If you would like to hear Professor Fetzer's views without interruptions go to blogtv.com/people/freeusamericans..... show on June 27th 2011- Where we will ALLOW professor Fetzer to explain what he has researched!
HE'S NO LONGER A PROF. THEY STRIPPED HIM OF HIS ACADEMIA WHEN HE FOUND OUT PEDDLING BULLSHIT TO LEFTIST SCUM WAS MORE PROFITABLE THAN TELLING THE TRUTH !
oh bullshit, other countries warned but Israel damn sure didn't. check out mossad caught in van on 911 "filled with explosives" gw bridge. The khazars of britain u.s. israel must be DESTROYED completely.
im an engineer and this shit makes alot of sense.. any person with a science or construction background would be able to understand what hes saying and relate. if this is true ,. what it means rally sucks ,. woaw
@BigStev44 Uh, excuse me, but bin Laden denied doing this on several occasions and "terrorists" will ALWAYS claim responsibility for their acts immediately. If you're referring to the tape where he's discussing the attack, what you were watching was a fake, the features aren't even close to bin Laden's facial features AND he's wearing a gold ring, something forbidden in Muslim faith. Also, in the tape he's using right hand to sign a paper, but bin Laden was left handed. Catch up, man. We'll wait
@Dr1Canuckchuck You really are an idiot. Pretty much the whole world holds bin Laden responsible but you. Please don't tell me what Muslim faith don't do. Maybe you can explain the porn that was at his compound. Got news for you. There are just as many hypocrite Muslims as Christians. Your theory based on engineering really doesn't matter because we all watched it on TV. A picture says it all. BTW stuff your patronizing bullshit along with your conspiracy horseshit.
@BigStev44 You're hopelessly brainwashed, buddy. There's no point in me even pointing out the thousands of problems with the 9/11 myth, nor the many problems with the bin Laden was killed just a month ago myth. You seem quite content to fall for anything your saintly gov't feeds your closed, brainwashed mind. Tell you what, all I can do for the hopelessly brainwashed is pray for them and that's what I'll do for you. I'll feel really sorry for you, despite the fact that your immature.
@BigStev44 As for what you watched on TV, nobody - including me - has ever disputed the fact that SOMETHING happened and that is what we saw on TV. The only dispute - that pretty much the whole world has finally woken up to except you - is HOW it happened and WHO is responsible. You're like a teenager who thinks there's nothing he doesn't already know and nothing else he can learn. Try keeping your ears open and your mouth shut for a change, you may learn something some day.
@Dr1Canuckchuck Rules of Logic & Probability when Thinking About CONspiracy. Anybody who wants to solve this case would be well-advised to use the intellectual tools that have been tried & proven. Classical, skeptical & critical thinking skills. Unfortunately CTer's often ignore basic rules of logic & build 'tempest's in a teapot' on edifice's of unfounded speculation. Just how do they convince the mobocracy & how would sound intellectual inquiry proceed?
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Somewhere, somehow, some people got the idea that I believe I know who did this and why. How they got that idea, I have no idea. All I've said is that the story offered by the 9/11 Commission is so wildly false that at best, they've engaged in a cover up. Again, I'll point out that the word "Conspiracy" has NOTHING to do with what version of events you believe. Even the 9/11 Commission's version of events is, admittedly, a Conspiracy Theory.
@Dr1Canuckchuck To 911tard's it seems that 'more suspects' the better. If there r a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to perpetrate 911 it must follow that some of them did. Lots of suspects means everybody can have a suspect that they hate. Americans can blame Arabs. Gentiles and Arabs can blame Jews, Jews can blame Islam and
If blaming 19 Islamofascists isn't sufficiently satisfying, everybody can blame George W. Bush .
@KookTartsBigFarts1 George W. Bush? Are you serious? Bush has trouble tying his own shoes, never mind planning an attack like this. You're still trying to get me to choose a suspect, eh? I repeat...I HAVE NO SUSPECTS, I merely stated that the 9/11 Commission report is pure fiction and a cover-up, that we need a REAL investigation to determine the REAL suspects and have them answer to their crime.
If evidence appears that refutes the 911 conspiracy, the suppliers of the discrediting material will themselves be accused of being part of the conspiracy.
The 'Paranoid Explanatory System' , based upon 'Circular Thinking Patterns' , is a closed one.
Only confirmatory evidence is accepted.
Contradictions are dismissed as being naive or, more likely, part of the conspiracy itself".
@KookTartsBigFarts1..."Conspiracy" =Two or more people involved in the planning of an event - usually, but not always, a crime. "Theory" =A speculative idea or plan as to how something MIGHT be done. Therefore, a "Conspiracy Theory" =A speculative idea or plan as to how the planning of an event, possibly a crime, by two or more people may have been done. No mention of insanity, no mention of paranoia, no mention of tin-foil hats. Just a brainwashed mass adopting everything they hear.
@Dr1Canuckchuck One of the central tenents of good theorizing is the Rule of Parsimony. One should always prefer a simple theory to a complex one if the simple one fits the data. CTer's need a more complex theory to fit the data. The problem comes if one tries to fit one's theory to the data when the data are erroneous. U end up w/a theory that explains not only the "signal," but much of the "noise" too. That's a recipe for "disaster" especially in a field where there is so much "noise"
@KookTartsBigFarts1 It actually took me 5 years of believing the Commission's report before I started to question its contents. I bought into it just like everyone else and called "9/11tards" Conspiracy Theorists, too. Then I started to see glaring inconsistencies with logic and the laws of physics. I also began to question the definition of Conspiracy Theory, as defined in the dictionary. I had to admit to myself that I'd bought into a lie. There's nothing wrong with asking questions.
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I started to question its contents" For example?
"I started to see glaring inconsistencies w/logic & the laws of physics"
Who are you trying to bullshit, you never believed in any official explanation in your life? Buildings when demo'd fall from bottom to top by gravity, the WTC's fell from top to bottom in a progressive collapse, WAKE UP!
"There's nothing wrong w/asking Q's"
Q's aren't proof of anything. Stupid Q's lead to incriminations THE SAME OLD BS GAME OF LEFTISTS !
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Well, seems you know me better than I do. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Go ahead and believe what you want, you're going to anyway. I think you're afraid to learn the truth because that would mean you've been fooled all this time and you can't face that prospect. It's OK, I feel sorry for you. It'll be alright, just go and watch some more TV and you'll hear that everything is going to be OK. You're dismissed.
"The '911 Paranoid Message' will give more and more, and then it will give even more.
The entertainment resources of the '911 Paranoid Message' are unrivaled. It offers puzzles, drama, passion, heroes, villains, and struggle.
As always when the story-line is tied to an historical event, especially one that involves hated characters and unexpected death, then fiction, history, and popular delusion can be joined in the pursuit of profit.
I presume you`re a total moron and it`s a waste of time trying to talk sense to you, but here goes: The official version of 9/11 is a "paranoid conspiracy theory" in itself, something you seem to not understand. Why one such theory makes you a kook and another automatically makes you well informed I`ll leave to you to explain, but at the very least you should do some research into the topic before spouting baloney like this,
@Stagnant197 I love how every time someone disagrees with the nutcase conspiracy theorist, they are always deemed "uninformed." Maybe the educated critical thinker doesn't by into complete nonsense, because well....they are critical thinkers. The entire premise of this argument is absurd because you have to ignore the fact that the buildings didn't fall at free-fall speed. Besides that however, I actually care about facts and evidence instead of having faith in something so ridiculous.
@KookTartsBigFarts1 As for your question, "For Example", I could write a book on the subject there are so many. In fact, several people already have. For starters, I recommend "Crossing the Rubicon", by Mike Ruppert. Very good book which will give you hundreds of examples. Sorry, no pictures, you'll have to do a lot of reading. Also, I'm not "Leftist", rightist, centerist, or any other -ist. Agreed, "Stupid" questions lead to incriminations, nor are they proof of anything.
~ The sky is falling The sky is falling, it wasn't OBL or his virgin hungry suicide bombers who also claimed credit for Bali, London, USS Cole, Madrid, & dozens of other terrorists actions it was Dick Cheney NONSENSE FOR THE BRAINDEAD !
~ 9/11 Debunked : Dick Cheney Never In Charge of NORAD ! :
watch?v=nhC3ElWQkEc
~ 9/11 Debunked : 9/11 Truthers (?) Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth ! :
@KookTartsBigFarts1 I'm done trying to wake people up. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. If you are so easily convinced by such lame evidence there is nothing - even corroborated evidence - that will convince you otherwise. Good luck with that, believing your government's lame excuses is a lot easier than actually having to do some thinking of your own. Also, I don't seem to recall saying the sky is falling and I still haven't chosen any suspects, like Cheney, sorry.
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I don't seem to recall saying the sky is falling and I still haven't chosen any suspects, like Cheney"
Yet you recommend a book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert" which does advocate the demising of the US at the end of the petroleum age and accusing Cheney of plotting 9/11?
All sounds very far fetched, screams for attention with outlandish and outragiously libelous material for the insatiably insane leftist eh ?
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Oh, I see. You got the impression that because I recommend a book to read that I must, therefore, agree with every single letter printed within that book and I use it as my Bible to the 911 story. You mean kind of like you are using the 911 Commission Report as YOUR guide? WRONG! You're really reaching now and I have no further time to waste on brainwashed people. You're dismissed.
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I must therefore agree with every single letter printed within that book"
I outlined the main thesis of the book above. If you can't be more specific about a book than it's title I suggest getting out of the hoaxing business, you're just not cutting the cake hon
@BigStev44 And lastly, I could give a flying fuck what the rest of the world believes or doesn't believe, that's not what I base my analysis upon. I'm not a Jones and I don't care what the Jones are doing or what they have or think. Anybody who believes what the rest of the people are believing is a follower (a sheep) and has no mind of his own. BTW, "Conspiracy" = "Two or more people planning an event, sometimes a crime", it has nothing to do with believing ANY story over another.
@Dr1Canuckchuck Having lots of suspects can allow you to finagle & explain away any inconvenient evidence. To avoid facing evidence against Islamofascists you need to claim that everyone lied, that the FBI tampered with the evidence, that 911 members engaged in a coverup. Well why not claim all that right ? After all, you've got gobs of people whose behavior and motives are suspect, right ?
The only thing you don't have after trying to implicate innocent ppl is a coherent and sensible theory
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Exactly, great point. It's still impossible, at this point, to put blame on ANY of the chosen suspects you mentioned. That's why we need another investigation, a REAL one this time. The only thing that is clear at this point is that the perpetrators chosen - by NEWS corporations - within an hour of the attacks could not possibly have pulled it off, nor could it have been done the way the 9/11 commission claims it was. At very least, gov't is guilty of cover up in this crime.
@KookTartsBigFarts1-1)I don't have ANY suspects. 2)The FBI didn't necessarily TAMPER with evidence, just seized and concealed evidence. 3)9/11 Commission members DID engage in a cover up. It's really not that difficult to do - compartmentalization. 4)There is NO evidence for "Islamofascists." Look, I'm not here to recruit non-believers. Anyone who honestly believes the Commission's report can go ahead and live in that world. The reason I don't buy the 9/11 report is pure logic, as a scientist.
@Dr1Canuckchuck U should try to make theories fit the data & should try to fit all the data w/out selectively ignoring inconvenient things. But it's also the case that u should not concoct a more elaborate theory to fit erroneous data What happens when u produces a theory to explain witnesses who happen to be mistaken Documents that contain errors & things u just think u c in photos? U end up w/2 of everything 2 types of planes (Civilian/Military) 2 types of collapses (Demo/PC) 2 Much Bullshit
@BigStev44 You keep referring to what was on TV like it showed bin Laden flying the plane. Your argument sounds like this; "I put a tooth under my pillow and the next morning there was money, instead. My parents and all my friends saw the money, so don't tell ME there's no tooth fairy. Besides, everybody else in my kindergarten class believes it, so it MUST be true, we saw the money there". Your gov't is notorious for lying and committing crimes, they've been caught red-handed dozens of times.
