Conspiracy theories occur at the intersection of dark, personal fantasies and profound, willful self-deceit liberally sprinkled with an assortment of tasty cross-eyed neuroses. There is no room in this fetid concoction for actual facts, evidence, or the truth...at least the sort of truth that the real world generally accepts.
Area 51, the WTC attacks, the crash of TWA 800, both Kennedy assassinations, etc are all fodder for the people who suffer from chronic cognitive dissonance. It's a pity.
Great video. Keep up the good work. Newton's laws of motion and gravity are real. 911 was an inside job and when the fat, lazy, stupid, ignorant morons wake up to that reality, we will be free.
Well I guess its simple,DrJones is a payed off zionist Jew jerking of to watching us low life people dying. And no,I'm not a racist,I hate all fucking retards equally.
@stoobradley You say that "even nist found that the damage from the falling debris wasn't a contributing factor" they weren't saying that. They were saying that even without the damage the building still would have collapsed, not that it wasn't a contributing factor.
@Sabohaque Not every dichotomy is a false one. Unless you can suggest any other reasons the structure below would offer resistance of jelly while one above would offer resistance of rock and steel, of course.
@SexyMelon it offered resistance significantly higher...? um, hate to break this to you, but the falling object didn't. In fact, when it hit the ground, it crumbled to pieces. Why? Because the Earth itself offers much more resistance than the architectural system of steel beams that make up the WTC. In fact, The falling object doesn't have to resist shit, whats falling onto it does. Also, well, I'm sure you know what momentum is, right? That it significantly increases force, right?
"The falling object doesn't have to resist shit, whats falling onto it does."
Oh dear. I think I can think of one person who disagrees...
"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear." - Sir Isaac Newton
...Which is also what my question referred to. Why is the structure weak enough to be crushed like jelly, yet the same structure is strong enough to crush tons of steel in miliseconds?
@SexyMelon Jelly? Jelly would actually give more resistance because it's more dense and consistent than a network of steel beams and concrete. Second, I'm glad you brought up colinear, you can clearly see that the debris is moving out from the center, yes? And, the structure is not being crushed, it's breaking apart. You completely ignored Newton's second law by the way. Go ahead and read that before you skip to the third.
@Sabohaque "Second, I'm glad you brought up colinear, you can clearly see that the debris is moving out from the center, yes?"
The building collapsed downward, not exploded outward. I have not the faintest idea why you'd try to advocate the latter...
"You completely ignored Newton's second law by the way."
Newton's second law has nothing to do with anything here, nor with what I said. Please don't try to correct people on these things when you're the one being corrected.
Do you know what might cause some serious damage to the structural supports of a steel and concrete reinforced building? How about the impact of a large commercial airplane travelling at high speed? Is it at all possible that that impact could have caused some major stress to the structure of these buildings, and that the fires that then raged pushed them over the edge? As for the race with gravity, these buildings were quite heavy. Each successive floor falling only added to the momentum.
@PostITnoteGUY You did not address a single one of the 20 points I made in my video, but simply rejected the one sentence description of my video. There is a difference between debunking evidence and simply denying evidence without even looking at it.
My argument remains that key members of the Bush Administration allowed 911 to initiate a war for oil resources. The evidence in my "911LIHOP" video proves it and many people agree.
So why should I get mad? You can believe whatever you want.
There is not much resistance as the WTC towers fall because they're 95% air, not because there are controlled demolitions ahead of the falling structure, making it "fall better" or whatever it is you're claiming. There is an article in the journal of minerals, metals and materials about it.
And seriously? You think people watching dprjones' video are actually going to think that those two guys are really 9/11 truthers?
@autumnsylver You are referring to the JOM article by Eagar and Musso, that was long ago debunked by Dr Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
The notion that buildings are "made of air" is silly. Buildings are filled with plenty of empty space, but they are constructed of steel and concrete, and engineered to support many times anticipated loads.
And yes, people who would believe buildings are constructed with air would also likely believe those guys are Truthers.
@stoobradley Nice strawman you set up there. No one ever said the buildings were "made of" air. If that's the way you think, no wonder you're a 9/11 truther.
95% air, haha ;D please. look picture at 3:48. Have you actually ever saw a picture wtc under construction or you just read some dumb shit from somewhere?
95% air, haha ;D please. look picture at 3:48. Have you actually ever saw a picture wtc under construction or you just read some dumb shit from somewhere?
@autumnsylver wow that is really scientific, the towers fell because they are 95% air? what kind of moronic bullcrap is that? some 47 steel columns supported the inner core, THAT is not air you AIRHEAD. ITS STEEL! should i ever need an architect or an engineer be sure i wont be calling you. dont forget to put that bull$hit statement on your resume, people will want to know how smart you are.
Not to mention that there will be less resistance as more and more weight from the above falling floors falls on the next floors
...and you gotta love the Truthers that "debunk the debunkers" by doing nothing other than referring you to a source that has already been debunked...I guess they didn't get that info
@CrazyRay7979 "Not to mention that there will be less resistance as more and more weight from the above falling floors falls on the next floors"
Added weight or force always mean MORE resistance, not less... That's... I think it's fair to say you, as any other self-professed "debunkers", have no knowledge of even high-school physics. Which is actually required to advocate the official conspiracy theory in the first place.
All your debunking has been debunked even if it didn't need to be.
Wow, are you really that dumb? If you add more weight on the TOP of something, there will be LESS resistance BELOW...you know, like the difference between a 100 pound weight vs. a 1 ton weight being dropped on your head
Keep believing in your Truther fairytales that completely defy the eyewitness testimony, engineering, science, and simple physics...maybe one day you'll be one of the last Truthers to actually believe that garbage before reality sets in and you see how stupid it was
@CrazyRay7979 "If you add more weight on the TOP of something, there will be LESS resistance BELOW..."
Enter Newton's third law of motion: for every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. I.e. more action (force) = more reaction (resistance).
I hope this is simple enough to understand. You may want to read up on the difference between force, momentum, resistance, acceleration and velocity in regards to this subject.
@CrazyRay7979 "Keep believing in your Truther fairytales that completely defy the eyewitness testimony, engineering, science, and simple physics..."
I think you have that confused for government's fairytales. ;)
Granted they not as much defy laws of physics as conveniently forget they even exist. For example, that an object accelerates downwards due to gravity is emphasized, while that it would slow down (in either velocity or acceleration) is ignored.
@SexyMelon ...Thankfully US government raised a generation woefully ignorant of even the most basic principles of science so they can be authority on the subject rather than untrustworthy hacks like Newton or Galileo.
Of course even their attempts didn't stop university students and professors from scratching their heads in puzzlement when the towers imploded, knowing it just can't happen without aid of demolition, or at least that's what I keep hearing.
@SexyMelon Just so you understand. CrazyRay7979 is cointelpro. Either that or a complete fat moron. I don't know which one is scarier. My theory is that just as in the 70's, the FBI and CIA have recruited people to attack the truth. They will never stop because they are being paid to do so.
@Daddyo930 Not everyone is a shill. It's easy for people to be genuinely mislead into irrationally defending their faith. Some have simply never heard the other side of the argument, or don't even know about WTC 7 or reports of red-hot steel, molten metal and violent fires at the site.
