Wow! If this Joe-Blow engineer could have figured out how to cut steel beams w/ self-made incendiaries, then one SHOULD wonder what a whole team of Demo-experts could conjure up! But, alas, most people have been only ingesting whatever the news media shows/tells them. Thank-U, kind sir, for making this video for the world to see & for waking people up (myself included) from the atrocities of the greedy elite. Why should the gov not want a re-investigation I wonder? Ask yourselves that people.
The only real issue I have is how is it possible to get all of that in place and set up with nobody noticing. 'Pressure pulses' lol, talk about double speak.
@biggingeryeti@biggingeryeti Bush family members were board members of the security company, which was in charge of WTC buildings security between 2000-2002. Plenty of time to place the charges and do clean up. Back then the company was called Securacom, now Stratesec. Do a search.
@TheCrazyFinn Yeah I know the connections, I know that the drug sniffer dogs were removed three (I think it was three) weeks before it happened. But controlled demolitions that I have been aware of (granted through documentaries on them) take ages and there is a shit load of equipment involved. How do you get that in and out with no one noticing? What about all the CCTV? I'm not saying it wasn't controlled demolition, I would just like an idea of how it would be planned and set up.
@biggingeryeti How about people dressed up as maintenance men, working at night? Security told to pay no mind, which would be really easy. I know that having worked as a security guard.
Planting thermate charges over a long period of time and hiding them inside the box columns would be really inconspicious.
@TheCrazyFinn Yeah I know that, getting people in and out isn't so much an issue. I mean how much would they need? How would they get all that in, where would they put the explosive and how much of it? It would be the largest demolished building ever, so I doubt it would be that simple. A lot or people would be involved in this? Ron Craig estimated that 61,000lbs of thermite/thermate would be needed. You don't sneak that sort of equipment in.
@biggingeryeti Let's say they did this over a period of one year, 365 days. 61,000lbs/365=167.123lbs(/day). Let's say they had 5 people working every day for a year. ~167lbs/5=33.4lbs. That much could be carried in, in one go, and placed within... 15 minutes?
So really, all you need is a handfull of people working for a very short time, every day for a year, making it seem like very routine maintainance process. Maybe they only worked every other day for 30 mins, but you get the picture...
@biggingeryeti You mean explosives sniffer dogs? Maybe they weren't trained to pick up thermate. Or maybe they didn't work at night. I don't really know that much about the dogs... Regardless, if you're in charge of security, I can't imagine it being very difficult to make sure the dogs are gone at the right time.
I'm not saying this is all true. I'm not saying the Government is true....but this all seems like a lot of hard work to bring these 2 buildings down. 2 Planes hit the towers and knocked out several steel columns on the outer parts of the WTC. The surviving steel columns would of had to try to support upwards of 1 Million tons of office space above the impact sites. Again, not saying the Government is right, and you are all wrong, just things don't make sense.
Good experiments, search online for the military field manual "FM 5-250 Explosives and Demolitions" pg 91 it reads: " Nickel-molybdenum steel. This type of steel cannot be cut easily by conventional steel-cutting charges. The jet from a shaped charge will penetrate it, ...... Therefore, use some method other than explosives to cut nickel-molybdenum steel, such as thermite, acetylene, or electrical cutting tools." molybdenum is the type of steel used in WTC, from what i heard.
Now watch real truth documentary called "Missing Links" (israel did 911, take attention to the names..all important security companies were jewish owned - and your judas goat won't tell you this).
@nebula25x i just read the paper like a week ago . . . and it says unreacted thermite right in the damn thing . . . a better question would be, have u read it? that and i cant seem to even find what journal its suppose to be published in . . .. 500 or 1500 . . it doesnt matter. there are literally a million architects and engineers in this country. when i see a peer reviewed paper accepted by the mainsteam, then i'll take u seriously. i dont take quacks seriously tho
@nebula25x first off, Steve jones was fired for being a wacko and as far as i have heard isnt excepted at all as being credible. the paper also doesnt have anyhtign to do with reacted thermite but it supposes that some kind of super-nano thermite was found UNreacted. this is also false. the metals found are actually rather common trace elements that are expected to be found. . . . the number of architects and engineers is actually 500 the last time i checked not 1500.
@nebula25x the molten steel has been explained and there HAS NOT been any reacted thermite found . . . sorry but if u can link me a research paper that says otherwise, i'll believe u but til then i'll continue believing the peer reviewed papers that are already out there.
the dripping "steel" looks just like dripping buring plastic to me . . . fyi, that picture of a melted iron girter looks more like it was bent . . . also, there are chamicals and elements that should be present from the thermite reaction that just wherent there. also, the test he did where he cut the metal beam is misleading. thermite burns down with gravity, not up or horizontally . . ..
What is darkly amusing about the experiment presented starting at 4:01 is that they completely undermine their contention that jet fuel could have caused the observed damage.
And they said it wasn't a "Fund Raiser"... please! If you do, your thinking is Baaa Baa Baaadly in need of a reality check... speaking of checks... cha Ching! I know, that was a SHEEP shot... moooo ving on Let me say Bravo Jonathan Cole, Bravo!
Niels Harrit found an incendiary in the dust. The independant chemist Mark Basile confirmed the thermate find. The political argument is irrecevable against a scientific one.
@stormichou93 "The political argument is irrecevable against a scientific one." I agree. However, part of the scientific process is the repilcability of results. My understanding is that there are 9/11 dust samples held at a variety of labs around the world; have Harrit and Basile's 's results been replicated anywhere else? Does everyone who has looked at their data agree with their interpretation? What genuinely peer reviewed journal has published their results? (Bentham doesn't count.)
@professorprestodigit There are so many things about 9/11 that don't seem right that I think you are splitting hairs. Why the removal and destruction of nearly all the WTC steel? It was a crime scene, and this was a criminal act in itself. As terrorists were supposedly involved why didnt NIST test for explosives? Unless you cover all angles you aren't doing a proper investigation. Just those 2 issues on their own should sow doubts in your mind over the Govt consp theory.Need new 9/11 invest
(cont.) not everyone in the world is a fan of the US or of it's foreign policies. And the evidence for the official theory is overwhelming, while the evidence for govt. consp. is, upon examination, very problematic - even if thermate could be used to cut steel. Thousands of structural engineers and others have concluded that, based on how the wtc buildings were constructed, they could very well have collapsed just the way they did. I doubt that they are all lying about it.
(cont.) they tend to fall apart. Apparantly thermate can be used to cut steel, but the holes in any cont. demo. govt. consp. theory still dwarf any holes that might be in the official theory. Hijacking 4 planes and using them as missiles is not at all implausible - nor is blaming it on someone who's said for years that he was determined to strike a blow at the U.S. for having US bases in Saudi Arabia. However you may feel about it, (cont.)
(cont.) police state, they sure did a piss-poor job of it. 5) Were the fire fighters in NY lying when they evacuated the area around WTC 7 sying they feared it would collapse? Are the folks in NIST, the ASCE, and the FDNY all murderers, morons or chickenshits? No one wants a pulitzer prize? I could go on, but it's getting late. Basically, there are lots of things which could be used to suggest controlled demolition, govt. consp. - until you look at the claims more carefully. And then (cont.)
(cont.) Though we may well be headed towards being an oligarchy, I definitely wouldn't call the U.S. a police state. For those who think we are, try going to a real one (take your pick), and start accusing the govt. of murdering 3000 of their own citizens. See how long you last. In case you hadn't noticed, people like Avery, Alex and Steven Jones, Hewett, Griffith, Gage and now Cole are all alive and well and able to say whatever they want. If the purpose of 9/11 was to bring about a (cont.)
(cont.) discredited long ago. It's a "pay to publish" one - busted for accepting an article of computer generated gibberish - if the authors were to pay the fee. (Does Cole really not know this?) Yet Jones et al have still not published their work in any LEGITIMATE peer reviewed journal - and many knowledgeable people say their evidence is quite UNDERwhelming - incl. the iron spheres. 4) If the govt did this to bring about a police state - why nothing more for ten yearrs? (cont.)
