Added: 4 years ago
From: 911NeverForget
Views: 2,869
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (120)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Ah yes - another disinfo douchebag. Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth has the answers - this Mossad disinfo does not.

  • all of you who think it was brought down by controlled demolitions are blind.the fire didnt come close to melting the steel,yet it didnt have to either.even if there was no fire afterwards it still would of came down.after so many perimeter columns were knocked out,each one had to share the load of those around it.the size of the hole the airliner made was enough room to start the demise of the building.with out the floors to hold perimeter,to the core it was doomed

  • As for tower 7, it was the furthest away from towers 1 and 2. It fell in the same fashion, yet had not received the same damage. Leading any logical mind to believe there must be some alternative explanation as to what made there collapses similar! Then came along the fire excuse, well, they said the jet fuel made the twins hot enough to collapse, yet no jet fuel in tower 7. So, another alternative is still needed, and yet to be presented! Or at least accepted!

  • there HAS been an explanation. the building was hit by debris from the towers. it wasnt really that far. just across the street.

    and if it was the same, why did it take so long for it to fall?

    "they said the jet fuel made the twins hot enough to collapse" no they didnt.

  • @911NeverForget Yes, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was also across the street from the South Tower. It was destroyed from the collapse of 2 WTC.

  • exactly.

  • So the FDNY is lying? Covering the murder of 300 of their comrades? No one has ever said jet fuel did the whole thing, jet fuel IGNITED an OFFICE FIRE on ~8 floors at once. The impact also dislodged fireproofing.

    /watch?v=1suwmOgBfNM

  • The flashes I mentioned in my previous comment can be seen on levels where the collapse had not impacted yet, so they were visible through windows as there was no dust to block it on that level yet. If you deny seeing flashes in the video evidence, you might as well write off your vision! As well, puffs of smoke are evident WAY below the level of impact, BEFORE the collapse occurred, Sometimes these puffs ARE accompanied by flashes.

  • those are not flashes. you dont see no light, just puffs of smoke, which is simply an effect from the air pressure inside eac building as it fell.

  • This video is crap. Full of garbage excuses. The little puffs of smoke doesn't explain the flashes that MANY eyewitnesses reported on levels FAR below the point of impact. The reason people can't see the explosions through the dust is because the dust is thick with exploded concrete as well as other material, and the biggest explosions would have happened within the core of the building. You shouldn't expect to see explosions on the outside!

  • what flashes?

  • as in eyewitness accounts of flashes.

  • never mind

  • oh.

  • Their are more Anti-Conspiracy Theories

  • like what?

  • What all of you fucking morons neglect to realize is that all of these "wackjob conspiracy theorists" have NOTHING TO GAIN from their beliefs. Why would people pursue this so passionately with nothing to gain. Where as the other side of the argument is trying to cover up one of the biggest tragedies on american soil in the last 150 years!

  • actually, they want to gain a positive image on themselves.

    and no ones covering up anything.

  • if the steel didnt melt, then how did it fall down.....? theres a video of the south tower burning that zooms in on, what is clearly visible as, melted steel pouring out of the tower. the answer: Thermite use in explosives. For the jet fuel to be the source to the fires likewe were told, the would needed to have burned for hours and hours and hours ith a constant supply of fuel. the fact is, most ofthe fuel immediately burned on impact, hence the huge fire-ball explosion. Let's open our eyes...

  • it WEAKENED.

    thats not melted steel. its aluminum.

    the jet fuel kick started the fires, but the contents in the towers (office desks, shelves, etc.) plus the oxygen rich air in the towers made the fires able to keep burning.

    so no, no thermite used.

  • OK. Then how do you expain the steel beam supports found under the towers that were cut at an angle just like they do with controlled demolitions. Not to mention the cooled melted steel on them. And I'll aask this, and please don't use that HORRIBLE excuse for falling debris and uncotrollable fires, how did WTC 7 fall. It took on significantly less damge than 3, 4, 5 and 6, all of which had their structures stay up and were brought down later, yet 7 still collapsed on it's own?

  • firemen cutting the columns so they could reach bodies.

    it wasnt cooled melted steel.

    "please don't use that HORRIBLE excuse for falling debris and uncotrollable fires, how did WTC 7 fall." its the old "dont use the true reason behind the collapse since it's RIGHT and try to pull a reason out of your ass instead" tactic. not falling for it.

    for one thing, 3, 4, 5, and 6 werent in the same area as WTC 7. not to mention that they werent completely knocked out by the debris.

  • also, they have different building designs, so they reacted to the damage differently.

    3, 4, 5, and 6 didnt get set on fire either.

    multiple factors came into play. you couldve easily found that stuff out, its not hard to find.

