Ashley Banfield talks about several different officers (what kind of officers???) giving several reports. What kind of reports are they talking about?
One officer told here that there's "no way to stop it", no way to "stabilize it".
Why? Was it leaning then? WHO the hell was this officer? Can we have a name please? Where did HE get this info from? HOW did he get to this conclusion?
No highrise before had EVER collapsed, so...? Why would he say something like this?
@Sandberg1972 You forgot to add that someone said "Pull".: sigh: Now you're analyzing every word uttered by anyone. Ashleigh Banfield's in on it too.
If you don't know the answers to THOSE questions, then you can not claim you have done any research on this. Maybe if you stop visiting conspiracy websites, you'll find actual names and interviews. I'm NOT going to look this up for you. I have better things to do.
@igykalen I'm not saying that Banfield is in on it. U're just making that up because u can't answer the questions I'm asking you.
I asked you how many walls YOU can see dropping down, u don't answer.
I'm asking YOU if u believe that NIST released the inputdata. U've avoiuded that.
All u do is defend some terrible investigation without checking it's outrageous claims, and just buying anything they write apparently because u think NIST is a reliable institution.
Please direct me to the inputdata of WTC7's collapsemodel that NIST has released, according to you.
Now, if YOU cannot direct me to this inputdata, then what does this mean? It means it is not there outthere in the public domain. It means that NIST has NOT released that data. Now that, is not very scientific, is it?
It means YOU, and me & the rest of the world, just have 2 take NIST's word for it, when they claim WTC7 was the 1st highrise to collapse from fires.
You're the one saying they haven't release it, but cannot provide one single link to this statement.
We also have to take their word that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Do you not remember how they grabbed all of the video? There are so many parallels between this and the pentagon. You're picking and choosing your truths. Where's the science in that.
There are no credible engineers saying it's false. What does that tell you?
All I want to know is where is the blast from a controlled demolition? No Blast sound, no shock wave, no debris flying...It fell down, no controlled demolition, get over it!!!
Parrotting some bullshit, while avoiding the freefall issue, which of course was avoided too by any "real world models they built in trying to understand the collapse".
All u've done is come up with unsubstantiated claims, which exist only in computer inputdata which NOBODY has had a chance to see and check (that is, verify that the data is sound and scientific).
If u can prove that it's not one big pc simulation, be my guest.
And fyi, I know much more about this subject than u do.
@Sandberg1972 I directly address your freefall issues and still avoided it? okay
What was the response that you got from NIST when you requested this computer simulation data? What exemptions under the Freedom of information act did they tell you prevented them from providing it?
@igykalen Excuse me, where exactly did u address my freefall issues directly? I seem to have missed it.
Next thing you have to explain is why NIST is refusing to release the inputdata. They claim it would, and I quote: "endanger public safety" if they released that data.
I don't know about u, but why would releasing that inputdata be considered a danger to public safety? Think about that for a second, OK?
NIST claims a first time for something, and will not show us how they got to that.
@Sandberg1972 Probably the bullshit I was parroting. You have to remember, you're the one with the freefall issue, not me.
Why not just ask your 10,000+ engineers that signed petitions to model it if you don't like how NIST handled it? If you can't build your own model, how are you to understand the NIST data?
Next, I DON'T have to explain anything someone else does. Especially to someone that can't even follow what has been already said.
@Sandberg1972 U're apparently either too dumb or ignorant to understand that the freefall issue has grave consequences 4 NIST's theory of collapse. A theory that has not been peerreviewed or tested in the real world. Shyam Sunder is "very comfortable with his findings" only he won't let anyone see or check the basis for them. Good ey?
& please, could u refer me to those 10,000+ engineers "that signed petitions to model it"?
Never mind, u just keep urself uninformed & ignorant, I've seen enough
@Sandberg1972 You've never explained why it has any consequences. Other than it "looks" like a CD. Not a very convincing argument. You also are ignoring the fact that it was one side that came down like that, not the entire building.
The 10k+ engineers, scientists, and whatever that truthers say exist and signed petitions saying that it's impossible. I'm saying why don't you ask them to model it. One of them must be able to.
Do I have to explain to u WHY freefall has any cnsequences for NIST's collapse theory? Well if that's the case it's obvious u have to go back to school again first, for some basic Newtonian physics.
The 1600+ Architects & Engineers don't have to produce any models whatsoever, they have proven the official explanation is not possible under existing laws of physics, and that the existence of freefall directly indicates some form of CD being involved.
@Sandberg1972 You can't explain it. I already told you that only one side looked like it came down that way, not the entire building. And how do you keep missing this?
Half the building landed across the street. So how is that symmetry of collapse?
You use one camera angle and nothing else.
All three buildings had buckling just before they collapsed. How could that have been caused by thermite? That is VERY indicative of a structural collapse, not one where explosives were used..
@Sandberg1972 Are you saying it fell straight down? Are you sure you want to say that?
"Have u seen any other total collapses of highrises other than the 3 in NYC on 9/11?"
Have you seen any other buildings with the same structural design with uncontrolled fires that no attempt were made to put out come down. What building higher that 47 stories do you even know of that have come down?
If you're so smart, then exactly how much explosives and where were needed to bring it down?
@igykalen Asking me to quantify the amount of explosives needed is not that smart, it's ratrher an evasion of the issue at hand.
I don't have to explain a goddamn thing. NIST claims a firsttime EVER, therefore it is THEM who need to explain freefall and why it would be consistent with their collapsemodel. It is THEM who need to be transparant about the data they used for their collapsemodels.
If u disagree with this please say so. Also tell me why u disagree of course, if u can.
@Sandberg1972 They've already explained this. You not having the engineering background to follow is not their problem.
Have you seen a building come down from a non CD before? Should it have looked like that?
If you want to insist that this was a CD, then explain how. NIST has always stated what they felt was the most likely outcome. They do give reasons for why they didn't think it was a CD. If you can't figure out how it was a CD, then what difference does it make?
@igykalen "If you want to insist that this was a CD, then explain how."
If you want the answer to that, you should demand the investigation that would answer for it.
Get it, fascist hypocrite? It's not up to civilian citizens to answer for what is covered up. But this question is only ONE of the many that requires a real investigation.
@igykalen And Thetan might be funny to you, to me you are pretty stupid, sorry to say.
Not in the 1st place because u don't seem to recognize a CD when u see one. That's the worst part.
But especially because u don't seem to be able to distinguish between what's fact and what is a bare assertion.
Claiming a 47-story steel skyscraper can implode, just like a CD, because of a few fires on a few floors along with some local damage, is very very illogical and a very weak hypothesis.
@igykalen NIST does NOT explain HOW freefall could occur. They only try to rule out CD because they ASSUME that the only explosive one can use to demolish a building would be RDX.
The FACT that freefall occured automatically means that the building was brought down (like some reported), and bringing down means CD of course.
Now, if u think such a huge steel building can "naturally" collapse the way WTC7 did, because of fires and some local damage, feel free to explain how that could happen.
@Sandberg1972 How is NIST saying it fell as a single unit?
"WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior ... did APPEAR to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. ... The symmetric APPEARANCE of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
@igykalen And yes I'm saying it fell straight down from the start to more than halfway down. After that it tilted somewhat, but what exactly does that tell u?
I'm sure u've watched many known CD's, this thing happens all the time, some distortions in symmetry, some changes in downward acceleration.
Thing is, the whole structure, or what remains of it, fails suddenly and across the entire length and width of the building (after the mechanical penthouse magically dropped through the roof) ->CD
What answers? They don't give any answers. That's what I demand. Or I'll fight for having those gangsters who denies giving those answers replaced, so we can have a real investigation.
Why do you FEAR a and why are you opposed a real investigation? Why do you endorse the cover-up?
@Thetan1974 Well then perhaps you should start with questions. You just sound like another angry loon demand answers without even knowing what you're talking about.
I'm not against a "real" investigation. But who would do it to your satisfaction? You don't trust anyone in government and no one else that's qualified seems to think there's a need for one, (else they would have done it themselves by now, rather than demand someone smarter than they are do it for them.)
@igykalen And excuse me but it's not "one side that looked like it came down at freefall".
The WHOLE structure came down as a single unit, that is all 4 sides plus the roof, at freefall accelerationm, for the first 2.25 seconds. It's documented fact, it's in the NIST report, it's visible in every video of WTC7's collapse
One more thing: I did NOT say that I don't care about computermodels, I said that it's unprecendented that NIST should not release their inputdata of their collapsemodel..
And show me where NIST won't show their input data. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't argue a point I can't find anything about.
All I can find is a single file (on an alternative website) saying that the director (who wasn't actually the director at the time) didn't allow it, and the file date doesn't even match the PDF document date.
@igykalen U have eyes, don't u? U use them to see, right? In case u haven't noticed, WTC7 came down as a single unit (not just one wall, but all 4 walls plus the roof), it accelerated from zero to instant freefall acc.for 2.25 sec.
Check the final report on WTC7, page 44, second stage of 3 stages according to them.
And if u're gonna play the "argue with information you personally have knowledge of"-game, I can play that too. If we go that way we might as well stop here.
@igykalen My dear igykalen, you are so right. They talk about the wall u see coming down?
Lemme ask you: How many walls of WTC7 do YOU see coming down, in most videos of WTC7's collapse?
How many? One? Two? Three? Four maybe? Or maybe all four plus the roof?
I can see 4 walls plus the roof simultaneously coming down, 1 moment it is there, in rest, the next it is dropping down without any resistance, with the penthouse dropping a fraction sooner than the rest.
@Sandberg1972 Find me the video of the Southwest side of the wtc7 coming down. And show it coming down at the same time as the sides people were evacuated to saw. All you have video of is a few angles of most one side. Interviews with people on the ground tell a very different story.
@igykalen And fyi, no I do not think a missile hit the P'gon, the evidence shows that a large passengerplane crashed there.
NISt claims all sorts of things, with nothing to back it up, their entire model is made up without any physical evidence! They admit this. If u can show me that they used physical evidence from the collapse in theor model, please do. I wish I could but I can't, because it's simply not there.
I cannot show u something that is not there, I assume u understand that.
@Sandberg1972 The NIST also have always said their conclusions were what they consider to be the most likely based on what they had to work with. Their reason for not being able to study the WTC7 debris was because it was moved during the rescue effort and couldn't be distinguished from the other debris.
So what do you want them to do about that?
