@proudfootz Yawn. You are the same as Creationists who search for gaps in the fossil record as if tiny anomalies in the official account prove your pretty-damn-far-fetched alternative. If 9/11 was an inside job it would require thousands of people to keep it secret. How come no one has let it slip? Maybe because it didn't frigging happen! How could the US govt plan all of this to enable the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? they couldn't even predict the recession! You're just paranoid.
Making a false comparison between me and someone else doesn't save Penn's invalid arguments from being unpersuasive. Nothing 'paranoid' about pointing out the lack of rationality by television performers.
All your rhetorical questions do not constitute an argument.
You just said a firefighter who arrived during the emergency "arrived after it was all over". Yeah, 'cause you know - plane one hits and that's it. Go home, folks, it's over. Not like the actual attack and incident afterwards lasted hours or anything. No. Not at all.
The guy showed up later. He says the dust was settling when he arrived. He's not a witness to what happened. He has no special powers to tell him what happened.
@proudfootz Yeah, 'cause the buildings collapsed instantly and then the dust settled. Not like they stood for a while and then fell. Not like firefighters who responded after hearing of the attack were still in the towers later when they came down or anything.
Light your house on fire. Call the fire brigade. See if any of them or the fire investigators have an idea or two about what caused it despite not being there when the fire began.
Here's what I hear you saying throughout this series:
"What is your proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?"
All the positive evidence that's needed is that the planes were hijacked ("Two Planes From Logan..."), that wreckage was found (LC tells a Boolean lie here; there are photos), and that reasonably similar impacts were found/seen. After this, the burden of proof is on "truthers," so Penn & Teller do not need to PRESENT evidence, only REVIEW contrary evidence.
When it comes to 9/11 theories, if it were this easy to prove it wrong...we'd have done it already. Its been 10 years, no solid evidence for CD or anything of the sort was found. If it were we'd all be hanging the bush administration by now...but we aren't. By the looks of things we aren't going to anytime soon so I suggest we either get over it and move on or start doing research that isn't bias. The bias being "gubba-mint is bad", yes i hate the govt too but lets use logic.
The problem is no proper investigation was ever conducted. The various fire-did-it theories relating to the destruction of the skyscrapers at WTC have never had any solid evidence - yet we're expected to accept them on the say-so of people who have a history of lying to us at every opportunity.
It sounds like you need to get over your own bias regarding investigating 9/11 - it's about discovering the truth and not about hanging Bush or 'gubbamint is bad'.
@proudfootz "no proper investigation was ever conducted". Hm. I guess those investigations and research papers you quote are not "proper". You heard the dude, nothing he quotes is proper and no investigation has ever been done--he has nothing to show us. Move along.
@proudfootz So... your standpoint is based on nothing. You can't point to anything in support of your argument, there's nothing in the world you can show someone to prove anything, and there's no reason to believe anything you say.
Why do you even make videos? Lol.
You can't even offer anything *against* the truth of the matter. Go ahead, show me proof the events didn't happen how they are accepted to have. I'll wait. Oh wait, you CAN'T.
a more convincing explanation doesn't mean its the right explanation..... and its the internet are u rlly gonna trust ppl online to back up evidence on the interwebz? and why is it so hard to believe that some hateful people just flew the planes into the buildings?
You're correct - a 'more convincing' explanation isn't necessarily a true one. That's why any conclusions we make should be tentative pending the discovery of further evidence.
Penn's tirade is about people who he claims don't back up their arguments. Shouldn't he back up his own?
But the book Penn attacks does cite evidence - even the ad promoting the book lists facts which support its thesis. So Penn flat out lied about that.
As for why it is difficult for many to believe what happened on 9/11 was just 'some hateful people' who hijacked jets, there are many facts which relate to 9/11 which seem to indicate there is much more involved - suspicious stock activity, fore-knowledge of the attacks, links between the alleged hijackers and Western intelligence and military, suspicious lack of interest in stopping the attacks, the unprecedented destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, whitewash investigation...
did you even watch this vid? steel dont melt at the possible temps in the towers what more proof do you want!look it up, i dont know who, why ,whatever, planes did not bring down buildings made to withstand bigger planes impacts.
I'm sorry but why do you think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Lack of evidence? Do some research such as I did and find the answer. Osama Bin Laden did it. It is true. He planned it out and it happened. But thanks for making a mockery of the people who died. And I am sure that everyone is stupid except you. BTW I would take that fireman's word over yours any day of the week.
I don't see why wanting a thorough investigation of what happened on 9/11 is a 'mockery' of the people murderd that day, or the many thousands murdered since then in the name of The War Against Terror.
Of course it is the evidence which prompts millions of people to doubt the official story put out by all the organs of government propaganda.
Why do clowns like Penn and Teller make a mockery of seeking justice for 9/11?
Bin Laden not in a position to issue stand down orders to US military on 9/11, nor in a position to coordinate the cover-up by people in US government.
So no, justice has not been served by the extra-judicial murder of Bin Laden.
@proudfootz For one FUCK you my dads' best friend and close friend of mine died in that incident and good job avoiding rangers' initial question but most of all you assume that any person involved in the 911 "conspiracy" doesn't feel guilt over killing such a large number of people To me it's just unbelievable I don't care if the goal of this "conspiracy" is to get all people to transcend into godhood if I killed such a huge number of people I would admit it. Just writing this made me draw tears
Don't be mad at me - it's Penn who ridicules investigating your Dad's friend's murder. I'm all for bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Ordinary people are likely to feel guilt - but the kind of people who murder for a living (like some of our CIA guys and their allies) aren't likely to go sobbing down the street about all the innocent people they've killed.
Because they do kill people - all over the world. But we don't hear much about it.
@proudfootz If it's just a lie than give me some evidence that doesn't require an expert in construction or ballistics Give me something that shows the government did it, not how debris files or the corruption in the bush administration show me what any average joe can see that me and apparently millions of people can,t see because our ability to detect that something is a lie is so outmatched by your all seeing unmatched cunning, please.
@proudfootz For one your point is conceded in error penn wasn't fighting an investigation he was fighting conspiracies and yes it has been thrown around that the government did intercept messages about the attack but didn't do anything about it thinking it was false I'm inclined to believe that than "everyone you trust to protect educate and feed you is a killer because I say so" you need me to think that everyone that is in politics period is a heartless asshole either way you cop your own tude
My attitude is one geared toward following the evidence.
Why should Penn be 'fighting conspiracies' when he apparently doesn't have enough interest in the topic to know that his own claims don't stand up to scrutiny?
Penn was out to make a few bucks off the tragedy and rile up some people like a typical right-wing demagogue.
I don't need you to think anything - I'm just pointing up Penn's hypocrisy.
Hah! Oh God I love the butthurt retards who go to any length to save face when their bullshit conspiracy theories are blown wide open. There's a word for that: delusional. Although, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're misinformed and too biased to do any research on opposing views and evidence or accept evidence when it's presented... wait, that's still delusion.
the symmetric collapse , the war games (and lies), the insurance pay off on the buildings and the absence of any Airplane remains at the Pentagon are stuff P&T failed to address
i do however believe that Penn is so emotionally in love with Atheism and the image of America he carries as an entertainer - that he finds his position too sexy to be wrong
Watergate? It wasn't a break-in to a psychiatrist's office.
Penn can't account for things like American massacres like No Gun Ri during the Korean War - involved hundreds (maybe thousands) and kept off headlines for 50 years.
Conspiracies *can* be kept secret. Penn just parades his ignorance when he talkls like that - but I guess that's 'sexy' in the rightwing circles he travels in.
i doubt if he travels in right wing circles - he is a self confessed libertarian which puts him far right in his views on small government and far left when it comes to personal liberties
@proudfootz SHUT THE FUCKING HELL UP. we people of the world know that 9/11 happen by extremist. And conspiracy theories should not be even called theories but instead call hypothesis. DUMB ASS
and ooone more thing. If your government is able to do this. They sure as hell would be able to stop youtubers tell the world the "so called truth". Removing them from existence..! Atleast their movies. So, scary stuff you are on to brother. Then! Good hunting!
It's true people in the government are afraid of youtubers and bloggers. Look at the hysterical reaction to WikiLeaks. Rather than pursue the criminals whose evil-doing is revealed, they attack the whistle-blowers who simply tell the truth.
