@chadvisser34 when the tower STARTED to collapse. did it happen BEFORE the collapse though? no. and also, the explosives would've been heard for miles. did that happen with the towers? also no. so what does that mean? hmmmm.....
According to conspiracy theorists we'll all be dead in 2012 so why bother arguing over something as trivial as 9/11 when in the grand scheme of things we're all doomed, LOL. Conspiracy theorists are entitled to their own opinion but so are retards.
Dust. That's how buildings collapse when they don't fall over. It wasn't some conspiracy, it was a terrorist attack. The steel framing remained at the site and lots of other parts of the building crushed into dust to be dispersed onto the surrounding area. That's what happened.
First off... God bless all those victims and their families.
Second... the fires caused from the impact burned through several floors on the building causing instability for whatever building that remained above the impact section which caused it to collapse. The steel is just for framing people, most of the building composed of non steel materials such as drywall and what not. When the top unstable part collapsed due to lack of support, everything that wasn't steal was crushed and turned into
@BeondSpectrum No my friend, you've been deceived and have fallen into a state of denial. YOU my friend have bought into the LIES of skeptics and those who wish to bash people for several political reasons. In the end it will die out, just like all lies have, but the road could be slow and painful.
@BeondSpectrum And you cant forget the missing steel from the beams. I think to myself how much steel it would be and what would happend underneath these buildings that houseed the water for the city, if this building really did collapse, could you imagine the force it would have on the ground, but no, it wasnt even a little rumble. the houseing for the water no damage. no damage to the bedrock underneath the buildings. What a new weapon of total inialation What else do we have
i got a question for all you dumb fuckers who think it was rigged with explosives. how the fuck did the gov. know where to plant the explosives? cause the building starts the collapse at the point of impact of the plane, kinda funny the knew where hijackers would hit huh? and second how did the explosives not get damaged when the plane hit the building at 500mph then burned at 500-700 degrees for almost an hour???
@DS650POWER I have my own question for you dumb fuckers who believe in the government's lies. How do three steel-framed buildings overdesigned to withstand multiple plane impacts become the first and only in history to collapse due to fire, all on the same day? Moreover, how is it that they all collapsed vertically at freefall speed if their damage was asymmetric and the resistance of lower floors would have significantly slowed the collapse?
@Nukesgboomvirus im not an engineer so i dont know, but what i do know is the trade centers were never hit before, and no building like the trade centers were ever hit so nobody knows exactly how a building will collapse from a plane impact r or if it would at all. go build a replica trade center and reinact it and see if it happens again. and also what did the gov. have to gain if this was an "inside job" ?????????
@DS650POWER The empire state building, which is considerably weaker than the twin towers, was hit by a b-27 bomber in 1945. It burned for 14 hours and did not collapse.
On 9/11, two buildings designed to sustain multiple impacts from 4-engine aircraft were hit by 2-engine planes and collapsed in less than two hours. And the government gained geopolitical dominance in the middle east along with enormous reserves of oil, which allowed Bush's oil company to survive for the next 200 years.
@Nukesgboomvirus empire state building is a completely different design of wtc towers, like i side got build a wtc tower exact and hit it with plane doing 500+ mph, not the 250 or so that the b27 was doing and then we will know if it was real fall or setup. done with discussions here, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and mine is islamic extremists brought down the towers not the us gov.
@DS650POWER Why don't u do some real research first, u know, read NIST's report, the 911-commission report (in which there's not a single word about WTC7's demise, curiously enough). First read what the official explanation is made up of, then compare that with any alternative explanations. Then do some thorough background checking, who gained the most, who had the opportunity to make it happen or allow it to happen, who had the means to do so. Also check all articles by Kevin Ryan.
@f0rumrr When I see this video, I always see sparks and glimmer in the dust clouds, too. It looks like magic, as Judy Wood says. She thinks HAARP might have something to do with it.
The buildings collapsed because the sheer explosion of the planes themselves hitting the tower caused the fire proof material to dissapate. Then the heat of the fire was to such a degree that it caused the metal beams and support structure to bend and finally break, & with all the weight the towers collapsed.
Plus, terrorists did this & it was sad. It wasn't the government, or aliens or some stupid shit.
Nobody knows why the plane crashed in the field, imagine that because everybody died.
How can something like that just crumble and collapse?
There are Steel support beams throughout the entire building. fireproof materials.
I can understand the top half tipping over, or massive parts of building fall off.
But to have the entire building collapse in a straight line as perfectly as it did. and to have both towers fall the same exact way is ridiculously improbable.
IDK what happened that day. But I believe it was once again the CIA toying with things.
Why does everyone have to argue about this shit? Can't we just all agree that terrorists attacked us and that it was sad? Without all this conspiracy bullshit? Yeah, it was tragic and all that, but that doesn't mean that the government did it. Or George W. Bush. All it means is that terrorists flew multiple planes into buildings in an attempt to cause chaos in America.
One group of terrorists even failed and got counter-hijacked. Unfortunately, the passenger who did it didn't know how to fly a plane and crashed it into a field, killing all of the passengers on board.
@tornadomad It's not that he didn't know how to fly the plane, there was a struggle in the cockpit between the terrorists and the passengers, no one ever managed to grab the planes controls and the hijacker who was flying it when the passengers attacked put the plane down.
@tornadomad - Did you see the terrorists? I suppose you believe that one of their passports ended up sitting on top of the pile of rubble? Or maybe you didn't hear that one? It was in the news.
@tornadomad - but you don't want to know. Wikapedia - Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. A "passerby" found it and gave it to, guess who? Bernie Kerik, the sleazeball poster boy. Open your mind, man.
@tornadomad No we can not agree, since there are loads of unanswered questions, a large number of indications of foreknowledge, and loads of evidence pointing to something very different than what we've been told.
And I hope u can appreciate the enormous impact of this event, so it's pretty damn important that we know what happened that day and who was responsible. Don't u think?
The internal structure of the building is made up of a network of steel beams like sticks.
INSIDE the bldg, the steel members warp, sag, buckle, etc. The growing steel beams shear off connector bolts, so that the steel beams are then DISCONNECTED, and LOOSE, making the building like a rag doll with no skeleton.
However, YES, the towers DID BEND & LEAN before it fell:
A rigid steel structure will SHATTER, warp, twist, and break when heated to only 1000 degrees F. A 110 ft steel beam EXPANDS by 15 inches at 1000 degrees F. THer eis no place for this growth to go but to shear off bolts & break connections. The bldg falls as disconnected sticks.
Steel loses 80% of its strength at half the temperature at which it melts. So in an ordinary fire, steel becomes so weak that the bldg can collapse.
The EPA tested the WTC dust. NOTHING unusual there
You might be drawing some distinction about what type of fire that is not stated.
But for thousands of years humans have been softening and reshaping and/or melting and reshaping steel.
How do you think that foundries melt steel?
But in any event a 110 foot steel beam GROWS by 15 inches when heated by 1000 degress F, and steel loses about 80% of its strength at only HALF the temperature at which it melts.
Firefighters reported seeing flames in EVERY window on 47 floors, across the entire face of WTC 7.
