I seen on TV they talking about the only steel and cement building to fall IN HISTORY of just a small smoldering fires in different areas was WTC7.If WTC7 fell because of fire it should have not been a complete failure.Okla,Tim McVeigh,used a much more powerful bomb from 40 feet from the building and look what it done.Half of the building still stood and it was not bomb proof like WTC7 was suppose to beat least blast proof.
@armymatt83 What you said is correct but I still don't understand.Yes any building will fall if you use a big enough bomb,that's obvious.Okla building had no,none what so ever of anykind of bomb proof.WTC7 the basement was reinforced,the first 5 stories had reinforced steel that had a total of four coatings of fireproof foam and 1 coat of a foamsealer.Even the windows had all been replaced on the first 5 stories.They were made to withstand temperatures in excess of 2000degs for 18 hours.
So, an engineer fireproofs steel to avoid a collapse in the event of fire. But why should any burning building crumple into itself? Shouldn't the WTC collapses have looked more like this: /watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
@5147848amp If the damage was further down like in the video you just displayed, you would have probably seen WTC lean a lot more. Fortunately for the buildings around it, the damage was further up and the tilting only started at the top portion above the crash.
That portion at the top, because of the tilting, ended up falling outside of the building footprint and into WTC 7.
@5147848amp I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but have yet to make my mind up about 9/11. But, not because I think our gov't is morally above it. However, the way that building collapsed was a completely different situation so I don't think it is applicable to this discussion. That building had foundation problems causing it to lean and eventually fall. I wouldn't expect that to look the same as the twin tower collapse.
That's what confuses me about the plane strikes. How can the collapse of two of the buildings be caused by planes, if a third unstruck building also collapsed? And why is there never a public, televised debate airing this stuff so that the citizenry can get somewhere on these questions.
@5147848amp I feel ya, man. The whole thing reeks. I just don't have enough information to understand what actually happened that day. I must prove it to myself. It doesn't help much when half of the "truth movement" is just as willing to distort facts as the gov't is to prove their point. There is disinformation coming from both sides trying to prove their point. I read the 9/11 commission report and it is garbage. But there is a lot of garbage on the other side of the argument as well.
We're both stuck in the same part of the quagmire. I think I'm going to give 9/11 a rest for now. I am not getting anywhere with the key questions, and I'm no longer confident that I CAN prove anything to myself. Furthermore, it's gotten to the point where rifts are brewing within my family! Amazing how far the ripples reach, isn't it? I'm with you, though, on this: The whole thing definitely reeks. Why let the weird into your life, eh?! Let the weirdos play their little game.
@5147848amp I' feel exactly the same way. I have lost motivation to keep this up. I mean, there are far too many things that can or have been proven that are sufficient reason to end this system and government. No reason expelling too much time and effort on just one thing. We know this system is fail and that our gov't is backwards and corrupt. Now, we just need the masses to see it our way. For that to happen, the criminals just have to keep doing what they're already doing. And they will!
Fuck this! People who think these buildings collapsed by itself how come they fell at nearly free fall speed which was 9.3 secs i think i know it was 9 seconds though.they both collapsed at 10 secs
they spray fire proofing on trusses so they wont fai howeverl that does nothing to explain the near free fall collapse of building 7 or the twin towers...it is a total red herring
The fireproofing is added so that heat transmitted via steel from fire on one floor wont get hot enough to start fires on adjacent floors. the fireproofing is not to protect the beams from the offices, but to protect the offices from the hot beams. Steel can get much hotter than 451F, when paper burns, without suffering loss of integrity. Hence the need to protect flammable material close to the beams with fireproofing on the beams.
It reduces heat transfer, thus defeats fire. Fire is a chemical reaction. It needs the correct mixture of HEAT - oxygen - fuel to properly convert stored energy in the fuel to heat and light. The smoke coming out of the building tells us that there is very little oxygen inside the building. The smoke to isolated dull orange flame ratio tells us that the fires are very poorly combusted. An inefficient combustion fails to convert the Co-Co2 gasses and cannot exceed 30% of its potential energy.
~ That we have no prior fire enduced collapses of similar construction type in which to compare the WTC's to. (Your analysis is flawed from the starting gate)
~ I also noticed that u intentionally ignored the heat transfer to steel columns when the planes struck the buildings
~ If u bother replying, also comment on the synthetic materials (carpets/computer cases) that caught fire & burn at intensely high rates (3000 deg)
@gameralholbert Fires burnt uncontrolled in Building 7 for over five hours. The building was also held up by three main trusses, a design of neccessity due to the building's foundations straddling an underground powerstation. When the first truss failed, the rest failed unable to bear the excess load.
The elevator renovation nonsense has got to be the most desperate attempt I've seen from the 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics in a long time. Still no go folks, can't rig a building for CD in complete secrecy, it's laughably preposterous cockamamie.
Plus, anyone can watch the towers collapse, plenty of video and audio, The towers simply collapse, starting WHERE THE PLANES HIT. No fucking CD take place, no fucking explosions. The 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics are living in a fantasy world.
@IndividualParties I agree 100%.......I think it's time for the cult fanatics to drink there cool aid!!!!.....I can't beleve these low IQ idiots still think it was CD!!!...There was no CD explosions....Plastic and uphostery foam produce thick black smoke no mater how much oxygen is available so the fires were hot anough to weakin the steel and like you said the towers failed where the planes hit..........
@koolbossjock And the easter bunny brings you candy every year and the tooth fair will leave you a quarter if you put your tooth under your pillow. So some crack pot found three elemnets of thermite at the scene. You do realize two very important important elements were no present? Also all three elements found are also used in common building materials. So I wonder why they would be in the WTC's?
@koolbossjock Any blind idiot can look at the beam and tell it was cut with an oxygen acetylene torch. Hell they might have even use a carbon arc tourch. The shit you see running down the side is called "SLAG" ! It is the molting metal that is blown out of the cut when you hit the oxygen trigger. Every claim these truther groupies make has been proven false but they can not handle the fact that they have wasted the last 10 years chasing a ghost so they live in denial.
There is NO WAY the WTC could have fallen at freefall without controlled demolition. No steel frame building ever has in the last 100 years, but on 9/11 three of them did.
But keep carrying water for the perps.google: "dea report atta 1/2 mile to israeli spies"; "cousin of hijacker was israeli spy in lebanon"; "mossad caught with explosives in mexican congress"; "odigo im before 9/11"; atta on board abramoff casino";
Stop repeating what the 9/11 "truth" cult teaches you, and learn to think for yourself, you dumb sheep. There was no "controlled demolition" on 9/11, it's impossible.
@IndividualParties why do you call people names when you don't even know them? Do you have anger issues? Is it impossible for you to debate without name calling?
Controlled demolition is impossible? That's ridiculous. Office buildings are commonly brought down by controlled demolition. Never has a steel frame building fallen due to fire.
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you names. However, rigging the WTC towers in complete secrecy while it is being used by thousands of people every day for office space is 100% impossible, you god damn fucking idiot. Oh sorry, there's that name calling again. I don't know why I keep doing that. I guess it's because people who believe in the WTC controlled demolition cockamamie are...well.. god damn fucking idiots.
@IndividualParties Maybe you have deep-seated anger against one or both of your parents, and you are expressing it on total strangers. Instead of dealing with why you hate your mother or father, you just are annoying strangers. Maybe that's it.
Susan Lindauer, a CIA asset, says a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans carrying weapons were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning.
lol, some woman says that there were strange weapons in a van? That proves the controlled demolition cockamamie? LOL, sorry, I'm not impressed by your "evidence."
YOU CAN'T RIG A BUILDING FOR CD IN SECRECY WHILE IT'S BEING USED BY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. IT'S 100% IMPOSSIBLE.
@IndividualParties I look at a steel frame building falling at freefall speed, and I know it is controlled demolition. I know it even though I didn't actually know the people who did it, or see them putting in explosives. I know it is controlled demolition because it is IMPOSSIBLE otherwise. Never in the history of steel frame buildings has one ever fallen due to fire. Then on 9/11 three of them did. Demolition permits for WTC 1 and 2 had been previously been turned down. It's obvious.
" I look at a steel frame building falling at freefall speed, and I know it is controlled demolition. "
No you BELIEVE that it's a CD because that's what 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics have told you on the internet. There was no controlled demolition on 9/11, it's a myth on the internet for which zero evidence exists. I've watched the footage of the towers collapse, the towers fail right around where the planes hit, and there are no fucking explosions.
@IndividualParties Your argument is mere contradiction. You do not use facts to support your point as I do. I pointed out that NEVER IN MORE THAN THE ONE CENTURY HISTORY of steel frame buildings has one fallen due to fire. On 9/11 three of them fell at FREEFALL SPEED. One was not even hit by a plane. They all fell into the PATH OF MOST RESISTANCE. That cannot happen without Controlled Demolition. A catastrophic collapse would be much slower and would leave a huge steel understructure. LOGIC.
Oh ok, NEVER IN MORE THAN THE ONE CENTURY HISTYORY OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS has not one, not two, but three of some of the world's tallest office buildings been rigged for demolition in complete secrecy while being used for office space by 1000's of people everyday and then demolished with state of the art nano-thermite hush-a-bombs from the top down without any audible explosions in any of the collapse footage.
@IndividualParties Thank you for recognizing that the events of 9/11 were truly unique. Obviously it was controlled demolition. How did it happen? I can only speculate. March 2001, Ace elevators elevator renovation in the WTC; see: Drive to the Top, Elevator World, March 2001. Could explosives have been planted in the 3 foot crawl space between floors?
There was no molten steel or fucking explosive devices anywhere in the building.
You don't just plant a few explosives in an elevator shaft to carry out a CD. The explosives have to be placed strategically all over the building over MANY months of work by large demolition crews. This elevator renovation nonsense does not even remotely explain how the building was rigged for CD while being occupied. IT'S 100% IMPOSSIBLE, DID NOT HAPPEN, POINT BLANK PERIOD.
@IndividualParties There you go supporting all of you theories with nothing but your own opinion. I suppose the only way to carry explosives into a building would be up the stairs? Obviously the explosives were carried in elevators. Having a contract to repair the elevators would give a good reason to have workmen on duty for a long period, with several elevators at their disposal. Any work done between floors would go unnoticed.