Good job showing that thermate could, in fact, be used to cut steel. That being said, however, I still doubt the govt. consp. theory for several reasons: 1) In order to invade Iraq they blame 9/11 on 19 Saudis - our allies - when they could have just as easily have blamed it on 19 Iraqis??? 2) The video misleadingly begins by talking @ melted steel as if that's part of the NIST theory. It's not - WEAKENED steel is. 3) The "peer reviewed journal" that Jones et al published in was (cont.)
I'd like to know if this engineer could make his the container for his thermite beam cutting devices out of something other than steel? Such as maybe a brick like material, or maybe a drywall kind of material? Those materials can withstand the heat, but I don't know if they wouldn't work for other reasons. But if it could be done, then those materials would mix in with other building debris very well, maybe an investigation wouldn't even find the residue of these cutting devices.
Now, IMAGINE...if this guy's putting this all together in his BACK YARD on a shoe-string budget just THINK what a government can do with unlimited FUNDING.!!
Best Video! Steven Johnes don't show any proof of how it could have work, you did, with normal thermite!I was near the towers at 9/11 and heard explosive noises, but just a few like 8sek. prior the southtower "collapse" The large deformation from the hand holes was always suspicious for me, too!You are the first that shows, it could in fakt being blown up with termite!Who are you,you must show this to the officials!
As a steelworker for 23 years, I can tell you it's impossible to melt any kind of steel with jet fuels, whether refined or crude, whether synthetic or petroleum-based.
Steel isn't melted using fuel, its a complicated process that requires highly specialized foundry processes to turn steel into pliable molten metal.
Anyone with a crude understanding of metallurgy would tell you the same.
LOL!! If jet fuel could melt metal, we'd have airplane engines melting out of their fuselages during takeoff!
@GrotesqueMACHINERY "impossible to melt any kind of steel with jet fuels" FALSE
"Steel isn't melted using fuel" FALSE
"we'd have airplane engines melting" FALSE - turbofan FLAME temperature is 2,500 deg C whereas the melting point of iron is 1540 deg C. The solution being to AIRCOOL CREEP-RESISTANT NIMONIC ALLOY STEEL. It survives this even though it's glowing a reddish hue
"out of their fuselages" NACELLES
"Anyone with a crude understanding" You haven't got THAT. Any understanding, that is.
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Fuselage,you mean wing,clearly you've never heard of controlled combustion,nor titanium,nor aluminum,nor the fact that there was more than jet fuel burning in the building.
Jet Fuel burns 3500 degrees F in the airplanes engines.
And no the process of making steel isn't complicated or highly specialized unless you think Japanese people making swords out in backyard stone fire pits is a highly specialized and complex process. LOL!!!!!
@flanksteak2 Actually Japanese swordmaking is a very complex process involving repeated folding and refoldings of the steel to make a complex crystal structure. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
@GrotesqueMACHINERY I have my doubts you are a steelworker because if you were you would know that at 1400 degrees the structual integrity of steel becomes seriously compromised, especially with a few million tonnes of concrete on it.
As for thermite, guess what it's made of? Same stuff as if an airplane smashed into a steel reinforced building
I agree with you that there is no way Jet Fuel can't melt steel but steel doesn't have to be melted to lose much of its rigidity. As a steel worker you should know that steel is much more easily malleable at higher temperatures without ever reaching melting. Add that with increased unevenly distributed pressures from a whole bunch of columns being knocked out. The horizontal steel trusses with their high surface area are much more to blame as when they get knocked out the columns can bend.
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Can you answer this for me because something doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a plane hitting a building at 500 mph weaken the steel that was damaged? Wasn't an important part of its sturdiness of the 2 WTC towers? The planes took out several steel columns....which would have forced the remaining steel that was standing to try to hold up the remaining ~100,000 to One Million tons that was above the impact sites? I'm asking questions, just like everyone else.
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Can you answer this for me because something doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a plane hitting a building at 500 mph weaken the steel that was damaged? Wasn't an important part of its sturdiness of the 2 WTC towers? The planes took out several steel columns....which would have forced the remaining steel that was standing to try to hold up the remaining ~100,000 to One Million tons that was above the impact sites? I'm asking questions, just like everyone else.
The 1945 trinity test destroyed the tower in which the bomb was placed. Can you investigate if nuclear weapons were used to bring down the towers, Mr. Cole?
The only thing motivating me to write ANYTHING is an irritation with people so obviously going down a wrong path, causing distress to themselves and others as a natural by-product
There was more than sufficient energy in those two planes to ENSURE the demise of the towers
@beachcomber2008 If there was sufficient energy in the planes to bring the buildings down, they would have fallen in ten minutes. That they did not shows there was not enough energy--particularly when you factor in pulverization of concrete, near-freefall acceleration, and hot dust clouds.
The calcs of an anonymous internet poster are not worth my time.
@punxsutawneybarney Then U need instruction in all these things I have so consumed my time writing about, for U are merely constructing an argument by incredulity from ignorance
20,000 gallons of kerosine, even if half of it blew up, exceeds my imagination in terms of the AMOUNT of damage it can inflict
& the half that blew up BLEW AWAY the insulation, and there'd be about 1 hour before sufficient steel had softened, in a typical semi-enclosed space supplied with 50' of draft, - a MUFFLE FURNACE
@beachcomber2008 Had the kerosene blown up, the building would have fallen immediately. Don't you know the difference between a fireball and an explosion? My argument is not incredulity from ignorance. My argument is that NIST has dishonestly ignored the most baffling mysteries of the towers' failure, we need new investigations, and the ingenious explanations invented by anonymous internet posters are not sufficient.
@punxsutawneybarney And what exploded was a kerosine MIST - the sort you WOULD get if you instantaneously chopped two fuel-laden wings into 2ft sections at 565mph
The military use the same technology with their lovely fuel/air bombs
watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4
Tell me how this DOESN'T appear to be a fuel/air explosion
Also clock the wave vortices attached to the impact point
I hope we're not getting to the part where you say there's NO WAY
@beachcomber2008 If the kerosene exploding was even remotely possible, NIST would have claimed that it exploded. They did not and it did not. You're making stuff up.
@beachcomber2008 You think the kerosene exploded. You are an anonymous internet poster with no credibility whatsoever. If there was any chance that the kerosene exploded, NIST would have factored that into their report to justify increased estimates of the severity of building damage.
@beachcomber2008 "And WTC7 HAD to fall down once Column 79 buckled".
You imply that a whole 47 storey building was so constructed as to be wholly reliant on one column, such that all forces necessary to keep the ENTIRE structure up, were fed directly into it? So even before 9/11, if anyone had simply severed "critical" Column 79, the building could have fully collapsed to the ground, even with the rest intact?
Step back and have a think about how ridiculous that would be.
@CodeTwo2 "You imply that a whole 47 storey building" - Do I?
I thought it was a building that had been extensively damaged by the falling WTC1 and had had uncontrolled fires burning within it for more than five hours
How ridiculous of me...
It no longer had horizontal and vertical components which is the 1st requirement for stability. Do you understand buckling? I don't think you do
@beachcomber2008 "It no longer had horizontal and vertical components which is the 1st requirement for stability. Do you understand buckling? I don't think you do"
I understand just fine. SOME components. Do you understand redundancy in building design?
As to the word "extensive" - can you show or explain your concept of extensive in terms of WTC7(without alluding to the laughable, unreal cartoons that NIST provided). Maybe with some previously-unseen videos of the day perhaps?
@CodeTwo2 "Do you understand redundancy in building design?" - Yes.
It was redundancy that was being lost. Some on impact, then the rest by load transfer, and, progressing over time, thermal creep, thermal expansion. When joints between columns and flooring are fractured and portions of floor fall away the remaining columns are left unstable. Any lateral displacement will allow downward motion, and the momentum of that motion will contribute to the load borne by its neighbors
@beachcomber2008 "It was an impact "scoop" 6 floors high and 100 ft across and 50 ft into the building, with fires at all impacted floors. It's what you might expect to see occur to this building after it has been struck by, say,100 tons of steel doing 140 mph"
I don't disagree with that, however... this was on PART of ONE face of the building. The fires, as witnessed, were relatively unsubstantial. The whole building fell catastrophically and evenly, in perfect sync. IMPOSSIBLE.
