How do explain the two magical PAPER passports made it out the terrorists bag, out the plane, through the fire and building, to the ground for the FBI to find hours later.
I stoppped watching this drivel after one minute with the statement "in my years as a researcher I never heard anyone make the claim that no wreckage was found of flight 93"
The Loose Change boys made that claim, Flight 93 did not even crash, it landed at Cleveland airport. Of course, given their proclivity to change stories with ease, I not sure which version of the "truth" they are peddling today.
Regardless, there is one claim that no wreckage was found of flight 93
Good job with this video. RKOwens is either an extremely paranoid and misguided fanatic for the illegal US wars and New World Order agenda, or he is a paid shill and liar who muddies the water with confusion and manufactured misconstrued facts, that he superimposes on the 911 Truth Movement. I don't think he has the "best of intentions" In the old English language we had a word, rarely used these days, for this kind of subversion and distortion. It is the word "Jesuitisms" Look it up and see.
Why did you run away???? Awwww, did I catch you in too many lies. Had to find another video to spread your "truth" around in. Well at least you aren't still pandering the Bs I called you out on. Nope just rambling on about inside job, government paid shills, the usual tin foil hat type rants.
@ExposeTheTwooferCult I never ran away. You did. After all the flimsy explanations, excuses and "Column 79" fabrication stories, you said you "didn't have time" to waste on people like us, who are not smart enough to see that the Emperor DOES have clothes, and only silly people think he is naked. You are running out of time to keep the 911 lies going. We see the Little Man behind the curtain. The Jig is up. 911 was a HORRIBLE act of Terrorism created by liars. INSIDE JOB.
Blah, blah blah. Yeah the troofer cult is really gaining steam!! LMAO. Must be why Gage and Jones are predicting a shortfall and in desperate need of funds to keep AE911Truth going. Must be why you are still on YouTube desperately ranting and raving. I guess that whole troofer revolution will start any minute now eh? Freaking hilarious!!
@ExposeTheTwooferCult There are more and more people seeing through your lies everyday. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has grown to over 1,648 Architects and structural engineers, Alex Jones is expanding on AM and FM radio stations everyday and becoming number 1 in major markets. You are not fooling anyone, just making a further clown of yourself. The laughter of a fool is like thorns crackling in the fire. It doesn't last long before it burns to a crisp.
"Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has grown to over 1,648 Architects and structural engineers,"
I see compulsive lying is your strong suit. Better reread what you wrote. Oh and let me know when just ONE manages to publish just one peer reviewed engineering refutation of ANY part of the NIST report. Heck name five of the structural engineers on your list of 1500 who have publicly stated that structural damage and fire was insufficient to cause the failures on 9/11.
@ExposeTheTwooferCult Your comments are so obviously lame. If 1,648 Architects and Structural Engineers have reviewed the forensic evidence, after listening to NIST and nonsense form people like you, that IS peer review. BIG TIME. NIST does More to DESTROY their own credibility with your "column 79 computer animation", and all the lies from John Gross and Shyam Sunder. I was referred to AE 911 Truth by a friend of mine who IS NOT on the list! There are more than 1,648.
1. AE911Truth stands for Achitects and Engineers (NOT Strucural Engineers) as you seem to keep adding. There are less than a handful of actual Stuctural Engineers on AE911Truth. Good work on that one.LMAO!!!
2. "that IS peer review" Yes, for a bunch of hacks who can't get anything actually published and peer reviewed, you are correct that is simply all they have left. I am pretty sure you just insulted Ae911Truth. Good work!!! Freaking hilarious bro!! Classic
@ExposeTheTwooferCult I repeat: "Your comments are so obviously lame." How many Actual Structural Engineers, is a "handful"? Did you also count civil engineers" Here is the definition of civil engineers from Wiki: Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings. Do you they UNDERSTAND PHYSICS?
@ExposeTheTwooferCult There was a question I posed to you many posts back in our discussion. You never answered. WHERE is YOUR degree in Architecture or Engineering? Will you post your position and website with your name like the Architects and Engineers have done? Let's see! Perhaps you should change your handle to "GraspingAtStraws911Debunker" since everyone can see the emperor is naked here.
@ExposeTheTwooferCult Opps you are correct. I was INCORRECT when I said it was 1,648 Architects and Engineers demanding a NEW 911 investigation. It is ACTUALLY 1,658. (TEN MORE added recently) I can't keep up with it they are growing so fast. Sorry. This is PEER review of your nonsense and LIES.
Anyone can sign a petition. Real scientist produce and publish their work in legitimate peer reviewed journals. 1600 is pretty good though. At that rate they might reach 1% of the engineerng and architecural community before you die. Gage needs to make a living somehow.
"Im Mr. Newton, and I've something to say." "Im confused bcs u've tried to debunk the laws I have created." "First. When u watch the collapsing u can see it accelerates". "I've discovered that the acceleration is possible only when there's empty space below the falling object". "The other tip even tilted. That means the kinetic energy more or less moved away from the tower. Still the tower pulverized all the way down". "Now I go back to my grave and write new laws which work only in America".
In building 7 the steel loses 50 percent claim is irrelevant as much as over 2000 architects and engineers disagree the fires started before the first two towers collapse. Barry jennings and michael hess were the last two to be saved. Were blown back by a big explosion and heard other explosions before the towers collapsed also reported dead bodies contradicting official story saying nobody died in wtc7. After they got them two out the firefighters abandoned the building.
Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"- in response to Dylan Avery
@ExposeTheTwooferCult HAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHHAHAHAAH How was he portrayed? He said the fireman said don't look down because we were stepping over bodies you know when you are stepping over bodies. No one asked him about the bodies. In the BBC one he also says it felt like bodies. WTF it felt like bodies say that out loud what feels like bodies nothing he was forced to change hois story after job threats. Done
"he was forced to change hois story after job threats. Done"
Ahh straight from the troofer manual. Hand wave away evidence and announce your victory. Troofer logic is nothing short of hilariously ironic.
I suppose the government only wanted to kill folks in WTCs 1&2, Pensylvania, and the Pentagon, but felt bad killing anyone left in WTC7 so they covered it up. Yeah makes sense. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice response but I've found you can't sway young Potheads with reason, logic OR facts. However, they WILL attack you with very childish nonsensical ridicule.
I feel sorry for them. Time will teach them some HARD lessons.
@kbspapa If this is the best you can do to prove a point (By arguing they cannot use logic) then your position is more tenuous than you believe. Show me one shred of proof (I.E. evidence from an independent (Of both sides) source that demonstrates conclusively that 9/11 was a 100% inside job.
(Also fun fact, bring up a 757 blueprint, note the superstructure only extends to the engine banks and can bend with moderate stress. I.E. running into rebar concrete) 757 design and construction resource.
@kbspapa Now if you wished to argue that 93 was shot down then you would have the possibility of a cogent argument. Or that 9/11 truth entailed that government incompetence caused this and that the administration took advantage of this to lead us into where we are now, THEN you would have a more cogent theory.
As it stands, I remain a bit unconvinced.
Sorry, but Logic and reason DOES factor into my decision.
Feel free to PM me sometime and we might well discuss this further.
@kbspapa That at the very least I can and do put up cogent arguments backed by evidence and relying not on logical fallacies but cold hard indifferent evidence.
If you look I hear more and more about it is it is where the fuck was your little bit of evidence besides what U have Ben told it is.....looks like no debris just burnt grass(like a missle would cause?) oh yeah now one told me that it was a missle so It MUST be a plane since they said that(who seen it??) so who can say) don't be a sheep with the herd people
Very well made video. Informative and no opinions at all. The facts do point toward more invlovement in this heinous act by others than just bin laden and/or al quaeda. You definitely cannot deny that WTC7 was a controlled demo. Watch controlled demos then watch WTC7 collapse - they're identical.
@ZhugeNaut Your argument doesn't follow. You will never know all the details about any event, knowing all the details is irrelevant to deducing cause.
Look at the the physical reality as it presents itself to you. Is it commensurate with CD (explosive or otherwise). Of course it is! Therefore CD is possible.
Is it commensurate with natural collapse? No it is not.
Given this the only rational conclusion is CD, even if you don't know how, why, who, when or what the specific contingencies were.
@ZhugeNaut Logical argument demands that you don't conflate the towers (where, in the official version, the plane impacts had no real contribution to the eventual collapse) with WTC7 which had no impact.
I don't assume that CD is the only reason, I deduce that from the available evidence, empirical observation of similar events as well as laboratory tests and logical necessity.
If fire induced collapse is impossible then what other cause do you propose if not CD? Aliens? Demons? Termites?
@ZhugeNaut Calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is ad hominem, you are arguing the man instead of the physical reality.
I am not asking you to take me seriously, I am asking you to take empirical observation, falsifiable theory and the strictures of logical reasoning seriously.
"Do you know?"
Well according to the available photographic and video evidence there was no significant debris damage to WTC7, and NIST concurs. According to NIST, thermal expansion was the cause, debris had no role.
No one does. Your inability to see that makes me understand why you can be so easily mislead.
Thermal expansion caused the collapse.
So what started the thermal expansion? I take it you already know the answer to both of the questions I posed to you that is why you refusing to answer them and claim they had no role.
How could flaming fucking debris have no role?
The building caught fire...not just the building.
@ZhugeNaut "No. Fire and Jets slamming into them at 500mph."
WTC7 didn't have any jets slamming into it and the only effect that the debris had was setting fire to it. Fire caused the collapse, not the jets. Even in the twin towers most official estimates of plane damage show that the damage caused by the impacts was irrelevant to the subsequent. (see Irfanuglu and Hoffman)
Those airplanes not only flew into those buildings at 500 mph. They flew in diagonal to get as many floors as possible
That in itself is a flying maneuver that would have required an aviation genius..then it happens twice.then again even crazier maneuvers at the pentagon but here you are debating the minutia of the buildings collapse.
This is a red herring.
The airplanes hit the buildings and they collapsed.
@ZhugeNaut Empiricism doesn't ask what physical evidence you have. It doesn't matter if it is video evidence, particulates in the dust, simple experiments like the gas cooker example (simple experiments of this kind form the very basis of the scientific method) or in situ experiments like the ones showing that thermate indeed makes a very column cutter.
Empiricism demands that you look at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Physical evidence is not an assumption, it is what really exists.
There are particulates in the dust anywhere. The same particulate Dr.Jesus in America Jones claims are thermite are the same you find at any construction site.
"Physical evidence"by your loose definition is putting a pot on the stove for 30 minutes and saying:
Look it doesnt melt.
You have word of mouth evidence,,,and assumptions. You assume that you have evidence. You are being duped by clever word play. People dont have time for every quack idea.
@ZhugeNaut You say: "The same particulate Dr.Jesus in America Jones claims are thermite are the same you find at any construction site."
If that is your claim then it should be straightforward for an empiricist like yourself to do a physical experiment to show this fact.
But wait...
You have nothing, you make these claims but no-one, not a single one of you clever debunkers have ever bothered to go out and DO ANY SIMPLE PHYSICALLY REPRODUCIBLE TEST to prove your looney ideas.
@JDMusicTuition Just so that I understand what youre saying. Not what NIST, Alex Jones or whatever tin hat people you listen to. Do you think that debris falling from a 110 story building on fire collapsing on said structure had no bearing on its collapse? Lets start there. You say I am anti scientific, but you are the ones using word games to justify your "science". IF FALLING DEBRIS IS ON FIRE SAID BUILDING ON FIRE SAID BUILDING COLLAPSES DUE TO FIRE STARTED BY THE. _____ Starts w/ a D.
@ZhugeNaut You do realize that NIST is the official government body charged with explaining the events and that, as such, their theories represent the "state of the art" for debunkers. If you deny NIST and don't have any other solid empirical theory to go on (not that NIST was being empirical mind you) then you really are out on a looney limb.
Inventing your own personal reality to suite your intuition.