  • Dude are you f'n retarted? 3, 4, 5 and 6 were CLOSER to the towers than 7, which was across the street, they were right under the towers. They took on literally ALL of the debris. There's a picture after the second collapse with smoke flowing through the streets, and you can clearly see 7 with no damage on the opposite side. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were at the BASE of the towers, and their steel frame still stayed up. I pulled nothing out of my ass, because I don't put stuff in it for the government...

  • thats what i meant. they werent in the same area, meaning they were closer to the towers. and no, not ALL of the debris. if they did, they wouldve all collapsed completely. there WAS damage: an estimated 20 story gap carved from North Tower debris in a southern corner of the building. there just hasnt been good pics of it yet. however firemen confirm its existance in their accounts of that day. plus, i said they have different building designs. my stuff has nothing to do with the government.

  • you're not getting what im trying to say. not to mention, you do yet another tactic that didnt work: start accusations and insults when debunked. whatever the case, i wasted my time with you. im not going to put up with someone who cant hold a reasonable debate. i didnt accuse you of pulling anything out of your ass either. i was saying that the tactic involved making ME pull something out of my ass, not you. take the time to learn to read things right. you'll be glad you did.

    BLOCKED

  • jet fuel burns up to 2000 degrees f. that steel structure melts at 3000 degrees, the way the plane caused the collapse should have taken at least one day of burning till it gives way. so yes it was controlled demolition

  • no one said the steel melted, and the planes didnt cause the collapse. it just gave structual damage...it was the fires that made the buildings eventually collapse.

  • Finally, a breath of sanity in this nightmare.

  • you people say these theories are debunked but there is no proof you have debunked them...do your research....the archect of the world trade center designed those buildings to with stand a plane crash and NOT collapse...again prove you debunked it......

  • no one said they designed it to withstand a collapse, and even then it was a 707 that was slow moving and was about to land. all of which is completely the opposite from the events of 9/11.

  • How come you debunker types always go after the same 3 craziest theories out of the thousands of things wrong with the official story and then call the whole thing debunked? Is it because it's easier to claim that a theory has already been discredited than try to do any work yourself?

    Try debunking TAPI, or AMERITHRAX, or Philip Zelikow, or the Patriot Act, or the PEOC, or Vigilant Guardian or Tripod II. If there's nothing to these "conspiracy theories" it should be quite easy.

  • The fact that "thousands of things wrong" should give you a clue.

  • And they did!

  • LMAO again this video proved nothing...get an expert on your video giving explanation that the pancake theory doesnt exist......better yet read up on demolition....better yet find a paper or news report thats says every single floor in building seven was on fire,,,,,,that would cause building seven to fall like that, better yet debunk the physicist, demolitionist, and archetects who are specialised in these things that say it was a controlled demolition.....

  • what a hypocrite. here you are screaming "PROOF! PROOF! PROOF!" and yet you dont even give proof that theres any experts saying it was a C.D.

  • How about you describe the damage done to "7" by the debris, the support beams involved in the damage and refute the people who were in the building and determined it was going to collapse;

  • why is this video flagged?

  • because of the idiot coward that flagged it.

  • yeah I know but it does not violate any guidelines. Why do they flag it? I just do not get it.

  • because when anything debunks their claims they'll try to make sure it gets as hidden as possible. they hate the truth so they'll inappropriately flag the vid like cowards.

  • "Faceless cowards". George Bush

    And mindless faceless cowards attack the truth.

  • and the truth is that 9/11 was an outside job.

  • It was squibs that were blasting out the windows. 9/11 was a demolition job.

  • no to both of those.

  • This video is poorly done - it has no facts it just gives another possible explanation.

    I have watched a series on building demolition on Television - it takes a team of experts with detailed engineering plans and months of prep time to make a building fall into it's footprint. Are you suggesting that three - HUGE towers coincidentally fell into their footprint due to structural failure?? This stretches the bounds of statistics and credulity.

  • they didnt fall into their own footprint. not to mention that with months, they wouldve been discovered.

  • really? it sure looked like they did. Do you have any data to back up your claim??

    it is my understanding that the wreckage was all sold to a recycling company before it was inspected in any meaningful way. I am mistaken?

  • yep. its in my vids.

    and wheres the proof that they did that?

  • Thanks for your reply.

    I will have a look through your vids for the info.

    I have to say that you have not convinced me that the collapses were a result of terrorists. I will continue to have an open mind and i will keep asking questions,

    Peace

  • thats fine and all, but you have still not given me proof they sold the debris to a recycling company before it was inspected.

  • A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse;

    Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards

    New York Times

    February 2nd 2002

  • "WTC 4-5-6 got a beating too, but poaaibly had better proofing, and remained standing."

    You're just theorycrafting, without giving any concret fact.

    Why did WTC 7 fall in on itself, and not on the side?

    Why did it fall at freefall speed?

    Why WTC 7, and not WTC 4-5-6 who all got a much much bigger beating and burning, and yet remained standing?

    I could go on, but all I'm saying is that you aren't backing anything with concret facts.