The world's finest fire department declared failiure, that they could not contain the fires inside WTC 7 or even stay inside the building, it was so severe.
SO if professional firefighters, the world's finest, decide the fire is too much for them, why do you argue the firefighters are wrong?
It is pointless to argue "WHY NOT?" It is what it is. That is not a serious argument.
By a BLAST FURNACE, do you mean an ENCLOSED structure that RETAINS heat inside -- like a BUILDING in which the heat accumulates inside over a 7 hour period?
You mean like forced air -- such as strong winds blowing unimpeded, feeding oxygen?
Steel is a useful substance because it is EASY to reshape into desired shapes.
If it were hard to melt steel, it would not be useful to mankind.
No, EVERY floor of WTC 7 was burning -- INSIDE, not the Brick exterior -- from 10:00 AM until 5:20 AM when it collapsed.
The greatest fire dept in the world admitted that they could not contain the fires and could nto even risk ENTERING the building, the fires were so severe.
Any explosives would've been detonated RANDOMLY, out of sequence, hours earlier.
Yes, the Buffalo steel foundry uses ordinary home heating oil to smelt and forge steel into shapes.
You forget that YOU have the burden of proof. I will never let you koks forget that.
Unless you have X-ray vision, the flames INSIDE WTC Bldg 7 will not necessarily be visible on the outside. BRICK DOES NOT BURN. So why do you think you would see BRICK burning on the outide of WTC 7.
We know that there was a gigantic underground diesel tank feeding the generator. The NYC Fire Dept warned them against it.
You mean paint chips found 8 years after 9/11 MILES AWAY, such as on the Brooklyn Bridge?
REMEMBER: The EPA conducted an extensive analysis of the dust and debris from the WTC in September and October 2001, out of concern for the potential of dangerous chemicals that people might be breathing.
WE KNOW that there was NO residue from explosives, thermite, thermate, OR EVEN GIANT TERMITES at the WTC.
PRIVATE University professors hired by the EPA prove there was nothing there.
Dozens of steel buildings have collapsed from ordinary fires.
Steel FAILS structurally at half the temperature at which it melts.
When steel EXPANDS heated 1000 deg. F., any steel structure must BUCKLE and BREAK. The expandings teel has nowhere to go as it grows. As a result, conencting welds break, connecting bolts are sheared off, beams are bent out of alignnment.
Once beams are bent out of vertical, their connections MUST fail.
YOU nuts talk about melting steel, then claim someone is denying it?
NO one ever claimed that steel melted.
Steel has been known for 100+ years as 2the 2nd WORST bulding material to survive a fire.
In 1895, architect William Sooy Smith warned that steel buildings are a "FIRE TRAP" because steel fails in ordinary fires. His article discusses MANY steel blgs that collapsed in orindary fires
The uniform acceleration at 64% freefall in a gravitational collapse scenario violates the laws of physics, as the top mass when encountering the intact lower section MUST reduce speed, any resistance encountered by a falling object MUST slow down, it's basic physics.
The fact that the observed acceleration is constant proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by something else, demolitions is the only viable explanation.
Wrong. Hydrocarbon jet fuel can burn anywhere between 800° and 1,500°F. But the jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning. There are several things in office buildings that can reach that temperature too. And as any boy scout knows, the temperature of a fire can increase if it is receiving a sufficient air current, which there would be an abundance of 80 stories high.
I'd also like to know how you arrived at your numbers. How do you know that the energy would have been "insufficient"?...
According to conservative estimates, the falling 14 stories of tower 2 (more than half of the stories of tower 1) would produce roughly 2.3 BILLION joules of energy directed straight down. This is well more than enough energy to collapse the floors directly beneath it and keep going even if half the energy was lost (which it wasn't.) The energy added by the acceleration of gravity dwarfs the energy being lost, so the collapse only increases. And remember, this relies on conservative estimate.
Wrong. Most of the energy was lost as half of it disintegrated before the lower half started collapsing (video doesn't lie) such crushing absorbs alot of energy and the mass would decelerate upon encountering the intact lower section, this really is basic physics and was not observed to happen, the 64% freefall acceleration was uniform.
Your 2.3 billion joules from the Bazant/Zhou analysis is proven to be insufficient by Gordon Ross. The uniform momentum issue is insurmountable, sorry.
Once again, Jet fuel was not the only thing burning. Plastic produces thick black smoke regardless of how much oxygen is getting to it.
The Bazant/Zhou paper actually got 4.3 GJ for the initial collapse. My number was based on my own, less detailed calculations designed to give the conspiracy theorists every possible concession. The Bazant paper actually does factor in resistance with great detail. The most Ross does is assert that Bazant's numbers are wrong without citing a single source.
Actually Bazant implies 2.105 GJ Ross provides maths and logic proving him wrong, he is a source, Similarly Bazant provides no source.
Ross gives the official theory every possible concession disregarding energy absorption in initial crushing of interconnecting floors between the top and lower masses, accreted crushed mass expulsion reducing downward pressure etc and still proves the momentum insufficient, especially with plastic shortening an distributed elastic absorption over multiple floors.
Wrong. Only in optimal fuel/air mixes can it reach 1500F. In 'dirty burns' which covers real world office fires it only reaches about 700F. Also the black smoke shows it was cooling due to all the uncombusted hydrocarbons which indicates insufficient oxygen or insufficient fire temperature or both.
With regard to the numbers, go to ae911truth,visit technical articles and read the momentum transfer analysis by Gordon Ross, it explains it in detail.
Like all supporters of the official story, you still haven't explained the uniform acceleration of 64% freefall. Basic physics states that upon encountering the resistance of the intact lower section, it should have slowed, this didn't happen thus the resistance was removed by something else.
"Basic physics states that upon encountering the resistance of the intact lower section, it should have slowed..."
What would cause the collapse to slow would be if the rate at which energy was added (from gravitational acceleration and the increasing mass) was lower than the rate at which energy was lost from resistance or other factors.) So the real question is, would the tower offer up enough resistance to slow the collapse? Contrary to what you may think, the math says no.
You hae to remember that a building is NOT a solid block. It is designed to create open space for peopel to use. It is nothing but a bunch of STICKS -- steel beams -- with an outer skin and floors.
Once the STICKS come apart, there is nothing holding the building up.
The energy needed to dislodge and disrupt these sticks is not very great.
Once the EXPANSION of steel from heat shatttered the structure, steel columns slid right PAST each other. Many columns did NOT crush end to end
So now I've proven the fire wouldn't have weakened the steel....The top mass times acceleration was insufficient to initiate collapse, half of it had disintegrated before the lower section started collapsing. Such disintegration absorbs much energy and the resulting momentum would be insufficient to collapse the structure built to withstand many times it's weight, especially with distributed plastic and elastic absorption.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- probably well below 800ºC.
Plus, because of the thermal conductivity of the steel columns the heat would have distributed. In other words, it would have never gotten that hot in one place.
You can't argue science. There's just no way it melted the steel from just jet fuel. That's ridiculous. Go read a book.
True, steel does not melt at 800ºC. But it does become 50% of its original strength at that temperature. In some places, the fires had reached over 950ºC, at which steel would be at roughly 20% strength.