@SexyMelon As a rational person, I have a hard time believing in coincidence. If you look at the amount of time these same people spend on youtube beating the truth with a bat, you can conclude some things. 1. They are unemployed and looking for a job. 2. They are in complete denial and angry. 3. This is their job. Sherlock Holmes said that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable is most likely the answer.
@Daddyo930 I don't exclude possibility of governments hiring shills anymore than corporations routinely do, but - honestly - you underestimate just how lifeless people can be, not just on subject of 9/11, but anything from Star Wars to cooking recipes.
@CrazyRay7979 Oh yeah, you can easily test newton's third law by placing first one book then a couple more books on your hand: notice which one feels lighter, which one places more pressure on your hand, which one you have to struggle to hold more...
@autumnsylver where is your proof physical evidence and what controlled demolition would leave building 7 laying across the street on 91201 So little research on the physical aftermath has been done by t911truthers that they debunk themselves.
@PostITnoteGUY My "valid argument" is my "911LIHOP" video, based on over 20 points demonstrating that Cheney, Bush, and others had motive to create a pretext for war, had foreknowledge of the coming 911 attack, took steps to insure the success of the attack, and then obstructed the investigations to cover up their involvement.
If you actually watched this video you would have at least understood the questions you just claimed ignorance of.
@PostITnoteGUY A quick recap of your answers: 1. I don't know. So what? 2. Who knows? 3. I don't know. But what's your point? 4. NO ANSWER 5. War plans are always be drawn up. 6. I'm not sure. Again so what? Why indeed? 7. Why wouldn't he? ( I said Cheney DIDN'T warn the Pentagon.) 8. NO ANSWER 9. I don't know. 10. Heat? 11. I think steel conducts better but I don't really know. 12. I think this is a distortion but whatever. Remarkable. You could fill a book with everything you don't know.
@PostITnoteGUY You know what makes me angry? Dropping bombs on thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as payback for a crime in America that they had nothing to do with and has never had a proper criminal investigation. Doesn't that bother your saintly moral values at all?
@PostITnoteGUY - I do hope you have calmed down enough that we can have a civil conversation and not simply rant like bullies in a schoolyard.
You say I have no evidence or argument. Have you watched the "911-Blueprint for Truth" presentation that I recommended? How can you know what the "truther" argument is if you refuse to honestly consider evidence we present?
As for my personal argument, I have an 8 part video called "911LIHOP" that examines that case for official complicity. Enjoy!
@PostITnoteGUY Wow! You sent 16 consecutive ranting and cursing replies in a space of an hour and a half. Having a little temper tantrum?
That was the worst apology ever. Come back when you have calmed down enough to hold a rational conversation. In the meantime you can actually read the NIST report so you will have an accurate idea of the rubbish you defend.
@PostITnoteGUY From your first post, "I didn't dislike you until you made your last point; a very 9/11 trutheresque insinuation the DPR was being deceptive by including 2 obvious caricatures. Truthers are irrational and dishonest."
As I said, I'm sure DPR included these fake interviews to be funny, but DPR presents these literal shills as typical "truthers". How is the average viewer to know they are not genuine? Why not interview a real truther to make his point?
@PostITnoteGUY In NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" section 4.3.1 the damage is described as 7 severed columns ( out of 82 total support columns ) and "cladding damage" on the southwest corner.
This is what you and the debunkers consider "massive damage"? Did you base this accusation of massive damage on any specific evidence? I challenge you to find anywhere in the NIST report where they say the debris damage was a factor in the collapse.
@PostITnoteGUY You accuse me of being a "lair" ( I'll assume you meant "liar"), yet show me anywhere I said,"NIST claimed WTC7 fell partly because of the debris damage". My point was NIST could not provide any evidence to back this claim that debunkers have made for years.
You say "As far as I know the NIST report claims...". Have you even read the NIST report or have you put blind faith in NIST's honesty without examining the evidence they present? Don't trust me? Fine. Read the report.
@PostITnoteGUY The "crappiness" of MY reasoning? Just because a scientist makes a claim does not automatically make it true. In science you must provide evidence to back the claim. NIST could not provide evidence that falling debris was a factor in WTC7s collapse, but they also could not provide evidence to back their other claims like fire temps, expanding steel, and collapse speeds.
Yet DPR presenting "obvious caricatures" in a fake debate somehow makes ME "irrational and dishonest"? LOL!
@FlyingSpahghettiMan - Really? Which plane hit WTC 7? I suppose it doesn't matter that WTC engineer John Skilling designed the towers to withstand the impact and fire from large aircraft. Or that the undamaged lower sections of the buildings collapsed faster than gravity alone could possibly cause. Or that explosive debris has been documented in the WTC dust.
But why bother looking at the facts, especially when they contradict what you "feel". So much for critical thinking.
@stoobradley Debris from the other towers most likely hit WTC7. How did he construct it to withstand a airplane crashing into it? There was force applied from above due to the plane most likely, as you can't simply get rid of thousands of pounds of force applied downwards. Also, I am certain that airplane fuel is extremely volatile. Perhaps an entire plane full of it caused SOME debris to go somewhere. It isn't what I feel happened. Its quite obvious a plane full of airplane fuel would hit hard.
3. You clearly are not familiar with either the NIST report or the basics of controlled demolitions. If you are at all interested in the WTC collapse from the perspective of engineering and the scientific method, then I implore you to watch the "911-Blueprint for Truth" video presentation before rushing to judgement.
@FlyingSpahghettiMan Since you have not looked at the information sources I have given, I will repeat what I have already stated in the above video starting at 3:07.
If any of gravity's energy is used to do anything other than accelerate the object downward, like breaking through intact floors, then there will not be enough downward energy to obtain freefall. This means something had to be breaking up the intact floors ahead of the collapse. This is fully discussed in "Blueprint for Truth".
@FlyingSpahghettiMan We do have several articles peer reviewed, most recently the "Active Thermitic Material Found in the WTC Dust" paper. Not that a peer review should be a standard considering NIST refuses to release their work for peer review, yet so many so called skeptics have put their blind faith in NIST's honesty.
And I have already debunked RKOwens, both in open debate:
Google "Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens",
@stoobradley Interesting case, yet what about the videos that show the floor that the plane hit? It shows an obvious cave in due to the fire. I would say that 9/11 was extremely convenient for the government, conspiracy or not.
@stoobradley Force from individual explosions would not allow a building to collapse faster then gravity, as it would require force from above to do so. Floors collapsing in the way you describe would need a considerable amount of force, and if we could see explosions later on in the footage on lower levels, then it'd be obvious the inside job idea is correct.
PS. I can easily imagine the US Govt. withholding information/data after the event/attack, I really really struggle to imagine that ANY part of the US Govt. or its agents were aware or involved prior to the attack/event. However accept I may be naive.
I think this freefall stuff is a red herring! The dynamics of the collapse, ultimately can only ever be speculation. What 'truthers' really want us to believe is that this was a controlled demolition. My scepticism (I have no facts) is based on the unlikely scenario of a large team placing huge amounts of explosive charges and all the relavent equipment without being detected for days or weeks before hand OR filling the cargo holds of the planes with explosives. Neither seem likely. OCCAM
@acme181169 You admit your skepticism about controlled demolitions is not based on facts, but I certainly hope you do not always pass judgement on important topics without examining the facts.
As a "Truther" I don't want to tell you what to believe, but I do encourage people to at least consider the evidence presented in the video, "911:Blueprint for Truth" before assuming we are wrong.