Or the insane recommendations of influential people like Cass Sunstein who want to spy on people who dissent from government pronouncements. They're paranoid.
Those who live in denial of this reality have deep psychological problems.
You did not own em. This suck. And paranoid people like you suck. Try and make more people paranoid like you.
Are you aware of how much money went down the sink after this? Of your American money? You suck. You suck. And this is me owning you. After my opinion of course.
I'd say it was a pretty good owning when after three years not a single person has been able to defend Penn's piss poor hatchet job.
Are you aware of how much money was made off of the 9/11 terror attacks? Billions upon billions. Plus a license for gov't agencies to do whatever they like to citizens of this country: spy on them, arrest them, detain them without trial, and target them for assassination.
Not about paranoia - this is about being aware of one's surroundings.
@proudfootz You guys lost billions as well... As did other country's supporting you... So maybe you got a dollar in profit? Wooo'hey! Do you think you live in a evil empire killing their own. Yes you are paranoid. Making facts based upon "you wanting" them to be facts? Yes you are paranoid. I will agree to say that the two individuals from that Penn & Teller episode supporting your theories were nut heads. But who are you to say the rest ain't? The fireman was for sure not a nut head. He knew.
Paranoia would be unwarranted fear. Like imagining we are in danger from Muslim terrorists.
I haven't 'made up' any facts. Nor do I avoid them like that crank Penn does. Apparently paying attention to facts makes someone a 'nut' in your eyes. Sorry you're so afraid of the world you won't open up your eyes and ears.
How did this fireman allegedly know anything whether people in our government were complicit in the WTC attacks? He doesn't. Penn just used this man's pain.
This fireman is not an expert on terrorism, or demolitions, or anything related to what happened on 9/11. He watched it on TV and arrived on the scene when the dust was thick on the ground. So he's not even technically a witness.
That Penn would be so cynical as to use this man's anguish as an emotional 'argument' just shows his intellectual bankruptcy.
@proudfootz No. I am not afraid of the world.. Wrong. You make Penn seem like a devil something that make you more afraid of the world than me. Someone who are skeptic of something want to be proven wrong. So if you are skeptic of your government you should do exactly that. And don't judge it with "skepticism" because the real answers you should be looking for are there. Don't listen to some dumb youtube videos for answers when the answers are already there. So please do that. Use logic.
I have been using logic, and showing how Penn's performance proves nothing but his desperation to attack 9/11 skeptics. That Penn simply lies his way through his presentation, and other invalid modes of argument, shows Penn has little confidence that he can persuade anyone using legitimate means.
@proudfootz Well that would be a lie. Penn does all this using science and solid information from well know and respected doctors and such. I really don't care about your next reply either. You fill the roll of being paranoid. And you live in denial. Thinking all around you is evil and willing to destroy your and your fellow Country-men. Penn don't give a rat ass as much as u do about the whole thing. So give up about it.. Yes firemen learn all about demolitions and such - related to WTC. fail.
You claim that Penn uses 'science and solid information' yet are unable to point to any in his presentation.
Clearly Penn doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth concerning the mass murder of thousands of his fellow citizens. But he does seem very afraid other people might care, so he makes his video filled with lies and misdirection.
Of course you don't care about my reply. You are living in denial and nothing will shift you from your belligerant attitude.
@proudfootz People always want greater meaning in life, and if they don't find it they make it. Things are never as insane as you would want them to be. Conspiracy theories are like ghost story's. It would be insane if they were true*cool in some people eyes* - not mine. Not saying yours either. But you always come to see that it was all a whole lot more simple that what you were told. Some people hunt for ghost. Some people don't. Accept the idea that some think this is ridiculous'n Some don't.
I don't want things to be insane - that is why I fight for truth and justice.
Apparently it gives Penn and some of his fans pleasure to denounce other people even when they have no rational basis for their ranting. I know there are people like this, I meet them all the time.
Despite what you may want me to believe, things are not always simple - especially when it comes to human behavior.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
Glad you admit Bush's relatives were 'coincidentally' involved in WTC security. Like Jeb declared martial law in Florida 4 days before 9/11.
Where's the evidence of the cause of this alleged buckling? Fire tests showed that floor joists could never pull on columns, so clearly the cause isn't fire.
Adding a few more fails to your record? Going for the Gold?
I conceded nothing. I asked you a question - you have refused to answer.
NYPD helicopter video footage. Where have you been the last ten years? IN A CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN?
What does martial law (LIE) in FL have to do with 911 in NYC?
Floor joists "pulling on the columns? Now I know you're not an engineer. That make no sense. Floor joists don't pull, they collapse. The connections would fail.
"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records."
Then the guy ducks out just before the fireworks. Coincidence?
How does video from a helicopter show the cause of bowing columns? It doesn't. You fail. Again.
Florida Executive Order No. 01-261. Another coincidence involving the Bush family?
Unfortunately your claims are contradicted by the facts:
I did mention Bush ducked out shortly before the fireworks.
"Securacom received a contract to provide electronic security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract ended on the 11th of September 2001."
"Securacom received a contract to provide electronic security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract ended on the 11th of September 2001."
The facts are against your false claims. You failed.
Yes, Securacom was involved in WTC security - just like the twoofers say. And Bush was part of the company - just like they said. You were wrong all along.
You've failed. Again.
Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77 and she doesn't know when she's beat.
I have shown where you made false claims - but you haven't shown my information is wrong or that I've lied.
"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records."
5:30 to 5:50 made me sick to my stomach. The man was a firefighter who was at the scene (an eye witness obviously). You're practically insulting the man. You are disguisting. We owe more respect to people like that, grow up.
What is disgusting is penn trotting out this fellow as if he 'knows' all about 9/11. No doubt the man was traumatized by what happened, but his appearance does nothing to refute the evidence Penn dodges.
@proudfootz I think an eyewitness firefighter, another firefighter who edits en engineering magazine (has the education which qualifies him to do so), and a psychologist are pretty refutable. (Though indeed not hard evidence) BTW steel loses 50% of its strength at approximatley 650 degrees celsius (90% at 800) I am however glad you made a well thought out answer in such a quick time, however you WERE absolutley out of line on the fireman.
I'm sorry if it seems I have something against the fireman. But Penn just used the guy to get an emotional reaction. He had nothing to add as far as evidence about who might be responsible for what happened that day.
Actually the psychologist's point is good - when we are offered an inadequate 'explanation' we tend to look deeper for something that does a better job accounting for the facts.
BTW - no steel is known to have reached above 250C in the fires.
While I may agree with you, don't make videos that say "[I] OWNED..."...it really isn't for you to decide if you owned someone or not, rather the viewers.
It's also for people who don't like trolls polluting their channel with idiotic remarks.
I have no problem letting intelligent people participate - unfortunately there's a lot of people full of hate who just like to wreck anything anyone else tries to accomplish.
@proudfootz still freedom of speech is the best thing since french fries and we should be grateful to have them both. have u ever wondered why muslims fail so much? NOT only in their religion,but as human beings as well. check muslim youtube videos. If i told u to find 10 of them with comments enabled,it would take u about 3 hours (watching the video also). This is what religion fears most
we should know better.no1 can wreck solid logic with a comment. only doctrine-logic is in danger
I don't censor actual *arguments* from anyone who wishes to engage in actual debate. As you can see from reading the hundreds of comments here and on my other videos.
I do try to weed out the mindless ad hominems and insults. I just leave enough in to give readers the flavor of the kind of 'thinking' engaged in by some of my detractors.
Many of those who complain that I'm restricying their 'freedom' don't put up videos to comment on or allow comments on their channels.
we at jesus camp believe everything george bush tells us.if george bush tells us fire can bring down a building (or 2) that must be right. wake up people,presidents dont lie
@proudfootz Example : at 3:42 steel has to be just hot enough to lose its support properties, when the towers fell, it was because the hot steel couldn't support the concrete floors and dropped. Compromise does not mean it melted. And my biggest point is that you cannot get the government to shut up, these theories have been pulled out of peoples asses with no hard evidence.
The evidence we have is that no steel reached temperatures sufficient to lose even 1% of its strength. So people who say 'the hot steel couldn't support the floors' are the ones pulling stuff from their asses with no hard evidence.