There is no sides for me. That is your problem. State of the art for....debunkers? Werent they supposed to be studying the collapse.
You are under the assumpiton that they took your directed energy weapons and controlled demolition ideas seriously enough to debunk them....no one has time to study every quacks ideas. They were studying the collapse of 7.
That shows the fundamental problem with YOUR train of thought.You only assume then claim your assumptions are emprical.
@ZhugeNaut "no one has time to study every quacks ideas."
Except that in suspicious fire events the state of the art in fire investigation is to look for accelerants, chief amongst which is thermite.
It is hardly a crackpot idea that the second law of themrodynamics must be obeyed in ALL descriptions of physical events, that NIST violates it, and that any fire induced collapse theory will violate.
This last because that is what EVERY piece of empirical evidence tells us.
@ZhugeNaut I'll tell what what DOES constitute a crackpot theory: The idea that this one time in history, by some luck that made several well-placed individuals a lot of money, the most fundamental laws of science broke down: Suddenly empiricism is optional in in science, thermite can't be used in demolitions, but thermal expansion from normal office fires can.
THAT is the very definition of a crackpot theory, and I will not subscribe to such nonsense to sate your jingoistic petty nationalism.
@ZhugeNaut It doesn't matter if you don't have the original steel. Empiricism says: "look at the facts that you do have, not those you don't"
I am telling you that there was thermite based on published studies, studies which have had their main findings reproduced even by people who disagree with the conclusions.
Testable, reproducible, falsifiable theories based on empirical observation, ignoring what you may or may not think is likely (no a priorisms). This is the very definition of science.
@ZhugeNaut Note that those who claim that what Dr. Jones found was paint (nobody seriously denies he found the chips), have never produced so much as a shred of empirical evidence to support their claims.
Their theories are verifiable but not falsifiable, the very definition of psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
@ZhugeNaut Even if you completely ignore thermite the physical evidence still points inexorably to CD, there is no physical evidence to support the fire induced collapse theory.
Look at Galileo's gravity experiment, the two-slit experiment, Rutherford's experiment, Feynman's O-ring experiment, the list goes on and on. The best physics experiments have always been reproducible on a table-top.
But you would call all those assumptions? Who's the crackpot here?
@ZhugeNaut So you are of the opinion that criminal supercedes natural law. Stop for a moment and think how crazy that is...
If anything the standards of proof in criminal investigation are LOWER than in physical investigation but must always be consistent with physical natural law one way or another, so I don't know where you hope to get with that line of reasoning.
Im saying that we dont need to study the laws of motion from scatch beacuse a bullet ricocheted in a direction noone expected. You have to investigate the..>CRIME SCENE.
So..when you are doing science expirements..you are not investigating a crime.
If you had the original steel... on your stove for 30 minutes then we might be going somewhere.
Not galvanized steel made for cooking that doesnt require fire proofing..
The WTC didnt have the same kind of steel obviously
@ZhugeNaut No, what you are saying is that a man committed suicide by stabbing himself in the back 50 times with a a razor while shaving underwater.
You don't need to have access to the original shaver or bathroom mirror to say that that is crazy talk. Fire induced collapse is crazy because it violates the laws of physics.
It doesn't matter if you are using Gillette blades or Wilkinson sword, physics is physics is physics.
Youre going to laugh a few years from now when you realize its much easier to dupe the more adept among us. People feel a need to be better then others...so. Convincing them is not that hard they often convince themselves.
Its not crazy. You are faiilng to see that when they are investigating a crime scene they test for blood..they dont study the way to map DNA all over agian each time a new blood sample is found.
@ZhugeNaut You say: "they dont study the way to map DNA all over agian each time a new blood sample is found."
That's the point. The laws of physics are well established, and in terms of those laws the fire induced collapse theory is impossible. We don't throw out the second law of thermodynamics and along with it the entire corpus of Western scientific knowledge, we throw out the fire-induced collapse theory.
If the collapse was not fire induced there is no other theory on the table but CD.
No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to ffire alone...
in history.
That is still true today.
Do you know why? Because those buildings were hit by planes and the other hit by debris. Its true until they try to tie it to the WTC.
No building had ever collapsed due to a plane ramming into it and jet fuel setting it on fire bfore? Whats your point? This doesnt rule out anything. You are leaving out the planes and debris.
@ZhugeNaut Let me just add once more that you cannot conclude that fire caused the collapse on the basis of not having the original steel.
Empiricism is the study of physical evidence you DO have and can successfully reproduce, not on what you don't have and cannot.
Not having the original steel is evidence for only one thing: That somebody acted with criminally by destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation. Nothing more.
No steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire alone in history. Ever.
No steel framed buildings have ever fallen after having planes ram into them at 500mph and knocking off the fire proofing on the floors the airplanes hit. Until 9/11
No steel framed building had ever fallen due to debris from 2 110 story buildings that were on fire hitting it and collapsing several floors and starting a massive fire.
No. Its never happened in history. According to your logic that planes didnt hit the buildings and debris never hti 7 it is not only the likely scenario but the only one that is feasible however that is not what happened. Planes did hit 1 and 2. Fire proofing did fall off. Debris did fall on 7 and set it on fire along with other buildings in the area and everything in its wake.
Nothing fell in a neat little pile.
Only people who werent here would make such a stupid ASSUMPTION.
@ZhugeNaut Yes, this :"Planes did hit 1 and 2. Fire proofing did fall off. Debris did fall on 7 and set it on fire along with other buildings in the area and everything in its wake." is perfectly true and and correct.
But given that, empirical observation and physical law tells us that the buildings should not have fallen, and if they did, should not have fallen in the observed manner.
The only way to get from your description of events to the actual collapse event occurring, is CD.
What evidence do you have that the building should not have fallen?
EVIDENCE not opinion not because you say it is. EVIDENCE. Please dont use any so called laws of science if you cant deal with the entire event as it happened just tell me what your evidence is.
There was floors collapsing in 1 & 2 before the buildings came down. Will Rodriguez reported the 65th floor of one of the 2 WTC buildings as an explosion.
Sound is not a simple phenomenon, Just because sound is a sufficient reason to suspect bombs does not make it a necessary one, because sound can be dampened.
But can you please cite me the source of your claim about Rodriguez. As far as I am aware he was in the basement and his comments were not about the 65th floor.
Did you hear the explosions in the basement during the first WTC attacks in the 1990's? Can you show me video of those explosion sounds?
@ZhugeNaut There is no need for a theory to explain the planes, what are you talking about? We know what caused the plane.
NIST did look at the damage caused by debris in WTC7 and determined that it was not structurally significant all the load bearing elements were internal anyway so a gash in the exterior is irrelevant.
Your claim of structural damage is baseless and you need to cite an actual source for the Rodriguez claim, because all the sources I know of say you are wrong.
1 if you say the plane hit it but that doesnt count 2. If you say that debris hit the buildings but that doesnt count. Then you have changed the equation.
2+2=4 those If you remove 1 from the equation it is not plausible that the answer wll still be 4.
You dont like the govts story neither do I. Were at wars we shouldnt be in because of this.
@ZhugeNaut You say: "...you have changed the equation."
I didn't say that, NIST said that. I didn't change the equation, NIST did. If you disagree with NIST then you need to back up your claims not just assert it.
On what basis do you make your claim that the plane damage or debris was significant top the collapse, there is no evidence apart from mere intuition that this was the case.
Intuitively the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Natural law tells us this is not the case.
@ZhugeNaut In fact there is significant positive experimental and photographic evidence that the debris did not NOT significantly impact the supporting architecture of the buildings.
But even if I were to grant you THAT, other buildings which DID suffer significant structural damage from debris (i.e. Banker's trust) did not collapse. There is no real basis for your idea that falling debris would destroy a building in that way, it is just an intuition with no basis in fact.
Debris did not destroy the building by itself. Neither did the fire. They both played a role. You are inventing straw men.
You dont grant me that...sorry. That happened. and the only reason you are refusing to acknowledge that debris affected the structure is because your defending a position and using word play.
You claim that Nist says the debris did not play a role in the collapse.
I asked you if that was your claim or theirs...well i looked. Its yours.
@ZhugeNaut I think you will find that a sockpuppet is an alternate account used to pretend that SOMEONE ELSE is supporting your views. I just have two accounts that I sometimes forget which one I'm on, I never pretended to be someone else.
You obviously have a problem with definitions because you have a whole dictionary of bizarre incorrect definitions of things like "significance" in your head. Many of these things have technical definitions with conditions that need to be satisfied.
@ZhugeNaut Incidentally, speaking of poor abused Occam, Russel's formulation of the razor shows you clearly why you must reject the fire-induced-collapse-hypothesis (FICH), I quote him: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities"
The FICH relies on repeatedly asserting what we don't know, again and again. The CD hypothesis relies on the well attested to empirical knowledge that thermite/ate can do the work required.
@ZhugeNaut Your story is wrong "man has been shot by a man hes been shot by a man with a gun he is hot by the bullet with your logic"
You logic is that a man points a gun at another man and the shot goes off, and then the other man dies then the gun killed the man... even if the other man is in another city and no bullet hit him.
You are citing two events which are unrelated. High-rise fires do not start High-rise collapses, whether the fires were caused by debris or a guy with a lighter.
according to Occam's razor your controlled demolition theory is the least plausible here. Would require bombs to be in a building where there was going to be a fire. THe bombs would have to placed in a way that wouldn't be affected and wouldnt go off before the building was supposed to collapse.
unless of course your a no planer.
Then it makes sense why you keep trying to sneak the planes and debris out of the equation. Your thinking is not scientific its cutlic youre a follower
@ZhugeNaut May I just add that you are , without doubt, the densest debunker I have ever come across. If this is really the best team Bush can come up with I think it may be time to throw in the towel.
You aren't even trying, just raving like a mad person.
Come on, you have to ATTEMPT to appear sane at least, otherwise it takes all the challenge out.
I am the demest what? What does demest mean? Did you mean dumbest? I am not a "debunker" I am just a guy who listened to your circular arguments and point out the flaws in them.
If someone of your shining intellect calls me the demest whatever....I wear it as a badge of honor because obviously youre a retard.
No physical evidence that the fire proofing fell of?
How about those steel beams bending?
You think your important enough for anyone to pay me to do this? ROFL!?
@ZhugeNaut If you are going to attack me on my choice of words at least check that you have the right words so you don't prove my point by reading wrong like this this: "I am the demest what? What does demest mean? Did you mean dumbest?"
If you check back you will notice the word I used was actually "densest" as in "most dense".
"No physical evidence that the fire proofing fell of?" Nope, not a smidge, it is an assumption based on an unrepresentative test.
@ZhugeNaut If you are going to misquote at least try not to do it in a way that proves my point. I said "densest" as in "most dense", not "demest" as you seem to think.
Occam's razor doesn't say choose the simplest theory as you debunkers appear to have convinced yourselves, it says:
Choose the simplest theory that EXPLAINS ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION!
The fire induced collapse theory does not explain all the facts in question. It isn't a simplest theory of anything, it is just wrong.
Do you remember what you said the inside 7 could not have collapsed first...mostly because you say so but you told me what the effects would be if something like that were true.
1 windows would break, 2 the exterior walls would collapse because they were not meant to hold themselves up.
You were absolutely right. That is exactly as it happened. You can see the whole collapse in that video.
@ZhugeNaut You say: " Watch as it goes from the penthouse to the right."
Watch again, you will that the exterior remains intact AFTER the penthouse has disappeared. The exterior is not load bearing, so the fact that it is intact at this point means that the load bearing elements were intact.
The only way to produce the observed the collapse sequence is to instantaneously remove a substantial portion of the load bearing elements, something that NIST knew and tried to explain away.
The building is still in tact when the penthouse disappears...You can actually see the inside of the building falling. Look at the top floor. You can see right trough it when the PH disappears as it moves to the right more light through the top floor.That is the start of the collapse
You can see when the collapse moves all the way over to the right the windows on that side break and then the building goes straight down. exactly as you said it would Now you disagree with yourself?