Kerosine is a hydrocarbon and such fires only reach about 700F. That, along with steel's high thermal conductivity proves the fires would not be any where near enough to weaken the steel. Also the smoke was becoming black which shows an oxygen-starved, cooling fire, suggesting the steel was cooling anyway.
Conspiracy buffs like to say these things fell at freefall speed. In fact, freefall for WTC1 would have been 8.55 seconds, whereas you can see in this video it takes about 23 seconds to collapse.
In a resistance-free pancaking model, the fall time is 11.5 seconds. WTC2 also took around twice as long as the resistance-free pancaking model, so it's apparent that both had the same amount of resistance to collapse.
Stop with all the conspiracu bullshit, can't you see what happened, 2 planes hit the WTC's, and the damaged caused to the uppers levels was too severe for the levels below to support so it collapsed.
whoa, what the hck happens to the steel core colums at the :30 second mark in this video?!?!? looks like the steel just vaporizes! I cant imagine what kind of weaponry caused that.
Watching the spire disappear is odd. Also, the existance of the spire is proof that a "Progressive Collapse" never occured. But then how could airplane wing tips and edges smash thru 10 floors of outer and inner load bearing walls? Walls with solid steel floors bolted to the walls. with Concrete poured. Ea floor was steel&rock! Yet wing tips smashed thru it all. BUT: at the Pentagon the wings folded Back! Mike Walters/CNN saw it and says so. It must be true. Still it is odd. The P' hole was 20ft
This video has some of the clearest evidence of demolition yet. First, note that as the collapse begins, there are simultaneous puffs of black smoke from multiple floors clearly visible on the right-hand side. On the government's story, those should have not even been there, because the upper floors above the impact area should have remained intact, with no floors collapsing and causing air to be forced out the sides of the building.
Also, as has already been noted, the notorious spindle stands for moments before falling straight down right through itself, not toppling over as it should have -- clearly because the base was blown away.
the puffs of blacks smoke is from the collapse of the building. as it collapses it blows out air, and here the air found a path of least resitance. Its like an accordian.
This video is noteworthy because after the building proper collapses, the core structure is seen standing for a few moments as the camera zooms in. Then the core collapses FROM BENEATH as well. The government-supplied fairy tale would lead one to expect the floors to collapse and the core to remain standing. The core collapse seen here looks like as good a case for controlled demolition as we are likely to see.
And you can cleary see that the top of the building is collapsing at the same time with the down of the top. If there were explosives why it's not collapsing one by one? Can someone explain it? And the right side explosion - why it's only one? That could be even a gas system explosion engender by top collapsing? :S
dunno... but maybe since it was a bright day they had the F stopped all the way down which would increases the depth of field enough - provided that the foreground was far enough from the lens to be included in that range.
NOT an inside job. You can see how the top floors collapse where the plane hit the building. As those floors come down, look at the floors under the fire. They are not falling. The top obliterates the floors underneath making one wild looking cloud almost as if peeling a banana. I have never seen a controlled demolition look anything like this.
lol of course it was an inside job. Look at the huge lumps being blown laterally. it's sposed to be a gravity collapse. But you can clearly see the material blown outward... You got Mossad on TV admitting it, it still don't wake people up!!
Where are the lumps supposed to go? You have a massive chunck of a building collapsing, the only space is sideways. If it was a demolition, the whole building would fall at the same time because they put explosives every few floors. Here you can clearly see that the building under the fire was not moving. The lateral movement doesn't start until that top part had already hit the building underneath, shearing off big parts of the building and pulvering the rest.
do controlled demolitions usually lea pieces of the building standing? :26 and the end of the video clearly shows the facade still standing and collapsing.
No, you can see the plumes being blown upwards and outwards. Besides, if the building is being pulverized into dust. Where then is the mass needed to continue the collapse...you cant have it both ways
0:07 to 0:08 the camera pulls back. you can see through the mid-bottom area of the floor a whole piece/chunk of a collum or a floor just pushes out of the floor and falls. or maybe not. but yea it was an inside job for sho.
People, don't give a fuck (-1) just explain why it's not floor collapse. I believe in 9/11 inside job but it's not a point. I just don't understand why it's only ONE explosive goes off on the right side - if they where explosives they should do more damage on some-every floors - not just on one?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thats not an explosion. It is the building collapsing and pushing it out thru one side. Air has to go somewhere. Here its ejected out the right as it found a path of least resistance.
check out the steel upright left standing at 20 seconds , then mysteriously "go up in smoke" and melt away and drop ,there is no reason for that to drop, that is a definite sign of cutter charges of some description.
The flash when the tower started to collapse suggests explosives. This was an inside job.
chadvisser34 4 months ago
@chadvisser34 when the tower STARTED to collapse. did it happen BEFORE the collapse though? no. and also, the explosives would've been heard for miles. did that happen with the towers? also no. so what does that mean? hmmmm.....
ryanmacdaddy1000 2 weeks ago
Anyone see the flash on the left? @ 0:05
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago 2
According to conspiracy theorists we'll all be dead in 2012 so why bother arguing over something as trivial as 9/11 when in the grand scheme of things we're all doomed, LOL. Conspiracy theorists are entitled to their own opinion but so are retards.
WickedLiquid 5 months ago
Dust. That's how buildings collapse when they don't fall over. It wasn't some conspiracy, it was a terrorist attack. The steel framing remained at the site and lots of other parts of the building crushed into dust to be dispersed onto the surrounding area. That's what happened.
quickfts92 6 months ago
First off... God bless all those victims and their families.
Second... the fires caused from the impact burned through several floors on the building causing instability for whatever building that remained above the impact section which caused it to collapse. The steel is just for framing people, most of the building composed of non steel materials such as drywall and what not. When the top unstable part collapsed due to lack of support, everything that wasn't steal was crushed and turned into
quickfts92 6 months ago
Those beams standing at the end just disintegrated into dust !!
Headshothorror4488 6 months ago
@Headshothorror4488 they tipped over
punishalltrolls 5 months ago
see the beam still standing @ the end turn to dust !!!!
Headshothorror4488 7 months ago
@Headshothorror4488 they just tipped over to the left.
punishalltrolls 5 months ago
THIS IS CRAZY. these buildings were pulverized.
iT did not collapse, pancake. it was turned to dust. WTF
thejordank001 9 months ago
@thejordank001 You can't hide the audio from 316 tons of explosives going off in 15 seconds.
xxcurnuxx 8 months ago
@xxcurnuxx MORON
MrLebowski1980 7 months ago 3
how people in that building can breath
georgeraviable 9 months ago
please, remember in that moment many people died.
FormulaUnos 9 months ago
Its sad every time i see this =(.. R.I.P to them all...
rareu4532 10 months ago
@BeondSpectrum No my friend, you've been deceived and have fallen into a state of denial. YOU my friend have bought into the LIES of skeptics and those who wish to bash people for several political reasons. In the end it will die out, just like all lies have, but the road could be slow and painful.
Drewberdooba 11 months ago
This wasn't a normal demolition of course.
Demolecularization, strangely bent beams, anomalies such as the marble floor completely gone, characteristics of the Hutchison effect.