I don't deny your right to have an opinion, but wouldn't you rather have an informed opinion. Best wishes!
@stoobradley As with most things well all start with a 'gut feeling', then if we really wish to 'know' we should do futher research. Currently my opinion pretty much is based on that initial 'gut' feeling'. I appreciate your civil tone and will certainly watch the vid you recommend!. Btw while I'm inclinded to accept official explanations for the WTC incidents I have more doubts about the pentagon and the other aircraft, do you have any reccomendations?
@acme181169 Questions: in your estimation, how large a team would be needed and how huge would the amounts of explosives need to be? What is the basis for your estimations? And finally, what is the likelihood of that "controlled demolition" scenario vs. the "3 giant skyscrapers all falling into themselves in an organized fashion at free-fall speeds because of planes hit two of them" scenario?
@doctorr2 As I've already stated, I have no facts. I personally believe (mostly) the official version i.e. 2 terrorist controlled planes crashed into the buildings causing them and building 7 to collapse. I would imagine 20 or 30 persons with perhaps 5 or six truckloads of explosive working for perhaps a month to achieve the same effect, that is however PURE SPECULATION on my part!
If the two youtubers in the video really were friends of dprjones & against the 911 movement then do you really think you would be able to encourage someone who is clearly unscrupulous as dprjones appears to be into helping the cause and if he is this bad then i don't think having someone like that on your side is a good thing anyway.
@codebean You make a good point and it is possible I am over estimating dprjones as an ally. Most "skeptics" that I have debated either have not seen, or do not trust, the legitimate scientific evidence presented by AE911Truth or Journal of 911 Studies. But once they are faced with evidence they cannot explain, ( molten steel, free fall collapse, etc. ) many have accepted that a new investigation is warranted. We are more successful by respectfully informing the skeptics, not attacking them.
First off i would like to thank you for your vid which really brought to light many of the logical errors of dprjones & many debunkers & half truthers. However i should point out in your vid, that while most of your points are spot on, you had mistakenly associated freefall with speed. Freefall is NOT a Speed but an Acceleration. David Chandler had made this very clear as there is a fundamental difference between speed & acceleration.
@stoobradley That's cool! It seems like if he "likes" it, and offered no rebuttal, then he concedes that his video was wrong and the buildings did fall at free fall speeds?
Another question: can you point me in the direction of some reference documentation of NIST's refusal to release the data of their report for peer review? I am chatting with someone in another thread about this matter.
@doctorr2 Yes, to his credit DPRJones was very gracious and receptive. He said he even favored my video for being," the best response he has gotten to his 911 videos."
I don't know if he has changed his mind about 911, I hope I have at least turned him and his followers on to the better quality of serious research being done by groups like AE911Truth. For me, every bit of progress is a small victory for the truth.
@stoobradley I'm glad he responded that way. If DPRJones is an honest critical thinker it seems he would have either rebut your points or concede his video is incorrect. It would also be upstanding of him to publish a retraction of his erroneous video.
@stoobradley i have asked dprjones, both through commenting on his orginal video and via private messages a week ago, to respond to your video. So far he has ignored these requests. Nor, has he retracted his original video. Seems very much like how creationists respond to data that doesn't support their position -- just ignore the data that you don't like.
@doctorr2 Thanks for the follow up, although I'm not surprised he has not responded. He seems like a decent and rational fellow, but nobody wants to publicly admit they could be wrong. I'm working on another video to better address his points about the Nanothermite paper. Hopefully he will respond to that.
@stoobradley nobody likes to publicly admit that they could be wrong -- especially when they've produced a video ridiculing those who don't agree with his position and openly challenging us to prove him wrong. But that is exactly what he did, and you met his challenge, and now his personal integrity is suspect. He is doing exactly what creationists do when they can't deal with evidence. Just ignore it until it goes away.
@doctorr2 Oh, I agree that he should publicly acknowledge that his challenge was met, but my motivation is not to make him "eat crow" for mocking 911 Truth. If he is politely encouraged to understand why a new legitimate investigation into 911 is warranted, then he could be very influential in helping the hundreds of "skeptics" who follow him to support 911 Truth as well. In our battle for a new investigation, I think it's more important to make allies than enemies. I hope you understand.
Thanks for the video. Thanks for backing up your claims. There are more and more pilots, engineers, architects, etc, who are coming forward and stating that what we've been told about 911, by the government, doesn't add up.
I had to stop at 3min in, it was already too much.
1. No, there is nothing wrong with average speed. I don't think anyone would assume the collapse rate would be a constant. You are simply moving the goal post with this, nothing more. Same with WTC7, the fact that a small portion of the building fell near freefall speed for a small portion of the collapse is completely irrelevant.
2. The list Gage made you reference is simply not accurate. Gage is not an engineer nor a demolitions expert.
@sorienor 1. The very problem with "average speed" is that it does assume the collapse was a constant. If you had watched past 3 minutes it explains why any part of free fall collapse speed violates simple physics.
2. Gage is an AIA certified architect who knows the physics of building design better than an opinionated computer tech. Did you watch "Blueprint" or did you turn that off when something conflicted with your ideology too?
3. Do you know the difference between skepticism and denial?
@stoobradley 1. Simply put, the constant claim that "it fell at freefall speed" made over and over has nothing to do with what you're claiming. As I said, you are moving the goal posts. and sorry, but having intermittent instantaneous freefall speed does not violate any laws of physics.
2. Again, an architect is not a demolitions expert. You are still cherry picking over other experts. BTW I also have degree in mechanical engineering. I don't have an ideology.
@sorienor So you are saying that a falling object, driven only by gravity, can pass through tons of meshed steel and concrete at the same rate as it would though thin air, with zero resistance? I don't know where you got your engineering degree but here on planet Earth that violates "continuity of momentum".
@stoobradley if a train hits a bee does the train slow down? You state nothing but pulled-out-of-your-ass blind assertions. How you "think" things "should" be usually has very little to do with the reality of how things are.
Show me a paper, any paper peer-reviewed or not, where the collapse is accurately modeled, variables are well documented, accounted for and values accurately defended that says temporary, instantaneous velocity changes were not possible and we'll talk.
@sorienor This is high school physics. If a moving train hits a bee the train does not slow down because the train's mass is much greater than the bee. Just as if a moving bee hits a stationary train, the bee does not continue at the same speed pushing the train ahead of it. The question is which had greater mass - the falling upper section or the intact lower section?
Please read "Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics" by David Chandler.
@jelinto Thanks for the kind words, and I agree that something is wrong when the very leaders of the skeptical community, like Shermer, Randi, Plait, Novella, etc, demonstrate an obvious bias by dismissing recent evidence presented about 9/11 as "nonsense" BEFORE examination.
What's worse is to then publicly demonize the Truth Movement so that their "loyal" skeptical followers will also ignore any 9/11 evidence presented.
@stoobradley I think that kind of reaction on the part of Randi and the like stems from in part the tendency of broadcast media to deify it's subject(s) in the eyes of others by mere fact of them being presented on that medium. And that in turn influencing the original person in feedback fashion. In simpler words, everyone's human. It might be nice to always be able to assess and evaluate oneself all the time, but it may not be at all possible.