So what youre saying is that NIST says that the debris didnt hit the building or are you saying that NIST says that the tons of debris that hit said building did not compromise the structure.
Secondly are you saying this, does Nist actually say this or are you just telling me what someone else put into the mouth of NIST.
I cant see why they would ignore the debris that put big holes in the buildings and started the fire.
@ZhugeNaut I'm not ignoring the debris, it did start the fire after all.
But if I something is determined to be insignificant then it is perfectly appropriate, indeed it is logically required, to ignore that detail for the purposes of the problem.
If I ask you 1 +1 + (some number too small to be significant to the outcome of this equation) = ?
You are saying the answer is 4, not even 3, because you add two insignificant facts as though they were significant.
Only you say that the debris, and the planes did not affect the buildings.
Only you do. NOT NIST
NIST claims the debris and fires both played a role. If you want to say you BELIEVE that the building was not affected by debris that is fine but that is just a guess on your part. It has nothing to do with observation of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
STEVEN "JESUS IN AMERICA" Jones says debris did not play a role not NIST not ASCE, not SFPE not SEAoNY not CTBUH only you, your word play mentor do.
@ZhugeNaut You don't know your own side of the argument and are making up positions for NIST that they don't have.
Playing a role is vastly different from playing a different role.
Thermite/explosives is a known attested to method for producing building collapses of this nature and can be reproduced experimentally. Gravity/fire driven collapse is highly speculative psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo with no empirical support, validating a predetermined conclusion.
@DarkwingScooter thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse? According to who? Considering NOT ONE Demolitions Expert IN THE WORLD thinks WTC 1 or 2 were demo'd....and only ONE thinks WTC 7 was demo'ed (after being shown the bullshit Loose Change footage and not the whole footage of the south facade)....pray tell who? It is not used to demo any building of significant size. In fact it's only regular use is militarilly to take out artillery or keep our tech from enemy hand
@Oz1976 It is known and attested that thermite can do the work required to do a demolition. What more do you want?
Would you say that just because no one had used an atom bomb in anger before or since the two in WWII that nuclear weapons do not make good weapons?
That's just crazy-talk.
Explosive demolition of buildings is not the only, or indeed the most common way of doing it. The banker's trust building on the same site was demolished bit by bit over a number of years for example.
@Oz1976 You claim: "Considering NOT ONE Demolitions Expert IN THE WORLD thinks WTC 1 or 2 were demo'd"
To which I respond: Source please.
You are confusing publicly stating belief with belief. If someone publicly stated that they believe that the buildings were not demo'd (the best case scenario for your claim), it still only amounts to evidence for, rather than proof of, the claim that they believe the buildings were demo'd in fact.
"thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse" SOURCE PLEASE? Or shut the fuck up? Simply put - YOUR argument is bullshit. Danny Jowenko, the PRIZE of the truth movement in demolitions has said numerous times that he doesn't believe 1 and 2 were demo'ed but 7 was. I'd say that's pretty sufficient. The evidence supports the NIST model. It does NOT support CD. Get a clue.
@Oz1976 You say: "thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse" SOURCE PLEASE?.
First off, that is a misquote, refer to my actual comment a couple of spots down.
Here is the source for my claim: /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Danny Jowenko? I never cited him.
"The evidence supports the NIST model."?? You kidding?
There is no physical empirical evidence to support NIST, the only evidence is contained in a source code which was not made public "in the interests of public safety".
@DarkwingScooter youtube videos are NOT sources. You want to talk about empirical evidence and then post a YOUTUBE vid? Seriously?
So the popular mechanics model that nearly matched NIST's without their source and came to the same conclusion doesn't count either? Or Structure magazines?
Don't post a video from youtube as a source. Post a source from a respected demolitions site, structural journal, etc. And don't even think about posting anything from that sham Journal for 911 studies.
@Oz1976 I will take a YouTube video of a reproducible empirical experiment over a model based on a computer simulation where neither the simulation nor the inputs have been made public.
I can model consubstantiation in computer too using these parameters, doesn't make it real in any usual sense, sorry to tell you.
Haha! You are seriously trying to take us back to the dark ages: "Who are going to believe, your caring honest government sponsored scientific study or your own lying eyes?"
You're owned. Put your efforts into something more worthwhile. There was no inside job. The "fire can't melt steel" argument is wrong. It can, and does, all the time. "Molten steel" was not seen (nor tested) do you know what a simile is? There were 100's of other metals in that building to produce the "molten metal" effect.
2million kg of aluminum on the facade clading alone
@Oz1976 Haha! You really are an dolt if you think that "debunks" me. Of course fire can melt steel you nitwit. Of course steel weakens and softens in a fire!
What, did you only just now figure this out?
That doesn't prove what you want it to prove and it is known that in the fires observed this cannot have been as dramatic or significant. The mechanism to initiate the collapse proposed by NIST was thermal expansion. Your "debunking" debunks your own theory.
@DarkwingScooter The video posted said, and I quote "Fire can't melt steel". You used that video as your proof. And now you're turning to ad-hominem because you know you're busted. This started with your bullshit therm*te claims. You've been measured, and found wanting.
@DarkwingScooter Quick turnaround in tone there buddy. 1) not my video, 2) never said there was molten steel, in fact denied that "truther" claim as the only "molten" substance was more than likely aluminum, however it was never tested so that can't be determined.
Fact: a relatively fully fueled 767 smashed into each tower at near 500 mph causing massive structural damage and igniting a raging fire that burned unimpeded.
"office and open air jet fuel fire" is meaningless, it was neither
@Oz1976 This: "Fact: a relatively fully fueled 767 smashed into each tower at near 500 mph causing massive structural damage and igniting a raging fire that burned unimpeded."...is not a fact.
There is no evidence for this "raging inferno" you imagine to have taken place and Irfanoglu and Hoffmann calculated (and published a study that was central to the NIST report) that the damage from the plane impact was irrelevant.
@Oz1976 There is nothing wrong with Eager's analysis as far as I can can see.
Except in that there was in fact molten steel at the WTC site, as several independent sources of evidence confirms.
So the fact that the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel does not mean the steel was not molten, it means that SOMETHING ELSE MUST HAVE MELTED THE STEEL.
What could that be? Lemmessee...
Are you sure you are not a truther because you seem to be making a very good truther argument.
@Oz1976 In your IMAGINATION it was a raging steel melting inferno, in reality there is no reason to suppose it was other than it fit in with your political inclinations.
In your IMAGINATION the structural damage was hugely significant, but in reality at the temperatures required to soften the steel sufficiently to have failure occur the amount of damage was irrelevant, the same outcome would have been expected had there been no plane.
@DarkwingScooter Not imagination, facts. Nice strawman there buddy. Political inclinations? Bush and Co were the most inept administration this country has ever had and yet you claim they're the masterminds of the most elaborate conspiracy ever. Bush was the "dumbest" president we ever had too right? So which is it? Imbocile or Evil Genius?
The fact you discount the structural damage proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The design of the WTC relied on the (cont...)
@DarkwingScooter right...unsubstantiated...so I guess the testimony of the survivors that traversed the stairwells saying that drywall was littering the stairs, that they litterally had to climb through and over it in sections isn't evidence that it as well was dislodged. I love truthers...cherry pick some more.
@Oz1976 Of course some of the drywall would be littering the place, it was knocked of the columns that were destroyed.
The question is whether it was knocked off a significant portion of the REMAINING columns, columns which (if you look at the failure mode) were not in the path of the plane debris.
@DarkwingScooter so since you believe it was a controlled demo...explain the some 40 stories of core that can be seen still standing for a few moments after the outter skin and floors of WTC 1 had come down. If it was a CD, as the "truthers" claim (especially since they claim the core was charged) why was it the last thing to come down?
@Oz1976 You need to get your facts straight mate. 40 floors worth of core were not still standing after the rest of the building collapsed. A few columns from the core, totaling a few floors, remained standing after the collapse but collapsed themselves within a few moments.
@Ahlywog No, it's you that needs to get there facts straight my friend.
youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
Stop the video at :40 and look closely in the dust. You will see a good portion of core columns still intact, and standing till about :49 and they are CLEARLY higher than WTC 7 which is to the left on the screen (47 stories tall). So you're right in a sence, it wasn't 40, it was more like 55-60 stories of core still intact after the rest of the building had crashed past. NOT CD!
@Oz1976 You're right, that was my bad. I posted then thought about if for a few minutes and went to actually check it out. Again, my bad.
That doesn't disprove CD though. All it shows is that the bottom half of the building wasn't necessarily demoed. In response I provide this: watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o explosiveless demo's that prove what happened to the Twin Towers is possible without therm*te/explosives soely on the damage done to the impact zones.
Gravity is a bitch. David Chandler is wrong. Ask him why he will only "publish" in the Journal for 9/11 studies. It is NOT a peer reviewed journal, no matter how they shine it. The Editor is Steven Jones FFS. Ask him why he won't publish in a respected scientific journal if he's got so much proof?
@Oz1976 I'm sorry but that video does not prove that what happened the twin towers can be done without explosives. There is a reason the explosiveless demolitions are initiated at the middle of the building and not above. Newtons third law of motion says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any force a falling section of building applies to whatever is beneath it is also applied to the falling section but in the opposite direction.
@Oz1976 So say the upper 10 floors of a building collapse onto the 100 floors below it. For every floor the falling section destroys beneath it and equal amount of damage would be inflicted to the falling section. So the energy required for 10 floors of falling building to destroy the 10 floors beneath it would destroy the falling 10 floors which is what you see here: watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o&playnext=1&list=PL1AE887B5492D35E4
@Oz1976 In a 110 story building it would take the top 55 stories to destroy the 55 stories beneath it. That's why I used that example in the first place in response to the spire. Demo the top half of the building and let it fall and crush whats beneath it.
@Ahlywog That's what we call a "logical fallacy". It's been scientifically proven that the portions of both WTC towers above the impact zones contained enough Kinetic Energy that when paired with the collapse initiation, gravity, and transfer of momentum, had more than enough energy to crush each building. There was no demolition, I'm sorry.
@Oz1976 Proven by whom? All the kinetic energy in the building was generated BY gravity, not in conjunction with it. That's why free falling objects do not fall faster than gravitation acceleration.
See now that's funny. A "logical fallacy" would be providing a link to explosiveless demolitions in which buildings are destroyed by collapsing the center floors and allowing the top 50% of the building to crush the bottom 50% then arguing that 20-25% can crush 80-85%. THAT'S funny.
@Ahlywog the %25 grows, the %80-85 that you describe doesn't simply disappear, it is added to the %25. so one second later it's %35 destroying the other %65, then 5 seconds later its %70 (minus airborne dust) destroying the rest of the %30. simple. Physics is often counter-intuitive and it's not easy for everyone.
@admiralct Clearly it's not easy for everyone. Look at the Verinage demolitions. It takes a section of building of size X to crush a section of building of size X. Even then there will be no measurable span of free-fall in the collapse as there is in all 3 buildings.
@Ahlywog you're link is completely irrelevant because there was no controlled demolition on 911, perhaps you recall the airplanes that crashed into them. think about this rhetorical question...did the airplanes have anything at all to do with the collapse? you have to admit NO. so now here you are disregarding the impacts and wondering for 10 years how the buildings could have possibly fallen...geee i wonder! and yes i agree with your agreeance that physics isn't easy for everyone, was my Major.
@admiralct Airplanes account for the collapse of the buildings, not the total destruction. In that regard you have 17-20% of damaged structure crushing 80-83% of undamaged, progressively stronger structure. The verinage demolitions are very much relevant. They show exactly what I'm talking about. They show that it takes X amount of floors to crush X amount of floors otherwise they could start the collapse at the top of the building instead of the middle.