BeondSpectrum 1 year ago 2
@BeondSpectrum wow, are u serious????
djordjekotor 1 year ago
@djordjekotor Not if i can help it...
At the very least, you can not deny that this was not a normal demolition.
Everything is projected outwards, the idea with these towers was, decimate them...
What people were breathing was originally the towers.
People did not inhale building 7, on the other hand.
Am i saying weapons/technology was used that is not your typical high tech stuff.
Yes.
Thermite, i believe was intended to be part of the truth seeker's arsenal.
BeondSpectrum 1 year ago
@djordjekotor i don't claim to be 100% certain, but i am certain that if you heard it somewhere, it probably isn't true.
BeondSpectrum 1 year ago
@djordjekotor Are you genuinely asking?, or do you mean, "wow, are you crazy?"
BeondSpectrum 1 year ago
@BeondSpectrum i havent read carefully your text, i thought that you wrote: This WAS a normal demolition of course.
Sorry for missunderstanding, I share your opinion that thermite was used, or any other controlled demolition technique.
djordjekotor 1 year ago
@djordjekotor yes i think thermite was used, but i was saying i think the thermite story is just another story for you to believe.
I think it was a little more than just Thermite.
BeondSpectrum 1 year ago
@BeondSpectrum And you cant forget the missing steel from the beams. I think to myself how much steel it would be and what would happend underneath these buildings that houseed the water for the city, if this building really did collapse, could you imagine the force it would have on the ground, but no, it wasnt even a little rumble. the houseing for the water no damage. no damage to the bedrock underneath the buildings. What a new weapon of total inialation What else do we have
thejordank001 9 months ago
obviously controlled demolition for all 3 buildings....
911 was an inside job...
saxoniano 1 year ago
i got a question for all you dumb fuckers who think it was rigged with explosives. how the fuck did the gov. know where to plant the explosives? cause the building starts the collapse at the point of impact of the plane, kinda funny the knew where hijackers would hit huh? and second how did the explosives not get damaged when the plane hit the building at 500mph then burned at 500-700 degrees for almost an hour???
DS650POWER 1 year ago
@DS650POWER I have my own question for you dumb fuckers who believe in the government's lies. How do three steel-framed buildings overdesigned to withstand multiple plane impacts become the first and only in history to collapse due to fire, all on the same day? Moreover, how is it that they all collapsed vertically at freefall speed if their damage was asymmetric and the resistance of lower floors would have significantly slowed the collapse?
Nukesgboomvirus 1 year ago
@Nukesgboomvirus im not an engineer so i dont know, but what i do know is the trade centers were never hit before, and no building like the trade centers were ever hit so nobody knows exactly how a building will collapse from a plane impact r or if it would at all. go build a replica trade center and reinact it and see if it happens again. and also what did the gov. have to gain if this was an "inside job" ?????????
DS650POWER 1 year ago
@DS650POWER The empire state building, which is considerably weaker than the twin towers, was hit by a b-27 bomber in 1945. It burned for 14 hours and did not collapse.
On 9/11, two buildings designed to sustain multiple impacts from 4-engine aircraft were hit by 2-engine planes and collapsed in less than two hours. And the government gained geopolitical dominance in the middle east along with enormous reserves of oil, which allowed Bush's oil company to survive for the next 200 years.
Nukesgboomvirus 1 year ago
@Nukesgboomvirus empire state building is a completely different design of wtc towers, like i side got build a wtc tower exact and hit it with plane doing 500+ mph, not the 250 or so that the b27 was doing and then we will know if it was real fall or setup. done with discussions here, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and mine is islamic extremists brought down the towers not the us gov.
DS650POWER 1 year ago
@DS650POWER Why don't u do some real research first, u know, read NIST's report, the 911-commission report (in which there's not a single word about WTC7's demise, curiously enough). First read what the official explanation is made up of, then compare that with any alternative explanations. Then do some thorough background checking, who gained the most, who had the opportunity to make it happen or allow it to happen, who had the means to do so. Also check all articles by Kevin Ryan.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@DS650POWER I don't so much mind the people who just DON'T KNOW TO CARE, but the people like you who SUPPORT the LIES... you're an infection...
BeondSpectrum 11 months ago
@CuzPBz This isn't true due to the fact as the building goes down, the pressure comes up. Which means the smoke goes up or stays still.
CBeatProductions 1 year ago
WE are literally seeing solid steel beams falling to dust.... only a nuclear force can cause that level of distruction.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
@f0rumrr When I see this video, I always see sparks and glimmer in the dust clouds, too. It looks like magic, as Judy Wood says. She thinks HAARP might have something to do with it.
puresickmermaid 1 year ago
@puresickmermaid very interesting stuff.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
The buildings collapsed because the sheer explosion of the planes themselves hitting the tower caused the fire proof material to dissapate. Then the heat of the fire was to such a degree that it caused the metal beams and support structure to bend and finally break, & with all the weight the towers collapsed.
Plus, terrorists did this & it was sad. It wasn't the government, or aliens or some stupid shit.
Nobody knows why the plane crashed in the field, imagine that because everybody died.
TheAxena 1 year ago
0:29 is that like a column????????????????!!
EFRANEED 1 year ago
it's just weird to see that final support column stand up, alone, then collapse into dust
An3ggPlant1 1 year ago
Maybe it was Terrorists... or maybe the terrorists where just set up by the CIA. (They let them Hijack the planes)
Anyone who isn't ignorant would know there is money to be made in war, I think our government just lets things happen.
Nomad2243 1 year ago
How can something like that just crumble and collapse?
There are Steel support beams throughout the entire building. fireproof materials.
I can understand the top half tipping over, or massive parts of building fall off.
But to have the entire building collapse in a straight line as perfectly as it did. and to have both towers fall the same exact way is ridiculously improbable.
IDK what happened that day. But I believe it was once again the CIA toying with things.
I could be wrong...
Nomad2243 1 year ago
The collapse is starting from the top, not from ground like in controlled detonation.
pawelw86 1 year ago
For those who say it was bombs that crashed the building.
Please open your eyes and looks how it does collapse.
The top-half bulding is collapsing, which causes the lower-half to collapse due to the heavy weight.
tazimbo 1 year ago
Why does everyone have to argue about this shit? Can't we just all agree that terrorists attacked us and that it was sad? Without all this conspiracy bullshit? Yeah, it was tragic and all that, but that doesn't mean that the government did it. Or George W. Bush. All it means is that terrorists flew multiple planes into buildings in an attempt to cause chaos in America.
tornadomad 1 year ago
One group of terrorists even failed and got counter-hijacked. Unfortunately, the passenger who did it didn't know how to fly a plane and crashed it into a field, killing all of the passengers on board.
tornadomad 1 year ago
@tornadomad It's not that he didn't know how to fly the plane, there was a struggle in the cockpit between the terrorists and the passengers, no one ever managed to grab the planes controls and the hijacker who was flying it when the passengers attacked put the plane down.
ericwilliam 1 year ago
@tornadomad Open your eyes..