@stoobradley We become what we fear the most. Militant atheists, who put as much time and effort as some of the ones on here do to make videos, constantly critisizing creationists, have turned exactly into what they claim to oppose. They're not much different than the creationists. It is a shame that they claim to be skeptics, yet ready to jump on bandwagons without being better informed. It makes them sheep, just following a different flock.
Note: if the writer(s) and publisher(s) of any paper have little to no credibility than any paper that has passed through them also has little to no credibility
@CrazyRay7979 So in other words everyones a lier untill you can see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears. And nothing said by other can be taken as truth! WOW welcome to the truth movement where we constantly look into facts that can be proven with our own eyes and ears.
The Truth "movement" is based on lies...like Loose Change telling you people that the WTC fell in 9 seconds and you guys repeating it to everyone possible without question instead of opening "your own eyes" and counting the fall and clearly seeing that it was not a 9 second fall...did you even WATCH dprjones' video(s)??? You obviously don't understand much if you're calling anything that Truthers present as "fact"
@CrazyRay7979 ?????????now you have really lost me here? WTF is your little mind saying? Stop making things up that I never said. Those are duhbunker tactics that your using to make a point I from somthing I never said.
@CrazyRay7979 Well sense your inteligent observation of myself has told you what I am I see no more reason to even bother talking with you. Your comment rates right up there with "Because your black youll try and rob me." Your ignorance truely boggles the mind. You must be so small minded that you would use such a saying to begin with. I am me without lables or titles.
I have been called both a debunker and truther becuase I want to have fact and see things for myself before I take anyones words for it. However with ignorance like yours I have 3 types of people I judge in this subject. Debunkers/skeptics, truthers and DUHBUNKERS. The Duhbunkers need no facts or reason to argure their points, much like yourself.
@darion65 They use name calling and lables to agravate the people they dont like without addressing the points or facts of the subject, also much like what you have done.
Well, when you come up with some "evidence" other than that which any random Truther regurgitates which hasn't been thoroughly debunked, you go ahead and let me know what it is
@CrazyRay7979 And here is where your a duhbunker and not a debunker. Reguardless on what facts, records, evidence I show you, you push them away. There is no more point to even try and talk with you like a normal person. Your comment sumed you up nicely. Because I am a 'truther' I like to look with a open mind. Because Im a skeptic I dont 'belive' everything the goverment said.
You don't have any "facts", "records", or "evidence"...Truthers are the ones that push common sense and science away because Loose Change told them that it was an inside job...you don't have an "open mind" when you're a Truther; you're a follower parroting all the same old debunked Truther BS, most of which has been debunked for nearly a decade now...and also the "believe the government" BS, how about you believe science and engineering and realize what happened on 9/11 was terrorism
@CrazyRay7979 Give me one reason I should give any information to you? If you where a normal skeptic I would gladly send you and ammount of information but your not. Your a duhbunker! You already have your mind set in what you want to hear reguardless of anything that can be proven. Your comment ("My point is that you're a Truther, therefore, you're an idiot") proves that. Reguardless of the math, science, physics or common sense is shown to you, you disreguard them all.
You know why? Because all of your Truther BS has been debunked, it's over and done...9/11 was done by terrorists...
So why can't you give one fact? Surely someone with this vast knowledge of "math, science, physics or common sense" could come up with something. Truther, you "have all the answers" until you are faced with a question...
While I have not read the NIST paper, the formula shown assumes a constant acceleration under gravity, not a constant speed. What is shown at 1:33 is either not referring to the simple theoretical formula or was a typo. And looking at a total time of collapse does not assume that the collapse speed is constant (it's just a total time!). This unfamiliarity with basic high school physics makes me a little wary of your conclusions, but I found the video to be interesting nonetheless.
Fantastic video. I really wish more people would look at this, rather than just looking at one side of the argument and saying "ok, well that settles that then." I'm not even saying that 9/11 truthers are necessarily correct, but there needs to be some more open minded dialog. Regardless, great vid.
@CrazyRay7979 How can you criticize a group of people's ignorance when you just said that there are times when you do not have to keep an open mind? Dprjones and debunkers like him use relentless ad hominem to discourage further discourse, and that is wrong. This video does well to show that there are still factual discrepancies with the official report and the actual data. 50% of the 9/11 commission openly believes the report is based on lies they were told, and you won't keep an open mind?
We were making a difference at liberty forum and since they shut that one down we are spreading it to other places. Justice denied is still injustice.
I love how things can fall faster than gravity in Chandlers math.
Maybe the govt. installed giant magnets in the courtyard?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
Conspiracy theories occur at the intersection of dark, personal fantasies and profound, willful self-deceit liberally sprinkled with an assortment of tasty cross-eyed neuroses. There is no room in this fetid concoction for actual facts, evidence, or the truth...at least the sort of truth that the real world generally accepts.
Area 51, the WTC attacks, the crash of TWA 800, both Kennedy assassinations, etc are all fodder for the people who suffer from chronic cognitive dissonance. It's a pity.
sailcat9 3 months ago
Dpr welcomed the challenge but I haven't seen his rebuttal anywhere.
ZeerosFate 7 months ago
Great video. Keep up the good work. Newton's laws of motion and gravity are real. 911 was an inside job and when the fat, lazy, stupid, ignorant morons wake up to that reality, we will be free.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
Good points. Too bad the chicken shit has no balls to answer.
graphattic 1 year ago
Well I guess its simple,DrJones is a payed off zionist Jew jerking of to watching us low life people dying. And no,I'm not a racist,I hate all fucking retards equally.
kongenjens 1 year ago
@stoobradley You say that "even nist found that the damage from the falling debris wasn't a contributing factor" they weren't saying that. They were saying that even without the damage the building still would have collapsed, not that it wasn't a contributing factor.
Overdosed49 1 year ago
wait, what? those 2 guys were not actual 911 truthers?
QuestionReadLearn 1 year ago 2
Thank you for posting this. Has DPR Jones responded to this video?
inviktus1983 1 year ago
Brilliant video. Calm, argumentative, evidence-based. As opposed to the one you're replying to...
...
Well that's great. Now I have to chalk off dprjones off my list of trustworthy people. Way to be a lying cunt there, Jones.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Excellent response! You debate with respect, besides having good arguments.
Search4Knowledge 1 year ago
3:55 cool false dichotomy, bro.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque Not every dichotomy is a false one. Unless you can suggest any other reasons the structure below would offer resistance of jelly while one above would offer resistance of rock and steel, of course.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon it offered resistance significantly higher...? um, hate to break this to you, but the falling object didn't. In fact, when it hit the ground, it crumbled to pieces. Why? Because the Earth itself offers much more resistance than the architectural system of steel beams that make up the WTC. In fact, The falling object doesn't have to resist shit, whats falling onto it does. Also, well, I'm sure you know what momentum is, right? That it significantly increases force, right?
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque I really have no idea what you mean...
"The falling object doesn't have to resist shit, whats falling onto it does."
Oh dear. I think I can think of one person who disagrees...
"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear." - Sir Isaac Newton
...Which is also what my question referred to. Why is the structure weak enough to be crushed like jelly, yet the same structure is strong enough to crush tons of steel in miliseconds?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Jelly? Jelly would actually give more resistance because it's more dense and consistent than a network of steel beams and concrete. Second, I'm glad you brought up colinear, you can clearly see that the debris is moving out from the center, yes? And, the structure is not being crushed, it's breaking apart. You completely ignored Newton's second law by the way. Go ahead and read that before you skip to the third.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
@Sabohaque "Jelly would actually give more resistance because it's more dense and consistent than a network of steel beams and concrete."