@proudfootz 1% my ass, your kidding right, the steel did not have to melt it just had to get really hot from the fire that was clear to see during 9/11, and you expect me to believe that steel from the fire didn't lose 1% of its strength? Im not an asshole that will believe anything Unlike you
@proudfootz "There was a conspiracy involved in the terror atacts on 9/11." That quote, straight from you. what is the conspiracy huh? you said clearly there was a conspiracy so what is it
@proudfootz I believe that on september 11th, 2001 we were attacked by terrorists who hijacked planes and flew them into the world trade center and the pentagon.
@proudfootz Your using the wrong definition of a conspiracy, The government KNEW what happened and its not a coincidence that the planes were hijacked. It was a plan by al qaeda terrorists to crush the spirit of the greatest nation on earth.
There's just the one definition we're concerned with: a plot by several people to carry out an action. Gov't says Bin Laden conspired to attack US. That is a conspiracy theory.
Evidence indicates many people in US gov't KNEW what would happen before it did. That indicates they may have been 'in on it' since they did nothing to stop it or warn others.
@proudfootz "There was a conspiracy involved in the terror atacts on 9/11." That quote, straight from you. what is the conspiracy huh? you said clearly there was a conspiracy so what is it
Belief implies a leaf of faith, evolution is proven and can be observed it is not a belief it is knowledge. Their is plenty of evidence explaining how those buildings could have collapsed, but some choose not to believe that evidence. Their is plenty of evidence of the world being round, but some choose not to belive that. Dont get confused between belief and knowledge, one exists in your head and the other exists.
@proudfootz Executioners would receive a large amount of psychosis due to their job. That was usually just a few people. This was an incredibly huge terror act with the deaths of 3000 people, plus lives in the war. If you've seen those videos of people jumping out the towers windows, you should feel incredibly disturbed, and if you were actually responsible for their deaths, it would extremely likely you would get psychosis.
A huge margin of the government must've planned this, right?
Yes, many people were murdered because of the Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/Yemen. Many of the troops assigned to carry out these tasks are suffering psychologically (aside from the outright deaths and maimings).
IMO anyone capable of planning such a terror act would already be psychotic and unlikely to undergo a major change because their plans came to fruition.
How many people would have to be involved? I don't think it need be a 'huge margin' of people in government.
Since a large margin MUST have planned this, a "large margin" should be suffering from psychosis. Including the president. Unless of course he was "trained to not succumb to psychosis!" but that excuse doesn't mix with the whole "Bush was a dumbass."
No doubt Bush has been psychotic for some time - so the theme that he would be attacked by his conscience for being a lying tool of the powers behind him doesn't wash.
No evidence has been put forward that shows that a 'large margin MUST have planned' 9/11 if it was a false-flag terror act. By "large margin'' I assume you mean over 50%. Absurd.
In intelligence and military matters people follow orders from a few. Look at the torture scandal - orders from the top & no consequences.
There is some evidence that points to the possible reality that most politicians, especially successful politicians, are psychopaths. It's the nature of politics. Dishonesty, mis-information, and infidelity, all with little or no moral weight attached fir the perpetrator. Those are the traits of a psychopath. Or shall I say the traits of a successful politician.
And conversely the people responsible and honest enough to have that kind of power over others and use it correctly, or at least attempt to use it correctly, typically don't have a strong desire or drive to possess it. And so the trend continues just like it always has.
You seem to have a fundamental misconception of the correlation between temperature and the strength of a material. As a materials engineering student, I can tell you with complete certainty that indeed, temperature will weaken a material, especially a metal. Those numbers aren't just "made up" as you imply, those numbers are empirical and have been observed by people who are, quite frankly, much more intelligent than you.
What I am objecting to are those people who say that the structural steel reached temperatures equal to the gas temperatures of the fires rather than acknowledging that the steel temperature is another story.
NIST recovered samples from the fire zone and the highest temps (on only three samples) was 250C - at which the steel loses about 0% of its strength.
So it's true many would-be debunkers just make stuff up because the facts don't support the official story.
I can't even take you seriously when you think there's no difference between the temperature of the *fire* and the temperature reached by the *steel*.
Tests conducted on the steel by NIST shows it reached temps at most in the range of 250C.
Does the law of 'thermal equilibrium' somehow make the evidence produced by NIST invalid?
Did you know the tip of a lit cigarette can reach 700C? Why doesn't it melt a frying pan or ashtray?
As any engineer should know, it takes *time* for fire to heat steel. Based on the evidence, it appears there was not sufficient time and exposure for the fires to heat the steel.
Anything else I can teach you to complete your education?
Are you denying thermal equilibrium? Are you denying the fact that the fire within the buildings could reach a significant temperature that if applied to steel under normal circumstances would significantly weaken it? If thermal equilibrium is true, and if the fact that the fires must have reached a high temperature is true, therefore the thermal energy that was created by the fire was transmitted to the steel.
Honestly, I don't understand your argument against the rational explanation. You admit that thermal equilibrium is a true phenomenon, and you agree that steel would weaken if applied under the same circumstances as has been claimed. Your only argument against this is that someone claimed that the temperature wasn't as high as the fire.
I'm not opposing any rational explanation - I am pointing out facts which mitigate against the false story spread around by official propaganda sources.
The 'someone who claimed the temperatures weren't as high as the fires' was NIST. Never heard of them?
But because you admit that there were fires, and you believe in thermal equilibrium, therefore you must admit that the steel was the same temperature as the fire, and subsequently was weakened to the point where it, under the circumstances, was compromised.
But you, even when presented with all of your contradictions, will still refute this and come up with some false data because you are so stuck in your paranoid view of this event that you are incapable of thinking rationally.
The problem with merely citing 'thermal equilibrium' as 'proof' of the steel's temperature is the fact that it takes *time* for this phenomenon to occur. The evidence we have (actual samples of WTC from the 9/11 fires) is that the steel only had time to get to 250C at most, which is hotter than room temp, but not hot enough to compromise its strength.
Even when confronted with the facts you stick to your irrational and unsupported claims. How sad for you.
1. Yes, you would-be debunkers making up 'facts' just goes to show you haven't got any real confidence in your claims.
2. You could have saved us both time by not pretending to be an 'engineer' and some kind of expert on what happened at WTC when you have apparently no familiarity with the issues.
Not really, but if it helps you sleep at night go right ahead and persist in your paranoid delusion.
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. However, I do like how you never respond to any of my explanations, and instead change the subject to something irrelevant, you have never once given me any scrap of proof, and when presented with an explanation, you don't take the time to understand what was explained you just throw some more pseudo-science at it to try to make it go away.
I've responded to everything you posted. It seems you're rather paranoid about being ignored.
I can understand why you condemn NIST as 'pseudo-science', but they are the pre-eminent organization dealing with these issues. You act as if you've never heard of them.
The only 'explanation' you offered was a passing remark about 'thermal equilibrium', but clearly you don't understand it. I showed how the temp of the steel did rise due to the fires - up to 250C from ~20C.
Also, your cigarette example proves your ignorance.
There is such a thing as energy, the amount of energy that it would take to turn an ashtray from a solid to a liquid is substantially higher than anything the cigarette can produce.
And yes, it takes time for the steel under those circumstances to be heated, and considering how those towers were standing for a few hours before they collapsed, there was plenty of time for the fires to weaken them.
Your best bet is to delete this and save yourself from embarrassment...if you had any knowledge about building materials, they were not pulling numbers out their ass...make a model of the world trade center about 5 ft high and use a scale steel structure. Use a burner at about 600C and watch it began to warp and collapse after time just as the real ones did. A explosion would not do this considering only force could damage them and if you did say explosions did destroy the steel then how did
All we know is that at the *real* WTC the fires were unable to heat the steel sufficient to weaken them even 1%.
Even under extreme test conditions at UL they were unable to produce a sag of more than a few inches, and thus disproved the theory about the trusses 'pulling in' the exterior columns.
P&T should have done a show about all the BS in the 'official story'.
Not only that, but if you're going to start refuting scientific data, why stop at the strength of a material in correlation to temperature? Why not say that the acceleration due to gravity is false? Why not change the speed of light? Why not change Avogadro's number, or Plank's constant?