BizarreMike666 1 year ago
@tornadomad - Did you see the terrorists? I suppose you believe that one of their passports ended up sitting on top of the pile of rubble? Or maybe you didn't hear that one? It was in the news.
bammbamm12 1 year ago
@bammbamm12 nope, never heard that one, but that doesn't mean the gov'ment did it, mate...
tornadomad 1 year ago
@tornadomad - but you don't want to know. Wikapedia - Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. A "passerby" found it and gave it to, guess who? Bernie Kerik, the sleazeball poster boy. Open your mind, man.
bammbamm12 1 year ago
@tornadomad No we can not agree, since there are loads of unanswered questions, a large number of indications of foreknowledge, and loads of evidence pointing to something very different than what we've been told.
And I hope u can appreciate the enormous impact of this event, so it's pretty damn important that we know what happened that day and who was responsible. Don't u think?
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@tornadomad YEA Your RITE!
Mr1233556 1 year ago
0:32 will you look at that.
olegario39 1 year ago
9/11 truth!
MrLeeman11 1 year ago
The wingspan of each plane was only a few meters less than the width of each tower. Surprised they didn't drop sooner.
controllerbrain 2 years ago
Wow the WHOLE building came down really quickly didn't it?
blumperjoe7 2 years ago
i wonder what happened to the needle?
Armidillodude 2 years ago 13
Great question. That would be an awesome souvenir.
controllerbrain 2 years ago
@Armidillodude Incinerated
deuce01983 1 year ago
@Armidillodude ino rite if i would have found it i would of hang it in ma room for memories!
Mr1233556 1 year ago
@Armidillodude the antenna? they managed to pull a mangled piece of it and its now on exhibit at the WTC memorial meseum in nyc
nelandquinten 10 months ago
@Armidillodude a piece of it was recovered, and is now on display at the official memorial in NYC
nelandquinten 9 months ago
@Armidillodude destroyed, they found pieces and scrapped it for the SS new york.
sparkey989 6 months ago
@Armidillodude it was stolen by black helicopters piloted by paul mccartney dopplegangers
gorgolyt 6 months ago
@Armidillodude it was believed to be found it and displayed in some museum. i saw a photo of it.
punishalltrolls 5 months ago
@Armidillodude I would check your mom's pussy (fuck you)
mawadhassib 3 months ago
@mawadhassib Unnecessary douchebaggery
Armidillodude 3 months ago
my god i barley got to see these i was 5 when the collapsed. They took me out of school. The towers looked so cool.
Armidillodude 2 years ago
My god, look at the frame still standing up
Kalphiter45 2 years ago
But how can the speed of collapse argue for a conspiracy?
It cannot.
Do you think the government has a magic gravity machine, tha makes buildings fall faster?
WHY would conspirators go to any trouble at all to make the buiding fall FASTER?
HOW would it advance a conspiracy to make the building fall faster rather than slower?
Q: How dumb are you people?
WHY would a conspiracy go to any trouble at all to make the building fall FAST?
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Wow you guys are dumb.
The buildings were not solid blocks.
They are a network of steel beams like sticks (compared to the enormous size).
Those sticks (steel beams) did not break.
THEY WERE DISCONNECTED FROM EACH OTHER.
The steel beams were not 1,362 feet tall.
Smaller segments are CONNECTED into large lengths.
Once they are bent out of shape, the connections FAIL, and the links collapse
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
The shorter lengths of steel beams were designed to sit end to end vertically.
Once bent out of shape, the connections cannot hold.
The bolts shear off. Welds fail.
And the building collapses like a Raggedy Ann doll without any skeleton.
The 200,000 tons then becomes WEIGHT ACCELERATING THE COLLAPSE.
It is the WEIGHT that overwhelms the resistance, causing very rapid collapse.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Who gives a fig what you've seen?
This is one of the mental defects of the 9/11 Falser movement
The world does not revolve around you.
The truth is not dependent on what you think.
No one owes you an explanation.
NYC firefighters and police say the building was buckling and leaning.
Now.... Should I listen to YOU?
Or to trained professionals who were actually THERE that day, watching live?
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Why don't you 9/11 nuts get it through your skull?
How fast the buildings fell is 100% IRRELEVANT.
Conspirators would not go to any extra effort to make the building fall faster.
Do you believe that the government has a MAGIC GRAVITY MACHINE?
Maybe aliens from outer space used a gravity beam to cause the buildings to collapse?
You babble nonsense as if it means something.
Who cares how fast the buildings fell?
It means NOTHING.,
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
The internal structure of the building is made up of a network of steel beams like sticks.
INSIDE the bldg, the steel members warp, sag, buckle, etc. The growing steel beams shear off connector bolts, so that the steel beams are then DISCONNECTED, and LOOSE, making the building like a rag doll with no skeleton.
However, YES, the towers DID BEND & LEAN before it fell:
See You Tube video:
[YT] /watch?v=ERr6zSE3clM
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Different buildings are different.
Dozens of steel buildings have collapsed from ordinary fire alone,.
Others don't.
The WTC DID.
In an earthquake, SOME buildings fall down, SOME don't.
Are you dumb enough to say that the earthquake did not cause the buildings to fall simply because SOME buildings did not fall?
It is irrelevant and indeed stupid to say that unless EVERY building falls, then fire cannot be the cause.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
A rigid steel structure will SHATTER, warp, twist, and break when heated to only 1000 degrees F. A 110 ft steel beam EXPANDS by 15 inches at 1000 degrees F. THer eis no place for this growth to go but to shear off bolts & break connections. The bldg falls as disconnected sticks.
Steel loses 80% of its strength at half the temperature at which it melts. So in an ordinary fire, steel becomes so weak that the bldg can collapse.
The EPA tested the WTC dust. NOTHING unusual there
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Fire is exactly what is used to melt steel.
You might be drawing some distinction about what type of fire that is not stated.
But for thousands of years humans have been softening and reshaping and/or melting and reshaping steel.
How do you think that foundries melt steel?
But in any event a 110 foot steel beam GROWS by 15 inches when heated by 1000 degress F, and steel loses about 80% of its strength at only HALF the temperature at which it melts.
So melting is not relevant
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Firefighters reported seeing flames in EVERY window on 47 floors, across the entire face of WTC 7.
The world's finest fire department declared failiure, that they could not contain the fires inside WTC 7 or even stay inside the building, it was so severe.
SO if professional firefighters, the world's finest, decide the fire is too much for them, why do you argue the firefighters are wrong?
It is pointless to argue "WHY NOT?" It is what it is. That is not a serious argument.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
By a BLAST FURNACE, do you mean an ENCLOSED structure that RETAINS heat inside -- like a BUILDING in which the heat accumulates inside over a 7 hour period?
You mean like forced air -- such as strong winds blowing unimpeded, feeding oxygen?
Steel is a useful substance because it is EASY to reshape into desired shapes.
If it were hard to melt steel, it would not be useful to mankind.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
No, EVERY floor of WTC 7 was burning -- INSIDE, not the Brick exterior -- from 10:00 AM until 5:20 AM when it collapsed.
The greatest fire dept in the world admitted that they could not contain the fires and could nto even risk ENTERING the building, the fires were so severe.