@Ahlywog so u don't deny that it appears to work either way-ur interpretation is that the WTC was somehow magically rigged for controlled demo by terrorists or "the gov" (congress? military? DMV workers?) to fulfill an agenda that had nothing at all to do with 2 towers somewhere in NY...right. here's my interpretation-there is no suspicous physical indicators because there was no CD and u know exactly y WTC fell. ask the verinage crew if WTC was a CD...911 Truth: Ask Questions, Ignore Answers
@admiralct No I do not know exactly why the towers fell. I know planes crashed into them. I know there were fires. The buildings survived the impact of the planes and there is no evidence that the fires were sufficient to do the job. I know hundreds of witnesses, including FDNY and PDNY, reported massive explosions throughout the buildings before the collapse. I find it amazing that, for a "astrophysicist" with a degree in physics you seem to avoid debating the physics of the situation.
@Ahlywog because you're not talking about physics anymore, you never have. i'll never understand truther physics. you absorbed this ideology that ther MUST be something wrong physically with this situation. we've searched and studied for 10 years now nothing has turned up- not one shred!
you can obsess and post all you want it doesn't change the physical laws of the universe, it doesn't change 911, and it doesn't change any of the facts that everybody (except for truthers) seems to be privy to.
@admiralct And what does "was my major" mean? I would assume that if you graduated with your degree in physics you would say "I have my BS in physics." Otherwise I'm left to assume you either didn't finish college or you changed your major. Either way, saying it WAS your major means nothing. You could have been a junior for a day and have HAD a major. You could have been majoring in astrophysics for a day and tell people "Astrophysics was my major." It doesn't make you an astrophysicist.
@Ahlywog I studied Astrophysics for 3 terms in college, made presidents list each term with a 4.0 and graduated with honors with a degree in physical sciences for my work in physics and astrophysics/2nd year Astronomy, was offered a summer internship to study the "magneto-hydro-thermodynamics" of forming protostellar discs and was paid (not enough) to do it straight out of college. I am currently a paid astrophysics research fellow at the dept of Physics. I am an Astrophysicist. damn lucky guess
@admiralct Then none of what I'm saying should be Greek. You should understand that the free-fall of an object through another object of similar or greater mass is impossible. Hell, constant acceleration of any degree through an object of similar or greater mass impossible. This is undergrad physics. And yet there is measurable free fall in all 3 buildings, free fall NIST admits too in at least building 7.
@Alywg thanks for your polite response, i suspected u might flip and call me a liar. Listen i know about how suspicious 9/11 is and the physical aspects have definately been worth the decade of consideration but the fact is that a Demo can not cause us to see what we saw on that day. CD can't do things that gravity can't. nobody fashioned rockets to the top of WTC to drive it down 2.5 sec "too fast". you've overestimated the resistance those puny little floors offer. focus on political aspects
@admiralct I try to keep things civil. I'm not here to insult people. Nothing is gained from name calling. Demo in a traditional sense might not account for what we see, but a natural gravitational collapse cannot either. You know as well as I that free fall is impossible through resistance. The floors might not offer much resistance but the core and perimeter structures most certainly would have, and free fall is present in the collapse of all three buildings.
@Ahlg but whose to say that the core also fell immediately, the footage doesn't allow for precision measurements and the dust obscures so much that it's impossible to tell (too bad no IR camera's DURING collapse) when exactly the exterior finally strikes the ground (debris fell FASTER than the collapse because debris truly is in free fall), vibration energy travels faster than free fall. also can't tell 4 how long the core stands though i remember the whole thing cracking over. AC kicked WTC ass
@admiralct Additionally an object accelerating at free fall weighs less than the same object at rest. You can't have it both ways. It's either accelerating or its crushing through resistance. Newtons laws of motion and the laws of conservation of energy are pretty clear in this regards. This is why 10 or 20% of a building cannot crush the 80 to 90% below it.
@Ag u guys are under the impression that we insist that the physical laws of the universe were broken on that day, that's not what we're saying at all. I'm saying that newtons laws were followed exactly as expected which is clearly why %30 of the building knocked loose and absorbed floor after floor in a cascading collapse that ripped apart the building at a rate consistent with what newtons laws would predict. it's almost as if truthers opine for free-fall, they love it! free fall=Bush did it?
@admiralct Free fall means it wasn't a fire/damage induced collapse. You cannot have free fall through resistance. If you actually had a degree in physics you would know that. This is why I don't bother calling people liars, they tend to prove it themselves. And I certainly hope you're not referring to the pancake theory which even NIST says is incorrect.
@Ahlywog you assume i didn't know that, you've put words in my mouth have you not? tha'ts quite a falsehood coming from a "truth"er and coming from a guy who "doesn't exactly know why the towers fell" i don't find your perceptions of events and people to be of any interest. thanks for the exchange and good luck with "the truth".
@admiralct No no. I KNOW you didn't know that. I highly doubt you have any of the credentials you claim. Claiming a degree in physics then explaining that gravitational free fall of one object through another with equal or greater mass is perfectly in line with Newtons laws of motion... We're talking high school physics here. Grade school physics. I doubt you've stepped into a college for any reason beyond cleaning it.
@Ahlywog okay that's great, calling me a janitor. i thought you weren't in here to insult i thought you were here to lecture and inform all the sheeple stupid enough to believe that the AC had anything at all to do with the impossible progressive collapse. when i was a kid my dad always took me to the bike track, the lead biker absorbs the air resistance while the rest ride the draft (like following closely behind a semi truck) interior debris is drafting towards ground, makes it easier to fall
@admiralct That's it? That's all you have? A running 4.0 and a degree in physics and you're going to liken the collapse of a building to bikers in a race? Interior debris still has to impact what's below it. You're still not going to get free fall. Ever. We're not talking wind resistance. We're talking about a section of building falling through another section that, moments before, had completely supported it.
@admiralct A better example would be cyclists in a race, forming a specific pattern in their placement, impacting a stationary formation of cyclists in a similar or denser formation.
@Oz1976 So if the falling sections of building had greater potential energy than what is provided by gravity...I'd like to know where that extra energy came from. Otherwise 100% of the buildings potential energy comes from gravity.
So the first 60 seconds in the Verinage compilation. 15 story building. Floors 8 and 9 are collapsed allowing floors 10-15 to crush floors 2-7. 6 floors crush 6 floors. floor 1 is otherwise intact. Huh. That Newton guy sure knew his stuff....
@DarkwingScooter so since you believe it was a controlled demo...explain the some 40 stories of core that can be seen still standing for a few moments after the outter skin and floors of WTC 1 had come down. If it was a CD, as the "truthers" claim (especially since they claim the core was charged) why was it the last thing to come down?
@DarkwingScooter tube in tube + truss system to manage the load. The reality is, both collapses were a result of the damage AND the fire. The fire could not have started without the damage. The impact blowing the fire proofing off the steel contributed to it's vulnerability. No impact, no loss of fireproofing. You're wrong, and have served again. My reality > your strawman.
@Oz1976 Irfanoglu and Hofmann's strawman you mean?
You are just making stuff up.
The fire-proofing loss may be a partially successful explanation of the initiation, I will grant you, but it fails to account for the uniformity of the onset.
This has been flagged as spam show
How do explain the two magical PAPER passports made it out the terrorists bag, out the plane, through the fire and building, to the ground for the FBI to find hours later.
KingDavid478 4 days ago
I stoppped watching this drivel after one minute with the statement "in my years as a researcher I never heard anyone make the claim that no wreckage was found of flight 93"
The Loose Change boys made that claim, Flight 93 did not even crash, it landed at Cleveland airport. Of course, given their proclivity to change stories with ease, I not sure which version of the "truth" they are peddling today.
Regardless, there is one claim that no wreckage was found of flight 93
CCRider100 1 week ago
Good job with this video. RKOwens is either an extremely paranoid and misguided fanatic for the illegal US wars and New World Order agenda, or he is a paid shill and liar who muddies the water with confusion and manufactured misconstrued facts, that he superimposes on the 911 Truth Movement. I don't think he has the "best of intentions" In the old English language we had a word, rarely used these days, for this kind of subversion and distortion. It is the word "Jesuitisms" Look it up and see.
WillSee11 2 weeks ago
@WillSee11
Why did you run away???? Awwww, did I catch you in too many lies. Had to find another video to spread your "truth" around in. Well at least you aren't still pandering the Bs I called you out on. Nope just rambling on about inside job, government paid shills, the usual tin foil hat type rants.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult I never ran away. You did. After all the flimsy explanations, excuses and "Column 79" fabrication stories, you said you "didn't have time" to waste on people like us, who are not smart enough to see that the Emperor DOES have clothes, and only silly people think he is naked. You are running out of time to keep the 911 lies going. We see the Little Man behind the curtain. The Jig is up. 911 was a HORRIBLE act of Terrorism created by liars. INSIDE JOB.
WillSee11 1 week ago 2
@WillSee11
Blah, blah blah. Yeah the troofer cult is really gaining steam!! LMAO. Must be why Gage and Jones are predicting a shortfall and in desperate need of funds to keep AE911Truth going. Must be why you are still on YouTube desperately ranting and raving. I guess that whole troofer revolution will start any minute now eh? Freaking hilarious!!
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult There are more and more people seeing through your lies everyday. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has grown to over 1,648 Architects and structural engineers, Alex Jones is expanding on AM and FM radio stations everyday and becoming number 1 in major markets. You are not fooling anyone, just making a further clown of yourself. The laughter of a fool is like thorns crackling in the fire. It doesn't last long before it burns to a crisp.
WillSee11 1 week ago
@WillSee11
"Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has grown to over 1,648 Architects and structural engineers,"
I see compulsive lying is your strong suit. Better reread what you wrote. Oh and let me know when just ONE manages to publish just one peer reviewed engineering refutation of ANY part of the NIST report. Heck name five of the structural engineers on your list of 1500 who have publicly stated that structural damage and fire was insufficient to cause the failures on 9/11.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult Your comments are so obviously lame. If 1,648 Architects and Structural Engineers have reviewed the forensic evidence, after listening to NIST and nonsense form people like you, that IS peer review. BIG TIME. NIST does More to DESTROY their own credibility with your "column 79 computer animation", and all the lies from John Gross and Shyam Sunder. I was referred to AE 911 Truth by a friend of mine who IS NOT on the list! There are more than 1,648.
WillSee11 1 week ago
@WillSee11
Two things:
1. AE911Truth stands for Achitects and Engineers (NOT Strucural Engineers) as you seem to keep adding. There are less than a handful of actual Stuctural Engineers on AE911Truth. Good work on that one.LMAO!!!
2. "that IS peer review" Yes, for a bunch of hacks who can't get anything actually published and peer reviewed, you are correct that is simply all they have left. I am pretty sure you just insulted Ae911Truth. Good work!!! Freaking hilarious bro!! Classic
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult I repeat: "Your comments are so obviously lame." How many Actual Structural Engineers, is a "handful"? Did you also count civil engineers" Here is the definition of civil engineers from Wiki: Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings. Do you they UNDERSTAND PHYSICS?
WillSee11 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult There was a question I posed to you many posts back in our discussion. You never answered. WHERE is YOUR degree in Architecture or Engineering? Will you post your position and website with your name like the Architects and Engineers have done? Let's see! Perhaps you should change your handle to "GraspingAtStraws911Debunker" since everyone can see the emperor is naked here.
WillSee11 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult Opps you are correct. I was INCORRECT when I said it was 1,648 Architects and Engineers demanding a NEW 911 investigation. It is ACTUALLY 1,658. (TEN MORE added recently) I can't keep up with it they are growing so fast. Sorry. This is PEER review of your nonsense and LIES.
WillSee11 1 week ago
@WillSee11
Anyone can sign a petition. Real scientist produce and publish their work in legitimate peer reviewed journals. 1600 is pretty good though. At that rate they might reach 1% of the engineerng and architecural community before you die. Gage needs to make a living somehow.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
Not sure just what you respect from a tool that has goons squads on his vids for years abusing folk.