@beachcomber2008 "It would have immediately settled over its damaged area, & there would immediately be, somewhere, a column accepting the greatest load"
Theoretically, yes. Same in a perfect building. One column somewhere carries most load, by a small margin. Truth is, you could've probably removed HALF of the columns in that building and it would've stood, in some fashion. ALL columns simultaneously failing (or over a one second period; "chain reaction") - RIDICULOUS.
"I thought it was a building that had been extensively damaged by the falling WTC1"
What extensive damage are you referring to? The "scooped out" corner that weakend the bldg by 25%?
If so, that's been long debunked by the Zafar Photo. NIST used an obvious photoshopped piece of evidence to prove their point. WTC 7 was NOT extensively damaged. True it had many fires buring uncontrolled for 9 hours but bldg fires don't make every vertical collum fail at the same time.
@katyu16 "many fires buring uncontrolled for 9 hours" Seven, And uncontrolled meant it wandered thru the bldg warming the steel up thru its fireproofing, which had a two-hour protection. Steel doesn't have to melt to creep under continual stress
"every vertical collum fail at the same time" shows you are blind to the clear fact that the collapse vid shows the building collapsing from the rear first, the front face last - proved by where the facia ended up - right across the rubble
@katyu16 "The "scooped out" corner that weakened the bldg by 25%"
Followed by a fire that burned unopposed until collapse
You may argue with the firemen who said the building was "fully involved", and "was structurally unsafe" and pulled out 2 hrs before collapse if you wish
Personally I take their word for that
Perhaps you have info about the Fire Service being in the thrall of the PTB?
The firemen were pulled out of 7 at 10:30. That's seven hours before collapse.
Normal office fires cannot bring down skyscrapers without an accelerant such as nano-thermite, which was found in the dust. You cannot argue away science.!!
@DeepSpace8andahalf Sorry, the fires were NOT chaotic, and were fed by a couple of heavily-partitioned floors with a high paper volume. The partitioning SLOWED the course of the fire, and finally Floor 13 collapsed, pancaking the floors beneath down to Floor 5
This left Column 79 laterally unsupported, and it BUCKLED, followed by Columns 80 & 81 initiating the total collapse sequence
The report even has pretty pikkies for the hard of thinking, like yourself
@DeepSpace8andahalf Congratulations on believing yourself to be the world's first human being NEVER TO LIE, and then claiming to have read that report
@DeepSpace8andahalf Your proposition sounds reasonable UNTIL you read the report
Fires that burn (without the opposition of sprinklers or the fire service) for SEVEN HOURS are BOUND to bring down ANY New York high-rise buildings BECAUSE of a GAP in the building regulations which allows THERMAL EXPANSION to break lateral fixings, allowing UNSUPPORTED vertical columns to BUCKLE
It's AS PLAIN AS DAY
You could only have missed this because, in engineering terms, you are ILLITERATE
@beachcomber2008 NIST tells us that office fires burn in one place at most 20 minutes before all the fuel is consumed and they must move on. Your "SEVEN HOURS" fires are a fantasy.
Popular Mechanics is not an engineering journal. It is a fashion magazine for people who think you need to buy a special tool to check tire tread wear. So thanks for proving my point. You can't show any evidence at all of support in the engineering community for the NIST report.
@punxsutawneybarney Maybe at this point I should remind U once again that what U're writing here is NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAYS
You appear to be doing your utmost to draw ALL attention away from the substance of the report which is well thought-thru and even modelled as a sequence of events over time, compared throughout with video & witness evidence, in other words, TOTALLY DEFINITIVE
taledarkside's point re PM hiring independent engineers IS THE POINT
@beachcomber2008 The report is well-thought out--as a coverup. As a report it sucks a big green one. By stopping the report at the moment of collapse initiation they avoid all the baffling mysteries of the towers' destruction--speed, symmetry, totality, pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of molten iron in the rubble.
@beachcomber2008 The collapse was anything but chaotic. It was symmetrical, orderly, and total. So what you are saying is that the computer models with their simplifying assumptions are not capable of recapping what actually happened in the real, chaotic, subjective world.
What that implies is that only by introducing the simplifying assumption of the use of incendiaries and/or explosives to weaken the lower structure can the models be made to resemble what really happened.
The model says WTC7 fails COMPLETELY, after Column 79 buckles
It simply cannot draw a PRECISE picture of the heap of junk
The rest of of what U say is fantasy
it's obvious I should believe THAT, rather than understanding a considered explanation of ALL the preceding events to that column's failure, by a committee of well-qualified engineers & sophisticated computation, isn't it?
@beachcomber2008 NIST says the towers fell "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder says the same thing to NOVA--9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you disagree, then you should agree that we need new investigations.
Your sentence on symmetry is meaningless blather.
Your sentence on totality is circular reasoning.
The concrete pulverized 1000 feet in the air. Molten iron was found. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center."
@beachcomber2008 The report says in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you don't know this, you don't know what you're talking about. Dr. Astaneh Asl told PBS that he saw melting of girders, and Captain Philip Ruvolo said he saw "molten steel.. like lava".
The potential energy of the towers will melt 2,600 tons of steel* if all of it were used that way
5% of that energy could have produced a TEMPERATURE RISE in the basement, eh?
A basement which had just received a HUNDRED HAMMER BLOWS, each blow produced by the simultaneous shearing of ALL attachment points on that particular floor
But who am I to educate you in engineering analysis?
WTC2's roof hit the rubble at around 250ft/sec or 170mph
That's QUITE a good speed for a hammer
You might watch a racing car do it, but 70,000 tons of steel? (That is the part above the impact, and yes, only the roof reached that speed, but THEN you've stopped arguing that it didn't get REAL fast)
The TRULY freefalling fragments of external columns seen overtaking the tower top sections on both occasions reached 270mph @G zero.
@beachcomber2008 You provide no authority for your calculations. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder tells NOVA that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you disagree, then you should join those who are calling for new investigations. I'm not interested in hearing theories from anonymous internet posters.
@punxsutawneybarney "I'm not interested in hearing theories from anonymous internet posters." - whereas you're OK of course. It's about time you washed off your hypocrisy, I think
You call for authority while failing to provide ANY evidence except someone's mistaken figure of speech, and ignore VISUAL EVIDENCE (which we've ALL seen) of the ejected columns overtaking the falling towers
It was the EJECTA that freefell, and 0.64G the downward acceleration of the towers - clearly!
A moment ago you were quoting "9sec and 12 sec" from the SAME body you wish to discredit
A moment's self-analysis should show you you're merely cherry-picking items, always slanted towards your preconceptions - were you to conduct yourself free of your preconceptions, you'd probably go for the BODY OF THE EVIDENCE and the SIMPLEST POSSIBLE explanation, but NO, not U - it has to have layers upon layers of conspirators
@beachcomber2008 Tell is to NIST. They think the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Deal with it.
@beachcomber2008 Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He has never to my knowledge said that this was a mistake. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".
@beachcomber2008 How can I discredit a report without quoting it? Why are you denying what NIST says in order to try to show that they're right?
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He has never to my knowledge said that this was a mistake. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". If you don't believe Sunder and and NIST, then you should be calling for new investigations.
@beachcomber2008 How can I criticize a report without quoting it? Why are you hypocritically defending a report you don't believe? How can I refute your defenses without quoting the report?
@DeepSpace8andahalf That isn't the point. U NOW would have to argue that NOBODY took pictures of planes, & that EVERY video was faked, in the face of people who actually participated. U should argue the point with a New Yorker who was there - but stay out of fist range
I am quite happy with the NIST story, perhaps because I'm both an engineer & an aerodynamicist, & didn't miss the wave vortices (only wings make them) attached to the towers after the impact
Bravo good sir!!! That was riveting, to say the least!... I cannot thank you enough for your hard work and dedication to the truth! Thank you thank you thankyou!
Look at how thick that perimeter frame is. No way a commercial airliner could crash through that. Especially the way that was shown, with hardly any deceleration at all, the plane just disappearing into the building.
Especially the wings, past the engine cups. Let me say that again. ESPECIALLY THE LIGHTLY, EASILY BENT WINGS, EXTENDING PAST THE ENGINE CUPS.