The thing is, everything in science has been peer reviewed and proved, nothing is just "made up." If you were a more intelligent person, you would understand that all of these have been scientifically verified.
If you were a more intelligent person you would investigate the facts before simply swallowing propaganda put out by government agencies.
It was Bazant who decided Newton's Laws were not applicable to WTC, and NIST repeated his blunder. Clearly the need to come up with some explanation was more important than discovering the truth about what happened at WTC.
when we fought the russians, we forgot to stick around and cleanup afterwards. we also are a bit responsible for all the crazy shit going on in the "city of peace." this made some religious fanatics furious. they flew airplanes into the wtc. the government isn't evil, just wrong about a lot of things.
The only thing wrong with this theory of yours is that the accused hijackers were clearly not very religious. There's clearly a motivational problem for these non-fanatical people to want to kill themselves for 'the cause'.
Really want to spread "the truth"? Become a host of a famous TV show and learn to develop sarcasm and humor skills, that way, maybe people will start to take you seriously. Until that happens, your awkwardly strange and creepy way of "debunking" Penn Jillette on YouTube is just that: some guy with weird speech patterns who either scares people away from their channel or creates an open invite for mockery. Thank God for YouTube, where else could I laugh at ridiculous videos like this? Over & out!
proudfootz, Penn is mocking these "skeptics" for a reason, they are all either, a drunk in a bar, a guy who staples his book by hand and drinks water from a vodka bottle or some crazy like Jimmy Walter. Michael Richards engaged in hate speech, Penn is laughing at the idea that people take a book called "Painful Questions" seriously. Again, develop some social skills and a world of opportunity will open! I gave no factual rebuttal for everyone before me has already tried that.
proudfootz, When Penn says to push 9/11 Truthers down a flight of stairs, he is demonstrating something called "sarcasm", maybe if you develop some social skills you might recognize that! If you are so confident in your claims, why screen all of the comments before you post them with your response instantly afterward? Afraid to have an open forum on this subject? I see many dont take you seriously. With videos on "Laws against Atheists" by some guy with really strange mannerisms, I can see why!
You owned no one but yourself. You are just demonstrating their points about the conspiracy theorist mindset.
razoodocks 1 month ago
@razoodocks
No, I just showed how Penn resorts to fallacious arguments and outright lies.
Why is it would-be debunkers can't take an honest approach?
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Yawn. You are the same as Creationists who search for gaps in the fossil record as if tiny anomalies in the official account prove your pretty-damn-far-fetched alternative. If 9/11 was an inside job it would require thousands of people to keep it secret. How come no one has let it slip? Maybe because it didn't frigging happen! How could the US govt plan all of this to enable the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? they couldn't even predict the recession! You're just paranoid.
razoodocks 1 month ago
@razoodocks
Making a false comparison between me and someone else doesn't save Penn's invalid arguments from being unpersuasive. Nothing 'paranoid' about pointing out the lack of rationality by television performers.
All your rhetorical questions do not constitute an argument.
proudfootz 1 month ago
You just said a firefighter who arrived during the emergency "arrived after it was all over". Yeah, 'cause you know - plane one hits and that's it. Go home, folks, it's over. Not like the actual attack and incident afterwards lasted hours or anything. No. Not at all.
AstronautJ 1 month ago
@AstronautJ
The guy showed up later. He says the dust was settling when he arrived. He's not a witness to what happened. He has no special powers to tell him what happened.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Yeah, 'cause the buildings collapsed instantly and then the dust settled. Not like they stood for a while and then fell. Not like firefighters who responded after hearing of the attack were still in the towers later when they came down or anything.
Light your house on fire. Call the fire brigade. See if any of them or the fire investigators have an idea or two about what caused it despite not being there when the fire began.
AstronautJ 1 month ago
@AstronautJ
This guy wasn't in the buildings during the collapse.
He has no 'special magical powers' to know what happened.
Penn says this guy 'knows' something - shouldn't he prove it instead of just *say* so?
proudfootz 1 month ago
Here's what I hear you saying throughout this series:
"What is your proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?"
All the positive evidence that's needed is that the planes were hijacked ("Two Planes From Logan..."), that wreckage was found (LC tells a Boolean lie here; there are photos), and that reasonably similar impacts were found/seen. After this, the burden of proof is on "truthers," so Penn & Teller do not need to PRESENT evidence, only REVIEW contrary evidence.
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta
Penn's 'contrary evidence' doesn't amount to much.
The BS video segment concentrates mostly on shouting shrill insults and misleading his viewers.
proudfootz 4 months ago
When it comes to 9/11 theories, if it were this easy to prove it wrong...we'd have done it already. Its been 10 years, no solid evidence for CD or anything of the sort was found. If it were we'd all be hanging the bush administration by now...but we aren't. By the looks of things we aren't going to anytime soon so I suggest we either get over it and move on or start doing research that isn't bias. The bias being "gubba-mint is bad", yes i hate the govt too but lets use logic.
JamesGanderPeek 6 months ago
@JamesGanderPeek
The problem is no proper investigation was ever conducted. The various fire-did-it theories relating to the destruction of the skyscrapers at WTC have never had any solid evidence - yet we're expected to accept them on the say-so of people who have a history of lying to us at every opportunity.
It sounds like you need to get over your own bias regarding investigating 9/11 - it's about discovering the truth and not about hanging Bush or 'gubbamint is bad'.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz "no proper investigation was ever conducted". Hm. I guess those investigations and research papers you quote are not "proper". You heard the dude, nothing he quotes is proper and no investigation has ever been done--he has nothing to show us. Move along.
AstronautJ 1 month ago
@AstronautJ
Sadly most of the evidence was destroyed.
Impossible to conduct much of an investigation without evidence.
Except in Penn & Teller la-la land.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Ah. So you can't show us anything to support your claims and you have no "proper investigation" to refer to.
You've got nothing.
AstronautJ 1 month ago
@AstronautJ
Of course there's no proper investigation. As everyone knows the evidence was destroyed before any investigation was underway.
So it's true, you do have nothing to offer.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz So... your standpoint is based on nothing. You can't point to anything in support of your argument, there's nothing in the world you can show someone to prove anything, and there's no reason to believe anything you say.
Why do you even make videos? Lol.
You can't even offer anything *against* the truth of the matter. Go ahead, show me proof the events didn't happen how they are accepted to have. I'll wait. Oh wait, you CAN'T.
You just failed burden of proof. Good work.
AstronautJ 1 month ago
@AstronautJ
If you paid any attention, my arguments are about Penn's fail.
I supplied plenty of support for that argument.
No further burden of proof on me, since I demonstrated what I set out to do.
proudfootz 1 month ago
a more convincing explanation doesn't mean its the right explanation..... and its the internet are u rlly gonna trust ppl online to back up evidence on the interwebz? and why is it so hard to believe that some hateful people just flew the planes into the buildings?
shitpickle1128 7 months ago
@shitpickle1128
You're correct - a 'more convincing' explanation isn't necessarily a true one. That's why any conclusions we make should be tentative pending the discovery of further evidence.
Penn's tirade is about people who he claims don't back up their arguments. Shouldn't he back up his own?
But the book Penn attacks does cite evidence - even the ad promoting the book lists facts which support its thesis. So Penn flat out lied about that.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@shitpickle1128
As for why it is difficult for many to believe what happened on 9/11 was just 'some hateful people' who hijacked jets, there are many facts which relate to 9/11 which seem to indicate there is much more involved - suspicious stock activity, fore-knowledge of the attacks, links between the alleged hijackers and Western intelligence and military, suspicious lack of interest in stopping the attacks, the unprecedented destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, whitewash investigation...
proudfootz 7 months ago
@shitpickle1128
did you even watch this vid? steel dont melt at the possible temps in the towers what more proof do you want!look it up, i dont know who, why ,whatever, planes did not bring down buildings made to withstand bigger planes impacts.
1andycody 5 months ago
I'm sorry but why do you think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Lack of evidence? Do some research such as I did and find the answer. Osama Bin Laden did it. It is true. He planned it out and it happened. But thanks for making a mockery of the people who died. And I am sure that everyone is stupid except you. BTW I would take that fireman's word over yours any day of the week.
rangers94ism 8 months ago
@rangers94ism
I don't see why wanting a thorough investigation of what happened on 9/11 is a 'mockery' of the people murderd that day, or the many thousands murdered since then in the name of The War Against Terror.