How would this physical evidence, whatever it means to you change their model anyway?
@igykalen Other than that, when a building collapse "looks like a CD" it has always been, without exception, an actual CD!
I have explained before about the symmetry of the collapses, and it being a direct sign of some sort of control. If u too stubborn to admit or accept this, so be it. It's not rocketscience, only the consequences are a bit more difficult to accept and come to terms with.
So again, how exactly was releasing the inputdata of WTC7's collapse a danger to public safety?
@igykalen U can ask me twice about what NIST gave as the reason for not releasing their data. I already told u what they said about it. They said that releasing that information might "jeopardize public safety". That's what they told the world, that is, everyone asking that question.
U know that in science this is unprecendented, right?
The question is;
Why haven't u noticed that it's unprecendented to NOT release inputdata for a computermodel that pretends to describe a first ever?
@Sandberg1972 I asked before like maybe 3 times now, what do they say TO YOU when you request their documents? Not some conspiracy website you read off of. What reason under the FOIA do they use? If you're going to argue with me, argue with information you personally have knowledge of.
@igykalen U can ask me a dozen more times dufus, I told u what NIST said. U can read, can u? U can look it up also. They did NOT say anything to me. The reason they used under the FOIA was (for the 3rd time):
They said that releasing that info might "jeopardize public safety". Now I asked YOU to explain how releasing the data of ur computermodel could EVER "jeopardize public safety", because it seems a little odd to me.
It doesn't seem to bother you though in the least. How come?
@Sandberg1972 I did look it up. I can't find it anywhere in NIST's website. All I can find are kook sites that list him as director at a time he wasn't.
"jeopardize public safety" isn't one of the FOIA reasons even. You just believe anything you read without even checking it out?
Are you in that group of morons that think the pentagon was hit by a missile?
@igykalen OK, so according to u, why doesn't NIST release the inputdata? If it's not because of jeopardizing public safety, then what is it then?
Fyi, if you believe that NIST actually DID release their inputdata, please refer me ( and all the other scientists who really would like to see that inputdata and verify it's validity)
Also, u seem to have a problem believing that Shyam Sunder was the director of the NIST investigation into WTC7, is that correct?
@Sandberg1972 According to you they don't. Allow me to clarify. I don't work for NIST as you seem to believe. You don't reference anything. All I can find is an offsite link that has him listed as director before he was one. cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
Showing NOT Shyam Sunder as director, but Patrick Gallagher, who was not director Jul 9, 2009, rather several months later.
@igykalen I assume u can find the part in the NIST report on WTC7 that says that in phase 2 the building experienced freefall for 8 stories? I told u where to look, remember? U should look in their report, not on their website. I assume u can access their final report on WTC7's collapse from their website, so what's the problem?
There was no physical evidence that they could work with, correct. Very sharp.
There lies the problem, WHY was all of it, but one little piece, destroyed?
@Sandberg1972 Why are you changing the subject. First you were talking about them not releasing data, never provided a link, tell me to look it up. What does that have to do with anything you just wrote.
"WHY was all of it, but one little piece, destroyed"
I don't have no idea what you're even referring to.
@igykalen Look man, if u don't even know that all the physical evidence of WTC7 was illegally destroyed and that only ONE piece was recovered and investigated by FEMA (in which they discovered the intergranular melting referred to as the greatest mystery), of which NIST makes no mention whatsoever in their report, then I guess we're through.
U're apparently living under the illusion they NIST actually DID release their inputdata. If u do, please acknowledge and show me where that data is. Bye
@igykalen Look, u don't seem to be aware of the facts. U just assume NIST's version of what happened is correct.
YOU do not answer my questions. U seem very confused about the significance of freefall. WTC7 was filmed from several different angles when it collapsed. In not one of them does one see just one wall dropping at freefall. Instead one can see all 4 walls plus the roof go down symmetrically. U don't see the problem with that? Fine.
@Sandberg1972 And you assume it's false. You seem confused about the fact that ONLY CTs believe there was any. You finding of one side of a building undergoing freefall for a couple of seconds seems to overshadow the fact that other parts of the building had already started to come down. Now go cite something completely unrelated as you always do. Claim it's significant, but refuse to say why and tell me that I don't know about [insert new off topic CT video you saw here]
And u're right, I do not like your answers. Wanna know why?
Because your answers do not address the questions I asked u.
Because u don't even seem to be aware of the televised parts in which NIST admits freefall. U don't seem to be aware of David Chandler's analysis on WTC7's collapse.
U just cite all those ridiculous claims from NIST as if they're logical and easy to believe, while NIST refuses to back them up. This is a futile exercise.
@Sandberg1972 No, I've been working the last week. I have a job and it doesn't revolve around answering dumb youtube questions you could have looked up the info for yourself.
Guy, with every comment you make you dig yourself deeper, get your facts together before your try to use the kind of persuasion that you are using, my friend. The question of tubular steel being less than adequate as opposed to the solid structures of the past still doesn't answer the question as to how it could fall symetrically to the ground in one hours' time, and then have it repeat almost perfectly. I mean do ya know what i mean?
@elvislivesinmichigan You should get your facts together. None of the buildings fell symmetrically. Building 7 for example landed mostly across the street, not straight down.
If there was only a group of organizations working together that analyzed this for several years and made their findings public.... If only....
@igykalen Nice to see another symmetrydenier alive again.
Just check out a few known cd's and see how symmetrical the implosions can be. I can tell u that most of them are not perfectly symmetrical, it does not change the fact that any amount of symmetry is highly indicative of some form of controlled demolition. Getting buildings, esp. steelframed ones, to fall straight down is no easy job & it sure as hell is not gonna be mimicked by nature just by sheer chance & astronomical odds. U see?
@Sandberg1972 A vast amount of WTC7 ended up across the street. Just as the direction the building was landing. A very large building filmed from far away might not show this well.
However very large buildings are not built as a single block either. It would be very difficult to get them to tip over like a smaller one can.
@igykalen U're avoiding the implications of the symmetry in which it fell.
It would be very difficult indeed for a building the size of WTC7 to tip over naturally. It would be even MORE difficult for a building the size of WTC7 to implode straight down, at near freefall acceleration. That's why the art of CD is so difficult to master.
Quit pretending u don't understand the implications of freefall, u know WTC7 imploded because of CD, and not because it was the 1st known instance of FIC.
@Sandberg1972 There was nothing 'natural' about what happened to it.
It would also be difficult for the building to lean several meters out slowly from a CD just before it fell.
Why do you keep saying it was freefall? It wasn't.
Quit pretending you don't know the design layout and structural damage that caused a progressive collaspe with this building that makes it different from other buildings that have no similar design.
@igykalen Look idiot, it's time to get ur facts straight, OK?
Look up the final report of NIST on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, page 44, chapter 3.6. They describe 3 phases, with the 2nd phase being a 2.25 sec. period of freefall for the north face. Total collapse was very near freefall acc., just like the average known CD, which very often happens a bit slower than freefall.
NIST used NO physical evidence, it's all one big pc simulation, of which the input cannot be seen.
@igykalen NIST stated in their final report on WTC7 that in phase 2 (out of 3) the north face fell at gravitational acceleration (2.25 sec. descending about 100ft).
U're avoiding the symmetry aspect of the collapse for the 3rd time. If u want to argue that the collapse lacked symmetry, be my guest. Symmetry indicates a controlled event in cases like this.
NIST claims it was a natural progressive collapse due to fire, the 1st in history, and u buy that, without any hard evidence?
@Sandberg1972 WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.
There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
?? go and look at the debris pile of B7. The top 7 stories remain completely intact. That's some pretty lousy Controlled Demolition!!
How on earth can you compare this to any other event? It is absolutely pointless. What took place on Sept 11 was entirely unique to itself. It has no precedent. So saying no other building collapsed due to fire?? No other building received the kind of damage these buildings did.
Who were the "engineers on the ground" telling the NYFD that the building was likely to come down? And, have any of them come forward for interviews after the fact confirming this?
@SuperGogetem People that are engineers. Manhattan has over 7 million people.
And I don't know. There's a plethora of interviews and videos on non conspiracy sites. I've seen ones where firefighters talk about having spoken to them. As these sites tend to try to prove stuff as opposed to just raising suspicion or give speculative opinion.
@geonike13579 I'm not sure I understand. Did you think a mall would become easier to loot because of that? I just don't see how. The WTC aren't malls. The nearest Starbucks didn't even closed down. They were critiqued for charging the firefighter for coffee when they were taking breaks during trying to save lives. A mall certainly wouldn't have been affected.
As incredulous as it may seem, people really did keep doing their job. Perhaps not at some public schools, though.
If you go to the website there is a map of where the cars were, some were on the water side of Manhatten,blocks away. Some of the cars only part of them caught fire. Just look at the pictures. Why is the paper not burning when the car tires and things are? By the way the jet fuel was burned up on impact and way before the towers fell. The fires we saw burning were the contents. 90% of the towers turned to dust in around 10 seconds. Just keep an open mind as to what is happening here.
Why doesn't the paper burn? 1) The fire hasn't reached it yet.
2) Actually, there is a fire on the ground around the burning vehicle, so the paper nearest the fire is burning. But overall, there isn't enough paper to sustain a spreading fire. Anyone who's ever tried to keep a fire burning knows that it's very hard to keep a fire going from the sides or top. If the fire isn't under the combustible material, it's awfully hard to keep it going.
@igykalen So how did the car catch on fire, but not the paper? The cars were set on fire first, probably by jet fuel from the plane crashes. The paper fell when the towers collapsed (you can see falling paper in many videos, and the paper in the tree branches is pretty informative).
Oh, by the way, all that paper pretty much demolishes the idea that passports and other personal effects couldn't have survived.
To keep an open mind that lasers from the sky is what caused all this?
@igykalen You wrote: "The paper fell when the towers collapsed (you can see falling paper in many videos, and the paper in the tree branches is pretty informative). Oh, by the way, all that paper pretty much demolishes the idea that passports and other personal effects couldn't have survived."
I didn't read all of your earlier comments, so not sure if I'm with you or against you.. but there is a difference if the papers where in the building or in the plane prior to the crash.
@evil001987 Well, consider how many other items were found intact near passengers like license drivers cards and such that weer in their pockets. Things the families could confirm. Personal items that someone would have had a hard time planting, if that's what you're suggesting.
If you think it's impossible, what about the space shuttles that blew up. Look at how many items were still intact and found later.
