers collapse at 9:30 and 10:28 a.m. WTC does not collapse until 8 hours later. If someone wanted to disguise this building collapse why did they wait until 8 hours later. If this was a real cover up wouldn't they have detonated closer to the impact and not at 5:20 p.m.

  • At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[1][39] There were no casualties associated with the collapse. Wiki

  • I have seen one video on youtube of the east side of WTC 7 clearly collapsing 10 seconds before the rest of the building fell. I just want to know why this video and many other videos omit the footage of the east portion of WTC 7. I'm not an expert or even taking a side at this point of time. Just curious why the first ten seconds of the east portion of WTC 7 is not shown in almost all videos.

  • Now I think about it, it's strange how they both fall down like that. I mean, one of them falling down is understandable I guess, but both seems a bit far fetched if I really think about it. Almost implausable? Or kinda unlikely?

  • phrase of the day: Oh my god!

  • Dumbasses, judging by comments and ignorance of you people ... you should get nuked by your own government, which i think its gonna happen soon considering you believe them that they had nothing to do with 911. How dumb you must be to think a plane could of taken down a buildings like Twins and collapse just like buildings that they get demolished on purpose. WAKE THE FUCK UP IT WAS A WORK OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND IT DOESNT TAKE AN EINSTEIN TO FIGURE IT OUT !!

  • NOT HIT BY A PLANE AND FELL HOURS AFTER THE TOWERS WERE HIT. THE BUILDING FALLS AT FREE FALL ACCELERATION THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE. FIRE HAS NEVER BEFORE 911 OR SINCE 911 MELTED STEEL AND A SINGLE LOCALIZED FAILURE COULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEMATIC AND TOTAL FAILURE OF 400 OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS PER SECOND.  --------------------architects and engineers for 9-11 truth

    WHERE WAS NORAD AFTER THE FIRST TOWER WAS HIT????????

  • Everyone always yells "Oh my god!"

  • Why do all the conspiracy kooks support Ron Paul? He doesn't support them. He's been quite clear about that.

    Are the kooks that stupid?

  • @PoetryHound Yes.

  • The building took 18 seconds to fall... you start the clips lat, lol

  • they wanted to kill him

  • Ron Paul r3volution 2012 END THE FED

  • I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE GOVT TELLS ME

    DEBRIS, NOT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, TOOK BUILDING 7 DOWN

    THOSE DAMN HAJIS AND THEIR TECHNOLOGY!!! GOOD THING OSAMA IS DEAD, NOW I CAN GO BACK TO WORRYING ABOUT EVERYTHING FOX NEWS SAYS IS IMPORTANT.

  • @3sp4rz4 While I don't like to believe 9/11 was an inside job, it's very naive to just accept everything the government tells you.

  • the man saw half eaten sandwiches! OH MY GOD! first 'Alien Autopsy', now this...I just can't trust my government anymore.

  • 1 bomb, what about all the firefighters who claimed to have heard multiple blasts shortly before collapse, and 8 hours after wtc1 and 2 came down. Who is right?

  • and construction started just a few months later on the new tower 7... hmm

  • @shaunbot Ker-ching! ;)

  • How about this.....terrorist planted explosives in WTC 7, sometime before September the eleventh, these detonated on the morning of the eleventh in conjuction with the other attacks but failed to bring it down. Then after an inspection of the building found it to be unsafe a demolition crew rigged it with C4 and detonated a controlled explosion.

    The government, fearing the cost of billions in property damage lawsuits, blamed it on the terrorists.

  • @martypoo1 Pretty imaginative story, except for a few minor details:

    No evidence of any terrorists planting any explosives in WTC 7.

    No evidence of detonation charges going off on the morning of 9/11

    No evidence of any crew rigging the building with C4.

    No evidence of C4 charges going off.

    No evidence that gov't would face any property damage lawsuits.

    Other than that, quite plausible. LOL!

  • @PoetryHound

    excuse me

    Were you fucking there, to say there was no evidenc of C4, detonation etc etc?

    no so stfu

    Just because thats what is said in official statements and Reports doesnt mean, its the truth

    they might be covering it up

    dunno

  • @GunStreets Okay, so what's the evidence of C4 and which demo experts confirm C4 was used?

  • @GunStreets Okay, so go ahead and say what the evidence is of C4.

  • @GunStreets Okay, which person who was there says C4 was used?

  • @GunStreets Okay, so which of the firefighters or demo experts who were there on site say C4 was used?

  • @PoetryHound Actually it was thermite that was used to cut the main support structure, they were able to find pockets of it in the debris and even narrow it down to the specific brand.

  • @Dawgmeatt No pockets of thermite were found. It's a theory put forward by one guy and his crew - Steven Jones. You know Jones, don't you? He's the guy who says the USA caused the earthquake in Haiti and that Jesus visited North America. His idiotic claims haven't been corroborated by anyone and thermite is never used in building demolitions for very good reasons.

  • @thx1138aa

    So how is it there's pictures of the steel support columns cut perfectly at severe angles at the base of the building's supports? Let me guess, it was the jet fuel.

  • Gee, the govenrment blows up yet another of thier buildings, they're good for that.

  • ” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”

    If you want to know why WTC7....

    People made a lot of money in killing people that day, and a lot more money was made after.