Added: 4 years ago
From: ebasebiz
Views: 23,177
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (198)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Bin Laden didn't blow up the towers, that was your nigger

  • Why don't you use this evidence to take the U.S government to court? Or if they are all full of Alien Zionist Jews why not show the BBC or Al Jazeera? Maybe they could run a special report on how ebasebiz the distinguished structural engineer has proved that explosives were used.

  • u should have showed C fall to ground same time as B like it happened. Ae911truth Experts GO

  • figure C = free fall, 9.1seconds

    figure B = official version: 12.6 seconds (with resistance from the remaining 96 floors).

    12.6 - 9.1 = 3.5 seconds

    so it only took 3.5 seconds to destroy the RESISTANCE of the remaining 96 floors.

    wow.

  • @SpaceAudio You said, "so it only took 3.5 seconds to destroy the RESISTANCE of the remaining 96 floors. wow."

    -But your not counting the time that 'the spire' stood. Also, do you have video of the last 30 or so stories collapsing? If so, please link. Everything I've seen has each collapse obscured by the debris clouds for the bottom third of the towers.

  • @mikerowphone Well whatever conclusion you end up at it is refreshing to see someone being objective and at least trying to learn all there is to know scientifically. For instance so many people have tried to argue against me without even understanding the 3 basic laws of motion written by Newton many decades ago. or even knowing the corner stone equations of physics themselves such as F=ma or D=vm. I wont sway you to try to think like me. I'll only encourage you to learn everything you can.

  • @mikerowphone you are clearly disinfo ... the more i read your posts, the more of a scumbag you are.

  • @mikerowphone .... hey asshole .... explain why the hijackers are alive? explain why 9/11 Rescue Workers are dying from rare radiation-related sicknesses? explain why the Sears Tower was evacuated? explain why the 85% of the WTC towers turned to dust? explain why there is virtually zero evidence of a "plane" hitting the Pentagon? explain why the Pentagon is unwilling / unable to produce a single fucking video showing F77? you are truly a moron or you are a disinfo agent ... you pick.

  • @mikerowphone and i love the point where you show up to this conversation, with nothing interesting to add, and just spew nonsense you degenerate fuckball. Dimitri's expertise is in explaining how the WTC were demolished using underground nuclear detonations. He now only provides overwhelming evidence and incredibly sound logic in his testimony, but he also answers virtually all unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. But go ahead and ignore all that fuckball shove your "hahaha" up your ass.

  • This video forgot to include that building are literally stored energy, ALL of that energy is already directed downward. F=ma, if any sizable mass of the building begins falling or collapsing for any reason that energy and mass is falling STRAIGHT down in the form of force. if that force exceeds the amount of resistance met by the floors below it then those floors will also begin to fall and the entire mass will begin to fall even faster since there is now more force to counter resistence

  • This 'controlled demolition' stuff makes no sense. Assuming that Bush-Hitler-monkey wanted to "Lie-us-into-an-illegal-war-fo­r-his-oil-buddies," why did the buildings HAVE to fall?

    America wouldn't go to war just because several thousand citizens were burned alive? - "I don't know, Mildred. If the buildings came down, maybe. But it seems like an overreaction to me!"

    The other targets were most likely the White House (Pentagon as secondary target) and the Capitol. Still no enough?

  • @fascistcat Fair questions. Watch the Dimitri Khalezov documentary on my channel and the events of 9/11 will become very clear. As for motives for 9/11 (why do it), all answers are speculation ... scaring the public into giving up freedoms so the gov. can make us "safe", excuse to declare war on "terror", which then makes it easy to justify invading any country deemed a thread (eg. Iraq) , Israel connection, NWO and one-world-government ambitions.

  • If only ALL americans were smart enough to understand this video.. regardless of the implications

  • @spaceparty88 I would hope that even a freshmen in high school would have payed attention to recognize the flaws in this video. There is SO MUCH empirical data that is left out of this video. no definition or explanation of what resistance really is, no use of the Force equals mass times acceleration formula, no explanation or attention of the relation between stored energy and gravity. If I were a physics professor I would have to invent a grade lower than F- to give to this video.

  • It`s always tempting to fill an information vacuum with "facts" that one favors. When 911 happened I accepted it, because shit does happen and has happened at the very same site before, except that it was a truck loaded with explosives instead of 2 hijacked airliners. Shortly after 911 I had no longer any interest in this event. But now after having examined the way these buildings have collapsed a little closer with the videos posted here. I have definitely changed my mind! Veritas vincit !

  • mind control

    []

    9. why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers ...?

    [A] This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted

    ... At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

    NIST - Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

    []

    So, what caused the DEMOLITION of WTC 1 ?

