I don't know the context of this video, so I may be way off here, but I thought jones' opponent had a point @ 3:30. If thermite is a potential demolisher, does it matter if it has been officially used as such? The rest of his argument is crap, tho
@puddinggreg The point with termite is that it is cheap and easy for you and me to get hold of. An organisation (such as the CIA or whoever they claim was behind it) with access to real explosives wouldn't use termite simply because it is utter crap at demolition, as evidenced by termite not ever being used as such.
James R. Gourley. He sounds like the pricks I just spent time listening to on another page. Why do all truthers have this nasty edge to them? Are there any thruthers out there who can converse intelligently. "For all i care you can tell everyone I'm a janitor?" Seriously?
So far I've not met a truther who comports themselves as an adult on this forum. It's weird.
years ago there was a documentary on t.v. showcasing the uses of thermite in demolition. when that tape surfaces a lot of people are going to have to eat crow for the rest of their lives.
I think the proof of controlled demolition is demonstrated more in the physics than in which particular type of explosives were used to get it to fall at free fall speed. We can observe it falling at free fall speed, and we can observe the very fine pulverisation of concrete.
Also, I realise we should not look upon AE911truth as some kind of source of infallible information... but having one nasty mail exchange with one contributing member does not discredit the entire group, in my opinion.
@zzyzx0788 there may never be proof of government involvement, (like anyone would believe they didnt) but there is ample proof to arrest george bush for obstruction of justice.
@vengencefrom1979 I'd agree with the obstruction of justice part. I believe Kucinich and others already tried to impeach Bush and Cheney (though I think that was because of the Iraq War)
It doesn't fall at free fall. The exterior does. The penthouse falls long before any of the facades appear to budge. If you take into account the full collapse sequence, it is not even close to free-fall acceleration. Only for a FEW seconds out of about 15, does free-fall occur in only PART of the building.
No, I'm not timing it from the minute the building was damaged. I'm timing it at the start of the initiation of collapse. In other words: I'm timing how long the building takes to collapse.
Ad hominem attacks are still a logical fallacy even if delivered in a calm and nice way. Also, to me your argument about the existence of nanothermite goes a bit like this. "It is extremely unlikely for me to exist, therefore i refuse to believe I am a human even though I look and act like one." If something is there, it is there. " we found thermite; it should not have been there - you explain it." is completely logical. Just because we cannot yet explain it doesn't make it go away.
Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections. It would seem a large building with a devoted on-site maintenance crew would keep some small amount on hand to quickly weld repairs to the structure. Looks like it belongs there to me.
Things behave differently on different scales. (See the numerous nanotechnology videos on YouTube to learn about this.) Nanoscale materials will be more reactive due to their greater surface area, so you can use less material to get the same effect. Therefore, claims about how much nanothermitic material would be needed are misleading. How do you know how much material would be needed if you have never examined nanothermite?
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
@SexyMelon You are the one that said I cannot argue against the evidence. You are the one that made the challenge and now you suddenly think I am a troll. Why because I am not batshit insane. I told you what the rules were but let me go even further. I am willing to debate you provided that if I use any logical fallacy in debate I automatically lose the debate. Those are pretty good terms, if you have good evidence then it is a easy win for you and truth is advanced
@thesparitan We can discuss how you're not a troll when you wholeheartedly apologize and take back the two dozen or so insults, snide remarks, flaming and trolling comments you've left here.
That you think anyone somehow owes you a debate with behavior on display here is outright hilarious, I'll give you that. That's pretty good trolling.
@thesparitan Oh and, once again, thank you for demonstrating tactics and maturity of the general opposition to the truth movement, more so than DPR does in this video. Maybe people will find it helpful.
@SexyMelon "Thanks for illustrating the mental capacity of an average denier"
Oh here is you in too many words calling me a idiot. Hypocrisy is getting thick in here. I have told you that I am willing to debate a specific claim you have without using insults, fallacies or redirection of any kind. You refused and you are making an ad hoc reason way to protect your fragile psyche. Its a common response
DPR, this is nothing but a dishonest personal attack on the journal's credibility. If you do not address the scientific merits of the actual publication, you're much, much worse than anything you describe "conspiracy theorists" to be.
It is very hypocritical of you to slander and completely dismiss scientific findings. Science cannot be refuted by insults, baseless accusations, and unfavorable associations.
@SexyMelon Ok so you believe that 9/11 was an inside job? You do realize that you believe in one of the most insane ideas that it is possible to believe in? I am willing to bet I am smarter then you, I would be willing to bet your whole mcdonalds paycheck on it.
@SexyMelon I have some free time, and I could use a good laugh. Lets debate this then. Give me you best piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
@SexyMelon Wow that shut melon up. See guys all you have to do to shut a 9/11 truther up is offer to debate them. So where did you go, I thought you said we never do anything other then insults and "pretend bullying" what ever the fuck that is.
@thesparitan I don't "debate" deliberately immature trolls, or creationists - what are you even thinking? - but thanks for the offer. Feel free to knock over the chess pieces and proclaim "victory" if you want now.
@SexyMelon I have no need for that, declaring a win against you is like beating a blind kid at darts or winning a foot race with a man in a wheelchair. But I did offer to debate you and you run away. I hold strongly to the rules of logic and rational argumentation. I do not use fallacies and I stay on subject at all times. I will not be moving any goal posts and if a claim is proven I will concur with the validity of the claim.
You can't rationally defend your beliefs, thats clear.
@thesparitan What you've offered here is a display of immaturity, immorality, condescension, derision, insult and ridicule, void of slightest bit of logic, evidence, fact, courtesy, manner or etiquette.
You have offered no apology, no retraction, and no argument since.
I don't "debate" trolls, and you haven't proved me otherwise. Like I said, feel free to knock over the pieces and fly back to your flock. You don't matter.
@SexyMelon I will apologize when you prove my ridicule of you is not justified. When you can prove that 9/11 was an inside job then I will apologize, but as far as it goes now, the only thing you have offered is insults and hypocrisy. Oh and I am not the one that needs to present evidence, you are the one with the fantastic claim that if true would mean the greatest conspiracy in world history.
@thesparitan "I will apologize when you prove my ridicule of you is not justified."
Yep, you're a troll.
Expecting to debate with someone when you think you're justified in insulting them at every turn without apology?.. You suddenly don't need to provide any evidence at all either?.. "Fantastic claims"?.. Tsk.
There's nothing to discuss. Not to say you can't continue to behave yourself in this manner.
@SexyMelon This is not a justification for me, but it is a justification for you. You would feel attack even if I didnt use any insults and this is because your have invested your identity into this conspiracy. You gain much internal benefit believing that you have knowledge the rest of the world doesnt, and that you are doing a great thing by telling people about it. You are a hero in your own mind, why would you ever give that up for something like rationality?
@thesparitan You expect a debate while doing nothing but insulting your opponent, even feeling completely entitled to it, not pausing or apologizing for even a second.
Ergo, you're a deliberate troll with no resemblance of human morality. Again, thank you for illustrating the internal workings of 9/11 deniers.
@SexyMelon I never really wanted a debate, I already knew you would say no to it. I am only doing this to see your reactions and to test theories I have about people like you. The fact that I can predict your behavior is a sign that you are not special but typical of someone with poor thinking skills and paranoia disorders. You lack the empathy necessary to understand my motives, but I can understand yours. Now ask yourself why is that?
@SexyMelon "Granted, it's not like you can argue against the evidence." I just said I could and now you want to leave, you do not even want to see if I can? Explain to me something, why would someone choose to believe in something that they cannot defend rationally? That is the question I think you are in a position to answer.
Just give me your best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
i knew its was fucking termites lol great video, you try to give any truther a straight question about anything and they cant answer. all they can do is back peddle and throw different conspiracies at you or call you names like there in the second grade...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law. The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
--- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, 1976
@soulinite and as a reminder, 130,000 people worked on the manhattan project developing the atom bomb, didnt seem to have any trouble keeping that secret. 9/11 required a lot less people, and wtf? a blueprint already existed for it? the 'operation northwoods' blueprint for destruction. and as yet, for the record, bush has yet to provide one shred of proof that bin laden was involved with 9/11.