How did they penetrate that thick box tube frame, at any speed? They should break off.
hi jonathan,
did my mail that you've sent you yesterday reach you? please contact me regarding the videos file for translation.
wibren visser
translation team
ae911truth 4 days ago
Thermate filmed by FEMA 9/11 @ WTC 7 @ Sept 22 2001 Debate Over watch?v=wWORyzjeBn0
danp5648 1 month ago
Thermate was already filmed by FEMA
danp5648 1 month ago
Fantastic work, thank you so very much for this. In the end, truth always stands. Keep up the good work.
retiredaxmurderer 2 months ago
What do you think about the no-plane theory?
freitasnetuno 4 months ago
@freitasnetuno there were planes.. but not the original... drones crashed into towers
zelenko2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zelenko2 take a look at this watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM
freitasnetuno 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freitasnetuno
"What do you think about the no-plane theory?"
The no-plane theory is dead and is considered "disinformation".
katyu16 2 months ago
I love how this guy shows up Nat Geo all alone and in his backyard with homemade products. Nat Geo used 175 lbs of thermate and didn't do squat.
Thank You, Jon Cole.!!
katyu16 4 months ago 8
Wow! If this Joe-Blow engineer could have figured out how to cut steel beams w/ self-made incendiaries, then one SHOULD wonder what a whole team of Demo-experts could conjure up! But, alas, most people have been only ingesting whatever the news media shows/tells them. Thank-U, kind sir, for making this video for the world to see & for waking people up (myself included) from the atrocities of the greedy elite. Why should the gov not want a re-investigation I wonder? Ask yourselves that people.
drla02 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drla02
Joe Blow here is a fool. No containers were found at the WTC pile, and THERMATE
is 29% Barium Nitrate, Versus 2% Sulfur. 100 TONS of Thermate, would
have provided 29 TONS of Phosphorescent Barium Nitrate, and the whole WTC
Plaza would have lit up like a Halloween Kiddy Castle, it would have GLOWED
in the dark. NOW, how Jonathan Cole thinks that CONTAINERS Never Found,
and THERMATE Never Found, could provide a GLOWING WTC Pile that
was Never Found, is beyond me.
Merlin5by5 5 months ago
The only real issue I have is how is it possible to get all of that in place and set up with nobody noticing. 'Pressure pulses' lol, talk about double speak.
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
@biggingeryeti @biggingeryeti Bush family members were board members of the security company, which was in charge of WTC buildings security between 2000-2002. Plenty of time to place the charges and do clean up. Back then the company was called Securacom, now Stratesec. Do a search.
TheCrazyFinn 4 months ago
@TheCrazyFinn Yeah I know the connections, I know that the drug sniffer dogs were removed three (I think it was three) weeks before it happened. But controlled demolitions that I have been aware of (granted through documentaries on them) take ages and there is a shit load of equipment involved. How do you get that in and out with no one noticing? What about all the CCTV? I'm not saying it wasn't controlled demolition, I would just like an idea of how it would be planned and set up.
biggingeryeti 4 months ago
@biggingeryeti How about people dressed up as maintenance men, working at night? Security told to pay no mind, which would be really easy. I know that having worked as a security guard.
Planting thermate charges over a long period of time and hiding them inside the box columns would be really inconspicious.
TheCrazyFinn 4 months ago
@TheCrazyFinn Yeah I know that, getting people in and out isn't so much an issue. I mean how much would they need? How would they get all that in, where would they put the explosive and how much of it? It would be the largest demolished building ever, so I doubt it would be that simple. A lot or people would be involved in this? Ron Craig estimated that 61,000lbs of thermite/thermate would be needed. You don't sneak that sort of equipment in.
biggingeryeti 4 months ago
@biggingeryeti Let's say they did this over a period of one year, 365 days. 61,000lbs/365=167.123lbs(/day). Let's say they had 5 people working every day for a year. ~167lbs/5=33.4lbs. That much could be carried in, in one go, and placed within... 15 minutes?
So really, all you need is a handfull of people working for a very short time, every day for a year, making it seem like very routine maintainance process. Maybe they only worked every other day for 30 mins, but you get the picture...
TheCrazyFinn 4 months ago
@TheCrazyFinn But the drug dogs were only removed about three weeks before hand, wouldn't they have picked it up?
biggingeryeti 4 months ago
@biggingeryeti You mean explosives sniffer dogs? Maybe they weren't trained to pick up thermate. Or maybe they didn't work at night. I don't really know that much about the dogs... Regardless, if you're in charge of security, I can't imagine it being very difficult to make sure the dogs are gone at the right time.
TheCrazyFinn 4 months ago
@TheCrazyFinn Yeah. This is just the only area where there seems to be little information circling.
biggingeryeti 4 months ago
I'm not saying this is all true. I'm not saying the Government is true....but this all seems like a lot of hard work to bring these 2 buildings down. 2 Planes hit the towers and knocked out several steel columns on the outer parts of the WTC. The surviving steel columns would of had to try to support upwards of 1 Million tons of office space above the impact sites. Again, not saying the Government is right, and you are all wrong, just things don't make sense.
PUgrad05 5 months ago
mythbusters is a piece of gouverment crap, it was the same with the "moon landings" test, they are proven liars and did everything wrong
xismxist 5 months ago
2 NIST employees don't like this.
kr09d 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=zhnNy5EsebA
/watch?v=KhdppHwUJ9k
/watch?v=iGqjzFQvfdI
/watch?v=WxqoChniKVU
/watch?v=9QWvkAgyIY4
/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
/watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE
/watch?v=HSjDCwN2i3w
/watch?v=hVaGht6eHoQ
/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
megamogx 5 months ago
NATO voting this down
dxvxvx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dxvxvx you dont even understand what NATO is
ZeroToleranceLT 5 months ago
finally somebody DOES something to bring some light into the possible causes for these dramatic 'collapses'. Many thanks this is a great job
kiawase 5 months ago
this only has 4000 views!?!?!?!
username7046 5 months ago
Excellent. Thank you, JC.
betsymetz 5 months ago
Good experiments, search online for the military field manual "FM 5-250 Explosives and Demolitions" pg 91 it reads: " Nickel-molybdenum steel. This type of steel cannot be cut easily by conventional steel-cutting charges. The jet from a shaped charge will penetrate it, ...... Therefore, use some method other than explosives to cut nickel-molybdenum steel, such as thermite, acetylene, or electrical cutting tools." molybdenum is the type of steel used in WTC, from what i heard.
jdburtonsnowboarder 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
these were intriguing and awesome experiments. I was incredibly amazed
shanna1950 7 months ago
these were intriguing and awesome experiments. I was incredibly amazed
shanna1950 7 months ago
Now watch real truth documentary called "Missing Links" (israel did 911, take attention to the names..all important security companies were jewish owned - and your judas goat won't tell you this).
Watch also:
"Who Controls the Federal Reserve by Majority",
"The Jews and the New World Order",
"The Only Conspiracy That Makes Sense",
"Alex Jones Zionist handled speakerbox.",
"The New World Order IS Here!." (v=808HX6VwqD0).
WakeUpSleepIsDeath 7 months ago
@nebula25x i just read the paper like a week ago . . . and it says unreacted thermite right in the damn thing . . . a better question would be, have u read it? that and i cant seem to even find what journal its suppose to be published in . . .. 500 or 1500 . . it doesnt matter. there are literally a million architects and engineers in this country. when i see a peer reviewed paper accepted by the mainsteam, then i'll take u seriously. i dont take quacks seriously tho
keggerous 7 months ago
@nebula25x first off, Steve jones was fired for being a wacko and as far as i have heard isnt excepted at all as being credible. the paper also doesnt have anyhtign to do with reacted thermite but it supposes that some kind of super-nano thermite was found UNreacted. this is also false. the metals found are actually rather common trace elements that are expected to be found. . . . the number of architects and engineers is actually 500 the last time i checked not 1500.
keggerous 7 months ago
@nebula25x the molten steel has been explained and there HAS NOT been any reacted thermite found . . . sorry but if u can link me a research paper that says otherwise, i'll believe u but til then i'll continue believing the peer reviewed papers that are already out there.
keggerous 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keggerous
"i'll believe u but til then i'll continue believing the peer reviewed papers that are already out there."
What other peer reviewed papers? Disproving nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC?