Of course it is the evidence which prompts millions of people to doubt the official story put out by all the organs of government propaganda.
Why do clowns like Penn and Teller make a mockery of seeking justice for 9/11?
proudfootz 8 months ago
@proudfootz But justice was served. We killed Bin Laden. Thats it. Now lets move on.
rangers94ism 8 months ago
@rangers94ism
Bin Laden not in a position to issue stand down orders to US military on 9/11, nor in a position to coordinate the cover-up by people in US government.
So no, justice has not been served by the extra-judicial murder of Bin Laden.
proudfootz 8 months ago
@proudfootz For one FUCK you my dads' best friend and close friend of mine died in that incident and good job avoiding rangers' initial question but most of all you assume that any person involved in the 911 "conspiracy" doesn't feel guilt over killing such a large number of people To me it's just unbelievable I don't care if the goal of this "conspiracy" is to get all people to transcend into godhood if I killed such a huge number of people I would admit it. Just writing this made me draw tears
Hunkisthecoolest 7 months ago
@Hunkisthecoolest
Don't be mad at me - it's Penn who ridicules investigating your Dad's friend's murder. I'm all for bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Ordinary people are likely to feel guilt - but the kind of people who murder for a living (like some of our CIA guys and their allies) aren't likely to go sobbing down the street about all the innocent people they've killed.
Because they do kill people - all over the world. But we don't hear much about it.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz If it's just a lie than give me some evidence that doesn't require an expert in construction or ballistics Give me something that shows the government did it, not how debris files or the corruption in the bush administration show me what any average joe can see that me and apparently millions of people can,t see because our ability to detect that something is a lie is so outmatched by your all seeing unmatched cunning, please.
Hunkisthecoolest 7 months ago
@Hunkisthecoolest
There probably isn't anything so cut and dried that will satisfy you.
On the other hand millions do see evidence that suggests the story we've been sold is full of holes.
Guys like Penn think 9/11 shouldn't be investigated.
Honoring the memory of the victims requires a little more than copping an attitude.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz For one your point is conceded in error penn wasn't fighting an investigation he was fighting conspiracies and yes it has been thrown around that the government did intercept messages about the attack but didn't do anything about it thinking it was false I'm inclined to believe that than "everyone you trust to protect educate and feed you is a killer because I say so" you need me to think that everyone that is in politics period is a heartless asshole either way you cop your own tude
Hunkisthecoolest 7 months ago
@Hunkisthecoolest
My attitude is one geared toward following the evidence.
Why should Penn be 'fighting conspiracies' when he apparently doesn't have enough interest in the topic to know that his own claims don't stand up to scrutiny?
Penn was out to make a few bucks off the tragedy and rile up some people like a typical right-wing demagogue.
I don't need you to think anything - I'm just pointing up Penn's hypocrisy.
proudfootz 7 months ago
1:15 Um... Are you saying the world is not a sphere?
JoeTheLion188 9 months ago
@JoeTheLion188
Not at all.
It's just pointing out that P&T linking 9/11 skepticism to other issues is totally irrelevent.
I mean do we doubt Newton's Laws because he was an alchemist looking to transmute lead into gold? Or dismiss Copernicus because he cast horoscopes?
proudfootz 9 months ago
@proudfootz Oh! Ok, now I see the point you were making.
You know, that would be awesome, tho. Discrediting gravity and heliocentrism as witchcraft!
Got any dirt on Eratosthenes?
JoeTheLion188 9 months ago
@JoeTheLion188
Yes, you can see Penn's methods would work for anything:
"Look at Einstein! What a douchebag! He looks like a clown with all that frizzy hair."
proudfootz 9 months ago
You realize this was a highlights video of a half-hour show, right? Maybe you should watch that...
IoEstasCedonta 9 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta
If these were the 'highlights' that's not saying much for the program.
proudfootz 9 months ago
This video will show how wrong poeple are to doubt anything said by people demanding truth. It's long but worth every second.
Like
"9/11 In Plane Sight - Directors Cut"
Snowman374th 10 months ago
Penn and Tellers BS episode on 911 is very weak. Try the POP SCI debunking. It completely shows how wrong the loose changers are.
submetropolis 10 months ago
Hah! Oh God I love the butthurt retards who go to any length to save face when their bullshit conspiracy theories are blown wide open. There's a word for that: delusional. Although, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're misinformed and too biased to do any research on opposing views and evidence or accept evidence when it's presented... wait, that's still delusion.
Cainus44 11 months ago
@Cainus44
Good to see Penn's fans still don't get it.
Penn didn't present *any* evidence for his own wild claims.
He's hardly in a position to blow anything 'wide open' - except his mouth.
proudfootz 11 months ago
the symmetric collapse , the war games (and lies), the insurance pay off on the buildings and the absence of any Airplane remains at the Pentagon are stuff P&T failed to address
tafxkz 1 year ago
@tafxkz
yes, a classic case of 'kill the messenger' because they can't refute the message.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
i do however believe that Penn is so emotionally in love with Atheism and the image of America he carries as an entertainer - that he finds his position too sexy to be wrong
watch?v=_dbGFn3gzt8 seen this one?
tafxkz 11 months ago
@tafxkz
Watergate? It wasn't a break-in to a psychiatrist's office.
Penn can't account for things like American massacres like No Gun Ri during the Korean War - involved hundreds (maybe thousands) and kept off headlines for 50 years.
Conspiracies *can* be kept secret. Penn just parades his ignorance when he talkls like that - but I guess that's 'sexy' in the rightwing circles he travels in.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
i doubt if he travels in right wing circles - he is a self confessed libertarian which puts him far right in his views on small government and far left when it comes to personal liberties
tafxkz 11 months ago
@proudfootz SHUT THE FUCKING HELL UP. we people of the world know that 9/11 happen by extremist. And conspiracy theories should not be even called theories but instead call hypothesis. DUMB ASS
ebteam96 1 year ago
@ebteam96
Your calm and careful arguments are very persuasive - NOT!
Most people suspect the US government's conspiracy theory is false.
proudfootz 1 year ago
and ooone more thing. If your government is able to do this. They sure as hell would be able to stop youtubers tell the world the "so called truth". Removing them from existence..! Atleast their movies. So, scary stuff you are on to brother. Then! Good hunting!
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
It's true people in the government are afraid of youtubers and bloggers. Look at the hysterical reaction to WikiLeaks. Rather than pursue the criminals whose evil-doing is revealed, they attack the whistle-blowers who simply tell the truth.
Or the insane recommendations of influential people like Cass Sunstein who want to spy on people who dissent from government pronouncements. They're paranoid.
Those who live in denial of this reality have deep psychological problems.
proudfootz 1 year ago
And by the way it is a common fact to know that extreme heat can melt metal.... :P
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
Of course extreme heat can melt steel.
But there was no extreme heat at WTC due to office fires.
You fail.
Again.
proudfootz 1 year ago
You did not own em. This suck. And paranoid people like you suck. Try and make more people paranoid like you.
Are you aware of how much money went down the sink after this? Of your American money? You suck. You suck. And this is me owning you. After my opinion of course.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
I'd say it was a pretty good owning when after three years not a single person has been able to defend Penn's piss poor hatchet job.
Are you aware of how much money was made off of the 9/11 terror attacks? Billions upon billions. Plus a license for gov't agencies to do whatever they like to citizens of this country: spy on them, arrest them, detain them without trial, and target them for assassination.
Not about paranoia - this is about being aware of one's surroundings.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz You guys lost billions as well... As did other country's supporting you... So maybe you got a dollar in profit? Wooo'hey! Do you think you live in a evil empire killing their own. Yes you are paranoid. Making facts based upon "you wanting" them to be facts? Yes you are paranoid. I will agree to say that the two individuals from that Penn & Teller episode supporting your theories were nut heads. But who are you to say the rest ain't? The fireman was for sure not a nut head. He knew.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
Paranoia would be unwarranted fear. Like imagining we are in danger from Muslim terrorists.