Disdain4Lies 3 weeks ago
Sorry, is it just me or do you not really stand in opposition to these 7 theories. ??
You don't seem to be disagreeing with any of them.
So what's the point?
roquefortfiles 3 weeks ago
Amazing stroke of luck for Silverstein
wageslave333 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Im Mr. Newton, and I've something to say." "Im confused bcs u've tried to debunk the laws I have created." "First. When u watch the collapsing u can see it accelerates". "I've discovered that the acceleration is possible only when there's empty space below the falling object". "The other tip even tilted. That means the kinetic energy more or less moved away from the tower. Still the tower pulverized all the way down". "Now I go back to my grave and write new laws which work only in America".
Scumbot404 1 month ago
In building 7 the steel loses 50 percent claim is irrelevant as much as over 2000 architects and engineers disagree the fires started before the first two towers collapse. Barry jennings and michael hess were the last two to be saved. Were blown back by a big explosion and heard other explosions before the towers collapsed also reported dead bodies contradicting official story saying nobody died in wtc7. After they got them two out the firefighters abandoned the building.
RickAstley56 2 months ago
@RickAstley56
Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"- in response to Dylan Avery
Good work Rick. Way to reasearch!!
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult HAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHHAHAHAAH How was he portrayed? He said the fireman said don't look down because we were stepping over bodies you know when you are stepping over bodies. No one asked him about the bodies. In the BBC one he also says it felt like bodies. WTF it felt like bodies say that out loud what feels like bodies nothing he was forced to change hois story after job threats. Done
RickAstley56 2 weeks ago
@RickAstley56
So you are saying "felt like bodies " = "saw dead bodies?"
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
@RickAstley56
Simple yes or no will suffice.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RickAstley56
"he was forced to change hois story after job threats. Done"
Ahh straight from the troofer manual. Hand wave away evidence and announce your victory. Troofer logic is nothing short of hilariously ironic.
I suppose the government only wanted to kill folks in WTCs 1&2, Pensylvania, and the Pentagon, but felt bad killing anyone left in WTC7 so they covered it up. Yeah makes sense. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
I love that he picks at the title for have the video, then uses crap to fill in the rest of the time gap.
God Bless America.
Remember forever 9/11/2001
Miss you Justin
x30xSabresFan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch these videos, and be educated:
v=yuC_4mGTs98 v=j5FhQc-LJ-o v=5qFsjdymqSk v=OQgVCj7q49o v=KhdppHwUJ9k v=zhnNy5EsebA v=iGqjzFQvfdI v=WxqoChniKVU v=9QWvkAgyIY4 v=qFpbZ-aLDLY v=HfmliaqIRBE v=HSjDCwN2i3w v=8XRMrMdn0NQ v=dVutUGDiQN0 v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4 v=4CfNSDnz8qI v=hVaGht6eHoQ v=9fNLz8zWwaM v=Ne1FJBVkh4s v=2rYR3JLaNp0 v=9nc5_5IJek8 v=mVMrhqb4WwE v=7e_ImZYzNLs v=JeU1rxnj0o4 v=LG6i6WBHM3U v=q4dU_p9UTTs v=8En6Ag8y77M v=zQXwVs7fV1c v=s9C7V_4iEyE v=kG4yGICFsi8 v=5c1WERse4uI v=G43zl4fzDQg
AnotherNutJob 3 months ago
debunk Edna Cintron
CannabisCorporation 5 months ago
you can't trust the governemnt about anything
they won't tell the truth about marijuana
and they won't tell the truth about UFOS
do you think they'll tell the truth about 9/11
lowaces 5 months ago
Nice response but I've found you can't sway young Potheads with reason, logic OR facts. However, they WILL attack you with very childish nonsensical ridicule.
I feel sorry for them. Time will teach them some HARD lessons.
kbspapa 6 months ago
@kbspapa If this is the best you can do to prove a point (By arguing they cannot use logic) then your position is more tenuous than you believe. Show me one shred of proof (I.E. evidence from an independent (Of both sides) source that demonstrates conclusively that 9/11 was a 100% inside job.
(Also fun fact, bring up a 757 blueprint, note the superstructure only extends to the engine banks and can bend with moderate stress. I.E. running into rebar concrete) 757 design and construction resource.
danschaoticmind 6 months ago
@kbspapa Now if you wished to argue that 93 was shot down then you would have the possibility of a cogent argument. Or that 9/11 truth entailed that government incompetence caused this and that the administration took advantage of this to lead us into where we are now, THEN you would have a more cogent theory.
As it stands, I remain a bit unconvinced.
Sorry, but Logic and reason DOES factor into my decision.
Feel free to PM me sometime and we might well discuss this further.
I assure you >
danschaoticmind 6 months ago
@kbspapa That at the very least I can and do put up cogent arguments backed by evidence and relying not on logical fallacies but cold hard indifferent evidence.
danschaoticmind 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was an inside job
alexkillsdie 6 months ago
Silverstein meant the firefighters hahahahaha
MrDuspaghi 7 months ago
what research did this guy do?
Bluebalz 8 months ago
If you look I hear more and more about it is it is where the fuck was your little bit of evidence besides what U have Ben told it is.....looks like no debris just burnt grass(like a missle would cause?) oh yeah now one told me that it was a missle so It MUST be a plane since they said that(who seen it??) so who can say) don't be a sheep with the herd people
jamesmfbond 8 months ago
Very well made video. Informative and no opinions at all. The facts do point toward more invlovement in this heinous act by others than just bin laden and/or al quaeda. You definitely cannot deny that WTC7 was a controlled demo. Watch controlled demos then watch WTC7 collapse - they're identical.
1214Sonnyboy 9 months ago
Doesn't it sound like this guy is eating?
BingeRules 9 months ago
good job
jamiemenuez 9 months ago
Rk owns and other so called truth debunkers are just a bunch of losers with nothing better to do then follow around truthers and badger them.
I am not a truther and I have found so many holes in all 911 theories. Controlled demolition theory fails under scrutiny.
Who made the decision to pull 7? They or He? What is pull?
Do you know for sure?
In CDemo pulling refers to Pulling a support column and allowing the building to fall in on itself.
Which means...the explosives theory doesnt fit there.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Your argument doesn't follow. You will never know all the details about any event, knowing all the details is irrelevant to deducing cause.
Look at the the physical reality as it presents itself to you. Is it commensurate with CD (explosive or otherwise). Of course it is! Therefore CD is possible.
Is it commensurate with natural collapse? No it is not.
Given this the only rational conclusion is CD, even if you don't know how, why, who, when or what the specific contingencies were.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
That was a comment not an argument.
You dont know the physical reality. You know..carefully chose words strung together like:
Never in history have 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.
Right? How many of those buildings were also hit with high speed jet liners?
Physical reality?
The collapses were not natural...the buildings were hit by planes.
Where you fail is that you ASSUME (probably because your told) that CD is the only viable reason for whats happeend.
2 choices?Really?
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Logical argument demands that you don't conflate the towers (where, in the official version, the plane impacts had no real contribution to the eventual collapse) with WTC7 which had no impact.
I don't assume that CD is the only reason, I deduce that from the available evidence, empirical observation of similar events as well as laboratory tests and logical necessity.
If fire induced collapse is impossible then what other cause do you propose if not CD? Aliens? Demons? Termites?
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@Darkwing
Aliens, demons, termites? Says the conspiracy theorist?
Really?!
So you want someoen to take you seriously and pretend your not wearing a tin hat then you should treat people the same.
Where were you on 911? I was on Vessey street when the towers got hit.
I was not very far from a body that hit a car and made me deaf in one ear for 45 minutes.
That was called an explosion by observers.
How about flying debris from 1 &2? How far is WTC 7 from 1&2 and how far did debris fly?
Do you know?
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is ad hominem, you are arguing the man instead of the physical reality.
I am not asking you to take me seriously, I am asking you to take empirical observation, falsifiable theory and the strictures of logical reasoning seriously.
"Do you know?"
Well according to the available photographic and video evidence there was no significant debris damage to WTC7, and NIST concurs. According to NIST, thermal expansion was the cause, debris had no role.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
You have no "empirical" evidence.
No one does. Your inability to see that makes me understand why you can be so easily mislead.
Thermal expansion caused the collapse.
So what started the thermal expansion? I take it you already know the answer to both of the questions I posed to you that is why you refusing to answer them and claim they had no role.
How could flaming fucking debris have no role?
The building caught fire...not just the building.
The entire street.
No role?
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut In one comment the debris is this massive chunk of STUFF that hits and weakens the structure, in the next it only causes the fire.
Recall the original claim: No skyscraper has ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. So the fact that the fire was caused by debris is irrelevant.
NIST studied the evidence of fire, it was hardly an inferno.
Empirical evidence is recourse to observation, your idea of exact reproduction is deeply anti-science because no event can be exactly reproduced.
JDMusicTuition 10 months ago
@JDMusicTuition
There it is again.
"No Skyscraper has ever collapsed as a result of fire alone."
No. Fire and Jets slamming into them at 500mph.
No fire and 2 110 story buildings ejecting debris for 500ft in all directions landing on your roof.
Said building having a part of it collapse early in the morning from the debris.
Said building having multiple fires and...hardly and inferno?!
The entire inside of the building collapsed first then the outside.
Controlled Demolition?
Really?
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "No. Fire and Jets slamming into them at 500mph."
WTC7 didn't have any jets slamming into it and the only effect that the debris had was setting fire to it. Fire caused the collapse, not the jets. Even in the twin towers most official estimates of plane damage show that the damage caused by the impacts was irrelevant to the subsequent. (see Irfanuglu and Hoffman)
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@Darkwingduck
Those airplanes not only flew into those buildings at 500 mph. They flew in diagonal to get as many floors as possible
That in itself is a flying maneuver that would have required an aviation genius..then it happens twice.then again even crazier maneuvers at the pentagon but here you are debating the minutia of the buildings collapse.
This is a red herring.
The airplanes hit the buildings and they collapsed.
7 was hit with debris and fell.
You need to worry about the ramifications
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "You only assume then claim your assumptions are emprical."
Empiricism means looking at physical evidence (as opposed to computer models to formulate hypothesis:
1) The physical evidence says the debris caused no significant damage apart from starting minor fires.
2) """ of office fires in high-rises says this will not cause global collapse.
3) """ of thermite says it can be used in CD's.
4) """ that thermite was present.
There is no other definition of empricism. Look it up.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwing
So let me get this straight. You had access to the steel beams?
Did you survey the area? Did you test the samples in the area on the day of the collapse for so called "thermite".
Or is your cliam come from someone elses research that you parrot verbatim and call your own?
Secondly...Thermite?!
So now your telling me what particles were found? Based on evidence...or based on a video you watched.
More then likely its the latter.so maybe you should look up assumption.
Use that word more.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Empiricism doesn't ask what physical evidence you have. It doesn't matter if it is video evidence, particulates in the dust, simple experiments like the gas cooker example (simple experiments of this kind form the very basis of the scientific method) or in situ experiments like the ones showing that thermate indeed makes a very column cutter.
Empiricism demands that you look at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Physical evidence is not an assumption, it is what really exists.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
There are particulates in the dust anywhere. The same particulate Dr.Jesus in America Jones claims are thermite are the same you find at any construction site.
"Physical evidence"by your loose definition is putting a pot on the stove for 30 minutes and saying:
Look it doesnt melt.
You have word of mouth evidence,,,and assumptions. You assume that you have evidence. You are being duped by clever word play. People dont have time for every quack idea.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You say: "The same particulate Dr.Jesus in America Jones claims are thermite are the same you find at any construction site."
If that is your claim then it should be straightforward for an empiricist like yourself to do a physical experiment to show this fact.
But wait...