There aren't any.
You're uninformed or maybe just lying.
Try again...
katyu16 7 months ago
It's not the "size" of your Thermite...it's how you "use" it !!
katyu16 7 months ago
the dripping "steel" looks just like dripping buring plastic to me . . . fyi, that picture of a melted iron girter looks more like it was bent . . . also, there are chamicals and elements that should be present from the thermite reaction that just wherent there. also, the test he did where he cut the metal beam is misleading. thermite burns down with gravity, not up or horizontally . . ..
keggerous 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Gage (AE911Truth) Talk @ Cambridge University
UK 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)
See the featured video on my channel for full details.
cappucinokid100 8 months ago
Great video.
TheLagunaSunrise 8 months ago
What is darkly amusing about the experiment presented starting at 4:01 is that they completely undermine their contention that jet fuel could have caused the observed damage.
fjolsvit 9 months ago
And they said it wasn't a "Fund Raiser"... please! If you do, your thinking is Baaa Baa Baaadly in need of a reality check... speaking of checks... cha Ching! I know, that was a SHEEP shot... moooo ving on Let me say Bravo Jonathan Cole, Bravo!
GnomenKlayture 10 months ago
Niels Harrit found an incendiary in the dust. The independant chemist Mark Basile confirmed the thermate find. The political argument is irrecevable against a scientific one.
stormichou93 10 months ago
@stormichou93 "The political argument is irrecevable against a scientific one." I agree. However, part of the scientific process is the repilcability of results. My understanding is that there are 9/11 dust samples held at a variety of labs around the world; have Harrit and Basile's 's results been replicated anywhere else? Does everyone who has looked at their data agree with their interpretation? What genuinely peer reviewed journal has published their results? (Bentham doesn't count.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
@professorprestodigit There are so many things about 9/11 that don't seem right that I think you are splitting hairs. Why the removal and destruction of nearly all the WTC steel? It was a crime scene, and this was a criminal act in itself. As terrorists were supposedly involved why didnt NIST test for explosives? Unless you cover all angles you aren't doing a proper investigation. Just those 2 issues on their own should sow doubts in your mind over the Govt consp theory.Need new 9/11 invest
HardcoreJungFunk 4 months ago 4
(cont.) not everyone in the world is a fan of the US or of it's foreign policies. And the evidence for the official theory is overwhelming, while the evidence for govt. consp. is, upon examination, very problematic - even if thermate could be used to cut steel. Thousands of structural engineers and others have concluded that, based on how the wtc buildings were constructed, they could very well have collapsed just the way they did. I doubt that they are all lying about it.
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
(cont.) they tend to fall apart. Apparantly thermate can be used to cut steel, but the holes in any cont. demo. govt. consp. theory still dwarf any holes that might be in the official theory. Hijacking 4 planes and using them as missiles is not at all implausible - nor is blaming it on someone who's said for years that he was determined to strike a blow at the U.S. for having US bases in Saudi Arabia. However you may feel about it, (cont.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
(cont.) police state, they sure did a piss-poor job of it. 5) Were the fire fighters in NY lying when they evacuated the area around WTC 7 sying they feared it would collapse? Are the folks in NIST, the ASCE, and the FDNY all murderers, morons or chickenshits? No one wants a pulitzer prize? I could go on, but it's getting late. Basically, there are lots of things which could be used to suggest controlled demolition, govt. consp. - until you look at the claims more carefully. And then (cont.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
(cont.) Though we may well be headed towards being an oligarchy, I definitely wouldn't call the U.S. a police state. For those who think we are, try going to a real one (take your pick), and start accusing the govt. of murdering 3000 of their own citizens. See how long you last. In case you hadn't noticed, people like Avery, Alex and Steven Jones, Hewett, Griffith, Gage and now Cole are all alive and well and able to say whatever they want. If the purpose of 9/11 was to bring about a (cont.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.) discredited long ago. It's a "pay to publish" one - busted for accepting an article of computer generated gibberish - if the authors were to pay the fee. (Does Cole really not know this?) Yet Jones et al have still not published their work in any LEGITIMATE peer reviewed journal - and many knowledgeable people say their evidence is quite UNDERwhelming - incl. the iron spheres. 4) If the govt did this to bring about a police state - why nothing more for ten yearrs? (cont.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Comment removed
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
Good job showing that thermate could, in fact, be used to cut steel. That being said, however, I still doubt the govt. consp. theory for several reasons: 1) In order to invade Iraq they blame 9/11 on 19 Saudis - our allies - when they could have just as easily have blamed it on 19 Iraqis??? 2) The video misleadingly begins by talking @ melted steel as if that's part of the NIST theory. It's not - WEAKENED steel is. 3) The "peer reviewed journal" that Jones et al published in was (cont.)
professorprestodigit 10 months ago
This "hero" burns a row of straw men here. Now that's heroic
The eyewitness is talking about the airplane impact itself when he mentions a FLASH, but we are given no indication of this
The whole of this vid is deliberately disinformative
Videos like this may well work for its fans but anyone with any curiosity will wonder why such disinformation was deemed necessary
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
you busted their story .9-11 inside job...god bless the 3000 murdered on 9-11
anthonybarrett79 10 months ago
I'd like to know if this engineer could make his the container for his thermite beam cutting devices out of something other than steel? Such as maybe a brick like material, or maybe a drywall kind of material? Those materials can withstand the heat, but I don't know if they wouldn't work for other reasons. But if it could be done, then those materials would mix in with other building debris very well, maybe an investigation wouldn't even find the residue of these cutting devices.
7Hook 10 months ago
This guy is a modern day hero!
0ceanline 11 months ago
dang this guy is goooooood!
Fiorwestcoast 11 months ago
Now, IMAGINE...if this guy's putting this all together in his BACK YARD on a shoe-string budget just THINK what a government can do with unlimited FUNDING.!!
katyu16 11 months ago 19
@katyu16 why would a government prove they commited the crime
coassterr 8 months ago
@katyu16
except they don't have unlimited funding, the money needed to cover up 9/11 would be trillions, that doesn't come from thin air
tman2tuff 8 months ago
@tman2tuff ur right. no wonder we are so deep in debt!
markrod420 7 months ago
@markrod420
except the reason we are in debt is not directly related to 9/11 at all
tman2tuff 7 months ago
Best Video! Steven Johnes don't show any proof of how it could have work, you did, with normal thermite!I was near the towers at 9/11 and heard explosive noises, but just a few like 8sek. prior the southtower "collapse" The large deformation from the hand holes was always suspicious for me, too!You are the first that shows, it could in fakt being blown up with termite!Who are you,you must show this to the officials!
74pbg 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
excellent work here jonathan!! keep it up :)
locoe79 11 months ago
excellent work here jonathan!! keep it up :)
locoe79 11 months ago
As a steelworker for 23 years, I can tell you it's impossible to melt any kind of steel with jet fuels, whether refined or crude, whether synthetic or petroleum-based.
Steel isn't melted using fuel, its a complicated process that requires highly specialized foundry processes to turn steel into pliable molten metal.
Anyone with a crude understanding of metallurgy would tell you the same.
LOL!! If jet fuel could melt metal, we'd have airplane engines melting out of their fuselages during takeoff!
GrotesqueMACHINERY 11 months ago 24
@GrotesqueMACHINERY "impossible to melt any kind of steel with jet fuels" FALSE
"Steel isn't melted using fuel" FALSE
"we'd have airplane engines melting" FALSE - turbofan FLAME temperature is 2,500 deg C whereas the melting point of iron is 1540 deg C. The solution being to AIRCOOL CREEP-RESISTANT NIMONIC ALLOY STEEL. It survives this even though it's glowing a reddish hue
"out of their fuselages" NACELLES
"Anyone with a crude understanding" You haven't got THAT. Any understanding, that is.
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Fuselage,you mean wing,clearly you've never heard of controlled combustion,nor titanium,nor aluminum,nor the fact that there was more than jet fuel burning in the building.
VaiRoth 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VaiRoth Not to mention the fact that he can't show us any melted steel.
flanksteak2 9 months ago
@GrotesqueMACHINERY LOL! You're a fucking idiot.
Jet Fuel burns 3500 degrees F in the airplanes engines.