@vengencefrom1979 LOL 9/11 need less people to keep a secret than the manhattan project LOL are you high.
you would need 100's of people to keep the 9/11 secret from firemen cops to all the guys that would have had to go into the buildings and plant the"explosives" all the staff that would have seen them going in at night,all the people on the street that would have seen them going in at night ,all the people that worked for the airline the list is endless..
@alltiedup217 yeah right, do the math, how long to prep for 9/11? how many people needed to know? the night of the long knives probably had more people in on it than 9/11, let alone the manhattan project, which numbered some 130,000.
@vengencefrom1979 first off not all of the 130 000 people had any idea of what they were mak'in.Again how many people needed to know 1000's of people would have to be in on 9/11.not to mention that they would have had to have been told they would be involved in the murder of 1000's of people,and your say'in not even one of the people asked said no but went along with it and never said a word
And they would have to help hide any evidence that would be left over after..its silly.
@alltiedup217 your strawman argument reeks of nazism. your blatant lies to (still) try to cover up 9/11 only mean to me you are either a stooge, a patsy, or a shill, or all three.
@alltiedup217 anyone with brains knows instintively just by watching wtc 7 fall in freefall that 9/11 was an inside job. its not a question anymore as to if but how.
@vengencefrom1979 do you 9/11 nut jobs have anything better for evidence than.."your in on it"then call anyone that wont listen to or validate your paranoia a nazi.@nd you have no idea what a strawnam argument is ,or your using the word wrong on purpose.Dpr did a great vid on the "freefall" of wtc7.anyone with brains,and that does not have a really small penis can see it does not fall in the time the "truthers " say it does.your either a nut ,moron,or bullshiter,maybe all 3
@alltiedup217 provide one shred of proof that bin laden had anything to do with 9/11, or the taliban, or saddam and iraq. you 'debunkers' are a pack of liars from the word go. 9/11 - inside job! WTC 7 - THE SMOKING GUN!
@vengencefrom1979 thats it?thats your only relpy?more name calling?well soon as you get out of the 3rd grade try to formulate an argument then get back to me.or should i say nah nah i know you are but what am i.
@vengencefrom1979 LOL why would you waste your time, lol I dont know? why did you? it was a week ago that I replyed to you.It is typical of people like you ,once you have to put up or shut up ,show some kinda evidence you cut and run .with foolishness like "your a shill" way to make your point.No more Alex Jones for you,now take your meds.
@alltiedup217 you are very low on my list of things to do, so low in fact i hardly ever think about 'your' kind. you can only thin yourselves out whilst promoting more bull. so sign up or shut up. wtc 7 - freefall. morons that dont want to believe it was demo - more than can be counted. have a blast with your new nam.
p.s. my building has termites, and i measured a sample of some of the rotting wood, and it contained .1% termites, does that mean my whole building is .1% termites? please tell o great master of bullshitology.
@soulinite roll all you want, but for the record it would take one man less than a year to set thermite devices in all 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11, all you have to do is the math, math so simple a 5th grader could do it. almost as easy as looking up the term 'pull it' in a dictionary, for the record.
@vengencefrom1979 ROFL.You think one man could rig the WTC 1, 2 and 7 for a controlled demolition in one year? Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you sound? Why haven't I seen any one man demolition companies if your nonsense is true?
@soulinite one man could do the rigging in less than one year, its morons like you that cant do the math that cant figure it out in the first place, ergo...care to enlist? we've got a job for your kind, where you can be put to the most good! chasing around bin laden for another 10 years.
@EarthsGravitySucks If one man can rig 3 land mark buildings for controlled demolition in less then one year then why don't we see any one man demolition companies? How do demolition companies stay in business while employing so much high cost and completely unneeded labor?
Where exactly did you get this bogus information?
@soulinite if you want to get hypothetical why dont you address the the issue of why a thermite device can be made in anyones backyard but nat geo (et al) are still in denial that it can be done. as for the one man scenario moron, divide the time in half with two men, now use four. you are such a moron you over look the implications trying to set up a straw man argument. go back to your sunday school hole in the wall or where ever you crawled out from. you are out of your league.
i'd like to dedicate my new video to the memory of lisa beamers husband, who died valiantly crashing flight 93 into a hole which was already there, may he rest in pieces, where ever they may be.
flight 93 - no wreckage, hole in ground since 1994 where engine dug up, and presumably mr. beamer.
wtc 7 - freefall
wtc 1 and 2 - molten steel in basements, evidence of thermite
flight 77 - pentagon photo and video footage clearly shows no plane before wall collapsed
lets see, hmmm, off hand the thermite sample that WAS measured as to its percentages was from dust that blew away from the towers. the bulk of the towers remaining where they landed. hmmm, that means the DUST contained thermite and the one sample measured was .1%. since there was no examination of the actual collapse this point becomes frivolous. as to thermite devices being around i know for a fact that they existed before 9/11 and can even be built in your own back yard.
DId BP blow up the oil rig for fun or was it another conspiracy....oooooo go after that one next guys. Try to find facts for that already known =P conclusion.
Thermite linear cutting charges are in common use in demolition.They have lots of advantages over explosives, not only that, there are dozens of types of thermite to suit different jobs.Give it up dpr - you look and sound foolish and are obviously out of your depth.Even NIST admitted that it could have been used but it would have taken minutes to react - of course they then didn't even bother to test for it - now that's what I call real science.
dpr I have some questions. Why are you making the rationalization that because 0.11% of the chips was unreacted thermite in the sample that therefore the amount for entire building constituted this (0.11% of the mass of the entire tower)?
PS) I love what you're doing here since the only issue is the science behind how this was achieved. Just as with climate change, the only thing that will settle this is science.I told you this before but i encourage you to watch Cage's lecture, give feedback
Dude shut up.. Come on.. Your STILL on this? Why not make a story about BP blowing up their rig for some.. Terrorist reason. Just move on man. Yes, people died, your video will not change anything. Please, just move on with something else.
Its not a coincidence the FAA approves more planes made of aluminium than planes made of water, despite the fact WATER puts out fires and ALUMINUM makes nano thermite!
Something was "invented" by people who operate all the major world banking institutions--a consortium of banking interests who funded the Club of Rome.
Their cause celeb is to blame all ills on the little guy, tax them to death, impose tyranny upon them, and limit their freedoms--and likely depopulate the planet to a very large extent.
Exactly - You and others like you take reason and evidence by heart when it comes to any issue. Until it comes to September 11 where you deny any clear evidence and use every reason to do so.
I could now see how YOU and the criminals who pulled September 11 relate.
So when are we going to have a full scale investigation into who could have made it, how it was made, where it was made, etc.??
When will there be ANY criminal investigation of this mass murder EVER? You know... Maybe if the Government were to conduct their own chemical analysis of WTC Debris they would have a leg to stand on in this debate. I am well educated on the laws of physics and what happened that day, has never been explained.
you're ruining an agenda to put religion into the center of mankind's problems. that's why you'll see most of youtube atheists attack and mock 9-11 skeptics.
robert anton wilson
"I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. I thought it was a fascinating paradox: irrational rationalists."
You just reject the explanation that was given. Tell you what, you're educated. What happens to an equation or prediction if you miss or ignore factors and variables? Oftentimes with the conspiracy theorists, they only notice the temperature at which steel melts. Not at which it is weakened, not how much damage was done by the plane, the only thing they notice is "HEY, THE STEEL DIDN'T MELT! IT MUST HAVE BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!"
When paint tests from the WTC prove that the office fires never reached sustainned temps anywhere near 1100F, I think you need to go back and reevaluate some evidence...
You also distort the basis for which the conntrolled demolition claims rests upon. Are you genuinely after the truth about what realy happened that day?
Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of argument?
...that answers that question. You are just another retard who focuses only in the fire temperature.