...
Yeah, I should probably give up at this point.
"And, the structure is not being crushed, it's breaking apart."
That makes no sense. The building is collapsing downwards.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sabohaque "Second, I'm glad you brought up colinear, you can clearly see that the debris is moving out from the center, yes?"
The building collapsed downward, not exploded outward. I have not the faintest idea why you'd try to advocate the latter...
"You completely ignored Newton's second law by the way."
Newton's second law has nothing to do with anything here, nor with what I said. Please don't try to correct people on these things when you're the one being corrected.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Do you know what might cause some serious damage to the structural supports of a steel and concrete reinforced building? How about the impact of a large commercial airplane travelling at high speed? Is it at all possible that that impact could have caused some major stress to the structure of these buildings, and that the fires that then raged pushed them over the edge? As for the race with gravity, these buildings were quite heavy. Each successive floor falling only added to the momentum.
ptolemyauletesXII 1 year ago
Excellent arguments! I don't think DPRJONES has a leg to stand on.....
TriggerJunkie 1 year ago
Great video!
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"That require valid reasoning."
ROFL!!
Me make many reason for you. You ignore. Continue ask stupid question. Try sound smart. Fail. Stamp feet in anger!
stoobradley 1 year ago 6
@PostITnoteGUY You did not address a single one of the 20 points I made in my video, but simply rejected the one sentence description of my video. There is a difference between debunking evidence and simply denying evidence without even looking at it.
My argument remains that key members of the Bush Administration allowed 911 to initiate a war for oil resources. The evidence in my "911LIHOP" video proves it and many people agree.
So why should I get mad? You can believe whatever you want.
stoobradley 1 year ago
There is not much resistance as the WTC towers fall because they're 95% air, not because there are controlled demolitions ahead of the falling structure, making it "fall better" or whatever it is you're claiming. There is an article in the journal of minerals, metals and materials about it.
And seriously? You think people watching dprjones' video are actually going to think that those two guys are really 9/11 truthers?
autumnsylver 1 year ago
@autumnsylver You are referring to the JOM article by Eagar and Musso, that was long ago debunked by Dr Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
The notion that buildings are "made of air" is silly. Buildings are filled with plenty of empty space, but they are constructed of steel and concrete, and engineered to support many times anticipated loads.
And yes, people who would believe buildings are constructed with air would also likely believe those guys are Truthers.
stoobradley 1 year ago 11
@stoobradley Nice strawman you set up there. No one ever said the buildings were "made of" air. If that's the way you think, no wonder you're a 9/11 truther.
autumnsylver 1 year ago
@autumnsylver
95% air, haha ;D please. look picture at 3:48. Have you actually ever saw a picture wtc under construction or you just read some dumb shit from somewhere?
Matu1 1 year ago
@autumnsylver
95% air, haha ;D please. look picture at 3:48. Have you actually ever saw a picture wtc under construction or you just read some dumb shit from somewhere?
Matu1 1 year ago 3
@autumnsylver wow that is really scientific, the towers fell because they are 95% air? what kind of moronic bullcrap is that? some 47 steel columns supported the inner core, THAT is not air you AIRHEAD. ITS STEEL! should i ever need an architect or an engineer be sure i wont be calling you. dont forget to put that bull$hit statement on your resume, people will want to know how smart you are.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago 3
@autumnsylver
Not to mention that there will be less resistance as more and more weight from the above falling floors falls on the next floors
...and you gotta love the Truthers that "debunk the debunkers" by doing nothing other than referring you to a source that has already been debunked...I guess they didn't get that info
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 "Not to mention that there will be less resistance as more and more weight from the above falling floors falls on the next floors"
Added weight or force always mean MORE resistance, not less... That's... I think it's fair to say you, as any other self-professed "debunkers", have no knowledge of even high-school physics. Which is actually required to advocate the official conspiracy theory in the first place.
All your debunking has been debunked even if it didn't need to be.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Wow, are you really that dumb? If you add more weight on the TOP of something, there will be LESS resistance BELOW...you know, like the difference between a 100 pound weight vs. a 1 ton weight being dropped on your head
Keep believing in your Truther fairytales that completely defy the eyewitness testimony, engineering, science, and simple physics...maybe one day you'll be one of the last Truthers to actually believe that garbage before reality sets in and you see how stupid it was
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 "If you add more weight on the TOP of something, there will be LESS resistance BELOW..."
Enter Newton's third law of motion: for every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. I.e. more action (force) = more reaction (resistance).
I hope this is simple enough to understand. You may want to read up on the difference between force, momentum, resistance, acceleration and velocity in regards to this subject.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 "Keep believing in your Truther fairytales that completely defy the eyewitness testimony, engineering, science, and simple physics..."
I think you have that confused for government's fairytales. ;)
Granted they not as much defy laws of physics as conveniently forget they even exist. For example, that an object accelerates downwards due to gravity is emphasized, while that it would slow down (in either velocity or acceleration) is ignored.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon ...Thankfully US government raised a generation woefully ignorant of even the most basic principles of science so they can be authority on the subject rather than untrustworthy hacks like Newton or Galileo.
Of course even their attempts didn't stop university students and professors from scratching their heads in puzzlement when the towers imploded, knowing it just can't happen without aid of demolition, or at least that's what I keep hearing.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Just so you understand. CrazyRay7979 is cointelpro. Either that or a complete fat moron. I don't know which one is scarier. My theory is that just as in the 70's, the FBI and CIA have recruited people to attack the truth. They will never stop because they are being paid to do so.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
@Daddyo930 Not everyone is a shill. It's easy for people to be genuinely mislead into irrationally defending their faith. Some have simply never heard the other side of the argument, or don't even know about WTC 7 or reports of red-hot steel, molten metal and violent fires at the site.
SexyMelon 8 months ago
@SexyMelon As a rational person, I have a hard time believing in coincidence. If you look at the amount of time these same people spend on youtube beating the truth with a bat, you can conclude some things. 1. They are unemployed and looking for a job. 2. They are in complete denial and angry. 3. This is their job. Sherlock Holmes said that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable is most likely the answer.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
@Daddyo930 I don't exclude possibility of governments hiring shills anymore than corporations routinely do, but - honestly - you underestimate just how lifeless people can be, not just on subject of 9/11, but anything from Star Wars to cooking recipes.
SexyMelon 8 months ago
@SexyMelon I agree. Not everyone is. Peace love and respect. Now get back to kicking ass friend.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
@SexyMelon *slow down when meeting resistance or colliding with another object, of course.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 Oh yeah, you can easily test newton's third law by placing first one book then a couple more books on your hand: notice which one feels lighter, which one places more pressure on your hand, which one you have to struggle to hold more...
I hope you have some books, anyway.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@autumnsylver where is your proof physical evidence and what controlled demolition would leave building 7 laying across the street on 91201 So little research on the physical aftermath has been done by t911truthers that they debunk themselves.
PhantasyPublishing 7 months ago
@autumnsylver your body is 99% or more empty space.. Why haven't you collapsed into a pile of bones?
AiresQX4 7 months ago
@AiresQX4 That's completely wrong, and moronic.
autumnsylver 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autumnsylver How is that wrong? Did you know that you have never truly touched anything?