Any explosives would've been detonated RANDOMLY, out of sequence, hours earlier.
Yes, the Buffalo steel foundry uses ordinary home heating oil to smelt and forge steel into shapes.
You guys think steel is MAGIC?
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
You forget that YOU have the burden of proof. I will never let you koks forget that.
Unless you have X-ray vision, the flames INSIDE WTC Bldg 7 will not necessarily be visible on the outside. BRICK DOES NOT BURN. So why do you think you would see BRICK burning on the outide of WTC 7.
We know that there was a gigantic underground diesel tank feeding the generator. The NYC Fire Dept warned them against it.
So it is not "unidentified."
But who cares? YOU have to prove it
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
1) The Truthers claim that the WTC towers fell "exactly like' a controlled demolition.
WRONG. They fell NOTHING like a controlled demolition. Spread over 16 acres. Top down.
So you lose your main argument to even enter into the discussion.
2) No one knows how to demolish a bldg from the top down. No one would TRY it for the first time ever with the whole world watching. It can't be done.
3) The aircraft impact zone would CERTAINLY destroy any explosives.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Irrelevant BS. A very hot coal fire shows very little smoke or flames, yet it is hot enough to MELT STEEL.
Firefighters report seeing flames in EVERY WINDOW on EVERY FLOOR (47 floors) of WTC 7.
The video shows smoke coming out of EVERY floor, from 1 to 47, for a period of 7 hours. There was fire on EVERY floor.
The flames were INSIDE the BRICK building, and smoke was pouring out blown by the wind.
How do you think blacksmiths re-shape steel?
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
What would you expect to find on the Brooklyn Bridge miles away from the WTC 8 years after 9/11?
Why don't you try investigating WHAT thermite actually is.
Thermite is a reaction of IRON OXIDE (RUST) and ALUMINUM (think AIRPLANE FUSELAGE) with some other OPTIONAL materials often mixed in.
The products of a thermite reaction are EXTREMELY COMMON in the environment around Manhattan.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Paint chips in a magical land of mushrooms and leprechauns and unicorns.
The EPA examined the dust and debris around WTC (actually private environmental engineers hired by EPA).
They did not find any evidence of any thermite, thermate, explosives, or termites in the dust or debris.
They were looking for ANYTHING unusual to see if people BREATHING the dust or affected by the debris would be in any danger.
Samples from Sept / Oct 2001 found NOTHING unusual
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
WTC 1 & WTC 2 collapsed from the top down (below the aircraft impact).
This is NOT like any controlled demolition. They collapsed across 16 acres NOT "within their footprint (1 acre).
WTC 7 BURNED FOR 7 HOURS, on every floor.
NO explosives coud survive a raging fire for 7 hours. Explosives in WTC 7 would be DETONATED or DESTROYED by the fire.
Controlled demolition would require SIMULTANEOUS detonation in symmetry.
The fire would make that impossible.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
You mean paint chips found 8 years after 9/11 MILES AWAY, such as on the Brooklyn Bridge?
REMEMBER: The EPA conducted an extensive analysis of the dust and debris from the WTC in September and October 2001, out of concern for the potential of dangerous chemicals that people might be breathing.
WE KNOW that there was NO residue from explosives, thermite, thermate, OR EVEN GIANT TERMITES at the WTC.
PRIVATE University professors hired by the EPA prove there was nothing there.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
The Truther's #1 claim is that the buildings fell exactly like a controlled demolition.
THEY DID NOT.
So once you depart from this (false) claim, there is absolutely no reason to talk about controlled demolition.
2nd, no one has ever demolished a bldg that way before. NO one knows how. They would not try for the 1st time with the whole world watching.
3rd the people who died would be dead anyway, above the fire line, even if the bldgs DID NOT fall. Everyone below the fire escaped.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
HAHA FUCKERS
monorichtick14 2 years ago
I have seen the video beflore.
Looks NOTHING like controlled demolition.
Extremely messy, chaotic collapse.
Key word in "controlled demolition" is CONTROL.
The towers -- each 1 acre in footprint -- collapsed over a 16 ACRE debris field.
Controlled demolition is done from the BOTTOM, so that the bldg will not fall all over the place, as happened here.
Massive debris damaged buildings everywhere for blocks all around.
Any demolition team would be SHOT for this
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
That has nothing to do with what happens when steel is HEATED.
Increased strength is achieved by removing impurities so that there will not be a point of fracture.
However, ANY strength will behave EXACTLY THE SAME when heated.
Steel loses 80% of its strength at HALF the termperature at which it melts.
When stel is only HALF way to melting, it has lost HALF its strength.
A steel beam placed above burning jet fuel in an EMRTC test, FOLDED in 3.5 minutes like a wet noodle.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Dozens of steel buildings have collapsed from ordinary fires.
Steel FAILS structurally at half the temperature at which it melts.
When steel EXPANDS heated 1000 deg. F., any steel structure must BUCKLE and BREAK. The expandings teel has nowhere to go as it grows. As a result, conencting welds break, connecting bolts are sheared off, beams are bent out of alignnment.
Once beams are bent out of vertical, their connections MUST fail.
This is all linked from the 911reality website
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Who is trying to deny molten steel?
This is the tylpical left-wing "straw man"
YOU nuts talk about melting steel, then claim someone is denying it?
NO one ever claimed that steel melted.
Steel has been known for 100+ years as 2the 2nd WORST bulding material to survive a fire.
In 1895, architect William Sooy Smith warned that steel buildings are a "FIRE TRAP" because steel fails in ordinary fires. His article discusses MANY steel blgs that collapsed in orindary fires
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Steel is created to different strengths BY HOW IT IS HEATED and tempered.
There is NO change in how steel behaves when heated. "DIfferent strengths" has NO relation to its loss of strength when heated.
It has to do with the removal of impurities and how the steel bonds when it cools.
ALL steel loses 80% of its strength at 1400 degrees F, and 50% of its strength at 1000 degrees F. They act like wet noodles.
In EMRTC's test jet fuel reached 2000 degs and the beam FOLDED in 3.5 mins
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Sorry, no.
My father worked in a steel foundry after graduating from MIT.
The fuel used to TOTALLY MELT steel is ordinary home heating oil, essentially the same as kerosene-based jet fuel.
Steel would be USELESS if it were hard to melt.
Steel is useful bc it is EASY to melt and shape as we need it.
Steel EXPANDS when heated. A 110 ft. beam GROWS by 15 inches when heated 1000 degrees F.
So any rigid sttructure will TWIST, WARP, and SHATTER at 1000 degrees.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
How do you think that blacksmits as far back as the middle ages reshaped steel?
MAGIC?
My father, an MIT Graduate, worked in a steel foundry. The used kerosene -- jet fuel -- to melt steel, smelt it, and pour it into new shapes.
In this test by EMRTC:
/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y
Jet fuel burning reached 2,000 degrees in 2 minutes.
A steel beam folded like a wet noodle in 3.5 minutes.
The WTC used LIGHTWEIGHT steel. The weight of a skyscraper is critical. A heavy bldg will FALL
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
MANY steel buildings have collapsed due to fire alone.
Which is irrelevant bc the WTC did not collapse ONLY from fire alone.