  • again, where did i say that in the vid? also, you didnt answer my last question. where did i make that argument?

    WTC fell to the south with a collapse time of nearly 19 seconds (according to seismic records).

    as for the last question, the answer is simple: they werent on fire.

  • 1. 1:09. All I am saying is that you're not providing any intel as to why WTC 7 fell and not the others except possibilities that aren't backed with facts.

    2. WTC 7 fell in at most 9 seconds (multiple reports are reporting a time of 7-9 seconds)

    3. That one is simply ridiculous, just google WTC 4-5-6, they were blowing torches. They were so consumed by fire that all that was left was the steel, and yet they didnt fall. (Oh and they were extremly damaged by debrit)

  • 1) it took ages, but you finally proved something.

    2) no, it wasnt...and SEISMIC reports say that it was much more than that.

    3) no they werent blowing torches. yes, they WERE heavily damaged by debris. however they were not on fire. even doing what you told me to do didnt show anything...which doesnt surprise me at all from someone who couldnt even give links to pics themselves.

  • 2) All videos (at x1 speed too) show a fall of around 7 seconds. You believe there is Seismic reports showing otherwise, please provide them, as I have looked and came up empty handed.

    My research into documents shows a 6.5s fall. Note that a freefall object would need 6.2s to fall from the top of WTC 7.

    3) If you really seek the truth, you would take the 5 secs it takes to type wtc 4 5 6 on google, and check the links/pictures.

  • ldeo*columbia*edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC _ 20010911*html

    at the very bottom is the WTC 7's seismic report.

    not only did you not completely address my point, you ignored the fact that i said that i did look and no pics you claimed were there existed. i wasted my time with you.

    BLOCKED

  • You provide invalid/no proof to deny conspiracy theorists. Especially your argument for WTC 7: Shit happens??

  • where did i make that argument?

  • I am still unsure about WTC 1 and WTC 2.

    WTC 7 was 100 yards away from the twin towers. It sustained VERY MINIMAL damage from WTC 1 as it fell west into World Financial Center 2. WTC 7 was N of WTC 1. 90 West st., just south of WTC 2, was within 50 yards away! It had very minimal damage also. It did not collapse! As we have all just seen in Beijing a 47 story towering inferno did not collapse the Mandarin Hotel building!!!

  • actually, it recieved a gash in the southwest corner of the building. WTC 7 was just across the street from the North Tower. plus the whole building didnt hit it...just one chunk of it.

  • 911NeverForget - This video dose not make any sense. If the explosions people heard was the building collapsing, how do you explain the explosions people heard before the buildings collapsed?

    And as for WTC7. You explain that, that building was very close the WTC towers. But the were buildings right under the Twin Towers that still stood. Comparing those buildings to WTC7, Id say WTC7 wasnt damaged all that well.

  • an explosion can mean a whole lot of things.

    those buildings didnt catch fire or have the same design as WTC 7.

  • O.k. So the explosions heard on tape. Those were something else?? We even have first responders who were at WTC7 who sayed that it was an explosion.

    They even described that it was Distinct sound other than floors collapsing.

  • again, an explosion can mean a whole lot of things. just because they said they heard an explosion doesnt automatically mean bombs.

  • o.k. So Willie Rodriguez who was in the basement on 9/11. Describe something go Boom so hard that it pushed him & his Co-worker upwards. Then there was a construction worker who also described hearing something go boom in the basement. He even said that it was so hard the Concrete cracked on the Ceiling and walls as well. And that the walls hit a couple of people in the face.

    So tell me, what else can go boom so hard that it can push a man upwards?

    What else can go boom that can crack walls?

  • you seriously think bombs are the only things that can make explosions powerful like that?

  • So then what else can go "boom' crack walls & make people jump upwards??

    Because bombs seem like the only logic to me.

    It's the only thing that can crack concrete in seconds after the sound.

    Tell me, enlighten. What else could it have been??

    & don't say floors pancaking because bombs were heard before the collapse.

    As soon as the 1st plane hit....

  • for the last time, bombs were NOT heard. they never said bombs. they said "epxplosions", "bangs", and "LIKE an explosion".

    did it ever occur to you that the ceiling cracking couldve been frrom the floors buckling? the boom was just that: the floors buckling. it can cause banging or creaking sounds depending on how it sounded to a certain person. any explosion can push someone backwards. its not hard to do so.

  • Buckling from what? The towers stood for 73 minutes after the planes crashed. Explosions was still being described.

    If your saying that these sounds were Coincidental then your saying silly things can happen in the clear blue.

  • *handslap* yet the ceiling couldnt buckle every now and then?

    you dont even know where the buckling is from? you must not know the whole story behind how the towers collapsed then, and im not talking about the fantasy you guys created.