@BigStev44...Maybe what you should do is turn off your TV and do some REAL research into the event. If you're getting all your information from FOX NEWS all you're getting is a cross between "The National Enquirer" and "The Jerry Springer Show". The rest of TV isn't much better. Since you learned all you know from TV you may be surprised to learn that TV was invented by the Nazis as a propaganda medium. What makes you think anything has changed? Doh! The Simpsons are on, run along now
Nonsense. In 1884 Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a 23-year-old university student in Germany, patented the first electromechanical television system which employed a scanning disk, a spinning disk with a series of holes spiraling toward the center, for rasterization. The Nazi's came into power in the early 1930's.
@Dr1Canuckchuck Does many suspects on 911 mean that many different ppl perpetrated 911? Or does it indicate the weakness of CONspiracy Theories? In real-world criminal investigations having literally dozens of suspects is an indication that the probe is in very deep & serious trouble. The evidence isn't converging to point to one suspect or a few suspects who may have conspired. The evidence against 1 suspect is about as good as the evidence against any other
@Dr1Canuckchuck To 911tard's it seems that the 'more suspects' there are the better off CONspiracy is. If there are a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to perpetrate 911 it must follow that some of them did. Lots of suspects means everybody can have a suspect that they hate. Americans can blame Arabs. Gentiles can blame Jews etc. .... And if blaming 19 Islamofascists isn't sufficiently satisfying everybody can blame George W. Bush
@Dr1Canuckchuck "bin Laden denied doing this on several occasions"
~ So did Lee Harvey Oswald, so what?
"and "terrorists" will ALWAYS claim responsibility for their acts"
~ So did Lee Harvey Oswald when arrested "Well it's all over now"
Yet 7 in 10 kooks still believe he's at best just an accomplise at worse innocent so they can have innocent and loyal American's to hate irrationally in his place. Kooky ? Ya like you.
The official versions of JFK and 9/11 are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, as well as politically meaningless. Therefore something else needs to be true, regardless of how many times you call people kooks. Obviously you aren`t gonna help us find out what that truth is, but at the very least you can shut up and stop insulting the people who will. Finally I would urge you to learn how to spell and write if you wanna have any chance of being taken seriously. And get a brain maybe?
@BigSteve44; Maybe what you should do is listen to the scientific evidence presented and shed your reliance on mainstream propaganda media. If you have ANY scientific background whatsoever, like me - a civil engineering technologist - not only would you KNOW it didn't happen the way they claim, you would comprehend the scientific evidence to that effect presented here and elsewhere. "it is not physically possible" means THE WAY THEY SAY IT DID, not that it didn't happen at all. Wakey!
@Dr1Canuckchuck In any real world criminal probe/historical investigation (911 is both) we expect some of our evidence to be erroneous. Documents record "facts" that turn out to be untrue. Witnesses say things that are wrong & sometimes really wild. But suppose you're not willing to write off documents & witnesses as mistaken
Q : What kind of theories does that lead to?
A : CTer's believing 911 was done by many different ppl, for many different reasons & in many different ways !
125,000 x 250,000 = 3,125,000,000 Ib's imparted against the facade with roughly 1/2 transfered as heat to the steel columns upon impact Steel retains heat very well
WTC's absorbed 60x's the impact force as projected by it's design criteria of a 707 going at landing speed of 160mph lost in fog and trying to land
@ZhugeNaut " No steel buildings have fallen from fire before 9-11?" No steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed completely due to fire prior to or after 911.
"How many of those buildings got hit with 767s?" probably none..the planes did damage and started fires..that still could not lead to a TOTAL collapse.
"How many got hit with tons of debris on fire?" hmm look at buildings 5&6..they got hit with the collapse of both towers and were on fire and neither of them collapsed completely..
Okay, so explain Building 7. No plane hit it. No jet fuel was present inside. A 'structural fire' burns at most 400°C. The melting point of steel? 2,300°C. If you can give me an explanation for why Building 7 fell to the ground in 6.5 seconds, when no building in HISTORY has ever fallen at that rate, I will bow down to the official story of 9/11. If that were the case, what THE HELL would you need demolition crews for? Just light a building on fire to bring it to the ground.
Demolition crews cannot and would not knock a building down that is on fire. Secondly the fire dept is not a contrlled demolition co. I am not sure what you are referring to.
2300 degrees? Melting point for steel? Whats the temp required to make it pliable? Less then 1/2 that right?
You are ignoring that 2 110 story buildings ejected lit debris 500 ft in all directions.7 was 300 ft.
You want to see for yourself the conditions of 7 on 911 look on my videos. I discuss my perspective there.
I'm amazed at the level of inanity that exists in the world. Okay, I'll humour you for a moment and say that the government's official story about a 'pancake effect' is true. That one floor fell onto the next and created a downward domino effect. Tell me this, then: How, IN THE HELL, was the concrete of the World Trade Centre PULVERISED into a fine dust? Drop a block on top of another block. What happens? It breaks into LUMPS. Not fucking DUST. Will you people WAKE THE FUCK UP!
That dust was mostly drywall and the gypsum based fire proofing.
Somehow you seem to think one floor was collapsing into the others instead of the top 15 floors crashing through one at a time and gathers more weight as it traveled down. It was structural failure.
The pancake collapse is a straw man invented by truthers to knock down.
Like no steel framed buildings ever fell from fire alone. Still true today.
Okay, let me explain basic high-school physics to you. A building cannot fall at the rate of free-fall when there is resistance from the floors beneath. It CANNOT happen. That is physics 101. You have 95 floors beneath the aircraft. You're telling me that not ONE of those floors resisted the force coming from above? That's a 500,000-ton building you're talking about. It fell in 11 seconds. To the ground. What part of that makes any sense? 11 seconds. That's a floor every 0.1 seconds
It did happen. Sorry. It doesnt matter what the quacks like Steven "Jesus in America" Jones tell you. It happened just like that.
It took about 20 sec to collapse and simple physics he says.....
You dont even know how to count. So let me ask the question then. Do you think that the 15 floor stack crashing through the bulding was not picking up debris on it way down. Bending the beams into horse shoes?
Just because you cant wrap your brain around something..doesnt validate ur theory.
So explain building 7. I ask this question of every moron who says 9/11 happened the way the government said it did, and NONE can answer that question. Most avoid it altogether, in fact. What does that tell you? You have NO PLANE, NO JET FUEL, and a 47-storey structure which fell into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds. Because of a fire? What was it you said about no steel structure ever falling because of fire? So explain Building 7.
I am a NYer. Where were you on 9-11? Did you see building 7 leaning on its side? Did you see the 10 floor hole from the debris?
Havent you wondered why you only see 1 side of the building? Why dont you try looking at video from North,South,East and west. Instead of watching the side the 'truthers' show you.
I am not saying it happened 'exactly' as the govt suggests. I am saying what NIST suggests is more likely then: mini nukes,energy weapons,exotic incendiaries and the like
Moron? That is a compliment from someone parroting his information about a national tragedy from:
Steven Jesus in America Jones
Alex Fema Camp Jones and any other quack that cant get a job in the real world. Yes. Explain building 7. Again because you cannot wrap your head around something does not make another assumption you have about the same matter any more valid.
I think someone coined it as:' The argument from incredulity'
I noticed you failed -- AGAIN -- to offer me an explanation for building 7. Or, for that matter, any explanation for how a building can fall uniformly to the ground in 6.5 seconds when not ONE PLANE, nor ANY JET FUEL, was present in said building. And while I'm at it, explain this one. Never in aviation history has there been a case where the flight-data recorders were not recovered. Yet all four were never found at Ground Zero. Keep believing the lies your government feeds you.
@danokkkrock "when not ONE PLANE, nor ANY JET FUEL, was present in said building"
Is this kooktart trying to be funny? The fkg building burns for 4 hrs straight with fires on several floors and the only thing this momo can offer is his 'Message of Hate' against God only knows who? Typical YT asswipe who is now sore his funding from bin Laden got cut off.
Live with it and remember next time ....
Put brain in gear before engaging mouth stewpid shit
@ZhugeNaut i gotta say,zhuge...maybe you should check out wtc7 on youtube.Idk about u,but up until last year in 2010 I didnt even know that building went down that same horrible day.Hell,I didnt even know it fell,period.....and neither has anyone I've asked in the last year.Plz,zhuge...plz check out all related vids 2 WTC7.I can tell by ur speech(expletives aside) that ur not an idiot....you've just been told the same BS as the rest of us and none of us,except a small amount,even questioned it.
@ZhugeNaut sorry,zhuge....mixed up who i wanted to send that too.....meant 2 send that last message 2 danokkk.Sorry bout that ,man.I c we're on the same side,lol:)
The reinforced concrete...core. You mean foundation? There is a difference. The trusses and beams(all of the floors above the foundation) were not reinforced by concrete. The foundation was.
I have. The core was still standing in the midst of the rubble. Do you have anything else?
Please get your information from more then one source before you spout of nonsense. You are asking all the wrong questions.
Dont ask me what the right questions are. Find out yourself.
"but what happened to all the ppl of the pentagon flight? all dissapeared?"
"Believe it or not bunnybrains even plane accidents were the plane didn't hit a friggen building there's not often anything left of humans except bits and pieces, kibbles and bits. Get it?"
@10Faenorr Let me ask you a couple of questions, why did Silverstein announce that the decision was made to 'pull Building 7?' How does one make the decision to 'pull' a building that quickly unless the building was set up in advance to be 'pulled'? Also, why did the reporter from the BBC announce that Building 7 had come down a full half hour before it actually came down?
@lbcerg7 NYFD's efforts (operation) to save his building. The fire chief was commenting that they had "already had a tremendous loss of life" & Silverstein interrupted by saying well then "pull it" (the operation) meaning abandon the operation. Sounds much more plausible than "lets hate the Jew" CONspiracy mumble made for tards w/too much time on their hands eh? There are so many imponderable leaps of imagination that have to be hurdled in order for "pull it" to become reality
@lbcerg7 According to 11 demolition companies contacted by 'Hardfire' host Ronald Wieck, "Pull It" is not, nor has it ever been, an industry term meaning "to bring down with explosives". These companys are: Brandenburg Industrial Service Company, Vaccaro Construction, Drop-A-Box, A-1 Affordable Construction Company, Jersey Shore Demolition, Bluegrass Companys, EJB Global Services, Demolition Consultants, Robinette Demolition Inc. Cutting Technologies, Controlled Demolition Inc.
@lbcerg7 "How does one make the decision to 'pull' a building that quickly unless the building was set up in advance"
The firefighters on the scene after watching the building burn for 4 hours reported they heard ominous sounds that steel makes before failing. Didn't take a crystal ball or wigi-board to figure out that building was under threat of iminent collapse.
"BBC announce that Building 7 had come down a half hour before it came down?"
@KookTartsBigFarts1 sorry but you miss several significant issues..1 the fires in building 7 were started by some mysterious source..the claims that it was from debris from the towers is false since there were witnesses in the buildings that describe it being on fire and explosions going off prior to the towers collapses
2 No one..even a fire department chief..ever refers to his men as an IT..he refers to THEM. So saying that PULL IT refered to an operation is ludicrous at best
@KookTartsBigFarts1 "Didn't take a crystal ball or wigi-board to figure out that building was under threat of iminent collapse." True..to a point..the building was in danger of collapse..partial or otherwise..but it never should have been able to collapse as it did..with any kind of free fall component as is demonstrated many times by various sources. No building can freefall collapse unless all the structural members are severed simultaneously and fire quite simply cannot do that.
@oOBunnyackOo "but what happened to all the people of the pentagon flight? all dissapeared?"
Believe it or not bunnybrains even plane accidents were the plane didn't hit a friggen building there's not often anything left of humans except bits and pieces, kibbles and bits. Get it?