May I suggest everyone go to Dr.Judy Woods website to see evidence after the collaspe of the towers. We all need to do our own research to find out what really happened here. We must not accept the status quo. The truth is right in front of you.
@UBBaby09 Good point. google "Dr.Judy Woods" and watch her video four links down about how energy beams from space took out the building and dodges any attempt to explain it.
She's just throwing out another random theory with nothing to back it up.
After 10 minutes of her unable to answer any valid questions, I gave up. I was surprised that he was being as polite as he was to such stupidity.
I think you miss the point that there were things that happened that day that were not explainable. Did you look at the pictures of the damage. How would you explain cars on fire many blocks away from the towers that were no way hit by the planes. There were aluminum car engines in emergency vehicles that were completely melted, how do you explain that. All she is doing is presenting the evidence and it up to us and everyone else to try and figure out what happened.
@UBBaby09 Cars not hit by planes? Exactly how many blocks away are you talking about. Their was debris falling on them. Most of the cars were set on fire from the jet fuel falling on them.
Some debris falling punctured thru the roof and caused more damage to the inside.
Engines have grease, oil and gasoline in them. None of these events are outside what has been observed in other car fires.
Mind you that vehicles were also towed away from the area as well.
9/11 was an inside job for about 70 reasons, 1 reason alone can be considered coincidence, 2 is suspicious, 3 is? inside job, 4 is a blatant inside job, but 70??? conspiracies happen, this was one of them, mass murder for personal gain! Oil, opium and bases in the middle east, better to take from the weak before other superpowers (russia, china) do! We may benefit in the long run when we fill up our cars, but it doesn't make 9.11 ok! Mass murder! the shills will attack me but i don't care!
"I remember getting a call from the uh fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire AND I said you know we had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is is pull it AND they made that decision to pull AND then we watched the building collapse".
He's using the term "pull it" in the context of the building falling down.
The fire department made the decision to "pull" in the context of abandoning attempts to contain the fire.
Here's an interesting concept. It was said from September 2000 to June 2001, the military intercepted commercial flights 67 times for various reasons.In the beginning of this video,a map of the flight paths is shown.I've seen others that shown the entire flight path from takeoff to crash which turns theory to fact these planes were monitored the entire flight.Why couldn't even one of them be intercepted? Because they were meant not to be, that's why.The gov't knew exactly what was going on.
@mooremichael95 From the moment the air force were notified about the hijackings to their crashes they had much less time to get there than those 67 prior intercepts, none of which occurred within the U.S. borders.
And... in nine months 67 "commercial flights" were intercepted? Really?? C'mon.
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false statements helps no-one. Maybe you should at least research some of what you hear. These are hardly secrets kept from the public.
@igykalen US being the greatest nation on technology where they supposedly mastered the air during late 60s not being able to intercept another plane after 1st plane hit the tower!!! does that make any sense to you? well it doesn't make any sense to me; even india or china could have easily countered on at least the 2nd plane.
@Achilles0651 The greatest nation on technology just lost a RQ-170 stealth drone to Iran. Since the US makes no mistakes, to what purpose does that serve us?
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."
I'm sure you believe that the air force can intercept in under 20 minutes, but how that would even be possible?
As there were no guidelines for them to follow that day for multiple hijackings, they wouldn't have had any reason to think there were more than one so they couldn't have stopped the first two planes in time.
They also were told by the FAA that flight 11 was still in the air and headed to Washington, leading to more confusion.
False If a commercial pilot goes out of contact for 10 mins AUTOMATICALLY planes are scrambled as is code for that sort of thing. Also around the Pentagon Air Defense Missle systems AKA SAM sites. Surround the Pentagon.....ANY plane flying in the restricted airspace WITHOUT a transponder is to be shot down as defense. So two failed protocols including the FACT that a drill covering the EXACT same scenario was being carried out at the EXACT same time. CONVENIENT
@sourkushing Do you research. A plane hit the white house once when Bill Clinton was in office. A Airliner passed over it and nothing happened. Are you talking about rules NOW or before 9/11? They are different.
And what do you mean automatically? How does a jet leave the ground that quick.
Yeah drills never happen. Convenient would have been if they were canceled for that day.
Talk to an AF pilot from that day and see if he agrees with you on your version of reality.
So ... your point? I've seen videos of reporters describing how they saw a tiny little Cessna plane hitting the towers. The relevance would be....?
Or are you figuring out that on the day of an event, they aren't going to know everything immediately, nor could they.
For example, the Challenger disaster is still referred to as an explosion even though it really just broke apart an ignited the fuel. Not an explosion.
But a simpletons says, it looks like one, so it must be one.
1) False Several buildings and structures have come down that were made of steel. Honestly, I'm tired of listing them all. Why you think that isn't true is completely beyond me. I guess you'll believe whatever you're told.
2) who cares
3) oh really.
4) And still landed across the street. Amazing.
5) who cares. Ashleigh reported in this full clip that building 6 has ALREADY come down.
@igykalen You didn't respond to one thing I said...you are like a little kid...no she did, no he did it...no it was like this...no facts at all. and you are now talking about building 6. the relevance is that you did not answer one of my questions...how about the reinforced steel building collapsing...JUST ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION. Where and how did the building fall? Where and how did the building fall...the one you are speaking of.
@elvislivesinmichigan Actually I responded to all 5. See the numbers. You just spurted out meaningless stuff like a building in Spain burned for a week and didn't come down. So? What am I to infer form that. That all buildings that come down a before a week has passed must be part of a conspiracy?
You just state things and hope I'm going to read your mind as to the relevance it has to you.
The fact that you think that list has a question in it is amazing.
@elvislivesinmichigan The steel reinforced buildings? Which ones? WTC 1,2 and 7 were tube in tube design. Completely different design. Or are you really looking for me to cram about 7 years of research on it into a youtube comment?
If you're talk about building 6. That's a response to your post about the BBC. Meaning the news gets their facts wrong. My point was ... so what. It happens every day in the news.
this is pretty much all the Official Story pushers have left, to try and make it seem that if firemen and police knew it was coming down, well then that confirms that it could not have been demolition. That doesn't change that NIST never explained the freefall of the collapse, and the computer model they generated shows bulging and buckling when the video does not.
@edyken77 You're talking about the video facing the side where you couldn't see the damage?
No one is trying to make it 'seem' as if the firefighters said they saw buckling and leaning. They said it numerous times. You got a lot of firefighters in on this.
The only cover-up with 911 is that we went to war illegally in Iraq. People that believe that the trade center bombing was an inside job need to not be so one sided in their thinking. There is much MORE eveidence on the side of structural failure due to stress created by a COMBINATION of damage, fire, jet fuel. 911 happened, and our goverment used it as a long coming reason to bomb Iraq. Just watched the movie "Green Zone". It is a close depiction of how things probably transpired after 911.
I wany to say , that reading all this is so amazing....I see these silly people trying to explain why dusk , dawn, and the tides are government operations and then this group of thinking people try to explain why things happen but the silly people will not be swayed....makes for some good reading. Carry on silly people.
i think the main focal point that everyody should be looking at is the way WTC7 came down,for anyone who has ever witnessed old stadiums or Las Vegas hotels been demolished can clearly admit that are too many similarities! Debunkers: don't even try to come up with an explanation for this because it simply cannot be done! We know what we saw!
@LiveFromVCR Don't even try? Several years of study went into it. A little bit more of an effort than just eyeballing it from a single camera angle and comparing it to another building.
@LiveFromVCR Damn....you're right! From this moment forth I will not question any more. I will believe whatever anyone tells me because it's all so self-evident anyway.
Should I also, therefore, not question the official story? Or should I only turn off my scepticism when confronted with a 911 truther?
My friend, I question every story and will continue to do so. You should try it. It's called scepticism.
@Merlin5by5 Oh dear - if you re-read my comments you will see that I was questioning blind acceptance of the conspiracy theory, not of the official story. This mental midget believes that this topic is so saturated with misinformation that one should question every story. I will try to improve my questioning - thanks for the constructive criticism :)
Wow, I read your description but this makes it even more obvious it was a demolition, not damage. They knew almost exactly when it would collapse and told people, obviously to keep them from getting hit.
@tnix80 uh huh. exactly. And by exactly, you mean hours beforehand. Since when do firefighters try to kill people? And if they did know why would they care about saving anyone, but let so many of their brothers die in the two towers?
@tnix80 By 'they' I presume you mean the New York fire dept. Just to be clear, are you saying that the NYFD and all of the firefighters knew about the controlled demolition?
Three very large buildings collapsing due to fire in a less than ,12 hour period?.One of which had a very different structual history to the other two.Yet they all had very simalar collapse rates and collapse outcomes.Have you ever considered that maybe the fourth plane that went down without hitting its target was meant for building 7,hense the delay in its destruction.ie:planes hit 1&2=they fall, plane misses 7= plan B cant fall now so wait and use fire as excuse ,then drop it?
@igykalen I think wtc 7 was meant to come down at the time of the twin towers but it failed to go off they probably had operatives go in and reset what went wrong. We can't really know but the firefighters don't have to be complicit they just received word from the higher ups and were told to get out of the way I mean after you see the twin towers come down your in a state of fear you'll pretty much believe anything fear is the greatest form of mind control after all.
@anewlow23 Well, they would have had to been somewhat complicit. They're sticking with their story that engineers on the ground were telling them it was going to likely collapse. They could also see the damage of the buildings themselves.
"they probably had operatives go in and reset what went wrong." lol
Truthers are stranger than science fiction writers.
@igykalen Have you ever been able to account for the Orwellian revisions of an article by James Glanz in the New York Times (November 2001) that was once titled "Engineers Are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC," subtitled "steel members have been partly evaporated"? In 2006 the original report was replaced with "Engineers have a Culprit: Diesel," also dated November 2001. In 2007 the Ministry of Truth decided that "Engineers Suspect Diesel" would be a better title for the Nov 2001 report.
@lonenut740 Actually several steel structures have collasped due to fire alone. The fact that there were no doors or windows some shouldn't matter. However there are a few steel buildings that have also collaped from fire. Like the Kader Toy Factory fire in Thailand 1993.
Comparing the WTC buildings to others that have collasped is also irrevalant as to the sheer number of differences between them. Structural designed being a major one.