I haven't 'made up' any facts. Nor do I avoid them like that crank Penn does. Apparently paying attention to facts makes someone a 'nut' in your eyes. Sorry you're so afraid of the world you won't open up your eyes and ears.
How did this fireman allegedly know anything whether people in our government were complicit in the WTC attacks? He doesn't. Penn just used this man's pain.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz and that fireman knew what he was talking about. He is a fireman...! They learn all this.... You obviously don't.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
This fireman is not an expert on terrorism, or demolitions, or anything related to what happened on 9/11. He watched it on TV and arrived on the scene when the dust was thick on the ground. So he's not even technically a witness.
That Penn would be so cynical as to use this man's anguish as an emotional 'argument' just shows his intellectual bankruptcy.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz No. I am not afraid of the world.. Wrong. You make Penn seem like a devil something that make you more afraid of the world than me. Someone who are skeptic of something want to be proven wrong. So if you are skeptic of your government you should do exactly that. And don't judge it with "skepticism" because the real answers you should be looking for are there. Don't listen to some dumb youtube videos for answers when the answers are already there. So please do that. Use logic.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
I have been using logic, and showing how Penn's performance proves nothing but his desperation to attack 9/11 skeptics. That Penn simply lies his way through his presentation, and other invalid modes of argument, shows Penn has little confidence that he can persuade anyone using legitimate means.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Well that would be a lie. Penn does all this using science and solid information from well know and respected doctors and such. I really don't care about your next reply either. You fill the roll of being paranoid. And you live in denial. Thinking all around you is evil and willing to destroy your and your fellow Country-men. Penn don't give a rat ass as much as u do about the whole thing. So give up about it.. Yes firemen learn all about demolitions and such - related to WTC. fail.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
You claim that Penn uses 'science and solid information' yet are unable to point to any in his presentation.
Clearly Penn doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth concerning the mass murder of thousands of his fellow citizens. But he does seem very afraid other people might care, so he makes his video filled with lies and misdirection.
Of course you don't care about my reply. You are living in denial and nothing will shift you from your belligerant attitude.
You fail.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz People always want greater meaning in life, and if they don't find it they make it. Things are never as insane as you would want them to be. Conspiracy theories are like ghost story's. It would be insane if they were true*cool in some people eyes* - not mine. Not saying yours either. But you always come to see that it was all a whole lot more simple that what you were told. Some people hunt for ghost. Some people don't. Accept the idea that some think this is ridiculous'n Some don't.
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
@Norwayflex89
I don't want things to be insane - that is why I fight for truth and justice.
Apparently it gives Penn and some of his fans pleasure to denounce other people even when they have no rational basis for their ranting. I know there are people like this, I meet them all the time.
Despite what you may want me to believe, things are not always simple - especially when it comes to human behavior.
proudfootz 1 year ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Glad you admit Bush's relatives were 'coincidentally' involved in WTC security. Like Jeb declared martial law in Florida 4 days before 9/11.
Where's the evidence of the cause of this alleged buckling? Fire tests showed that floor joists could never pull on columns, so clearly the cause isn't fire.
Adding a few more fails to your record? Going for the Gold?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
I conceded nothing. I asked you a question - you have refused to answer.
NYPD helicopter video footage. Where have you been the last ten years? IN A CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN?
What does martial law (LIE) in FL have to do with 911 in NYC?
Floor joists "pulling on the columns? Now I know you're not an engineer. That make no sense. Floor joists don't pull, they collapse. The connections would fail.
You should do some research on WTC construction.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records."
Then the guy ducks out just before the fireworks. Coincidence?
How does video from a helicopter show the cause of bowing columns? It doesn't. You fail. Again.
Florida Executive Order No. 01-261. Another coincidence involving the Bush family?
ctcole77 = LIAR
proudfootz 1 year ago
First off Marvin Bush stopped working for Securecom in the summer of 2000, over year BEFORE 911.
Second of all, Securecom ONLY had a subcontract to update WTC security in 1998, three years BEFORE 911.
And lastly Securecomwas NEVER in charge of WTC security. The Port Authority has ALWAYS been in charge of WTC security.
proudfootz DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Unfortunately your claims are contradicted by the facts:
I did mention Bush ducked out shortly before the fireworks.
"Securacom received a contract to provide electronic security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract ended on the 11th of September 2001."
You failed again.
Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77. Again.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
So you agree that Marvin Bush had nothing to do with WTC security.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Bush worked for Securacom.
"Securacom received a contract to provide electronic security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract ended on the 11th of September 2001."
The facts are against your false claims. You failed.
Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77. Again.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
No, the contract was to UPGRADE security services. The contracted was TERMINATED on 911 becasue there was no building sherlock.
And Bush stopped working for Securecom OVER ONE YEAR BEFORE 911.
And lastly Securecomwas NEVER in charge of WTC security. The Port Authority has ALWAYS been in charge of WTC security.
proudfootz DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Yes, Securacom was involved in WTC security - just like the twoofers say. And Bush was part of the company - just like they said. You were wrong all along.
You've failed. Again.
Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77 and she doesn't know when she's beat.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Again LIAR. Bush didn't work there and Securecom only did upgrades.
What part of "The Port Authority has ALWAYS been in charge of WTC security" don't you understand?
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
I have shown where you made false claims - but you haven't shown my information is wrong or that I've lied.
"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records."
This is the fact you can't get around.
You've lost on this point, like all the others.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz So yeah. Good hunting!:)
Norwayflex89 1 year ago
5:30 to 5:50 made me sick to my stomach. The man was a firefighter who was at the scene (an eye witness obviously). You're practically insulting the man. You are disguisting. We owe more respect to people like that, grow up.
MrOsmosis914 1 year ago
@MrOsmosis914
What is disgusting is penn trotting out this fellow as if he 'knows' all about 9/11. No doubt the man was traumatized by what happened, but his appearance does nothing to refute the evidence Penn dodges.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I think an eyewitness firefighter, another firefighter who edits en engineering magazine (has the education which qualifies him to do so), and a psychologist are pretty refutable. (Though indeed not hard evidence) BTW steel loses 50% of its strength at approximatley 650 degrees celsius (90% at 800) I am however glad you made a well thought out answer in such a quick time, however you WERE absolutley out of line on the fireman.
MrOsmosis914 1 year ago
@MrOsmosis914
I'm sorry if it seems I have something against the fireman. But Penn just used the guy to get an emotional reaction. He had nothing to add as far as evidence about who might be responsible for what happened that day.
Actually the psychologist's point is good - when we are offered an inadequate 'explanation' we tend to look deeper for something that does a better job accounting for the facts.
BTW - no steel is known to have reached above 250C in the fires.
proudfootz 1 year ago
While I may agree with you, don't make videos that say "[I] OWNED..."...it really isn't for you to decide if you owned someone or not, rather the viewers.
NoFaceNowThatsAce 1 year ago
@NoFaceNowThatsAce
Thanks for the tip.
proudfootz 1 year ago
why the fuck do u use comment pending approval ....
this option is only for retarded and christian people who don't like freedom of speech
Samura1gamer 1 year ago
@Samura1gamer
It's also for people who don't like trolls polluting their channel with idiotic remarks.
I have no problem letting intelligent people participate - unfortunately there's a lot of people full of hate who just like to wreck anything anyone else tries to accomplish.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz still freedom of speech is the best thing since french fries and we should be grateful to have them both. have u ever wondered why muslims fail so much? NOT only in their religion,but as human beings as well. check muslim youtube videos. If i told u to find 10 of them with comments enabled,it would take u about 3 hours (watching the video also). This is what religion fears most
we should know better.no1 can wreck solid logic with a comment. only doctrine-logic is in danger
Samura1gamer 1 year ago
@Samura1gamer
I don't censor actual *arguments* from anyone who wishes to engage in actual debate. As you can see from reading the hundreds of comments here and on my other videos.
I do try to weed out the mindless ad hominems and insults. I just leave enough in to give readers the flavor of the kind of 'thinking' engaged in by some of my detractors.
Many of those who complain that I'm restricying their 'freedom' don't put up videos to comment on or allow comments on their channels.
proudfootz 1 year ago
we at jesus camp believe everything george bush tells us.if george bush tells us fire can bring down a building (or 2) that must be right. wake up people,presidents dont lie
Samura1gamer 1 year ago
Wow. You're a loon.