ARLINGTON, Va. 2 Pentagon police officers, Jeff Amos and Marvin Carraway were shot and the suspected gunman dead following a shoot-out. AP reports Internet postings under the screen name "JPatrickBedell" that the gunman harbored resentment for & had doubts about the U.S. military-was determined to see justice in the 9/11 attacks. The writer said his actions would reveal the truth behind the 9/11 attacks
A : Here the answer is pretty simple and childish. Silerstein * is Jewish, Jews make good scapegoats. Implicate the Jew and you'll always have a following of like minded CONspiracy hate mongers to pat you on the back and say "good job". The right answer? No, but thats what happens when you exonerate the guilty in order to incriminate the innocent .... Hi-Jacked Back-Ass-Wards History good only for the dust bins of history.
* His own explanation was that "pull it" refered to the
that would only be possible if that column was the only load bearing column in the building and it wasn't..even if the interiour columns all failed due to this single failure, the exterior comlumns would not suddenly sever themselves instantaneously on all floors..there would be significant assymetric damage and collapse since peices would collapse at different rates since the load applied to them would be different as the collapse progressed from that 1 column across the building
and if 1 column caused a systematic failure..you would see an assymetrical collapse event as their sim predicted..but that is not what you see..you see the roof line and walls fall with near perfect symetry save a crimp in the roofline..this is not possible when 1 column fails and then causes a systematic failure..furthermore how did 1 column manage to cause hundred of thousands of welds, bolts and crossmembers to all fail simultaneously..fantasy my friend
so if they started before the collapses..then what started them since the building was not supposed to have suffered damage until the collapses of 1 and 2..and lastly..for all your typing about wtc 7 you still haven't shown how that column failed..what temperature was the steel in the buildings exposed to..how much thermal expansion occured..how was this determined using real world evidence and not computer sim..hell take a look at the computer model and it looks nothing like the collapse
3rd..the wtc7 was set up to be a command center..not wtc1 or 2..if they had any idea that fire was gonna cause a complete collapse of 1 and 2 they would never have set up the command centers there..that would be stupid and suicidal..now answer this..why was the oem abandoned long before the collapses of wtc1 and 2 if it was supposed to be used for such emergencies..and as for when the fires started in wtc 7 ..sorry they started before the collapse of 1&2 according to witnesses in the building
where do i begin with you auther..firstly no one in the investigation teams has stated or proven that the steel that has been saved was the critical collapse causing pieces..thats why that statement was laughable..second..if you wanna argue symantics fine..demolitions cause progressive collapse..now show any non demolition based skyscraper collapse that was caused by fire then the 3 wtc towers..1 of which was a completely different design
If what you say is so true then why did NIST not demonstrate it for wtc 1 and 2..they just said..oh well it got to this point and then the rest was inevitable..really? the only thing that might have been inevitable was a partial collapse of the upper floors..no one expected the whole building to come down or there is no way in hell they would set up a command center in its lobby..that would be suicidal and i dont think hundreds of fireman and police were planning to kill themselves that day
The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints, was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building.
@auther1046 The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout 1st visible from the exterior w/the crumbling of the east mech. penthouse. Several generators were used by Office of Emergency Management, Storage tanks 24,000 gal's of diesel fuel supplied generators & were located at ground level, up to the 9th floor.
@auther1046 After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. As the North Tower collapsed on 9/11, heavy debris hit WTC7, causing damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom
@auther1046 After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors
@10Faenorr 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief
@10Faenorr Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel, he decided to "pull it", NYFD terminology for immediate exacuation, expressed when time contraints are paramount. At 5:20:33 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely.
@10Faenorr In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other buildings.
@10Faenorr That's just stupid, why did Silverstein announce the decision to 'pull it?' Why would he say that publicly if it came down from damage from fires ignited by debris from the other buildings? SILVERSTEIN ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION TO 'PULL IT.'
@lbcerg7 "why did Silverstein announce the decision to 'pull it?'"
You're confusing the issue of firefighters pulling by cables a unstable building and the fantasy that Silerstein somehow had command over the NYFD? Now "That's [not] just stupid" thats 3rd grade DUMB.
Q : Now "Why would he say that publicly"?
A : To incrimnate himself with jailtime? Best way to get his insurance payoff?
@auther1046 extending at least 10 flrs. The prinkler system had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure, required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers
"THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ! ALL OTHER PIECES WOULD BE USELESS !"
Are you fucking serious..a progressive collapse has NEVER occured in a steel skyscraper in history and they knew exactly which 200 or so caused it by sight alone?? that is the most obsurd statement I have heard. Any forensic analysis of a collapse should follow NFPA standards and that means a COMPLETE analysis of ALL the steel to determine how the undamaged structure failed
So whats the problem bud..i have asked you some simple questions..if your story is so beleiveable and easy to prove then answer them..don't dance around them..don't make statements that are completely ridiculous or irrelevant to the subject..answer the questions..prove me wrong..you either won't because your a coward, you don't have a clue what your arguing or you can't prove your claims..which is it..you can insult me all you want but until you answer these simple questions you are nothing
'THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !'
LMAO that is such a laughable statement as you dont even know what peices of steel they examined..NIST examined them and tried to claim they were from the fire zone then changed their story when tests showed the steel wasn't exposed to enough temperature to even soften..so if they didnt come from the impact zone they obviously didnt cause the collapse...nice try..you fail again
If the charges are so insane then why didn't NIST submit their paper for peer review..why only allow 3 weeks to digest a 7 year in the making report..why then complain when people balk at thier physics and science and lack of disclosure...and the Natgeo vid your refering to is a totally different one from the oen involving the pancake theory..it was their attempt to show that a plane did hit the pentagon and that fire could cause steel to fail..both tests were a joke and not even near reality
'So know the building owner is part of the Officialdom who gives commands to NYFD when fighting fires in buildings eh?' again you dance around the question...he used the word "it" to describe a group of people..why..you claim it was an "operation" he was refering to..that is ridiculous as i have pointed out..no one refers to a group of people as an "it"..you refer to a group of people, be they part of an operation or not, as a THEY..the it he was refering to was wtc7 plain and simple
"LMAO that is such a laughable statement" I've ever heard, so why did you make it?
"..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands"
THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !
"I remember getting a call from the FD commander told me they were not sure they'd be able to contain the fire ... you know we've had such terrible loss of life .... they decided to 'pull it' as we watched the building collapse"
Seems to me even if they had started demolition proceedure (NYFD not qualified) it would take weeks of preparations to acheive your miraculous demolition.
So again..answer this..what started the fires in wtc 7..when did they start..how much temperature was applied to the steel and where in the building..how does NIST know this..how did fire, an assymetrical process, cause a symetrical collapse, simultaneous failures in hundreds of columns and beams..eactly how much thermal expansion occured, where, when and how..and back that up with evidence..not computer models..show the steel examined and who certified the results..i await your answers
Oh by the way, the very theory your supporting was founded by idiots like Avery, Griffin and Gage. And when NatGeo presented to them, they ended up looking like idiots. At one point all 3 of them were quiet and dumbfounded by NatGeos findings !
And your video of people"examining steel" yeah they looked at it..they might have even touched it..but they did not stand there and do forensic analysis of the steel..they most certainly did not examine the hundreds of thousands of peices of steel from the 3 towers..they could not even explain the meteorites (molten steel and concrete) that were present..so dont try to bullshit people and say they examined the steel..they did not..and could not because most was recycled
As for the scientific method..again you have no concept of what you're talking about..when you come up with a theory..you develope your evidence and present it in a peer review process..if your evidence is not valid or defensible then it's wrong and you need a new theory..NIST never even submitted their report for peer review..they limited a 7 year study with thousands of pages of info to 3 week s of public debate..that is hardly enough time for a proper peer review
"NIST never even submitted their report for peer review"
Standard CT practice, wait the prescribed 'Decent Interval', start asking questions (questions are not proof of anything) escalate the charges based upon faulty logic, build upon those charges with suceedingly more ridiculous tirades when those charges have been proven insane ......
"WOULD ADMIT TO HAVING HIS BUILDING DEMOLISHED SO HE COULDN'T RECEIVE HIS INSURANCE PAYBACK EH ?"
why do you think he is back pedalling..he shot his mouth off..got caught admitting the demolition and now has to back track and cover it up.
OH and NOVA..those are the tards that started the whole pancake theory that has been rejected by NIST and just about everyone on both sides of the debate..hardly a smoking gun buddy.
In 1997, the Frank Leux Building in Birmingham, Al was demolished by Engineered Demolition, Inc.
"It required a team of experts in construction, explosives, demolition. A controlled demolition requires careful planning by experts. Only the terminally stupid or the paid shill believes the demolition CONSPIRACY THEORY. There is not a shred of evidence to support any PART of that theory.
'Is that what Silerstein said he meant? NO !' of course not..he realized he just put his foot in it huge and now had to back pedal
'Oh I see the building owner is now part of the NYFD too eh?' where in my statement did you gleem that .. i stated that never in my time working alongside fire crews have i heard anyone ever refer to them as an 'it' that includes police other fire crews, paramedics, hydro workers or any other groups of people or even individuals
auther..your a moron..read the fema report..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands..does that represent a proper sampling? not at all..that would be like taking half a dozen grains of sand off a beach and saying that is a representative sample of the entire beach..nonsense..any valid investigation would need all the steel or a good portion of it to be valid
"..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands"
THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !
WARNING Please, disregard ANY comments from the following: auther1046, jfiles0000000, cdddraftsman / cdddraftman / cdddraftsmann, MsDrLowery, JgarfbiHoover, 10Faenorr, KookTartsBigFarts1, VinnyDickWad / VinnyCooCooClock / VinnyVoom444 OR anything with "Vinny" in it...After checking back one full year of "JFK" comments, these individuals have made themselves the OVERSEERS of this video pushing filthy comments and comments that are only meant to say the WCR & NIST got it right!
The really funny thing is you could have easily said..oh it was just editted to make it seem like he meant the building and not the crews and this led to the belief that is was a cd..but no ..you try to come up with some stupid explanation that "it" means the whole operation when the whole context of the statement was directly related to the building and its collapse.
Still waiting for you to answer when the fires started in wtc 7 , how they started, how hot they got, how much thermal expansion there was and how NIST came to that conclusion with no steel to analyse..yet you keep dancing around. You should really try to prove your case rather then make statements that are totally irrelevant to the topic and only show you can't come up with a plausible theory that is defensible..hmm maybe you work for NIST..or should
LOL in the 10+ years i have worked alongside fire crews i have never heard anyone ever refer to them as an "it" when it comes to operations..your excuse is laughable. No one ever refers to a group of people as an it unless they are uneducated or in this case caught in a lie and need to try to make an excuse.
As for you energy calculation..wonderful math..totally irrelevant since buildings right under the collapse didnt simply implode on themselves..nice try though
"No Q that a cantilevered steel framed building that was severly damaged & then burnt for 4 hours furiously would eventually collapse" wow really? so again..when and how did these fires start? what caused the damage? How does assymetrical fire cause a symetrical collapse? why would someone..who is refering to a group of people..call them an 'it". Would he not have said pull them as in "maybe the best thing to do is pull THEM out".. because he was talking about the building not the people.
@lexicon008 "maybe the best thing to do is pull THEM out"..
THEY HAD SEVERAL FIRE FIGHTING TEAMS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BUILDING, "IT" REFERS TO THE 'OPERATION' AS A WHOLE, MEANING ALL FIRE FIGHTING TEAMS THAT MAKE UP THE 'OPERATION' TO SAVE THE BUILDING ! NO ONE IS EXCLUDED, ALL FIREFIGHTING TEAMS WERE TO BE WITHDRAWN.
WHAT TF IS WRONG WITH YOUR WORD COMPREHENSION? AS IF THE STUPID MOMO JEW WOULD ADMIT TO HAVING HIS BUILDING DEMOLISHED SO HE COULDN'T RECEIVE HIS INSURANCE PAYBACK EH ?