@lonenut740 So by your reasoning, a cop that was in on the conspiracy told a news reporter what was going to happen? No wonder you idiots are laughed at.
the UNEDITED version of the building 7 collapse can be found at ItWasTyped. com
see for yourself how it did NOT free fall, it collapsed progressively. Look under the 'conspiracy theory' section and find the Building 7 post. Definitive proof that conspiracy theorists are WRONG. Haha!
@culturebully3 Yes I watched it. I am amazed that you allow yourself to be duped like this. So they include the penthouses in the timings. That would be like throwing up a ball which rolls down a roof then falls to the ground then declaring that to be the speed of gravity.
Try some critical thinking and ask what the speed of fall of the main body of the building is. Then ask why you need to include the penthouses in the timing.
"pulling" also means to pull all emergency personnel off the building. Let it go. Don't put water on it. My father was at 7 before it collapsed, when the decision was made to "pull." He thinks it's ridiculous that people think anything otherwise. "Pulling" is common language when a structure fire is abandoned due to imminent collapse.
Every time I watch these videos I see how strong the United States of America really is when we get knocked down we get up again and nothing is going to keep us down.
(1) I heard them say it LIVE that they were going to bring the building down because it was heavily damaged; and
(2) NO building that is randomly damaged comes down in such a uniform manner. Watch it come down again and you'll see that only controlled demolitions come down like that.
@MattFoleyMotivation 1) They said that they were going to have to bring down all of the world trade center buildings because of damage, which they did. So your point is?
2) That's your science? Just look at it? alright.
Hell, based on that, should you question how a plane which is made of several tons of metal can fly thru the air, when you know that birds need to be super light to do it. "Common sense" science is fo dem simple folk.
@igykalen I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. Yes, WTC7 was pulled and yes, buildings don't collapse by themselves the uniform way WTC7 came down. And, yes, part of science is observation. So, what exactly is the point of your response?
@MattFoleyMotivation You said NO building that is randomly damaged comes down in a uniform manner. So prove how the conclusion drawn that it was a progressive collapse FOR THAT EXACT BUILDING DESIGN with that exact damage and fires burning for that long was impossible.
@RockahD91 Your last vid you mention was of the last two videos upload to that site. The last one being that of people talking about psychology.
The proof the building collapsed. I'll need an explanation of what I'm even looking at. All I see is a short animation of a square coming down with some numbers changing on the side. I'm supposed to know what I'm looking at there?
I think ReyAce00 says it best - "This video is a complete waste of time and conveys almost nothing to the viewer."
@igykalen The most liely cause would be explosives, since that is the only thing in history that brings down steel buildings. Fires would be a very low probability. In other words the NIST findings are bogus.
@Kill0Your0TV Explosives make a distinctly loud noise which can be heard blocks away. And when in history has any steel building higher than 20 stories been brought down by anything?
What steel without concrete tube in a tube design was brought down by explosives in history?
And how would you have gotten the NIST and the other non government companies to all work for 7 years on a elaborate lie? How many people do you think they had working on this? like 3
@igy And what is it with the non sense that this was the first time in history that fires brought down a steel structure. If that detail means so much, then what about the Kader Toy Factory fire in Thailand 1993? Look it up on wikipedia. The only things you know are what the conspiracy theorists tell you.
The WTC had fire proofing for a reason, They knew what would happen if a large fire broke out. WTC7 had massive damage along with fire for hours. How are these events LIKE others in history?
@igykalen Nano thermite makes noise? And there are hundreds of credible witnesses hearing explosions during 911. To not check for explosive residue or to not check for the most probable cause is a crime in itself.
Over 1600 architects, engineers, explosives experts, physicists conclude it was a controlled demolition.
@Kill0Your0TV You said explosives were the most likely cause. Now it's the silent nano thermite, then back to "credible" witnesses heard explosions. Which story are you going with anyway?
I'm sorry, but how were the witnesses better than the thousands of cameras?
Over 7 million architects, engineers, explosives experts, and physicists disagree. Including one who brought down the largest building ever via CD. You just stay on the 911 bullshit channel. They tell you what they want you to see.
Last...
Ashley Banfield talks about several different officers (what kind of officers???) giving several reports. What kind of reports are they talking about?
One officer told here that there's "no way to stop it", no way to "stabilize it".
Why? Was it leaning then? WHO the hell was this officer? Can we have a name please? Where did HE get this info from? HOW did he get to this conclusion?
No highrise before had EVER collapsed, so...? Why would he say something like this?
Sandberg1972 23 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 You forgot to add that someone said "Pull".: sigh: Now you're analyzing every word uttered by anyone. Ashleigh Banfield's in on it too.
If you don't know the answers to THOSE questions, then you can not claim you have done any research on this. Maybe if you stop visiting conspiracy websites, you'll find actual names and interviews. I'm NOT going to look this up for you. I have better things to do.
igykalen 19 hours ago
@igykalen I'm not saying that Banfield is in on it. U're just making that up because u can't answer the questions I'm asking you.
I asked you how many walls YOU can see dropping down, u don't answer.
I'm asking YOU if u believe that NIST released the inputdata. U've avoiuded that.
All u do is defend some terrible investigation without checking it's outrageous claims, and just buying anything they write apparently because u think NIST is a reliable institution.
Good luck with that.
Sandberg1972 18 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 You brought her up.
How many directions was the building filmed from. You can only see one wall from one direction.
I asked you to provide a link to this input data and you won't. You want me to comment on something I can't find anywhere?
igykalen 18 hours ago
@igykalen So one last time:
Please direct me to the inputdata of WTC7's collapsemodel that NIST has released, according to you.
Now, if YOU cannot direct me to this inputdata, then what does this mean? It means it is not there outthere in the public domain. It means that NIST has NOT released that data. Now that, is not very scientific, is it?
It means YOU, and me & the rest of the world, just have 2 take NIST's word for it, when they claim WTC7 was the 1st highrise to collapse from fires.
Sandberg1972 16 hours ago
@Sand According to me? lol When did I say that?
You're the one saying they haven't release it, but cannot provide one single link to this statement.
We also have to take their word that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Do you not remember how they grabbed all of the video? There are so many parallels between this and the pentagon. You're picking and choosing your truths. Where's the science in that.
There are no credible engineers saying it's false. What does that tell you?
igykalen 15 hours ago
All I want to know is where is the blast from a controlled demolition? No Blast sound, no shock wave, no debris flying...It fell down, no controlled demolition, get over it!!!
thegreatpumpkinshot 1 week ago
Parrotting some bullshit, while avoiding the freefall issue, which of course was avoided too by any "real world models they built in trying to understand the collapse".
All u've done is come up with unsubstantiated claims, which exist only in computer inputdata which NOBODY has had a chance to see and check (that is, verify that the data is sound and scientific).
If u can prove that it's not one big pc simulation, be my guest.
And fyi, I know much more about this subject than u do.
Sandberg1972 1 week ago
@Sandberg1972 I directly address your freefall issues and still avoided it? okay
What was the response that you got from NIST when you requested this computer simulation data? What exemptions under the Freedom of information act did they tell you prevented them from providing it?
fyi, You speak of unsubstantiated claims.
igykalen 1 week ago
@igykalen Excuse me, where exactly did u address my freefall issues directly? I seem to have missed it.
Next thing you have to explain is why NIST is refusing to release the inputdata. They claim it would, and I quote: "endanger public safety" if they released that data.
I don't know about u, but why would releasing that inputdata be considered a danger to public safety? Think about that for a second, OK?
NIST claims a first time for something, and will not show us how they got to that.
Sandberg1972 1 week ago
@Sandberg1972 Probably the bullshit I was parroting. You have to remember, you're the one with the freefall issue, not me.
Why not just ask your 10,000+ engineers that signed petitions to model it if you don't like how NIST handled it? If you can't build your own model, how are you to understand the NIST data?
Next, I DON'T have to explain anything someone else does. Especially to someone that can't even follow what has been already said.
igykalen 1 week ago
@Sandberg1972 U're apparently either too dumb or ignorant to understand that the freefall issue has grave consequences 4 NIST's theory of collapse. A theory that has not been peerreviewed or tested in the real world. Shyam Sunder is "very comfortable with his findings" only he won't let anyone see or check the basis for them. Good ey?
& please, could u refer me to those 10,000+ engineers "that signed petitions to model it"?
Never mind, u just keep urself uninformed & ignorant, I've seen enough
Sandberg1972 1 week ago
@Sandberg1972 You've never explained why it has any consequences. Other than it "looks" like a CD. Not a very convincing argument. You also are ignoring the fact that it was one side that came down like that, not the entire building.
The 10k+ engineers, scientists, and whatever that truthers say exist and signed petitions saying that it's impossible. I'm saying why don't you ask them to model it. One of them must be able to.
igykalen 6 days ago
@igykalen Are u serious I wonder?
Do I have to explain to u WHY freefall has any cnsequences for NIST's collapse theory? Well if that's the case it's obvious u have to go back to school again first, for some basic Newtonian physics.
The 1600+ Architects & Engineers don't have to produce any models whatsoever, they have proven the official explanation is not possible under existing laws of physics, and that the existence of freefall directly indicates some form of CD being involved.
Sandberg1972 6 days ago
@Sandberg1972 You can't explain it. I already told you that only one side looked like it came down that way, not the entire building. And how do you keep missing this?
Half the building landed across the street. So how is that symmetry of collapse?
You use one camera angle and nothing else.
All three buildings had buckling just before they collapsed. How could that have been caused by thermite? That is VERY indicative of a structural collapse, not one where explosives were used..
igykalen 6 days ago
@igykalen A couple of things: Half the building did not land acrss the street, where did u get that from?
I don't use 1 camera angle, it's visible on every angle fyi.
Some buckling that is that it turns into an all annihilating symmetrical complete collapse at high speed. Not very natural.
Have u seen any other total collapses of highrises other than the 3 in NYC on 9/11?
The symmetry is what gives it away, u should know that if u knew anything about natural processes.
Sandberg1972 5 days ago
@Sandberg1972 Are you saying it fell straight down? Are you sure you want to say that?
"Have u seen any other total collapses of highrises other than the 3 in NYC on 9/11?"
Have you seen any other buildings with the same structural design with uncontrolled fires that no attempt were made to put out come down. What building higher that 47 stories do you even know of that have come down?
If you're so smart, then exactly how much explosives and where were needed to bring it down?
igykalen 4 days ago
@igykalen Asking me to quantify the amount of explosives needed is not that smart, it's ratrher an evasion of the issue at hand.