What is impossible is freefall collapse without controlled demo
@IndividualParties Seriously, what you just said should be the ending argument. You cant rig a building for CD un-noticed white its being occupied. and its not "something you can do over the weekend"
The FACT is that the damage done to the building caused it to fall under its own weight. And all of these conspiracy believers think that the was done buy the evil republicans for whatever reason.
If that's the case, then why would they try to control the demolition? Why would they care?
They spray it to keep the fire from spreading to other floors you idiot!
The roofs are not sprayed on any building or warehouse I've ever worked in or visited. Your engine in your car is made of steel... Shouldn't cars be exploding as soon as the fuel is injected into the Steel cumbustion chamber?
Who do you work for, brainwashing the sheeple into this nonsense?
This guy is one of "them" Do not believe the lies!!!
They spray it to keep the fire from spreading to other floors you idiot!
The roofs are not sprayed on any building or warehouse I've ever worked in or visited. Your engine in your car is made of steel... Shouldn't cars be exploding as soon as the fuel is injected into the Steel on chamber?
Who do you work for, brainwashing the sheeple into this nonsense?
This guy is one of "them" Do not believe the lies!!!
Most of the trusses from south and ALL of the "impact" floors in the northtower had a 6-13 Month new fireproof!!! This is a fakt, research and you will find it! ....Next!!!
You are totally right! they do fireproof them, So then explain what went wrong in the wtc when we all know that the buildings were set for a multi-million dollars upgrade to remove all of the asbestos fireproofing that was part of the WTC 1 and 2 fireproofing material covering the steal int he building ,you didn't mentioned that did you ? Why do you think so many people are dying after being the first responder. Debunk that! I'm Canadian so there's no Hidden agenda here !
@h1wayman Keep telling yourself that. The number of people that believe it was a conspiracy is still oddly correlative to the percent of people with mental illnesses.
Just a thought but how did they know the fireproof steel trusses wern't fire proofed if all the evidence of the collapse was destroyed. I mean how do we know it fell off ? Or is this yet more bullshit to try to throw people away from what really happened
@giptonsilly How do they know the spray on foam came off? Well, it will come off if you hit it with a hammer. It was hit with a 757 going 450mph and then an explosion. Thats kind of like asking how we know for sure that the person standing directly under the Hiroshima bomb was killed. We don't have it on camera so how can we be certain? Well if we can't be 100% certain then we should assume the foam survived thousands of tons of force and the guy the nuke fell on is fine.
@DRAT311 Seeing as you dont believe a word anybody else has to say, and you have your own narrow minded view about 9/11 I say how about a big happy Christmas FUCK OFF from everybody here on youtube. Honestly a cunt that puts up videos of kittens must be one soppy twat. I hope you and your family all die in a car fire very soon.
@giptonsilly You asked a question, I answered it. Then you make personal attacks on me because I have favorite lists that aren't just devoted to 9/11? Is there a truther hand book somewhere that says "If you can't beat them on facts then (A) Throw personal insults at them. (B) Check to see what other videos they've looked at on youtube. If they've looked at kittens then obviously they can't know anything about 911 so dismiss all of their evidence and logic and insult them and their family."
@giptonsilly Seriously, there has to be a handbook because you all use exactly the same red herring and ad hominem debating tactics. But none of you EVER make counter arguments or provide counter evidence.
There has been not one shred of evidence discovered to support the government's conspiracy theory since 2001.
The so-called "conspiracy theorists", on the other hand, have support in witness testimony, thermography, velocimetry, forensic studies, video, audio and photographic records, interviews, theory, experiment, and many kinds of physical evidence.
Do your research. Be a skeptic. Demand evidence for their claims.
@SexyMelon There has been not one shred of evidence discovered to support the truthers conspiracy theory since 2001.
The so-called " government conspiracy theorists", on the other hand, has support in witness testimony, thermography, velocimetry, forensic studies, video, audio and photographic records, interviews, theory, experiment, and many kinds of physical evidence.
Do your research. Be a skeptic. Demand evidence for truther claims.
Its no surprise the first video's that appear when looking at your channel are the anti-semetic rhetoric I would expect to see from you at representative press. Here is an interesting fact for you, MR. DEBUNKER of CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The 9/11 commission report doesn't talk about Israeli involvement, but there is some evidence to suggest that ISS knew about it at least. Israel is our ally yet you say they are our enemy in other vids, now who is a conspiracy theorist... your a Hypocrit.
nobody said it couldn't be the point is those tower's didn't come down the way they claim explain genius theres engineers scientist that back this the only buildings in the history of the world that came down from fire yeah! right there's proof the fires didnt get hot enough black smoke points to oxygen deprived fire can you say that de buller humans waving at impact zones fire melt steel but won't burn flesh and what does pull it mean you should know your doing it now and trying to jerk us off
...and one day we'll have a one world government who propose a solution to all our so-called problems, climate change (fraud), global terrorism (fraud), religious fanatism as danger to society (fraud), pandemics (fraud).
The elite wants people scared and angry, they want to give the solution to the problems they created themselves. Finally they rule the planet. And oh shit... if then when get a new Hitler and you are opposed, youre dead! That will be the reality of the future...
Hitler burned the Reichtag in Berlin himself to start his reign blaming the communists, the WW1 lousitania attack was a fraud, JFK story was fake, so is the official 911 story...
it's being used to start a 'new age' to create a common enemy for all world citizens: terrorists. This war can never be won because the enemy 'is everywhere'. It results in the police state we are in today.
explain why buildings who were on big raging fires for days still stand today. Im not convinced, i am convinced by the facts presented in '911 blueprint for truth'. Not only because of the laws of physics and the professional opinion of thousands of experts, but because of the fact that the several investigations were not neutral and not thorough enough. Besides that the JFK story turned out to be totally different then the official story about that in the first place.
explain why buildings who were on big raging fires for days still stand today. Im not convinced, i am convinced by the facts presented in '911 blueprint for truth'. Not only because of the laws of physics and the professional opinion of thousands of experts, but because of the fact that the several investigations were not neutral and not thorough enough. Besides that the JFK story turned out to be totally different then the official story about that in the first place.
@ctrackmonger "it was Blaze Shield II, and it was rated at 2 hours of protection!!! The same was also in WTC7, which burnt for 8 hours, minimally!!!"
There you go, you just helped me debunk yourself. Good job!
"for example NIST said nothing over 250 degrees C was found,"
Did they say their particular steel samples didn't show evidence of exceeding that temp or the air never reached that temp? And why don't you understand the difference?
so now that we have that under control, and you have posted something i can't refute, then I guess I have to give in, but on the lighter side, maybe you should get a hold of NIST, and complain that they concluded it was 2 hour protection!!!
"Did they say their particular steel samples didn't show evidence of exceeding that temp or the air never reached that temp?"
NCSTAR1-3
"A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. "
"More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels. Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C (note that the exposure could have occurred pre- or post-collapse)."
Oh and one more thing, Blaze Shield II has a rating of 1000 degrees C, which not one of the towers got that hot, for example NIST said nothing over 250 degrees C was found, and then tried to claim 600 with some bunk ass metallurgical testing!!!
You don't need too tell me the basics, I have already done my homework, which it seems you haven't claiming 4 hours of protection!!!
@ctrackmonger "I have already done my homework, which it seems you haven't claiming 4 hours of protection!!!" From the manufacturer website: "CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD II has been extensively tested for fire endurance by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) and Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC) in accordance with ASTM E119 (UL 263, CAN/ULC-S101). These tests have resulted in ratings of up to 4 hours for: - Floor Assemblies - Beams - Joists - Columns" Who hasn't done their homework?
why did they bring the trade centers down "in the first place"? parts if not all of the buildings were sprayed with asbestos and it would've cost greedy Larry more money than he was willing to pay to have it removed. How CONvenient of him and they
Off course they can b efected..But the problem isnt the two towers going down only..Thats just a diversion from the facts...They could never imagine..Thats why they had a drill!? Coincidental same in England..How about Bill Copper knowing month in advance..Or the lying to get war in Irak. Or the torture..Or ground Zero is safe, killing workers from respiratory diseaces..Just to mention a few..Knowledge is power? Only if you withhold it from others..You aint got knowledge you are just plain dum!
I have alot of sins to pay for on judgement day, But I am very thankful not to be George bush, his Daddy, or Cheny. For what they did that day was beyond bad. But Hitler did the same thing to a german building to incite war why shouldnt these warmongers do what comes natural and follow in their heros footsteps..
It,s insulation, also to stop condensation in winter when theres no ceiling....If there was a ceiling the steel trusses would not sweat. Just like the attic in a home.
Your trying to deceive or have NO knowledge of Building. To increase fire rateing
There are paints, much easier though NOT need because Temps don't get high enough in a building unless chemicals,gasses, oil paints etc.
Jet fuel is doesn't burn any hotter than gasoline. Definitely not enough to weaken MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS. Sorry, nice try though. And as for your jet fuel, it blew up right away when it struck the tower. No jet fuel in WTC7 either so why did that collapse. PHYSICS defy the govt's story. You need artificial interference to get a fire hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point where it will give out. And what makes you think the entire structure would give out anyways?
B) those whacky FIRES that burned for over an hour somehow, according to you, must have been "assisted" in lasting as long as they did
C) the impact alone would blow the "fireproofing" off the steel columns to expose them to the fire and weakening them
D) you don't need a fire of any particular intensity to "weaken structural steel" all you need is ANY FIRE exposed to exposed steel... and then all it takes is TIME to WEAKEN it.
Since when does the duration of a fire factor in the molecular breakdown of steel? If it doesn't reach a certain temperature it doesn't matter how long it burns for. I would like to know how this fire got so much hotter than let's say, a car fire. And don't tell me jet fuel because we saw that go up in flames as soon as the planes hit. I'd like to know the artificial substance that caused this fire to be so much hotter than any other in history that it completely drops 3 buildings.
Why would the steel at the bottom of the towers be weakened? Or do fully stable steel columns crumble nowadays? Only time in the history of the world. 3 on one day. Only you would believe a conspiracy theory like that. Speed of gravity in a vacuum. Only you can't see that.