Oh and this "overwhelming case" you speak of..how can it be overwhelming when by your own admission its based on photos and videos and a rubble pile alone..where is the actual data that was derived from examining the steel itself? Exactly how much temperature was the steel exposed to and how much thermal expansion occured? Oh sorry..that can't be answered since the steel was all recycled before the investigation..so lets just guess shall we..i mean we're NIST..our guess is the truth isn't it.
@lexicon008 "Oh and this "overwhelming case" you speak of"
331,000,000 kg*10m/s^2*207.5m ~ 686,825,000,000J ~ 700GJ ~ 167tonnes of tnt. This is about the energy released when EACH of the towers when they collapsed. This is equivalent of a nuclear artillery shell from the cold war era. That's enough to flatten everything for more than 1/3 of a mile in all directions. Remember there were TWO towers to boot !
YOU'RE JUST A CON-SPIRACY MONGER WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR TIME BUT MUMBLE !
well cdd you have just proven why your words have no meaning in a rational debate..the fact that you would endorse a plan to eliminate free speech is an example of a totalitarian nazi philosophy. And as for not having a job..i have one sir..i work in the medical field..unfortunately i have to save idiots like you daily from their own stupidity or deal with the aftermath when someone like you hurts or kills some innocent person.
According to 11 demolition companies contacted by 'Hardfire' host Ronald Wieck, "Pull It" is not, nor has it ever been, an industry term meaning "to bring down with explosives". These companys are: Brandenburg Industrial Service Company Vaccaro Construction Drop-A-Box A-1 Affordable Construction Company Jersey Shore Demolition Bluegrass Companys EJB Global Services Demolition Consultants Robinette Demolition Inc. Cutting Technologies Controlled Demolition Inc.
911 believers are not only stupid they're ignorant of past hoaxs perpetrated by the same people. For example :
Co-founder of the 911 truther movement Jim Fetzer (aka Fetztardo Di Vinci) was tossed out of the JFK assassination hoaxing community because his oneupmanship equated into theories so preposterous and bizarre they could NOT be believed, and were too hard to memorise all the lies contained in them, so they became basically useless to the movement.
rodgilbert1977 "FUCK YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:on that day, those fucking scumbags killed my wife, my child, and my father. IF I FUCKING SEE ANY OF YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH"
end quote
We sure could use some disipline around here DATS FER SURE EH?
Critics of these CT's say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which CT's emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the CT's are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an eng. prof. at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion & then hail their findings as the only conclusion."
While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for building failure based on the physical characteristics of the collapse documented in photo's & videos of the event & the rubble pile that resulted. No Q that a cantilevered steel framed building that was severly damaged & then burnt for 4 hours furiously would eventually collapse. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that no brainer out.
you seem to love to try and distract from the subject..you go off on some strange diatribe but never actually provide any proof, relavent info or evidence that would remove reasonable doubt..your like all the other debunkers..you just start calling people idiots and kooks but can't actually debate them with facts because your facts don't stand up to scrutiny..but don't worry..if the government gets its way the 1st amendment will be removed and anyone who speaks out will be jailed or worse
@lexicon008 "if the government gets its way the 1st amendment will be removed and anyone who speaks out will be jailed or worse"
* EXCELLENT IDEA HR 1955 THE BEST IDEA CONGRESS HAS HAD EVER ! I SUGGEST "WORSE" AS A SOLUTION TO YOU INBREED UNEDUCATED INEBRIATED SLOVIC HILLBILLY'S THAT RUMOR MONGER IN PLACE OF HAVING A JOB !
* CAN YOU SAY "WOULD YOU LIKE FRY'S WITH THAT ORDER SIR" ? GO GET A JOB STFU AND STAND DOWN !
cdd you fail to see that the EOC was already on fire long before the collapse of the 2 towers..this is not what was reported in the official story..so if it was on fire prior to being hit by anything then who or what started those fires??
the pentagon hit was a convenient way to get rid of the evidence of trillions of missing dollars that rumsfeld publically admitted the day before. The info was in that particular section of the building..just as the evidence against worldcom was in wtc7
Under any normal investigative standards, all parts of the crime area will be kept at another site until all evidence is thoroughly investigated. 9/11 was treated like a grand cover-up from the beginning. The metals were gathered and shipped out of the country as fast as possible...MASSIVE COVER-UP...but by who?
@Becky8648 "the plan to demolish WTC Bldg 7 was NEVER admitted by anyone"
* Is that surprising since it's a CONstruct of the CONspiracy Hoaxing Criminals?
* What is really stupid is to think 'THEY' would demolish their own emergency headquarters for the entire Manhatten area?
* Thats as stupid a CONstruct as the military attacking the Pentagon? Why TF would 'THEY' do that? Why TF wouldn't 'THEY' attack the Demo-ratic Congress & get rid of some of those (D) commy's instead HON?
@Becky8648 "OWNER SAYING "WE DECIDED TO 'PULL-IT' (a term in the field of Demolitions)"
Demolition experts NEVER use that term. That term is used in fire fighting language when a structure is in imminent danger of collapse but isn't falling, cables are attached to a portion of a building and a fire engine operator is given the order to 'pull-it' in hopes of speeding up the process. Why TF would an 'implosion' order by 'explosives' be called something completely unrelated? You are BIZARRE
@cdddraftsman You're full of shit! "Controlled Demolition Inc." was asked "Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?" CDI: "Pull it is when they actually pull it down." If the building is burning beyond control, who's going to run in and place explosives OR place cables so the fire truck can pull the building down. The building fell as if it was demolished, it basically imploded. USE YOUR EYES AND YOUR HEAD.
@jjammin1812 "If the building is burning beyond control, who's going to run in and place explosives"
WHO TF SAID ANYONE "RAN IN AND PLACED EXPLOSIVES" DUMBSHIT ? THE BUILDING BURNT FOR 4 STRAIGHT HOURS FOUR TIMES LONGER THAN WTC'S !
"OR place cables so the fire truck can pull the building down"
SOP DURING BATTLE OF BRITAIN TO UP TILL TODAY ! THE BUILDING WAS STARTING TO MAKE OMINOUS SOUNDS SO THEY EXACUATED THE AREA BY "PULLING NYFD OUT" OF THE AREA YA STUPID DUMB SHIT !
@cdddraftsman Hey dumb shit, your words to Becky8648..."That term is used in fire fighting language when a structure is in imminent danger of collapse but isn't falling, cables are attached to a portion of a building and a fire engine operator is given the order to 'pull-it' in hopes of speeding up the process." YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS SHIT FOR BRAINS!
you wanna talk proof..fine..show me how nist came to the conclusion that fire alone brought down wtc7..show me how they established definitivly the temperature the steel was subjected to and how much "thermal expansion" occured..id like to see it since all the steel was recycled long before they began their investigation..so their proof is completely imagined..yet you defend them
if NIST is so sure that their theory is the only one that fits why do they refuse to let people examine the computer sims..why do they not completely disprove explosives..not just say they likely werent involved..eliminate them ..why do they deny the obvious inability for fire to symetrically collapse a building..they deny deny deny the obvious..im not scientist but even i can see they are full of crap
cdd your on crack..when 1 person like you says something that doesnt make it true..when thousands are saying it with EVIDENCE to back it up then there may be validity to it..you can say anything you want..the first amendment allows that..proving it is totally another thing..you would have no hope in hell proving your statement..the 911 truth movement has evidence and alot at that..its close minded sheep like you that just spew the governments story ad nauseum and that is the problem
E-mail Fetzer about his claims and see how quickly he resorts to petty and childish name calling. He's a fraud.
brassbonanza97 1 day ago
Dr Judy Wood gives only the scientific facts which makes the case that some sort of exotic weapon was involved.
freespiriting1 1 week ago
idiot paranoico
tododu 4 months ago
no planer wanker
spacehopperballs 5 months ago
it comes down to this: do I believe in the laws of nature or do I believe in the honesty of politicians. Its a no-brainer in my opinion.
BelaFleckFan 6 months ago
@BelaFleckFan please explain im drunk.
callofpaul 4 months ago
@callofpaul its a simple choice, do I believe that the laws of physics were broken on 9/11 by terrorists or do I believe that politicians lie?
BelaFleckFan 4 months ago
@BelaFleckFan I would imagine you believe politicians are lieing.
callofpaul 4 months ago
Fetzer = the nutty professor
terrymanning1 6 months ago
If you would like to hear Professor Fetzer's views without interruptions go to blogtv.com/people/freeusamericans..... show on June 27th 2011- Where we will ALLOW professor Fetzer to explain what he has researched!
FreeUSAmericans 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreeUSAmericans "professor Fetzer"
HE'S NO LONGER A PROF. THEY STRIPPED HIM OF HIS ACADEMIA WHEN HE FOUND OUT PEDDLING BULLSHIT TO LEFTIST SCUM WAS MORE PROFITABLE THAN TELLING THE TRUTH !
Live with it !
KookTartsBigFarts1 6 months ago
oh bullshit, other countries warned but Israel damn sure didn't. check out mossad caught in van on 911 "filled with explosives" gw bridge. The khazars of britain u.s. israel must be DESTROYED completely.
sssssjjjj1 8 months ago
im an engineer and this shit makes alot of sense.. any person with a science or construction background would be able to understand what hes saying and relate. if this is true ,. what it means rally sucks ,. woaw
osbertpeters21 8 months ago 2
I love this shit. "it is not physically possible"? yet we all saw it happen and Bin Laden said he did it so fuck your stupid conspiracy theories.
BigStev44 8 months ago
@BigStev44 Uh, excuse me, but bin Laden denied doing this on several occasions and "terrorists" will ALWAYS claim responsibility for their acts immediately. If you're referring to the tape where he's discussing the attack, what you were watching was a fake, the features aren't even close to bin Laden's facial features AND he's wearing a gold ring, something forbidden in Muslim faith. Also, in the tape he's using right hand to sign a paper, but bin Laden was left handed. Catch up, man. We'll wait
Dr1Canuckchuck 8 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck You really are an idiot. Pretty much the whole world holds bin Laden responsible but you. Please don't tell me what Muslim faith don't do. Maybe you can explain the porn that was at his compound. Got news for you. There are just as many hypocrite Muslims as Christians. Your theory based on engineering really doesn't matter because we all watched it on TV. A picture says it all. BTW stuff your patronizing bullshit along with your conspiracy horseshit.
BigStev44 7 months ago 2
@BigStev44 You're hopelessly brainwashed, buddy. There's no point in me even pointing out the thousands of problems with the 9/11 myth, nor the many problems with the bin Laden was killed just a month ago myth. You seem quite content to fall for anything your saintly gov't feeds your closed, brainwashed mind. Tell you what, all I can do for the hopelessly brainwashed is pray for them and that's what I'll do for you. I'll feel really sorry for you, despite the fact that your immature.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck You do realize that you are ranting yes? Just goes to show you are a nut
BigStev44 7 months ago
@BigStev44 Ya, I'm a nut. This from a guy who believes everything his gov't tells him.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@BigStev44 As for what you watched on TV, nobody - including me - has ever disputed the fact that SOMETHING happened and that is what we saw on TV. The only dispute - that pretty much the whole world has finally woken up to except you - is HOW it happened and WHO is responsible. You're like a teenager who thinks there's nothing he doesn't already know and nothing else he can learn. Try keeping your ears open and your mouth shut for a change, you may learn something some day.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck Rules of Logic & Probability when Thinking About CONspiracy. Anybody who wants to solve this case would be well-advised to use the intellectual tools that have been tried & proven. Classical, skeptical & critical thinking skills. Unfortunately CTer's often ignore basic rules of logic & build 'tempest's in a teapot' on edifice's of unfounded speculation. Just how do they convince the mobocracy & how would sound intellectual inquiry proceed?