You have nothing, you make these claims but no-one, not a single one of you clever debunkers have ever bothered to go out and DO ANY SIMPLE PHYSICALLY REPRODUCIBLE TEST to prove your looney ideas.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "The entire inside of the building collapsed first then the outside."
That is a complete physical impossibility on two counts:
1) The outer walls were not load bearing structures capable of holding themselves up for any length of time.
2) There is no evidence that this occurred in the video record (e.g. no breaking windows).
The ONLY reason you may have to believe this is because it makes you feel better about voting for Bush. Hardly scientific, not remotely empirical.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You do realize that NIST is the official government body charged with explaining the events and that, as such, their theories represent the "state of the art" for debunkers. If you deny NIST and don't have any other solid empirical theory to go on (not that NIST was being empirical mind you) then you really are out on a looney limb.
Inventing your own personal reality to suite your intuition.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@Darkwingduck
There is no sides for me. That is your problem. State of the art for....debunkers? Werent they supposed to be studying the collapse.
You are under the assumpiton that they took your directed energy weapons and controlled demolition ideas seriously enough to debunk them....no one has time to study every quacks ideas. They were studying the collapse of 7.
That shows the fundamental problem with YOUR train of thought.You only assume then claim your assumptions are emprical.
Right.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "no one has time to study every quacks ideas."
Except that in suspicious fire events the state of the art in fire investigation is to look for accelerants, chief amongst which is thermite.
It is hardly a crackpot idea that the second law of themrodynamics must be obeyed in ALL descriptions of physical events, that NIST violates it, and that any fire induced collapse theory will violate.
This last because that is what EVERY piece of empirical evidence tells us.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut I'll tell what what DOES constitute a crackpot theory: The idea that this one time in history, by some luck that made several well-placed individuals a lot of money, the most fundamental laws of science broke down: Suddenly empiricism is optional in in science, thermite can't be used in demolitions, but thermal expansion from normal office fires can.
THAT is the very definition of a crackpot theory, and I will not subscribe to such nonsense to sate your jingoistic petty nationalism.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Unless of course what you mean by empirical is your test with burning a pot for 3 hours on a stove and saying:
"look it doesnt melt".
ROFL.
I like the way you ignore 9/10ths of what I say and focus on one line and run 500 characters.
Are you an end times minister too?
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut It doesn't matter if you don't have the original steel. Empiricism says: "look at the facts that you do have, not those you don't"
I am telling you that there was thermite based on published studies, studies which have had their main findings reproduced even by people who disagree with the conclusions.
Testable, reproducible, falsifiable theories based on empirical observation, ignoring what you may or may not think is likely (no a priorisms). This is the very definition of science.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Note that those who claim that what Dr. Jones found was paint (nobody seriously denies he found the chips), have never produced so much as a shred of empirical evidence to support their claims.
Their theories are verifiable but not falsifiable, the very definition of psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
Oh...the guy who says he says irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ visited America...that Dr. Steven Jones.
Says he found....THERMITE? Or did he find some trace elements that he CLAIMS are the same as thermite?
Do these particles happen to be the same particles that you find in a place where steel beams have been cut?WORD PLAY.
You really have been telling me you have evidence from...Steven Jones?Dr Steven Jones?!
Did Dr Kent Hovind weigh in on this also?
Your the best man lol.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Even if you completely ignore thermite the physical evidence still points inexorably to CD, there is no physical evidence to support the fire induced collapse theory.
Look at Galileo's gravity experiment, the two-slit experiment, Rutherford's experiment, Feynman's O-ring experiment, the list goes on and on. The best physics experiments have always been reproducible on a table-top.
But you would call all those assumptions? Who's the crackpot here?
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
911 was a crime scene not a science expirement.
We are studying why the towers collapsed after airplanes flew into 2 and debris flew into another.
Not the laws of motion or gravity
You are under the impression that a science experiment is somehow like investigating a crime.
This explains why noone takes you or Jesus Juice Jones seriously.
We dont need to verify that every law of nature still works before we investigate a crime.
can you use your tin hat as an antennae?.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut So you are of the opinion that criminal supercedes natural law. Stop for a moment and think how crazy that is...
If anything the standards of proof in criminal investigation are LOWER than in physical investigation but must always be consistent with physical natural law one way or another, so I don't know where you hope to get with that line of reasoning.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Crazy huh?
Im saying that we dont need to study the laws of motion from scatch beacuse a bullet ricocheted in a direction noone expected. You have to investigate the..>CRIME SCENE.
So..when you are doing science expirements..you are not investigating a crime.
If you had the original steel... on your stove for 30 minutes then we might be going somewhere.
Not galvanized steel made for cooking that doesnt require fire proofing..
The WTC didnt have the same kind of steel obviously
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut No, what you are saying is that a man committed suicide by stabbing himself in the back 50 times with a a razor while shaving underwater.
You don't need to have access to the original shaver or bathroom mirror to say that that is crazy talk. Fire induced collapse is crazy because it violates the laws of physics.
It doesn't matter if you are using Gillette blades or Wilkinson sword, physics is physics is physics.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Youre going to laugh a few years from now when you realize its much easier to dupe the more adept among us. People feel a need to be better then others...so. Convincing them is not that hard they often convince themselves.
Its not crazy. You are faiilng to see that when they are investigating a crime scene they test for blood..they dont study the way to map DNA all over agian each time a new blood sample is found.
"think how crazy that is"
They deal with the evidence at hand.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You say: "they dont study the way to map DNA all over agian each time a new blood sample is found."
That's the point. The laws of physics are well established, and in terms of those laws the fire induced collapse theory is impossible. We don't throw out the second law of thermodynamics and along with it the entire corpus of Western scientific knowledge, we throw out the fire-induced collapse theory.
If the collapse was not fire induced there is no other theory on the table but CD.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
let me say this again
No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to ffire alone...
in history.
That is still true today.
Do you know why? Because those buildings were hit by planes and the other hit by debris. Its true until they try to tie it to the WTC.
No building had ever collapsed due to a plane ramming into it and jet fuel setting it on fire bfore? Whats your point? This doesnt rule out anything. You are leaving out the planes and debris.
Crackpot science.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Let me just add once more that you cannot conclude that fire caused the collapse on the basis of not having the original steel.
Empiricism is the study of physical evidence you DO have and can successfully reproduce, not on what you don't have and cannot.
Not having the original steel is evidence for only one thing: That somebody acted with criminally by destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation. Nothing more.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwinkduck
Trying saying this from now on :
No steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire alone in history. Ever.
No steel framed buildings have ever fallen after having planes ram into them at 500mph and knocking off the fire proofing on the floors the airplanes hit. Until 9/11
No steel framed building had ever fallen due to debris from 2 110 story buildings that were on fire hitting it and collapsing several floors and starting a massive fire.
Then what youre saying is true.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You say: "No steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire alone in history. Ever."
So by your contorted reasoning no man has ever been shot by a gun because no man has ever just been shot by a in a way that is precisely enumerable.
If you insist on divulging ultimate causes for every single event literally no event is describable. No sane person could hold this view.
When we talk about physical cause we only talk about PROXIMATE causes, the only alternative is religion.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
No. Its never happened in history. According to your logic that planes didnt hit the buildings and debris never hti 7 it is not only the likely scenario but the only one that is feasible however that is not what happened. Planes did hit 1 and 2. Fire proofing did fall off. Debris did fall on 7 and set it on fire along with other buildings in the area and everything in its wake.
Nothing fell in a neat little pile.
Only people who werent here would make such a stupid ASSUMPTION.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Yes, this :"Planes did hit 1 and 2. Fire proofing did fall off. Debris did fall on 7 and set it on fire along with other buildings in the area and everything in its wake." is perfectly true and and correct.
But given that, empirical observation and physical law tells us that the buildings should not have fallen, and if they did, should not have fallen in the observed manner.
The only way to get from your description of events to the actual collapse event occurring, is CD.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
What evidence do you have that the building should not have fallen?
EVIDENCE not opinion not because you say it is. EVIDENCE. Please dont use any so called laws of science if you cant deal with the entire event as it happened just tell me what your evidence is.
There was floors collapsing in 1 & 2 before the buildings came down. Will Rodriguez reported the 65th floor of one of the 2 WTC buildings as an explosion.
lots of explosions that day...I heard no bombs.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "I heard no bombs."
Sound is not a simple phenomenon, Just because sound is a sufficient reason to suspect bombs does not make it a necessary one, because sound can be dampened.
But can you please cite me the source of your claim about Rodriguez. As far as I am aware he was in the basement and his comments were not about the 65th floor.
Did you hear the explosions in the basement during the first WTC attacks in the 1990's? Can you show me video of those explosion sounds?
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Will Rodriguez. Coming in jagpw 1.2.
Along with all those videos. in !.1 with sound.
did you see the footage around 7 yet? Look at the destruction wrought by 1&2. Look at the big ass holes in 7.
"explains all the facts in question"
Pleanes, debris...etc. Those facts? I am not leaving things out.
Lots of people heard explosions that day. Floors collapsing,bodies and debris hitting cars on the street.
It was horrible. This is a sore topic for New Yorkers. I am open minded.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut There is no need for a theory to explain the planes, what are you talking about? We know what caused the plane.
NIST did look at the damage caused by debris in WTC7 and determined that it was not structurally significant all the load bearing elements were internal anyway so a gash in the exterior is irrelevant.
Your claim of structural damage is baseless and you need to cite an actual source for the Rodriguez claim, because all the sources I know of say you are wrong.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Occams razor as you pointed out.
Simplest explination without removing factors so:
1 if you say the plane hit it but that doesnt count 2. If you say that debris hit the buildings but that doesnt count. Then you have changed the equation.
2+2=4 those If you remove 1 from the equation it is not plausible that the answer wll still be 4.
You dont like the govts story neither do I. Were at wars we shouldnt be in because of this.
CD is a red herring..
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You say: "...you have changed the equation."
I didn't say that, NIST said that. I didn't change the equation, NIST did. If you disagree with NIST then you need to back up your claims not just assert it.
On what basis do you make your claim that the plane damage or debris was significant top the collapse, there is no evidence apart from mere intuition that this was the case.
Intuitively the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Natural law tells us this is not the case.
JDMusicTuition 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut In fact there is significant positive experimental and photographic evidence that the debris did not NOT significantly impact the supporting architecture of the buildings.
But even if I were to grant you THAT, other buildings which DID suffer significant structural damage from debris (i.e. Banker's trust) did not collapse. There is no real basis for your idea that falling debris would destroy a building in that way, it is just an intuition with no basis in fact.
JDMusicTuition 9 months ago
@darkwing sockpuppet
Debris did not destroy the building by itself. Neither did the fire. They both played a role. You are inventing straw men.
You dont grant me that...sorry. That happened. and the only reason you are refusing to acknowledge that debris affected the structure is because your defending a position and using word play.
You claim that Nist says the debris did not play a role in the collapse.
I asked you if that was your claim or theirs...well i looked. Its yours.
fail.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut I think you will find that a sockpuppet is an alternate account used to pretend that SOMEONE ELSE is supporting your views. I just have two accounts that I sometimes forget which one I'm on, I never pretended to be someone else.
You obviously have a problem with definitions because you have a whole dictionary of bizarre incorrect definitions of things like "significance" in your head. Many of these things have technical definitions with conditions that need to be satisfied.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Incidentally, speaking of poor abused Occam, Russel's formulation of the razor shows you clearly why you must reject the fire-induced-collapse-hypothesis (FICH), I quote him: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities"
The FICH relies on repeatedly asserting what we don't know, again and again. The CD hypothesis relies on the well attested to empirical knowledge that thermite/ate can do the work required.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
Not only am I a New Yorker but I was there. I have not told you at what capacity but I am enjoying your assumptions about the event.
You need to investigate those things on your own..without the pan on your stove that is.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
no, no man has been shot by a man hes been shot by a man with a gun he is hot by the bullet with your logic.
You had to try to word that differently because you were going to make my point for me.