I don't have to explain a goddamn thing. NIST claims a firsttime EVER, therefore it is THEM who need to explain freefall and why it would be consistent with their collapsemodel. It is THEM who need to be transparant about the data they used for their collapsemodels.
If u disagree with this please say so. Also tell me why u disagree of course, if u can.
Sandberg1972 3 days ago
@Sandberg1972 They've already explained this. You not having the engineering background to follow is not their problem.
Have you seen a building come down from a non CD before? Should it have looked like that?
If you want to insist that this was a CD, then explain how. NIST has always stated what they felt was the most likely outcome. They do give reasons for why they didn't think it was a CD. If you can't figure out how it was a CD, then what difference does it make?
igykalen 1 day ago
@igykalen "If you want to insist that this was a CD, then explain how."
If you want the answer to that, you should demand the investigation that would answer for it.
Get it, fascist hypocrite? It's not up to civilian citizens to answer for what is covered up. But this question is only ONE of the many that requires a real investigation.
Why do you fear it like a pussy?
Thetan1974 1 day ago
@Thetan1974 I sooner demand an investigation that aliens did it. If you're going to make up something at least make it interesting.
"It's not up to civilian citizens to answer for what is covered up." lol well then I guess there's nothing left for you to do.
You want a "real" investigation, but only one done by people who you claim are apart of a cover up. You're funny.
igykalen 19 hours ago
@igykalen And Thetan might be funny to you, to me you are pretty stupid, sorry to say.
Not in the 1st place because u don't seem to recognize a CD when u see one. That's the worst part.
But especially because u don't seem to be able to distinguish between what's fact and what is a bare assertion.
Claiming a 47-story steel skyscraper can implode, just like a CD, because of a few fires on a few floors along with some local damage, is very very illogical and a very weak hypothesis.
Sandberg1972 16 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 What is a weaker one is claiming you can identify a CD just from looking at it.
igykalen 15 hours ago
@igykalen NIST does NOT explain HOW freefall could occur. They only try to rule out CD because they ASSUME that the only explosive one can use to demolish a building would be RDX.
The FACT that freefall occured automatically means that the building was brought down (like some reported), and bringing down means CD of course.
Now, if u think such a huge steel building can "naturally" collapse the way WTC7 did, because of fires and some local damage, feel free to explain how that could happen.
Sandberg1972 23 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 How is NIST saying it fell as a single unit?
"WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior ... did APPEAR to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. ... The symmetric APPEARANCE of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
igykalen 20 hours ago
@igykalen And yes I'm saying it fell straight down from the start to more than halfway down. After that it tilted somewhat, but what exactly does that tell u?
I'm sure u've watched many known CD's, this thing happens all the time, some distortions in symmetry, some changes in downward acceleration.
Thing is, the whole structure, or what remains of it, fails suddenly and across the entire length and width of the building (after the mechanical penthouse magically dropped through the roof) ->CD
Sandberg1972 3 days ago
@igykalen "If you're so smart, then exactly how much explosives and where were needed to bring it down?"
If you're so smart, join the demand of the investigation that would answer that question instead of fearing it like a pussy.
Thetan1974 1 day ago
@Thetan1974 Demand it from who? Everyone who gives you an answer you you don't like it just in on it.
igykalen 1 day ago
@igykalen
What answers? They don't give any answers. That's what I demand. Or I'll fight for having those gangsters who denies giving those answers replaced, so we can have a real investigation.
Why do you FEAR a and why are you opposed a real investigation? Why do you endorse the cover-up?
Thetan1974 1 day ago
@Thetan1974 Well then perhaps you should start with questions. You just sound like another angry loon demand answers without even knowing what you're talking about.
I'm not against a "real" investigation. But who would do it to your satisfaction? You don't trust anyone in government and no one else that's qualified seems to think there's a need for one, (else they would have done it themselves by now, rather than demand someone smarter than they are do it for them.)
igykalen 20 hours ago
@Thetan1974
What a fucking liar.
Just go to NIST's question and answer site regarding WTC 7.
That's right, the evil New Wookie Order organization of NIST actually set up a website for people to ask questions - AND GET ANSWERS!
Of course, 911 twoofers like ThetanLIES1974 doesn't want you to know this. He likes to pretend that NIST won't answer 911 twoofer questions.
He ignores NIST's live webcam sessions where Dr. Steven Jones was invited to ask whatever questions he wanted.
ctcole77 13 hours ago
@igykalen And excuse me but it's not "one side that looked like it came down at freefall".
The WHOLE structure came down as a single unit, that is all 4 sides plus the roof, at freefall accelerationm, for the first 2.25 seconds. It's documented fact, it's in the NIST report, it's visible in every video of WTC7's collapse
One more thing: I did NOT say that I don't care about computermodels, I said that it's unprecendented that NIST should not release their inputdata of their collapsemodel..
Sandberg1972 5 days ago
@Sandberg1972 "The WHOLE structure came down as a single unit"
Wow. And you said you knew a lot more about this than I do? I suppose you're one of the "missile hit the pentagon" ones too.
"It's documented fact" Show me those documents. NIST says nothing of the sort. Show me where they say otherwise.
igykalen 4 days ago
@igykalen
And show me where NIST won't show their input data. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't argue a point I can't find anything about.
All I can find is a single file (on an alternative website) saying that the director (who wasn't actually the director at the time) didn't allow it, and the file date doesn't even match the PDF document date.
igykalen 4 days ago
@igykalen U have eyes, don't u? U use them to see, right? In case u haven't noticed, WTC7 came down as a single unit (not just one wall, but all 4 walls plus the roof), it accelerated from zero to instant freefall acc.for 2.25 sec.
Check the final report on WTC7, page 44, second stage of 3 stages according to them.
And if u're gonna play the "argue with information you personally have knowledge of"-game, I can play that too. If we go that way we might as well stop here.
Sandberg1972 3 days ago
@Sandberg1972 They are talking about the wall you see coming down. No where does it say the entire building came down that way.
igykalen 1 day ago
@igykalen My dear igykalen, you are so right. They talk about the wall u see coming down?
Lemme ask you: How many walls of WTC7 do YOU see coming down, in most videos of WTC7's collapse?
How many? One? Two? Three? Four maybe? Or maybe all four plus the roof?
I can see 4 walls plus the roof simultaneously coming down, 1 moment it is there, in rest, the next it is dropping down without any resistance, with the penthouse dropping a fraction sooner than the rest.
Can YOU see this as well?
Sandberg1972 23 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 Find me the video of the Southwest side of the wtc7 coming down. And show it coming down at the same time as the sides people were evacuated to saw. All you have video of is a few angles of most one side. Interviews with people on the ground tell a very different story.
igykalen 20 hours ago
@igykalen And fyi, no I do not think a missile hit the P'gon, the evidence shows that a large passengerplane crashed there.
NISt claims all sorts of things, with nothing to back it up, their entire model is made up without any physical evidence! They admit this. If u can show me that they used physical evidence from the collapse in theor model, please do. I wish I could but I can't, because it's simply not there.
I cannot show u something that is not there, I assume u understand that.
Sandberg1972 3 days ago
@Sandberg1972 The NIST also have always said their conclusions were what they consider to be the most likely based on what they had to work with. Their reason for not being able to study the WTC7 debris was because it was moved during the rescue effort and couldn't be distinguished from the other debris.
So what do you want them to do about that?
How would this physical evidence, whatever it means to you change their model anyway?
igykalen 1 day ago
@igykalen Other than that, when a building collapse "looks like a CD" it has always been, without exception, an actual CD!
I have explained before about the symmetry of the collapses, and it being a direct sign of some sort of control. If u too stubborn to admit or accept this, so be it. It's not rocketscience, only the consequences are a bit more difficult to accept and come to terms with.
So again, how exactly was releasing the inputdata of WTC7's collapse a danger to public safety?
Sandberg1972 6 days ago
@Sandberg1972 if you don't care about computer models, then why do you care what theirs says?
When you asked for their input, what did they tell you was the reason for not giving it to you? This is twice I've asked.
All you can do is make speculations akin to the "pull" idiots over-analyzing a single word used.
igykalen 6 days ago
@igykalen U can ask me twice about what NIST gave as the reason for not releasing their data. I already told u what they said about it. They said that releasing that information might "jeopardize public safety". That's what they told the world, that is, everyone asking that question.
U know that in science this is unprecendented, right?
The question is;
Why haven't u noticed that it's unprecendented to NOT release inputdata for a computermodel that pretends to describe a first ever?
Sandberg1972 5 days ago
@Sandberg1972 I asked before like maybe 3 times now, what do they say TO YOU when you request their documents? Not some conspiracy website you read off of. What reason under the FOIA do they use? If you're going to argue with me, argue with information you personally have knowledge of.
igykalen 4 days ago
@igykalen U can ask me a dozen more times dufus, I told u what NIST said. U can read, can u? U can look it up also. They did NOT say anything to me. The reason they used under the FOIA was (for the 3rd time):
They said that releasing that info might "jeopardize public safety". Now I asked YOU to explain how releasing the data of ur computermodel could EVER "jeopardize public safety", because it seems a little odd to me.
It doesn't seem to bother you though in the least. How come?
Sandberg1972 3 days ago
@Sandberg1972 I did look it up. I can't find it anywhere in NIST's website. All I can find are kook sites that list him as director at a time he wasn't.
"jeopardize public safety" isn't one of the FOIA reasons even. You just believe anything you read without even checking it out?
Are you in that group of morons that think the pentagon was hit by a missile?
igykalen 1 day ago
@igykalen OK, so according to u, why doesn't NIST release the inputdata? If it's not because of jeopardizing public safety, then what is it then?
Fyi, if you believe that NIST actually DID release their inputdata, please refer me ( and all the other scientists who really would like to see that inputdata and verify it's validity)
Also, u seem to have a problem believing that Shyam Sunder was the director of the NIST investigation into WTC7, is that correct?
Pentagon was hit by a large plane.
Sandberg1972 1 day ago
@Sandberg1972 According to you they don't. Allow me to clarify. I don't work for NIST as you seem to believe. You don't reference anything. All I can find is an offsite link that has him listed as director before he was one. cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
Showing NOT Shyam Sunder as director, but Patrick Gallagher, who was not director Jul 9, 2009, rather several months later.
igykalen 20 hours ago
@igykalen I assume u can find the part in the NIST report on WTC7 that says that in phase 2 the building experienced freefall for 8 stories? I told u where to look, remember? U should look in their report, not on their website. I assume u can access their final report on WTC7's collapse from their website, so what's the problem?