AiresQX4 7 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY My "valid argument" is my "911LIHOP" video, based on over 20 points demonstrating that Cheney, Bush, and others had motive to create a pretext for war, had foreknowledge of the coming 911 attack, took steps to insure the success of the attack, and then obstructed the investigations to cover up their involvement.
If you actually watched this video you would have at least understood the questions you just claimed ignorance of.
You sir, are either a liar or a dimwit, or both.
stoobradley 1 year ago
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY You know what makes me angry? Dropping bombs on thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as payback for a crime in America that they had nothing to do with and has never had a proper criminal investigation. Doesn't that bother your saintly moral values at all?
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnote Continued-
7. Why didn't Dick Cheney warn the Pentagon as they tracked Flight 77 approaching?
8. Why was the investigation into 911 blocked for over a year?
9. Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to publicly testify to the 911 Commission?
10. What melted WTC steel beams documented in Appendix C of the FEMA report?
11. How could fire in WTC7 expand steel without expanding attached concrete?
12. Why do the FBI say they have no evidence connecting bin Laden to 911?
Please share your wisdom.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY I highly doubt you watched them, but if you did and found nothing unusual then you can obviously answer a few things:
1. Why were over 50 warnings of 911 ignored?
2. Why were FBI investigations into 911 blocked?
3. Who scheduled over 5 wargame drills to happen on 911?
4. Why were hijack interception procedures changed?
5. Why were the Afghani war plans drawn up 2 days before 911?
6. Why was the Pakistan ISI Chief who was funding the attack visiting Bush officials?
-Continued-
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY - I do hope you have calmed down enough that we can have a civil conversation and not simply rant like bullies in a schoolyard.
You say I have no evidence or argument. Have you watched the "911-Blueprint for Truth" presentation that I recommended? How can you know what the "truther" argument is if you refuse to honestly consider evidence we present?
As for my personal argument, I have an 8 part video called "911LIHOP" that examines that case for official complicity. Enjoy!
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY Wow! You sent 16 consecutive ranting and cursing replies in a space of an hour and a half. Having a little temper tantrum?
That was the worst apology ever. Come back when you have calmed down enough to hold a rational conversation. In the meantime you can actually read the NIST report so you will have an accurate idea of the rubbish you defend.
Have a nice day!
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY From your first post, "I didn't dislike you until you made your last point; a very 9/11 trutheresque insinuation the DPR was being deceptive by including 2 obvious caricatures. Truthers are irrational and dishonest."
As I said, I'm sure DPR included these fake interviews to be funny, but DPR presents these literal shills as typical "truthers". How is the average viewer to know they are not genuine? Why not interview a real truther to make his point?
I'll await your apology.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY In NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" section 4.3.1 the damage is described as 7 severed columns ( out of 82 total support columns ) and "cladding damage" on the southwest corner.
This is what you and the debunkers consider "massive damage"? Did you base this accusation of massive damage on any specific evidence? I challenge you to find anywhere in the NIST report where they say the debris damage was a factor in the collapse.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY You accuse me of being a "lair" ( I'll assume you meant "liar"), yet show me anywhere I said,"NIST claimed WTC7 fell partly because of the debris damage". My point was NIST could not provide any evidence to back this claim that debunkers have made for years.
You say "As far as I know the NIST report claims...". Have you even read the NIST report or have you put blind faith in NIST's honesty without examining the evidence they present? Don't trust me? Fine. Read the report.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY The "crappiness" of MY reasoning? Just because a scientist makes a claim does not automatically make it true. In science you must provide evidence to back the claim. NIST could not provide evidence that falling debris was a factor in WTC7s collapse, but they also could not provide evidence to back their other claims like fire temps, expanding steel, and collapse speeds.
Yet DPR presenting "obvious caricatures" in a fake debate somehow makes ME "irrational and dishonest"? LOL!
stoobradley 1 year ago
Two planes rammed into the towers. I feel that is enough to blow up a building.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@FlyingSpahghettiMan - Really? Which plane hit WTC 7? I suppose it doesn't matter that WTC engineer John Skilling designed the towers to withstand the impact and fire from large aircraft. Or that the undamaged lower sections of the buildings collapsed faster than gravity alone could possibly cause. Or that explosive debris has been documented in the WTC dust.
But why bother looking at the facts, especially when they contradict what you "feel". So much for critical thinking.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley Debris from the other towers most likely hit WTC7. How did he construct it to withstand a airplane crashing into it? There was force applied from above due to the plane most likely, as you can't simply get rid of thousands of pounds of force applied downwards. Also, I am certain that airplane fuel is extremely volatile. Perhaps an entire plane full of it caused SOME debris to go somewhere. It isn't what I feel happened. Its quite obvious a plane full of airplane fuel would hit hard.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@FlyingSpahghettiMan 1. Read NIST NCSTAR 1A - specifically section 4.3.1
2. Watch "WTC 1/2 Expert Testimony"
3. You clearly are not familiar with either the NIST report or the basics of controlled demolitions. If you are at all interested in the WTC collapse from the perspective of engineering and the scientific method, then I implore you to watch the "911-Blueprint for Truth" video presentation before rushing to judgement.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley Please give me some idea on how it was able to go faster then the force of gravity upon it, then.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@FlyingSpahghettiMan Since you have not looked at the information sources I have given, I will repeat what I have already stated in the above video starting at 3:07.
If any of gravity's energy is used to do anything other than accelerate the object downward, like breaking through intact floors, then there will not be enough downward energy to obtain freefall. This means something had to be breaking up the intact floors ahead of the collapse. This is fully discussed in "Blueprint for Truth".
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley Question: Are these pieces of evidence peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal of sorts?
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@FlyingSpahghettiMan We do have several articles peer reviewed, most recently the "Active Thermitic Material Found in the WTC Dust" paper. Not that a peer review should be a standard considering NIST refuses to release their work for peer review, yet so many so called skeptics have put their blind faith in NIST's honesty.
And I have already debunked RKOwens, both in open debate:
Google "Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens",
and by video:
watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
stoobradley 1 year ago 3
@stoobradley Interesting case, yet what about the videos that show the floor that the plane hit? It shows an obvious cave in due to the fire. I would say that 9/11 was extremely convenient for the government, conspiracy or not.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@stoobradley Also, since you continue to redirect me to videos, here is one. watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@stoobradley Force from individual explosions would not allow a building to collapse faster then gravity, as it would require force from above to do so. Floors collapsing in the way you describe would need a considerable amount of force, and if we could see explosions later on in the footage on lower levels, then it'd be obvious the inside job idea is correct.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
adavidpirtle 1 year ago
zing!
krammit25 1 year ago
PS. I can easily imagine the US Govt. withholding information/data after the event/attack, I really really struggle to imagine that ANY part of the US Govt. or its agents were aware or involved prior to the attack/event. However accept I may be naive.
acme181169 1 year ago
I think this freefall stuff is a red herring! The dynamics of the collapse, ultimately can only ever be speculation. What 'truthers' really want us to believe is that this was a controlled demolition. My scepticism (I have no facts) is based on the unlikely scenario of a large team placing huge amounts of explosive charges and all the relavent equipment without being detected for days or weeks before hand OR filling the cargo holds of the planes with explosives. Neither seem likely. OCCAM
acme181169 1 year ago
@acme181169 You admit your skepticism about controlled demolitions is not based on facts, but I certainly hope you do not always pass judgement on important topics without examining the facts.