Its already been made.
Next let me tell you that I am finishing my 911 video. I hope you enjoy the footage.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Your story is wrong "man has been shot by a man hes been shot by a man with a gun he is hot by the bullet with your logic"
You logic is that a man points a gun at another man and the shot goes off, and then the other man dies then the gun killed the man... even if the other man is in another city and no bullet hit him.
You are citing two events which are unrelated. High-rise fires do not start High-rise collapses, whether the fires were caused by debris or a guy with a lighter.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
according to Occam's razor your controlled demolition theory is the least plausible here. Would require bombs to be in a building where there was going to be a fire. THe bombs would have to placed in a way that wouldn't be affected and wouldnt go off before the building was supposed to collapse.
unless of course your a no planer.
Then it makes sense why you keep trying to sneak the planes and debris out of the equation. Your thinking is not scientific its cutlic youre a follower
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut May I just add that you are , without doubt, the densest debunker I have ever come across. If this is really the best team Bush can come up with I think it may be time to throw in the towel.
You aren't even trying, just raving like a mad person.
Come on, you have to ATTEMPT to appear sane at least, otherwise it takes all the challenge out.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwing
I am the demest what? What does demest mean? Did you mean dumbest? I am not a "debunker" I am just a guy who listened to your circular arguments and point out the flaws in them.
If someone of your shining intellect calls me the demest whatever....I wear it as a badge of honor because obviously youre a retard.
No physical evidence that the fire proofing fell of?
How about those steel beams bending?
You think your important enough for anyone to pay me to do this? ROFL!?
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZhugeNaut If you are going to attack me on my choice of words at least check that you have the right words so you don't prove my point by reading wrong like this this: "I am the demest what? What does demest mean? Did you mean dumbest?"
If you check back you will notice the word I used was actually "densest" as in "most dense".
"No physical evidence that the fire proofing fell of?" Nope, not a smidge, it is an assumption based on an unrepresentative test.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut If you are going to misquote at least try not to do it in a way that proves my point. I said "densest" as in "most dense", not "demest" as you seem to think.
Occam's razor doesn't say choose the simplest theory as you debunkers appear to have convinced yourselves, it says:
Choose the simplest theory that EXPLAINS ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION!
The fire induced collapse theory does not explain all the facts in question. It isn't a simplest theory of anything, it is just wrong.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwingduck
Do you remember what you said the inside 7 could not have collapsed first...mostly because you say so but you told me what the effects would be if something like that were true.
1 windows would break, 2 the exterior walls would collapse because they were not meant to hold themselves up.
You were absolutely right. That is exactly as it happened. You can see the whole collapse in that video.
Watch as it goes from the penthouse to the right.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You say: " Watch as it goes from the penthouse to the right."
Watch again, you will that the exterior remains intact AFTER the penthouse has disappeared. The exterior is not load bearing, so the fact that it is intact at this point means that the load bearing elements were intact.
The only way to produce the observed the collapse sequence is to instantaneously remove a substantial portion of the load bearing elements, something that NIST knew and tried to explain away.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Darkwing
The building is still in tact when the penthouse disappears...You can actually see the inside of the building falling. Look at the top floor. You can see right trough it when the PH disappears as it moves to the right more light through the top floor.That is the start of the collapse
You can see when the collapse moves all the way over to the right the windows on that side break and then the building goes straight down. exactly as you said it would Now you disagree with yourself?
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@Darkwing
So what youre saying is that NIST says that the debris didnt hit the building or are you saying that NIST says that the tons of debris that hit said building did not compromise the structure.
Secondly are you saying this, does Nist actually say this or are you just telling me what someone else put into the mouth of NIST.
I cant see why they would ignore the debris that put big holes in the buildings and started the fire.
What page in their report do you get this info?
Ive never read it
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut I'm not ignoring the debris, it did start the fire after all.
But if I something is determined to be insignificant then it is perfectly appropriate, indeed it is logically required, to ignore that detail for the purposes of the problem.
If I ask you 1 +1 + (some number too small to be significant to the outcome of this equation) = ?
You are saying the answer is 4, not even 3, because you add two insignificant facts as though they were significant.
The answer is 2. WTC7 was a CD.
JDMusicTuition 9 months ago
@JDMusicTuition
Are you kidding me? This is the kind of loughner like logic that is required to have such a distorted view of reality.
This is my final response to you...for obvious reasons.
1+1+ Some number too small to be significant to the outcome?
MATH DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. QUACKERY DOES.
1+1=2 1+1+.000000000000000001=2.000000000000000001.
If anything is removed from the equation there will be a different answer. No matter how small.
Thanks for the laughs
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut Things like this: "MATH DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. QUACKERY DOES."
You obviously have some hideously distorted view of what math is to come to that conclusion, because THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY THAT MATH WORKS.
Look up 0.999...=1 anywhere you please.
By definition 2 = 2 + (something which does not significantly alter the value of 2 within the relevant reference framework)
That is significance MEANS. For Pete's sake, look it up already.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut While you are at the library looking up the simple definition of key technical terms, look up the term "Pataphysics".
That is the method you are advocating, the method of imaginary solutions.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Duh
Only you say that the debris, and the planes did not affect the buildings.
Only you do. NOT NIST
NIST claims the debris and fires both played a role. If you want to say you BELIEVE that the building was not affected by debris that is fine but that is just a guess on your part. It has nothing to do with observation of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
STEVEN "JESUS IN AMERICA" Jones says debris did not play a role not NIST not ASCE, not SFPE not SEAoNY not CTBUH only you, your word play mentor do.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut You don't know your own side of the argument and are making up positions for NIST that they don't have.
Playing a role is vastly different from playing a different role.
Thermite/explosives is a known attested to method for producing building collapses of this nature and can be reproduced experimentally. Gravity/fire driven collapse is highly speculative psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo with no empirical support, validating a predetermined conclusion.
Easter bunny indeed.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse? According to who? Considering NOT ONE Demolitions Expert IN THE WORLD thinks WTC 1 or 2 were demo'd....and only ONE thinks WTC 7 was demo'ed (after being shown the bullshit Loose Change footage and not the whole footage of the south facade)....pray tell who? It is not used to demo any building of significant size. In fact it's only regular use is militarilly to take out artillery or keep our tech from enemy hand
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 It is known and attested that thermite can do the work required to do a demolition. What more do you want?
Would you say that just because no one had used an atom bomb in anger before or since the two in WWII that nuclear weapons do not make good weapons?
That's just crazy-talk.
Explosive demolition of buildings is not the only, or indeed the most common way of doing it. The banker's trust building on the same site was demolished bit by bit over a number of years for example.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You claim: "Considering NOT ONE Demolitions Expert IN THE WORLD thinks WTC 1 or 2 were demo'd"
To which I respond: Source please.
You are confusing publicly stating belief with belief. If someone publicly stated that they believe that the buildings were not demo'd (the best case scenario for your claim), it still only amounts to evidence for, rather than proof of, the claim that they believe the buildings were demo'd in fact.
Simply put - Your argument is bullsh*t.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter I can play the "source please" game too.
"thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse" SOURCE PLEASE? Or shut the fuck up? Simply put - YOUR argument is bullshit. Danny Jowenko, the PRIZE of the truth movement in demolitions has said numerous times that he doesn't believe 1 and 2 were demo'ed but 7 was. I'd say that's pretty sufficient. The evidence supports the NIST model. It does NOT support CD. Get a clue.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You say: "thermite is a known attested method to producing building collapse" SOURCE PLEASE?.
First off, that is a misquote, refer to my actual comment a couple of spots down.
Here is the source for my claim: /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Danny Jowenko? I never cited him.
"The evidence supports the NIST model."?? You kidding?
There is no physical empirical evidence to support NIST, the only evidence is contained in a source code which was not made public "in the interests of public safety".
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter youtube videos are NOT sources. You want to talk about empirical evidence and then post a YOUTUBE vid? Seriously?
So the popular mechanics model that nearly matched NIST's without their source and came to the same conclusion doesn't count either? Or Structure magazines?
Don't post a video from youtube as a source. Post a source from a respected demolitions site, structural journal, etc. And don't even think about posting anything from that sham Journal for 911 studies.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 I will take a YouTube video of a reproducible empirical experiment over a model based on a computer simulation where neither the simulation nor the inputs have been made public.
I can model consubstantiation in computer too using these parameters, doesn't make it real in any usual sense, sorry to tell you.
Haha! You are seriously trying to take us back to the dark ages: "Who are going to believe, your caring honest government sponsored scientific study or your own lying eyes?"
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
rustylopez.typepad . com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html
You're owned. Put your efforts into something more worthwhile. There was no inside job. The "fire can't melt steel" argument is wrong. It can, and does, all the time. "Molten steel" was not seen (nor tested) do you know what a simile is? There were 100's of other metals in that building to produce the "molten metal" effect.
2million kg of aluminum on the facade clading alone
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Haha! You really are an dolt if you think that "debunks" me. Of course fire can melt steel you nitwit. Of course steel weakens and softens in a fire!
What, did you only just now figure this out?
That doesn't prove what you want it to prove and it is known that in the fires observed this cannot have been as dramatic or significant. The mechanism to initiate the collapse proposed by NIST was thermal expansion. Your "debunking" debunks your own theory.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter The video posted said, and I quote "Fire can't melt steel". You used that video as your proof. And now you're turning to ad-hominem because you know you're busted. This started with your bullshit therm*te claims. You've been measured, and found wanting.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 The steel in your video was not molten, steel starts softening like this about halfway to its melting point.
Office and open air jet fuel fires cannot melt steel, that's right.
Fire can.
See the difference?
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Quick turnaround in tone there buddy. 1) not my video, 2) never said there was molten steel, in fact denied that "truther" claim as the only "molten" substance was more than likely aluminum, however it was never tested so that can't be determined.
Fact: a relatively fully fueled 767 smashed into each tower at near 500 mph causing massive structural damage and igniting a raging fire that burned unimpeded.
"office and open air jet fuel fire" is meaningless, it was neither
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 This: "Fact: a relatively fully fueled 767 smashed into each tower at near 500 mph causing massive structural damage and igniting a raging fire that burned unimpeded."...is not a fact.
There is no evidence for this "raging inferno" you imagine to have taken place and Irfanoglu and Hoffmann calculated (and published a study that was central to the NIST report) that the damage from the plane impact was irrelevant.
Even so, a raging office fire cannot melt steel.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter temperatures of over 800 degrees celsius are just small then I guess huh?
tms . org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Why do you keep saying the "melt steel" argument...get over it. Your "truth" is flawed.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 There is nothing wrong with Eager's analysis as far as I can can see.
Except in that there was in fact molten steel at the WTC site, as several independent sources of evidence confirms.
So the fact that the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel does not mean the steel was not molten, it means that SOMETHING ELSE MUST HAVE MELTED THE STEEL.
What could that be? Lemmessee...
Are you sure you are not a truther because you seem to be making a very good truther argument.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@Oz1976 In your IMAGINATION it was a raging steel melting inferno, in reality there is no reason to suppose it was other than it fit in with your political inclinations.
In your IMAGINATION the structural damage was hugely significant, but in reality at the temperatures required to soften the steel sufficiently to have failure occur the amount of damage was irrelevant, the same outcome would have been expected had there been no plane.
Reality>Your imagination.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Not imagination, facts. Nice strawman there buddy. Political inclinations? Bush and Co were the most inept administration this country has ever had and yet you claim they're the masterminds of the most elaborate conspiracy ever. Bush was the "dumbest" president we ever had too right? So which is it? Imbocile or Evil Genius?
The fact you discount the structural damage proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The design of the WTC relied on the (cont...)
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 However, note that the theory of fire-proofing being knocked off has never been properly tested.
The only test being the "shotgun" test, while the main fireproofing of interest to us would have been the gypsum surrounding the core.