I ask again: how much damage did the structure take from the plane crash and explosion? And how much heat is needed to simply weaken the steel slightly? Better yet, are those numbers of the fire temperatures from the paint test reliable? The "Evidence" coming from the truthers is questionable at best.
You were the one who focused on fire temperature, I was simply correcting you...
WTC took absolutely NO damage from the plane crash, it only endured minor facade damage as did other buildings surrounding the WTC Mainly Building 3 and 4 which took direct hits and destroyed much of the building, yet the super structure did not symmetrically telescope into itself at free fall speed like Building 7 did. Why not?
No, you're the one that keeps bringing up "Evidence," i'm trying to figure out if any of it should be considered anything more than just another bullshit conspiracy theory. The fact that you think the attacks only did facade damage confirmed the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Now can you point me to someone whose argument can survive basic review?
@FrostbittenWolf Can you think of anything that makes the official story a BS conspiracy theory? What constitutes a theory being BS? How many holes in the story does there need to be to be considered BS? Does this criteria change depending if it is government originated? Has the government ever lied or been deceptive? The information supplied by Aaron Russo and Alex Jones in their interview--was it all lies? What about Robin Cook's info about Al Qaeda being supported by CIA/ISI/ MI6 & military?
All you need to do to get me to take you seriously is to present evidence that isn't so obviously fake a ten year old could spot the fallacies. If it takes at least a 12 year old to spot the fallacies, i'll give you some consideration.
The Steel DID melt, in fact there were holes burned through samples of steel from WTC 7, unless you can show how to create sulfide eutectic mixtures in steel with normal office building materials???
I am noticing KEY PHYSICS facts about the collapse. Mainly the velocity and acceleration of the building.
Hi dprjones, what is your opinion on the lecture from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
The presenter does discuss nano-thermite but there are other observations that are discussed in regards to the possibility of demolition, thermite or no thermite.
Please watch it when you get the time and let me know.
Google 9/11 blueprint for truth (2008 edition)
It's a 2 hour lecture. There are in fact a variety of issues that lead to the possibility of demolition, please review if you have time,thx
As a structural engineer by profession there are many unanswered questions on this topic.
The main one being: Why would the upper floors fall through the path of most resistance?
The lower floors, which were over-designed to support the upper through gale force winds AND plane impact.....for over 30 years were not damaged so why DID these fail?
The upper floors were pulverized so a jack-hammer effect is a non-starter.
We may never know how they did it but recent history will tell you why.
Ishaq:322 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely."
Qur'an:13:41 "Do they not see Us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories)?"
@BalazarsBrain And you prove my point again. Oooh, your big brain can do some name calling. Wow, your stunning intellect is impressive! If you are so smart, why don't you make some videos that debunk the channels I mentioned? I'd love to see them. Until then, do yourself a favor and stop making yourself look foolish.
Ok, I watched the nanothermite911's pathetic video "9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying ".
This moron uses video of a bent steel beam as evidence for molten steel...you guys need to realize that bent steel DOES NOT equal molten steel.
As for the eyewitnesses...LMAO as if the firemen are expert enough to tell the difference between molten steel and another metal. They must be metal experts right?
@BalazarsBrain Ok, brainwave, how hot would a thick metal beam need to be in order to bend like a horseshoe without cracking? Sorry, it's hotter than burning jet fuel. As for the witnesses, in a jet fuel fire the only molten metal could be aluminum. So, the firemen couldn't tell the difference between molten steel (orange) and molten aluminum (SILVER)?
Like I said before, you debunkers are as logical as a bunch of Creationists.
"how hot would a thick metal beam need to be in order to bend like a horseshoe without cracking? Sorry, it's hotter than burning jet fuel."
1. My argument was that bent steel is NOT evidence for molten steel. You don't get it, the bent beam PROVES that the fire was NOT hot enough to turn that beam to molten steel (in that particular location). You prove nothing.
2. GreenEggs you FAIL...steel bends at temperatures less than that of burning jet-fuel. Nice try though.
"So, the firemen couldn't tell the difference between molten steel (orange) and molten aluminum (SILVER)?"
LoL, no I don't think the firemen could tell, nor do I think they're metals experts, no do I think you are a metals expert.
Second, I never said it was aluminum...but its ridiculous for you to say that molten aluminum ONLY glows silver. Metals glow at different colors depending on the temperature.
7/7 was also an inside job. Madrid bombings = also an inside job! And did you know that WWII was an inside job? Its true! First Czechoslovakia bombed itself. then Germany thought wow lets do that too so they started bombing their own cities. Then Britain jumped in massacring their people in London pretending it was the Germans. America bombed Pearl Harbor. Japan was pressed to out-do the rest so they dropped 2 nuclear bombs on themselves. There WAS no war was all fake! ITS TRUE! So OBVIOUS DUH!
See how idiotic Truthers are? Dprjones said like 3-4 videos ago that he wasn't going to make anymore 9/11 videos, but disproving idiocity is something intelligent people do...so here's another vid for the Truthers to not watch and not learn anything from
Hey DPR, why not start a demolition business? You don't need experience to bring a building STRAIGHT down, just look at 9-11. Clearly all you need to do is cause random damage and arbitrarily set fires and the building will fall straight down each time. Yeah, that makes sense right? I mean, demolition experts are wasting their time spending weeks wiring buildings to fall straight down right? Clearly you believe this.
@CrazyRay7979 - Right, keep believing that 3 buildings fell straight down due to plane and fire damage. It's not like common sense indicates that they should have fell to the side or twisted off. Demolition teams must be irrelevant in your mind. Furthermore, why out of the plethora of camera at the Pentagon do we only have a 5 framed piece of garbage grainy video showing what happened? And how can a $1 trillion dollar defense department fail so miserably? Oh this is all explainable....right
I will believe that because that's what happened...how are you sure how they "should've fallen"? Is it because Loose Change or some other Truther video told you that? Probably...
What "plethora of camera"? There's an entrance to the WTC that is filmed for people in cars entering the building, you want a high speed camera there or something??
Funny how you guys repeat the same exact debunked garbage over and over and don't listen to why
@CrazyRay7979 - Plethora of cameras at the Pentagon, not the WTC towers, read again. And a building shouldn't fall straight down, I know this just by common sense. Randomly placed fires don't weaken the steel in a symmetrical fashion you idiot. One side is bound to weaken before all others then the building will topple to that side. And you claim to have 'debunked' me by offering nothing to the contrary but assuming I watched some documentary and then labeling me a clueless truther.
Ah yes, you're one of the stupid Truthers that think that every building has random video cameras filming every inch of the building...it's not like you need clearance to even go near the Pentagon, or as if they have an armed security force, oh wait, they do...it was a guard shack camera focused on vehicles passing through the gate
I guess you think you have more knowledge than the architects and engineers that said that the WTC fell like it should have due to it's construction
@CrazyRay7979 - Hahaha. This isn't 'every building'. It's the Pentagon, head of arguably the most powerful military in the world! We also know the hotel across the way caught whatever happened on it's security cam. Yet the FBI was there in minutes to get the tapes and then never show the public. So we know they're withholding video evidence.
And the architects made the WTC towers capable of withstanding a Boeing 707 hit.
You know, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
That's why the Pentagon has ARMED SECURITY patrolling the building and that anyone that even gets close to the building has to have security clearance...
...and the video camera footage from the Doubletree Hotel and the nearby gas station are on the internet...hilarious that you say they weren't released to the public when they obviously were
The 707 hit was only a claim by the designer, it was never tested or approved to be able to take on a 707
@CrazyRay7979 - I was thinking of the Marriott Hotel, my mistake. But I`m willing to admit that, unlike you who just wants to win an argument and play Devil`s Advocate to everything I say. Get fucked.
@MassacreBlast A) they had no way of simulating the crash of any airplane into such a large building back in the 50s and 60s, hell the computers of the time were not even as powerful as the one in any mobile phone.
B) A 767 ER is much faster, heavier and has much more fuel than a 707.