  • Yea i do know the story. And that story is BS. It makes no sense. NIST even admitted freefall from the towers.

    o.k, so lets say your theory that the ceiling was buckling. But that dosen't explain the Testimony by the FDNY. They described that a bomb hit the lobby. You tell me, why was the lobby completely destroyed?

    Why was 2in glass blown out?

    I don't wanna hear Jet Fuel ran down the Elevator shafts because there was one that Elevator that made it to the lobby intact...

  • "NIST even admitted freefall from the towers." no they didnt...

    "They described that a bomb hit the lobby." ...and when did any of them say that?

    "You tell me, why was the lobby completely destroyed?" definitely not from a bomb, but it depends on what tower we're talking about here. if the destroyed lobby was in the North Tower then it wasnt from the ceiling buckling but from the South Tower's collapse (in which we KNOW had happened thanks to reports from people that had been in there.)

  • jet fuel running down the elevator shafts? my god, you expect me to give an answer like that? it doesnt explain anything you're trying to prove. either your logic is a bit warped or you just think you can read people's minds.

  • No.. Im srry if you misunderstood me.

    NIST: Admitted freefall.

    Firefighters: Described Bombs.

    Im talking about the North Tower. They firefighters described the lobby looking as if a bomb hit the lobby. We're talking about before Flight 175 hit the second building.

    And if you didn't know that NIST admitted freefall, you should do a little more research.

  • i didnt say "repeat what you just say". i ask you when did the firemen describe that. i know completely well that NIST never admitted that as i have read every document they made. ive done all my research. in other words, prove it. you've yet to do so.

    there's the AS IF part...again comparing it to a bomb. that doesnt automatically make it a bomb. if it was before F175 hit, then there is an easy explaination.

  • when F11 hit, it caused a huge fireball (NOT jet fuel) to shoot down the elevator shafts. on certain floors the fireball exploded causing huge damage. the 77th Floor Sky Lobby, and the North Tower's main lobby and basement were some of those floors.

  • *This was to World Trade Center 7, Im sorry if you thought I meant the towers.

    NIST finally admits freefall:

    watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

    Firefighter John Schroeder talks about what was very unusual to see in the lobby of the North Tower:

    watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo

    Naudet brothers Documentary, who was following the firefighters in the Towers.

    watch?v=ZAbuQrG6hAs

    Watch the first few seconds of the 3rd video. But you should mostly look at the second video.

  • a vid by AE911Truth...very unreliable since the quote couldve been taken out of context.

    one problem about his testimony: he wasnt sure exactly what happened. he even states that its very confusing to what actually happened. he couldnt see the South Tower collapse, which is exactly what it was thanks to other firemen testimony that was in the area he was at the time.

  • using the edited version that CBS aired is better than the original version? airing the edited version means that things were moved around, changed, maybe even removed altogether. its not very reliable either.

  • But what about the 3rd video i sent you?

    watch?v=ZAbuQrG6hAs

    In the Naudet video, these firefighter visted the WTC towers. They knew something esle went on in the lobby.

    Willie Rodriguez heard 2 explosions. One near him that moved him upwards & one that came all they way from the top.

    The lobby was damaged before the 1st plane hit. The South Tower did NOT collapse yet. It wasen't even hit yet. And if it was because of the South Tower's collapse, why was the 2in glass blown outwards??

  • i just addressed it in the comment above.

    now he heard two explosions? earlier it was just "a boom". what is it then?

    another contradiction revolves the lobby. first it was before F175 hit, and then it was before F11 hit. you keep changing what he described, and it isnt working.

  • You can watch all of Willie Rodriguez testimonies, just look for them.

    And I dont know where you get your information from, but Im telling you. A Bomb went off in the lobby before the 1st plane hit.

    Im sorry if it seems Im confusing you, Im just trying to explain this to you in the best way I can.

  • now its a bomb? how can it be a bomb if there were TWO explosions? oh yeah, thats right...you originally said one.

    this debate has gotten nowhere. while you've acted much more mature than what i usually see from the opposing side all you've been doing is contradicting yourself, ignoring one of the things i said, and not even proving anything with the exception of 3 links that i addressed and didnt get addressed right back. with this i wasted my time with you.

    BLOCKED

  • Diz video iz gay lik u homie.. wtf?? Yo, i noe u noe, u dn't even make sense in this video.... How do u mistake Explosions wit hearing bombs going off? So in the video u're tellin me tht wen the planes both hit, no one heard bombs? Wen the Towers was still standin everybody heard it. Even the news lik CNN. This video makes no sense at all. This video is jus excusses to porve lies bout 9/11... lol & by the way, i was tht coward nigga who flagged u're bithch video!!! And wat nigga?
  • you arent even speaking English. im blocking your ass. dont like a vid? dont flag it. instead be mature about it and just dont watch the damn thing. flagging a vid because "it doesnt make sense" couldnt be more low.

    and im not a nigger. im white thank you very much.