@accursedheretic whines - "Why would the steel at the bottom of the towers be weakened? Or do fully stable steel columns crumble nowadays? Only time in the history of the world. 3 on one day"
ROFL@U
this would be EASILY disproven by the fact that the lowest columns did, IN FACT, actually stay intact after the fall
next you will come back with more BS like - "molten steel" at base... etc etc
thus only going further to prove my point - prove a ConspiRETARD wrong = another 20 questions! LOL
the steel at - "the bottom of the towers be weakened?' WERE NEVER "(as you apparently claim_ the bottom of the towers be weakened?"
no lower steel columns were ever "demolished" or "weakened" you ignorant to proof "conspiRETARD"
"colums" would connotate (i know thats a big word for u, we'll wait while u look it up...) verticle structures... which CLEARLY did not "crumble" as u imply
"Colums?" What are those? Maybe you should look up the word. TOO easy? Hahaha. You haven't said a word yet!! You are a CNNeanderthal tool who gobbles Uncle Sam's cock on a daily basis. You believe exception, not the rule. WHO IS THE RETARD HERE? You believe that massive steel columns turn to licorice and crumble like cheese due to a natural fire. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Why did one of the towers drop 45 minutes faster than the other?
@accursedheretic weeps - ""Colums?" What are those? Maybe you should look up the word."
oh wow. you have discovered a TYPO on YouTube. you should work at the Pentagon or the CIA!!! clearly your vast talents are wasted here trolling & flaming your conspiretard theories
the she cries - "Why did one of the towers drop 45 minutes faster than the other?"
could it be that they weren't hit simultaneously(big word for you, i know. we'll pause while you look that up) and on entirely different levels?
@accursedheretic and finally she bitches & moans - "You believe that massive steel columns turn to licorice and crumble like cheese due to a natural fire. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER"
so an airliner flying into a tower is not a "natural fire?" LMFAO@U
"I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER"
actually, it does matter. only a conspiretard would think how long a fire burns wouldn't affect how the objects around it react
And you can keep reading that Popular Mechanics issue to get your answers all you want, see how far that gets you. Are you going to prove to me that Jesus was/is real as well? Or maybe Moses? Since you know, they are also the exception and not the rule. You are preaching a case that is utterly ridiculous. Steel has a well proven history of standing up to fire. You claim the planes damaged the steel and "blew off" ALL the fireproofing, right? You think planes break through steel?
@accursedheretic she also cries - "the planes damaged the steel and "blew off" ALL the fireproofing, right?"
they didn't have to blow off ALL the fireproofing
and since the fireproofing was nothing more than spray-painted on, i guess that would be REALLY REALLY hard to knock off? the sarcasm is thick on that one (i only tell you that because you are clearly "slow")
as for the existence of Jesus and Moses, all reputable historians acknowledge they were real people. didn't you get the memo?
I'm talking about total time after impact NUMBNUTS. Talk about a fucking moron. Moses was 600 and Jesus was not mentioned by anyone in the history of the world while he was supposed walking the Earth. Nobody spoke of a fag named Jesus until after AD50 you fucking tool. Of course you believe the government's story. You are the biggest conspiracy theorist I know. NO reputable historians make that claim, just douchebags. Why does no one speak of the messiah while he was alive huh?
@accursedheretic cries - "I'm talking about total time after impact"
again, the towers were hit on entirely different levels
perhaps if i called you FAG here you'd understand better?
"Why does no one speak of the messiah while he was alive huh?"
yep... nobody but the apostles, followers, Romans, Jews...
Moses is known to have been real, as is Noah, and Jesus, and Mary... the myths associated with them can be believed or not. their existence is proven more so than your conspiracies
NOT ONE MAN ON EARTH MENTIONS JESUS's NAME DURING HIS LIFETIME FAGGOT. NOBODY. NOT ONE. Apostles can LICK MY BALLS. Moses was 600? Do you honestly believe that bullshit? He had kids when he was 100? You are a fucking freak dude. Pure idiotic fucking freak. FAG.
as i said before, the myth/religion behind the men is up for individuals to decide and/or follow. their existence is not debateable. they lived. your existence, however...
noone on earth mentioned Jesus while he was alive?
so sorry Howard Zinn wasn't around then to debunk history for you
good luck on your therapy! hope it helps you beat the New World Order, Halliburton, the Jesuit Order, Knights of Malta, and the Illuminati!!!
They never lived, sorry, but keep believing in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. You have no evidence just like the rest of the "historical" chumps. I get therapy every day reading the news about American soldiers getting blown up overseas. Makes my day. I practically wake up every day excited to see how many soldiers died. It never gets old. I'm actually thinking about becoming a muslim, I can't wait till that mosque is built by the towers. Hahahaha. I hope "they" attack us again.
All this coming from a FAGGOT WHO BELIEVES THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You are a fucking tool just like Alex Jones. Who's money is in your pocket?? You don't even know hahahahahahahahahaha. What a fucking clown!!! Magic bullet is SO believable. Hahahaha. You fucking retard. You have absolutely NO credibility just like the Warren Commission. You doctor up evidence just like TIME Magazine did to the Zapruder film hahahahahaha.
is there EVER enough proof for you conspiretards???
nothing magical about that bullet. turn your head away from Oliver Stones purely fictional account of the event & read a book or 2. notice i said read a BOOK, not another conspiretard website
LMFAO!!!
i bet you think the bullet had to make 2 turns before it hit Connolly
Ever heard of TIME Magazine?? 2 Bonesmen started it. They bought the Zapruder film and took out certain frames. Look it up. You won't find that in any "book." Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Hmmm, I wonder where the shot came from? Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Oswald was shot before making a public statement. Ruby got killed. Hmmm. You're right. Nothing here folks. Back and to the left.....
The magic bullet is the biggest conspiracy theory in the history of America. 56 witnesses aren't enough for you? Is there EVER enough proof for you "conspiretards." You "conspiretards" who believe absolutely everything your government tells you. You are an idiot and a moron. I bet you get paid to troll around on here. 15 bucks an hour? Back and to the left. Ah, yes, the bullet must have come from the depository. Back and to the left. Not just to the left. Back and to the left.
its a well known motto for engineers 'in a fire never trust a truss' this news isn't new! have a look at factory/warehouse fires they usually have steel truss roof designs and they always fail!
When has fire ever dropped a 15 story or taller steel building in the history of the entire world? Please show me an example of it occurring one time before or after 9/11. And state your sources please. This is the WTC, not a warehouse, big difference. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has over 1200 engineering and architectural professionals who openly deny the govt's bullshit theory. Are they all crazy? Is it a conspiracy of professionals now? They must be fools too.
@accursedhereticyour right there has never been a steel building that has collapsed solely sue to fire damage, there have been several well documented cases of them surviving the difference however is that the towers were hit by 80 tonnes of fast moving airliner, show me a case where a steel building has been hit by a wide body jet and still stands. also the warehouse reference is justified the floors are not load bearing, they just tied the walls together EXACTLY like trusses used in warehouses
What are you talking about? 7WTC fell STRICTLY due to fire according to the NIST. No excuse for debris OR planes. Strictly fire. For THE only time in world history. WORLD HISTORY. I'll use the same bullshit source, the NIST, as you "truthers" use.
NIST disregards any debris in the fall of the WTC. Sorry, but FAIL. Fire alone. Anything else? Can you name one person who ever mentioned Jesus while he was alive?
@accursedheretic NIST refer to lack of water-pressure which resulted in structural failure, the mani weight of which, was burdened by the "clamshell" design of the opening, which forced weight on outer structures it was not able to handle after 7 hours of fire, as it wwas only rated to last 3 hours of fire.... OH BOY!
@accursedheretic Firstly i was referring to you implying that WTC 1 & 2 were imploded as fire could not bring them down i suggest you read over the comment again. Secondly the NIST report does not say tower 7 fell strictly due to fire. I suggest you also read this again (if you ever actually have) as it clearly looks at the damaged cause by debris from the towers and has photographic evidence showing this. Talking of bullshit sources please show me this 'micro thermite' stuff....
Micro thermite? Whoa. That's a big accusation considering I said nothing even remotely close. The NIST report concludes that 7WTC fell due to fire, not damage. Please explain to me how what you've read is different from what I have read. We know about the damage. That is not relevant in bringing down 7WTC, which collapsed at FREE FALL SPEED. It STARTED to collapse earlier, I get that. I have seen it crumple. But the entire structure collapses in 6 seconds. No disputing that.
The controlled demolition hypothesis takes care of all these anomalies, while the Official Theory requires constant re-adjustment and fine tuning to get all of the physical parameters correct. This is the tell tale sign of an incorrect theory, which cannot account for all the data and cannot provide any new predictions. Instead they create a whole string of theories to explain away the melted steel or the free fall speed. While a true theory requires no re-adjustments...
Duh. To MINIMIZE the impact to other floors/workers. They know that no fire truck can reach 110 stories... In general, fire retardants reduce the flammability of materials by either blocking the fire physically or by initiating a chemical reaction that stops the fire. They never planned on THERMITE being introduced to the facade. No pun intended.
As simple as it gets: aluminum projectiles (AND airplanes) at subsonic speeds ( slower than sound) do NOT have the ability to penetrate steel. wonder why you cant shoot people in a tank with aluminum bullets with too little powder to produce mach2 speeds? Understand the term "high velocity rifles"? If you still don't, go have a look in the mirror and check if you should be online alone.
The fire can cause the steel to bend and weaken. The fireproofing helps delay the damage to the trusses this giving firefighters more time to save people and the building.
Simple... They fireproof metal trusses so they don't weaken... knowing that the WTC trusses *were* fireproofed... how, then, *could* they weaken in less than a mere hour or two (with most of the fuel for the fire blowing out the other side of the building in a single fireball), when the Madrid fire raged on for a whole day and only partially collapsed?
To stop fire from being able to take down a building. Which it allegedly did :P and the point is not only the physics, but the facts that the official explanation doesnt add up.
i love the conspiracy mongers deny basic logic like what was just said in this video, and how so many love to personally disparage the people who reason against them and those who make videos debunking this wacky issue.
@representitivepress If you think buildings come straight down after losing a few columns and catching on fire, then what are why do we pay for expensive CD companies? Why don't you do a vid abouthow the need for demo companies is based on a myth?