C) They claimed that it could withstand the impact of a 707 accidentally colliding, and the only way they envisioned that happening was it being lost in fog and straying off the flightpath while seeking to land, not in a 600 mph suicide dive.
@MassacreBlast Who points security cameras upward? For the security cameras to get pictures of the crash, they would have had to be pointing upward, and at an oblique angle with regard to the facade. Nearly all security cameras are mounted high and pointed downwards, to get the best possible view of the pedestrians and traffic.
@MassacreBlast No, it takes a lot of engineering skill to bring a building straight down WITHOUT DAMAGING THE BUILDINGS NEARBY. The buildings surrounding the Twin Towers were massively damaged,Building 7 collapsed toward the area of damage, the Verizon building had to be almost completely rebuilt, the Deutsche Bank Building and Fitermans Hall both had to be demolished.
They didn't NEED to do anything so elaborate and unsure of sucess.
Too many things could go wrong, and they could have had, say, a lorry bomb crash into an important building and pin it on Al Quaida, which would be much surer, involve less people and still use that as an excuse to start the war.
Find suicidal pilots, stage several sucessful hijacks, actually hit both buildings, install the explosives in the place where the planes would hit, somehow protect the explosives from premature ignition, AND protect the detonating devices from the impact, set off explosives only in the area they hit, silence everyone who knew about it, etc. etc.
I am just amazed that anyone could think that enough explosive could be installed in both buildings to blow them up in exactly the place where an aeroplane piloted by an inexperienced lunatic, might hit them, without someone saying "What is happening here?"
A bulding does not run itself, there is a large staff of management and maintenence people, are we to believe that everyone of them was bribed, threatened or whatever?
Funny how your #1 claim in your response to "JACK" is that the tapes weren't released...first off; they don't need to be released, there really is no need whatsoever for the public to see security camera footage from ANY crime scene...and second; they WERE RELEASED, so yes, you are a "stupid Truther" since you keep repeating a claim that so entirely false...so what's your excuse going to be now???
@CrazyRay7979 - Actually you`re a fucking ignorant moron who doesn`t think anything stinks about 9-11 when there are so many obvious questions. It`s funny because it`s people like you who even deny what Larry Silverstein meant when he mentioned that they pulled building 7. Even though to pull a building is a demolition term for bringing down a building and it`s not a firefighters term whatsoever. Yeah, he meant, to pull the fire fighters out. Sure, because pull it DOESN`T mean demolition.
Ummm, no there aren't "so many obvious questions"...and are you going to reply to my calling you out on your disinformation or are you just going to insult me with obscenities and change the subject???
"Pull" is not a demolition term, it's a term firefighters use when they're talking about pulling out all fire and rescue personnel out of an unsafe building...call up a company that does controlled demolitions and ask them if "pull it" means anything to them...
@CrazyRay7979 - Well yes there are many obvious questions. And I addressed your other comments and admitted I made a mistake. Furthermore PULL is a demolition term you ignorant twit. A demolition worker even says it in a pro government 9-11 documentary when referring to pulling building 6! I can`t remember the doc but it was narrated by Kevin Spacey. Also, Pull is NOT a fire fighters term. I have heard from fire fighters on message boards who claim to have never used that term ever.
MassacreBlast at it again with more of the same old debunked Truther "discussion points"...do you guys have a website of lists of stupid responses to 9/11 that you copy and paste? 'Cause you guys all say the same things, get proven wrong, and then keep saying idiotic things...
"Pull it" has nothing to do with a controlled demolition, nothing at all...you need to develop common sense and figure things for yourself instead of watching Loose Change 4 times a day
@CrazyRay7979 - Okay, I offered you video evidence of Pull It being used in reference to bringing down a building yet you ignored me. It does exist AND it`s pro government which is the hilarious part. It was footage taken ON SCENE and a demo worker said it in reference to PULLING building 6. YES, it`s a demolition term. Also, it`s not a fire fighters term. I have found NOTHING supporting this. Furthermore, why say PULL IT when referring to people... PULL THEM OUT would make actual sense.
That's not a controlled demolition when that guy is talking about "pull it", he's talking about attaching cables to the building and pulling the remaining side down...you are really reaching when you're trying to tell someone that the terminology for cleaning up the remaining part of WTC6 is the same for bringing down WTC7...do you even listen to yourself or does this just crap just fall out of your mouth???
Pull it...the building is the "IT", you don't understand much, do you?
@Hednig1390 crap, I don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks
puddinggreg 3 days ago
I don't know the context of this video, so I may be way off here, but I thought jones' opponent had a point @ 3:30. If thermite is a potential demolisher, does it matter if it has been officially used as such? The rest of his argument is crap, tho
puddinggreg 1 month ago
@puddinggreg The point with termite is that it is cheap and easy for you and me to get hold of. An organisation (such as the CIA or whoever they claim was behind it) with access to real explosives wouldn't use termite simply because it is utter crap at demolition, as evidenced by termite not ever being used as such.
Hedning1390 3 days ago
James R. Gourley. He sounds like the pricks I just spent time listening to on another page. Why do all truthers have this nasty edge to them? Are there any thruthers out there who can converse intelligently. "For all i care you can tell everyone I'm a janitor?" Seriously?
So far I've not met a truther who comports themselves as an adult on this forum. It's weird.
HellRehab 2 months ago
years ago there was a documentary on t.v. showcasing the uses of thermite in demolition. when that tape surfaces a lot of people are going to have to eat crow for the rest of their lives.
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
"Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
This is why have trouble buying into 9/11 Truther stuff.
zzyzx0788 6 months ago
I think the proof of controlled demolition is demonstrated more in the physics than in which particular type of explosives were used to get it to fall at free fall speed. We can observe it falling at free fall speed, and we can observe the very fine pulverisation of concrete.
Also, I realise we should not look upon AE911truth as some kind of source of infallible information... but having one nasty mail exchange with one contributing member does not discredit the entire group, in my opinion.
FightTheElite 6 months ago
@FightTheElite Ehhh thats really not proof of a controlled demolition though, thats kinda just speculating.
Even so, proof of controlled demolition does not amount to proof of government involvement
zzyzx0788 6 months ago
@zzyzx0788 there may never be proof of government involvement, (like anyone would believe they didnt) but there is ample proof to arrest george bush for obstruction of justice.
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 I'd agree with the obstruction of justice part. I believe Kucinich and others already tried to impeach Bush and Cheney (though I think that was because of the Iraq War)
zzyzx0788 4 months ago
@FightTheElite
It doesn't fall at free fall. The exterior does. The penthouse falls long before any of the facades appear to budge. If you take into account the full collapse sequence, it is not even close to free-fall acceleration. Only for a FEW seconds out of about 15, does free-fall occur in only PART of the building.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
@eatsshit with your logic you might as well time it from when building 1 was hit.
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
@vengencefrom1979
No, I'm not timing it from the minute the building was damaged. I'm timing it at the start of the initiation of collapse. In other words: I'm timing how long the building takes to collapse.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
@eatwoodman and that was 7 seconds, freefall!
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
@vengencefrom1979
From what we can tell from the exterior, it took at least 13 seconds.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
@eatwoodman 7 seconds tops
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
@vengencefrom1979
Wrong. The penthouse falls in, 4-5 seconds prior to the rest of the building. Conspiracy theorists really are blind, I guess.
eatwoodman 4 months ago
pseudoscience this guy is
vengencefrom1979 7 months ago
I love your voice <3
HeyRuka 9 months ago
/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&
?
gimmepassword 10 months ago
Why do you truthers keep trying to defend your religion?
AceofDlamonds 10 months ago
Ad hominem attacks are still a logical fallacy even if delivered in a calm and nice way. Also, to me your argument about the existence of nanothermite goes a bit like this. "It is extremely unlikely for me to exist, therefore i refuse to believe I am a human even though I look and act like one." If something is there, it is there. " we found thermite; it should not have been there - you explain it." is completely logical. Just because we cannot yet explain it doesn't make it go away.
friendofyou 11 months ago
@friendofyou
Okay, let's explain it then.
Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections. It would seem a large building with a devoted on-site maintenance crew would keep some small amount on hand to quickly weld repairs to the structure. Looks like it belongs there to me.
rkyeun 10 months ago
Things behave differently on different scales. (See the numerous nanotechnology videos on YouTube to learn about this.) Nanoscale materials will be more reactive due to their greater surface area, so you can use less material to get the same effect. Therefore, claims about how much nanothermitic material would be needed are misleading. How do you know how much material would be needed if you have never examined nanothermite?
Something too often overlooked:
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 1 year ago
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon You are the one that said I cannot argue against the evidence. You are the one that made the challenge and now you suddenly think I am a troll. Why because I am not batshit insane. I told you what the rules were but let me go even further. I am willing to debate you provided that if I use any logical fallacy in debate I automatically lose the debate. Those are pretty good terms, if you have good evidence then it is a easy win for you and truth is advanced
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan We can discuss how you're not a troll when you wholeheartedly apologize and take back the two dozen or so insults, snide remarks, flaming and trolling comments you've left here.
That you think anyone somehow owes you a debate with behavior on display here is outright hilarious, I'll give you that. That's pretty good trolling.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@thesparitan Oh and, once again, thank you for demonstrating tactics and maturity of the general opposition to the truth movement, more so than DPR does in this video. Maybe people will find it helpful.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon "Thanks for illustrating the mental capacity of an average denier"
Oh here is you in too many words calling me a idiot. Hypocrisy is getting thick in here. I have told you that I am willing to debate a specific claim you have without using insults, fallacies or redirection of any kind. You refused and you are making an ad hoc reason way to protect your fragile psyche. Its a common response
thesparitan 1 year ago
Oh and VICTORY!!
LOL that was a good laugh.
thesparitan 1 year ago
It was an insect job.
thesparitan 1 year ago
DPR, this is nothing but a dishonest personal attack on the journal's credibility. If you do not address the scientific merits of the actual publication, you're much, much worse than anything you describe "conspiracy theorists" to be.
It is very hypocritical of you to slander and completely dismiss scientific findings. Science cannot be refuted by insults, baseless accusations, and unfavorable associations.
This is simply appalling.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Have you been to a mental health professional yet? What is appalling is your stupidity or insanity or even a little of both.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Thanks for illustrating the mental capacity of an average denier.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Ok so you believe that 9/11 was an inside job? You do realize that you believe in one of the most insane ideas that it is possible to believe in? I am willing to bet I am smarter then you, I would be willing to bet your whole mcdonalds paycheck on it.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan You guys never really have anything other than insults and pretend bullying. Hell, not even DPR does.
Granted, it's not like you can argue against the evidence. That's the whole point of it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I have some free time, and I could use a good laugh. Lets debate this then. Give me you best piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Wow that shut melon up. See guys all you have to do to shut a 9/11 truther up is offer to debate them. So where did you go, I thought you said we never do anything other then insults and "pretend bullying" what ever the fuck that is.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan I don't "debate" deliberately immature trolls, or creationists - what are you even thinking? - but thanks for the offer. Feel free to knock over the chess pieces and proclaim "victory" if you want now.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I have no need for that, declaring a win against you is like beating a blind kid at darts or winning a foot race with a man in a wheelchair. But I did offer to debate you and you run away. I hold strongly to the rules of logic and rational argumentation. I do not use fallacies and I stay on subject at all times. I will not be moving any goal posts and if a claim is proven I will concur with the validity of the claim.
You can't rationally defend your beliefs, thats clear.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan What you've offered here is a display of immaturity, immorality, condescension, derision, insult and ridicule, void of slightest bit of logic, evidence, fact, courtesy, manner or etiquette.
You have offered no apology, no retraction, and no argument since.
I don't "debate" trolls, and you haven't proved me otherwise. Like I said, feel free to knock over the pieces and fly back to your flock. You don't matter.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I will apologize when you prove my ridicule of you is not justified. When you can prove that 9/11 was an inside job then I will apologize, but as far as it goes now, the only thing you have offered is insults and hypocrisy. Oh and I am not the one that needs to present evidence, you are the one with the fantastic claim that if true would mean the greatest conspiracy in world history.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan "I will apologize when you prove my ridicule of you is not justified."
Yep, you're a troll.
Expecting to debate with someone when you think you're justified in insulting them at every turn without apology?.. You suddenly don't need to provide any evidence at all either?.. "Fantastic claims"?.. Tsk.
There's nothing to discuss. Not to say you can't continue to behave yourself in this manner.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon This is not a justification for me, but it is a justification for you. You would feel attack even if I didnt use any insults and this is because your have invested your identity into this conspiracy. You gain much internal benefit believing that you have knowledge the rest of the world doesnt, and that you are doing a great thing by telling people about it. You are a hero in your own mind, why would you ever give that up for something like rationality?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan You expect a debate while doing nothing but insulting your opponent, even feeling completely entitled to it, not pausing or apologizing for even a second.
Ergo, you're a deliberate troll with no resemblance of human morality. Again, thank you for illustrating the internal workings of 9/11 deniers.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I never really wanted a debate, I already knew you would say no to it. I am only doing this to see your reactions and to test theories I have about people like you. The fact that I can predict your behavior is a sign that you are not special but typical of someone with poor thinking skills and paranoia disorders. You lack the empathy necessary to understand my motives, but I can understand yours. Now ask yourself why is that?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Granted, it's not like you can argue against the evidence." I just said I could and now you want to leave, you do not even want to see if I can? Explain to me something, why would someone choose to believe in something that they cannot defend rationally? That is the question I think you are in a position to answer.
Just give me your best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
thesparitan 1 year ago
DPRJones can i ask you something?
MnE4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
home made thermite device
watch?v=IFRmxeBtO3s
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
i knew its was fucking termites lol great video, you try to give any truther a straight question about anything and they cant answer. all they can do is back peddle and throw different conspiracies at you or call you names like there in the second grade...
Zero2Legend 1 year ago
I can prove you wrong Elvis is living in an East Texas nursing home with a black J.F.K.
sesshomaru123456789 1 year ago
gee, i've got .1% termites in a sample from my front porch, guess that means the whole building is .1% termites eh? NOT! morons.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 Do you use "NOT" in every day conversations? I thought only sitcom characters from the 80's did that.
soulinite 1 year ago
obstruction of justice in relationship to 9/11 is tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorists and under the patriot act you can be locked up.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law. The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.
posted on cnn oct 7 2001
9/11 - inside job!
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 "Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law"
They didn't agree because under Islamic law he would have been found innocent you dumb shit!
soulinite 1 year ago
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
--- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, 1976
EarthsGravitySucks 1 year ago
@EarthsGravitySucks No more Alex Jones for you.
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite and as a reminder, 130,000 people worked on the manhattan project developing the atom bomb, didnt seem to have any trouble keeping that secret. 9/11 required a lot less people, and wtf? a blueprint already existed for it? the 'operation northwoods' blueprint for destruction. and as yet, for the record, bush has yet to provide one shred of proof that bin laden was involved with 9/11.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 LOL 9/11 need less people to keep a secret than the manhattan project LOL are you high.
you would need 100's of people to keep the 9/11 secret from firemen cops to all the guys that would have had to go into the buildings and plant the"explosives" all the staff that would have seen them going in at night,all the people on the street that would have seen them going in at night ,all the people that worked for the airline the list is endless..
alltiedup217 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 yeah right, do the math, how long to prep for 9/11? how many people needed to know? the night of the long knives probably had more people in on it than 9/11, let alone the manhattan project, which numbered some 130,000.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 first off not all of the 130 000 people had any idea of what they were mak'in.Again how many people needed to know 1000's of people would have to be in on 9/11.not to mention that they would have had to have been told they would be involved in the murder of 1000's of people,and your say'in not even one of the people asked said no but went along with it and never said a word
And they would have to help hide any evidence that would be left over after..its silly.
alltiedup217 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 your strawman argument reeks of nazism. your blatant lies to (still) try to cover up 9/11 only mean to me you are either a stooge, a patsy, or a shill, or all three.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 anyone with brains knows instintively just by watching wtc 7 fall in freefall that 9/11 was an inside job. its not a question anymore as to if but how.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 do you 9/11 nut jobs have anything better for evidence than.."your in on it"then call anyone that wont listen to or validate your paranoia a nazi.@nd you have no idea what a strawnam argument is ,or your using the word wrong on purpose.Dpr did a great vid on the "freefall" of wtc7.anyone with brains,and that does not have a really small penis can see it does not fall in the time the "truthers " say it does.your either a nut ,moron,or bullshiter,maybe all 3
alltiedup217 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alltiedup217 provide one shred of proof that bin laden had anything to do with 9/11, or the taliban, or saddam and iraq. you 'debunkers' are a pack of liars from the word go. 9/11 - inside job! WTC 7 - THE SMOKING GUN!