There was no physical evidence that they could work with, correct. Very sharp.
There lies the problem, WHY was all of it, but one little piece, destroyed?
Sandberg1972 1 day ago
@Sandberg1972 Why are you changing the subject. First you were talking about them not releasing data, never provided a link, tell me to look it up. What does that have to do with anything you just wrote.
"WHY was all of it, but one little piece, destroyed"
I don't have no idea what you're even referring to.
igykalen 20 hours ago
@igykalen Look man, if u don't even know that all the physical evidence of WTC7 was illegally destroyed and that only ONE piece was recovered and investigated by FEMA (in which they discovered the intergranular melting referred to as the greatest mystery), of which NIST makes no mention whatsoever in their report, then I guess we're through.
U're apparently living under the illusion they NIST actually DID release their inputdata. If u do, please acknowledge and show me where that data is. Bye
Sandberg1972 18 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 You can even stay on topic and address anything I bring up. Typical. If you don't like the answers you change the subject.
igykalen 18 hours ago
@igykalen Look, u don't seem to be aware of the facts. U just assume NIST's version of what happened is correct.
YOU do not answer my questions. U seem very confused about the significance of freefall. WTC7 was filmed from several different angles when it collapsed. In not one of them does one see just one wall dropping at freefall. Instead one can see all 4 walls plus the roof go down symmetrically. U don't see the problem with that? Fine.
U can avoid this but it won't change reality.
Sandberg1972 16 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 And you assume it's false. You seem confused about the fact that ONLY CTs believe there was any. You finding of one side of a building undergoing freefall for a couple of seconds seems to overshadow the fact that other parts of the building had already started to come down. Now go cite something completely unrelated as you always do. Claim it's significant, but refuse to say why and tell me that I don't know about [insert new off topic CT video you saw here]
igykalen 15 hours ago
@igykalen So are there any bells ringing yet?
And u're right, I do not like your answers. Wanna know why?
Because your answers do not address the questions I asked u.
Because u don't even seem to be aware of the televised parts in which NIST admits freefall. U don't seem to be aware of David Chandler's analysis on WTC7's collapse.
U just cite all those ridiculous claims from NIST as if they're logical and easy to believe, while NIST refuses to back them up. This is a futile exercise.
Sandberg1972 16 hours ago
@Sandberg1972 What part of NIST saying that it wasn't freefall didn't you find addressed the issue?
"Also, u seem to have a problem believing that Shyam Sunder was the director of the NIST investigation into WTC7, is that correct?"
You completely ignored that he was not director at the time when I bring that up.
AND you continue to make up things about what I know, instead of addressing what has been said.
igykalen 15 hours ago
Let's see, my last reaction is not getting past, is it?
It's tough to handle the truth, is it not?
Sandberg1972 2 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 No, I've been working the last week. I have a job and it doesn't revolve around answering dumb youtube questions you could have looked up the info for yourself.
igykalen 1 week ago
Guy, with every comment you make you dig yourself deeper, get your facts together before your try to use the kind of persuasion that you are using, my friend. The question of tubular steel being less than adequate as opposed to the solid structures of the past still doesn't answer the question as to how it could fall symetrically to the ground in one hours' time, and then have it repeat almost perfectly. I mean do ya know what i mean?
elvislivesinmichigan 3 weeks ago
@elvislivesinmichigan You should get your facts together. None of the buildings fell symmetrically. Building 7 for example landed mostly across the street, not straight down.
If there was only a group of organizations working together that analyzed this for several years and made their findings public.... If only....
igykalen 3 weeks ago
@igykalen Nice to see another symmetrydenier alive again.
Just check out a few known cd's and see how symmetrical the implosions can be. I can tell u that most of them are not perfectly symmetrical, it does not change the fact that any amount of symmetry is highly indicative of some form of controlled demolition. Getting buildings, esp. steelframed ones, to fall straight down is no easy job & it sure as hell is not gonna be mimicked by nature just by sheer chance & astronomical odds. U see?
Sandberg1972 3 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 A vast amount of WTC7 ended up across the street. Just as the direction the building was landing. A very large building filmed from far away might not show this well.
However very large buildings are not built as a single block either. It would be very difficult to get them to tip over like a smaller one can.
igykalen 2 weeks ago
@igykalen U're avoiding the implications of the symmetry in which it fell.
It would be very difficult indeed for a building the size of WTC7 to tip over naturally. It would be even MORE difficult for a building the size of WTC7 to implode straight down, at near freefall acceleration. That's why the art of CD is so difficult to master.
Quit pretending u don't understand the implications of freefall, u know WTC7 imploded because of CD, and not because it was the 1st known instance of FIC.
Sandberg1972 2 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 There was nothing 'natural' about what happened to it.
It would also be difficult for the building to lean several meters out slowly from a CD just before it fell.
Why do you keep saying it was freefall? It wasn't.
Quit pretending you don't know the design layout and structural damage that caused a progressive collaspe with this building that makes it different from other buildings that have no similar design.
igykalen 2 weeks ago
@igykalen Look idiot, it's time to get ur facts straight, OK?
Look up the final report of NIST on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, page 44, chapter 3.6. They describe 3 phases, with the 2nd phase being a 2.25 sec. period of freefall for the north face. Total collapse was very near freefall acc., just like the average known CD, which very often happens a bit slower than freefall.
NIST used NO physical evidence, it's all one big pc simulation, of which the input cannot be seen.
Sandberg1972 2 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 To tell me to get my facts straight, then go on to say "it's all one big pc simulation". Is odd.
There's plenty of weeks worth of video and pictures you can find of the real world models they built in trying to understand the collapse.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't seem to know much about this.
igykalen 1 week ago
@igykalen NIST stated in their final report on WTC7 that in phase 2 (out of 3) the north face fell at gravitational acceleration (2.25 sec. descending about 100ft).
U're avoiding the symmetry aspect of the collapse for the 3rd time. If u want to argue that the collapse lacked symmetry, be my guest. Symmetry indicates a controlled event in cases like this.
NIST claims it was a natural progressive collapse due to fire, the 1st in history, and u buy that, without any hard evidence?
Sandberg1972 2 weeks ago
@Sandberg1972 WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.
[cont]
igykalen 1 week ago
There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
igykalen 1 week ago
@Sandberg1972 symmetry aspect
?? go and look at the debris pile of B7. The top 7 stories remain completely intact. That's some pretty lousy Controlled Demolition!!
How on earth can you compare this to any other event? It is absolutely pointless. What took place on Sept 11 was entirely unique to itself. It has no precedent. So saying no other building collapsed due to fire?? No other building received the kind of damage these buildings did.
roquefortfiles 1 week ago
Who were the "engineers on the ground" telling the NYFD that the building was likely to come down? And, have any of them come forward for interviews after the fact confirming this?
SuperGogetem 4 weeks ago
@SuperGogetem People that are engineers. Manhattan has over 7 million people.
And I don't know. There's a plethora of interviews and videos on non conspiracy sites. I've seen ones where firefighters talk about having spoken to them. As these sites tend to try to prove stuff as opposed to just raising suspicion or give speculative opinion.
You can judge for yourself how valid it is.
igykalen 3 weeks ago
that was the best time to get everything from the mall free. :)
geonike13579 4 weeks ago
@geonike13579 It wasn't a riot. Businesses stayed open all during that event.
igykalen 4 weeks ago
@igykalen LAME
geonike13579 3 weeks ago
@geonike13579 I'm not sure I understand. Did you think a mall would become easier to loot because of that? I just don't see how. The WTC aren't malls. The nearest Starbucks didn't even closed down. They were critiqued for charging the firefighter for coffee when they were taking breaks during trying to save lives. A mall certainly wouldn't have been affected.
As incredulous as it may seem, people really did keep doing their job. Perhaps not at some public schools, though.
igykalen 3 weeks ago
If you go to the website there is a map of where the cars were, some were on the water side of Manhatten,blocks away. Some of the cars only part of them caught fire. Just look at the pictures. Why is the paper not burning when the car tires and things are? By the way the jet fuel was burned up on impact and way before the towers fell. The fires we saw burning were the contents. 90% of the towers turned to dust in around 10 seconds. Just keep an open mind as to what is happening here.
UBBaby09 4 weeks ago
Why doesn't the paper burn? 1) The fire hasn't reached it yet.
2) Actually, there is a fire on the ground around the burning vehicle, so the paper nearest the fire is burning. But overall, there isn't enough paper to sustain a spreading fire. Anyone who's ever tried to keep a fire burning knows that it's very hard to keep a fire going from the sides or top. If the fire isn't under the combustible material, it's awfully hard to keep it going.
igykalen 4 weeks ago
@igykalen So how did the car catch on fire, but not the paper? The cars were set on fire first, probably by jet fuel from the plane crashes. The paper fell when the towers collapsed (you can see falling paper in many videos, and the paper in the tree branches is pretty informative).
Oh, by the way, all that paper pretty much demolishes the idea that passports and other personal effects couldn't have survived.
To keep an open mind that lasers from the sky is what caused all this?
igykalen 4 weeks ago
@igykalen Well, the paper on the ground came from the building, while the passport came from inside the airplane... That is a difference.
evil001987 3 weeks ago
@evil001987 passport? what are you talking about? What does that have to do with some space laser used to melt the cars?
igykalen 3 weeks ago
@igykalen You wrote: "The paper fell when the towers collapsed (you can see falling paper in many videos, and the paper in the tree branches is pretty informative). Oh, by the way, all that paper pretty much demolishes the idea that passports and other personal effects couldn't have survived."
I didn't read all of your earlier comments, so not sure if I'm with you or against you.. but there is a difference if the papers where in the building or in the plane prior to the crash.
evil001987 3 weeks ago
@evil001987 Well, consider how many other items were found intact near passengers like license drivers cards and such that weer in their pockets. Things the families could confirm. Personal items that someone would have had a hard time planting, if that's what you're suggesting.
If you think it's impossible, what about the space shuttles that blew up. Look at how many items were still intact and found later.
igykalen 3 weeks ago
@igykalen ok so how exactly did wtc7 end up falling?
JMcMac21 3 weeks ago
@JMcMac21 Downward mostly.
igykalen 2 weeks ago
@igykalen Not where... How.