And no the process of making steel isn't complicated or highly specialized unless you think Japanese people making swords out in backyard stone fire pits is a highly specialized and complex process. LOL!!!!!
flanksteak2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flanksteak2
"unless you think Japanese people making swords out in backyard stone fire pits"
Those folks in the back yard were "folding" the steel. They weren't making steel.
katyu16 9 months ago
@flanksteak2 Actually Japanese swordmaking is a very complex process involving repeated folding and refoldings of the steel to make a complex crystal structure. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago in playlist 9/11 videos
@punxsutawneybarney
Where you been you whackjob fuck?
flanksteak2 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney LOL
Barnyardtard was here.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@GrotesqueMACHINERY I have my doubts you are a steelworker because if you were you would know that at 1400 degrees the structual integrity of steel becomes seriously compromised, especially with a few million tonnes of concrete on it.
As for thermite, guess what it's made of? Same stuff as if an airplane smashed into a steel reinforced building
jimjamgumbob 9 months ago
@jimjamgumbob are you suggesting that thermite naturally occurred? please watch everything on /physicsandreason
zakquack 8 months ago
I agree with you that there is no way Jet Fuel can't melt steel but steel doesn't have to be melted to lose much of its rigidity. As a steel worker you should know that steel is much more easily malleable at higher temperatures without ever reaching melting. Add that with increased unevenly distributed pressures from a whole bunch of columns being knocked out. The horizontal steel trusses with their high surface area are much more to blame as when they get knocked out the columns can bend.
EvEnt372 8 months ago
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Can you answer this for me because something doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a plane hitting a building at 500 mph weaken the steel that was damaged? Wasn't an important part of its sturdiness of the 2 WTC towers? The planes took out several steel columns....which would have forced the remaining steel that was standing to try to hold up the remaining ~100,000 to One Million tons that was above the impact sites? I'm asking questions, just like everyone else.
PUgrad05 5 months ago
@GrotesqueMACHINERY Can you answer this for me because something doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a plane hitting a building at 500 mph weaken the steel that was damaged? Wasn't an important part of its sturdiness of the 2 WTC towers? The planes took out several steel columns....which would have forced the remaining steel that was standing to try to hold up the remaining ~100,000 to One Million tons that was above the impact sites? I'm asking questions, just like everyone else.
PUgrad05 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrotesqueMACHINERY
YOU are no steel worker, LOL. Steel was made for 600 years with WOOD fires.
COAL only began being used in the Industrial Revolution in Scotland, where it's
plentiful. Everyday home forge people on Youtube use propane tanks to make
steel in their backyard with fireplace bricks. It's NOT that hard to do.
Anyone with a college education in engineering or industrial practices would tell
you that Molten steel is WHITE HOT, not red hot, and bright enough to blind you.
Merlin5by5 5 months ago
This boys and girls, is called PROOF! There is no way around this video. Science + experiements + evidence = PROOF!
Crackmandan 1 year ago
I need to get some people together to share my research. India, Behind computer networks, call centres, Taxis' Service stations, Medical.
Kids disappearing, people in hospitals poisoned.... The networks play the people against each other.
The media making you believe what they want you to believe.
Look here! while they manipulate there.
Nice one JC. Guess what Im JC as well. Difference is I have mother Mary, went to St Gabriels, They have connections in Medical, Police, governments.
Ryzler13 1 year ago
one person is an idiot
xBBWCx 1 year ago
The 1945 trinity test destroyed the tower in which the bomb was placed. Can you investigate if nuclear weapons were used to bring down the towers, Mr. Cole?
ianat841 1 year ago
@ianat841
Search .. "Manhattan Project and 9/11" on Google..
Peace.
BrodyLuv2 1 year ago
one person denies evidence because they are a cowardly sheep.
Dustencumbie 1 year ago
Out standing upload.
hunkydoryorder 1 year ago
The only thing motivating me to write ANYTHING is an irritation with people so obviously going down a wrong path, causing distress to themselves and others as a natural by-product
There was more than sufficient energy in those two planes to ENSURE the demise of the towers
And WTC7 HAD to fall down once Column 79 buckled
What about the Pentagon and Shanksville?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 If there was sufficient energy in the planes to bring the buildings down, they would have fallen in ten minutes. That they did not shows there was not enough energy--particularly when you factor in pulverization of concrete, near-freefall acceleration, and hot dust clouds.
The calcs of an anonymous internet poster are not worth my time.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Then U need instruction in all these things I have so consumed my time writing about, for U are merely constructing an argument by incredulity from ignorance
20,000 gallons of kerosine, even if half of it blew up, exceeds my imagination in terms of the AMOUNT of damage it can inflict
& the half that blew up BLEW AWAY the insulation, and there'd be about 1 hour before sufficient steel had softened, in a typical semi-enclosed space supplied with 50' of draft, - a MUFFLE FURNACE
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 Had the kerosene blown up, the building would have fallen immediately. Don't you know the difference between a fireball and an explosion? My argument is not incredulity from ignorance. My argument is that NIST has dishonestly ignored the most baffling mysteries of the towers' failure, we need new investigations, and the ingenious explanations invented by anonymous internet posters are not sufficient.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Here's a tip:
Explosions come first, FOLLOWED by their fireball
Whatever your subject is, it isn't physics
NIST's dushonesty doesn't match yours, for they know, at least, what they're talking about
My explanations match NIST's for the most part, their apparent ingenuity merely a measure of your ignorance
As is your feeling that it "dishonestly ignored" anything
"Had the kerosene blown up, the building would have fallen immediately"
Oh boy, oh boy... :)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney And what exploded was a kerosine MIST - the sort you WOULD get if you instantaneously chopped two fuel-laden wings into 2ft sections at 565mph
The military use the same technology with their lovely fuel/air bombs
watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4
Tell me how this DOESN'T appear to be a fuel/air explosion
Also clock the wave vortices attached to the impact point
I hope we're not getting to the part where you say there's NO WAY
ALUMINUM CUTS STEEL...
...because it's been dealt with earlier
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 If the kerosene exploding was even remotely possible, NIST would have claimed that it exploded. They did not and it did not. You're making stuff up.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney OMG - a hypocrisy overload - again - if I can force my mind to believe what it reads
OF COURSE the kerosine exploded!
The KINETIC ENERGY it contained at 565mph made it SELF-IGNITING
The limiting factor was THE AMOUNT of oxygen in the available air on that floor
Once that was mixed in and burnt, the reaction would cease - for a moment - which is what you see on the vid
You're full of jokes. I like that. Made up.
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 You think the kerosene exploded. You are an anonymous internet poster with no credibility whatsoever. If there was any chance that the kerosene exploded, NIST would have factored that into their report to justify increased estimates of the severity of building damage.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney
Oh boy, it's Brian Good! Everyone's favorite delusional sex-stalking liar is babbling about something other than Willie Rodriguez! Excellent.
ianat841 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 "And WTC7 HAD to fall down once Column 79 buckled".
You imply that a whole 47 storey building was so constructed as to be wholly reliant on one column, such that all forces necessary to keep the ENTIRE structure up, were fed directly into it? So even before 9/11, if anyone had simply severed "critical" Column 79, the building could have fully collapsed to the ground, even with the rest intact?
Step back and have a think about how ridiculous that would be.
CodeTwo2 10 months ago
@CodeTwo2 "You imply that a whole 47 storey building" - Do I?
I thought it was a building that had been extensively damaged by the falling WTC1 and had had uncontrolled fires burning within it for more than five hours
How ridiculous of me...
It no longer had horizontal and vertical components which is the 1st requirement for stability. Do you understand buckling? I don't think you do
watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8
Notice how "out of shape" structural members get
Stand a straw erect & push down on it & see
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "It no longer had horizontal and vertical components which is the 1st requirement for stability. Do you understand buckling? I don't think you do"
I understand just fine. SOME components. Do you understand redundancy in building design?
As to the word "extensive" - can you show or explain your concept of extensive in terms of WTC7(without alluding to the laughable, unreal cartoons that NIST provided). Maybe with some previously-unseen videos of the day perhaps?
CodeTwo2 10 months ago
@CodeTwo2 "Do you understand redundancy in building design?" - Yes.