Unfortunately in opposite directions
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Somewhere, somehow, some people got the idea that I believe I know who did this and why. How they got that idea, I have no idea. All I've said is that the story offered by the 9/11 Commission is so wildly false that at best, they've engaged in a cover up. Again, I'll point out that the word "Conspiracy" has NOTHING to do with what version of events you believe. Even the 9/11 Commission's version of events is, admittedly, a Conspiracy Theory.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck To 911tard's it seems that 'more suspects' the better. If there r a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to perpetrate 911 it must follow that some of them did. Lots of suspects means everybody can have a suspect that they hate. Americans can blame Arabs. Gentiles and Arabs can blame Jews, Jews can blame Islam and
If blaming 19 Islamofascists isn't sufficiently satisfying, everybody can blame George W. Bush .
The Blame Game for 9/11tards
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 George W. Bush? Are you serious? Bush has trouble tying his own shoes, never mind planning an attack like this. You're still trying to get me to choose a suspect, eh? I repeat...I HAVE NO SUSPECTS, I merely stated that the 9/11 Commission report is pure fiction and a cover-up, that we need a REAL investigation to determine the REAL suspects and have them answer to their crime.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck 2) The story, moreover, need never end.
If evidence appears that refutes the 911 conspiracy, the suppliers of the discrediting material will themselves be accused of being part of the conspiracy.
The 'Paranoid Explanatory System' , based upon 'Circular Thinking Patterns' , is a closed one.
Only confirmatory evidence is accepted.
Contradictions are dismissed as being naive or, more likely, part of the conspiracy itself".
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago 2
@KookTartsBigFarts1..."Conspiracy" =Two or more people involved in the planning of an event - usually, but not always, a crime. "Theory" =A speculative idea or plan as to how something MIGHT be done. Therefore, a "Conspiracy Theory" =A speculative idea or plan as to how the planning of an event, possibly a crime, by two or more people may have been done. No mention of insanity, no mention of paranoia, no mention of tin-foil hats. Just a brainwashed mass adopting everything they hear.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck One of the central tenents of good theorizing is the Rule of Parsimony. One should always prefer a simple theory to a complex one if the simple one fits the data. CTer's need a more complex theory to fit the data. The problem comes if one tries to fit one's theory to the data when the data are erroneous. U end up w/a theory that explains not only the "signal," but much of the "noise" too. That's a recipe for "disaster" especially in a field where there is so much "noise"
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 It actually took me 5 years of believing the Commission's report before I started to question its contents. I bought into it just like everyone else and called "9/11tards" Conspiracy Theorists, too. Then I started to see glaring inconsistencies with logic and the laws of physics. I also began to question the definition of Conspiracy Theory, as defined in the dictionary. I had to admit to myself that I'd bought into a lie. There's nothing wrong with asking questions.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I started to question its contents" For example?
"I started to see glaring inconsistencies w/logic & the laws of physics"
Who are you trying to bullshit, you never believed in any official explanation in your life? Buildings when demo'd fall from bottom to top by gravity, the WTC's fell from top to bottom in a progressive collapse, WAKE UP!
"There's nothing wrong w/asking Q's"
Q's aren't proof of anything. Stupid Q's lead to incriminations THE SAME OLD BS GAME OF LEFTISTS !
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Well, seems you know me better than I do. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Go ahead and believe what you want, you're going to anyway. I think you're afraid to learn the truth because that would mean you've been fooled all this time and you can't face that prospect. It's OK, I feel sorry for you. It'll be alright, just go and watch some more TV and you'll hear that everything is going to be OK. You're dismissed.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck 1) The '911 Paranoid Message' :
"The '911 Paranoid Message' will give more and more, and then it will give even more.
The entertainment resources of the '911 Paranoid Message' are unrivaled. It offers puzzles, drama, passion, heroes, villains, and struggle.
As always when the story-line is tied to an historical event, especially one that involves hated characters and unexpected death, then fiction, history, and popular delusion can be joined in the pursuit of profit.
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago 2
@KookTartsBigFarts1
I presume you`re a total moron and it`s a waste of time trying to talk sense to you, but here goes: The official version of 9/11 is a "paranoid conspiracy theory" in itself, something you seem to not understand. Why one such theory makes you a kook and another automatically makes you well informed I`ll leave to you to explain, but at the very least you should do some research into the topic before spouting baloney like this,
Stagnant197 5 months ago 2
@Stagnant197 I love how every time someone disagrees with the nutcase conspiracy theorist, they are always deemed "uninformed." Maybe the educated critical thinker doesn't by into complete nonsense, because well....they are critical thinkers. The entire premise of this argument is absurd because you have to ignore the fact that the buildings didn't fall at free-fall speed. Besides that however, I actually care about facts and evidence instead of having faith in something so ridiculous.
theUSER101 13 hours ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 As for your question, "For Example", I could write a book on the subject there are so many. In fact, several people already have. For starters, I recommend "Crossing the Rubicon", by Mike Ruppert. Very good book which will give you hundreds of examples. Sorry, no pictures, you'll have to do a lot of reading. Also, I'm not "Leftist", rightist, centerist, or any other -ist. Agreed, "Stupid" questions lead to incriminations, nor are they proof of anything.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert"
~ The sky is falling The sky is falling, it wasn't OBL or his virgin hungry suicide bombers who also claimed credit for Bali, London, USS Cole, Madrid, & dozens of other terrorists actions it was Dick Cheney NONSENSE FOR THE BRAINDEAD !
~ 9/11 Debunked : Dick Cheney Never In Charge of NORAD ! :
watch?v=nhC3ElWQkEc
~ 9/11 Debunked : 9/11 Truthers (?) Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth ! :
watch?v=T6fe9YlHQwA
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago 2
@KookTartsBigFarts1 I'm done trying to wake people up. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. If you are so easily convinced by such lame evidence there is nothing - even corroborated evidence - that will convince you otherwise. Good luck with that, believing your government's lame excuses is a lot easier than actually having to do some thinking of your own. Also, I don't seem to recall saying the sky is falling and I still haven't chosen any suspects, like Cheney, sorry.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I don't seem to recall saying the sky is falling and I still haven't chosen any suspects, like Cheney"
Yet you recommend a book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert" which does advocate the demising of the US at the end of the petroleum age and accusing Cheney of plotting 9/11?
All sounds very far fetched, screams for attention with outlandish and outragiously libelous material for the insatiably insane leftist eh ?
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Oh, I see. You got the impression that because I recommend a book to read that I must, therefore, agree with every single letter printed within that book and I use it as my Bible to the 911 story. You mean kind of like you are using the 911 Commission Report as YOUR guide? WRONG! You're really reaching now and I have no further time to waste on brainwashed people. You're dismissed.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "I must therefore agree with every single letter printed within that book"
I outlined the main thesis of the book above. If you can't be more specific about a book than it's title I suggest getting out of the hoaxing business, you're just not cutting the cake hon
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@BigStev44 And lastly, I could give a flying fuck what the rest of the world believes or doesn't believe, that's not what I base my analysis upon. I'm not a Jones and I don't care what the Jones are doing or what they have or think. Anybody who believes what the rest of the people are believing is a follower (a sheep) and has no mind of his own. BTW, "Conspiracy" = "Two or more people planning an event, sometimes a crime", it has nothing to do with believing ANY story over another.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck Having lots of suspects can allow you to finagle & explain away any inconvenient evidence. To avoid facing evidence against Islamofascists you need to claim that everyone lied, that the FBI tampered with the evidence, that 911 members engaged in a coverup. Well why not claim all that right ? After all, you've got gobs of people whose behavior and motives are suspect, right ?
The only thing you don't have after trying to implicate innocent ppl is a coherent and sensible theory
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 Exactly, great point. It's still impossible, at this point, to put blame on ANY of the chosen suspects you mentioned. That's why we need another investigation, a REAL one this time. The only thing that is clear at this point is that the perpetrators chosen - by NEWS corporations - within an hour of the attacks could not possibly have pulled it off, nor could it have been done the way the 9/11 commission claims it was. At very least, gov't is guilty of cover up in this crime.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1-1)I don't have ANY suspects. 2)The FBI didn't necessarily TAMPER with evidence, just seized and concealed evidence. 3)9/11 Commission members DID engage in a cover up. It's really not that difficult to do - compartmentalization. 4)There is NO evidence for "Islamofascists." Look, I'm not here to recruit non-believers. Anyone who honestly believes the Commission's report can go ahead and live in that world. The reason I don't buy the 9/11 report is pure logic, as a scientist.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck U should try to make theories fit the data & should try to fit all the data w/out selectively ignoring inconvenient things. But it's also the case that u should not concoct a more elaborate theory to fit erroneous data What happens when u produces a theory to explain witnesses who happen to be mistaken Documents that contain errors & things u just think u c in photos? U end up w/2 of everything 2 types of planes (Civilian/Military) 2 types of collapses (Demo/PC) 2 Much Bullshit
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@BigStev44 You keep referring to what was on TV like it showed bin Laden flying the plane. Your argument sounds like this; "I put a tooth under my pillow and the next morning there was money, instead. My parents and all my friends saw the money, so don't tell ME there's no tooth fairy. Besides, everybody else in my kindergarten class believes it, so it MUST be true, we saw the money there". Your gov't is notorious for lying and committing crimes, they've been caught red-handed dozens of times.
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@BigStev44...Maybe what you should do is turn off your TV and do some REAL research into the event. If you're getting all your information from FOX NEWS all you're getting is a cross between "The National Enquirer" and "The Jerry Springer Show". The rest of TV isn't much better. Since you learned all you know from TV you may be surprised to learn that TV was invented by the Nazis as a propaganda medium. What makes you think anything has changed? Doh! The Simpsons are on, run along now
Dr1Canuckchuck 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "TV was invented by the Nazis"
Nonsense. In 1884 Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a 23-year-old university student in Germany, patented the first electromechanical television system which employed a scanning disk, a spinning disk with a series of holes spiraling toward the center, for rasterization. The Nazi's came into power in the early 1930's.
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck Does many suspects on 911 mean that many different ppl perpetrated 911? Or does it indicate the weakness of CONspiracy Theories? In real-world criminal investigations having literally dozens of suspects is an indication that the probe is in very deep & serious trouble. The evidence isn't converging to point to one suspect or a few suspects who may have conspired. The evidence against 1 suspect is about as good as the evidence against any other
Which means it's no good at all
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck To 911tard's it seems that the 'more suspects' there are the better off CONspiracy is. If there are a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to perpetrate 911 it must follow that some of them did. Lots of suspects means everybody can have a suspect that they hate. Americans can blame Arabs. Gentiles can blame Jews etc. .... And if blaming 19 Islamofascists isn't sufficiently satisfying everybody can blame George W. Bush
The Shell Game for 911tarded Do Gooders
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck "bin Laden denied doing this on several occasions"
~ So did Lee Harvey Oswald, so what?
"and "terrorists" will ALWAYS claim responsibility for their acts"
~ So did Lee Harvey Oswald when arrested "Well it's all over now"
Yet 7 in 10 kooks still believe he's at best just an accomplise at worse innocent so they can have innocent and loyal American's to hate irrationally in his place. Kooky ? Ya like you.
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago 2
@KookTartsBigFarts1
The official versions of JFK and 9/11 are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, as well as politically meaningless. Therefore something else needs to be true, regardless of how many times you call people kooks. Obviously you aren`t gonna help us find out what that truth is, but at the very least you can shut up and stop insulting the people who will. Finally I would urge you to learn how to spell and write if you wanna have any chance of being taken seriously. And get a brain maybe?
Stagnant197 5 months ago 4
@BigSteve44; Maybe what you should do is listen to the scientific evidence presented and shed your reliance on mainstream propaganda media. If you have ANY scientific background whatsoever, like me - a civil engineering technologist - not only would you KNOW it didn't happen the way they claim, you would comprehend the scientific evidence to that effect presented here and elsewhere. "it is not physically possible" means THE WAY THEY SAY IT DID, not that it didn't happen at all. Wakey!
Dr1Canuckchuck 8 months ago
@Dr1Canuckchuck In any real world criminal probe/historical investigation (911 is both) we expect some of our evidence to be erroneous. Documents record "facts" that turn out to be untrue. Witnesses say things that are wrong & sometimes really wild. But suppose you're not willing to write off documents & witnesses as mistaken
Q : What kind of theories does that lead to?