@mthai66 The buildings did NOT " come straight down." Both towers caused SERIOUS damage to surrounding buildings, destroying a few too. Even WTC7 damaged surrounding buildings. Who in the world would think it is OK for a demolition company to damage or destroy surrounding buildings? Who told you the lie that they buildings came "straight down"? See my video "The WTC towers did not "collapse into their footprints"
You've forgotten that whether in or out of the footprint it "supports" their fantasies.
@mthai66: "after losing a few columns and catching on fire"
Hey, way to go with over simplification "bud." Columns severed, numerous others damaged. Complete destruction of fire suppression systems, the inaccessibility of firefighting 80 stories high, a flash ignition across 6 floors each the size of a soccer field, and the compromising of passive fire protect. Yeah, right... "minor"
@representativepress Dude do you know how massive those buildings were? obviously not, wow, Think about it, tons and tons of debree coming down at free fall speed, being obliderated as it falls, of course the coolapse would cause massive damage, DUH! It would of caused massive damage either way, be demolition company or it just fell due to the fires. The sheer mass of that building. lol
@representativepress you're lazy and don't research the scientific evidence. if you are from the US or support freedom, you are a pathetic excuse. Wake up and investigate the facts
@mthai66 Representativepress is a SHILL. You can see how they troll various videos making ad-hominem attacks on anyone whom they feel they must "teach a lesson". A lot of these people are paid by the hour or keystroke.
@mthai66 The US spends over 30 BILLION a year in psy-ops! What they are doing is hiring bloggers and people to make comments diverting attention away from a
hot topic which exposes them as corrupt. They have huge numbers of people on YouTube shilling politically (for Obama), 9/11, UFO's, against religions, anything they feel needs to be squashed.
@mthai66 The SHILLS who post debunker videos usually turn off comments and ratings. This Shill didn't. Never the less, there are many many unanswered questions surrounding that eventful day. Former US Att'y Gen. Ramsey Clark has convened a new international investigation into the events leading up to, on, and following 9-11-01. I wish him well. Support his efforts. Squash Shills like the vermin they are~
@ghahandi Yep... ol' 83 yr old Ramsey Clakr will get to the bottom of this mess!!
former defense attorney for Saddam Hussein & Slobodan Milosevic will crack the code!
maybe he'll expose the REAL culprits... The TEMPLARS!!!
after this, Ramsey Clark will prepare us all for the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012. then he will invent the weapon that defeats the UFO invasion. and then he will bake THE ULTIMATE APPLE PIE!!!
@mthai66 I have to agree with representativepress here, the towers didn't fall straight down. The top section along the impact zone cracked, broke off slightly tilted and damaged surrounding buildings. There's one video in particular where you can see how the steel is buckling inwards on the outer steel beams seconds before it collapses. There's also videos of the North tower's core connected to the antenna collapsing and moving before the building itself, suggesting it fell at an angle.
Did you know that the original opponents of the WTC project tried to block it because of the danger from jetliner collisions? Did you know that the critics had to be satisfied with the collapse resistant design before they relented? Did you know that the designers analysis focussed primarily on the *fires* that would result from fully fueled planes hitting the towers? They were designed specifically not to collapse under those conditions.
why did the first time in history that 3 buildings fell due to so called "fire".... Even though Twin Tower engineer said it was design to take multiple plane impacts...
@EasyEbookMan It was designed to take multiple impacts from B-17s, planes that were in use at that time. Compare the capacity of a B-17 through B-25 to a 757 and 767. There is an enormous difference.
For the fall to initiate the way it did you would have to have MASSIVE, SIMULTANEOUS, and _instantaneous_ SYMMETRICAL collapse ALL around the massive steel column perimeter of the building, AS WELL as ALL the inside 47 MASSIVE Core Columns!!! They would ALL have to _disappear_ at the _very_ same INSTANT. The planes destruction were like a pencil in a screen net door. The buildings structure was DESIGNED to let weight load be redistributed. Doesn't _reality_ sink in at some point in people?
As I have mentioned in the past, to everyone who keeps asking the same question over and over. The real reason they fireproof columns is to prevent the spread of fire to different floors. This video is stupid, they fireproof the cement between floors as well and it's a fact cement is fireproof...you dimwits who believe this shiz need to get an education...stop reaching out for an explanation short of anything but the truth...cavemen with box cutters did not do this.
And again you are wrong. Why don't you actually learn something about highrise construction.
Your assumption is WRONG and will always be wrong because you don't have a clue as to what you are commenting about.
Standard highrise construction per floor,
Steel floor pan filled with concrete, columns and support beams as well as truss's tied to each other with NONflamable materials IE: steel or concrete. wall of each unit made of combustibles. Combustibles are not in contact with the steel. CONT
"As I have mentioned in the past, to everyone who keeps asking the same question over and over. The real reason they fireproof columns is to prevent the spread of fire to different floors."
Just because you've mentioned it in the past doesn't make it true. You couldn't be more wrong.
Don't worry I still believe more and more that this is an inside job, a 15million investment turned into a 7billion dollar return since when? Definitly something wrong with that
I seen on TV they talking about the only steel and cement building to fall IN HISTORY of just a small smoldering fires in different areas was WTC7.If WTC7 fell because of fire it should have not been a complete failure.Okla,Tim McVeigh,used a much more powerful bomb from 40 feet from the building and look what it done.Half of the building still stood and it was not bomb proof like WTC7 was suppose to beat least blast proof.
twetty291 6 months ago
@twetty291 theres no such thing as a bomb proof building if the bomb is big enough
armymatt83 5 months ago
@armymatt83 What you said is correct but I still don't understand.Yes any building will fall if you use a big enough bomb,that's obvious.Okla building had no,none what so ever of anykind of bomb proof.WTC7 the basement was reinforced,the first 5 stories had reinforced steel that had a total of four coatings of fireproof foam and 1 coat of a foamsealer.Even the windows had all been replaced on the first 5 stories.They were made to withstand temperatures in excess of 2000degs for 18 hours.
twetty291 5 months ago
@koolbossjock. Oh man, please show me that thermite that can be painted on the wall and still cut a any beam! That's a mythos
74pbg 6 months ago
So, an engineer fireproofs steel to avoid a collapse in the event of fire. But why should any burning building crumple into itself? Shouldn't the WTC collapses have looked more like this: /watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
?
5147848amp 6 months ago
@5147848amp If the damage was further down like in the video you just displayed, you would have probably seen WTC lean a lot more. Fortunately for the buildings around it, the damage was further up and the tilting only started at the top portion above the crash.
That portion at the top, because of the tilting, ended up falling outside of the building footprint and into WTC 7.
Spectre11B 6 months ago
@Spectre11B
Thanks for writing back. What about building 7? What's your take on that one?
5147848amp 6 months ago
@5147848amp I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but have yet to make my mind up about 9/11. But, not because I think our gov't is morally above it. However, the way that building collapsed was a completely different situation so I don't think it is applicable to this discussion. That building had foundation problems causing it to lean and eventually fall. I wouldn't expect that to look the same as the twin tower collapse.
LightningBoltz 6 months ago
@LightningBoltz
Seen. Have you come across any other plane-struck buildings, and/or information on the probable consequences of a plane strike?
5147848amp 6 months ago
Comment removed
LightningBoltz 6 months ago
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane so any information relating to planes hitting buildings would be irrelevant.
LightningBoltz 6 months ago
@LightningBoltz
That's what confuses me about the plane strikes. How can the collapse of two of the buildings be caused by planes, if a third unstruck building also collapsed? And why is there never a public, televised debate airing this stuff so that the citizenry can get somewhere on these questions.
5147848amp 6 months ago
@5147848amp I feel ya, man. The whole thing reeks. I just don't have enough information to understand what actually happened that day. I must prove it to myself. It doesn't help much when half of the "truth movement" is just as willing to distort facts as the gov't is to prove their point. There is disinformation coming from both sides trying to prove their point. I read the 9/11 commission report and it is garbage. But there is a lot of garbage on the other side of the argument as well.
LightningBoltz 6 months ago
@LightningBoltz
We're both stuck in the same part of the quagmire. I think I'm going to give 9/11 a rest for now. I am not getting anywhere with the key questions, and I'm no longer confident that I CAN prove anything to myself. Furthermore, it's gotten to the point where rifts are brewing within my family! Amazing how far the ripples reach, isn't it? I'm with you, though, on this: The whole thing definitely reeks. Why let the weird into your life, eh?! Let the weirdos play their little game.
5147848amp 6 months ago
@5147848amp I' feel exactly the same way. I have lost motivation to keep this up. I mean, there are far too many things that can or have been proven that are sufficient reason to end this system and government. No reason expelling too much time and effort on just one thing. We know this system is fail and that our gov't is backwards and corrupt. Now, we just need the masses to see it our way. For that to happen, the criminals just have to keep doing what they're already doing. And they will!
LightningBoltz 6 months ago
Fuck this! People who think these buildings collapsed by itself how come they fell at nearly free fall speed which was 9.3 secs i think i know it was 9 seconds though.they both collapsed at 10 secs
Dantedijon 7 months ago
the fact they fire proof steel trusses does nothing to explain the near free fall collapses of towers 1 and 2 and wtc 7
TheEots 7 months ago
they spray fire proofing on trusses so they wont fai howeverl that does nothing to explain the near free fall collapse of building 7 or the twin towers...it is a total red herring
TheEots 7 months ago
The fireproofing is added so that heat transmitted via steel from fire on one floor wont get hot enough to start fires on adjacent floors. the fireproofing is not to protect the beams from the offices, but to protect the offices from the hot beams. Steel can get much hotter than 451F, when paper burns, without suffering loss of integrity. Hence the need to protect flammable material close to the beams with fireproofing on the beams.
swrtwo 7 months ago
It reduces heat transfer, thus defeats fire. Fire is a chemical reaction. It needs the correct mixture of HEAT - oxygen - fuel to properly convert stored energy in the fuel to heat and light. The smoke coming out of the building tells us that there is very little oxygen inside the building. The smoke to isolated dull orange flame ratio tells us that the fires are very poorly combusted. An inefficient combustion fails to convert the Co-Co2 gasses and cannot exceed 30% of its potential energy.