GodlessAndHappy1 1 year ago
@GodlessAndHappy1
Even if that's true, Penn's presentation is still garbage.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz You are obviously a skeptic, so what do you think is a real conspiracy? The JFK assasination, moon landing, what?
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
There was a conspiracy involved in the terror atacks on 9/11.
Penn should have used some of his air time talking about the evidence either way.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Oh so i guess you have all the answers huh? what outrageous thing do you think really happened in 9/11
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
I don't claim to have all the answers. But clearly Penn offers nothing.
Why do you think he shys away from actually addressing questions regarding 9/11?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Example : at 3:42 steel has to be just hot enough to lose its support properties, when the towers fell, it was because the hot steel couldn't support the concrete floors and dropped. Compromise does not mean it melted. And my biggest point is that you cannot get the government to shut up, these theories have been pulled out of peoples asses with no hard evidence.
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
The evidence we have is that no steel reached temperatures sufficient to lose even 1% of its strength. So people who say 'the hot steel couldn't support the floors' are the ones pulling stuff from their asses with no hard evidence.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz 1% my ass, your kidding right, the steel did not have to melt it just had to get really hot from the fire that was clear to see during 9/11, and you expect me to believe that steel from the fire didn't lose 1% of its strength? Im not an asshole that will believe anything Unlike you
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
You are apparently unaware of the facts of the case.
What temperature did the steel reach? NIST found samples that got to be about 250C. Not enough to cause collapse.
Maybe you should do a little research before copping an attitude.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "There was a conspiracy involved in the terror atacts on 9/11." That quote, straight from you. what is the conspiracy huh? you said clearly there was a conspiracy so what is it
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
Most believe there was a conspiracy - are you one who thinks four jets were hijacked by coincidence?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Most people? did you do the evidence or pull that out of your ass? anyway yes i believe the planes were hijacked by terrorist's
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
So you and I agree there was a conspiracy.
Do you know anybody who thinks this wasn't planned, it was just a coincidence?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Well the terrorist had planned it, a coincidence is something that randomly happens
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
Yes, a coincidence is just random.
An act of terror involving more than one person is a conspiracy.
You believe what happened on 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I do too.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I believe that on september 11th, 2001 we were attacked by terrorists who hijacked planes and flew them into the world trade center and the pentagon.
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
Then we agree - there was a conspiracy.
The purpose of the attack was to terrorize the American people.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz No i don't believe there was a conspiracy, i believe what the government said
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
The government story is that it was a conspiracy - so if you believe whatever they say then you believe in a conspiracy.
If you don't believe there was a conspiracy then you must think it was pure coincidence that four jets were hijacked on the same morning.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Your using the wrong definition of a conspiracy, The government KNEW what happened and its not a coincidence that the planes were hijacked. It was a plan by al qaeda terrorists to crush the spirit of the greatest nation on earth.
MrOisean 1 year ago
@MrOisean
There's just the one definition we're concerned with: a plot by several people to carry out an action. Gov't says Bin Laden conspired to attack US. That is a conspiracy theory.
Evidence indicates many people in US gov't KNEW what would happen before it did. That indicates they may have been 'in on it' since they did nothing to stop it or warn others.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "There was a conspiracy involved in the terror atacts on 9/11." That quote, straight from you. what is the conspiracy huh? you said clearly there was a conspiracy so what is it
MrOisean 1 year ago
Great video! I am glad you made that rebuttal. I was infuriated when I first saw their video. It is so fucked up.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
I could never understand why a thousand people didn't already refute their garbage presentation before I did!
proudfootz 1 year ago
Belief implies a leaf of faith, evolution is proven and can be observed it is not a belief it is knowledge. Their is plenty of evidence explaining how those buildings could have collapsed, but some choose not to believe that evidence. Their is plenty of evidence of the world being round, but some choose not to belive that. Dont get confused between belief and knowledge, one exists in your head and the other exists.
BraniusBalki 1 year ago
@BraniusBalki
That is why I choose to follow the evidence.
Naturally before evolution could be proved one had to conceive of what evidence might support the theory, then go and look for that evidence.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@BraniusBalki the correct grammar is "there" like it is over there. your saying their as in possession.
starwarsfreakgeek 1 year ago
@starwarsfreakgeek
They're saying their evidence is there, but it's all been shipped away before any investigation could begin.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Good video proudfootz!! I dont know why so many dislikes, people should be skeptical theres a lot of facts which are weird, ex. Building 7 ??
burkey218 1 year ago
If the government caused 9/11, how come a large part of the "government" isn't suffering from psychosis?
Meowcow42 1 year ago
@Meowcow42
Why do you assume many people in the government aren't suffering from psychosis?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Executioners would receive a large amount of psychosis due to their job. That was usually just a few people. This was an incredibly huge terror act with the deaths of 3000 people, plus lives in the war. If you've seen those videos of people jumping out the towers windows, you should feel incredibly disturbed, and if you were actually responsible for their deaths, it would extremely likely you would get psychosis.
A huge margin of the government must've planned this, right?
Meowcow42 1 year ago
@Meowcow42
Yes, many people were murdered because of the Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/Yemen. Many of the troops assigned to carry out these tasks are suffering psychologically (aside from the outright deaths and maimings).
IMO anyone capable of planning such a terror act would already be psychotic and unlikely to undergo a major change because their plans came to fruition.
How many people would have to be involved? I don't think it need be a 'huge margin' of people in government.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Since a large margin MUST have planned this, a "large margin" should be suffering from psychosis. Including the president. Unless of course he was "trained to not succumb to psychosis!" but that excuse doesn't mix with the whole "Bush was a dumbass."
Meowcow42 1 year ago
@Meowcow42
No doubt Bush has been psychotic for some time - so the theme that he would be attacked by his conscience for being a lying tool of the powers behind him doesn't wash.
No evidence has been put forward that shows that a 'large margin MUST have planned' 9/11 if it was a false-flag terror act. By "large margin'' I assume you mean over 50%. Absurd.
In intelligence and military matters people follow orders from a few. Look at the torture scandal - orders from the top & no consequences.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@Meowcow42
There is some evidence that points to the possible reality that most politicians, especially successful politicians, are psychopaths. It's the nature of politics. Dishonesty, mis-information, and infidelity, all with little or no moral weight attached fir the perpetrator. Those are the traits of a psychopath. Or shall I say the traits of a successful politician.
tokinblckgie 1 year ago
@tokinblckgie
No doubt you are correct - it seems the character of the people who seek political power in this culture are the very people who should not have it.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
And conversely the people responsible and honest enough to have that kind of power over others and use it correctly, or at least attempt to use it correctly, typically don't have a strong desire or drive to possess it. And so the trend continues just like it always has.
tokinblckgie 1 year ago
You seem to have a fundamental misconception of the correlation between temperature and the strength of a material. As a materials engineering student, I can tell you with complete certainty that indeed, temperature will weaken a material, especially a metal. Those numbers aren't just "made up" as you imply, those numbers are empirical and have been observed by people who are, quite frankly, much more intelligent than you.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
What I am objecting to are those people who say that the structural steel reached temperatures equal to the gas temperatures of the fires rather than acknowledging that the steel temperature is another story.
NIST recovered samples from the fire zone and the highest temps (on only three samples) was 250C - at which the steel loses about 0% of its strength.
So it's true many would-be debunkers just make stuff up because the facts don't support the official story.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
See, I can't even take you seriously because you're implying that fire burns at around 250 degrees Celsius.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
I can't even take you seriously when you think there's no difference between the temperature of the *fire* and the temperature reached by the *steel*.
Tests conducted on the steel by NIST shows it reached temps at most in the range of 250C.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Does the term, "Thermal Equilibrium" mean anything to you?
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
Does the law of 'thermal equilibrium' somehow make the evidence produced by NIST invalid?
Did you know the tip of a lit cigarette can reach 700C? Why doesn't it melt a frying pan or ashtray?
As any engineer should know, it takes *time* for fire to heat steel. Based on the evidence, it appears there was not sufficient time and exposure for the fires to heat the steel.