As a "Truther" I don't want to tell you what to believe, but I do encourage people to at least consider the evidence presented in the video, "911:Blueprint for Truth" before assuming we are wrong.
I don't deny your right to have an opinion, but wouldn't you rather have an informed opinion. Best wishes!
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley As with most things well all start with a 'gut feeling', then if we really wish to 'know' we should do futher research. Currently my opinion pretty much is based on that initial 'gut' feeling'. I appreciate your civil tone and will certainly watch the vid you recommend!. Btw while I'm inclinded to accept official explanations for the WTC incidents I have more doubts about the pentagon and the other aircraft, do you have any reccomendations?
acme181169 1 year ago
@acme181169 Questions: in your estimation, how large a team would be needed and how huge would the amounts of explosives need to be? What is the basis for your estimations? And finally, what is the likelihood of that "controlled demolition" scenario vs. the "3 giant skyscrapers all falling into themselves in an organized fashion at free-fall speeds because of planes hit two of them" scenario?
doctorr2 1 year ago
@doctorr2 As I've already stated, I have no facts. I personally believe (mostly) the official version i.e. 2 terrorist controlled planes crashed into the buildings causing them and building 7 to collapse. I would imagine 20 or 30 persons with perhaps 5 or six truckloads of explosive working for perhaps a month to achieve the same effect, that is however PURE SPECULATION on my part!
acme181169 1 year ago
excellent video man, thanks for clarifying this issues
rosmer00 1 year ago
If the two youtubers in the video really were friends of dprjones & against the 911 movement then do you really think you would be able to encourage someone who is clearly unscrupulous as dprjones appears to be into helping the cause and if he is this bad then i don't think having someone like that on your side is a good thing anyway.
codebean 1 year ago
@codebean You make a good point and it is possible I am over estimating dprjones as an ally. Most "skeptics" that I have debated either have not seen, or do not trust, the legitimate scientific evidence presented by AE911Truth or Journal of 911 Studies. But once they are faced with evidence they cannot explain, ( molten steel, free fall collapse, etc. ) many have accepted that a new investigation is warranted. We are more successful by respectfully informing the skeptics, not attacking them.
stoobradley 1 year ago
Um, Shit!!
Great Video, well presented!
Very comprehensive.
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
Other than that, I appreciate what you have done to bring objectivity back to the platform
swu880 1 year ago
First off i would like to thank you for your vid which really brought to light many of the logical errors of dprjones & many debunkers & half truthers. However i should point out in your vid, that while most of your points are spot on, you had mistakenly associated freefall with speed. Freefall is NOT a Speed but an Acceleration. David Chandler had made this very clear as there is a fundamental difference between speed & acceleration.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Good point. I'll be sure to clarify "acceleration" in future videos.
Thanks.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley That's cool! It seems like if he "likes" it, and offered no rebuttal, then he concedes that his video was wrong and the buildings did fall at free fall speeds?
Another question: can you point me in the direction of some reference documentation of NIST's refusal to release the data of their report for peer review? I am chatting with someone in another thread about this matter.
Great video by the way!
doctorr2 1 year ago
@doctorr2 Yes, to his credit DPRJones was very gracious and receptive. He said he even favored my video for being," the best response he has gotten to his 911 videos."
I don't know if he has changed his mind about 911, I hope I have at least turned him and his followers on to the better quality of serious research being done by groups like AE911Truth. For me, every bit of progress is a small victory for the truth.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley I'm glad he responded that way. If DPRJones is an honest critical thinker it seems he would have either rebut your points or concede his video is incorrect. It would also be upstanding of him to publish a retraction of his erroneous video.
doctorr2 1 year ago
@stoobradley i have asked dprjones, both through commenting on his orginal video and via private messages a week ago, to respond to your video. So far he has ignored these requests. Nor, has he retracted his original video. Seems very much like how creationists respond to data that doesn't support their position -- just ignore the data that you don't like.
doctorr2 1 year ago
@doctorr2 Thanks for the follow up, although I'm not surprised he has not responded. He seems like a decent and rational fellow, but nobody wants to publicly admit they could be wrong. I'm working on another video to better address his points about the Nanothermite paper. Hopefully he will respond to that.
Thanks again and keep up the good work.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley nobody likes to publicly admit that they could be wrong -- especially when they've produced a video ridiculing those who don't agree with his position and openly challenging us to prove him wrong. But that is exactly what he did, and you met his challenge, and now his personal integrity is suspect. He is doing exactly what creationists do when they can't deal with evidence. Just ignore it until it goes away.
doctorr2 1 year ago
@doctorr2 Oh, I agree that he should publicly acknowledge that his challenge was met, but my motivation is not to make him "eat crow" for mocking 911 Truth. If he is politely encouraged to understand why a new legitimate investigation into 911 is warranted, then he could be very influential in helping the hundreds of "skeptics" who follow him to support 911 Truth as well. In our battle for a new investigation, I think it's more important to make allies than enemies. I hope you understand.
stoobradley 1 year ago
Excellent work Stoo - peace
mooners40 1 year ago
Good video and good points. Thanks for the good job.
usd25674 1 year ago
Thanks for the video. Thanks for backing up your claims. There are more and more pilots, engineers, architects, etc, who are coming forward and stating that what we've been told about 911, by the government, doesn't add up.
.
Mechelle68 1 year ago
I had to stop at 3min in, it was already too much.
1. No, there is nothing wrong with average speed. I don't think anyone would assume the collapse rate would be a constant. You are simply moving the goal post with this, nothing more. Same with WTC7, the fact that a small portion of the building fell near freefall speed for a small portion of the collapse is completely irrelevant.
2. The list Gage made you reference is simply not accurate. Gage is not an engineer nor a demolitions expert.
sorienor 1 year ago
@sorienor 1. The very problem with "average speed" is that it does assume the collapse was a constant. If you had watched past 3 minutes it explains why any part of free fall collapse speed violates simple physics.
2. Gage is an AIA certified architect who knows the physics of building design better than an opinionated computer tech. Did you watch "Blueprint" or did you turn that off when something conflicted with your ideology too?
3. Do you know the difference between skepticism and denial?
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley 1. Simply put, the constant claim that "it fell at freefall speed" made over and over has nothing to do with what you're claiming. As I said, you are moving the goal posts. and sorry, but having intermittent instantaneous freefall speed does not violate any laws of physics.
2. Again, an architect is not a demolitions expert. You are still cherry picking over other experts. BTW I also have degree in mechanical engineering. I don't have an ideology.
3. Yes, but obviously you don't.
sorienor 1 year ago
@sorienor So you are saying that a falling object, driven only by gravity, can pass through tons of meshed steel and concrete at the same rate as it would though thin air, with zero resistance? I don't know where you got your engineering degree but here on planet Earth that violates "continuity of momentum".
Stay in school.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley if a train hits a bee does the train slow down? You state nothing but pulled-out-of-your-ass blind assertions. How you "think" things "should" be usually has very little to do with the reality of how things are.