JMcMac21 2 weeks ago
@JMcMac21 Oh, let see. I have 490 characters remaining. That should should suffice to cover the years of work that went into it.
If you spent several months analyzing their work and disagree. Okay.
What do you want me to say here to add to that? You just don't like progressive collapse?
If you can just repute it all with "it seems fishy," I can't argue with that.
igykalen 2 weeks ago
May I suggest everyone go to Dr.Judy Woods website to see evidence after the collaspe of the towers. We all need to do our own research to find out what really happened here. We must not accept the status quo. The truth is right in front of you.
UBBaby09 4 weeks ago
@UBBaby09 Good point. google "Dr.Judy Woods" and watch her video four links down about how energy beams from space took out the building and dodges any attempt to explain it.
She's just throwing out another random theory with nothing to back it up.
After 10 minutes of her unable to answer any valid questions, I gave up. I was surprised that he was being as polite as he was to such stupidity.
igykalen 4 weeks ago
@igykalen
I think you miss the point that there were things that happened that day that were not explainable. Did you look at the pictures of the damage. How would you explain cars on fire many blocks away from the towers that were no way hit by the planes. There were aluminum car engines in emergency vehicles that were completely melted, how do you explain that. All she is doing is presenting the evidence and it up to us and everyone else to try and figure out what happened.
UBBaby09 4 weeks ago
@UBBaby09 Cars not hit by planes? Exactly how many blocks away are you talking about. Their was debris falling on them. Most of the cars were set on fire from the jet fuel falling on them.
Some debris falling punctured thru the roof and caused more damage to the inside.
Engines have grease, oil and gasoline in them. None of these events are outside what has been observed in other car fires.
Mind you that vehicles were also towed away from the area as well.
A weapon from space that targets cars?
igykalen 4 weeks ago
9/11 was an inside job for about 70 reasons, 1 reason alone can be considered coincidence, 2 is suspicious, 3 is? inside job, 4 is a blatant inside job, but 70??? conspiracies happen, this was one of them, mass murder for personal gain! Oil, opium and bases in the middle east, better to take from the weak before other superpowers (russia, china) do! We may benefit in the long run when we fill up our cars, but it doesn't make 9.11 ok! Mass murder! the shills will attack me but i don't care!
wellifthemediasaysit 4 weeks ago
@wellifthemediasaysit That made no sense at all. You may as well have said
1) inside job
2) ?????
3) profit
How many oil "bases" do we have now? Only one by Exxon. The remainder were grabbed by other countries.
igykalen 4 weeks ago
"I remember getting a call from the uh fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire AND I said you know we had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is is pull it AND they made that decision to pull AND then we watched the building collapse".
He's using the term "pull it" in the context of the building falling down.
The fire department made the decision to "pull" in the context of abandoning attempts to contain the fire.
cagerat 1 month ago
@cagerat Wrong video, but okay. nit-picking over that pull thing is too silly anyway.
igykalen 1 month ago
Here's an interesting concept. It was said from September 2000 to June 2001, the military intercepted commercial flights 67 times for various reasons.In the beginning of this video,a map of the flight paths is shown.I've seen others that shown the entire flight path from takeoff to crash which turns theory to fact these planes were monitored the entire flight.Why couldn't even one of them be intercepted? Because they were meant not to be, that's why.The gov't knew exactly what was going on.
mooremichael95 1 month ago
@mooremichael95 From the moment the air force were notified about the hijackings to their crashes they had much less time to get there than those 67 prior intercepts, none of which occurred within the U.S. borders.
And... in nine months 67 "commercial flights" were intercepted? Really?? C'mon.
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false statements helps no-one. Maybe you should at least research some of what you hear. These are hardly secrets kept from the public.
igykalen 1 month ago
@igykalen US being the greatest nation on technology where they supposedly mastered the air during late 60s not being able to intercept another plane after 1st plane hit the tower!!! does that make any sense to you? well it doesn't make any sense to me; even india or china could have easily countered on at least the 2nd plane.
Achilles0651 1 month ago
@Achilles0651 The greatest nation on technology just lost a RQ-170 stealth drone to Iran. Since the US makes no mistakes, to what purpose does that serve us?
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."
igykalen 1 month ago
I'm sure you believe that the air force can intercept in under 20 minutes, but how that would even be possible?
As there were no guidelines for them to follow that day for multiple hijackings, they wouldn't have had any reason to think there were more than one so they couldn't have stopped the first two planes in time.
They also were told by the FAA that flight 11 was still in the air and headed to Washington, leading to more confusion.
It's easy to second guess in hindsight though.
igykalen 1 month ago
@igykalen
False If a commercial pilot goes out of contact for 10 mins AUTOMATICALLY planes are scrambled as is code for that sort of thing. Also around the Pentagon Air Defense Missle systems AKA SAM sites. Surround the Pentagon.....ANY plane flying in the restricted airspace WITHOUT a transponder is to be shot down as defense. So two failed protocols including the FACT that a drill covering the EXACT same scenario was being carried out at the EXACT same time. CONVENIENT
sourkushing 4 weeks ago
@sourkushing Do you research. A plane hit the white house once when Bill Clinton was in office. A Airliner passed over it and nothing happened. Are you talking about rules NOW or before 9/11? They are different.
And what do you mean automatically? How does a jet leave the ground that quick.
Yeah drills never happen. Convenient would have been if they were canceled for that day.
Talk to an AF pilot from that day and see if he agrees with you on your version of reality.
igykalen 4 weeks ago
3rd building to explode..THAT'S WHAT HE SAID (period)
frozinspace 1 month ago
So ... your point? I've seen videos of reporters describing how they saw a tiny little Cessna plane hitting the towers. The relevance would be....?
Or are you figuring out that on the day of an event, they aren't going to know everything immediately, nor could they.
For example, the Challenger disaster is still referred to as an explosion even though it really just broke apart an ignited the fuel. Not an explosion.
But a simpletons says, it looks like one, so it must be one.
igykalen 1 month ago
@igykalen...this is from the ignorant and uneducated American from the heartland.
1. No building in the history of steel reinforced concrete structures ever came down from fire.
2. A building in Spain burned for an entire week and it still didn't come down.
3. The tell tale crimp in the middle of the buildings top floors and roof says it was demolished.
4. The building came down symmetrically landing in it's own footprint, demolition
5. BBC news reported it came down 20 min prior to the demo
elvislivesinmichigan 1 month ago
@elvislivesinmichigan
1) False Several buildings and structures have come down that were made of steel. Honestly, I'm tired of listing them all. Why you think that isn't true is completely beyond me. I guess you'll believe whatever you're told.
2) who cares
3) oh really.
4) And still landed across the street. Amazing.
5) who cares. Ashleigh reported in this full clip that building 6 has ALREADY come down.
The relevance....?
igykalen 1 month ago
@igykalen You didn't respond to one thing I said...you are like a little kid...no she did, no he did it...no it was like this...no facts at all. and you are now talking about building 6. the relevance is that you did not answer one of my questions...how about the reinforced steel building collapsing...JUST ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION. Where and how did the building fall? Where and how did the building fall...the one you are speaking of.
elvislivesinmichigan 3 weeks ago
@elvislivesinmichigan Actually I responded to all 5. See the numbers. You just spurted out meaningless stuff like a building in Spain burned for a week and didn't come down. So? What am I to infer form that. That all buildings that come down a before a week has passed must be part of a conspiracy?
You just state things and hope I'm going to read your mind as to the relevance it has to you.
The fact that you think that list has a question in it is amazing.
igykalen 3 weeks ago
@elvislivesinmichigan The steel reinforced buildings? Which ones? WTC 1,2 and 7 were tube in tube design. Completely different design. Or are you really looking for me to cram about 7 years of research on it into a youtube comment?
If you're talk about building 6. That's a response to your post about the BBC. Meaning the news gets their facts wrong. My point was ... so what. It happens every day in the news.
igykalen 3 weeks ago
What a f*cking moron the camera guy is. I bet they paid him really well too.
peterson553 1 month ago
@peterson553 What exactly did he do?
igykalen 1 month ago
I understand this. But why would she be surprised by the building 7's collapse. She even said it live.
randomstuff6791 1 month ago
this is pretty much all the Official Story pushers have left, to try and make it seem that if firemen and police knew it was coming down, well then that confirms that it could not have been demolition. That doesn't change that NIST never explained the freefall of the collapse, and the computer model they generated shows bulging and buckling when the video does not.
edyken77 1 month ago
@edyken77 You're talking about the video facing the side where you couldn't see the damage?
No one is trying to make it 'seem' as if the firefighters said they saw buckling and leaning. They said it numerous times. You got a lot of firefighters in on this.
/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI
igykalen 1 month ago
YOU BELIEVE THA THE FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE WHO RISKED THEIR OWN LIVES ON 9/11 TO SAVE PTHERS WERE WERE "IN ON IT"?!?!?!
PostalCode74 1 month ago
an article on 9/11 truther deaths: itwastyped. com/ ?p=508
very interesting indeed. are you all just being paranoid?
culturebully3 1 month ago
The only cover-up with 911 is that we went to war illegally in Iraq. People that believe that the trade center bombing was an inside job need to not be so one sided in their thinking. There is much MORE eveidence on the side of structural failure due to stress created by a COMBINATION of damage, fire, jet fuel. 911 happened, and our goverment used it as a long coming reason to bomb Iraq. Just watched the movie "Green Zone". It is a close depiction of how things probably transpired after 911.
squinney 1 month ago
I wany to say , that reading all this is so amazing....I see these silly people trying to explain why dusk , dawn, and the tides are government operations and then this group of thinking people try to explain why things happen but the silly people will not be swayed....makes for some good reading. Carry on silly people.
yikesoyikes1 1 month ago
i think the main focal point that everyody should be looking at is the way WTC7 came down,for anyone who has ever witnessed old stadiums or Las Vegas hotels been demolished can clearly admit that are too many similarities! Debunkers: don't even try to come up with an explanation for this because it simply cannot be done! We know what we saw!
LiveFromVCR 2 months ago 23
@LiveFromVCR Don't even try? Several years of study went into it. A little bit more of an effort than just eyeballing it from a single camera angle and comparing it to another building.
igykalen 2 months ago
@LiveFromVCR Damn....you're right! From this moment forth I will not question any more. I will believe whatever anyone tells me because it's all so self-evident anyway.
Should I also, therefore, not question the official story? Or should I only turn off my scepticism when confronted with a 911 truther?