Anything else I can teach you to complete your education?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Are you denying thermal equilibrium? Are you denying the fact that the fire within the buildings could reach a significant temperature that if applied to steel under normal circumstances would significantly weaken it? If thermal equilibrium is true, and if the fact that the fires must have reached a high temperature is true, therefore the thermal energy that was created by the fire was transmitted to the steel.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
If the steel got as hot as the fires, then NIST would have found evidence of that, don't you think?
The fact that they didn't seems to indicate that the fires didn't burn long enough to heat the steel.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Honestly, I don't understand your argument against the rational explanation. You admit that thermal equilibrium is a true phenomenon, and you agree that steel would weaken if applied under the same circumstances as has been claimed. Your only argument against this is that someone claimed that the temperature wasn't as high as the fire.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
I'm not opposing any rational explanation - I am pointing out facts which mitigate against the false story spread around by official propaganda sources.
The 'someone who claimed the temperatures weren't as high as the fires' was NIST. Never heard of them?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
But because you admit that there were fires, and you believe in thermal equilibrium, therefore you must admit that the steel was the same temperature as the fire, and subsequently was weakened to the point where it, under the circumstances, was compromised.
But you, even when presented with all of your contradictions, will still refute this and come up with some false data because you are so stuck in your paranoid view of this event that you are incapable of thinking rationally.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
The problem with merely citing 'thermal equilibrium' as 'proof' of the steel's temperature is the fact that it takes *time* for this phenomenon to occur. The evidence we have (actual samples of WTC from the 9/11 fires) is that the steel only had time to get to 250C at most, which is hotter than room temp, but not hot enough to compromise its strength.
Even when confronted with the facts you stick to your irrational and unsupported claims. How sad for you.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
1. Making up data does not mean that they are facts, let me see some peer reviewed verifiable scientific data.
2. I'm not wasting any more of my time arguing with someone who watches a plane fly into a building, and then wonders why the building collapses.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
1. Yes, you would-be debunkers making up 'facts' just goes to show you haven't got any real confidence in your claims.
2. You could have saved us both time by not pretending to be an 'engineer' and some kind of expert on what happened at WTC when you have apparently no familiarity with the issues.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Not really, but if it helps you sleep at night go right ahead and persist in your paranoid delusion.
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. However, I do like how you never respond to any of my explanations, and instead change the subject to something irrelevant, you have never once given me any scrap of proof, and when presented with an explanation, you don't take the time to understand what was explained you just throw some more pseudo-science at it to try to make it go away.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
I've responded to everything you posted. It seems you're rather paranoid about being ignored.
I can understand why you condemn NIST as 'pseudo-science', but they are the pre-eminent organization dealing with these issues. You act as if you've never heard of them.
The only 'explanation' you offered was a passing remark about 'thermal equilibrium', but clearly you don't understand it. I showed how the temp of the steel did rise due to the fires - up to 250C from ~20C.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Also, your cigarette example proves your ignorance.
There is such a thing as energy, the amount of energy that it would take to turn an ashtray from a solid to a liquid is substantially higher than anything the cigarette can produce.
And yes, it takes time for the steel under those circumstances to be heated, and considering how those towers were standing for a few hours before they collapsed, there was plenty of time for the fires to weaken them.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
You claim there was plenty of time for the fires to weaken the steel. How long before 'collapse' did the fires have to do this work?
56 minutes and 102 minutes.
Not hours, minutes.
Far less than the typical 2 hour fire rating for public buildings.
Calling the person who demonstrates a better grasp of the facts than you do 'ignorant' doesn't make you look very good.
proudfootz 1 year ago
You are very unattractive as well as inarticulate.
kreepeemann 1 year ago
@kreepeemann
"You are very unattractive "
Coming from you that's a real compliment! Have you *seen* your picture?
"as well as inarticulate"
People keep saying this and yet are unable to show where I am wrong.
Thanks for your 2 cents!
proudfootz 1 year ago
Your best bet is to delete this and save yourself from embarrassment...if you had any knowledge about building materials, they were not pulling numbers out their ass...make a model of the world trade center about 5 ft high and use a scale steel structure. Use a burner at about 600C and watch it began to warp and collapse after time just as the real ones did. A explosion would not do this considering only force could damage them and if you did say explosions did destroy the steel then how did
DrGamble28 1 year ago
@DrGamble28
All we know is that at the *real* WTC the fires were unable to heat the steel sufficient to weaken them even 1%.
Even under extreme test conditions at UL they were unable to produce a sag of more than a few inches, and thus disproved the theory about the trusses 'pulling in' the exterior columns.
P&T should have done a show about all the BS in the 'official story'.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Not only that, but if you're going to start refuting scientific data, why stop at the strength of a material in correlation to temperature? Why not say that the acceleration due to gravity is false? Why not change the speed of light? Why not change Avogadro's number, or Plank's constant?
The thing is, everything in science has been peer reviewed and proved, nothing is just "made up." If you were a more intelligent person, you would understand that all of these have been scientifically verified.
EngineerAdams 1 year ago
@EngineerAdams
If you were a more intelligent person you would investigate the facts before simply swallowing propaganda put out by government agencies.
It was Bazant who decided Newton's Laws were not applicable to WTC, and NIST repeated his blunder. Clearly the need to come up with some explanation was more important than discovering the truth about what happened at WTC.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Lol the world is a sphere...do you think it is not?
DrGamble28 1 year ago
when we fought the russians, we forgot to stick around and cleanup afterwards. we also are a bit responsible for all the crazy shit going on in the "city of peace." this made some religious fanatics furious. they flew airplanes into the wtc. the government isn't evil, just wrong about a lot of things.
ferociousflounder11 1 year ago
@ferociousflounder11
The only thing wrong with this theory of yours is that the accused hijackers were clearly not very religious. There's clearly a motivational problem for these non-fanatical people to want to kill themselves for 'the cause'.
proudfootz 1 year ago
LMAO! I didn't see it the way you did! I just watch them whenever I have a chance and get a good laugh at it.
the duo is an illusionist, and I can remember them when they exposed many magic tricks and got a lot of hate mail.
emancoy 1 year ago
goodtimepartyvan
Channel Views:1
Total Upload Views:0
Age:20
Joined:September 19, 2010
Last Visit Date:21 hours ago
Subscribers:0
Glad to know this goof joined YouTube just to visit my channel and tell me how unpopular I am. LOL!
proudfootz 1 year ago
Really want to spread "the truth"? Become a host of a famous TV show and learn to develop sarcasm and humor skills, that way, maybe people will start to take you seriously. Until that happens, your awkwardly strange and creepy way of "debunking" Penn Jillette on YouTube is just that: some guy with weird speech patterns who either scares people away from their channel or creates an open invite for mockery. Thank God for YouTube, where else could I laugh at ridiculous videos like this? Over & out!
goodtimepartyvan 1 year ago
@goodtimepartyvan
It's funny how being a person who makes sarcastic jokes is in your estimation the person who should be taken seriously.
Supposedly I 'scare people away' from my channel? And how many tens of thousands of views do *your* videos get?
Since you offer no defense of Penn I take there is none - thanks for dropping by!
proudfootz 1 year ago
proudfootz, Penn is mocking these "skeptics" for a reason, they are all either, a drunk in a bar, a guy who staples his book by hand and drinks water from a vodka bottle or some crazy like Jimmy Walter. Michael Richards engaged in hate speech, Penn is laughing at the idea that people take a book called "Painful Questions" seriously. Again, develop some social skills and a world of opportunity will open! I gave no factual rebuttal for everyone before me has already tried that.
goodtimepartyvan 1 year ago
@goodtimepartyvan
I see you're just making shit up instead of actually engaging in rational discourse.
If that's what you mean by 'social skills' I'm glad I never developed that tendency to lie my ass off whenever I don't know what I'm talking about.
Thanks for confirming yet again that would-be debunkers have nothing to offer but bad attitude.
proudfootz 1 year ago
proudfootz, When Penn says to push 9/11 Truthers down a flight of stairs, he is demonstrating something called "sarcasm", maybe if you develop some social skills you might recognize that! If you are so confident in your claims, why screen all of the comments before you post them with your response instantly afterward? Afraid to have an open forum on this subject? I see many dont take you seriously. With videos on "Laws against Atheists" by some guy with really strange mannerisms, I can see why!
goodtimepartyvan 1 year ago