Show me a paper, any paper peer-reviewed or not, where the collapse is accurately modeled, variables are well documented, accounted for and values accurately defended that says temporary, instantaneous velocity changes were not possible and we'll talk.
sorienor 1 year ago
@sorienor This is high school physics. If a moving train hits a bee the train does not slow down because the train's mass is much greater than the bee. Just as if a moving bee hits a stationary train, the bee does not continue at the same speed pushing the train ahead of it. The question is which had greater mass - the falling upper section or the intact lower section?
Please read "Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics" by David Chandler.
stoobradley 1 year ago
Good job Stu. You take skepticism to a whole new level.
And let's all review the definition of a "skeptic".
skep·tic [skep-tik] noun
1.a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
jelinto 1 year ago
...as far as I'm concerned, James Randi, Micheal Shermer and the like, are amateur skeptics.
jelinto 1 year ago
@jelinto Thanks for the kind words, and I agree that something is wrong when the very leaders of the skeptical community, like Shermer, Randi, Plait, Novella, etc, demonstrate an obvious bias by dismissing recent evidence presented about 9/11 as "nonsense" BEFORE examination.
What's worse is to then publicly demonize the Truth Movement so that their "loyal" skeptical followers will also ignore any 9/11 evidence presented.
There is nothing skeptical about such tactics.
stoobradley 1 year ago
@stoobradley I think that kind of reaction on the part of Randi and the like stems from in part the tendency of broadcast media to deify it's subject(s) in the eyes of others by mere fact of them being presented on that medium. And that in turn influencing the original person in feedback fashion. In simpler words, everyone's human. It might be nice to always be able to assess and evaluate oneself all the time, but it may not be at all possible.
pocoapoco2 1 year ago
@stoobradley We become what we fear the most. Militant atheists, who put as much time and effort as some of the ones on here do to make videos, constantly critisizing creationists, have turned exactly into what they claim to oppose. They're not much different than the creationists. It is a shame that they claim to be skeptics, yet ready to jump on bandwagons without being better informed. It makes them sheep, just following a different flock.
Mechelle68 1 year ago
Note: if the writer(s) and publisher(s) of any paper have little to no credibility than any paper that has passed through them also has little to no credibility
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago 2
@CrazyRay7979 So in other words everyones a lier untill you can see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears. And nothing said by other can be taken as truth! WOW welcome to the truth movement where we constantly look into facts that can be proven with our own eyes and ears.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65
The Truth "movement" is based on lies...like Loose Change telling you people that the WTC fell in 9 seconds and you guys repeating it to everyone possible without question instead of opening "your own eyes" and counting the fall and clearly seeing that it was not a 9 second fall...did you even WATCH dprjones' video(s)??? You obviously don't understand much if you're calling anything that Truthers present as "fact"
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 ?????????now you have really lost me here? WTF is your little mind saying? Stop making things up that I never said. Those are duhbunker tactics that your using to make a point I from somthing I never said.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65
My point is that you're a Truther, therefore, you're an idiot
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 Well sense your inteligent observation of myself has told you what I am I see no more reason to even bother talking with you. Your comment rates right up there with "Because your black youll try and rob me." Your ignorance truely boggles the mind. You must be so small minded that you would use such a saying to begin with. I am me without lables or titles.
darion65 1 year ago
I have been called both a debunker and truther becuase I want to have fact and see things for myself before I take anyones words for it. However with ignorance like yours I have 3 types of people I judge in this subject. Debunkers/skeptics, truthers and DUHBUNKERS. The Duhbunkers need no facts or reason to argure their points, much like yourself.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65 They use name calling and lables to agravate the people they dont like without addressing the points or facts of the subject, also much like what you have done.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65
Well, when you come up with some "evidence" other than that which any random Truther regurgitates which hasn't been thoroughly debunked, you go ahead and let me know what it is
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 And here is where your a duhbunker and not a debunker. Reguardless on what facts, records, evidence I show you, you push them away. There is no more point to even try and talk with you like a normal person. Your comment sumed you up nicely. Because I am a 'truther' I like to look with a open mind. Because Im a skeptic I dont 'belive' everything the goverment said.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65 In the end it is you being ignorant of facts and evidence shown repeatedly without looking at it with a predetermined view point.
darion65 1 year ago
@darion65
You don't have any "facts", "records", or "evidence"...Truthers are the ones that push common sense and science away because Loose Change told them that it was an inside job...you don't have an "open mind" when you're a Truther; you're a follower parroting all the same old debunked Truther BS, most of which has been debunked for nearly a decade now...and also the "believe the government" BS, how about you believe science and engineering and realize what happened on 9/11 was terrorism
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@darion65
Give me ONE FACT from your own mind as to why 9/11 was an inside job
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 Give me one reason I should give any information to you? If you where a normal skeptic I would gladly send you and ammount of information but your not. Your a duhbunker! You already have your mind set in what you want to hear reguardless of anything that can be proven. Your comment ("My point is that you're a Truther, therefore, you're an idiot") proves that. Reguardless of the math, science, physics or common sense is shown to you, you disreguard them all.
darion65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darion65
You know why? Because all of your Truther BS has been debunked, it's over and done...9/11 was done by terrorists...
So why can't you give one fact? Surely someone with this vast knowledge of "math, science, physics or common sense" could come up with something. Truther, you "have all the answers" until you are faced with a question...
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
While I have not read the NIST paper, the formula shown assumes a constant acceleration under gravity, not a constant speed. What is shown at 1:33 is either not referring to the simple theoretical formula or was a typo. And looking at a total time of collapse does not assume that the collapse speed is constant (it's just a total time!). This unfamiliarity with basic high school physics makes me a little wary of your conclusions, but I found the video to be interesting nonetheless.
btrettel 1 year ago
*sarcasm* you conspiracy nut! its from anyone known that the terrorists can break the laws of physics! *end of sarcasm*
ratata4 1 year ago
I hope you're aware that even if the WTC fell at "free fall speed", it still isn't proof that there was a controlled demolition
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 If it fell at free fall nothing else can explain that other than demolition. Your own comment makes not sense.
darion65 1 year ago
Fantastic video. I really wish more people would look at this, rather than just looking at one side of the argument and saying "ok, well that settles that then." I'm not even saying that 9/11 truthers are necessarily correct, but there needs to be some more open minded dialog. Regardless, great vid.
TheStrix 1 year ago
@TheStrix
There's no reason to "keep an open mind" over something that has been proven...it's not our fault that Truthers fail to listen to simple facts
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 How can you criticize a group of people's ignorance when you just said that there are times when you do not have to keep an open mind? Dprjones and debunkers like him use relentless ad hominem to discourage further discourse, and that is wrong. This video does well to show that there are still factual discrepancies with the official report and the actual data. 50% of the 9/11 commission openly believes the report is based on lies they were told, and you won't keep an open mind?
TheStrix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The TRUTH IS HERE : watch?v=zsZYITKRBLw
TheLieKiller 1 year ago
We were making a difference at liberty forum and since they shut that one down we are spreading it to other places. Justice denied is still injustice.
I am passing this along to ass many as I can.
SlackerSlayer 1 year ago
excellant!
rubeeye127 1 year ago
Very nice! Wake up America!
anaclet 1 year ago
Another great video from you.
multinjok 1 year ago
@multinjok Thanks for the kind comments. Hopefully others can use this information in their debates with skeptics who continue to deny free fall.
Pass it on.
stoobradley 1 year ago
I like these debunking the duhbunkers.
darion65 1 year ago