It was redundancy that was being lost. Some on impact, then the rest by load transfer, and, progressing over time, thermal creep, thermal expansion. When joints between columns and flooring are fractured and portions of floor fall away the remaining columns are left unstable. Any lateral displacement will allow downward motion, and the momentum of that motion will contribute to the load borne by its neighbors
Being heated helped
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@CodeTwo2 My "concept of extensive" was obtained from firemen's descriptions and odd photos
It was an impact "scoop" 6 floors high and 100 ft across and 50 ft into the building, with fires at all impacted floors
It's what you might expect to see occur to this building after it has been struck by, say,100 tons of steel doing 140 mph
It would have immediately settled over its damaged area, & there would immediately be, somewhere, a column accepting the greatest load
If that is also being heated...
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "It was an impact "scoop" 6 floors high and 100 ft across and 50 ft into the building, with fires at all impacted floors. It's what you might expect to see occur to this building after it has been struck by, say,100 tons of steel doing 140 mph"
I don't disagree with that, however... this was on PART of ONE face of the building. The fires, as witnessed, were relatively unsubstantial. The whole building fell catastrophically and evenly, in perfect sync. IMPOSSIBLE.
CodeTwo2 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008 "It would have immediately settled over its damaged area, & there would immediately be, somewhere, a column accepting the greatest load"
Theoretically, yes. Same in a perfect building. One column somewhere carries most load, by a small margin. Truth is, you could've probably removed HALF of the columns in that building and it would've stood, in some fashion. ALL columns simultaneously failing (or over a one second period; "chain reaction") - RIDICULOUS.
CodeTwo2 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"I thought it was a building that had been extensively damaged by the falling WTC1"
What extensive damage are you referring to? The "scooped out" corner that weakend the bldg by 25%?
If so, that's been long debunked by the Zafar Photo. NIST used an obvious photoshopped piece of evidence to prove their point. WTC 7 was NOT extensively damaged. True it had many fires buring uncontrolled for 9 hours but bldg fires don't make every vertical collum fail at the same time.
katyu16 10 months ago
@katyu16 "many fires buring uncontrolled for 9 hours" Seven, And uncontrolled meant it wandered thru the bldg warming the steel up thru its fireproofing, which had a two-hour protection. Steel doesn't have to melt to creep under continual stress
"every vertical collum fail at the same time" shows you are blind to the clear fact that the collapse vid shows the building collapsing from the rear first, the front face last - proved by where the facia ended up - right across the rubble
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
You didn't answer the question. What "extensive" damage are you talking about.??
katyu16 10 months ago
@katyu16 "The "scooped out" corner that weakened the bldg by 25%"
Followed by a fire that burned unopposed until collapse
You may argue with the firemen who said the building was "fully involved", and "was structurally unsafe" and pulled out 2 hrs before collapse if you wish
Personally I take their word for that
Perhaps you have info about the Fire Service being in the thrall of the PTB?
Not likely...
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"and pulled out 2 hrs before collapse"
The firemen were pulled out of 7 at 10:30. That's seven hours before collapse.
Normal office fires cannot bring down skyscrapers without an accelerant such as nano-thermite, which was found in the dust. You cannot argue away science.!!
katyu16 10 months ago
@katyu16 "Normal office fires cannot bring down skyscrapers without an accelerant"
It wasn't a NORMAL office fire Not many of these have been started by being struck by steelwork falling from 1000 feet
It wasn't a NORMAL "skyscraper"
Not many of them have a bridge structure with long-span flooring and widely-separated columns laid over an atrium space
Apart from those two points, you're quite correct
So what is your point, exactly?
You haven't got one, have you?
It's that fixation of yours...
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@punxs&anyone else "Truth" isn't about finding someone U believe, and believing him
It's more about EXERCISING your mind in a WIDE world, and the "truther" world is NARROW, and limited in its options
Science as a whole is successful IN SPITE of the narrow-mindedness of its proponents because of the WIDE RANGE of its proponents and options
If you take a wider and more generous view, then the towers fell down because aircraft hit them.
"What if"s don't hack it. Maths does, & U can do it
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
beachcomber,
thank you for the clarification I didn't realize that a plane flew into WT7... Oh wait a sec....
ceillifleur 1 year ago
The speed of a body accelerated from rest over a set distance is the SQUARE ROOT of 2x the acceleration times the distance travelled
or SQR(2*f*s) where f1=32.2ft/sec/sec, f2=20.6ft/sec/sec, s1=1000ft and s2=1540ft
Rubble speed= SQR(2*32.2*1000)=SQR(64400)=254ft/sec or 173mph
WTC2 Towertop speed=SQR(2*20.6*1540)=SQR(63448)=252ft/sec or 172mph
Time before buckling release (estimated)=2 sec
Time taken (after initial buckling)=SQR(2*s2/f2)=SQR(2*1540/20.6)=12.2 sec
Total time of collapse 14.2 sec
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@11:10 of this video...
Is that a Frickin body being blown out of the building???
HOLY SHIT...
CastingStonez 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf Sorry, the fires were NOT chaotic, and were fed by a couple of heavily-partitioned floors with a high paper volume. The partitioning SLOWED the course of the fire, and finally Floor 13 collapsed, pancaking the floors beneath down to Floor 5
This left Column 79 laterally unsupported, and it BUCKLED, followed by Columns 80 & 81 initiating the total collapse sequence
The report even has pretty pikkies for the hard of thinking, like yourself
Anyone would think you hadn't read it
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf Congratulations on believing yourself to be the world's first human being NEVER TO LIE, and then claiming to have read that report
YOU have just managed to support my accusation
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf Your proposition sounds reasonable UNTIL you read the report
Fires that burn (without the opposition of sprinklers or the fire service) for SEVEN HOURS are BOUND to bring down ANY New York high-rise buildings BECAUSE of a GAP in the building regulations which allows THERMAL EXPANSION to break lateral fixings, allowing UNSUPPORTED vertical columns to BUCKLE
It's AS PLAIN AS DAY
You could only have missed this because, in engineering terms, you are ILLITERATE
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 NIST tells us that office fires burn in one place at most 20 minutes before all the fuel is consumed and they must move on. Your "SEVEN HOURS" fires are a fantasy.
Popular Mechanics is not an engineering journal. It is a fashion magazine for people who think you need to buy a special tool to check tire tread wear. So thanks for proving my point. You can't show any evidence at all of support in the engineering community for the NIST report.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney
You do need a special tool to check tire tread wear if you do not have a penny, and the tire doesn't have existing wear marks.
stupid brainwashed idiots
and Popular mechanics cited engineers who gave them information to write the articles. So why don't you debunk each of those engineers
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside You don't need a special tool. A piece of cardstock and a sharp pencil will do just fine.
Foe debunking of PM, see JIm Hoffman's essay "Popular Mechanics Attacks its '9/11 Lies' Straw Man"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Maybe at this point I should remind U once again that what U're writing here is NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAYS
You appear to be doing your utmost to draw ALL attention away from the substance of the report which is well thought-thru and even modelled as a sequence of events over time, compared throughout with video & witness evidence, in other words, TOTALLY DEFINITIVE
taledarkside's point re PM hiring independent engineers IS THE POINT
Their readership MUST have supported them...
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 The report is well-thought out--as a coverup. As a report it sucks a big green one. By stopping the report at the moment of collapse initiation they avoid all the baffling mysteries of the towers' destruction--speed, symmetry, totality, pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of molten iron in the rubble.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney U know little about Chaos, obviously, or U wouldn't insist that engineers should predict it
Perhaps U also believe that the tide can be stopped if only U raise you hand & ONLY BELIEVE
It's Ur BELIEF that sucks here
When engineers stop laughing, they'll tell U that chaotic systems are UNPREDICTABLE and UNMODELLABLE
The model will follow REALITY for a while, then a tiny difference will send the cascade of events down a different path
But the OVERALL effect will be the same
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 The collapse was anything but chaotic. It was symmetrical, orderly, and total. So what you are saying is that the computer models with their simplifying assumptions are not capable of recapping what actually happened in the real, chaotic, subjective world.