To suggest that the wall board was knocked off by the impact on the non-damaged core columns is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter right...unsubstantiated...so I guess the testimony of the survivors that traversed the stairwells saying that drywall was littering the stairs, that they litterally had to climb through and over it in sections isn't evidence that it as well was dislodged. I love truthers...cherry pick some more.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Of course some of the drywall would be littering the place, it was knocked of the columns that were destroyed.
The question is whether it was knocked off a significant portion of the REMAINING columns, columns which (if you look at the failure mode) were not in the path of the plane debris.
DarkwingScooter 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter so since you believe it was a controlled demo...explain the some 40 stories of core that can be seen still standing for a few moments after the outter skin and floors of WTC 1 had come down. If it was a CD, as the "truthers" claim (especially since they claim the core was charged) why was it the last thing to come down?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You need to get your facts straight mate. 40 floors worth of core were not still standing after the rest of the building collapsed. A few columns from the core, totaling a few floors, remained standing after the collapse but collapsed themselves within a few moments.
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Ahlywog No, it's you that needs to get there facts straight my friend.
youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
Stop the video at :40 and look closely in the dust. You will see a good portion of core columns still intact, and standing till about :49 and they are CLEARLY higher than WTC 7 which is to the left on the screen (47 stories tall). So you're right in a sence, it wasn't 40, it was more like 55-60 stories of core still intact after the rest of the building had crashed past. NOT CD!
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You're right, that was my bad. I posted then thought about if for a few minutes and went to actually check it out. Again, my bad.
That doesn't disprove CD though. All it shows is that the bottom half of the building wasn't necessarily demoed. In response I provide this: watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
Destroy the top and let it crush the bottom.
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Ahlywog
youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o explosiveless demo's that prove what happened to the Twin Towers is possible without therm*te/explosives soely on the damage done to the impact zones.
Gravity is a bitch. David Chandler is wrong. Ask him why he will only "publish" in the Journal for 9/11 studies. It is NOT a peer reviewed journal, no matter how they shine it. The Editor is Steven Jones FFS. Ask him why he won't publish in a respected scientific journal if he's got so much proof?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 I'm sorry but that video does not prove that what happened the twin towers can be done without explosives. There is a reason the explosiveless demolitions are initiated at the middle of the building and not above. Newtons third law of motion says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any force a falling section of building applies to whatever is beneath it is also applied to the falling section but in the opposite direction.
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Oz1976 So say the upper 10 floors of a building collapse onto the 100 floors below it. For every floor the falling section destroys beneath it and equal amount of damage would be inflicted to the falling section. So the energy required for 10 floors of falling building to destroy the 10 floors beneath it would destroy the falling 10 floors which is what you see here: watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o&playnext=1&list=PL1AE887B5492D35E4
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Oz1976 In a 110 story building it would take the top 55 stories to destroy the 55 stories beneath it. That's why I used that example in the first place in response to the spire. Demo the top half of the building and let it fall and crush whats beneath it.
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Ahlywog That's what we call a "logical fallacy". It's been scientifically proven that the portions of both WTC towers above the impact zones contained enough Kinetic Energy that when paired with the collapse initiation, gravity, and transfer of momentum, had more than enough energy to crush each building. There was no demolition, I'm sorry.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Proven by whom? All the kinetic energy in the building was generated BY gravity, not in conjunction with it. That's why free falling objects do not fall faster than gravitation acceleration.
See now that's funny. A "logical fallacy" would be providing a link to explosiveless demolitions in which buildings are destroyed by collapsing the center floors and allowing the top 50% of the building to crush the bottom 50% then arguing that 20-25% can crush 80-85%. THAT'S funny.
Ahlywog 9 months ago
@Ahlywog the %25 grows, the %80-85 that you describe doesn't simply disappear, it is added to the %25. so one second later it's %35 destroying the other %65, then 5 seconds later its %70 (minus airborne dust) destroying the rest of the %30. simple. Physics is often counter-intuitive and it's not easy for everyone.
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct Clearly it's not easy for everyone. Look at the Verinage demolitions. It takes a section of building of size X to crush a section of building of size X. Even then there will be no measurable span of free-fall in the collapse as there is in all 3 buildings.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog you're link is completely irrelevant because there was no controlled demolition on 911, perhaps you recall the airplanes that crashed into them. think about this rhetorical question...did the airplanes have anything at all to do with the collapse? you have to admit NO. so now here you are disregarding the impacts and wondering for 10 years how the buildings could have possibly fallen...geee i wonder! and yes i agree with your agreeance that physics isn't easy for everyone, was my Major.
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct Airplanes account for the collapse of the buildings, not the total destruction. In that regard you have 17-20% of damaged structure crushing 80-83% of undamaged, progressively stronger structure. The verinage demolitions are very much relevant. They show exactly what I'm talking about. They show that it takes X amount of floors to crush X amount of floors otherwise they could start the collapse at the top of the building instead of the middle.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog so u don't deny that it appears to work either way-ur interpretation is that the WTC was somehow magically rigged for controlled demo by terrorists or "the gov" (congress? military? DMV workers?) to fulfill an agenda that had nothing at all to do with 2 towers somewhere in NY...right. here's my interpretation-there is no suspicous physical indicators because there was no CD and u know exactly y WTC fell. ask the verinage crew if WTC was a CD...911 Truth: Ask Questions, Ignore Answers
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct No I do not know exactly why the towers fell. I know planes crashed into them. I know there were fires. The buildings survived the impact of the planes and there is no evidence that the fires were sufficient to do the job. I know hundreds of witnesses, including FDNY and PDNY, reported massive explosions throughout the buildings before the collapse. I find it amazing that, for a "astrophysicist" with a degree in physics you seem to avoid debating the physics of the situation.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog because you're not talking about physics anymore, you never have. i'll never understand truther physics. you absorbed this ideology that ther MUST be something wrong physically with this situation. we've searched and studied for 10 years now nothing has turned up- not one shred!
you can obsess and post all you want it doesn't change the physical laws of the universe, it doesn't change 911, and it doesn't change any of the facts that everybody (except for truthers) seems to be privy to.
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct And what does "was my major" mean? I would assume that if you graduated with your degree in physics you would say "I have my BS in physics." Otherwise I'm left to assume you either didn't finish college or you changed your major. Either way, saying it WAS your major means nothing. You could have been a junior for a day and have HAD a major. You could have been majoring in astrophysics for a day and tell people "Astrophysics was my major." It doesn't make you an astrophysicist.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog I studied Astrophysics for 3 terms in college, made presidents list each term with a 4.0 and graduated with honors with a degree in physical sciences for my work in physics and astrophysics/2nd year Astronomy, was offered a summer internship to study the "magneto-hydro-thermodynamics" of forming protostellar discs and was paid (not enough) to do it straight out of college. I am currently a paid astrophysics research fellow at the dept of Physics. I am an Astrophysicist. damn lucky guess
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct Then none of what I'm saying should be Greek. You should understand that the free-fall of an object through another object of similar or greater mass is impossible. Hell, constant acceleration of any degree through an object of similar or greater mass impossible. This is undergrad physics. And yet there is measurable free fall in all 3 buildings, free fall NIST admits too in at least building 7.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Alywg thanks for your polite response, i suspected u might flip and call me a liar. Listen i know about how suspicious 9/11 is and the physical aspects have definately been worth the decade of consideration but the fact is that a Demo can not cause us to see what we saw on that day. CD can't do things that gravity can't. nobody fashioned rockets to the top of WTC to drive it down 2.5 sec "too fast". you've overestimated the resistance those puny little floors offer. focus on political aspects
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct I try to keep things civil. I'm not here to insult people. Nothing is gained from name calling. Demo in a traditional sense might not account for what we see, but a natural gravitational collapse cannot either. You know as well as I that free fall is impossible through resistance. The floors might not offer much resistance but the core and perimeter structures most certainly would have, and free fall is present in the collapse of all three buildings.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlg but whose to say that the core also fell immediately, the footage doesn't allow for precision measurements and the dust obscures so much that it's impossible to tell (too bad no IR camera's DURING collapse) when exactly the exterior finally strikes the ground (debris fell FASTER than the collapse because debris truly is in free fall), vibration energy travels faster than free fall. also can't tell 4 how long the core stands though i remember the whole thing cracking over. AC kicked WTC ass
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct Additionally an object accelerating at free fall weighs less than the same object at rest. You can't have it both ways. It's either accelerating or its crushing through resistance. Newtons laws of motion and the laws of conservation of energy are pretty clear in this regards. This is why 10 or 20% of a building cannot crush the 80 to 90% below it.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ag u guys are under the impression that we insist that the physical laws of the universe were broken on that day, that's not what we're saying at all. I'm saying that newtons laws were followed exactly as expected which is clearly why %30 of the building knocked loose and absorbed floor after floor in a cascading collapse that ripped apart the building at a rate consistent with what newtons laws would predict. it's almost as if truthers opine for free-fall, they love it! free fall=Bush did it?
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct Free fall means it wasn't a fire/damage induced collapse. You cannot have free fall through resistance. If you actually had a degree in physics you would know that. This is why I don't bother calling people liars, they tend to prove it themselves. And I certainly hope you're not referring to the pancake theory which even NIST says is incorrect.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog you assume i didn't know that, you've put words in my mouth have you not? tha'ts quite a falsehood coming from a "truth"er and coming from a guy who "doesn't exactly know why the towers fell" i don't find your perceptions of events and people to be of any interest. thanks for the exchange and good luck with "the truth".
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct No no. I KNOW you didn't know that. I highly doubt you have any of the credentials you claim. Claiming a degree in physics then explaining that gravitational free fall of one object through another with equal or greater mass is perfectly in line with Newtons laws of motion... We're talking high school physics here. Grade school physics. I doubt you've stepped into a college for any reason beyond cleaning it.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Ahlywog okay that's great, calling me a janitor. i thought you weren't in here to insult i thought you were here to lecture and inform all the sheeple stupid enough to believe that the AC had anything at all to do with the impossible progressive collapse. when i was a kid my dad always took me to the bike track, the lead biker absorbs the air resistance while the rest ride the draft (like following closely behind a semi truck) interior debris is drafting towards ground, makes it easier to fall
admiralct 8 months ago
@admiralct That's it? That's all you have? A running 4.0 and a degree in physics and you're going to liken the collapse of a building to bikers in a race? Interior debris still has to impact what's below it. You're still not going to get free fall. Ever. We're not talking wind resistance. We're talking about a section of building falling through another section that, moments before, had completely supported it.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@admiralct A better example would be cyclists in a race, forming a specific pattern in their placement, impacting a stationary formation of cyclists in a similar or denser formation.
Ahlywog 8 months ago
@Oz1976 So if the falling sections of building had greater potential energy than what is provided by gravity...I'd like to know where that extra energy came from. Otherwise 100% of the buildings potential energy comes from gravity.
So the first 60 seconds in the Verinage compilation. 15 story building. Floors 8 and 9 are collapsed allowing floors 10-15 to crush floors 2-7. 6 floors crush 6 floors. floor 1 is otherwise intact. Huh. That Newton guy sure knew his stuff....
Ahlywog 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkwingScooter so since you believe it was a controlled demo...explain the some 40 stories of core that can be seen still standing for a few moments after the outter skin and floors of WTC 1 had come down. If it was a CD, as the "truthers" claim (especially since they claim the core was charged) why was it the last thing to come down?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@DarkwingScooter tube in tube + truss system to manage the load. The reality is, both collapses were a result of the damage AND the fire. The fire could not have started without the damage. The impact blowing the fire proofing off the steel contributed to it's vulnerability. No impact, no loss of fireproofing. You're wrong, and have served again. My reality > your strawman.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Irfanoglu and Hofmann's strawman you mean?
You are just making stuff up.
The fire-proofing loss may be a partially successful explanation of the initiation, I will grant you, but it fails to account for the uniformity of the onset.