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 liars, and falling to pieces, that is all you debunkers are.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 thats it?thats your only relpy?more name calling?well soon as you get out of the 3rd grade try to formulate an argument then get back to me.or should i say nah nah i know you are but what am i.
enjoy your delusion
alltiedup217 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 like i would waste my time with a shill. wtc 7 speaks for itself, you are either a moron or your arent.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 LOL why would you waste your time, lol I dont know? why did you? it was a week ago that I replyed to you.It is typical of people like you ,once you have to put up or shut up ,show some kinda evidence you cut and run .with foolishness like "your a shill" way to make your point.No more Alex Jones for you,now take your meds.
alltiedup217 1 year ago
@alltiedup217 you are very low on my list of things to do, so low in fact i hardly ever think about 'your' kind. you can only thin yourselves out whilst promoting more bull. so sign up or shut up. wtc 7 - freefall. morons that dont want to believe it was demo - more than can be counted. have a blast with your new nam.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 You just made yourself look incredibly stupid.
RonaldoDeLosMuertos 1 year ago
watch?v=oHjISnLlL3I
soulinite 1 year ago
p.s. my building has termites, and i measured a sample of some of the rotting wood, and it contained .1% termites, does that mean my whole building is .1% termites? please tell o great master of bullshitology.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 The government couldn't cover up a blow job.
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite but it can cover up the building of the atom bomb (manhattan project 1939-1946). a project that involved 130,000 people.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 ROFL. Only a "truther" could bring up a well know part of history and claim it as proof of the governments ability to keep a secret.
How many people do you think would have to have been involved if you conspiracy was true? Why haven't any of them talked in 10 years?
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite roll all you want, but for the record it would take one man less than a year to set thermite devices in all 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11, all you have to do is the math, math so simple a 5th grader could do it. almost as easy as looking up the term 'pull it' in a dictionary, for the record.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 ROFL.You think one man could rig the WTC 1, 2 and 7 for a controlled demolition in one year? Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you sound? Why haven't I seen any one man demolition companies if your nonsense is true?
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite one man could do the rigging in less than one year, its morons like you that cant do the math that cant figure it out in the first place, ergo...care to enlist? we've got a job for your kind, where you can be put to the most good! chasing around bin laden for another 10 years.
EarthsGravitySucks 1 year ago
@EarthsGravitySucks If one man can rig 3 land mark buildings for controlled demolition in less then one year then why don't we see any one man demolition companies? How do demolition companies stay in business while employing so much high cost and completely unneeded labor?
Where exactly did you get this bogus information?
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite if you want to get hypothetical why dont you address the the issue of why a thermite device can be made in anyones backyard but nat geo (et al) are still in denial that it can be done. as for the one man scenario moron, divide the time in half with two men, now use four. you are such a moron you over look the implications trying to set up a straw man argument. go back to your sunday school hole in the wall or where ever you crawled out from. you are out of your league.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vengencefrom1979 "thermite device can be made in anyones backyard"
Can it cut horizontally?
1 man couldn't possible rig 3 land mark buildings to CD in 3 years so continuing your bad math by dividing that time isn't helping your case.
soulinite 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'd like to dedicate my new video to the memory of lisa beamers husband, who died valiantly crashing flight 93 into a hole which was already there, may he rest in pieces, where ever they may be.
flight 93 - no wreckage, hole in ground since 1994 where engine dug up, and presumably mr. beamer.
wtc 7 - freefall
wtc 1 and 2 - molten steel in basements, evidence of thermite
flight 77 - pentagon photo and video footage clearly shows no plane before wall collapsed
EarthsGravitySucks 1 year ago
if you do the math hit thumbs down.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
lets see, hmmm, off hand the thermite sample that WAS measured as to its percentages was from dust that blew away from the towers. the bulk of the towers remaining where they landed. hmmm, that means the DUST contained thermite and the one sample measured was .1%. since there was no examination of the actual collapse this point becomes frivolous. as to thermite devices being around i know for a fact that they existed before 9/11 and can even be built in your own back yard.
watch?v=xYW-z7nrTZk
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
Nanothermite
user0317 1 year ago
4:17 pure win
MaZe741 1 year ago
DId BP blow up the oil rig for fun or was it another conspiracy....oooooo go after that one next guys. Try to find facts for that already known =P conclusion.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
Thermite linear cutting charges are in common use in demolition.They have lots of advantages over explosives, not only that, there are dozens of types of thermite to suit different jobs.Give it up dpr - you look and sound foolish and are obviously out of your depth.Even NIST admitted that it could have been used but it would have taken minutes to react - of course they then didn't even bother to test for it - now that's what I call real science.
stratocaster539 1 year ago 2
The title says 'termite'. Anyway, the U.S. government certainly is Heartless.
eldorado61guy 1 year ago
Dammit ELVIS!
TGQwerty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
dpr I have some questions. Why are you making the rationalization that because 0.11% of the chips was unreacted thermite in the sample that therefore the amount for entire building constituted this (0.11% of the mass of the entire tower)?
PS) I love what you're doing here since the only issue is the science behind how this was achieved. Just as with climate change, the only thing that will settle this is science.I told you this before but i encourage you to watch Cage's lecture, give feedback
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
"It was a conspiracy"
Dude shut up.. Come on.. Your STILL on this? Why not make a story about BP blowing up their rig for some.. Terrorist reason. Just move on man. Yes, people died, your video will not change anything. Please, just move on with something else.
BtheAtheist 1 year ago
Its not a coincidence the FAA approves more planes made of aluminium than planes made of water, despite the fact WATER puts out fires and ALUMINUM makes nano thermite!
Open your eyes guys!
ReactionVideoDotAvi 1 year ago
bunk science for stupid people
dickmoe99 1 year ago
ooooooooooooooooooh so that's why i couldn't find that video anymore xD
GravDiga 1 year ago
worldconspiracy.co.uk come jion us with the truth.
cyberlifer 1 year ago
what was Gourley's evidence that one can use thermite for demolition? Experiments a la mythbusters?
ikwillet 1 year ago
Something was "invented" by people who operate all the major world banking institutions--a consortium of banking interests who funded the Club of Rome.
Their cause celeb is to blame all ills on the little guy, tax them to death, impose tyranny upon them, and limit their freedoms--and likely depopulate the planet to a very large extent.
Video search: theAntiTerrorist "global warming"
YouTube: Z96Li26qvLE
Google: "carbon dioxide" "mount pinatubo"
Video search: "carbon dioxide" "plant life"
oldspammer 1 year ago
Exactly - You and others like you take reason and evidence by heart when it comes to any issue. Until it comes to September 11 where you deny any clear evidence and use every reason to do so.
I could now see how YOU and the criminals who pulled September 11 relate.
goreish 1 year ago
I wonder if we could breed steel eating termites... That would be pretty powerful stuff.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Well, heck that's a shit-load of thermite...
So when are we going to have a full scale investigation into who could have made it, how it was made, where it was made, etc.??
When will there be ANY criminal investigation of this mass murder EVER? You know... Maybe if the Government were to conduct their own chemical analysis of WTC Debris they would have a leg to stand on in this debate. I am well educated on the laws of physics and what happened that day, has never been explained.