What that implies is that only by introducing the simplifying assumption of the use of incendiaries and/or explosives to weaken the lower structure can the models be made to resemble what really happened.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Now U are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING the report
Every sentence & illustration contradicts U
The model says WTC7 fails COMPLETELY, after Column 79 buckles
It simply cannot draw a PRECISE picture of the heap of junk
The rest of of what U say is fantasy
it's obvious I should believe THAT, rather than understanding a considered explanation of ALL the preceding events to that column's failure, by a committee of well-qualified engineers & sophisticated computation, isn't it?
ISN'T IT?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney
Speed - the towers fell @ 0.64G, WTC fell in 3 stages, buckling, freefall, then crushing
Symmetry - the towers weren't vertical after impact, allowing the sequential failure of discrete structural elements
Totality - The BUCKLING of the exterior faces of the towers and Column 79 of WTC7 began an irretrievable and final collapse
Concrete pulverizes when it fails, and molten iron wasn't found
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 NIST says the towers fell "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder says the same thing to NOVA--9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you disagree, then you should agree that we need new investigations.
Your sentence on symmetry is meaningless blather.
Your sentence on totality is circular reasoning.
The concrete pulverized 1000 feet in the air. Molten iron was found. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center."
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney There U go again
They were timed at >14 & >22 seconds using seismic and video evidence, & U R quibbling over the word "essentially"
So U don't KNOW that the towers were NO LONGER VERTICAL after impact
So U don't UNDERSTAND that BUCKLING is irrecoverable, & kinetic energy increases as the sq of the speed
So U don't realize that crushing a floor involves pulverizing the concrete, & the floor was crushed at the impact level 1000' up
& I don't believe the doc saw a POOL of iron !
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 The report says in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you don't know this, you don't know what you're talking about. Dr. Astaneh Asl told PBS that he saw melting of girders, and Captain Philip Ruvolo said he saw "molten steel.. like lava".
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Don't MAKE it so...I've seen the figures given as 0.64G
The potential energy of the towers will melt 2,600 tons of steel* if all of it were used that way
5% of that energy could have produced a TEMPERATURE RISE in the basement, eh?
A basement which had just received a HUNDRED HAMMER BLOWS, each blow produced by the simultaneous shearing of ALL attachment points on that particular floor
But who am I to educate you in engineering analysis?
The maths for this are on this thread
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 How does the shearing of attachment points produce hammer blows? You're just babbling.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Falling (even at 0.64G) is DOWNWARD ACCELERATION
WTC2's roof hit the rubble at around 250ft/sec or 170mph
That's QUITE a good speed for a hammer
You might watch a racing car do it, but 70,000 tons of steel? (That is the part above the impact, and yes, only the roof reached that speed, but THEN you've stopped arguing that it didn't get REAL fast)
The TRULY freefalling fragments of external columns seen overtaking the tower top sections on both occasions reached 270mph @G zero.
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 You provide no authority for your calculations. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder tells NOVA that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you disagree, then you should join those who are calling for new investigations. I'm not interested in hearing theories from anonymous internet posters.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney "I'm not interested in hearing theories from anonymous internet posters." - whereas you're OK of course. It's about time you washed off your hypocrisy, I think
You call for authority while failing to provide ANY evidence except someone's mistaken figure of speech, and ignore VISUAL EVIDENCE (which we've ALL seen) of the ejected columns overtaking the falling towers
It was the EJECTA that freefell, and 0.64G the downward acceleration of the towers - clearly!
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 OK, so if NIST is so out of touch with reality, then if you had any honesty you would join us in calling for new investigations.
Essentially you're arguing that NIST is wrong and that proves they're right.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney It's another hypocritical point, isn't it?
A moment ago you were quoting "9sec and 12 sec" from the SAME body you wish to discredit
A moment's self-analysis should show you you're merely cherry-picking items, always slanted towards your preconceptions - were you to conduct yourself free of your preconceptions, you'd probably go for the BODY OF THE EVIDENCE and the SIMPLEST POSSIBLE explanation, but NO, not U - it has to have layers upon layers of conspirators
They don't exist
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney For WTC1 where f1=32.2ft/sec/sec, f2=9.00ft/sec/sec (estimated), s1=1230ft & s2=1540ft
Rubble speed= SQR(2*32.2*1230)=SQR(79212)=281ft/sec or 192mph
Towertop speed=SQR(2*9.00*1540)=SQR(27720)=166ft/sec or 114mph
Time before buckling release (estimated)=3.6 sec
Time taken (after initial buckling)=SQR(2*s2/f2)=SQR(2*1540/9.00)=18.5 sec
Total time of collapse 22.1 sec
I think you'll agree that you can't argue with correct mathematics
So that only leaves U the estimated figs.
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 Tell is to NIST. They think the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Deal with it.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
Video cameras run very accurately
The continuous sound track and the way the crew reacted looked VERY REAL to me
What was that number? 14.75 seconds? And that OTHER number? 22.02 seconds?
Could it be that Dr. Sunder had made a mistake?
Could it be that YOU are making a mistake?
Try avoiding making a hypocritical reply, if you can
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He has never to my knowledge said that this was a mistake. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney "NIST says in section 6.14.4" Again?
Why are you quoting a report you wish to discredit? Again?
Why are you waiting for someone else to tell you what to think?
Why are you quoting someone you DON'T BELIEVE to make a point?
Why are you REPEATING someone you don't believe to make a point?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beachcomber2008 How can I discredit a report without quoting it? Why are you denying what NIST says in order to try to show that they're right?
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He has never to my knowledge said that this was a mistake. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". If you don't believe Sunder and and NIST, then you should be calling for new investigations.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@beachcomber2008 How can I criticize a report without quoting it? Why are you hypocritically defending a report you don't believe? How can I refute your defenses without quoting the report?
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney I had always joined you in its criticism
I'm defending neither the report nor your criticism of it, and nor have I ever been
That's wrong
You could refute my defenses by thinking through what I have written and finding something you cannot agree with, and giving your reasons why
Surely my estimated figures deserve an aggressive word-by-word scrutiny?
Those snap NIST figures for the descent time of the towers and "essentially freefall" are, to my mind, out of the window
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf Can you point out a specific lie the govt has told on the use of thermate? (That is the subject.)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf Yes thanks. A quality item
"Gov does lie" - totally irrelevant. So do you
Here we go! Is it your last refuge? Then stand for office
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf That isn't the point. U NOW would have to argue that NOBODY took pictures of planes, & that EVERY video was faked, in the face of people who actually participated. U should argue the point with a New Yorker who was there - but stay out of fist range
I am quite happy with the NIST story, perhaps because I'm both an engineer & an aerodynamicist, & didn't miss the wave vortices (only wings make them) attached to the towers after the impact
If you don't know dick, don't speak it
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Bravo good sir!!! That was riveting, to say the least!... I cannot thank you enough for your hard work and dedication to the truth! Thank you thank you thankyou!
wakeup808 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf LOL
.
You still haven't told me WHY all these cameras, scattered around the city, were simultaneously tracking THE SAME EMPTY SPACE?
.
You STILL don't get it, do you?
.
You idiots are SUCH FUN,,,,,,,,,,, ROFL
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf I'm talking to a "no-planer"!
So U believe ALL personal videos of aircraft were captured & modified by the PTB, right?
So WHY were these people's videocams ALL following the SAME COURSE of a plane that WASN'T THERE?
As a "no-planers" U are truly SO moronic, that I shall not bother continuing, because U are going to argue the NIST case better than I ever could
Yeah, right, all these amateur cameras pointing at the same MOVING empty space until they converge on the other tower!
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
More Real Evidence......More real...... QUESTIONS.
It seems that the more a person looks................
2gtrmike 1 year ago
Jonathan Cole, the "NIST Buster"!!!
Sockpuppet2012 1 year ago
Look at how thick that perimeter frame is. No way a commercial airliner could crash through that. Especially the way that was shown, with hardly any deceleration at all, the plane just disappearing into the building.
Especially the wings, past the engine cups. Let me say that again. ESPECIALLY THE LIGHTLY, EASILY BENT WINGS, EXTENDING PAST THE ENGINE CUPS.
How did they penetrate that thick box tube frame, at any speed? They should break off.
The results of that Purdue study stink, badly.
pk1225 1 year ago