My friend, I question every story and will continue to do so. You should try it. It's called scepticism.
djembeweaver 2 months ago
@djembeweaver
Good, because let's face it. You are NOT GOOD at questioning a thing.
The OFFICIAL STORY has survived 10 years of sniping by mental midgets.
You aren't any different.
Merlin5by5 2 months ago
@Merlin5by5 Oh dear - if you re-read my comments you will see that I was questioning blind acceptance of the conspiracy theory, not of the official story. This mental midget believes that this topic is so saturated with misinformation that one should question every story. I will try to improve my questioning - thanks for the constructive criticism :)
djembeweaver 2 months ago
@Merlin5by5
"The OFFICIAL STORY has survived..."
Its simple, really. So long as major media don't admit to anything on TV, nobody will care. It doesn't have to "survive". Sleep tight, little child.
JSSTyger 2 months ago
Doesn't a true "skeptic" question the official story?
JSSTyger 2 months ago
@JSSTyger Yes
djembeweaver 1 month ago
@LiveFromVCR myth buster wont even touch 911 lol
SUNNYRAINWIND 1 month ago 14
@SUNNYRAINWIND they did a thermite experiment. it was a flop, bet they were told to debunk by the very folks that did it 911 via their boss
altocumulas 1 week ago
Wow, I read your description but this makes it even more obvious it was a demolition, not damage. They knew almost exactly when it would collapse and told people, obviously to keep them from getting hit.
tnix80 2 months ago
@tnix80 uh huh. exactly. And by exactly, you mean hours beforehand. Since when do firefighters try to kill people? And if they did know why would they care about saving anyone, but let so many of their brothers die in the two towers?
igykalen 2 months ago
@tnix80 By 'they' I presume you mean the New York fire dept. Just to be clear, are you saying that the NYFD and all of the firefighters knew about the controlled demolition?
djembeweaver 2 months ago
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
w w w . popularmechanics . com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278
aczjbr 2 months ago
@aczjbr watch?v=YKlq9e8zlPE
ChristianWorldOrder2 2 months ago
@aczjbr i'd be more of an idiot for believing popular mechanics lol
LiveFromVCR 2 months ago
Three very large buildings collapsing due to fire in a less than ,12 hour period?.One of which had a very different structual history to the other two.Yet they all had very simalar collapse rates and collapse outcomes.Have you ever considered that maybe the fourth plane that went down without hitting its target was meant for building 7,hense the delay in its destruction.ie:planes hit 1&2=they fall, plane misses 7= plan B cant fall now so wait and use fire as excuse ,then drop it?
sped1407 2 months ago
@sped1407 That's a new one. The fourth plane missing it's target by 250 miles. And what an odd choice of target as well. For a terrorist anyway.
igykalen 2 months ago
@igykalen I think wtc 7 was meant to come down at the time of the twin towers but it failed to go off they probably had operatives go in and reset what went wrong. We can't really know but the firefighters don't have to be complicit they just received word from the higher ups and were told to get out of the way I mean after you see the twin towers come down your in a state of fear you'll pretty much believe anything fear is the greatest form of mind control after all.
anewlow23 2 months ago
@anewlow23 Well, they would have had to been somewhat complicit. They're sticking with their story that engineers on the ground were telling them it was going to likely collapse. They could also see the damage of the buildings themselves.
"they probably had operatives go in and reset what went wrong." lol
Truthers are stranger than science fiction writers.
igykalen 2 months ago
@sped1407 Wow, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
MetalSights 2 months ago
@MetalSights -You gotta get out more then!and I've heard stupider things than Wow,like ,KAPOOF! and Cor Blimey!!
sped1407 2 months ago
@igykalen Have you ever been able to account for the Orwellian revisions of an article by James Glanz in the New York Times (November 2001) that was once titled "Engineers Are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC," subtitled "steel members have been partly evaporated"? In 2006 the original report was replaced with "Engineers have a Culprit: Diesel," also dated November 2001. In 2007 the Ministry of Truth decided that "Engineers Suspect Diesel" would be a better title for the Nov 2001 report.
Bernadotte01 2 months ago
@Bernadotte01 You're worrying about a report that had two months worth of research put into it?
igykalen 2 months ago
WOW! These people must be genius prophets(since no steel building ever collapse due to fire b4 9/11), they can predict that WTC7 will collapse.
lonenut740 2 months ago
@lonenut740 Actually several steel structures have collasped due to fire alone. The fact that there were no doors or windows some shouldn't matter. However there are a few steel buildings that have also collaped from fire. Like the Kader Toy Factory fire in Thailand 1993.
Comparing the WTC buildings to others that have collasped is also irrevalant as to the sheer number of differences between them. Structural designed being a major one.
igykalen 2 months ago
@igykalen youre delirious. fire doesnt burn hot enough bro. go back to the library and do some more research
pizzylee1978 1 month ago
@lonenut740 So by your reasoning, a cop that was in on the conspiracy told a news reporter what was going to happen? No wonder you idiots are laughed at.
lonstar70 2 months ago
the UNEDITED version of the building 7 collapse can be found at ItWasTyped. com
see for yourself how it did NOT free fall, it collapsed progressively. Look under the 'conspiracy theory' section and find the Building 7 post. Definitive proof that conspiracy theorists are WRONG. Haha!
culturebully3 3 months ago
@culturebully3 Yes I watched it. I am amazed that you allow yourself to be duped like this. So they include the penthouses in the timings. That would be like throwing up a ball which rolls down a roof then falls to the ground then declaring that to be the speed of gravity.
Try some critical thinking and ask what the speed of fall of the main body of the building is. Then ask why you need to include the penthouses in the timing.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
"pulling" also means to pull all emergency personnel off the building. Let it go. Don't put water on it. My father was at 7 before it collapsed, when the decision was made to "pull." He thinks it's ridiculous that people think anything otherwise. "Pulling" is common language when a structure fire is abandoned due to imminent collapse.
jaredtrodriguez 3 months ago
"That is number 5 WTC oh sorry number 6"?
DaleTuck31 3 months ago
Every time I watch these videos I see how strong the United States of America really is when we get knocked down we get up again and nothing is going to keep us down.
SamRiosIsEpic 3 months ago
Two reasons why I KNOW that WTC7 was pulled:
(1) I heard them say it LIVE that they were going to bring the building down because it was heavily damaged; and
(2) NO building that is randomly damaged comes down in such a uniform manner. Watch it come down again and you'll see that only controlled demolitions come down like that.
MattFoleyMotivation 3 months ago
@MattFoleyMotivation 1) They said that they were going to have to bring down all of the world trade center buildings because of damage, which they did. So your point is?
2) That's your science? Just look at it? alright.
Hell, based on that, should you question how a plane which is made of several tons of metal can fly thru the air, when you know that birds need to be super light to do it. "Common sense" science is fo dem simple folk.
igykalen 3 months ago
@igykalen I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. Yes, WTC7 was pulled and yes, buildings don't collapse by themselves the uniform way WTC7 came down. And, yes, part of science is observation. So, what exactly is the point of your response?
MattFoleyMotivation 3 months ago
@MattFoleyMotivation You said NO building that is randomly damaged comes down in a uniform manner. So prove how the conclusion drawn that it was a progressive collapse FOR THAT EXACT BUILDING DESIGN with that exact damage and fires burning for that long was impossible.
igykalen 3 months ago
did you even watch those 3 parts ive sent you of that guy explaining with mathematical facts that the official theory is not possible?
/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI&feature=channel_video_title (part 1)
/watch?v=ecmQegzMJQE&feature=relmfu (part 2)
/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U&feature=relmfu (part 3)
and the last vid:
/watch?v=epIv0IxpuCE&feature=related
this isnt human reaction, this is math.
please. watch those vids, all of them. should take a bit more then 30 minutes.
if ur not convinced now, im done here.
RockahD91 3 months ago
@RockahD91 Your last vid you mention was of the last two videos upload to that site. The last one being that of people talking about psychology.
The proof the building collapsed. I'll need an explanation of what I'm even looking at. All I see is a short animation of a square coming down with some numbers changing on the side. I'm supposed to know what I'm looking at there?
I think ReyAce00 says it best - "This video is a complete waste of time and conveys almost nothing to the viewer."
igykalen 3 months ago
@igykalen i need more space to write my argument, is it ok that i post it on your page? i have more writing space there ;)
RockahD91 3 months ago
@RockahD91 you know what a pm is right?
igykalen 3 months ago
@igykalen yes ofcourse lol, just asking before you think im spamming your inbox^^
RockahD91 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV They tested hypotheses for that and found no reason to believe there were any bombs.
Here's a few weeks worth of NIST video to watch. I'm not gonna try to summarize it here.
911datasets[dot]org/index.php/International_Center_for_9/11_Studies_NIST_FOIA
igykalen 3 months ago
@igykalen The most liely cause would be explosives, since that is the only thing in history that brings down steel buildings. Fires would be a very low probability. In other words the NIST findings are bogus.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Explosives make a distinctly loud noise which can be heard blocks away. And when in history has any steel building higher than 20 stories been brought down by anything?
What steel without concrete tube in a tube design was brought down by explosives in history?
And how would you have gotten the NIST and the other non government companies to all work for 7 years on a elaborate lie? How many people do you think they had working on this? like 3
You talk about what makes sense.
igykalen 3 months ago
@igy And what is it with the non sense that this was the first time in history that fires brought down a steel structure. If that detail means so much, then what about the Kader Toy Factory fire in Thailand 1993? Look it up on wikipedia. The only things you know are what the conspiracy theorists tell you.
The WTC had fire proofing for a reason, They knew what would happen if a large fire broke out. WTC7 had massive damage along with fire for hours. How are these events LIKE others in history?
igykalen 3 months ago
@igykalen Nano thermite makes noise? And there are hundreds of credible witnesses hearing explosions during 911. To not check for explosive residue or to not check for the most probable cause is a crime in itself.
Over 1600 architects, engineers, explosives experts, physicists conclude it was a controlled demolition.
ae911truth,org
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV You said explosives were the most likely cause. Now it's the silent nano thermite, then back to "credible" witnesses heard explosions. Which story are you going with anyway?
I'm sorry, but how were the witnesses better than the thousands of cameras?
Over 7 million architects, engineers, explosives experts, and physicists disagree. Including one who brought down the largest building ever via CD. You just stay on the 911 bullshit channel. They tell you what they want you to see.
igykalen