A : CTer's believing 911 was done by many different ppl, for many different reasons & in many different ways !
KookTartsBigFarts1 7 months ago
A load of rubbish-HEY JIM-aluminum airplanes cannot fly through steel building
Law of Physics
BaNoyes 9 months ago
@BaNoyes
Empire state building...already happened.
The same day a aluminum plane smashed through 3 rings of concrete at the pentagon.
Are you sure about what youre parroting?
ZhugeNaut 8 months ago
@BaNoyes "Law of Fizzic's"
The Laws of Kinetic energy :
Ke = 1/2 mass x velocity squared
250,000Ib's divide by 2 = 125,000
500mph x 500 = 250,000
125,000 x 250,000 = 3,125,000,000 Ib's imparted against the facade with roughly 1/2 transfered as heat to the steel columns upon impact Steel retains heat very well
WTC's absorbed 60x's the impact force as projected by it's design criteria of a 707 going at landing speed of 160mph lost in fog and trying to land
Sorry hillbilly UGS was right
JgarfbiHoover 8 months ago
The crash location is too high for the buildings to be brought down by the planes themselves. At best, the top should have fell off and tipped over.
silenceofthehills 11 months ago
Just from the start of this I could see its the same as always.
You cant violate the laws of nature....blah blah blah.
Humans always work under the assumption that we fully understand the laws of nature. It is an arrogant and pompous assumption.
Secondly steel buildings and aluminum planes and jet fuel are not all natural.
No steel buildings have fallen from fire before 9-11?
How many of those buildings got hit with 767s?
How many got hit with tons of debris on fire?
Apples and airplanes.
ZhugeNaut 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZhugeNaut " No steel buildings have fallen from fire before 9-11?" No steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed completely due to fire prior to or after 911.
"How many of those buildings got hit with 767s?" probably none..the planes did damage and started fires..that still could not lead to a TOTAL collapse.
"How many got hit with tons of debris on fire?" hmm look at buildings 5&6..they got hit with the collapse of both towers and were on fire and neither of them collapsed completely..
lexicon008 11 months ago
@ZhugeNaut
Okay, so explain Building 7. No plane hit it. No jet fuel was present inside. A 'structural fire' burns at most 400°C. The melting point of steel? 2,300°C. If you can give me an explanation for why Building 7 fell to the ground in 6.5 seconds, when no building in HISTORY has ever fallen at that rate, I will bow down to the official story of 9/11. If that were the case, what THE HELL would you need demolition crews for? Just light a building on fire to bring it to the ground.
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@danok
Demolition crews cannot and would not knock a building down that is on fire. Secondly the fire dept is not a contrlled demolition co. I am not sure what you are referring to.
2300 degrees? Melting point for steel? Whats the temp required to make it pliable? Less then 1/2 that right?
You are ignoring that 2 110 story buildings ejected lit debris 500 ft in all directions.7 was 300 ft.
You want to see for yourself the conditions of 7 on 911 look on my videos. I discuss my perspective there.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut
I'm amazed at the level of inanity that exists in the world. Okay, I'll humour you for a moment and say that the government's official story about a 'pancake effect' is true. That one floor fell onto the next and created a downward domino effect. Tell me this, then: How, IN THE HELL, was the concrete of the World Trade Centre PULVERISED into a fine dust? Drop a block on top of another block. What happens? It breaks into LUMPS. Not fucking DUST. Will you people WAKE THE FUCK UP!
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@KKK
What concrete are you referring to?
Do you think the WTC was reinforced concrete?
That dust was mostly drywall and the gypsum based fire proofing.
Somehow you seem to think one floor was collapsing into the others instead of the top 15 floors crashing through one at a time and gathers more weight as it traveled down. It was structural failure.
The pancake collapse is a straw man invented by truthers to knock down.
Like no steel framed buildings ever fell from fire alone. Still true today.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut
Okay, let me explain basic high-school physics to you. A building cannot fall at the rate of free-fall when there is resistance from the floors beneath. It CANNOT happen. That is physics 101. You have 95 floors beneath the aircraft. You're telling me that not ONE of those floors resisted the force coming from above? That's a 500,000-ton building you're talking about. It fell in 11 seconds. To the ground. What part of that makes any sense? 11 seconds. That's a floor every 0.1 seconds
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@danoKKK
It did happen. Sorry. It doesnt matter what the quacks like Steven "Jesus in America" Jones tell you. It happened just like that.
It took about 20 sec to collapse and simple physics he says.....
You dont even know how to count. So let me ask the question then. Do you think that the 15 floor stack crashing through the bulding was not picking up debris on it way down. Bending the beams into horse shoes?
Just because you cant wrap your brain around something..doesnt validate ur theory.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut
So explain building 7. I ask this question of every moron who says 9/11 happened the way the government said it did, and NONE can answer that question. Most avoid it altogether, in fact. What does that tell you? You have NO PLANE, NO JET FUEL, and a 47-storey structure which fell into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds. Because of a fire? What was it you said about no steel structure ever falling because of fire? So explain Building 7.
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@danoKKK
I am a NYer. Where were you on 9-11? Did you see building 7 leaning on its side? Did you see the 10 floor hole from the debris?
Havent you wondered why you only see 1 side of the building? Why dont you try looking at video from North,South,East and west. Instead of watching the side the 'truthers' show you.
I am not saying it happened 'exactly' as the govt suggests. I am saying what NIST suggests is more likely then: mini nukes,energy weapons,exotic incendiaries and the like
Why dont u?
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@danoKKK
Moron? That is a compliment from someone parroting his information about a national tragedy from:
Steven Jesus in America Jones
Alex Fema Camp Jones and any other quack that cant get a job in the real world. Yes. Explain building 7. Again because you cannot wrap your head around something does not make another assumption you have about the same matter any more valid.
I think someone coined it as:' The argument from incredulity'
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@ZhugeNaut
I noticed you failed -- AGAIN -- to offer me an explanation for building 7. Or, for that matter, any explanation for how a building can fall uniformly to the ground in 6.5 seconds when not ONE PLANE, nor ANY JET FUEL, was present in said building. And while I'm at it, explain this one. Never in aviation history has there been a case where the flight-data recorders were not recovered. Yet all four were never found at Ground Zero. Keep believing the lies your government feeds you.
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@daokkk
I dont have to answer another question until you do.
I already explained buiding 7. I have a video on it and explained to you here.
Answer the questions.
HERE IS A BIG FUCKING HINT
NO PLANES, NO JET FUEL.. RIGHT
DEBRIS FROM BUILDINGS THAT GOT HIT WITH PLANES AND HAD JETFUEL IN THEM. DEBRIS THAT WAS ON FIRE FROM 2 110 story buildings less then 300 ft away.
Im not talking about data recordres..Are you a no planer?"
Watch my videos on 9.11. See what happened to 7 with your own eyes.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danokkkrock "when not ONE PLANE, nor ANY JET FUEL, was present in said building"
Is this kooktart trying to be funny? The fkg building burns for 4 hrs straight with fires on several floors and the only thing this momo can offer is his 'Message of Hate' against God only knows who? Typical YT asswipe who is now sore his funding from bin Laden got cut off.
Live with it and remember next time ....
Put brain in gear before engaging mouth stewpid shit
JgarfbiHoover 8 months ago
@ZhugeNaut i gotta say,zhuge...maybe you should check out wtc7 on youtube.Idk about u,but up until last year in 2010 I didnt even know that building went down that same horrible day.Hell,I didnt even know it fell,period.....and neither has anyone I've asked in the last year.Plz,zhuge...plz check out all related vids 2 WTC7.I can tell by ur speech(expletives aside) that ur not an idiot....you've just been told the same BS as the rest of us and none of us,except a small amount,even questioned it.
READY2REVOLT2DAY 8 months ago
@ZhugeNaut sorry,zhuge....mixed up who i wanted to send that too.....meant 2 send that last message 2 danokkk.Sorry bout that ,man.I c we're on the same side,lol:)
READY2REVOLT2DAY 8 months ago
By the way: The core of the World Trade Centre was made from a mixture of reinforced steel AND concrete. Look it up.
danokkkrock 9 months ago
@danokkk
The reinforced concrete...core. You mean foundation? There is a difference. The trusses and beams(all of the floors above the foundation) were not reinforced by concrete. The foundation was.
I have. The core was still standing in the midst of the rubble. Do you have anything else?
Please get your information from more then one source before you spout of nonsense. You are asking all the wrong questions.
Dont ask me what the right questions are. Find out yourself.
ZhugeNaut 9 months ago
@oOBunnyackOo
You have to look to find
fatchancer 11 months ago
@oOBunnyackOo ANSWER HIM !
"but what happened to all the ppl of the pentagon flight? all dissapeared?"
"Believe it or not bunnybrains even plane accidents were the plane didn't hit a friggen building there's not often anything left of humans except bits and pieces, kibbles and bits. Get it?"
ARE PPL BORN STEWPID THESE DAYS ?
10Faenorr 11 months ago
@10Faenorr Let me ask you a couple of questions, why did Silverstein announce that the decision was made to 'pull Building 7?' How does one make the decision to 'pull' a building that quickly unless the building was set up in advance to be 'pulled'? Also, why did the reporter from the BBC announce that Building 7 had come down a full half hour before it actually came down?
lbcerg7 11 months ago
@lbcerg7 NYFD's efforts (operation) to save his building. The fire chief was commenting that they had "already had a tremendous loss of life" & Silverstein interrupted by saying well then "pull it" (the operation) meaning abandon the operation. Sounds much more plausible than "lets hate the Jew" CONspiracy mumble made for tards w/too much time on their hands eh? There are so many imponderable leaps of imagination that have to be hurdled in order for "pull it" to become reality
KookTartsBigFarts1 11 months ago
@lbcerg7 According to 11 demolition companies contacted by 'Hardfire' host Ronald Wieck, "Pull It" is not, nor has it ever been, an industry term meaning "to bring down with explosives". These companys are: Brandenburg Industrial Service Company, Vaccaro Construction, Drop-A-Box, A-1 Affordable Construction Company, Jersey Shore Demolition, Bluegrass Companys, EJB Global Services, Demolition Consultants, Robinette Demolition Inc. Cutting Technologies, Controlled Demolition Inc.
KookTartsBigFarts1 11 months ago
@lbcerg7 "How does one make the decision to 'pull' a building that quickly unless the building was set up in advance"
The firefighters on the scene after watching the building burn for 4 hours reported they heard ominous sounds that steel makes before failing. Didn't take a crystal ball or wigi-board to figure out that building was under threat of iminent collapse.
"BBC announce that Building 7 had come down a half hour before it came down?"
It's called getting the scoop on your competitors
KookTartsBigFarts1 11 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 sorry but you miss several significant issues..1 the fires in building 7 were started by some mysterious source..the claims that it was from debris from the towers is false since there were witnesses in the buildings that describe it being on fire and explosions going off prior to the towers collapses
2 No one..even a fire department chief..ever refers to his men as an IT..he refers to THEM. So saying that PULL IT refered to an operation is ludicrous at best
lexicon008 11 months ago
@KookTartsBigFarts1 "Didn't take a crystal ball or wigi-board to figure out that building was under threat of iminent collapse." True..to a point..the building was in danger of collapse..partial or otherwise..but it never should have been able to collapse as it did..with any kind of free fall component as is demonstrated many times by various sources. No building can freefall collapse unless all the structural members are severed simultaneously and fire quite simply cannot do that.
lexicon008 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oOBunnyackOo "but what happened to all the people of the pentagon flight? all dissapeared?"
Believe it or not bunnybrains even plane accidents were the plane didn't hit a friggen building there's not often anything left of humans except bits and pieces, kibbles and bits. Get it?
VinnyDickWad 1 year ago
Pentagon shooter was a '9/11 Twoother' .... !