Steel loses 80% of its strength at 1400 degrees -- the temp of a normal office fire.
Steel EXPANDS when heated, causing a rigid structure to buckle, twist, and break.
A 110 ft steel beam expands by 15 inches when heated by 1000 degrees.
100 years ago an architect wrote in a journal that steel is the 2nd WORST material to survive a fire.
See 911Reality
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Not literally, but when you look at a bldg, the mind THINKS you are seeing solid blocks.
A bldg is NOT a solid block. 95% AIR. Otherwise, a bldg would be useless. The idea is to have room for PEOPLE inside.
The towers were only a thin skin wrapped around a network of sticks -- sticks, compared to the ILLUSION of a large block
If steel beams, like sticks, are simply KNOCKED OUT OF ALIGNMENT, the bldg falls.
DESTRUCTION is NOT necessary -- only DISRUPTION of the structure of sticks
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
The uniform acceleration at 64% freefall in a gravitational collapse scenario violates the laws of physics, as the top mass when encountering the intact lower section MUST reduce speed, any resistance encountered by a falling object MUST slow down, it's basic physics.
The fact that the observed acceleration is constant proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by something else, demolitions is the only viable explanation.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
Wrong. Hydrocarbon jet fuel can burn anywhere between 800° and 1,500°F. But the jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning. There are several things in office buildings that can reach that temperature too. And as any boy scout knows, the temperature of a fire can increase if it is receiving a sufficient air current, which there would be an abundance of 80 stories high.
I'd also like to know how you arrived at your numbers. How do you know that the energy would have been "insufficient"?...
Crit0 2 years ago
According to conservative estimates, the falling 14 stories of tower 2 (more than half of the stories of tower 1) would produce roughly 2.3 BILLION joules of energy directed straight down. This is well more than enough energy to collapse the floors directly beneath it and keep going even if half the energy was lost (which it wasn't.) The energy added by the acceleration of gravity dwarfs the energy being lost, so the collapse only increases. And remember, this relies on conservative estimate.
Crit0 2 years ago
Wrong. Most of the energy was lost as half of it disintegrated before the lower half started collapsing (video doesn't lie) such crushing absorbs alot of energy and the mass would decelerate upon encountering the intact lower section, this really is basic physics and was not observed to happen, the 64% freefall acceleration was uniform.
Your 2.3 billion joules from the Bazant/Zhou analysis is proven to be insufficient by Gordon Ross. The uniform momentum issue is insurmountable, sorry.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
Once again, Jet fuel was not the only thing burning. Plastic produces thick black smoke regardless of how much oxygen is getting to it.
The Bazant/Zhou paper actually got 4.3 GJ for the initial collapse. My number was based on my own, less detailed calculations designed to give the conspiracy theorists every possible concession. The Bazant paper actually does factor in resistance with great detail. The most Ross does is assert that Bazant's numbers are wrong without citing a single source.
Crit0 2 years ago
Actually Bazant implies 2.105 GJ Ross provides maths and logic proving him wrong, he is a source, Similarly Bazant provides no source.
Ross gives the official theory every possible concession disregarding energy absorption in initial crushing of interconnecting floors between the top and lower masses, accreted crushed mass expulsion reducing downward pressure etc and still proves the momentum insufficient, especially with plastic shortening an distributed elastic absorption over multiple floors.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
Wrong. Only in optimal fuel/air mixes can it reach 1500F. In 'dirty burns' which covers real world office fires it only reaches about 700F. Also the black smoke shows it was cooling due to all the uncombusted hydrocarbons which indicates insufficient oxygen or insufficient fire temperature or both.
With regard to the numbers, go to ae911truth,visit technical articles and read the momentum transfer analysis by Gordon Ross, it explains it in detail.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
WRONG.
The expert consulting company EMRTC tested an open pit of jet fuel.
In 2 minutes, the jet fuel reached 2000 degrees F
.,... WHILE BILLOWING THICK CLOUDS OF BLACK SMOKE.
In 3.5 minutes, the jet fuel at 2000 degrees F caused a steel beam to fold like a wet noodle
The color of smoke TELLS YOU NOTHING
You assume that a fire is 100% UNIFORM, and that is true idiociy.
The EDGES of a fire may generate black smoke, while the CENTER of the fire burns at high temperatures
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
Like all supporters of the official story, you still haven't explained the uniform acceleration of 64% freefall. Basic physics states that upon encountering the resistance of the intact lower section, it should have slowed, this didn't happen thus the resistance was removed by something else.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
"Basic physics states that upon encountering the resistance of the intact lower section, it should have slowed..."
What would cause the collapse to slow would be if the rate at which energy was added (from gravitational acceleration and the increasing mass) was lower than the rate at which energy was lost from resistance or other factors.) So the real question is, would the tower offer up enough resistance to slow the collapse? Contrary to what you may think, the math says no.
Crit0 2 years ago
and JFK died of natural causes
hamletundone 2 years ago 7
@hamletundone And Elvis didn't do no drugs
Kalphiter45 1 year ago
You hae to remember that a building is NOT a solid block. It is designed to create open space for peopel to use. It is nothing but a bunch of STICKS -- steel beams -- with an outer skin and floors.
Once the STICKS come apart, there is nothing holding the building up.
The energy needed to dislodge and disrupt these sticks is not very great.
Once the EXPANSION of steel from heat shatttered the structure, steel columns slid right PAST each other. Many columns did NOT crush end to end
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
As usual for the truthers, your comment makes no sense.
You throw out t his B.S. about a rapid fall -- WHICH IS INCORRECT.
But so what? Why should any one care about this?
To remove all resistance EVERY floor would have to be INDIVIDUALLY demolished.
We see NO floor moving before hit from above.
That means you must require 22,050 demolition devices = (268 steel support columns + 47 internal columns * 70 floors = 22,050.
You get yourself into real trouble, and you're clueless
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
So now I've proven the fire wouldn't have weakened the steel....The top mass times acceleration was insufficient to initiate collapse, half of it had disintegrated before the lower section started collapsing. Such disintegration absorbs much energy and the resulting momentum would be insufficient to collapse the structure built to withstand many times it's weight, especially with distributed plastic and elastic absorption.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
Steel loses 80% of its strength when heated to 1400 degrees F.
Steel EXPANDS when heated. A 110 ft beeam EXPANDS by 15 inches when heated by 1000 degrees F.
So a rigid structure MUST warp, twist, buckle, and BREAK.
Disintigration is irrelevant.
A bldg is 90% OPEN SPACE - AIR.
The WTC was a thin skin wrapped on a network of STICKS (steel beams).
When those "sticks" are knocked out of alighment, the bldg falls.
There is no disintegration involved.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
In this test by EMRTC:
/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y
Jet fuel burning reached 2,000 degrees in 2 minutes.
A steel beam folded like a wet noodle in 3.5 minutes.
JonathonMoseley 2 years ago
this is such a tragic... :(
all those people IN that building....
ilikeplaid6 2 years ago
0.30 u can see a mans face in the smoke :|
cagedsteel21 2 years ago
yea ppl say its satan
CrymeTimefan 2 years ago
u mean faces !!!
kokym8 2 years ago
we can also see your head up your ass. Grow the fuck up
cbstout12345 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1535ºC), 2795ºF = melting point of iron
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- probably well below 800ºC.