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911
you're ruining an agenda to put religion into the center of mankind's problems. that's why you'll see most of youtube atheists attack and mock 9-11 skeptics.
robert anton wilson
"I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. I thought it was a fascinating paradox: irrational rationalists."
ufster81 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911
Actually it has.
You just reject the explanation that was given. Tell you what, you're educated. What happens to an equation or prediction if you miss or ignore factors and variables? Oftentimes with the conspiracy theorists, they only notice the temperature at which steel melts. Not at which it is weakened, not how much damage was done by the plane, the only thing they notice is "HEY, THE STEEL DIDN'T MELT! IT MUST HAVE BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!"
FrostbittenWolf 1 year ago
@FrostbittenWolf,
When paint tests from the WTC prove that the office fires never reached sustainned temps anywhere near 1100F, I think you need to go back and reevaluate some evidence...
You also distort the basis for which the conntrolled demolition claims rests upon. Are you genuinely after the truth about what realy happened that day?
Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of argument?
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911
...that answers that question. You are just another retard who focuses only in the fire temperature.
I ask again: how much damage did the structure take from the plane crash and explosion? And how much heat is needed to simply weaken the steel slightly? Better yet, are those numbers of the fire temperatures from the paint test reliable? The "Evidence" coming from the truthers is questionable at best.
FrostbittenWolf 1 year ago
@FrostbittenWolf,
You were the one who focused on fire temperature, I was simply correcting you...
WTC took absolutely NO damage from the plane crash, it only endured minor facade damage as did other buildings surrounding the WTC Mainly Building 3 and 4 which took direct hits and destroyed much of the building, yet the super structure did not symmetrically telescope into itself at free fall speed like Building 7 did. Why not?
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911 Same thing, put up or shut up.
sonnyd321 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911
No, you're the one that keeps bringing up "Evidence," i'm trying to figure out if any of it should be considered anything more than just another bullshit conspiracy theory. The fact that you think the attacks only did facade damage confirmed the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Now can you point me to someone whose argument can survive basic review?
FrostbittenWolf 1 year ago
@FrostbittenWolf Can you think of anything that makes the official story a BS conspiracy theory? What constitutes a theory being BS? How many holes in the story does there need to be to be considered BS? Does this criteria change depending if it is government originated? Has the government ever lied or been deceptive? The information supplied by Aaron Russo and Alex Jones in their interview--was it all lies? What about Robin Cook's info about Al Qaeda being supported by CIA/ISI/ MI6 & military?
oldspammer 1 year ago
@oldspammer
All you need to do to get me to take you seriously is to present evidence that isn't so obviously fake a ten year old could spot the fallacies. If it takes at least a 12 year old to spot the fallacies, i'll give you some consideration.
FrostbittenWolf 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911 Are you going to respond to Frost or run like a coward?
sonnyd321 1 year ago
@FrostbittenWolf,
The Steel DID melt, in fact there were holes burned through samples of steel from WTC 7, unless you can show how to create sulfide eutectic mixtures in steel with normal office building materials???
I am noticing KEY PHYSICS facts about the collapse. Mainly the velocity and acceleration of the building.
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911 Enough talk, show your evidence or shut up
sonnyd321 1 year ago
Hi dprjones, what is your opinion on the lecture from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
The presenter does discuss nano-thermite but there are other observations that are discussed in regards to the possibility of demolition, thermite or no thermite.
Please watch it when you get the time and let me know.
Google 9/11 blueprint for truth (2008 edition)
It's a 2 hour lecture. There are in fact a variety of issues that lead to the possibility of demolition, please review if you have time,thx
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoshRobertson142 1 year ago
As a structural engineer by profession there are many unanswered questions on this topic.
The main one being: Why would the upper floors fall through the path of most resistance?
The lower floors, which were over-designed to support the upper through gale force winds AND plane impact.....for over 30 years were not damaged so why DID these fail?
The upper floors were pulverized so a jack-hammer effect is a non-starter.
We may never know how they did it but recent history will tell you why.
IronmanUK2 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@IronmanUK2 islam is a pig shit religion
Ishaq:322 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely."
Qur'an:13:41 "Do they not see Us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories)?"
AnitcuIt 1 year ago
Fake English accent, I can smell your shit
huggyb85 1 year ago
It's not like logic or evidence plays a large part in "debunker" thought processes. They're gullible cultish loonies.
The only conspiracy theory that requires creationist-like faith to believe in is the official one. Period.
Debunk the channels nanothermite911 or warcrime911. Have fun, morons.
GreenEggsAndHamster 1 year ago
@GreenEggsAndHamster
You wear foil hats don't you?
BalazarsBrain 1 year ago
@BalazarsBrain Hahaha!!! Thanks for proving my point.
GreenEggsAndHamster 1 year ago
@GreenEggsAndHamster
"Hahaha!!! Thanks for proving my point."
Hahaha!...idiot
BalazarsBrain 1 year ago
@BalazarsBrain And you prove my point again. Oooh, your big brain can do some name calling. Wow, your stunning intellect is impressive! If you are so smart, why don't you make some videos that debunk the channels I mentioned? I'd love to see them. Until then, do yourself a favor and stop making yourself look foolish.
GreenEggsAndHamster 1 year ago
@GreenEggsAndHamster
"debunk the channels I mentioned"
Ok, I watched the nanothermite911's pathetic video "9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying ".
This moron uses video of a bent steel beam as evidence for molten steel...you guys need to realize that bent steel DOES NOT equal molten steel.
As for the eyewitnesses...LMAO as if the firemen are expert enough to tell the difference between molten steel and another metal. They must be metal experts right?
BalazarsBrain 1 year ago
@BalazarsBrain Ok, brainwave, how hot would a thick metal beam need to be in order to bend like a horseshoe without cracking? Sorry, it's hotter than burning jet fuel. As for the witnesses, in a jet fuel fire the only molten metal could be aluminum. So, the firemen couldn't tell the difference between molten steel (orange) and molten aluminum (SILVER)?
Like I said before, you debunkers are as logical as a bunch of Creationists.
GreenEggsAndHamster 1 year ago
@GreenEggsAndHamster
"how hot would a thick metal beam need to be in order to bend like a horseshoe without cracking? Sorry, it's hotter than burning jet fuel."
1. My argument was that bent steel is NOT evidence for molten steel. You don't get it, the bent beam PROVES that the fire was NOT hot enough to turn that beam to molten steel (in that particular location). You prove nothing.
2. GreenEggs you FAIL...steel bends at temperatures less than that of burning jet-fuel. Nice try though.
BalazarsBrain 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GreenEggsAndHamster
"So, the firemen couldn't tell the difference between molten steel (orange) and molten aluminum (SILVER)?"
LoL, no I don't think the firemen could tell, nor do I think they're metals experts, no do I think you are a metals expert.
Second, I never said it was aluminum...but its ridiculous for you to say that molten aluminum ONLY glows silver. Metals glow at different colors depending on the temperature.
BalazarsBrain 1 year ago
7/7 was also an inside job. Madrid bombings = also an inside job! And did you know that WWII was an inside job? Its true! First Czechoslovakia bombed itself. then Germany thought wow lets do that too so they started bombing their own cities. Then Britain jumped in massacring their people in London pretending it was the Germans. America bombed Pearl Harbor. Japan was pressed to out-do the rest so they dropped 2 nuclear bombs on themselves. There WAS no war was all fake! ITS TRUE! So OBVIOUS DUH!
forestskog 1 year ago
Underground nuke explosion under the basements would have destroyed and sucked up the entire skyscraper into a consuming nukiller plasma hell hole.
Those buildings went up like a roman candle and blew away like volcanic ash.
The Russians are offering their expertise in this area to stop the gulf oil spill.
moreaudan 1 year ago
bastard termites.