    BLOCKED

  • DDPPDP, Homie

    it took me a whole 2 minutes of strenuous reading to finally kinda get what you were saying. If you are going to critique a video then please act like you have some intelligence. And talk like it.

  • DDPPDP - Grow up!!!

    What kind of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist are you??

    How you disrespected 911NeverForget like that when you just could have talked to him...??

    Com'on!!

  • This video iz stupid and makes no sense at all....!!!

    WTF...???

    Dude,

    hav u been smokin, or u jus made tht video to piss ppl off & get ratings??

    I bet u even new u dn't make sense in tht video too...

    Wen the Towers was being created in 1970's they already knew something lik 9/11 would happen one day. They proofed it & everything. All those towers stood strong.

  • they only stood strong from the impacts, not the fires.

  • Kids these days. I guess the truth is so hardcore that they had to flag it out of fear. lol!

  • alright, i want to know who the coward is that flagged this vid.

  • ill only remember your temper tantrum.

    oh, and yawn.

  • "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it" - John Lennon RIP.

    "911forgetitfast" SHAME ON YOU !!!

    You know what's nice ! YOU CAN PUNK AN INSIDER ! Remember that !

  • You just wasted the time of 1,861 people ! And for that you get 2 STARS ! Thats proof !

    SHAME ON YOU !

    So LOGICS is not 4 you !! PHYSICS is not 4 you !! METALLURGY is not 4 you !!

    But YOUTUBE is 4 everyone !

    "911 Forgetitfast" is a disgrace to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH !

    Actually you're are one of the top disinfo agents !

  • Let's assume you just confiscated a video tape of a murder case, what's the LOGIC to release just frames? 5 FRAMES?

    Or imagine the police having only one picture of the most wanted criminal in U.S.A and instead to publish this PICTURE is throwing some PIXELS and start telling "We want this CRIMINAL ! It's brown hair and blue eyes !"

    BS! But i understand you guys ! You know it's evident but you can't back up now! Keep waving the flag ! THE FALSE FLAG !

    GOD BLESS YOU Stupid! It's not ya fault

  • you just showed me that:

    -you're ignoring anything i say.

    -you're an immature dumbass.

    -you havent watched my vids.

    -you wont look at anything i proved.

    i've completely wasted my time with you, and you're blocked. sorry, but when idiots like you come along it just shows how much im glad i dont have the same view you people do.

  • Mr. Ryan has UL documents that say infact UL did certify the steel for the trade centers. Yes he was fired for telling the facts. This should out rage you. Have you actually heard Ryan's testimony?

    SO, this fucking LAWS OF PHYSICS doesn't function on the 9/11 days? I'm tired 4 this subject really! You know why peaple don't live more than 100 years? Because you need to face the TRUTH in the END! FBI have the total proof about the Pentagon! Ask them, you will get an ass kick! The Nazi lesson!Damn

  • "Mr. Ryan has UL documents that say infact UL did certify the steel for the trade centers." and just where is the proof of this?

    "FBI have the total proof about the Pentagon!" and you're absolutely sure of this...how?

  • Did you know how many video cameras are on that side of the Pentagon? The FBI is withholding at least another 23 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Actually FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website flight77, that they have these tapes. So are you fucking kidding me?

    And i thought I told you to go fucc your momma before i give you another slap !

  • "The FBI is withholding at least another 23 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack." again, proof?

    "FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website flight77, that they have these tapes." and just where is this statement?

    "i thought I told you to go fucc your momma before i give you another slap" so you waste more room to prove your point by insulting me again. hilarious. otherwise, yawn.

  • Son! Let me give you more ass to kiss! Around Pentagon are at least 45 video cameras! Go count them 4 yourself! So are you fucking kidding me or you wanna insult my intelligence ? Can you for God's sake use your minimum logics or just SHUT UP!

    You come here with that ID "911NeverForget" defending this laughable gov version ! What a disgrace ! You're on the wrong side boy ! And you know it!

    September Clues!

    Nosed Out!

    Chopped out! Are the best amateur BLOCK BUSTERS OUT THERE! DID YOU WATCH THEM!

  • "So are you fucking kidding me or you wanna insult my intelligence ?" how is asking for proof insulting your intelligence? you're not only ignoring any requests to prove your point you're using the very typical insults, assumptions, personal attacks, and yelling...a very typical attitude apon being backed into a corner.

    "And you know it!" nope, thats an assumption.

    yes i watched them, but seeing you throw a temper tantrum like this is better than the BS those programs were.

  • Let's make some basic assumption !

    There was ONE video tape on the impact on Pentagon ! You can't deny this, right ??

    Guess what FBI do ? Has released just 5 FRAMES? What a disgrace !

    And you're talkin about proof, when this guys dont want to release one shity video THAT CAN END THE ALL STORY ! PERIOD!

    Why dont you ask them for proof! Ah ? If you needed so much ?