Plus, because of the thermal conductivity of the steel columns the heat would have distributed. In other words, it would have never gotten that hot in one place.
You can't argue science. There's just no way it melted the steel from just jet fuel. That's ridiculous. Go read a book.
jsorrell 2 years ago
True, steel does not melt at 800ºC. But it does become 50% of its original strength at that temperature. In some places, the fires had reached over 950ºC, at which steel would be at roughly 20% strength.
Crit0 2 years ago
swish!
killalegend 2 years ago
Kerosine is a hydrocarbon and such fires only reach about 700F. That, along with steel's high thermal conductivity proves the fires would not be any where near enough to weaken the steel. Also the smoke was becoming black which shows an oxygen-starved, cooling fire, suggesting the steel was cooling anyway.
truthavenger99 2 years ago
yes you can't argue science, at 800C the steel would have lost more than 50% of it's strength
heafers84 2 years ago
Conspiracy buffs like to say these things fell at freefall speed. In fact, freefall for WTC1 would have been 8.55 seconds, whereas you can see in this video it takes about 23 seconds to collapse.
In a resistance-free pancaking model, the fall time is 11.5 seconds. WTC2 also took around twice as long as the resistance-free pancaking model, so it's apparent that both had the same amount of resistance to collapse.
mutatron 2 years ago
Stop with all the conspiracu bullshit, can't you see what happened, 2 planes hit the WTC's, and the damaged caused to the uppers levels was too severe for the levels below to support so it collapsed.
iliketobuystuff 3 years ago
INSIDE JOB ALL THE WAY
demenz613 3 years ago
whoa, what the hck happens to the steel core colums at the :30 second mark in this video?!?!? looks like the steel just vaporizes! I cant imagine what kind of weaponry caused that.
paul14075 3 years ago
will there be an investigation in more depth when obama takes office??
TubeUx 3 years ago
CuttingThroughTheMatrix(.)com to answer all your questions about ......
WHO DID IT!
phantomorpheus 3 years ago
live to al qaeda ala bagguarrrr!!!!!!!! fucking americanssss we are the world live to AL QAEDA VERY SOON WE ARE COMMING AGAIN
gabe66666 3 years ago
Watching the spire disappear is odd. Also, the existance of the spire is proof that a "Progressive Collapse" never occured. But then how could airplane wing tips and edges smash thru 10 floors of outer and inner load bearing walls? Walls with solid steel floors bolted to the walls. with Concrete poured. Ea floor was steel&rock! Yet wing tips smashed thru it all. BUT: at the Pentagon the wings folded Back! Mike Walters/CNN saw it and says so. It must be true. Still it is odd. The P' hole was 20ft
hypnotstcollector 3 years ago
Inside Job,check out the after shock when the camera shakes.
berlinrelic 3 years ago 3
This video has some of the clearest evidence of demolition yet. First, note that as the collapse begins, there are simultaneous puffs of black smoke from multiple floors clearly visible on the right-hand side. On the government's story, those should have not even been there, because the upper floors above the impact area should have remained intact, with no floors collapsing and causing air to be forced out the sides of the building.
madisonpaine 3 years ago 2
Also, as has already been noted, the notorious spindle stands for moments before falling straight down right through itself, not toppling over as it should have -- clearly because the base was blown away.
madisonpaine 3 years ago
the puffs of blacks smoke is from the collapse of the building. as it collapses it blows out air, and here the air found a path of least resitance. Its like an accordian.
panictryouts 3 years ago 2
This video is noteworthy because after the building proper collapses, the core structure is seen standing for a few moments as the camera zooms in. Then the core collapses FROM BENEATH as well. The government-supplied fairy tale would lead one to expect the floors to collapse and the core to remain standing. The core collapse seen here looks like as good a case for controlled demolition as we are likely to see.
golfront 3 years ago 3
And you can cleary see that the top of the building is collapsing at the same time with the down of the top. If there were explosives why it's not collapsing one by one? Can someone explain it? And the right side explosion - why it's only one? That could be even a gas system explosion engender by top collapsing? :S
qski 3 years ago
@11 seconds....
Can anyone tell me what type of zoom lens can have the foreground and background in focus at the same time??
eiffuy 3 years ago
dunno... but maybe since it was a bright day they had the F stopped all the way down which would increases the depth of field enough - provided that the foreground was far enough from the lens to be included in that range.
bronco2121 3 years ago
NOT an inside job. You can see how the top floors collapse where the plane hit the building. As those floors come down, look at the floors under the fire. They are not falling. The top obliterates the floors underneath making one wild looking cloud almost as if peeling a banana. I have never seen a controlled demolition look anything like this.
panictryouts 3 years ago
lol of course it was an inside job. Look at the huge lumps being blown laterally. it's sposed to be a gravity collapse. But you can clearly see the material blown outward... You got Mossad on TV admitting it, it still don't wake people up!!
xtcongo 3 years ago
Where are the lumps supposed to go? You have a massive chunck of a building collapsing, the only space is sideways. If it was a demolition, the whole building would fall at the same time because they put explosives every few floors. Here you can clearly see that the building under the fire was not moving. The lateral movement doesn't start until that top part had already hit the building underneath, shearing off big parts of the building and pulvering the rest.
panictryouts 3 years ago
do controlled demolitions usually lea pieces of the building standing? :26 and the end of the video clearly shows the facade still standing and collapsing.
panictryouts 3 years ago
No, you can see the plumes being blown upwards and outwards. Besides, if the building is being pulverized into dust. Where then is the mass needed to continue the collapse...you cant have it both ways
xtcongo 3 years ago
0:07 to 0:08 the camera pulls back. you can see through the mid-bottom area of the floor a whole piece/chunk of a collum or a floor just pushes out of the floor and falls. or maybe not. but yea it was an inside job for sho.
RonPaulIsiah 3 years ago
No explosive turn steel into dust
very clear molecular dis-association
tells why the rubble pile was so small
BaNoyes 3 years ago
inside job
Jason310M 3 years ago 2
Lots of material heading towards WTC7.
nhawk750 3 years ago
Watch @ 0:05 seconds when the explosive goes off on the right side and the squib is blowing straight out like a fountain.
YHVH72 3 years ago
Just a floor collapse.
nhawk750 3 years ago
People, don't give a fuck (-1) just explain why it's not floor collapse. I believe in 9/11 inside job but it's not a point. I just don't understand why it's only ONE explosive goes off on the right side - if they where explosives they should do more damage on some-every floors - not just on one?
qski 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats not an explosion. It is the building collapsing and pushing it out thru one side. Air has to go somewhere. Here its ejected out the right as it found a path of least resistance.
panictryouts 3 years ago
check out the steel upright left standing at 20 seconds , then mysteriously "go up in smoke" and melt away and drop ,there is no reason for that to drop, that is a definite sign of cutter charges of some description.
fblade42 3 years ago
very explosive looking. And you can see the material shoot straight up.
MegsHead 3 years ago