  • Here's a question, which comes out faster Diherrea, or Constpation?

  • steel provided such a strong resistance, that the structure could carry the heavy load for many years. but if the criminal parts of our elites and with them our corrupted media want us to believe that the solid steelstucture stopped doing its job at september 11., all we idiots have to believe it.

    obviously we have enough criminals in our governments, because they do not oppose the deceive.

    .....and we criticize china concerning human rights??????buahhhaahaaa!!!!!!

  • @freidenki our government is the MASTER OF DECEPTION. I can relate what I've seen in my petty little life.

  • @a2zhandi apparently not..cause we know, but those damn Canadians never get caught.

  • @KanapkaDrobakha the masses don't know. (mstrs if dcptn) otherwise, they'd be thrown under the train.

  • @a2zhandi I know...I'm joking...and what's (mstrs if dcptn)...?

  • @KanapkaDrobakha wops, it was early. (masters of deception)

  • @a2zhandi oh thanks

  • Well all videos ive seen so far talk about needing explosives to bring down the buildings, but what about the fuel tanks in the plane: Some sort of explosion ???

  • Isn't asking them to tell the truth like asking a muderer or someone bad that's a liar and hiding to be honest. They can't and won't incriminate themself. So why ASK?

  • The official explanation is merely an insult to the intelligence of every man, woman and child in America, and to argue with anyone that supports the pancake theory is an exercise in futility. The truth is no one actually believes that explosives were not used, but many of our people are willing to support those lies for the political ramifications involved. The only thing that was hijacked on 9/11 were the television airwaves.

  • @JZJYRWO Tho it took some time, there's another thing that was hijacked on 9-11; the US credibility rating.

  • @JZJYRWO 80% of Americans believe the government is hiding evidence of aliens and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. There is no evidence for the use of explosives what so ever.

  • ,@TheHungrySnail Fires were smoldering underneath ground zero for months after 9/11 city workers were seen pumping water into the ground with fire hoses to cool the earth more than 8 years after the blast. That's evidence of China Syndrome. There were cars and fire engines parked around the towers of which all of the windows were blown out and steel charred black from heat. One other incident in history caused as much radiation and that was Hiroshima. What terrorist group caused that?

  • @JZJYRWO So you are saying there was a nuclear explosion?

  • @TheHungrySnail I am saying that we have positively ascertained that it was a type of nuclear device. I do not guess or make assertions based on theories or rumors. I am a local resident and I made a commitment to ascertain exactly how the event was orchestrated. We have hard evidence and the laws of physics to back our findings. I can see that you're a successful person that is happy with the system, and you won't be able to put these facts into perspective. Have fun while you still can buddy.

  • @JZJYRWO Where is this evidence? I'm all ears. Enlighten me.

  • @TheHungrySnail You have already forgotten what I said two hours ago?

  • @JZJYRWO Show me evidence that suggests only a 'nuclear device' could have caused fires underneath ground zero; show me evidence that water was pumped underneath ground zero in 2007 to cool the earth; show me the evidence and laws of physics that back up your findings; show me evidence that radiation can blow out windows and that it has not happened since the second world war. What is china syndrome? Also explain how this device was used to make the towers collapse.

  • @TheHungrySnail You can "Google" every one of the questions you have asked me and find numerous news archives to support them. Or you can pay me a college tuition and I will do it all for you. Your choice.

  • The tower did not fall at free fall speed,only portions of it did that were pushed away and fell when the collpapse started. Search "North Tower spire,Best Views",you will see that a large portion of the inner structure was intact several seconds after the floors and exterior collapsed,you can see the vertical beams with remains of horizontal supports still attached,they begin to sway with nothing to keep them on center and eventuually break off and fall. Thanks for the coon music

  • Thanks for the great music but now you owe me a new pair of speakers.

  • if it happens once it's a accident, if it happens twice it's a coincident, but a 3rd time is a plan unfolding!!

  • Ok the steel failed because of the intense heat(and other factors) but main reason they say was heat!! So i wonder if you were to get a peice of steel(1/4 inch thick 12"X12") and take all the combustible material's inside those building's(capet,paper,wood...­ect) including the fuel, and recreate weight load on the steel, light fire to the material's and wait, , call me when it collapses.....

  • @SullivanSean1 It must have melted, otherwise where did all the molten metal originate from?

  • @kilahchris It annoys me how people just perfunctorily throw around the term "conspiracy theorist". It's a clever tactic disseminated by the media to quickly stifle any sort of productive discussion because it encourages people to regurgitate it when confronted with any information contrary to their beliefs and circumscribes people's critical thinking. Also, you should keep in mind that since 9/11 the US has waged two illegal wars which constitutes mass murder on a far wider scale than 9/11.

  • A FIRE BURNS HOT AT ONE SIDE COOLER THE OTHER ..SO THE BUILDING WOULD NOT FALL IN PERFICT HARMONY...THIS IS WHAT I KNOW AS A HUMAN AN D SMARTER THAN THE LIARS OF THE WORLD

  • I think these conspiracy theories having created a mass hysteria. George Bush and the U.S govt do not need to kill 2000 innocent people in order to manipulate the public to go to war with Iraq. They are far more faster and more efficient ways to accomplish that. Richard Nixon was forced to resign because of watergate, Bill Clinton was shamed by lewinsky scandal. Why Would George Bush commit a treasonous act that could easily be linked back to his administration.

  • @kilahchris if you got the mass media under control.....

    for example Bilderberg (no conspiracy) who is attending with guys out of indutry, banking, politics, royals, ah yes the media, mhhh i thougt the media always speaks the truth?

  • Im not going to go as far as saying that the Government was behind this catastrophe. But I am 90 percent confident in my mind that their accounts of what happen that day are not accurate. The laws of physics and science can better explain what could of happen. I just find it hard to believe that the jet fueled fire can melt the steal structure so quickly and that the weights of the iron structure of the floors above impact zone brought the whole building down.

  • yeah yeah pick me i know the answer , its STEEL , where is my present now ?!!!! :D

  • And you say that you don't believe in conspiracy theories? Well, why do you believe in the conspiracy theories made by the government? Let me be frank. A female spy agent used to work for the British MI5. She has now left MI5 because she did not like the false flag operations that were being conducted by her agency. She says that false flag operations are a poltical reality and is fervent in her belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Not my words but hers, from an ex British spy agent.

  • Oh the government and administration love the American people so much that the environment department told people that it is safe to breathe in the air around the towers. Many fire fighters, workers and civilians have died, amd made sick from the toxic air breathed around the towers, and many more are still dying. So go on believing in your government who cares not about your health and tell lies. I give up on you people. You never learn. 9/11 was a false flag operation you fools.

  • Where do these dumb idiots come from who still propose that fires were responsible for the weakening of three steel structured sky scrapers that neatly and symmetrically fell into its own footprint at a fast rate? Oh, I'm sorry! Your government told you that it must be so! Have any of you seen videos of other buildings in the past where fires have burned for 24 hours and still the building structures stood? Oh of course everything is possible on 9/11. I. too believe in Santa Clause.

  • Youre all insane, and I think you would be hilarious if the Alex Jones cult wasnt quite so frightening in its insanity.

    When you all grow up you will realise that real life is not like a movie. 99.99999% of the time things are EXACTLY as they appear.

    You cant take these people (who are making millions for selling you this bullshit) seriously, when the entire worlds scientific community just laughs at them, and disproves their "theories" in minutes.

    Loose Change? Debunked in 1hr 30mins. FACT!

  • 9/11 was an inside job. everything was planned. from the point of plane impact to the start of the demolition. NIST have admitted free fall speed for the top of the north tower and building 7. open your eyes

  • You are thinking on too small of a scale. It's hard to bend a rod of steel by placing it over an open space, But if you made a 100X larger scale, it would probably break itself.

  • Simple and brilliant!

  • This is nonsense, after 14 seconds there were still 40 stories left to fall, they didn't fall anywhere near freefall speed. Also, I really don't understand where people get this idea that the government must've been behind it when the real people responsible have been bragging about it ever since (along with threatening more attacks). Puffs of smoke as the building collapsed were caused by rapidly increasing pressure as thousands of tons of metal fell.

  • @freakyphysicsguy i am not trying to imply anithing, but here is the deal:

    If a government has the power to do an inside job, wouldn't it find someone to blame? history repeats hitself: in vietnam a Navy ship was attacked by a PT... yeah, all bollocks to me

    governments do this all the time... 40 mil dollars to investigate clinton but only 600k to investigate 9/11?

    dont think that 9/11 theories are like the other conspiracies written by delusional/paranoid young adults who wear tin foil hats

  • @DeathAdder187 And why not? Why arent they EXACTLY like those other conspiracies?

    In fact, they are EXACTLY the same. They get a few morons to say "this is PROOF" and all the nutjobs say "well thats it, its proven", regardless of what tens of thousands of people saw, and what has actually BEEN proven.

    This video is nonsense. Noone has EVER stated they fell that fast except for these lunatics, and it did NOT fall at freefall. None of them did, not even close.

    7 "maintained" freefall for 2 seconds

  • You can time the free fall collapse yourself as there is video footage of these events as you might be aware. I timed it with a Timex watch at 10 seconds. The laws of physics do not change. This is the important part. The laws of physics do not change. This means it is PROOF! This timing of the collapse is PROOF because physics do not change. It is not about how many say something you dolt. It is about the PHYSICS. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT CHANGE!!!! It does not matter what people saw

  • @tropophyte Nope, still not true.

    You timed it in YOUR way, to get the results YOU wanted, simple as that.

    Considering that both towers fell at very different speeds, you obviously DIDNT get 10 seconds, did you?

    The first one took 12, the second almost 20. That is NOT freefall, not even close.

    If it was freefall you wouldnt be able to see the debris falling FASTER than the buildings, right?

    The DEBRIS is falling at freefall speed as it has no resistance, and its overtaking the building, right?

  • The people you think are real people are statements written in ink. How can you prove to us they actually made those statements? How can you believe what you hear on a propaganda network, come on here, and call that fact? Dolt. The Laws of Physics do not change. The collapse happened at near free fall speeds. If the USA didn't do it, they would be pretty concerned how the explosives got in there I'd assume. Therefore their lack of concern proves they are behind it all.

  • @blazingbiz well our culture is constantly assailed by mediatic dirty bombs, our legal system is under siege, where judges agree that corporation can finance political campaigns so that the wars fomented by the Jewish elite look like the burden of the Anglo-European warmongers, where in fact is only part of the "blame the other" plan.

    Between Arab extremists and Jewish opinion leaders, yes I can clearly state that we have been taken over, yet we haven't realised that yet.

  • @blazingbiz Sorry but didn't in fact the Middle East take over the West?

  • I'm sorry the deliberate murder of 3000 of your fellow citizens is such a joke to you.

  • @tropophyte You must have the wrong person the murder of any human being, no matter his race color or religion is a disgrace and far from being a joke.

  • This video fails. You are comparing the steel tower to a solid column of water. The WTC was largely empty space, and your argument doesn't consider this. The simple answer is air provides the least resistance, then a concrete and steel building (keeping in mind it is mostly air), then water. The buildings were designed to take certain weight loads when fully intact. When that overall structural integrity was weakened, there was little the rest of building could resist.

  • @KidMeatball You obviously need to take a refresher course in physics ...I hope you are kidding if you think water has more resistance than concrete,steel and the air between the floors ... LOL

  • @skibee50 You are still comparing vastly different structures. The two that are most similar are the steel and concrete structure (representing WTC1) and the column of air. The column of water is much different for a number of reasons. The most important is density. The water has a much higher density than the air. In the case of the building, the water wins out in uniform density. The building has pockets of greater density but it is still mostly air.

    Ever see a boat sink?

  • I've never seen a boat sink that was sitting on top of a steel skyscraper!

  • @KidMeatball Here is a lesson for you ...go to MIT channel and look up Lec.12 /8.01 Physics 1 : Classical Mechanics / Fall 1999 sorry you tube will not let me post link. Look only if you want to learn something about the world YOU live in !

  • No they are comparing the steel to air. They are making the point that steel has more density and resistence than water does to help you think clearly about the physics. According to your logic the density of the steel is equivalent to that of air, and it is not equivalent. That is the point. The towers collapsed as if they were sitting on air (10 seconds freefall). The fact that this is insanely impossible is the point here. This point proves explosives were inside to hasten the fall.

  • No they are comparing the steel to air. They are making the point that steel has more density and resistence than water does to help you think clearly about the physics. According to your logic the density of the steel is equivalent to that of air, and it is not equivalent. That is the point. The towers collapsed as if they were sitting on air (10 seconds freefall). The fact that this is insanely impossible is the point here. This point proves explosives were inside to hasten the fall.

  • @tropophyte Steel does have more resistance than both water and air. The WTC buildings were not solid blocks of steel, and so have less density than water, and only slightly more than air. You (and the creator of the video) are confusing maximum density to average density.

    The towers did not collapse in ten seconds. This is a myth. There is ample video proving the collapse was longer.

  • @KidMeatball The fall speed of both towers was NEAR 10 sec freefall = 9.6 ft/sec. Also this representation is perfectly logical as resistances are being presented not matter the density. Also I disagree with the buildings not being solid blocks of steel as the core members of the building were welded together multiple multiple multiple times on each floor, and of each foot of height. Welding joins to separate metal pieces into one piece therefore in my opinion they were one metal block.

  • @NaturalGroundation You have been misled. The fall of both towers was not near ten seconds. All the videos clearly show debris from the collapse falling (freefalling) much faster than the rest of the building.

    Welding columns together doesn't make them one solid block. The point I am making is that the towers were mostly air; something to the effect of 90%, and therefore less uniformly dense than water.

  • good music- what is it- lol :)

  • the French demolition technique called 'vèrinage' and the DEMOLITION of WTC 1, 2 and 7 all share a common feature.

    they are all CONTROLLED demolitions.

    Simple observation proves this.

    unfortunately, iamgoddard cannot share with fellow YouTubers one single reason that the DEMOLITION of wtc 1, 2 and 7 appeared to be unCONTROLLED demolitions.

    Jedi Mind Trick: Stagger the mind

    "... they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation"

    Adolf Hitler

  • corporate droids,

    RU prepared for the future?

    seems your corporate masters have been withholding some critical information from you.

    how long has the American oil industry been in terminal decline?

    you are expendable. the joyride is about over and you are not prepared.

    you have supported the American way of death. soon you will reap what you have sown.

    For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:

    Hosea 8:7

  • 9-11-01 and oil

    "Knowledge withheld is power gained."

    Aleister Crowley

    in over 6 years of asking my fellow Americans how long the American oil industry has been in terminal decline only one person knew the correct answer.

    information control = mind CONTROL

    American serfs (soldiers) consider it an honor to die so their corporate masters enjoy obscene profits.

    European and Asian countries prepare for future using American technology and often with the assistance of American companies.

  • Adolf Hitler probably said it best.

    "The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

    I have shown the air or steel puzzle to people countless times. without even knowing its relation to 9-11-01 , with the exception of one person, everyone has been undecided.

    in over 6 years of asking U.S. citizens how long the American oil industry has been in terminal decline have had only one person know correct answer.

    George Bush knew long before 9-11-01.

  • @bIZAROsPRMN11

    Wow, another Hitler fan. You guys are everywhere these days.

  • hitler didnt write mein kampf

    some jezuit priest did

    hitler was a lousy writer,

    he was more of a speaker

    just a puppet

    no hitler fan

    just researching the esoteric agenda

  • Hitler spoke the words which were written down for him. So in effect he did write it. They were his ideas.

  • Here's an important physics lesson:

    watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

    It's a French demolition technique called 'vèrinage' that uses no explosives. Support for just one floor is removed and then the upper section of the building crushes straight down through the lower section to the foundation.

  • But the upper section is pushed on by the section it has to crush through, slowing down it's fall. How does a free-fall collapse work in such a scenario?

  • The wtc towers didn't fall at free-fall speed. Simple observation proves this. Notice that debris falling to the sides falls further faster than the collapse-wave front racing down the towers. So the collapse wave did experience resistance.

    Even Dr Jone's came to admit it's not free-fall speeds. See also: watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

  • No, the debris did not fall out the sides, it EXPLODED out the sides from the force of the explosions that caused the collapse. That's while steel structures were blasted into neighboring structures. Many were attacked heavily, and those buildings did not collapse. Only Bluilding 7 collapsed, but it was victim to less debris and fire than the other buildings.

  • tropophyte wrote: "the debris did not fall out the sides, it EXPLODED out the sides from the force of the explosions that caused the collapse."

    However, the high-explosives you posit would've produced deafening audible signatures, but none were captured by dozens of independent recordings of the WTC collapses. In real controlled demolitions the audible explosive concussions are unmistakable over great distances:

    watch?v=NLkmnc6_syY

    watch?v=jmS36uSdtvw

    High explosives are inherently very loud.

  • Actually, seismic evidence reports a collapse time of 8.4 seconds.

  • not saying not to investigate but if your convinced of one thing then that is what you will want to hear, it could be that rapid construction weakened the concrete and the exterior shell couldn't support its own wieght once it was comprimised

  • there is the simple matter of the structure it's self,

    the weight was supported by the exterior of the building. so the force was not linear it was assemetrical now I don't know for sure that the building collapsed because of the planes

    but these were the only two buildings ever built this way

  • There were 47 internal steel columns measuring 16 inches by 36 inches. These columns were "the core." They supported the structure as well.

  • B wont even get destroyed by dropping such a small part of mass on such a large one it will slip down on the left or right side

  • Unlike the majority of my fellow Americans, whose have been extremely well conditioned to doubt their own mind, I will answer question.

    Intact steel structure will provide more resistance than air. Or, as Gordon Ross states it, more resistance than a vat of custard.

    I see most Americans want to stay in the comfort zone and debate to end of time rather than clearly stating DEMOLITION of WTC 1 and 2 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. It is long past time for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

  • I agree 1000%

  • You forgot to mention building 7.

  • Yeah then people say things like ooh satan did it.

    There where spirits coming out of the clouds and fire like that infamous tikiman face pic on the wtc.

    Yeah I also saw a dj kirby and abunch of other random things in it.

    I also don't believe in god. So yeah I don't really care for the religious aspect of it all cause christian clergies and pastors are good at lying and/or being lyed to.

  • @VoLksempfanger  . im afraid there will never be one, because it is much much bigger than this one incedent

    (cant spell) when this is the tip of the ice burg to a masterful mass deception. if we knew why this was an inside job, thats the big question. for a knee jerk response of public support for amerca to expand its controls of natural resources, i believee its even bigger than this. and a cashless society will be a part of the outcome, world wide. health care bill = total control

  • @VoLksempfanger Nowadays we have people whose job it is to argue and inflame logical argument. These people know full well what the physical laws are and how to apply them - but their "Job" is to debunk that with idiocy and ferment. Stay clear of these people and do not engage them!!

  • An oxy-cetyline torch produces very black smoke when the oxygen is turned down due to inefficienct burning of hydrocarbon fuel.

    Turn up the oxygen and the flame gets much hotter and the smoke disappears.

  • Comment removed

  • The government never proved anything. The governments explaination of the collapse is all sophistry and ipse dixits. All that the debunkers have is their opinion. Personally, I don't really know what happened. But, I would say suspicion is in order.

  • those people below me are funny. all of them!

  • what am limits of Bazant's fantasy?

    could 2 floors completely demolish 107 without being demolished until striking ground?

    what am de ****LIMITS****?

  • who am greatest magician?

    Osama?

    President Bush?

    Penn and Teller?

    of course it is Osama with his Super Secret Weapon Trick. we all know Newton's third law can't be suspended so Osama created world's greatest illusion. from cave in Afghanistan. how cool is that! Bush, knowin' he been outdone try to make Mericans believe plane done it. Penn and Teller not able to figure out Osamas trick so play shill for W.

    only those who know third grade physics KNOW Osama am greatest magician.

  • was Newton's third law in effect on 9-11-01?

    were WTC 1 floors 95-110 and 76-92 demolished?

    was energy expended to demolish those floors?

    if you did not answer yes to all three of those questions then I suggest you are disconnected from reality or suffer from some comprehension disorder or both.

    what single word would you use to describe somebody who is disconnected from reality?

  • Yes but there were 2 towers , so multiply by 2 = 144 now add another 30 days to rig WTC 7, and there you have it 174 days now do i need to help you in converting that to months or can you handle the math. Don't hurt yourself just message me if you need more help. I've already explained it just read the post

  • not to mention this water thing is the most ridiculous comparison i've seen since Gage compared it a cardboard box

  • Why because simple physics shows all who believe the official story to be morons. Yourself included it seems.

  • please wow me with your simple physics

  • Shoot some aluminum bullets at a steel plate then light it with kerosene.. See if it collapses into itself at free fall speed.. Troll

  • Also it took 15 seconds for the first building and 17 for the second. in 15 seconds if it was in free fall it would have fallen another 60 stories within that time, that's more than half the height, So if we imploded a 160 story building then it would have hit the ground before either of the two towers, which means something was obstructing it. Plus at the initiation of the collapse we see it falling slower and gaining speed, this is b/c mass is building and can destroy the floors faster

  • do you really think that is possible without some kind of toppling action? I guess you're one of those that believes that one of the things that changed on 9/11 was law of physics. the truth is coming out and people who know the truth (including those of many countries) are becoming the majority.

  • the buildings arent trees, what theory of physics changed on that day, i would really like to know what you don't understand about the collapse. I would read Greening and Bazants papers on the collapse of the building

  • /watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk&feature=c­hannel_page

    The topple over scenario debunked

  • get out of your denial state of mind. Experts have said that the black smoke meant the fires were cooling and pointed out the victims waving from inside the towers (that we all know about) that would have died if the fires were hot enough to bring down the towers. The main smoking gun is the speed in which they fell and building 7 that was not impacted with jet fuel.

  • "Experts have said that the black smoke meant the fires were cooling"

    Black smoke is not indicative of cooling. The speed of collapse was about the same as if the building had been demolished with explosives, since both involve a failure of structural support, there is nothing inconsistent with the speed of the collapse.

    Just more truther lies.

  • black smoke means nothing, the victims waving aren't from where the smoke is coming from, and it doesn't take jet fuel to bring down a building. There are many examples of buildings either collapsing completely or having partial collapses such as the Madrid building the only reason it's standing is b/c of it's concrete core, the entire steel perimeter started failing within the first 2 hours.

    collapse from just fire

    watch?v=QEhNLzN_q5k&feature=ch­annel_page

    weakened the top and toppled

  • "the victims waving aren't from where the smoke is coming from"

    so, they didn't die before the collapse because they weren't near enough to the heat. so then how did the trusses, core columns, etc break up the way they did allowing a straight down collapse in under 13 seconds if there was only heat in certain areas? also the official story does say that it was jet fuel that melted the steel, so perhaps we can both agree that they've lied (they have more than once).

  • umm the south tower took 14.5 seconds to collapse and the north 20+, also where the woman was waving was at the impact point, the most intense fires were on the other side, the debris was piled on the opposite wall meaning the coolest fires would be at the impact.

    Straight Down? I guess the initial lean meant nothing

    And no the jet fuel couldn't have melted the steel, in what part of the NIST report did they say that fire melted the steel? you do know that was the official report right

  • I'll see if I can look up the NIST report or 9/11 commission (another official report - that by the way leaves our building 7 and has changed its own story more than once). In case I can't find it, I would appreciate a link. But how can you not know that everybody that's talked about the explanation of the collapse has said that its jet fuel??

  • yes i was just merely stating that the steel didn't melt, it weakened

  • We all know that the fire did not melt steel, boxcutter is just a truther troll that will keep asking for proof - much like a holocuast denier will.

    Both are based on the same premise ...

  • Boxcutter

    How about a link to evidence that the towers were built with shaped thermite charges already inbeaded in them for just such a day? I would love to see some evidence of this and why and how the military would know this but no one else.

    hmm

  • Please don't kid yourself. The only reason it leaned is because thats where it got impacted. If you take your biased eyeballs off of the top of the tower you will see that everything underneath it is "pancaking" just like the north tower collapse.

    And the softened/weakened steel argument is lose/lose for you guys....because the steel would have to lose ALL of its integrity for a straight down collapse. I didn;t see strong enough fires in the lower 2/3 of the towers....sorry.

  • "And the softened/weakened steel argument is lose/lose for you guys....because the steel would have to lose ALL of its integrity for a straight down collapse. I didn;t see strong enough fires in the lower 2/3 of the towers"

    Is there a team of morons on the other end of the connection that help you with these idiotic statements? Surely one person could not come up with all this drivel on their own?

  • The idea that ALL of the Steel would have to lose it's integrity is one of the most retarded claims i've ever heard of. The floors were made to hold the static weight once in motion, it built a lot more energy. Ever heard of 1/2mass * velocity^2. That's like if you were standing on your roof and realized it would hold you and then jumped and were surprised that you fell through.

    Wow

  • If it wasnt hot then why did people jump?

  • Oh yeah. If a fire is 500 degrees, I won't jump because if it can't melt steel it can't hurt me.

    Cue eye rolling.

  • Excuse me I was pointing out the simple fact that if the fire was not hot LIKE some people here are trying to claim then how was it hot enough that people would jump out of the building?

    Please think before you post. I clearly believe that the fire was indeed intense.

  • But how hot is a fire? People would jump from something FAR less intense than the 2000 degrees Farenhiqht requisite to melting steel. They'd be turned into a cinder in 1000 degree air, and would become seriously burnt in 500. Most people would flee from an oven, of tempatures 360 degrees rather than get burned alive.

    A fire does not have to be THAT hot to make people want to escape it. That, and some wanted to die on their own terms, and not those of a fire's....

  • Well while I will agree with that I would like to point out that your assumption is that the whole area of the affected areas was heated evenly. This was one of the points NIST points out that the uneven heating and the expansion of steel in certain locations and lack of expansion in others contributed to the collapse of the building.

    It is not hard to comprehend that the further you are away from the fire the less heat you are going to feel.

  • Black acrid smoke. Which is an indicator of a poorly fueled fire.

  • It is an indicator but,

    -Look at the other evidence

    -Most Jet crash fires are black smoke anyways.

    Your point is true but not really a convincing arguement against the findings.

  • "Most Jet crash fires are black smoke anyways."

    AFTER the fuel has ignited and consumed itself. Never has a plane exploded in the air or on the ground that simply turned into black smoke.

  • time paradox

  • And these ones did not either. 2 of the planes were several hundred feet in the air burried inside a building, plenty of debris from the aircraft actually penatrated and emerged out the other side.

    Get over yourself spreading lies and decite to idiots. You stand no chance against an educated person.

  • Your comment did nothing to address my previous comment. I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth.

  • Excuse me yes it did may you should read.

    "Never has a plane exploded in the air or on the ground that simply turned into black smoke. "

    "And these ones did not either."

    I find your ignorance funny. Statements like "you can't handle the truth" are generic, please provide something tangible. Statements such as the planes being nothing more then black smoke is quite simply false and with all the debris recovered is simply a moronic statement.

  • "Black acrid smoke. Which is an indicator of a poorly fueled fire. "

    No its not, but you are welcome to provide a source to try to prove this.

  • if they're were explosives how the hell did nobody see them, the tallest building to ever be razed was 1/3 the size of the towers and it took 24 days to just set the explosives, now multiply that by 3, then by 2, and add WTC 7 which would be another 24 days and, with the same man power it would take 6 months, even if you x6 the man power it's still a month of preparation, plus the extra time to hide the cables. It's just not plausible.

  • we did see the explosions, just look at the collapses. a military friend of mine told me that the towers as well as some buildings still standing today have been built with shaped thermate charges in place in case of situation where they would detonate to keep the building from toppling. the government lied with the jet fuel/pancake theory

  • no you don't stop lying.

  • "a military friend of mine told me that the towers as well as some buildings still standing today have been built with shaped thermate charges in place in case of situation where they would detonate to keep the building from toppling."

    Your friend lied to you.

  • "Your friend lied to you."

    What makes you think my friend lied to me? You're gonna just blatantly say that my friend lied to me just because its too hard to believe??

  • "What makes you think my friend lied to me? You're gonna just blatantly say that my friend lied to me just because its too hard to believe?? "

    There is no such thing as shaped thermite charges and they sure as hell do not wire buildings with explosives while they are being built. This is truther paranoia on a par with no plane theories.

  • if there was an explosion, it would have fell at free fall speed (9 seconds). in reality, it took 14.5 seconds to fall. This was not a controlled explosion.

    speeding planes+ jet fuel + 2 hours of burning + gravity = wtc collapsing.

  • I disagree with your opinion. When you take the 47 structural supports in the middle that the building had to fall thru. it just holds no water. None what so ever. Something was taking out the supports as the building was dropping. You can even see pulverized explosive dust blasting out quite rapidly .

  • also, what about building 7, with no jet fuel?

  • Here is a question of finding out what really happened, the problem is that the visual evidence shows explosions all the way from top to bottom, and that explanation would involve an inside job.

    If the goverment wasn´t involved in the bombs theory, then it would be acceptable for most of them.

    Just check what Canadians think about who was responsible of the towers collapse.

  • No, the visual evidence does not show explosions from top to bottom, there are little squibs from air pressure, nothing resembling the large explosions you would see in a controlled demolition.

  • Then, if tomorrow the FBI comes with a story saying that they found evidence islamic terrorists have had access to the towers and had planted bombs, then again the defenders will inmediately change their minds and accept the new theory.

  • Ok, again. The defenders of the official stories (FEMA first, then NIST) will defend whatever an official source gives them. First they defended and gave all possible explanations to the pankake theory, until NIST came and said it was not possible.

  • Nice fairy tale.

    Have we ever been attacked? Seems every attack on the U.S. has been perpetrated by our own government, since Pearl Harbor. And probably before. So, answer the question. Have we ever been attacked? The Cole? 93 WTC? Kenya? Hello? Ever?

    You saying the Middle East loves us? Get a grip man! Our government does do some bad things, and some people in the arab world hate us! And they attacked us on 911.

  • ummm to tell u this BIN LADEN DID NOT DO THIS IT WAS GEORGE W BUSH HE DID IT THE FALLING MAN WAS HIM PARASHOOTING!

  • This video is about 100% too long.

  • continued...

    you see oxomaticman, whichever way you look at it, you are very much my ally in the truth movement, and you didn't even know it until now.

  • This is no debate, this is merely one side parroting dribble without making a point - "Seizmograf evidence, plain visual proof, building 7??" And the other side making corrections and giving a clearer picture. There's a lot of "stories" out there, and the official one makes the most sense. I haven't seen an argument yet that would make me consider otherwise. The FACT is that the arguments are usually laden with skewed/misleading facts and false ascertations.

  • They call you names and run around in circles.

    but the main point is that the 9-11 commission report states one tower fell in 10 seconds.

    total free fall speed is 9.2

    so if any wana be debunker can explain how its possible for a steel framed building to pancake or to fall in the path of most resistance at free fall or even near free fall speed I am all ears!

  • search google for a official theory skeptic who is giving away 100,000 dollars to anyone who can prove the official theory correct. and to think, all that money can be yours!!!! all you have to do is disprove the physical law of conservation of energy and momentum!!!

  • I prefer another man's idea; Reconstruct one of the towers with the exact same specs. Place all the conspiracy theorists in the lobby after they have checked and cleared the building for explosive devices. Crash a Boeing 747 around the same floors and at the same speed (by remote this time of course. We'll develop a different scenario for the no-planers). Place a large clock with a 2 hour oountdown. Charge the 2/3 that leave the lobby with libel and let the rest suffer the consequences.

  • have you even read the official theory from N.I.S.T., which you so eagerly defend?