ARLINGTON, Va. 2 Pentagon police officers, Jeff Amos and Marvin Carraway were shot and the suspected gunman dead following a shoot-out. AP reports Internet postings under the screen name "JPatrickBedell" that the gunman harbored resentment for & had doubts about the U.S. military-was determined to see justice in the 9/11 attacks. The writer said his actions would reveal the truth behind the 9/11 attacks
ANOTHER KOOKTARD OF CONspiracy GUILTY !
10Faenorr 11 months ago
@10Faenorr I suggest that you study the 'Monarch program!'
lbcerg7 11 months ago
@lbcerg7
A : Here the answer is pretty simple and childish. Silerstein * is Jewish, Jews make good scapegoats. Implicate the Jew and you'll always have a following of like minded CONspiracy hate mongers to pat you on the back and say "good job". The right answer? No, but thats what happens when you exonerate the guilty in order to incriminate the innocent .... Hi-Jacked Back-Ass-Wards History good only for the dust bins of history.
* His own explanation was that "pull it" refered to the
KookTartsBigFarts1 11 months ago
@oOBunnyackOo nah ,nicht, nein
ukufo1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ukufo1 1 year ago
i'm convinced...
titanicdbog 1 year ago
that would only be possible if that column was the only load bearing column in the building and it wasn't..even if the interiour columns all failed due to this single failure, the exterior comlumns would not suddenly sever themselves instantaneously on all floors..there would be significant assymetric damage and collapse since peices would collapse at different rates since the load applied to them would be different as the collapse progressed from that 1 column across the building
lexicon008 1 year ago
and if 1 column caused a systematic failure..you would see an assymetrical collapse event as their sim predicted..but that is not what you see..you see the roof line and walls fall with near perfect symetry save a crimp in the roofline..this is not possible when 1 column fails and then causes a systematic failure..furthermore how did 1 column manage to cause hundred of thousands of welds, bolts and crossmembers to all fail simultaneously..fantasy my friend
lexicon008 1 year ago
so if they started before the collapses..then what started them since the building was not supposed to have suffered damage until the collapses of 1 and 2..and lastly..for all your typing about wtc 7 you still haven't shown how that column failed..what temperature was the steel in the buildings exposed to..how much thermal expansion occured..how was this determined using real world evidence and not computer sim..hell take a look at the computer model and it looks nothing like the collapse
lexicon008 1 year ago
3rd..the wtc7 was set up to be a command center..not wtc1 or 2..if they had any idea that fire was gonna cause a complete collapse of 1 and 2 they would never have set up the command centers there..that would be stupid and suicidal..now answer this..why was the oem abandoned long before the collapses of wtc1 and 2 if it was supposed to be used for such emergencies..and as for when the fires started in wtc 7 ..sorry they started before the collapse of 1&2 according to witnesses in the building
lexicon008 1 year ago
where do i begin with you auther..firstly no one in the investigation teams has stated or proven that the steel that has been saved was the critical collapse causing pieces..thats why that statement was laughable..second..if you wanna argue symantics fine..demolitions cause progressive collapse..now show any non demolition based skyscraper collapse that was caused by fire then the 3 wtc towers..1 of which was a completely different design
lexicon008 1 year ago
If what you say is so true then why did NIST not demonstrate it for wtc 1 and 2..they just said..oh well it got to this point and then the rest was inevitable..really? the only thing that might have been inevitable was a partial collapse of the upper floors..no one expected the whole building to come down or there is no way in hell they would set up a command center in its lobby..that would be suicidal and i dont think hundreds of fireman and police were planning to kill themselves that day
lexicon008 1 year ago
"there is no way in hell they would set up a command center in its lobby"
THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED AROUND IT BEING A COMMAND CENTER FOR DISASTERS IN THE MANHATTAN AREA !
YOU HAVEN'T EVEN STUDIED IT'S DESIGN FEATURES ! FOOL !
auther1046 1 year ago
"that would be suicidal"
The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints, was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building.
auther1046 1 year ago
@auther1046 The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout 1st visible from the exterior w/the crumbling of the east mech. penthouse. Several generators were used by Office of Emergency Management, Storage tanks 24,000 gal's of diesel fuel supplied generators & were located at ground level, up to the 9th floor.
COLLAPSE OF CONSTRUCT !
auther1046 1 year ago
@auther1046 After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. As the North Tower collapsed on 9/11, heavy debris hit WTC7, causing damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom
auther1046 1 year ago
@auther1046 After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors
10Faenorr 1 year ago
@10Faenorr 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief
10Faenorr 1 year ago
@10Faenorr Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel, he decided to "pull it", NYFD terminology for immediate exacuation, expressed when time contraints are paramount. At 5:20:33 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely.
10Faenorr 1 year ago
@10Faenorr In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other buildings.
10Faenorr 1 year ago
@10Faenorr you dont need you leave 50 odd comments. 1 or 2 will suffice thank you very much
titanicdbog 1 year ago
@10Faenorr That's just stupid, why did Silverstein announce the decision to 'pull it?' Why would he say that publicly if it came down from damage from fires ignited by debris from the other buildings? SILVERSTEIN ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION TO 'PULL IT.'
lbcerg7 11 months ago
@lbcerg7 "why did Silverstein announce the decision to 'pull it?'"
You're confusing the issue of firefighters pulling by cables a unstable building and the fantasy that Silerstein somehow had command over the NYFD? Now "That's [not] just stupid" thats 3rd grade DUMB.
Q : Now "Why would he say that publicly"?
A : To incrimnate himself with jailtime? Best way to get his insurance payoff?
Next time try asking yourself
Q : 'What does this scenario imply"
KookTartsBigFarts1 11 months ago
@auther1046 extending at least 10 flrs. The prinkler system had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure, required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers
auther1046 1 year ago
"THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ! ALL OTHER PIECES WOULD BE USELESS !"
Are you fucking serious..a progressive collapse has NEVER occured in a steel skyscraper in history and they knew exactly which 200 or so caused it by sight alone?? that is the most obsurd statement I have heard. Any forensic analysis of a collapse should follow NFPA standards and that means a COMPLETE analysis of ALL the steel to determine how the undamaged structure failed
lexicon008 1 year ago
"a progressive collapse has NEVER occured in a steel skyscraper in history"
WRONG !
YOU MEAN NO PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE OF A SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION TYPE, PROGRSSIVE COLLAPSE'S OCCUR EVERY TIME A BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED !
auther1046 1 year ago
So whats the problem bud..i have asked you some simple questions..if your story is so beleiveable and easy to prove then answer them..don't dance around them..don't make statements that are completely ridiculous or irrelevant to the subject..answer the questions..prove me wrong..you either won't because your a coward, you don't have a clue what your arguing or you can't prove your claims..which is it..you can insult me all you want but until you answer these simple questions you are nothing
lexicon008 1 year ago
'THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !'
LMAO that is such a laughable statement as you dont even know what peices of steel they examined..NIST examined them and tried to claim they were from the fire zone then changed their story when tests showed the steel wasn't exposed to enough temperature to even soften..so if they didnt come from the impact zone they obviously didnt cause the collapse...nice try..you fail again
lexicon008 1 year ago
If the charges are so insane then why didn't NIST submit their paper for peer review..why only allow 3 weeks to digest a 7 year in the making report..why then complain when people balk at thier physics and science and lack of disclosure...and the Natgeo vid your refering to is a totally different one from the oen involving the pancake theory..it was their attempt to show that a plane did hit the pentagon and that fire could cause steel to fail..both tests were a joke and not even near reality
lexicon008 1 year ago
'So know the building owner is part of the Officialdom who gives commands to NYFD when fighting fires in buildings eh?' again you dance around the question...he used the word "it" to describe a group of people..why..you claim it was an "operation" he was refering to..that is ridiculous as i have pointed out..no one refers to a group of people as an "it"..you refer to a group of people, be they part of an operation or not, as a THEY..the it he was refering to was wtc7 plain and simple
lexicon008 1 year ago
"LMAO that is such a laughable statement" I've ever heard, so why did you make it?
"..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands"
THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !
ALL OTHER PIECES WOULD BE USELESS !
auther1046 1 year ago
WTC 7 "Pull It" By Larry Silverstein
watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
"I remember getting a call from the FD commander told me they were not sure they'd be able to contain the fire ... you know we've had such terrible loss of life .... they decided to 'pull it' as we watched the building collapse"
Seems to me even if they had started demolition proceedure (NYFD not qualified) it would take weeks of preparations to acheive your miraculous demolition.
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
So again..answer this..what started the fires in wtc 7..when did they start..how much temperature was applied to the steel and where in the building..how does NIST know this..how did fire, an assymetrical process, cause a symetrical collapse, simultaneous failures in hundreds of columns and beams..eactly how much thermal expansion occured, where, when and how..and back that up with evidence..not computer models..show the steel examined and who certified the results..i await your answers
lexicon008 1 year ago
Oh by the way, the very theory your supporting was founded by idiots like Avery, Griffin and Gage. And when NatGeo presented to them, they ended up looking like idiots. At one point all 3 of them were quiet and dumbfounded by NatGeos findings !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
And your video of people"examining steel" yeah they looked at it..they might have even touched it..but they did not stand there and do forensic analysis of the steel..they most certainly did not examine the hundreds of thousands of peices of steel from the 3 towers..they could not even explain the meteorites (molten steel and concrete) that were present..so dont try to bullshit people and say they examined the steel..they did not..and could not because most was recycled
lexicon008 1 year ago
"but they did not stand there and do forensic analysis of the steel"
How do you know what they did? Forensic Engineers can look at a piece of steel and give you 10 hrs of disertation on what caused that piece to fail.
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
As for the scientific method..again you have no concept of what you're talking about..when you come up with a theory..you develope your evidence and present it in a peer review process..if your evidence is not valid or defensible then it's wrong and you need a new theory..NIST never even submitted their report for peer review..they limited a 7 year study with thousands of pages of info to 3 week s of public debate..that is hardly enough time for a proper peer review
lexicon008 1 year ago
"NIST never even submitted their report for peer review"
Standard CT practice, wait the prescribed 'Decent Interval', start asking questions (questions are not proof of anything) escalate the charges based upon faulty logic, build upon those charges with suceedingly more ridiculous tirades when those charges have been proven insane ......
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
"WOULD ADMIT TO HAVING HIS BUILDING DEMOLISHED SO HE COULDN'T RECEIVE HIS INSURANCE PAYBACK EH ?"
why do you think he is back pedalling..he shot his mouth off..got caught admitting the demolition and now has to back track and cover it up.
OH and NOVA..those are the tards that started the whole pancake theory that has been rejected by NIST and just about everyone on both sides of the debate..hardly a smoking gun buddy.
lexicon008 1 year ago
In 1997, the Frank Leux Building in Birmingham, Al was demolished by Engineered Demolition, Inc.
"It required a team of experts in construction, explosives, demolition. A controlled demolition requires careful planning by experts. Only the terminally stupid or the paid shill believes the demolition CONSPIRACY THEORY. There is not a shred of evidence to support any PART of that theory.
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
'Is that what Silerstein said he meant? NO !' of course not..he realized he just put his foot in it huge and now had to back pedal
'Oh I see the building owner is now part of the NYFD too eh?' where in my statement did you gleem that .. i stated that never in my time working alongside fire crews have i heard anyone ever refer to them as an 'it' that includes police other fire crews, paramedics, hydro workers or any other groups of people or even individuals
lexicon008 1 year ago
"that includes police other fire crews, paramedics, hydro workers or any other groups of ppl or even individuals"
YOU RAN !
So know the building owner is part of the Officialdom who gives commands to NYFD when fighting fires in buildings eh?
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
auther..your a moron..read the fema report..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands..does that represent a proper sampling? not at all..that would be like taking half a dozen grains of sand off a beach and saying that is a representative sample of the entire beach..nonsense..any valid investigation would need all the steel or a good portion of it to be valid
lexicon008 1 year ago
"..they were able to examine 1..1..piece of steel that was saved for them from wtc 7..there were 200+ pieces from both the towers saved out of hundreds of thousands"
THOSE WERE THE CRITICAL PIECES THAT STARTED THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE !
ALL OTHER PIECES WOULD BE USELESS !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING Please, disregard ANY comments from the following: auther1046, jfiles0000000, cdddraftsman / cdddraftman / cdddraftsmann, MsDrLowery, JgarfbiHoover, 10Faenorr, KookTartsBigFarts1, VinnyDickWad / VinnyCooCooClock / VinnyVoom444 OR anything with "Vinny" in it...After checking back one full year of "JFK" comments, these individuals have made themselves the OVERSEERS of this video pushing filthy comments and comments that are only meant to say the WCR & NIST got it right!
jjammin1812 1 year ago
Comment removed
jjammin1812 1 year ago
The really funny thing is you could have easily said..oh it was just editted to make it seem like he meant the building and not the crews and this led to the belief that is was a cd..but no ..you try to come up with some stupid explanation that "it" means the whole operation when the whole context of the statement was directly related to the building and its collapse.
lexicon008 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "the whole context of the statement was directly related to the building and its collapse"
Is that what Silerstein said he meant? NO !
Does a building owner have authority to demo his own building? NO !
Does Silerstein have authority over the NYFD? NO !
So what you are saying is the building owner and the NYFD were complicite in demolishing WTC7 ?
Pretty kooky.
auther1046 1 year ago
Still waiting for you to answer when the fires started in wtc 7 , how they started, how hot they got, how much thermal expansion there was and how NIST came to that conclusion with no steel to analyse..yet you keep dancing around. You should really try to prove your case rather then make statements that are totally irrelevant to the topic and only show you can't come up with a plausible theory that is defensible..hmm maybe you work for NIST..or should
lexicon008 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "you can't come up with a plausible theory that is defensible"
OPPOSITE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AGAIN !
YOU DON'T HAVE A THEORY SO THE USG THEORY IS THE BEST,MOST CONSISE AND ONLY THEORY THERE IS !
LIVE WITH IT !..
auther1046 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "with no steel to analyse".
I GAVE YOU THE VIDEO WITH FORENSIC ENGINEERS EXAMINING THE STEEL !
AGAIN .... 'NOVA' WHY THE TOWERS FELL !.
"yet you keep dancing around"
auther1046 1 year ago
LOL in the 10+ years i have worked alongside fire crews i have never heard anyone ever refer to them as an "it" when it comes to operations..your excuse is laughable. No one ever refers to a group of people as an it unless they are uneducated or in this case caught in a lie and need to try to make an excuse.
As for you energy calculation..wonderful math..totally irrelevant since buildings right under the collapse didnt simply implode on themselves..nice try though
lexicon008 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "fire crews i have never heard anyone ever refer to them as an "it" when it comes to operations"
Oh I see the building owner is now part of the NYFD too eh?
auther1046 1 year ago
"No Q that a cantilevered steel framed building that was severly damaged & then burnt for 4 hours furiously would eventually collapse" wow really? so again..when and how did these fires start? what caused the damage? How does assymetrical fire cause a symetrical collapse? why would someone..who is refering to a group of people..call them an 'it". Would he not have said pull them as in "maybe the best thing to do is pull THEM out".. because he was talking about the building not the people.
lexicon008 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "maybe the best thing to do is pull THEM out"..
THEY HAD SEVERAL FIRE FIGHTING TEAMS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BUILDING, "IT" REFERS TO THE 'OPERATION' AS A WHOLE, MEANING ALL FIRE FIGHTING TEAMS THAT MAKE UP THE 'OPERATION' TO SAVE THE BUILDING ! NO ONE IS EXCLUDED, ALL FIREFIGHTING TEAMS WERE TO BE WITHDRAWN.
WHAT TF IS WRONG WITH YOUR WORD COMPREHENSION? AS IF THE STUPID MOMO JEW WOULD ADMIT TO HAVING HIS BUILDING DEMOLISHED SO HE COULDN'T RECEIVE HIS INSURANCE PAYBACK EH ?
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
@lexicon008 YOU RAN FROM ANSWERING !
"WOULD ADMIT TO HAVING HIS BUILDING DEMOLISHED SO HE COULDN'T RECEIVE HIS INSURANCE PAYBACK EH ?"
auther1046 1 year ago
Oh and this "overwhelming case" you speak of..how can it be overwhelming when by your own admission its based on photos and videos and a rubble pile alone..where is the actual data that was derived from examining the steel itself? Exactly how much temperature was the steel exposed to and how much thermal expansion occured? Oh sorry..that can't be answered since the steel was all recycled before the investigation..so lets just guess shall we..i mean we're NIST..our guess is the truth isn't it.
lexicon008 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "Oh and this "overwhelming case" you speak of"
331,000,000 kg*10m/s^2*207.5m ~ 686,825,000,000J ~ 700GJ ~ 167tonnes of tnt. This is about the energy released when EACH of the towers when they collapsed. This is equivalent of a nuclear artillery shell from the cold war era. That's enough to flatten everything for more than 1/3 of a mile in all directions. Remember there were TWO towers to boot !
YOU'RE JUST A CON-SPIRACY MONGER WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR TIME BUT MUMBLE !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
@lexicon008 "how can it be overwhelming"?
BECAUSE THE SAME HOAXERS WHO HOAXED THE JFK ASSASSINATION STARTED HOAXING THE 911 TRAGEDY !
THATS WHEN I KNEW NOBODY NEEDS ANY DATA OR TESTING, THE KOOKS HAD ARRIVED, CASE CLOSED !
TERMITES EH ? HAHAHAHA !
auther1046 1 year ago
well cdd you have just proven why your words have no meaning in a rational debate..the fact that you would endorse a plan to eliminate free speech is an example of a totalitarian nazi philosophy. And as for not having a job..i have one sir..i work in the medical field..unfortunately i have to save idiots like you daily from their own stupidity or deal with the aftermath when someone like you hurts or kills some innocent person.
lexicon008 1 year ago
9/11 Debunked: Debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory, one at a time.
Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Explained
watch?v=43F54hR0NW8
As if you didn't know it all along, you disloyal weasel Anti-American rats !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 believers are not only stupid they're ignorant of past hoaxs perpetrated by the same people. For example :
Co-founder of the 911 truther movement Jim Fetzer (aka Fetztardo Di Vinci) was tossed out of the JFK assassination hoaxing community because his oneupmanship equated into theories so preposterous and bizarre they could NOT be believed, and were too hard to memorise all the lies contained in them, so they became basically useless to the movement.
Bowel or otherwise ....
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rodgilbert1977 "FUCK YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:on that day, those fucking scumbags killed my wife, my child, and my father. IF I FUCKING SEE ANY OF YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH"
end quote
We sure could use some disipline around here DATS FER SURE EH?
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Critics of these CT's say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which CT's emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the CT's are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an eng. prof. at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion & then hail their findings as the only conclusion."
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for building failure based on the physical characteristics of the collapse documented in photo's & videos of the event & the rubble pile that resulted. No Q that a cantilevered steel framed building that was severly damaged & then burnt for 4 hours furiously would eventually collapse. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that no brainer out.
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
you seem to love to try and distract from the subject..you go off on some strange diatribe but never actually provide any proof, relavent info or evidence that would remove reasonable doubt..your like all the other debunkers..you just start calling people idiots and kooks but can't actually debate them with facts because your facts don't stand up to scrutiny..but don't worry..if the government gets its way the 1st amendment will be removed and anyone who speaks out will be jailed or worse
lexicon008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lexicon008 "if the government gets its way the 1st amendment will be removed and anyone who speaks out will be jailed or worse"
* EXCELLENT IDEA HR 1955 THE BEST IDEA CONGRESS HAS HAD EVER ! I SUGGEST "WORSE" AS A SOLUTION TO YOU INBREED UNEDUCATED INEBRIATED SLOVIC HILLBILLY'S THAT RUMOR MONGER IN PLACE OF HAVING A JOB !
* CAN YOU SAY "WOULD YOU LIKE FRY'S WITH THAT ORDER SIR" ? GO GET A JOB STFU AND STAND DOWN !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
cdd you fail to see that the EOC was already on fire long before the collapse of the 2 towers..this is not what was reported in the official story..so if it was on fire prior to being hit by anything then who or what started those fires??
the pentagon hit was a convenient way to get rid of the evidence of trillions of missing dollars that rumsfeld publically admitted the day before. The info was in that particular section of the building..just as the evidence against worldcom was in wtc7
lexicon008 1 year ago
Under any normal investigative standards, all parts of the crime area will be kept at another site until all evidence is thoroughly investigated. 9/11 was treated like a grand cover-up from the beginning. The metals were gathered and shipped out of the country as fast as possible...MASSIVE COVER-UP...but by who?
Becky8648 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Becky8648 "the plan to demolish WTC Bldg 7 was NEVER admitted by anyone"
* Is that surprising since it's a CONstruct of the CONspiracy Hoaxing Criminals?
* What is really stupid is to think 'THEY' would demolish their own emergency headquarters for the entire Manhatten area?
* Thats as stupid a CONstruct as the military attacking the Pentagon? Why TF would 'THEY' do that? Why TF wouldn't 'THEY' attack the Demo-ratic Congress & get rid of some of those (D) commy's instead HON?
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Becky8648 "OWNER SAYING "WE DECIDED TO 'PULL-IT' (a term in the field of Demolitions)"
Demolition experts NEVER use that term. That term is used in fire fighting language when a structure is in imminent danger of collapse but isn't falling, cables are attached to a portion of a building and a fire engine operator is given the order to 'pull-it' in hopes of speeding up the process. Why TF would an 'implosion' order by 'explosives' be called something completely unrelated? You are BIZARRE
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
@cdddraftsman You're full of shit! "Controlled Demolition Inc." was asked "Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?" CDI: "Pull it is when they actually pull it down." If the building is burning beyond control, who's going to run in and place explosives OR place cables so the fire truck can pull the building down. The building fell as if it was demolished, it basically imploded. USE YOUR EYES AND YOUR HEAD.
jjammin1812 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jjammin1812 "If the building is burning beyond control, who's going to run in and place explosives"
WHO TF SAID ANYONE "RAN IN AND PLACED EXPLOSIVES" DUMBSHIT ? THE BUILDING BURNT FOR 4 STRAIGHT HOURS FOUR TIMES LONGER THAN WTC'S !
"OR place cables so the fire truck can pull the building down"
SOP DURING BATTLE OF BRITAIN TO UP TILL TODAY ! THE BUILDING WAS STARTING TO MAKE OMINOUS SOUNDS SO THEY EXACUATED THE AREA BY "PULLING NYFD OUT" OF THE AREA YA STUPID DUMB SHIT !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
@cdddraftsman Hey dumb shit, your words to Becky8648..."That term is used in fire fighting language when a structure is in imminent danger of collapse but isn't falling, cables are attached to a portion of a building and a fire engine operator is given the order to 'pull-it' in hopes of speeding up the process." YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS SHIT FOR BRAINS!
jjammin1812 1 year ago
you wanna talk proof..fine..show me how nist came to the conclusion that fire alone brought down wtc7..show me how they established definitivly the temperature the steel was subjected to and how much "thermal expansion" occured..id like to see it since all the steel was recycled long before they began their investigation..so their proof is completely imagined..yet you defend them
lexicon008 1 year ago
if NIST is so sure that their theory is the only one that fits why do they refuse to let people examine the computer sims..why do they not completely disprove explosives..not just say they likely werent involved..eliminate them ..why do they deny the obvious inability for fire to symetrically collapse a building..they deny deny deny the obvious..im not scientist but even i can see they are full of crap
lexicon008 1 year ago
cdd your on crack..when 1 person like you says something that doesnt make it true..when thousands are saying it with EVIDENCE to back it up then there may be validity to it..you can say anything you want..the first amendment allows that..proving it is totally another thing..you would have no hope in hell proving your statement..the 911 truth movement has evidence and alot at that..its close minded sheep like you that just spew the governments story ad nauseum and that is the problem
lexicon008 1 year ago