IranContraScumDid911 8 months ago
@IranContraScumDid911 "The smoke coming out of the building tells us"
~ That we have no prior fire enduced collapses of similar construction type in which to compare the WTC's to. (Your analysis is flawed from the starting gate)
~ I also noticed that u intentionally ignored the heat transfer to steel columns when the planes struck the buildings
~ If u bother replying, also comment on the synthetic materials (carpets/computer cases) that caught fire & burn at intensely high rates (3000 deg)
cdddraftsman 7 months ago
Wood withstands much higher temperatures; steel begins thermal-molecular upset and deformation at 250 degrees, . . .
phillipgaley 8 months ago
What about building 7?
gameralholbert 8 months ago
@gameralholbert Fires burnt uncontrolled in Building 7 for over five hours. The building was also held up by three main trusses, a design of neccessity due to the building's foundations straddling an underground powerstation. When the first truss failed, the rest failed unable to bear the excess load.
pxthirtythirty 7 months ago
Uhhh, ask a scientist about it if you need the answer... It's a simple question and it has been answered by physicists.
gameralholbert 8 months ago
The elevator renovation nonsense has got to be the most desperate attempt I've seen from the 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics in a long time. Still no go folks, can't rig a building for CD in complete secrecy, it's laughably preposterous cockamamie.
Plus, anyone can watch the towers collapse, plenty of video and audio, The towers simply collapse, starting WHERE THE PLANES HIT. No fucking CD take place, no fucking explosions. The 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics are living in a fantasy world.
IndividualParties 8 months ago
@IndividualParties I agree 100%.......I think it's time for the cult fanatics to drink there cool aid!!!!.....I can't beleve these low IQ idiots still think it was CD!!!...There was no CD explosions....Plastic and uphostery foam produce thick black smoke no mater how much oxygen is available so the fires were hot anough to weakin the steel and like you said the towers failed where the planes hit..........
buck65100 8 months ago
Thanks useless PIG government for this STUPID propaganda video.Did YOU know thermite can be painted on a wall?
koolbossjock 8 months ago
@koolbossjock And the easter bunny brings you candy every year and the tooth fair will leave you a quarter if you put your tooth under your pillow. So some crack pot found three elemnets of thermite at the scene. You do realize two very important important elements were no present? Also all three elements found are also used in common building materials. So I wonder why they would be in the WTC's?
LAGunBroker 8 months ago
@koolbossjock Any blind idiot can look at the beam and tell it was cut with an oxygen acetylene torch. Hell they might have even use a carbon arc tourch. The shit you see running down the side is called "SLAG" ! It is the molting metal that is blown out of the cut when you hit the oxygen trigger. Every claim these truther groupies make has been proven false but they can not handle the fact that they have wasted the last 10 years chasing a ghost so they live in denial.
LAGunBroker 8 months ago
because with out it they would soften,and buckle
ALLERTORLOVER69 9 months ago
NIST Admits freefall: watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
There is NO WAY the WTC could have fallen at freefall without controlled demolition. No steel frame building ever has in the last 100 years, but on 9/11 three of them did.
But keep carrying water for the perps.google: "dea report atta 1/2 mile to israeli spies"; "cousin of hijacker was israeli spy in lebanon"; "mossad caught with explosives in mexican congress"; "odigo im before 9/11"; atta on board abramoff casino";
isreal did 9/11
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Stop repeating what the 9/11 "truth" cult teaches you, and learn to think for yourself, you dumb sheep. There was no "controlled demolition" on 9/11, it's impossible.
IndividualParties 9 months ago
@IndividualParties why do you call people names when you don't even know them? Do you have anger issues? Is it impossible for you to debate without name calling?
Controlled demolition is impossible? That's ridiculous. Office buildings are commonly brought down by controlled demolition. Never has a steel frame building fallen due to fire.
watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY
watch?v=SaBQ3AkRet
watch?v=-cwO8loSeaA
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you names. However, rigging the WTC towers in complete secrecy while it is being used by thousands of people every day for office space is 100% impossible, you god damn fucking idiot. Oh sorry, there's that name calling again. I don't know why I keep doing that. I guess it's because people who believe in the WTC controlled demolition cockamamie are...well.. god damn fucking idiots.
IndividualParties 9 months ago
@IndividualParties Maybe you have deep-seated anger against one or both of your parents, and you are expressing it on total strangers. Instead of dealing with why you hate your mother or father, you just are annoying strangers. Maybe that's it.
Susan Lindauer, a CIA asset, says a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans carrying weapons were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning.
watch?v=J6Fmlqe5ahM
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
lol, some woman says that there were strange weapons in a van? That proves the controlled demolition cockamamie? LOL, sorry, I'm not impressed by your "evidence."
YOU CAN'T RIG A BUILDING FOR CD IN SECRECY WHILE IT'S BEING USED BY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. IT'S 100% IMPOSSIBLE.
IndividualParties 9 months ago
@IndividualParties I look at a steel frame building falling at freefall speed, and I know it is controlled demolition. I know it even though I didn't actually know the people who did it, or see them putting in explosives. I know it is controlled demolition because it is IMPOSSIBLE otherwise. Never in the history of steel frame buildings has one ever fallen due to fire. Then on 9/11 three of them did. Demolition permits for WTC 1 and 2 had been previously been turned down. It's obvious.
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
" I look at a steel frame building falling at freefall speed, and I know it is controlled demolition. "
No you BELIEVE that it's a CD because that's what 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics have told you on the internet. There was no controlled demolition on 9/11, it's a myth on the internet for which zero evidence exists. I've watched the footage of the towers collapse, the towers fail right around where the planes hit, and there are no fucking explosions.
IndividualParties 9 months ago
@IndividualParties Your argument is mere contradiction. You do not use facts to support your point as I do. I pointed out that NEVER IN MORE THAN THE ONE CENTURY HISTORY of steel frame buildings has one fallen due to fire. On 9/11 three of them fell at FREEFALL SPEED. One was not even hit by a plane. They all fell into the PATH OF MOST RESISTANCE. That cannot happen without Controlled Demolition. A catastrophic collapse would be much slower and would leave a huge steel understructure. LOGIC.
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Oh ok, NEVER IN MORE THAN THE ONE CENTURY HISTYORY OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS has not one, not two, but three of some of the world's tallest office buildings been rigged for demolition in complete secrecy while being used for office space by 1000's of people everyday and then demolished with state of the art nano-thermite hush-a-bombs from the top down without any audible explosions in any of the collapse footage.
This is impossible, no CD happened on 9/11
IndividualParties 9 months ago
@IndividualParties Thank you for recognizing that the events of 9/11 were truly unique. Obviously it was controlled demolition. How did it happen? I can only speculate. March 2001, Ace elevators elevator renovation in the WTC; see: Drive to the Top, Elevator World, March 2001. Could explosives have been planted in the 3 foot crawl space between floors?
evidence of molten steel: watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
evidence of explosions: watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM
ChristopherMarlowe 9 months ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
There was no molten steel or fucking explosive devices anywhere in the building.
You don't just plant a few explosives in an elevator shaft to carry out a CD. The explosives have to be placed strategically all over the building over MANY months of work by large demolition crews. This elevator renovation nonsense does not even remotely explain how the building was rigged for CD while being occupied. IT'S 100% IMPOSSIBLE, DID NOT HAPPEN, POINT BLANK PERIOD.
IndividualParties 8 months ago
@IndividualParties There you go supporting all of you theories with nothing but your own opinion. I suppose the only way to carry explosives into a building would be up the stairs? Obviously the explosives were carried in elevators. Having a contract to repair the elevators would give a good reason to have workmen on duty for a long period, with several elevators at their disposal. Any work done between floors would go unnoticed.
What is impossible is freefall collapse without controlled demo
ChristopherMarlowe 8 months ago
@IndividualParties But, you seem so sure of your own opinions, . . .
phillipgaley 8 months ago
@IndividualParties Seriously, what you just said should be the ending argument. You cant rig a building for CD un-noticed white its being occupied. and its not "something you can do over the weekend"
The FACT is that the damage done to the building caused it to fall under its own weight. And all of these conspiracy believers think that the was done buy the evil republicans for whatever reason.
If that's the case, then why would they try to control the demolition? Why would they care?
FollowMyDamnedLaws 8 months ago
MyFishyWishy said it all!!! Thumbs up to all truth seekers around the World (^_^)
JacobDeleuran 10 months ago
They spray it to keep the fire from spreading to other floors you idiot!
The roofs are not sprayed on any building or warehouse I've ever worked in or visited. Your engine in your car is made of steel... Shouldn't cars be exploding as soon as the fuel is injected into the Steel cumbustion chamber?
Who do you work for, brainwashing the sheeple into this nonsense?
This guy is one of "them" Do not believe the lies!!!
Don't be a sheeple people!!!!
MyFishyWishy 10 months ago
They spray it to keep the fire from spreading to other floors you idiot!
The roofs are not sprayed on any building or warehouse I've ever worked in or visited. Your engine in your car is made of steel... Shouldn't cars be exploding as soon as the fuel is injected into the Steel on chamber?
Who do you work for, brainwashing the sheeple into this nonsense?
This guy is one of "them" Do not believe the lies!!!
Don't be a sheeple people!!!!
MyFishyWishy 10 months ago
Most of the trusses from south and ALL of the "impact" floors in the northtower had a 6-13 Month new fireproof!!! This is a fakt, research and you will find it! ....Next!!!
74pbg 1 year ago
You are totally right! they do fireproof them, So then explain what went wrong in the wtc when we all know that the buildings were set for a multi-million dollars upgrade to remove all of the asbestos fireproofing that was part of the WTC 1 and 2 fireproofing material covering the steal int he building ,you didn't mentioned that did you ? Why do you think so many people are dying after being the first responder. Debunk that! I'm Canadian so there's no Hidden agenda here !
oldstripper 1 year ago
Did I just hear a cunt fart
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@h1wayman Keep telling yourself that. The number of people that believe it was a conspiracy is still oddly correlative to the percent of people with mental illnesses.
DRAT311 1 year ago
Just a thought but how did they know the fireproof steel trusses wern't fire proofed if all the evidence of the collapse was destroyed. I mean how do we know it fell off ? Or is this yet more bullshit to try to throw people away from what really happened
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@giptonsilly How do they know the spray on foam came off? Well, it will come off if you hit it with a hammer. It was hit with a 757 going 450mph and then an explosion. Thats kind of like asking how we know for sure that the person standing directly under the Hiroshima bomb was killed. We don't have it on camera so how can we be certain? Well if we can't be 100% certain then we should assume the foam survived thousands of tons of force and the guy the nuke fell on is fine.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311 Seeing as you dont believe a word anybody else has to say, and you have your own narrow minded view about 9/11 I say how about a big happy Christmas FUCK OFF from everybody here on youtube. Honestly a cunt that puts up videos of kittens must be one soppy twat. I hope you and your family all die in a car fire very soon.
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@giptonsilly You asked a question, I answered it. Then you make personal attacks on me because I have favorite lists that aren't just devoted to 9/11? Is there a truther hand book somewhere that says "If you can't beat them on facts then (A) Throw personal insults at them. (B) Check to see what other videos they've looked at on youtube. If they've looked at kittens then obviously they can't know anything about 911 so dismiss all of their evidence and logic and insult them and their family."
DRAT311 1 year ago
@giptonsilly Seriously, there has to be a handbook because you all use exactly the same red herring and ad hominem debating tactics. But none of you EVER make counter arguments or provide counter evidence.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311 .lol i totally agree
solidblack013 1 year ago
There has been not one shred of evidence discovered to support the government's conspiracy theory since 2001.
The so-called "conspiracy theorists", on the other hand, have support in witness testimony, thermography, velocimetry, forensic studies, video, audio and photographic records, interviews, theory, experiment, and many kinds of physical evidence.
Do your research. Be a skeptic. Demand evidence for their claims.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon There has been not one shred of evidence discovered to support the truthers conspiracy theory since 2001.
The so-called " government conspiracy theorists", on the other hand, has support in witness testimony, thermography, velocimetry, forensic studies, video, audio and photographic records, interviews, theory, experiment, and many kinds of physical evidence.
Do your research. Be a skeptic. Demand evidence for truther claims.
DRAT311 1 year ago
These muthu- killed princess Diana, jfk, jfk jr, Lincoln, sank the titanic, 911! And much much more!!!
werdskantxpress 1 year ago
Fuck representative press!!! And the devil worshipper talking!!!
werdskantxpress 1 year ago
Its no surprise the first video's that appear when looking at your channel are the anti-semetic rhetoric I would expect to see from you at representative press. Here is an interesting fact for you, MR. DEBUNKER of CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The 9/11 commission report doesn't talk about Israeli involvement, but there is some evidence to suggest that ISS knew about it at least. Israel is our ally yet you say they are our enemy in other vids, now who is a conspiracy theorist... your a Hypocrit.
thebudgod420 1 year ago
comment censored by youtube
lowaces 1 year ago
this shit is sooo itchy!
huuato 1 year ago
nobody said it couldn't be the point is those tower's didn't come down the way they claim explain genius theres engineers scientist that back this the only buildings in the history of the world that came down from fire yeah! right there's proof the fires didnt get hot enough black smoke points to oxygen deprived fire can you say that de buller humans waving at impact zones fire melt steel but won't burn flesh and what does pull it mean you should know your doing it now and trying to jerk us off
irobot2009able 1 year ago
...and one day we'll have a one world government who propose a solution to all our so-called problems, climate change (fraud), global terrorism (fraud), religious fanatism as danger to society (fraud), pandemics (fraud).
The elite wants people scared and angry, they want to give the solution to the problems they created themselves. Finally they rule the planet. And oh shit... if then when get a new Hitler and you are opposed, youre dead! That will be the reality of the future...
0ceanline 1 year ago
Hitler burned the Reichtag in Berlin himself to start his reign blaming the communists, the WW1 lousitania attack was a fraud, JFK story was fake, so is the official 911 story...
it's being used to start a 'new age' to create a common enemy for all world citizens: terrorists. This war can never be won because the enemy 'is everywhere'. It results in the police state we are in today.
0ceanline 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
explain why buildings who were on big raging fires for days still stand today. Im not convinced, i am convinced by the facts presented in '911 blueprint for truth'. Not only because of the laws of physics and the professional opinion of thousands of experts, but because of the fact that the several investigations were not neutral and not thorough enough. Besides that the JFK story turned out to be totally different then the official story about that in the first place.
0ceanline 1 year ago
explain why buildings who were on big raging fires for days still stand today. Im not convinced, i am convinced by the facts presented in '911 blueprint for truth'. Not only because of the laws of physics and the professional opinion of thousands of experts, but because of the fact that the several investigations were not neutral and not thorough enough. Besides that the JFK story turned out to be totally different then the official story about that in the first place.
0ceanline 1 year ago
What makes you think that the impacts blew the SFRM off?
Better yet where was that impact on WTC7 that fell specifically from FIRE.
An I quote NIST, "The damages sustained from the collapses of the World Trade Centers (WTC) 1 and 2 had no significant value to the collapse of WTC7."
So what happened to all of the SFRM, it bought a plane ticket and went on vacation?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger You do know that SFRM is only rated for 4 hours, right?
thedman113 1 year ago
@thedman113
Not what was in the WTC towers, it was Blaze Shield II, and it was rated at 2 hours of protection!!!
The same was also in WTC7, which burnt for 8 hours, minimally!!!
As well as WTC1 which caught fire in 1975, and burnt for 3 hours, also exceeding the protection rating!!!!
So your point is???
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger "it was Blaze Shield II, and it was rated at 2 hours of protection!!! The same was also in WTC7, which burnt for 8 hours, minimally!!!"
There you go, you just helped me debunk yourself. Good job!
"for example NIST said nothing over 250 degrees C was found,"
Did they say their particular steel samples didn't show evidence of exceeding that temp or the air never reached that temp? And why don't you understand the difference?
thedman113 1 year ago
@thedman113
so now that we have that under control, and you have posted something i can't refute, then I guess I have to give in, but on the lighter side, maybe you should get a hold of NIST, and complain that they concluded it was 2 hour protection!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@thedman113
"Did they say their particular steel samples didn't show evidence of exceeding that temp or the air never reached that temp?"
NCSTAR1-3
"A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. "
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@thedman113
"More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels. Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C (note that the exposure could have occurred pre- or post-collapse)."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thedman113
" These areas were:
WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web;
WTC 1, east face, column 236, spandrel; and
WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@thedman113
Oh and one more thing, Blaze Shield II has a rating of 1000 degrees C, which not one of the towers got that hot, for example NIST said nothing over 250 degrees C was found, and then tried to claim 600 with some bunk ass metallurgical testing!!!
You don't need too tell me the basics, I have already done my homework, which it seems you haven't claiming 4 hours of protection!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
thedman113 1 year ago
@thedman113
Oh and right back to NIST's conclusion, here is that quote from CAFCO which you claim proves something....
"These tests have resulted in ratings of up to 4 hours for:"
Notice this part of that quote: "ratings of up to 4 hours for"
Up to, not is!!!
DEPENDS on the THICKNESS.....
Maybe you should read NCSTAR, and see what they claimed the thickness was, then contact CAFCO....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctrackmonger 7 hours ago: "NIST said nothing over 250 degrees C was found"
ctrackmonger, 6 hours ago: "the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels."
You keep debunking yourself. Makes my job easier!
thedman113 1 year ago
why did they bring the trade centers down "in the first place"? parts if not all of the buildings were sprayed with asbestos and it would've cost greedy Larry more money than he was willing to pay to have it removed. How CONvenient of him and they
dropdead80 1 year ago
Off course they can b efected..But the problem isnt the two towers going down only..Thats just a diversion from the facts...They could never imagine..Thats why they had a drill!? Coincidental same in England..How about Bill Copper knowing month in advance..Or the lying to get war in Irak. Or the torture..Or ground Zero is safe, killing workers from respiratory diseaces..Just to mention a few..Knowledge is power? Only if you withhold it from others..You aint got knowledge you are just plain dum!
TheoriginalGrumphy 1 year ago
I have alot of sins to pay for on judgement day, But I am very thankful not to be George bush, his Daddy, or Cheny. For what they did that day was beyond bad. But Hitler did the same thing to a german building to incite war why shouldnt these warmongers do what comes natural and follow in their heros footsteps..
TheRickmurray 1 year ago
It,s insulation, also to stop condensation in winter when theres no ceiling....If there was a ceiling the steel trusses would not sweat. Just like the attic in a home.
Your trying to deceive or have NO knowledge of Building. To increase fire rateing
There are paints, much easier though NOT need because Temps don't get high enough in a building unless chemicals,gasses, oil paints etc.
ytillaer 1 year ago
@ytillaer or JET FUEL
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
Jet fuel is doesn't burn any hotter than gasoline. Definitely not enough to weaken MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS. Sorry, nice try though. And as for your jet fuel, it blew up right away when it struck the tower. No jet fuel in WTC7 either so why did that collapse. PHYSICS defy the govt's story. You need artificial interference to get a fire hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point where it will give out. And what makes you think the entire structure would give out anyways?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic A) you are a proven conspiretard idiot
B) those whacky FIRES that burned for over an hour somehow, according to you, must have been "assisted" in lasting as long as they did
C) the impact alone would blow the "fireproofing" off the steel columns to expose them to the fire and weakening them
D) you don't need a fire of any particular intensity to "weaken structural steel" all you need is ANY FIRE exposed to exposed steel... and then all it takes is TIME to WEAKEN it.
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@accursedheretic and then you cry - "what makes you think the entire structure would give out anyways?"
D) i dunno... maybe the weight of 20 floors above it pushing down on weakened steel?!?!?!!!
you are a conspiretard who will only cry "there are still questions left unanswered"
if you were remotely intelligent you would come up with answers, not just unending question of irrational & little consequence
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
Since when does the duration of a fire factor in the molecular breakdown of steel? If it doesn't reach a certain temperature it doesn't matter how long it burns for. I would like to know how this fire got so much hotter than let's say, a car fire. And don't tell me jet fuel because we saw that go up in flames as soon as the planes hit. I'd like to know the artificial substance that caused this fire to be so much hotter than any other in history that it completely drops 3 buildings.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic cries - "Since when does the duration of a fire factor in the molecular breakdown of steel? "
you have proven my point for me
you seem like one of those morons who has never heard of "Occams Razor"
but you will look it up now & come back with a myriad of inpertininent questions
LMFAO @ U
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@accursedheretic cries & whines - "Since when does the duration of a fire factor in the molecular breakdown of steel?"
all the more proof that you are more the RETARD in the phrase 'cospiRETARD"
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
Why would the steel at the bottom of the towers be weakened? Or do fully stable steel columns crumble nowadays? Only time in the history of the world. 3 on one day. Only you would believe a conspiracy theory like that. Speed of gravity in a vacuum. Only you can't see that.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic whines - "Why would the steel at the bottom of the towers be weakened? Or do fully stable steel columns crumble nowadays? Only time in the history of the world. 3 on one day"
ROFL@U
this would be EASILY disproven by the fact that the lowest columns did, IN FACT, actually stay intact after the fall
next you will come back with more BS like - "molten steel" at base... etc etc
thus only going further to prove my point - prove a ConspiRETARD wrong = another 20 questions! LOL
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@accursedheretic that is just it, you conspiRETARD -
the steel at - "the bottom of the towers be weakened?' WERE NEVER "(as you apparently claim_ the bottom of the towers be weakened?"
no lower steel columns were ever "demolished" or "weakened" you ignorant to proof "conspiRETARD"
"colums" would connotate (i know thats a big word for u, we'll wait while u look it up...) verticle structures... which CLEARLY did not "crumble" as u imply
this gets TOO easy sometimes
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
"Colums?" What are those? Maybe you should look up the word. TOO easy? Hahaha. You haven't said a word yet!! You are a CNNeanderthal tool who gobbles Uncle Sam's cock on a daily basis. You believe exception, not the rule. WHO IS THE RETARD HERE? You believe that massive steel columns turn to licorice and crumble like cheese due to a natural fire. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Why did one of the towers drop 45 minutes faster than the other?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic weeps - ""Colums?" What are those? Maybe you should look up the word."
oh wow. you have discovered a TYPO on YouTube. you should work at the Pentagon or the CIA!!! clearly your vast talents are wasted here trolling & flaming your conspiretard theories
the she cries - "Why did one of the towers drop 45 minutes faster than the other?"
could it be that they weren't hit simultaneously(big word for you, i know. we'll pause while you look that up) and on entirely different levels?
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@accursedheretic and finally she bitches & moans - "You believe that massive steel columns turn to licorice and crumble like cheese due to a natural fire. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER"
so an airliner flying into a tower is not a "natural fire?" LMFAO@U
"I DON'T GIVE A SHIT HOW LONG THAT FIRE IS BURNING, IT DOESN'T MATTER"
actually, it does matter. only a conspiretard would think how long a fire burns wouldn't affect how the objects around it react
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
And you can keep reading that Popular Mechanics issue to get your answers all you want, see how far that gets you. Are you going to prove to me that Jesus was/is real as well? Or maybe Moses? Since you know, they are also the exception and not the rule. You are preaching a case that is utterly ridiculous. Steel has a well proven history of standing up to fire. You claim the planes damaged the steel and "blew off" ALL the fireproofing, right? You think planes break through steel?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic cries - "keep reading that Popular Mechanics issue to get your answers all you want, see how far that gets you"
it'll get me a lot farther than your addlebrained conspiretard theories!
the she whines - "You think planes break through steel?"
they sure do. especially when travelling over 500mph. hell, they went INto the buildings. wonder how they got thru that pesky steel framing. hmmm...
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@accursedheretic she also cries - "the planes damaged the steel and "blew off" ALL the fireproofing, right?"
they didn't have to blow off ALL the fireproofing
and since the fireproofing was nothing more than spray-painted on, i guess that would be REALLY REALLY hard to knock off? the sarcasm is thick on that one (i only tell you that because you are clearly "slow")
as for the existence of Jesus and Moses, all reputable historians acknowledge they were real people. didn't you get the memo?
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
I'm talking about total time after impact NUMBNUTS. Talk about a fucking moron. Moses was 600 and Jesus was not mentioned by anyone in the history of the world while he was supposed walking the Earth. Nobody spoke of a fag named Jesus until after AD50 you fucking tool. Of course you believe the government's story. You are the biggest conspiracy theorist I know. NO reputable historians make that claim, just douchebags. Why does no one speak of the messiah while he was alive huh?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic cries - "I'm talking about total time after impact"
again, the towers were hit on entirely different levels
perhaps if i called you FAG here you'd understand better?
"Why does no one speak of the messiah while he was alive huh?"
yep... nobody but the apostles, followers, Romans, Jews...
Moses is known to have been real, as is Noah, and Jesus, and Mary... the myths associated with them can be believed or not. their existence is proven more so than your conspiracies
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
NOT ONE MAN ON EARTH MENTIONS JESUS's NAME DURING HIS LIFETIME FAGGOT. NOBODY. NOT ONE. Apostles can LICK MY BALLS. Moses was 600? Do you honestly believe that bullshit? He had kids when he was 100? You are a fucking freak dude. Pure idiotic fucking freak. FAG.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic angry little pissant, arent you?
LMFAO@U
as i said before, the myth/religion behind the men is up for individuals to decide and/or follow. their existence is not debateable. they lived. your existence, however...
noone on earth mentioned Jesus while he was alive?
so sorry Howard Zinn wasn't around then to debunk history for you
good luck on your therapy! hope it helps you beat the New World Order, Halliburton, the Jesuit Order, Knights of Malta, and the Illuminati!!!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
They never lived, sorry, but keep believing in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. You have no evidence just like the rest of the "historical" chumps. I get therapy every day reading the news about American soldiers getting blown up overseas. Makes my day. I practically wake up every day excited to see how many soldiers died. It never gets old. I'm actually thinking about becoming a muslim, I can't wait till that mosque is built by the towers. Hahahaha. I hope "they" attack us again.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
All this coming from a FAGGOT WHO BELIEVES THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You are a fucking tool just like Alex Jones. Who's money is in your pocket?? You don't even know hahahahahahahahahaha. What a fucking clown!!! Magic bullet is SO believable. Hahahaha. You fucking retard. You have absolutely NO credibility just like the Warren Commission. You doctor up evidence just like TIME Magazine did to the Zapruder film hahahahahaha.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic ROFLMFAO!!!
now even the Zapruder film was "doctored?"
BWAAHAHAHAHAAAA
is there EVER enough proof for you conspiretards???
nothing magical about that bullet. turn your head away from Oliver Stones purely fictional account of the event & read a book or 2. notice i said read a BOOK, not another conspiretard website
LMFAO!!!
i bet you think the bullet had to make 2 turns before it hit Connolly
what a friggin dope
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
Ever heard of TIME Magazine?? 2 Bonesmen started it. They bought the Zapruder film and took out certain frames. Look it up. You won't find that in any "book." Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Hmmm, I wonder where the shot came from? Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Oswald was shot before making a public statement. Ruby got killed. Hmmm. You're right. Nothing here folks. Back and to the left.....
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
The magic bullet is the biggest conspiracy theory in the history of America. 56 witnesses aren't enough for you? Is there EVER enough proof for you "conspiretards." You "conspiretards" who believe absolutely everything your government tells you. You are an idiot and a moron. I bet you get paid to troll around on here. 15 bucks an hour? Back and to the left. Ah, yes, the bullet must have come from the depository. Back and to the left. Not just to the left. Back and to the left.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
its a well known motto for engineers 'in a fire never trust a truss' this news isn't new! have a look at factory/warehouse fires they usually have steel truss roof designs and they always fail!
crazymotionride 1 year ago
@crazymotionride
When has fire ever dropped a 15 story or taller steel building in the history of the entire world? Please show me an example of it occurring one time before or after 9/11. And state your sources please. This is the WTC, not a warehouse, big difference. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has over 1200 engineering and architectural professionals who openly deny the govt's bullshit theory. Are they all crazy? Is it a conspiracy of professionals now? They must be fools too.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedhereticyour right there has never been a steel building that has collapsed solely sue to fire damage, there have been several well documented cases of them surviving the difference however is that the towers were hit by 80 tonnes of fast moving airliner, show me a case where a steel building has been hit by a wide body jet and still stands. also the warehouse reference is justified the floors are not load bearing, they just tied the walls together EXACTLY like trusses used in warehouses
crazymotionride 1 year ago
@crazymotionride
What are you talking about? 7WTC fell STRICTLY due to fire according to the NIST. No excuse for debris OR planes. Strictly fire. For THE only time in world history. WORLD HISTORY. I'll use the same bullshit source, the NIST, as you "truthers" use.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic " No excuse for debris"
apparently you hadn't heard about the 2 towers that fell next to WTC & damaged it
LMFAO@U
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
NIST disregards any debris in the fall of the WTC. Sorry, but FAIL. Fire alone. Anything else? Can you name one person who ever mentioned Jesus while he was alive?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic NIST refer to lack of water-pressure which resulted in structural failure, the mani weight of which, was burdened by the "clamshell" design of the opening, which forced weight on outer structures it was not able to handle after 7 hours of fire, as it wwas only rated to last 3 hours of fire.... OH BOY!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@accursedheretic cries -"Can you name one person who ever mentioned Jesus while he was alive?"
been there, done that! (at least twice already0
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@accursedheretic Firstly i was referring to you implying that WTC 1 & 2 were imploded as fire could not bring them down i suggest you read over the comment again. Secondly the NIST report does not say tower 7 fell strictly due to fire. I suggest you also read this again (if you ever actually have) as it clearly looks at the damaged cause by debris from the towers and has photographic evidence showing this. Talking of bullshit sources please show me this 'micro thermite' stuff....
crazymotionride 1 year ago
@crazymotionride
Micro thermite? Whoa. That's a big accusation considering I said nothing even remotely close. The NIST report concludes that 7WTC fell due to fire, not damage. Please explain to me how what you've read is different from what I have read. We know about the damage. That is not relevant in bringing down 7WTC, which collapsed at FREE FALL SPEED. It STARTED to collapse earlier, I get that. I have seen it crumple. But the entire structure collapses in 6 seconds. No disputing that.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
The controlled demolition hypothesis takes care of all these anomalies, while the Official Theory requires constant re-adjustment and fine tuning to get all of the physical parameters correct. This is the tell tale sign of an incorrect theory, which cannot account for all the data and cannot provide any new predictions. Instead they create a whole string of theories to explain away the melted steel or the free fall speed. While a true theory requires no re-adjustments...
WarCrime911 1 year ago
Duh. To MINIMIZE the impact to other floors/workers. They know that no fire truck can reach 110 stories... In general, fire retardants reduce the flammability of materials by either blocking the fire physically or by initiating a chemical reaction that stops the fire. They never planned on THERMITE being introduced to the facade. No pun intended.
StaalRulz2010 1 year ago
Do you think the knowingly false EPA "air was safe to breath" claim is a conspiracy theory or a well documented fact?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
As simple as it gets: aluminum projectiles (AND airplanes) at subsonic speeds ( slower than sound) do NOT have the ability to penetrate steel. wonder why you cant shoot people in a tank with aluminum bullets with too little powder to produce mach2 speeds? Understand the term "high velocity rifles"? If you still don't, go have a look in the mirror and check if you should be online alone.
1776ThomasPaine1 1 year ago
"Why Do You Think They Fireproof Steel Trusses?"
Why do you think they have demolitions industry if that's all it takes?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that controlled demolitions are safer.
rgmztxy 1 year ago
@rgmztxy Well, in this context, fires are supposed to collapse steel-frames in the exact or close to exact manner of controlled demolition.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
The fire can cause the steel to bend and weaken. The fireproofing helps delay the damage to the trusses this giving firefighters more time to save people and the building.
kingmike40 1 year ago
Simple... They fireproof metal trusses so they don't weaken... knowing that the WTC trusses *were* fireproofed... how, then, *could* they weaken in less than a mere hour or two (with most of the fuel for the fire blowing out the other side of the building in a single fireball), when the Madrid fire raged on for a whole day and only partially collapsed?
SeraphimPwnsU 1 year ago
@SeraphimPwnsU Exactly!
StaalRulz2010 1 year ago
@SeraphimPwnsU i suppose a 767 flying at the speed of a .45 caliber bullet certainly wouldnt blow any of that insulation off... sure! of course not!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
To stop fire from being able to take down a building. Which it allegedly did :P and the point is not only the physics, but the facts that the official explanation doesnt add up.
Tommcg2310 1 year ago
a lot of these conspiracy theorists seem to be very fascist people
MasqueradeOfLies 1 year ago
i love the conspiracy mongers deny basic logic like what was just said in this video, and how so many love to personally disparage the people who reason against them and those who make videos debunking this wacky issue.
MasqueradeOfLies 1 year ago
@representitivepress If you think buildings come straight down after losing a few columns and catching on fire, then what are why do we pay for expensive CD companies? Why don't you do a vid abouthow the need for demo companies is based on a myth?
mthai66 1 year ago
@mthai66 The buildings did NOT " come straight down." Both towers caused SERIOUS damage to surrounding buildings, destroying a few too. Even WTC7 damaged surrounding buildings. Who in the world would think it is OK for a demolition company to damage or destroy surrounding buildings? Who told you the lie that they buildings came "straight down"? See my video "The WTC towers did not "collapse into their footprints"
representativepress 1 year ago
@representativepress
You've forgotten that whether in or out of the footprint it "supports" their fantasies.
@mthai66: "after losing a few columns and catching on fire"
Hey, way to go with over simplification "bud." Columns severed, numerous others damaged. Complete destruction of fire suppression systems, the inaccessibility of firefighting 80 stories high, a flash ignition across 6 floors each the size of a soccer field, and the compromising of passive fire protect. Yeah, right... "minor"
xAnacondax 1 year ago
@representativepress Dude do you know how massive those buildings were? obviously not, wow, Think about it, tons and tons of debree coming down at free fall speed, being obliderated as it falls, of course the coolapse would cause massive damage, DUH! It would of caused massive damage either way, be demolition company or it just fell due to the fires. The sheer mass of that building. lol
metalgtp 1 year ago
@representativepress
Lets start lighting buildings on fire from now on. Its the new and cheaper way to bring towers down with precision!
Origin305 1 year ago
@representativepress 99.9% of the buildings came straight down. A little debris was scattered....and yes, it is just a little (relatively).
durizap 1 year ago
@representativepress you're lazy and don't research the scientific evidence. if you are from the US or support freedom, you are a pathetic excuse. Wake up and investigate the facts
dropdead80 1 year ago
@mthai66 Representativepress is a SHILL. You can see how they troll various videos making ad-hominem attacks on anyone whom they feel they must "teach a lesson". A lot of these people are paid by the hour or keystroke.
ghahandi 1 year ago
@mthai66 The US spends over 30 BILLION a year in psy-ops! What they are doing is hiring bloggers and people to make comments diverting attention away from a
hot topic which exposes them as corrupt. They have huge numbers of people on YouTube shilling politically (for Obama), 9/11, UFO's, against religions, anything they feel needs to be squashed.
ghahandi 1 year ago
@ghahandi ROFLMAO@U
UFO's, 9/11... come to think of it.... maybe it wasnt the inside job by the US Govt... it was the MARTIAN GOVERNMENT!!!
yes... i've got it now -
the planes were simply HOLOGRAMS created by UFO's to cover their super plasma laser anti-gravity string theory dark matter hyper cannons!!!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@mthai66 The SHILLS who post debunker videos usually turn off comments and ratings. This Shill didn't. Never the less, there are many many unanswered questions surrounding that eventful day. Former US Att'y Gen. Ramsey Clark has convened a new international investigation into the events leading up to, on, and following 9-11-01. I wish him well. Support his efforts. Squash Shills like the vermin they are~
ghahandi 1 year ago
@ghahandi Yep... ol' 83 yr old Ramsey Clakr will get to the bottom of this mess!!
former defense attorney for Saddam Hussein & Slobodan Milosevic will crack the code!
maybe he'll expose the REAL culprits... The TEMPLARS!!!
after this, Ramsey Clark will prepare us all for the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012. then he will invent the weapon that defeats the UFO invasion. and then he will bake THE ULTIMATE APPLE PIE!!!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@mthai66 I have to agree with representativepress here, the towers didn't fall straight down. The top section along the impact zone cracked, broke off slightly tilted and damaged surrounding buildings. There's one video in particular where you can see how the steel is buckling inwards on the outer steel beams seconds before it collapses. There's also videos of the North tower's core connected to the antenna collapsing and moving before the building itself, suggesting it fell at an angle.
dhomme83 1 year ago
Did you know that the original opponents of the WTC project tried to block it because of the danger from jetliner collisions? Did you know that the critics had to be satisfied with the collapse resistant design before they relented? Did you know that the designers analysis focussed primarily on the *fires* that would result from fully fueled planes hitting the towers? They were designed specifically not to collapse under those conditions.
mthai66 1 year ago
@mthai66 Conditions that were based on B-25s, not 757s.
TheCubenerd314159 1 year ago
@TheCubenerd314159 False. The analysis was based on a 707 hit. Get your facts straight.
mthai66 1 year ago
@mthai66 Where did you get 707 hits. They were designed after the empire State building was hit by a B-25 flown by Lt. Col. WIlliam F. Smith, Jr.
TheCubenerd314159 1 year ago
@TheCubenerd314159 Where did I personally get that? City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz and Eric Lipton.
mthai66 1 year ago
You fire proof steel because steel that gets hot has to be replaced to be up to code in this country. Very expensive.
mthai66 1 year ago
why did the first time in history that 3 buildings fell due to so called "fire".... Even though Twin Tower engineer said it was design to take multiple plane impacts...
EasyEbookMan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"why did the first time in history that 3 buildings fell due to so called "fire""
You're seriously so dumb you think this was the first time in history buildings fell due to fire.
"Even though Twin Tower engineer said it was design to take multiple plane impacts"
No, just one, a 707 (biggest plane at the time) lost in fog and flying at low speed.
thedman113 1 year ago
@EasyEbookMan It was designed to take multiple impacts from B-17s, planes that were in use at that time. Compare the capacity of a B-17 through B-25 to a 757 and 767. There is an enormous difference.
TheCubenerd314159 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the fall to initiate the way it did you would have to have MASSIVE, SIMULTANEOUS, and _instantaneous_ SYMMETRICAL collapse ALL around the massive steel column perimeter of the building, AS WELL as ALL the inside 47 MASSIVE Core Columns!!! They would ALL have to _disappear_ at the _very_ same INSTANT. The planes destruction were like a pencil in a screen net door. The buildings structure was DESIGNED to let weight load be redistributed. Doesn't _reality_ sink in at some point in people?
gunthaarz 2 years ago
As I have mentioned in the past, to everyone who keeps asking the same question over and over. The real reason they fireproof columns is to prevent the spread of fire to different floors. This video is stupid, they fireproof the cement between floors as well and it's a fact cement is fireproof...you dimwits who believe this shiz need to get an education...stop reaching out for an explanation short of anything but the truth...cavemen with box cutters did not do this.
gvjuiceman1 2 years ago
And again you are wrong. Why don't you actually learn something about highrise construction.
Your assumption is WRONG and will always be wrong because you don't have a clue as to what you are commenting about.
Standard highrise construction per floor,
Steel floor pan filled with concrete, columns and support beams as well as truss's tied to each other with NONflamable materials IE: steel or concrete. wall of each unit made of combustibles. Combustibles are not in contact with the steel. CONT
Bluetooht 2 years ago
CONT,
However fires are spread thru the cable race ways or the power feed line conduits, as well as any opening in the floor below or above.
Your training was obviously not worth the money you paid for it.
Why don't they have balloon construction any more?
Why do fire codes stipulate fire breaks in all walls as well as any penetrations in the floor or ceiling?
They insulate the concrete so the fire doesn't damage and weaken the concrete which would compromise the structural integrity.
Bluetooht 2 years ago
And YOUR'E calling other people dimwits!
Bluetooht 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"As I have mentioned in the past, to everyone who keeps asking the same question over and over. The real reason they fireproof columns is to prevent the spread of fire to different floors."
Just because you've mentioned it in the past doesn't make it true. You couldn't be more wrong.
thedman113 2 years ago
@gvjuiceman1
Don't worry I still believe more and more that this is an inside job, a 15million investment turned into a 7billion dollar return since when? Definitly something wrong with that
DaShadowInc 2 years ago
As far as who the real person is, I work on small engines, modifying and improving them. What do you do, mr thedman113.
In my opinion, 911 was a crime, the biggest in a century. All will be caught, eventually, as will accessories to the crime.
hopeso 2 years ago