    Or you can use some logics !

    And what is BS ! Dont tell you mean "ba** s*it", son !

  • "You can't deny this, right ??" yes i can, especially since i uploaded all of them:

    youtube*com/my_playlists?pi=0&­ps=20&sf=&sa=0&sq=&dm=1&p=5BD5­C7C1207F0E0D

    "And you're talkin about proof, when this guys dont want to release one shity video THAT CAN END THE ALL STORY !" no it wouldnt. you guys would still find something to complain about.

  • Let's assume you just confiscated a video tape of a murder case, what's the LOGIC to release just frames? 5 FRAMES?

    Or imagine the police having only one picture of the most wanted criminal in U.S.A and instead to publish this PICTURE is throwing some PIXELS and start telling "We want this CRIMINAL ! It's brown hair and blue eyes !"

    BS! But i understand you guys ! You know it's evident but you can't back up now! Keep waving the flag ! THE FALSE FLAG !

    GOD BLESS YOU Stupid! It's not ya fault

  • you know its supposed to be bullshit.

  • "you guys would still find something to complain about"

    SHAME ON YOU !

    The guys about you talkin about ARE THE PEOPLE ! And the majority of them, more than 75% of American peoples are askin for answers !

    SHAME ON YOU !

  • "more than 75% of American peoples are askin for answers !" proof?

    nope, i have no shame. theres nothing for me to be shameful about.

  • yes you do. You dont know shit about what other people are thinking. Saying that we would still find something to complain about is straight bullshit. How can you even say that?

  • "...thinking." sorry, but the only person who doesnt know shit about what other people are thinking is you.

    "Saying that we would still find something to complain about is straight bullshit." no it isnt, especially when every single thing that shows without the shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an outside job gets either ignored, dismissed as bullshit, or torn apart piece by piece so conspiracy theorists have an fault they can use as an excuse to not watch it.

  • "is you"

    Really, so you are trained in psychology are you? How else can you possibly know what others are thinking?

    lol, just about everything you guys use as evidence for an outside job can still be challenged. Nist were only told to prove the official story, not to investigate. They couldnt explain the global collapse. Its been 7 years and they still cant think of a plausible explanation 4 building 7. the official story is laughable. The 911 commissions own members say it was a whitewash.

  • "How else can you possibly know what others are thinking?" because its been exposed time and time again whenever they say something.

    "Nist were only told to prove the official story, not to investigate." since when?

    "Its been 7 years and they still cant think of a plausible explanation 4 building 7." they already explained it was taking them longer than they expected.

    "the official story is laughable." no it isnt.

    "The 911 commissions own members say it was a whitewash." proof?

  • "its been exposed..."

    no it hasnt.

    "since when"

    since they commissioned them to to the report. They weren't actually allowed to invetigate the global collapse.

    "longer than expected"

    why? I thought all you debunker fools had all the answers. face it man, they cant think of a plausible explanation.

    "no it isnt"

    yes it is.

    "proof"

    "we were set up to fail"pg 14, without precedent by kean & hamilton of the commission. I have several more I can send you.

  • "no it hasnt." yes it has.

    "They weren't actually allowed to invetigate the global collapse." according to whom, you?

    "I thought all you debunker fools had all the answers." NIST arent debunkers....and we're not fools either.

    "yes it is." nope.

    " "we were set up to fail"pg 14, without precedent by kean & hamilton of the commission." more than likely, he was speaking of the way the government handled it leading up to 9/11 and how we did so bad at it we were set up to fail.

  • no it hasnt

    "according to whom?"

    The govt & NIST.

    I never said nist were debunkers. What I meant was why can it take nist this long when all you debunker fools think you have the naswers already?

    "nope"

    yep.

    "more than likely..."

    That's an assumption on your part. No it's not more than likely either. Read the book and see it in its full context. I have heaps more quotes from the same book saying how shit the commission report was, from the commissioners themselves.

  • yep, it has.

    "...NIST." NIST investigated the WTC collapses. the government doesnt really investigate. they just leave it to their own formed commission to do that.

    "...debunkers." you didnt have to say it.

    "...already?" again, we're not fools and didnt i JUST answer that question?

    i get a short little quote like that and you couldnt give me the full quote? no, you can easily give me the full quote. i dont have to read a book just to see a full quote if you can easily post it here.

  • "yep it has"

    proof

    "nist investigated the wtc..."

    well duh, I never said the govt investigated. I said that they gave nist strict guidelines to follow. The were to investigate up untill the point of collapse initiation & no further. Hence they weren't allowed to investigate the global collapse.

    "didnt have to say it"

    because I never meant it, thats why.

    "..answer that question"

    I want to know why it's taking longer than expected.

    "easily post it here"

    ill pm you all the quotes

  • we argue about it and NOW you ask for proof?

    "I never said the govt investigated." again, you didnt have to say it.

    "because I never meant it" wrong. if you didnt mean it i wouldnt have brought it up, or its a misunderstanding which i doubt.

    "I want to know why it's taking longer than expected." you try performing an investigation and see how easy it is.

    "ill pm you all the quotes" ill be waiting.

  • "ask for proof"

    yes, can you provide it?

    "didnt have to say it"

    again, because thats not what i meant. Are you some kind of idiot?

    "misunderstanding, which i doubt"

    thats exactly what it was.

    "easy it is"

    Well all you fools seem to think you have the answers. Why is it taking nist longer than expected?

  • "...it?" the only thing to provide's the numerous debates i and many debunkers have had with conspiracy theorists and its supporters.

    "...idiot?" nope. the only thing you do is get me more relaxed with this debate.

    "...was." riiiight...

    "...answers." again, we're not fools. the funny thing is that i wouldnt be surprised if you think you have all the answers as well.

    "...expected?" what the hell? i JUST answered it in my last comment. now you're just ignoring what im answering.

  • "the only thing to provide.."

    that wouldn't show how you know what others are thinking.

    "riiiight"

    cool, you agree, glad we cleared that up then.

    "I JUST answered..."

    It was a shitty answer, you just said it wasn't easy to investigate. You call that an answer? Thats mere speculation, nothing more. My argument is, why is it taking NIST so long when you fools think that you know why it collapsed? Do you think you are better informed than NIST?

  • "that wouldn't show how you know what others are thinking." yes it would. it tells you how they act and behave.

    "cool, you agree, glad we cleared that up then." ever hear of sarcasm?

    "...more." everything to you is either speculation, assumptions, or something idiotic. ive wasted my time with you. you've been blocked for the second time. you better not complain about it either. you should be glad you had a second chance to begin with. rarely do any debunkers do that.

  • The tests were done during construction. Please goolgle him and listen to his testimony. Building one collapsed in 8 seconds while building two collapsed in 10 seconds. This was recorded by the U. of Columbia seismographs. The 15 sec. you refer two comes from the 911 report of after shocks.U. of Columbia recorded the collapses using state of the art technology. Are you telling me that with that aside, watching the videos and clocking the time, that my watch lies?

  • "Building one collapsed in 8 seconds while building two collapsed in 10 seconds." wrong.

    "This was recorded by the U. of Columbia seismographs." these records dont help with the TIME of the collapse, but with the ENERGY of the collapse.

  • In other words the steel column forces would of fell in a un-even and much slower rate, most likey the top or compromised section would of fallen over to one side. With that said, there is no scientific reasoning for even that to occure. Again the fires would have at the most been 1700 degrees fahnheit and the UL tested steel did not start to be compromised until well over 2800 degrees fahnheit.Steven Ryan worked for UL and has come out with UL documents stating these facts.

  • "Steven Ryan worked for UL and has come out with UL documents stating these facts." proof?

  • For a 110 story building to fall under 10 seconds would require all 287 steel columns to give out less than a second per floor. AS The floors above were being pulverized, meaning less mass, the law of conservation says that mass will continue with same velocity unless acted upon by other forces. This is why I say there was no force present to enact this law.

  • "under 10 seconds" no it wasnt.

  • Another GOV ASS SOLDIER !

    The GOV relies on the fact that the majority of the people dont know some basic physics or mettalurgy !

    Loook at the FBI ! They have the proof about the Pentagon ! If you ask them, you will get an ass kick !!

    You know what ? I'm tired to wait another 50 years 4 the truth to come out ! I just learned the Nazi lesson ! Keep sayin that the Earth is flat !

  • easy there Sparticus. your temper tantrums get you nowhere.

  • Your answer is exactly what i was talking about ! Gov pattern !

    1 question ? Tell me the melted steel existed or not ??

  • nope, theres no government pattern

    "Tell me the melted steel existed or not ??" there was molten metal, but molten steel isnt confirmed.

  • It seems to me that your're deep in this subject and please let me ask you 2 more question! The seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft(!) impacts upon the Twin Towers? Do you have any information on that?

    About the BIG explosions right after every collapse i will not ask you but i recommand you "911 Eyewitness!

    Did you see September Clues, Nosed out and Chopped Out? A blockbusters! Period

  • "The seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft(!) impacts upon the Twin Towers? Do you have any information on that?" i have a full video on that: /watch?v=JmvuW7zQXaY

    "About the BIG explosions right after every collapse" what are these big explosions?

  • The Big explosions ?

    "Believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda"

    You're my favorite waste of time, so get the fuck out here before i give you a slap !

  • "so get the fuck out here before i give you a slap !" translation: i got busted.

    i will not leave my own videos. you cant handle the comments? then you pack up and leave yourself.

  • The steel didn't melt, genius. It weakened.

    It's not that complicated.

  • You're a disgrace to the SCIENCE! Or you're a gov piece of shit! Let me give you some more ass to kiss! The usual forging t for steel lies between 2000-2550F! Kerosene fire take place at t around 1110F to 1740! The t for fire is not sufficient to weaken the steel construction by any means (WTC7 made it to history) The fire t is independent on the quantity of gasoline used. More gasoline burns longer but does not have a higher temperature!

    So, the melted steel existed or what? The EARTH is flat?

  • "You're a disgrace to the SCIENCE! Or you're a gov piece of shit!" yawn.

    "The t for fire is not sufficient to weaken the steel construction by any means" wrong.

  • Priceless.

    I especially enjoyed the "squiib dust" explanation and the author's unequivocal declaration that "if it had been explosives" we'd have seen fire.

    So now we have Mossad or CIA or NSA summer help busy pumping out this facile shit by the ton.

    Youtube inadvertantly nestles it in with the UFo's. Fortunately this is the internet and we are NOT quite that stupid

    Looks like this particular shill's heart was just not in it any more.

    It's only a matter of time till one of them comes clean.

  • *shakes head*

    if you read what ive commented on in the past, you'd find out that i was not as good with making vids and my vids and debunking style was amateurish so to speak in these early vids.

    im not at the least bit surprised that a truther like you would on target the areas you think you're strong in.

  • Jews! The Jews did it!

  • was that a joke?

  • Yes.  These people are lunatics. Dangerous, anti-Semitic, cowardly lunatics.

  • good thing i asked then. ;)

  • Idiot lying shill '911NeverForget', you can block your accounts from receiving the truth but you won't do any good. Don't you know that 85% of the American population already doesn't believe the official conspiracy theory that you're trying to help maintain for the real 9/11 mass murderers? OF COURSE YOU DO but what choice do you have? You can't stop working the coverup now because you're part of it, you go down when the main players do.

    Oh I hope they keep the death penalty for treason.

  • Who are you going to believe?

    A) A few LYING right-wing losers like the author of this video who go to AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK trying to maintain the 9/11 coverup to protect the real mass murderers?

    B) HUNDREDS of professional architects, engineers, physicists and other scientists, pilots, and educated people of all types, NOW including 7 CIA veterans! See my profile for details...

    LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN!

  • THIS CLOWN IS RIGHT-WING TREASONOUS SCUM

    WORKING THE COVERUP FOR THE REAL 9/11 MASS MURDERERS

    When the time comes the truth is known

    Let the justice be swift and harsh for the families of the 9/11 victims

    And let's catch ALL of their accomplices

    This scumbag is one of them

  • i laugh at your pathetic attempts to spam my vids finkle.

  • Damn, Dude... THIS guy with all the clone acounts dedicated JUST to spamming YOU! What a LOSER! Watch your back. With THIS level of dedication, you might just have a homo stalker or something...

  • Come on now people ,Have you ever confronted a liar? They will never tell the truth! Don't waste your energy trying. Just go about your daily tasks and try to enjoy the few freedoms we do have .

  • These CT's are fuckin crazy. Loosers!

  • Just give up all you TRUTHER'S. You can't win against our elite minds. We can stomp you psycologically; so give up. You citizens don't stand a chance against us. Give up now or we will threaten you with video like we did Alex Jones. You truther's are a bunch of morons.

  • Fuck dude! you can't even spell 'psychologically' How are you going to stomp us with it. Ahahaha!

    what a bunch of fuckin' whack-jobs!

    Go back to pushing your pencil, you don't belong here.

  • Those CT are a bunch of cooks!

  • you are about to see a t h e r m i t e

    reaction bring down two buildings. These people were murdered.

  • Let me get this stright. You E-mail saying that you got me good. This video is lie after lie. Ask the firemen what they think of 911. Ask the millions who agree with those repecsted members of our society. How are you a respected member of our society? What have you contributed? You are scum. A paid to debunk scum. You should be ashamed.

  • what have i lied on? you havent said a single thing i lied on, just the same old script...

  • So let me get this stright. An 800 deg fire causes a buikding to collaspe. Futhermore not a piece of human bigger than a shovel was found. Rare-earth metal melted. Wow! That sure is some fire. That must ahve been a special 911kerosine fire. That burns up fire-code office materials. That 800deg fire sure did a lot. Mabey we should study this new form of fire, it may be useful in demolishing other building with fire alone.

  • theres numerous pictures of gigantic pieces that exists and can be easily found.

  • What kind of bullshit is this? Do you really expect me to beileve this nonsense? Fess up! They murdered. The whole world knows it! That doesn't bother you? Wake up people! A "collasping" building just don't do that; never has never will. A building just don't "collaspe" due to a starved 800deg fire.

  • your comments are so full of wrong things that i dont know where to begin:

    -the fires werent staved.

    -the fires were over 1,000 degrees.

    -just because its never happened doesnt mean it never will.