MensRifleAssociation 1 year ago
See how idiotic Truthers are? Dprjones said like 3-4 videos ago that he wasn't going to make anymore 9/11 videos, but disproving idiocity is something intelligent people do...so here's another vid for the Truthers to not watch and not learn anything from
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
hahaahhah dprjones your one dumb zombie go kill yourself ur a waste of flesh
fazadeset 1 year ago
Hey DPR, why not start a demolition business? You don't need experience to bring a building STRAIGHT down, just look at 9-11. Clearly all you need to do is cause random damage and arbitrarily set fires and the building will fall straight down each time. Yeah, that makes sense right? I mean, demolition experts are wasting their time spending weeks wiring buildings to fall straight down right? Clearly you believe this.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
...and you can become an engineer and make perfect buildings that never get damaged, fire does not affect at all, and planes bounce off of
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Right, keep believing that 3 buildings fell straight down due to plane and fire damage. It's not like common sense indicates that they should have fell to the side or twisted off. Demolition teams must be irrelevant in your mind. Furthermore, why out of the plethora of camera at the Pentagon do we only have a 5 framed piece of garbage grainy video showing what happened? And how can a $1 trillion dollar defense department fail so miserably? Oh this is all explainable....right
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
I will believe that because that's what happened...how are you sure how they "should've fallen"? Is it because Loose Change or some other Truther video told you that? Probably...
What "plethora of camera"? There's an entrance to the WTC that is filmed for people in cars entering the building, you want a high speed camera there or something??
Funny how you guys repeat the same exact debunked garbage over and over and don't listen to why
You're just another clueless Truther
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Plethora of cameras at the Pentagon, not the WTC towers, read again. And a building shouldn't fall straight down, I know this just by common sense. Randomly placed fires don't weaken the steel in a symmetrical fashion you idiot. One side is bound to weaken before all others then the building will topple to that side. And you claim to have 'debunked' me by offering nothing to the contrary but assuming I watched some documentary and then labeling me a clueless truther.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
Ah yes, you're one of the stupid Truthers that think that every building has random video cameras filming every inch of the building...it's not like you need clearance to even go near the Pentagon, or as if they have an armed security force, oh wait, they do...it was a guard shack camera focused on vehicles passing through the gate
I guess you think you have more knowledge than the architects and engineers that said that the WTC fell like it should have due to it's construction
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Hahaha. This isn't 'every building'. It's the Pentagon, head of arguably the most powerful military in the world! We also know the hotel across the way caught whatever happened on it's security cam. Yet the FBI was there in minutes to get the tapes and then never show the public. So we know they're withholding video evidence.
And the architects made the WTC towers capable of withstanding a Boeing 707 hit.
You know, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
That's why the Pentagon has ARMED SECURITY patrolling the building and that anyone that even gets close to the building has to have security clearance...
...and the video camera footage from the Doubletree Hotel and the nearby gas station are on the internet...hilarious that you say they weren't released to the public when they obviously were
The 707 hit was only a claim by the designer, it was never tested or approved to be able to take on a 707
You don't know much, do you?
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - I was thinking of the Marriott Hotel, my mistake. But I`m willing to admit that, unlike you who just wants to win an argument and play Devil`s Advocate to everything I say. Get fucked.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast A) they had no way of simulating the crash of any airplane into such a large building back in the 50s and 60s, hell the computers of the time were not even as powerful as the one in any mobile phone.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
B) A 767 ER is much faster, heavier and has much more fuel than a 707.
C) They claimed that it could withstand the impact of a 707 accidentally colliding, and the only way they envisioned that happening was it being lost in fog and straying off the flightpath while seeking to land, not in a 600 mph suicide dive.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast Who points security cameras upward? For the security cameras to get pictures of the crash, they would have had to be pointing upward, and at an oblique angle with regard to the facade. Nearly all security cameras are mounted high and pointed downwards, to get the best possible view of the pedestrians and traffic.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast No, it takes a lot of engineering skill to bring a building straight down WITHOUT DAMAGING THE BUILDINGS NEARBY. The buildings surrounding the Twin Towers were massively damaged,Building 7 collapsed toward the area of damage, the Verizon building had to be almost completely rebuilt, the Deutsche Bank Building and Fitermans Hall both had to be demolished.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
WOW! Its good to know I am not the only one that thinks termites and Elvis are behind this... Its very comforting =)
Herpencounter 1 year ago 10
They didn't NEED to do anything so elaborate and unsure of sucess.
Too many things could go wrong, and they could have had, say, a lorry bomb crash into an important building and pin it on Al Quaida, which would be much surer, involve less people and still use that as an excuse to start the war.
wordavee 1 year ago
There are so many variables in this equasion.
Find suicidal pilots, stage several sucessful hijacks, actually hit both buildings, install the explosives in the place where the planes would hit, somehow protect the explosives from premature ignition, AND protect the detonating devices from the impact, set off explosives only in the area they hit, silence everyone who knew about it, etc. etc.
wordavee 1 year ago
I am just amazed that anyone could think that enough explosive could be installed in both buildings to blow them up in exactly the place where an aeroplane piloted by an inexperienced lunatic, might hit them, without someone saying "What is happening here?"
A bulding does not run itself, there is a large staff of management and maintenence people, are we to believe that everyone of them was bribed, threatened or whatever?
wordavee 1 year ago
@wordavee It's not like logic or evidence plays a large part in "truther" thought processes. They're gullible cultish loonies.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
Funny how your #1 claim in your response to "JACK" is that the tapes weren't released...first off; they don't need to be released, there really is no need whatsoever for the public to see security camera footage from ANY crime scene...and second; they WERE RELEASED, so yes, you are a "stupid Truther" since you keep repeating a claim that so entirely false...so what's your excuse going to be now???
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Actually you`re a fucking ignorant moron who doesn`t think anything stinks about 9-11 when there are so many obvious questions. It`s funny because it`s people like you who even deny what Larry Silverstein meant when he mentioned that they pulled building 7. Even though to pull a building is a demolition term for bringing down a building and it`s not a firefighters term whatsoever. Yeah, he meant, to pull the fire fighters out. Sure, because pull it DOESN`T mean demolition.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
Ummm, no there aren't "so many obvious questions"...and are you going to reply to my calling you out on your disinformation or are you just going to insult me with obscenities and change the subject???
"Pull" is not a demolition term, it's a term firefighters use when they're talking about pulling out all fire and rescue personnel out of an unsafe building...call up a company that does controlled demolitions and ask them if "pull it" means anything to them...
...YOU FAIL AGAIN!
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Well yes there are many obvious questions. And I addressed your other comments and admitted I made a mistake. Furthermore PULL is a demolition term you ignorant twit. A demolition worker even says it in a pro government 9-11 documentary when referring to pulling building 6! I can`t remember the doc but it was narrated by Kevin Spacey. Also, Pull is NOT a fire fighters term. I have heard from fire fighters on message boards who claim to have never used that term ever.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
MassacreBlast at it again with more of the same old debunked Truther "discussion points"...do you guys have a website of lists of stupid responses to 9/11 that you copy and paste? 'Cause you guys all say the same things, get proven wrong, and then keep saying idiotic things...
"Pull it" has nothing to do with a controlled demolition, nothing at all...you need to develop common sense and figure things for yourself instead of watching Loose Change 4 times a day
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - Okay, I offered you video evidence of Pull It being used in reference to bringing down a building yet you ignored me. It does exist AND it`s pro government which is the hilarious part. It was footage taken ON SCENE and a demo worker said it in reference to PULLING building 6. YES, it`s a demolition term. Also, it`s not a fire fighters term. I have found NOTHING supporting this. Furthermore, why say PULL IT when referring to people... PULL THEM OUT would make actual sense.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
That's not a controlled demolition when that guy is talking about "pull it", he's talking about attaching cables to the building and pulling the remaining side down...you are really reaching when you're trying to tell someone that the terminology for cleaning up the remaining part of WTC6 is the same for bringing down WTC7...do you even listen to yourself or does this just crap just fall out of your mouth???
Pull it...the building is the "IT", you don't understand much, do you?
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979 - So you agree that it's a demolition term, thank you for not lying.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago