@ 2:15 central columns are shown far, far smaller than they actually were.
Many of the core columns (the four corners and the outer perimeter of the core column) were 52 inches by 22 inches and 5 and 6 inches thick at the base. These columns were also double box columns (sort of like a concrete block) with steel also in their centers up to 6 1/2 inches thick!
The remainder of the solid steel core columns were 36 inches by 16 inches with a thickness of 4 inches at the base.
@ 0:47 - A lie. He says, "... so most of the load on the building was transferred to the outer walls..."
The core columns were made of far, far stronger and thicker columns anchored into the bedrock. The core columns carried the great majority of the load - not the outer columns.
The central columns were designed to carry many times the weight of the entire building on their own. The outer columns likewise could carry the entire weight of the building alone, even with a plane hole.
Engineers are not perfect wasn't this building built back in the 70's since then we've made a lot of advances in building design which implies older buildings weren't perfect. And from what they say it sounds like the building did its job.. It got hit and it didn't fall over. We all saw the smoke and raging fire inside the steel got weak and under the intense weight eventually collapsed.
I already know the answer. You saw nothing. A live logo on video does not define it as live. Learn the basics of video production. Then you will see how fake the media really is.
@steveo1274 What planes,I`ll do your homework for you,look at an image of a J.A.S.S.M. AGM 158 missile.Something similar to this was flown into the towers.
start watching @ 7:00 This guy said it was easy to flay a plane into the wtc towers in a simulation which they tested before 911. He also said they flew into the statue of liberty and the empire state building. So you have 2 sides to every story...
They didn't use the correct plane in the simulation. They used a 737 which he states in the video, not a 767. Why would he do that? Hmmm, whatever, video proves nothing. It is a bias video anyways. Even if it held up, you still need to make 4 jumbo jets with people on them to disappear into thin air.... oh and then reappear at the crash sites after the drone planes hit.... Got a lot of explaining to do chief!
@bubbasteve8 : What a dumb ass. That would be the easiest thing to fake out of the rest of the BS presented that day, and what are you talking about 737??? Comparable experiments have been done to represent 9/11, & the conclusion is that the event is impossible to have happened. If you don't get it, then that makes you stupid. If you can't see the reason why they faked it, then you are stupid. They were jumbo jets right?!? Quite the feat for an untrained Arab to pull off. I have to object.
@BadBoriBoy Your theory does not hold up!!! It would have been impossible to sneak in plane debris into the building wreckage without anyone seeing!
And you keep dodging my questions! you never explained how said "insiders" could knock over and damage the multiple 50 ft or so tall street lights on the path to the pentagon without anyone getting wise and one of them going through a taxi cabs windshield, while he was driving down the highway?? explain it? sound IMPOSSIBLE to me!!!
@bubbasteve8 : lol....What a dumb ass. A 737 would give you a huge handicap to prove the possibility of this flying ability. I believe someone attempted to debunk the speeds using a 737 as well if it makes you feel better. I don't think the 767 is even in flight simulator dumb ass. What evidence proves that they reappear? Was it the passport that was recovered/ You really are pathetic. Even RKOwens couldn't debunk me, but keep trying you Hillbilly. Show an example, oops there are none.
@BadBoriBoy PLane oh so your a pilot now and you know a 737 is easier to fly. Even that guy effed up, first off it raises a red flag to his argument to why he would use a different plane in the simulator instead of the correct one. (if you think pilots are trained on flight simulators that don't have every plane they will fly including the 767, than you are naive) NOW, what he said was "the 737 which is more maneuverable than a 767. that does not mean easier to aim. in fact he....
@bubbasteve8 he is now obligated to PROVE that a 737 is not more touchy or sensitive at the controls hand flying at over 400 MPH than a 767 to even deem his argument (or experiment with the pilots) a reasonable comparison!
Keep calling me a hillbilly redneck, maybe start adding some sister F***ing to the mix, it might help your case...because it needs all the help it can get...
@BadBoriBoy "They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY." I don't buy that nor give a shit, 102nd time, don't care,..... off subject, and ignored....
Why are you deleting my posts?? That is being bias, now you have to delete my posts because you don't want people to understand that the truth is your claims are not necessary to explain the collapses?? Go ahead, delete this post too you chicken sh#$! LOL d:-p
if u have sketchup *WTC twin tower sketchup sketchyphysics build start* in the 3D warehouse to se what if got so far (no spam just plz look at it :D )
Im using ur vid to build the wtc in sketchup part by part component by component if started today and for now it works fine but il stil need to ajust alot
@Coolrockndad John Skilling :The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
@Coolrockndad John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
@Coolrockndad Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
@Coolrockndad Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center: The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
@Coolrockn We only assume a plane/fire took down the building because we watched this happen. This is why there are alternative theories, the official theories don't take into account that this was not supposed to happen, it was designed to take this hit.Cruise speed of a 767 is 530mph, of a 707 is 607mph.The reality is controlled demo explains the collapses a hell of a lot easier, where as NIST took 7 years to come up with a final theory, which contradicts the last and is still an assumption
@Coolrockndad [Leslie Robertson:] The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.[Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
@Coolrockndad Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, I designed it for a 707 to smash into it, though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]
@AlwaysSomething You typed "take this hit", "resist the impact", "smash into it", "crash into it", "assumed collision" and "such collision" but no where is the heat factor brought up that softened the structure!
I am good with designing buildings so i am going to start designing two new towers based on the design of the former WTC. I will launch a video some time soon revealing the new design of the towers, When this video is launched i will start a campaign by using your comments.
P.S
Email me one what you think about this idea, and email me one some of your ideas for this design, i listen to the people.
And it was those floors that connected the outside to the core that proved to be the weak point, since the core and outer wall could not stand alone. The heat caused the floors to sag, which pulled the outer walls inward thus, collapse was initiated. The floors could only hold so much weight so a domino effect was initiated and eventually there was enough power to destroy everything on the way down. Build a tall hollow structure out of blocks, it collapses the same way.
@ForbiddenHaze Exactly. But check this out: Go to 911 Amateur part 1, 2 and 3.
Then google ABC 911 Plane hits tower along with all the others NBC, CNN, etc with the rest after it. Double check this guys claims yourself. And you'll see that he himself didn't doctor them for his own agenda. I won't give away the exact cause of why the towers fell, but I was blown away. I've done a lot of research and always dismissed this when I heard of it. But now, I don't anymore since I have investigated.
@Kamatzu lmao jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt Steel into molten so if ur theory is correct please explain to me why are firefighters were burnt and killed by molten lava.
@Kamatzu what about the collapse? how did they collapse straight through to path of greatest resistance and then simply drop without any resistance? And if that isn't enough, there is no other skyscraper (apart from WTC 7) that has collpased because of fire. Its impossible and defies logical explination
@Kamatzu HAHAHAHA, why the HELL would weakening of the metals at the top or even mid part of the structure make the floors fall? it was as overengineered as a go-cart with three jet motors and an electic/gas hybrid engine! and why didnt the center structure break through the roof when it fell over it?? it was obviously built to withstand the weight of the above floors AND structural metal, how could it fall at almost free fall speed?
I realize now I am answering to a year old comment but wtf :P
@Kamatzu Fire didn't bring it down. even if it melted a few floors, it wouldnt collapse. The heat in the lower floors wouldnt be hot enough to damage the steel. also it did have a fire in the past and also a bombing at the base of it. The pancake theory is bullshit and ill prove it, just search for a few videos called failed demolition. You see the building colaspe at the bottom, it falls a long way and hits the ground and nothing collapses. The internal collumn should have bene left on 911.
@Kamatzu Yeah great, now tell me how the upper stories, which were coming apart from the heat, managed to collapse the intact lower floors. The upper floors were weakened to point of collapse by thermal expansion, and yet when they dropped a mere couple of stories onto the solid intact structure below, it was the intact lower part which exploded into a fountain of debris?
If fires can shred steel-framed structures, the demolition professionals would have no business. It would be sufficient to set a few floors on fire for an hour or two, and voila -- all steel is shredded into a more or less neat pile, ready to be trucked away.
@Kamatzu No high rise steel structured building ever collapsed due to fire (go look it up, they have google), and the planes didn't collapse the towers. But on 9-11 three buildings solely due to fire made whats never happened happen? Do you get the mathematical probability of that? 3 times on one day, within 6 hours of each other, 3 buildings fell at virtually free fall speed in a global collapse using 2 different methods that were not controlled, but random office fires, is this the logic?
@AlwaysSomething True, untill it happened when the WWC was weaked due to the heat and stress of what was put apon it like no other building. Again I'll say it's really not that hard to understand.
@Coolrockndad And this heat and stress was caused by office fire? Is this your stance? It's that simple? So they took into account the plane at 600 mph but not that fire would result from fuel? "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there" I guess you didn't read that part.
@Coolrockndad Steel is a great conductor of heat, if one spot heats up, you can be assured the heat will then distribute to the rest of the beam, diverting heat away from where it's being heated. If steel is connected to a network of beams, if you heat up the one area, the heat with distribute to all beams connected, again diverting heat away. This is why high rises are so effective if fire and why no high rise has ever collapse because of fire, except 3 times on 9-11, none before or after.
@AlwaysSomething No kidding. Take a piece of steel and heat it up with a torch in the middle of that piece. It will glow cherry red at that point before it can make it to the ends. Oh course there's many factors, like the thichness of the steel, the size, the load on the steel, the type of heat etc. etc. Please stop making this more then what it is, which is an act of terror.
@Coolrockndad An act of terror I agree,It`s just the terrorists did`nt live in a cave in Afghanistan.
Inside job no doubt about it,the towers were turned to DUST,the mass of debris in the wtc area did not match up with two towers.If they both fell to earth the bathtub would have been smashed and Manhatten would have been flooded by the Hudson.Structural engineers and Physics Prof`s etc: the world over are starting to wake up to this huge LIE.
@Kamatzu I'd love to know if you understand the mathematical improbability of these events occurring in the same day. Why do we hire demo guys? Essentially, what you're saying is fire makes buildings collapse the way a demolition would. Meaning fire can collapse high rise steel buildings in 10 seconds, even though that's exactly how long a demo would take. I'm not sure I get this logic, but ya know I'm just a nut screaming the world is round.
@Kamatzu The fires,yeah right,if you watch the towers burn you can see the smoke is dark,representing a generally low heat fire.If the fires brought down tower two which got hit last but came down first it was only on fire for less than an hour.NO BUILDING ON EARTH HAS COME DOWN AFTER BEING ON FIRE FOR LESS THAN ONE HOUR.If you believe it was fire then you must also believe in faries at the bottom of the garden.
@2000tc88 Tower 2 came down first because it was hit lower, it had more weight above the fire zone. That is a fact that makes sense....They both got hit nearer one side, just like a jenga block or chopping down a tree, it will be more likely to fall if you attack one side. FACT and it makes sense. No other towere like these have have ever been crippled and damaged like WTC 1 an 2! EVER! FACT!!
@admx94 And you are? Oh a silly wee twat who likes fancy cars, silly movies but still lives with his mom and her boyfriend and wonders what kissing a girl would be like. STFU!
Also in here they said they designed against a 707 ACCIDENTALLY crashing into it, which means a plane that low would be either getting ready to land, circling for landing or just took off which means that they probably assumed an impact of the 707 at around 200 - 300 MPH, not no 540 and 590 MPH which was near top speed of those planes.
@bubbasteve8: good job. you just debunked yourself. Why would they design it without fuel as an obstacle??? That's retarded. Why was there an insurance policy taken out 2 months before the event that was being insured? Since when do 767s cause a STEEL High Rise to demise by volcanic eruption? It's 100% impossible. There was lava at ground zero. How do you explain that? 590MPH to hit a small target?!?!? That is quite the feat for a newbie. It's all LIES man. wake up.
@BadBoriBoy "Why would they design it without fuel as an obstacle???" WHAT? where did I say anything about fuel? They would not assume a 707 would be traveling at over 300 MPH at under 10,000' let alone under 1,300. it was unheard of. The extra force of the impact helped rip off much (or more than designed for) of the fire resistant coating which was sprayed on the steel members. Therefore more columns and beams could absorb heat faster and weaken.
@BadBoriBoy "Why...insurance policy taken out....blah" Um, Where in any of my posts did I give a hint that I was defending anyone who may be to blame? I do not think the gov, Bush administration, or whoever was involved, BUT I would not be that surprised if they were. I DON'T CARE! I don't know politics nor will I act like I do! But I know my physics. Blaming said people is one thing, saying dumb sh# like "missiles" and "thermite" were used instead of what we witnessed is another.
@BadBoriBoy "demise by volcanic eruption?" "There was lava at ground zero." Do you have any evidence of this? Pics? Stop blowing things WAY out of proportion! Yes there were still hot spots berried that stayed hot for weeks after the collapse. We know the towers were 208' x 208' with several floors on fire. That can very well be one big ass fire! when the towers collapsed much of these fires and fire hot materials were covered by tons of debris. It blanketed these hot spots and kept in the heat
@BadBoriBoy Get yourself a 200' + tape and measure out a 200' square, then imagine a 3 to 6 story building that size on fire. About the hot spots, if it takes an oven at 400 degrees about an hour with the door shut (hell probably longer, dunno, do the experiment if you want too) then imagine how long it could take solid material debris over the size of a decent house to cool from over 1000 degrees....And what is your point anyways? What are you suggesting caused these hot spots? I mean "lava"?
@bubbasteve8 LoL. Did you watch this video?!?! Did you not see how the towers were constructed?!?! The demise video might be fake too, since I have already proven that there were over 20 faked images by the media. Is the event even possible? Answer: NO!!! 2700deg found at ground zero. Basic physics would debunk the fairytale story from the hijacking point. I design outdoor/indoor structures for live events. Every load point has it's calculation with precision to prevent a demise like this.
@BadBoriBoy I have a degree in Civil Eng. where I had a few classes that included strengths of material, structural steel design, concrete, etc. I have worked in construction for many years, including framing. Yes I watched the original WTC tower construction video. You do not need 2700 degrees to deform steel, you just need enough force. Now when you add heat, it lowers the amount force needed to deform said steel. If you had taken a college strength of materials course you would know this.
@bubbasteve8: You are correct about force except for 1 thing>>>> It needs to be a constant force in order to make an impact. Water can cut through steel, but it is the constant force not the actual water that is cutting the steel. This is 3rd grade physics, not college. Show me an example of a steel frame building giving way from fire in less that 3 hours. I would love to see one. Too bad there isn't one, because it isn't possible.
@BadBoriBoy The weight of 15 to 29 plus stories is not enough force after there are added loads to certain columns due to missing columns, that is your force, now the force would not change much, but the temperature of the steel columns and beams did. It only takes about 800-1000 degrees to get steel members to lose 1/2 of their yield strength. The south tower tilts extremely before falling, so the columns have a bending load on them, which they were not designed for, from the tilt
@bubbasteve8 : Not interested in a strawman argument with a sheep like you. There are none. But every similar experiment has been done. If you did 5 minutes of critical thinking you would debunk yourself right away. Putting a live logo on a piece of video doesn't make it live. WAKE UP SHEEP. The event is IMPOSSIBLE.
@BadBoriBoy I have done tons and tons of my own research. I was a little convinced on some of these claims until conspiracy theorists started using false factoids and lies to try to prove a point with unnecessary redundancy. Also the more I looked into it, the more I see that all the physics of 911 can be explained without missiles, lasers, thermite, paid off taxi drivers, and the entire media being paid off.
"The event is IMPOSSIBLE." False, that is all I have to say about that.
@bubbasteve8 : Show me an example.. I am really slow at learning, oh wait!!! There are no examples because what you are saying is IMPOSSIBLE. The fires were missing 1000 degrees of heat to deform the steel past its holding point. Show me another steel building that demised this way by fire. Answer: IMPOSSIBLE. " It was like lava, like a foundry. molten lava running down a channel" " Your boots would melt after 5 mins because of the heat" FEMA reported 2700d at ground zero silly. WAKE UP!!!!
@BadBoriBoy You want an example, go watch the original, non-conspiracy theorists bias, videos or find pic of the I think it was the windsor tower in Madrid where the top 11 stories burned for over 20 hrs. conspiracy theorists try to say that this tower did not collapse, well that is partially incorrect because a good percentage of the structure all the way around on the top 11 stories did collapse when the columns failed and came crashing down. You can see it fall, and there are day after....
@bubbasteve8: You keep placing yourself back to square one. Where is the resistance from the tower receiving the massive piler driver that we are being told? How did the building demise at those speeds? Why was the aftermath identical to a volcanic eruption? How did the temp reach 2700? How did the terrorist fly the planes into the building to begin with? Is it even possible? How did they get it the cockpit? How did the terrorist give the media fake images to play on the news?
@BadBoriBoy "Where is the resistance from the tower receiving the massive piler driver that we are being told?" I think you are trying to say that the towers should not have fallen that fast because there should be so much upwards force from the columns
in the tower below, is that your point here? if so, this should be simple for you to grasp if you really understand how columns work. They can and HAVE TO hold a lot more load than any other structural member! FACT But that force..
@BadBoriBoy is not there if the columns are pushed out of the way and bent over! watch the videos, you can see exterior walls of columns being pushed outward away from the towers, take a structural Eng. course past high school and you will learn that any steel member can take many more times the load axially than it could from a bending load. When the building came crashing down, the floor slabs and beams had no chance, beams keep columns vertical (well when they are there!) after..
@bubbasteve8 : I have to question your education background. You are yet to adress the steel rooflines & slip joints that would have kept this tower up. If you can't adress the 2 key element that this tower was designed around, then you hold no argument. You can't have it both ways. A greater force other than progressive collapse had to have been present in the demise of WTC1. 2 steel rooflines intact under the wreckage. You need to recalculate because you wrong.
@BadBoriBoy "You are yet to adress the steel rooflines & slip joints that would have kept this tower up" How does a roof line hold up a tower that collapses at 15 and 29 stories lower than the roof? Dummy up!! Building hold roofs, not the other way around! For the third time, the roof fell with the top portion of tower, go watch the videos again! "A greater force other than progressive collapse had to have been present in the demise of WTC1"
@bubbasteve8 : LOL, you still can't understand the way this tower was built. It is shocking. If something is fake, that means it is not real. They love that we argue over this. It keeps our minds off there real agenda which is slavery. They don't care that we know it's not possible because they control our thoughts. Survival will always rule over peace. It isn't even possible for the 2nd plane to not be intercepted by NORAD. NOT POSSIBLE.
@BadBoriBoy LMAO I actually liked and agreed with this post, except the 1st and last FALSE lines. So yes, stop arguing with the guys showing the true physics and just admit the "insiders" just used 4 jumbo jets! For the 100th time! I am not defending any group or party what so ever!
@BadBoriBoy "A volcanic eruption during its demise" I saw no Volcanic activity. "Squibs in the lower sections of impact" They were not squibs, squibs explode out for a small moment then stop, the air and dust that blew out of windows under and during the collapse, kept continuously blowing out smoke and dust until the collapse reached the point of blowout. This was proof that there was indeed over 42,052,608 cubic ft of air under the 82nd floor. That is over a 500,000 cubic ft of air per floor.
@BadBoriBoy "and thermite/mate residue that has been tested over 20 times recovered from ground zero." You helped recover some of this stuff at ground zero? Can you prove this? It is just as likely that this is not true just as likely as the officials say that there was no evidence of "thermite/mate" So it is your word against mine. either way, thermite/mate was not necessary nor was there any visual evidence of said "thermite/mate".
@bubbasteve8 : 2700d. You are quite the dumb ass. A squib is a squib. Denying what you see is flat out retarded. The collapse should not have produced that amount of ash, therefore.....Are you ready for similarity of these characteristics: Volcanic Eruption, or Nuclear Explosion would produce that amount of ash in that amount of time.
@BadBoriBoy "The speed of the....blah...Had that roofline not been there, maybe...but with the roofline. NO WAY" There is no such thing as a "roof line" in the middle of a building, learn some terminology first, 50th time, roof are located at the top of buildings. NOW there may have been large GIRDERS at said floors (which I would still like to see pictures or video of!). Now as far as GIRDERS go, they support horizontally making the building more stout and to keep it from swaying back and forth
@BadBoriBoy these Girders in no way were meant to support laterally, especially as far as a 15 or 29 story building falling onto them. (if there were even large girders there, still yet to see them) (if you don't give me a link, I will just look later) These girders would be designed for horizontal loads, not vertical loads, for they were attached to the columns which in turn supported the structure vertically. See, you learn something new every day.
@BadBoriBoy "You are brain dead stupid. You state comments that are not even possible without knowing what you are even talking about." It's ok, you don't have to get sad because you cannot defend yourself in a debate with actual facts as opposed to here say.
@BadBoriBoy the beams were ripped away for a story or 2 or 3, the columns were bent outwards easily with much less force (bending load) than what they could support axially! Understand?
Those speeds? I dunno, I didn't clock the towers, but there are a few non conspiracy videos that show that tower 2 took 14.5 seconds to smack the ground and the north tower over 20 seconds, not no 9 or so seconds that conspiracy theorists try to claim and do edit and cut videos to make fairy tales.
@bubbasteve8 : Yes lots of mis-info out there. It would have taken over a minute for progressive collapse though. Try again, and please address the steel rooflines that DID NOT resist the collapse. For the antenna to drop first in WTC 1 that would mean the entire core gave way, top to bottom, at the same time. That is impossible, man. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. Religion isn't real. There are more scams than truth in this world. Sorry, but it's true. WAKE UP!!!
@BadBoriBoy "It would have taken over a minute for progressive collapse though." Um, False, show me any building taking that long to collapse, please? Why would anyone assume a 1 minute building collapse? do you see how dumb that sounds?
@bubbasteve8 "For the antenna to drop first in WTC 1 that would mean the entire core gave way, top to bottom, at the same time." Absolutely not! That just shows your lack of structural knowledge. The only things in building that support load vertically more that a floor are columns! FACT, you take out all the columns on one floor, the building above falls! Go re watch videos of tower 1 falling, the top 15 stories fall downward showing the the columns failed....you know what that...
@bubbasteve8 : So I guess Newton is wrong then. You are brain dead stupid. You state comments that are not even possible without knowing what you are even talking about. You are the one that is stupid. To think a a terrorist could fly a JUMBO JET like that. What a moron.
@bubbasteve8 Meeaaaanss... all the columns failed on the floors in the impact zones, after a few fail, a few remaining columns will not hold all the wait by themselves silly! So they also failed, through those floors, NOT all the way to the ground like you say. The top 15 stories fell together including the 8 or so giant steel girders and entire roof (at the top of the tower where roof usually are) along with all said supporting structure for said antenna. Now do you Understand?
@bubbasteve8 The columns under the point of initial failure will not support the antenna if the columns above them fail and detach! That is common sense to structural engineers...
@bubbasteve8 : As if airliners have never taken the precaution of an unwanted guest making forced entry into the cockpit during mid flight. What did you ask Santa for this year? Only 3 more weeks.
@BadBoriBoy Pictures that show the top 11 stories much skinnier than the lower levels. Now I didn't look into seeing if that skinnier section that stayed up was it's core (probably concrete which WTC towers did not have) or not, but I am willing to bet it was. That steel structure did collapse due to fire, and it had all of it's columns at the time, it did not get any of it's columns ripped out by a jumbo jet going over 500 MPH! also it had 0 in tact stories above the fire!
@BadBoriBoy The WTC 1 and 2 had 15 and 29 stories (respectively) above their fires, no concrete core with much larger beam spans than ever used in a high rise to date of their making! Plus they had several columns missing, you count on multiple videos with close-ups of over 30 exterior columns gone from the impact on that one side. 30 out of 57 (or 59 if you count the ones on the 45 corners) is just over half! now you have all the weight of those 30 columns and the load for..
@BadBoriBoy those columns that they were supporting for 15 and 29 stories up now bearing down on the first couple columns on the side of the giant F***ing hole the plane put into the building. By my calculations, I am surprised the towers did not collapse right away! And you know what! You are right when you say "There are no examples" because in reality, there are no examples that have compared to what happened on 911, meaning a 767 hitting such a structure at over 500 MPH. EVER!
@bubbasteve8 : Listen to what you just said.... A 767 hitting a structure that isn't even twice it's width at 500mph......LOL, There is a reason that most commercial pilots have gray hair....It takes 10 plus years to achieve the skill-set to fly in that fashion, & there is like a 3% chance of doing it. You also keep ignoring the fact that these towers had 3 steel rooflines that disappeared in mid air (impossible). That was everything that the tower was designed around. 3 BUILDINGS, not 1 tower.
@BadBoriBoy "A 767 hitting a structure that isn't even twice it's width at 500mph...LOL," Are you mentally challenged? It is not that hard to point a plane into a tower. Pilots land planes hundreds of thousand of times a day on runways around the world which are not much more that 200-300 ft wide or so, plus if you watch any 10 videos (without extreme crosswinds) of jumbo jets landing, you will see more than likely all ten set the plane down dead center plus or minus 10 ft!...
@BadBoriBoy I know that you twit, but who says it is impossible to hit left to right with +/- 15 ft or so at 500 MPH aside from you? Show me proof that it was impossible, because I think it is very possible! And it happened, thus it was possible. I truly believe I could direct a plane into said dimensions +/- 20 ft if I had a buddy with a 767 to lend me for a few hours!
@bubbasteve8 "You didn't even know that these towers were designed as 3 building stacked on top of each other." They are not 3 building stacked on top of each other. There were "Like" 3 building stacked maybe but columns still have to sit on columns. The whole tower was still one structure as far as structural design and steel infrastructure is concerned...
@bubbasteve8 : You replied to yourself dumb ass. Here's another example of physics vs. psychological slavery. You will never win. I have been doing this from day 1 mister.
@BadBoriBoy 3 building? you better go re watch the making of the WTC towers! You could say each tower was like 2 buildings, one being the outer perimeter column tube, and the other being the core of columns on the inside! wtf does 3 roof lines have to do with the 109 stories that were consistent.
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL. Can you not see the bands with your eyes? Can you not count to 3? You don't even know the building that you are talking about. At the time WTC was the tallest in the world. Base building steel roof line, Middle building steel roof line, top building steel roof line. Thats 3 silly. Each building was air locked to prevent the spread of fire. LOL You don't even know the towers to hold any argue about the demise of them. You could not ride 1 elevator to the top dumbass.
@BadBoriBoy I know about the transfer floors. Yes it took 3 elevators to get to the top. I believe these 2 separate floors, each transfer stations, were called sky lobbies used as observation floors. But what "roof line" was at these floors? Roof lines are at the roof which is located at the top of building? I can't find these 2 mid building roof line structures you speak of, please show me a link, I will look at it.
@BadBoriBoy And they could not be "air locked" or else humans could not get past them in elevators. Elevator shafts are nor air tight, and both upward and downward elevator shafts ended on the floor. even if they were some what air tight then you would have a problem when 2 different bound elevators doors were opened at the same time... But what ever, what does "air locked" floors have to do with structural integrity of the tower?
@BadBoriBoy and what are you talking about they disappeared in mid air? The roof fell with the entire top of the building (from point of collapse to the roof) kind of like one solid piece! Go watch the videos, the top sections stayed in tact until they disappear in the smoke cloud and probably until they topple over and smack the ground. (in the video of tower 2 falling from the street with the group of fire fighters, you can here a very distinct thud at 14 seconds into the collapse)
@bubbasteve8 : Each roofline was attached to the core. That's impossible. You have no clue what you are talking about...Lol all those comments & you are clueless. Ask Jesus for the answer.
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL what about the other 2 buildings. You don't even know the construction of these towers. Would you like a copy of the CAD drawing?!?!....LMAO
@BadBoriBoy Now, I have given you an example based on facts (not fairytale), the facts are there, go do your research by using more than just bias conspiracy BS videos. NOW where is your example? You asked for one and I gave you one based on facts, not BS, now show me some lava already? Don't slander around again but give me a true realistic example. You also never answered my simple question! What caused these "lava" pits in the rubble? How did the "insiders" do it? heaters?....
@bubbasteve8 I have no idea what caused it. The world could be an illusion for all I know. But if your are right, that would make Newton wrong. Fema reported 2700d. It WAS a volcanic eruption. So if the laws of motion don't mean anything to you, go ahead. If it doesn't mean anything to you that there are over 20 faked images from the media, then go right ahead and live your IGNORANT life. You are a SLAVE, & they laugh at you more than me, so the joke is on you.
@BadBoriBoy The joke is not on me! see you are the ignorant one because you still do not see my point? You claim that "lava" in the rubbles proves it was an inside job? WTF? Explain it? How and WHY would anyone want to make "lava" appear in the rubble? It makes NO sense!! what so ever!! AGAIN! I am not defending anyone as far as pointing fingers!! And I know our media brainwashes just like every other country! But wouldn't be easier to just say the "insiders" just used 4 jumbo jets?
@bubbasteve8 Again with the strawman. You ARE a joke. You can't admit to being wrong in your own comments then comeback & say otherwise. You didn't even know that these towers were designed as 3 building stacked on top of each other. So yes, you are a joke, sorry. Critical thinking 101, Fake images by the media = SCAM
@bubbasteve8 : The lava makes perfect sense as an objective because there is no explantion for the temp other than a greater force that burn much hotter than jet fuel. Progressive collapse isn't even possible regardless. So it is a pointless to argue over it.
@BadBoriBoy "Progressive collapse isn't even possible regardless. So it is a pointless to argue over it." Stop saying these False factoids with nothing to back them up? Explain to me how the collapses were impossible? Did I not explain how they were possible well enough in my posts? (go re read my posts well before you say "No")
@bubbasteve8 : The speed of the collapse. Even if 10 colums were taken out, there isn't enough force to go through the steel roof which was made of an intense net of steel going 10ft high through the entire floor of the building minus the elevator shafts. The drastic change in resistance would have caused the mass above to fall off instead of through the stronger mass below. Had that roofline not been there, maybe...but with the roofline. NO WAY.
@bubbasteve8 "What more do you need?!?! " Well maybe a group of theorists that agree with one story that makes sense and does not involve hundreds of thousands of people to be involved and paid off! That is just silly!
@bubbasteve8 "As if airliners have never taken the precaution of an unwanted guest making forced entry into the cockpit during mid flight. What did you ask Santa for this year? Only 3 more weeks" High jacking have happened many times before.... so now you are saying that it was impossible on 911? You know there were 36 highjack attempts that day right? Only 4 of which were successful!
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL. Pay attention little boy. You keep putting yourself in check. 36 attempts that day...buha buha ah ah a. Arabs everywhere terrorizing our freedom. A huge threat. So many attacks before & after this impossible event. What should we do, they have box cutters. They knew who did it 10 minutes after it happened. They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY.
@bubbasteve8 Oh and I asked Santa for a gopro Hero 2, and the F***er better give me what I want this year, or I am gonna call up my buddy G dub and have him get his crew together and shoot missiles o blow the north pole to smitheroonies!! d:-p
@bubbasteve8 "Inside job means everything should be questioned." True, sure..But you still haven't been getting WTF I have said over and over, sure, it may have been and inside job, but saying dumb shit like, there was no plane at the pentagon, causes more need for explanation and more physics that literally don't work. Say the pentagon for example, there were like 5 or 7 tall street light poles that were knocked over and damaged by the plane, one of which...
@bubbasteve8 went into a taxi cab driving down the highway, on the way to the pentagon. How does a missile do that? Oh wait i know, it had batman cables shoot out the sides to grab up the poles, that's how. Your making jumbo jets full of loved ones disappear into thin air, now you gotta prove how the plane (or at least half of the parts there of) was planted at the pentagon with nobody noticing. So not we need a crash site on land to wreck the plane near the pentagon where nobody could see like
@bubbasteve8 like a mini area 51, call it area 52, where after the wreck, they had a semi load up half the plane parts then bring them to the pentagon, again without nobody noticing...am I doing ok, I am trying to understand this missile theory, seems pretty ridiculously impossible if you ask me. Maybe you can better explain it? P.S. Ill look at your linked videos later, I got other things to do tonight better spent than this. sorry to disappoint..
@bubbasteve8 : I don't clam what hit. I only claim what didn't. When did I say that a missile hit the pentagon you white trash retard? The whole thing could be fake for all I know, but again you are a RETARD. It is impossible to fly a plane at those speeds, with that altitude, & hit a target.
@BadBoriBoy NO NO! If you say that those 4 hijacked planes did not hit in said places, then you have to PROVE what happened to them, that is part of your case! Don't even talk about these flights never being hijacked to me, instead talk to the mother, father, brother, sister, etc of a loved one who was one one of those flights. Talk to many families, explain to them where there family member and entire plane went, like I said, your theory needs a lot of explaining and is IMPOSSIBLE!
@bubbasteve8 "They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY." I don't buy that or give a shit, 102nd time, don't care,..... off subject, and ignored....
@bubbasteve8 : I'm sure you have figured out by now that the entire event is impossible according to the official story that you are defending. No hard feelings, at least you know what didn't happen now. The best thing to take from this is to realize why they did it, & to stop demonizing people from the middle east for a crime they did not commit.
@BadBoriBoy I was trying to make you see the truth, that the official story is true, but that does not defend any said party to blame. You still don't get it. The truth is that theorists not only have failed to disprove the "official story/explanation" but have even further failed to prove that these ridiculous claims could have even been possible, for who ever you are blaming, to pull off. Your talking about even thousands in the media in on this big conspiracy. IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@bubbasteve8 Is it possible that the Bush admin., government, Bushes dog's ex dog sitter's sisters ex boyfriend could be involved? YES and no one like you, me, or any little pip squeak behind a desk in his mommy n daddy's Hollywood home would ever get a hold of secret documents (like theorists claim) to be able to prove anything. It's a joke!! So with that said, for the 110th time. Sure you may be right about the Government or Bush clan to be involved. But no missiles were involved!
@BadBoriBoy Yes, those people DID commit this crime, only you're too stupid to fucking accept it. It's proven over and over again, but you seem to comfort yourself by saying it was the government?
@MaxwellEindhoven : I never said the government did it RETARD!!! I only claim what DIDN'T happen. Could the building have been hit by a plane?!?! SURE. But, not at those speeds, & it wasn't flight 11. Sorry...Oh, & the Naudet brothers clip is FAKE. So please explain how it is possible for Al Q to give the media a FAKE news clip?!?!
@BadBoriBoy Lol, what's fake? The entire documentary? I hate to burst your little bubble, but it actually DID happen. The Naudet clip (of what I presume you're talking about) of the first impact, isn't the only video that catched that very moment. Why do they record the exact same thing then? Not to mention the thousands of eye whitness reports, all of them confirming the exact same event. Why would every single one of them tell they whitnessed something that wasn't there?
@MaxwellEindhoven : YES. Was the Blair Witch Project real?!?! And, no I was taking about the South Tower that includes the OMG soundbite which I had prior to 9/11. Please explain how I had the same exact sound effect prior to 9/11???
@BadBoriBoy Alright, so if the Blair Witch Project is fake, the Naudet documentary must also be fake. Right. Interesting. Why and how could I possible explain something about an OMG soundbite? I don't fucking care about a soundbite? It's about thousands of EYEWHITNESSES!!! THEY ALL CONFIRM WHAT THE NAUDET BROTHERS RECORDED!!! Please explain to me why there are literally thousands of video's and photographs, made by citizens and tourists, all confirming the same thing?
@MaxwellEindhoven : 100s of witnesses heard 11 shots & dealy plaza but the news said 3. What is your point. It's he said she said. We have evidence that the event is a lie silly.
@BadBoriBoy I'm talking about people who witnessed it and had a camera with them. Images often say more than words. And NO, you don't have evidence, that's the point. You just have some rumors, that you could never back up with real evidence.
Core on core design. It's weakness was the outer core relied on the thin floor trusses for their strength
Spindry96 2 days ago
3:28 shows closer to the true relative thicknesses and spacing of core columns.
These core columns could easily carry the entire weight of the buildings, multiple times over (heavily redundant) all by themselves.
This video improves at the end.
GJasonGee 3 days ago
@ 2:15 central columns are shown far, far smaller than they actually were.
Many of the core columns (the four corners and the outer perimeter of the core column) were 52 inches by 22 inches and 5 and 6 inches thick at the base. These columns were also double box columns (sort of like a concrete block) with steel also in their centers up to 6 1/2 inches thick!
The remainder of the solid steel core columns were 36 inches by 16 inches with a thickness of 4 inches at the base.
GJasonGee 3 days ago
@ 1:37 he says, "But neither the outer skeleton nor (sic) the inner core could stand alone."
Lie. Both the outer columns and the inner core columns were capable of carrying the entire load on their own, to multiples.
GJasonGee 3 days ago
@ 0:47 - A lie. He says, "... so most of the load on the building was transferred to the outer walls..."
The core columns were made of far, far stronger and thicker columns anchored into the bedrock. The core columns carried the great majority of the load - not the outer columns.
The central columns were designed to carry many times the weight of the entire building on their own. The outer columns likewise could carry the entire weight of the building alone, even with a plane hole.
GJasonGee 3 days ago
ABSOLUTE SHIT OF BASTARDS!!!
Youtube: DIMITRI KHALEZOV
And: Leslie Raphael, Serendipity.li
Inigo37 2 weeks ago
Engineers are not perfect wasn't this building built back in the 70's since then we've made a lot of advances in building design which implies older buildings weren't perfect. And from what they say it sounds like the building did its job.. It got hit and it didn't fall over. We all saw the smoke and raging fire inside the steel got weak and under the intense weight eventually collapsed.
steveo1274 1 month ago
@steveo1274 : DIFINE SAW?!?!
WERE YOU THERE IN NYC, DC, or Shanksville?!?!
I already know the answer. You saw nothing. A live logo on video does not define it as live. Learn the basics of video production. Then you will see how fake the media really is.
BadBoriBoy 1 month ago
@2000tc88 Tell that to the hundreds of people that watched the plane his the tower.
steveo1274 1 month ago
@steveo1274 : Who are these "people"???...Do you have any names.
Answer: NO
BadBoriBoy 1 month ago
@steveo1274 What planes,I`ll do your homework for you,look at an image of a J.A.S.S.M. AGM 158 missile.Something similar to this was flown into the towers.
2000tc88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
start watching @ 7:00 This guy said it was easy to flay a plane into the wtc towers in a simulation which they tested before 911. He also said they flew into the statue of liberty and the empire state building. So you have 2 sides to every story...
watch?v=w9jUEp_l7cE&feature=related
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy watch?v=O2wplmZUkWw
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
They didn't use the correct plane in the simulation. They used a 737 which he states in the video, not a 767. Why would he do that? Hmmm, whatever, video proves nothing. It is a bias video anyways. Even if it held up, you still need to make 4 jumbo jets with people on them to disappear into thin air.... oh and then reappear at the crash sites after the drone planes hit.... Got a lot of explaining to do chief!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : What a dumb ass. That would be the easiest thing to fake out of the rest of the BS presented that day, and what are you talking about 737??? Comparable experiments have been done to represent 9/11, & the conclusion is that the event is impossible to have happened. If you don't get it, then that makes you stupid. If you can't see the reason why they faked it, then you are stupid. They were jumbo jets right?!? Quite the feat for an untrained Arab to pull off. I have to object.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy Your theory does not hold up!!! It would have been impossible to sneak in plane debris into the building wreckage without anyone seeing!
And you keep dodging my questions! you never explained how said "insiders" could knock over and damage the multiple 50 ft or so tall street lights on the path to the pentagon without anyone getting wise and one of them going through a taxi cabs windshield, while he was driving down the highway?? explain it? sound IMPOSSIBLE to me!!!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : lol....What a dumb ass. A 737 would give you a huge handicap to prove the possibility of this flying ability. I believe someone attempted to debunk the speeds using a 737 as well if it makes you feel better. I don't think the 767 is even in flight simulator dumb ass. What evidence proves that they reappear? Was it the passport that was recovered/ You really are pathetic. Even RKOwens couldn't debunk me, but keep trying you Hillbilly. Show an example, oops there are none.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy PLane oh so your a pilot now and you know a 737 is easier to fly. Even that guy effed up, first off it raises a red flag to his argument to why he would use a different plane in the simulator instead of the correct one. (if you think pilots are trained on flight simulators that don't have every plane they will fly including the 767, than you are naive) NOW, what he said was "the 737 which is more maneuverable than a 767. that does not mean easier to aim. in fact he....
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 he is now obligated to PROVE that a 737 is not more touchy or sensitive at the controls hand flying at over 400 MPH than a 767 to even deem his argument (or experiment with the pilots) a reasonable comparison!
Keep calling me a hillbilly redneck, maybe start adding some sister F***ing to the mix, it might help your case...because it needs all the help it can get...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy "They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY." I don't buy that nor give a shit, 102nd time, don't care,..... off subject, and ignored....
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
Why are you deleting my posts?? That is being bias, now you have to delete my posts because you don't want people to understand that the truth is your claims are not necessary to explain the collapses?? Go ahead, delete this post too you chicken sh#$! LOL d:-p
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
I really wish that they would rebuild the towers, except stronger and with a better design.
WeatherMondacicci 3 months ago
if u have sketchup *WTC twin tower sketchup sketchyphysics build start* in the 3D warehouse to se what if got so far (no spam just plz look at it :D )
7249xxl 3 months ago
i made the outer colloms and the floors and beleve me taking them down in physics is hard time
7249xxl 3 months ago
Im using ur vid to build the wtc in sketchup part by part component by component if started today and for now it works fine but il stil need to ajust alot
7249xxl 3 months ago
That's ironic!
74pbg 6 months ago
It was the fire that took down the buildings.. not the planes.
Borat2borat 6 months ago
@Borat2borat Fire can't take down a steel building for fucks sake
Dragoull 5 months ago
@Dragoull That's what you would think right? But what else was it? Unless there was C4 and bombs in the building too. Who knows.
Borat2borat 5 months ago
@Borat2borat There's a theory, and possibly is true, that Thermite was placed on the inside, but as you say who knows...
Dragoull 5 months ago
@Dragoull Sure fire can. It weaking the integrity of the structure and then the weight of the structure collapses in on it's self. Pretty simple.
Coolrockndad 5 months ago
@Coolrockndad John Skilling :The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Coolrockndad John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Coolrockndad Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Coolrockndad Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center: The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Coolrockn We only assume a plane/fire took down the building because we watched this happen. This is why there are alternative theories, the official theories don't take into account that this was not supposed to happen, it was designed to take this hit.Cruise speed of a 767 is 530mph, of a 707 is 607mph.The reality is controlled demo explains the collapses a hell of a lot easier, where as NIST took 7 years to come up with a final theory, which contradicts the last and is still an assumption
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Coolrockndad [Leslie Robertson:] The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.[Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
Comment removed
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Coolrockndad Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, I designed it for a 707 to smash into it, though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@AlwaysSomething You typed "take this hit", "resist the impact", "smash into it", "crash into it", "assumed collision" and "such collision" but no where is the heat factor brought up that softened the structure!
Coolrockndad 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am good with designing buildings so i am going to start designing two new towers based on the design of the former WTC. I will launch a video some time soon revealing the new design of the towers, When this video is launched i will start a campaign by using your comments.
P.S
Email me one what you think about this idea, and email me one some of your ideas for this design, i listen to the people.
SAYBERVISHION 6 months ago
And it was those floors that connected the outside to the core that proved to be the weak point, since the core and outer wall could not stand alone. The heat caused the floors to sag, which pulled the outer walls inward thus, collapse was initiated. The floors could only hold so much weight so a domino effect was initiated and eventually there was enough power to destroy everything on the way down. Build a tall hollow structure out of blocks, it collapses the same way.
Scott89878 9 months ago
Proof that 9/11 was an inside job.
After watching how they designed this building... there are no way that Boeing 757's could have taken them down... without help, at least.
ForbiddenHaze 1 year ago
@ForbiddenHaze Exactly. But check this out: Go to 911 Amateur part 1, 2 and 3.
Then google ABC 911 Plane hits tower along with all the others NBC, CNN, etc with the rest after it. Double check this guys claims yourself. And you'll see that he himself didn't doctor them for his own agenda. I won't give away the exact cause of why the towers fell, but I was blown away. I've done a lot of research and always dismissed this when I heard of it. But now, I don't anymore since I have investigated.
emerson24 1 year ago
Theres no way "just" planes brought down the two towers on 9/11 - its so obvious!
lfcJT07 1 year ago
We've been over this conspirinuts. The buildings DID withstand the force of impacts and resulting damage, as all the experts said it would.
It did NOT withstand the fires, which no one accounted for.
Why am I posting this?
Kamatzu 1 year ago 4
@Kamatzu lmao jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt Steel into molten so if ur theory is correct please explain to me why are firefighters were burnt and killed by molten lava.
tr1cknyn39 1 year ago
@tr1cknyn39 if ur theyr is correct mb u shud go tel ur mom i luv her
Kamatzu 1 year ago
@Kamatzu wah wah cry me a river, dumb american.
tr1cknyn39 1 year ago
@tr1cknyn39 You can go back to dissing Lil T now, tough guy.
Kamatzu 1 year ago
@Kamatzu You mean to say, it didn't withstand the thermite.
ForbiddenHaze 1 year ago
@Kamatzu what about the collapse? how did they collapse straight through to path of greatest resistance and then simply drop without any resistance? And if that isn't enough, there is no other skyscraper (apart from WTC 7) that has collpased because of fire. Its impossible and defies logical explination
jichaelmackson1958 6 months ago
@Kamatzu HAHAHAHA, why the HELL would weakening of the metals at the top or even mid part of the structure make the floors fall? it was as overengineered as a go-cart with three jet motors and an electic/gas hybrid engine! and why didnt the center structure break through the roof when it fell over it?? it was obviously built to withstand the weight of the above floors AND structural metal, how could it fall at almost free fall speed?
I realize now I am answering to a year old comment but wtf :P
axemanreaper 5 months ago
@Kamatzu Fire didn't bring it down. even if it melted a few floors, it wouldnt collapse. The heat in the lower floors wouldnt be hot enough to damage the steel. also it did have a fire in the past and also a bombing at the base of it. The pancake theory is bullshit and ill prove it, just search for a few videos called failed demolition. You see the building colaspe at the bottom, it falls a long way and hits the ground and nothing collapses. The internal collumn should have bene left on 911.
benjyboba 5 months ago
@Kamatzu Yeah great, now tell me how the upper stories, which were coming apart from the heat, managed to collapse the intact lower floors. The upper floors were weakened to point of collapse by thermal expansion, and yet when they dropped a mere couple of stories onto the solid intact structure below, it was the intact lower part which exploded into a fountain of debris?
Vot63 5 months ago
@Kamatzu
If fires can shred steel-framed structures, the demolition professionals would have no business. It would be sufficient to set a few floors on fire for an hour or two, and voila -- all steel is shredded into a more or less neat pile, ready to be trucked away.
LuciaMuse 5 months ago
@LuciaMuse Good point. Never thought of that...
OrmondTheMagnificent 5 months ago
@Kamatzu No high rise steel structured building ever collapsed due to fire (go look it up, they have google), and the planes didn't collapse the towers. But on 9-11 three buildings solely due to fire made whats never happened happen? Do you get the mathematical probability of that? 3 times on one day, within 6 hours of each other, 3 buildings fell at virtually free fall speed in a global collapse using 2 different methods that were not controlled, but random office fires, is this the logic?
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@AlwaysSomething True, untill it happened when the WWC was weaked due to the heat and stress of what was put apon it like no other building. Again I'll say it's really not that hard to understand.
Coolrockndad 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Coolrockndad And this heat and stress was caused by office fire? Is this your stance? It's that simple? So they took into account the plane at 600 mph but not that fire would result from fuel? "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there" I guess you didn't read that part.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Coolrockndad Steel is a great conductor of heat, if one spot heats up, you can be assured the heat will then distribute to the rest of the beam, diverting heat away from where it's being heated. If steel is connected to a network of beams, if you heat up the one area, the heat with distribute to all beams connected, again diverting heat away. This is why high rises are so effective if fire and why no high rise has ever collapse because of fire, except 3 times on 9-11, none before or after.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@AlwaysSomething No kidding. Take a piece of steel and heat it up with a torch in the middle of that piece. It will glow cherry red at that point before it can make it to the ends. Oh course there's many factors, like the thichness of the steel, the size, the load on the steel, the type of heat etc. etc. Please stop making this more then what it is, which is an act of terror.
Coolrockndad 4 months ago
@Coolrockndad An act of terror I agree,It`s just the terrorists did`nt live in a cave in Afghanistan.
Inside job no doubt about it,the towers were turned to DUST,the mass of debris in the wtc area did not match up with two towers.If they both fell to earth the bathtub would have been smashed and Manhatten would have been flooded by the Hudson.Structural engineers and Physics Prof`s etc: the world over are starting to wake up to this huge LIE.
2000tc88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2000tc88 Is this Ron Paul?
Coolrockndad 3 months ago
@Coolrockndad /watch?v=j2_srNT8-Ow&feature=related this video is of a raging fire for 20 hours in a high rise, guess what?
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@Kamatzu I'd love to know if you understand the mathematical improbability of these events occurring in the same day. Why do we hire demo guys? Essentially, what you're saying is fire makes buildings collapse the way a demolition would. Meaning fire can collapse high rise steel buildings in 10 seconds, even though that's exactly how long a demo would take. I'm not sure I get this logic, but ya know I'm just a nut screaming the world is round.
AlwaysSomething 4 months ago
@AlwaysSomething Every floor imploded in on it's self. Then came the house of cards. Really not that hard to understand.
Coolrockndad 4 months ago
@Kamatzu The fires,yeah right,if you watch the towers burn you can see the smoke is dark,representing a generally low heat fire.If the fires brought down tower two which got hit last but came down first it was only on fire for less than an hour.NO BUILDING ON EARTH HAS COME DOWN AFTER BEING ON FIRE FOR LESS THAN ONE HOUR.If you believe it was fire then you must also believe in faries at the bottom of the garden.
2000tc88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2000tc88 Tower 2 came down first because it was hit lower, it had more weight above the fire zone. That is a fact that makes sense....They both got hit nearer one side, just like a jenga block or chopping down a tree, it will be more likely to fall if you attack one side. FACT and it makes sense. No other towere like these have have ever been crippled and damaged like WTC 1 an 2! EVER! FACT!!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@Kamatzu to shut the conspiracy bastards up. Thank you.
admx94 3 months ago
@admx94 And you are? Oh a silly wee twat who likes fancy cars, silly movies but still lives with his mom and her boyfriend and wonders what kissing a girl would be like. STFU!
CalumGilhooly 3 months ago
@Kamatzu Because you are an arsehole! Of course fires were taken into account!
CalumGilhooly 3 months ago
Also in here they said they designed against a 707 ACCIDENTALLY crashing into it, which means a plane that low would be either getting ready to land, circling for landing or just took off which means that they probably assumed an impact of the 707 at around 200 - 300 MPH, not no 540 and 590 MPH which was near top speed of those planes.
bubbasteve8 3 months ago
@bubbasteve8: good job. you just debunked yourself. Why would they design it without fuel as an obstacle??? That's retarded. Why was there an insurance policy taken out 2 months before the event that was being insured? Since when do 767s cause a STEEL High Rise to demise by volcanic eruption? It's 100% impossible. There was lava at ground zero. How do you explain that? 590MPH to hit a small target?!?!? That is quite the feat for a newbie. It's all LIES man. wake up.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "Why would they design it without fuel as an obstacle???" WHAT? where did I say anything about fuel? They would not assume a 707 would be traveling at over 300 MPH at under 10,000' let alone under 1,300. it was unheard of. The extra force of the impact helped rip off much (or more than designed for) of the fire resistant coating which was sprayed on the steel members. Therefore more columns and beams could absorb heat faster and weaken.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "Why...insurance policy taken out....blah" Um, Where in any of my posts did I give a hint that I was defending anyone who may be to blame? I do not think the gov, Bush administration, or whoever was involved, BUT I would not be that surprised if they were. I DON'T CARE! I don't know politics nor will I act like I do! But I know my physics. Blaming said people is one thing, saying dumb sh# like "missiles" and "thermite" were used instead of what we witnessed is another.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "demise by volcanic eruption?" "There was lava at ground zero." Do you have any evidence of this? Pics? Stop blowing things WAY out of proportion! Yes there were still hot spots berried that stayed hot for weeks after the collapse. We know the towers were 208' x 208' with several floors on fire. That can very well be one big ass fire! when the towers collapsed much of these fires and fire hot materials were covered by tons of debris. It blanketed these hot spots and kept in the heat
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Get yourself a 200' + tape and measure out a 200' square, then imagine a 3 to 6 story building that size on fire. About the hot spots, if it takes an oven at 400 degrees about an hour with the door shut (hell probably longer, dunno, do the experiment if you want too) then imagine how long it could take solid material debris over the size of a decent house to cool from over 1000 degrees....And what is your point anyways? What are you suggesting caused these hot spots? I mean "lava"?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 LoL. Did you watch this video?!?! Did you not see how the towers were constructed?!?! The demise video might be fake too, since I have already proven that there were over 20 faked images by the media. Is the event even possible? Answer: NO!!! 2700deg found at ground zero. Basic physics would debunk the fairytale story from the hijacking point. I design outdoor/indoor structures for live events. Every load point has it's calculation with precision to prevent a demise like this.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy I have a degree in Civil Eng. where I had a few classes that included strengths of material, structural steel design, concrete, etc. I have worked in construction for many years, including framing. Yes I watched the original WTC tower construction video. You do not need 2700 degrees to deform steel, you just need enough force. Now when you add heat, it lowers the amount force needed to deform said steel. If you had taken a college strength of materials course you would know this.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8: You are correct about force except for 1 thing>>>> It needs to be a constant force in order to make an impact. Water can cut through steel, but it is the constant force not the actual water that is cutting the steel. This is 3rd grade physics, not college. Show me an example of a steel frame building giving way from fire in less that 3 hours. I would love to see one. Too bad there isn't one, because it isn't possible.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
Comment removed
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy The weight of 15 to 29 plus stories is not enough force after there are added loads to certain columns due to missing columns, that is your force, now the force would not change much, but the temperature of the steel columns and beams did. It only takes about 800-1000 degrees to get steel members to lose 1/2 of their yield strength. The south tower tilts extremely before falling, so the columns have a bending load on them, which they were not designed for, from the tilt
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Show me another building getting hit by a 767 size plane going over 300 MPH let alone over 500 MPH first!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : Not interested in a strawman argument with a sheep like you. There are none. But every similar experiment has been done. If you did 5 minutes of critical thinking you would debunk yourself right away. Putting a live logo on a piece of video doesn't make it live. WAKE UP SHEEP. The event is IMPOSSIBLE.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy I have done tons and tons of my own research. I was a little convinced on some of these claims until conspiracy theorists started using false factoids and lies to try to prove a point with unnecessary redundancy. Also the more I looked into it, the more I see that all the physics of 911 can be explained without missiles, lasers, thermite, paid off taxi drivers, and the entire media being paid off.
"The event is IMPOSSIBLE." False, that is all I have to say about that.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : Show me an example.. I am really slow at learning, oh wait!!! There are no examples because what you are saying is IMPOSSIBLE. The fires were missing 1000 degrees of heat to deform the steel past its holding point. Show me another steel building that demised this way by fire. Answer: IMPOSSIBLE. " It was like lava, like a foundry. molten lava running down a channel" " Your boots would melt after 5 mins because of the heat" FEMA reported 2700d at ground zero silly. WAKE UP!!!!
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy You want an example, go watch the original, non-conspiracy theorists bias, videos or find pic of the I think it was the windsor tower in Madrid where the top 11 stories burned for over 20 hrs. conspiracy theorists try to say that this tower did not collapse, well that is partially incorrect because a good percentage of the structure all the way around on the top 11 stories did collapse when the columns failed and came crashing down. You can see it fall, and there are day after....
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8: You keep placing yourself back to square one. Where is the resistance from the tower receiving the massive piler driver that we are being told? How did the building demise at those speeds? Why was the aftermath identical to a volcanic eruption? How did the temp reach 2700? How did the terrorist fly the planes into the building to begin with? Is it even possible? How did they get it the cockpit? How did the terrorist give the media fake images to play on the news?
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy "Where is the resistance from the tower receiving the massive piler driver that we are being told?" I think you are trying to say that the towers should not have fallen that fast because there should be so much upwards force from the columns
in the tower below, is that your point here? if so, this should be simple for you to grasp if you really understand how columns work. They can and HAVE TO hold a lot more load than any other structural member! FACT But that force..
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy is not there if the columns are pushed out of the way and bent over! watch the videos, you can see exterior walls of columns being pushed outward away from the towers, take a structural Eng. course past high school and you will learn that any steel member can take many more times the load axially than it could from a bending load. When the building came crashing down, the floor slabs and beams had no chance, beams keep columns vertical (well when they are there!) after..
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : I have to question your education background. You are yet to adress the steel rooflines & slip joints that would have kept this tower up. If you can't adress the 2 key element that this tower was designed around, then you hold no argument. You can't have it both ways. A greater force other than progressive collapse had to have been present in the demise of WTC1. 2 steel rooflines intact under the wreckage. You need to recalculate because you wrong.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "You are yet to adress the steel rooflines & slip joints that would have kept this tower up" How does a roof line hold up a tower that collapses at 15 and 29 stories lower than the roof? Dummy up!! Building hold roofs, not the other way around! For the third time, the roof fell with the top portion of tower, go watch the videos again! "A greater force other than progressive collapse had to have been present in the demise of WTC1"
NO go re-read my posts.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : LOL, you still can't understand the way this tower was built. It is shocking. If something is fake, that means it is not real. They love that we argue over this. It keeps our minds off there real agenda which is slavery. They don't care that we know it's not possible because they control our thoughts. Survival will always rule over peace. It isn't even possible for the 2nd plane to not be intercepted by NORAD. NOT POSSIBLE.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy LMAO I actually liked and agreed with this post, except the 1st and last FALSE lines. So yes, stop arguing with the guys showing the true physics and just admit the "insiders" just used 4 jumbo jets! For the 100th time! I am not defending any group or party what so ever!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "A volcanic eruption during its demise" I saw no Volcanic activity. "Squibs in the lower sections of impact" They were not squibs, squibs explode out for a small moment then stop, the air and dust that blew out of windows under and during the collapse, kept continuously blowing out smoke and dust until the collapse reached the point of blowout. This was proof that there was indeed over 42,052,608 cubic ft of air under the 82nd floor. That is over a 500,000 cubic ft of air per floor.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "and thermite/mate residue that has been tested over 20 times recovered from ground zero." You helped recover some of this stuff at ground zero? Can you prove this? It is just as likely that this is not true just as likely as the officials say that there was no evidence of "thermite/mate" So it is your word against mine. either way, thermite/mate was not necessary nor was there any visual evidence of said "thermite/mate".
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : 2700d. You are quite the dumb ass. A squib is a squib. Denying what you see is flat out retarded. The collapse should not have produced that amount of ash, therefore.....Are you ready for similarity of these characteristics: Volcanic Eruption, or Nuclear Explosion would produce that amount of ash in that amount of time.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "The speed of the....blah...Had that roofline not been there, maybe...but with the roofline. NO WAY" There is no such thing as a "roof line" in the middle of a building, learn some terminology first, 50th time, roof are located at the top of buildings. NOW there may have been large GIRDERS at said floors (which I would still like to see pictures or video of!). Now as far as GIRDERS go, they support horizontally making the building more stout and to keep it from swaying back and forth
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy these Girders in no way were meant to support laterally, especially as far as a 15 or 29 story building falling onto them. (if there were even large girders there, still yet to see them) (if you don't give me a link, I will just look later) These girders would be designed for horizontal loads, not vertical loads, for they were attached to the columns which in turn supported the structure vertically. See, you learn something new every day.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "You are brain dead stupid. You state comments that are not even possible without knowing what you are even talking about." It's ok, you don't have to get sad because you cannot defend yourself in a debate with actual facts as opposed to here say.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy the beams were ripped away for a story or 2 or 3, the columns were bent outwards easily with much less force (bending load) than what they could support axially! Understand?
Those speeds? I dunno, I didn't clock the towers, but there are a few non conspiracy videos that show that tower 2 took 14.5 seconds to smack the ground and the north tower over 20 seconds, not no 9 or so seconds that conspiracy theorists try to claim and do edit and cut videos to make fairy tales.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : Yes lots of mis-info out there. It would have taken over a minute for progressive collapse though. Try again, and please address the steel rooflines that DID NOT resist the collapse. For the antenna to drop first in WTC 1 that would mean the entire core gave way, top to bottom, at the same time. That is impossible, man. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. Religion isn't real. There are more scams than truth in this world. Sorry, but it's true. WAKE UP!!!
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "It would have taken over a minute for progressive collapse though." Um, False, show me any building taking that long to collapse, please? Why would anyone assume a 1 minute building collapse? do you see how dumb that sounds?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "For the antenna to drop first in WTC 1 that would mean the entire core gave way, top to bottom, at the same time." Absolutely not! That just shows your lack of structural knowledge. The only things in building that support load vertically more that a floor are columns! FACT, you take out all the columns on one floor, the building above falls! Go re watch videos of tower 1 falling, the top 15 stories fall downward showing the the columns failed....you know what that...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : So I guess Newton is wrong then. You are brain dead stupid. You state comments that are not even possible without knowing what you are even talking about. You are the one that is stupid. To think a a terrorist could fly a JUMBO JET like that. What a moron.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 Meeaaaanss... all the columns failed on the floors in the impact zones, after a few fail, a few remaining columns will not hold all the wait by themselves silly! So they also failed, through those floors, NOT all the way to the ground like you say. The top 15 stories fell together including the 8 or so giant steel girders and entire roof (at the top of the tower where roof usually are) along with all said supporting structure for said antenna. Now do you Understand?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 The columns under the point of initial failure will not support the antenna if the columns above them fail and detach! That is common sense to structural engineers...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : As if airliners have never taken the precaution of an unwanted guest making forced entry into the cockpit during mid flight. What did you ask Santa for this year? Only 3 more weeks.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Pictures that show the top 11 stories much skinnier than the lower levels. Now I didn't look into seeing if that skinnier section that stayed up was it's core (probably concrete which WTC towers did not have) or not, but I am willing to bet it was. That steel structure did collapse due to fire, and it had all of it's columns at the time, it did not get any of it's columns ripped out by a jumbo jet going over 500 MPH! also it had 0 in tact stories above the fire!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy The WTC 1 and 2 had 15 and 29 stories (respectively) above their fires, no concrete core with much larger beam spans than ever used in a high rise to date of their making! Plus they had several columns missing, you count on multiple videos with close-ups of over 30 exterior columns gone from the impact on that one side. 30 out of 57 (or 59 if you count the ones on the 45 corners) is just over half! now you have all the weight of those 30 columns and the load for..
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy those columns that they were supporting for 15 and 29 stories up now bearing down on the first couple columns on the side of the giant F***ing hole the plane put into the building. By my calculations, I am surprised the towers did not collapse right away! And you know what! You are right when you say "There are no examples" because in reality, there are no examples that have compared to what happened on 911, meaning a 767 hitting such a structure at over 500 MPH. EVER!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : Listen to what you just said.... A 767 hitting a structure that isn't even twice it's width at 500mph......LOL, There is a reason that most commercial pilots have gray hair....It takes 10 plus years to achieve the skill-set to fly in that fashion, & there is like a 3% chance of doing it. You also keep ignoring the fact that these towers had 3 steel rooflines that disappeared in mid air (impossible). That was everything that the tower was designed around. 3 BUILDINGS, not 1 tower.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "A 767 hitting a structure that isn't even twice it's width at 500mph...LOL," Are you mentally challenged? It is not that hard to point a plane into a tower. Pilots land planes hundreds of thousand of times a day on runways around the world which are not much more that 200-300 ft wide or so, plus if you watch any 10 videos (without extreme crosswinds) of jumbo jets landing, you will see more than likely all ten set the plane down dead center plus or minus 10 ft!...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : LOL pilots don't land at 500mph....Really stupid comment.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy I know that you twit, but who says it is impossible to hit left to right with +/- 15 ft or so at 500 MPH aside from you? Show me proof that it was impossible, because I think it is very possible! And it happened, thus it was possible. I truly believe I could direct a plane into said dimensions +/- 20 ft if I had a buddy with a 767 to lend me for a few hours!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL. Quite the feat at that altitude for a newbie, under pressure.
Heres the links for the rooflines.
watch?v=tejFUDlV81w
watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "You didn't even know that these towers were designed as 3 building stacked on top of each other." They are not 3 building stacked on top of each other. There were "Like" 3 building stacked maybe but columns still have to sit on columns. The whole tower was still one structure as far as structural design and steel infrastructure is concerned...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : You replied to yourself dumb ass. Here's another example of physics vs. psychological slavery. You will never win. I have been doing this from day 1 mister.
watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
watch?v=ww8hBFNY8jk
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy 3 building? you better go re watch the making of the WTC towers! You could say each tower was like 2 buildings, one being the outer perimeter column tube, and the other being the core of columns on the inside! wtf does 3 roof lines have to do with the 109 stories that were consistent.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL. Can you not see the bands with your eyes? Can you not count to 3? You don't even know the building that you are talking about. At the time WTC was the tallest in the world. Base building steel roof line, Middle building steel roof line, top building steel roof line. Thats 3 silly. Each building was air locked to prevent the spread of fire. LOL You don't even know the towers to hold any argue about the demise of them. You could not ride 1 elevator to the top dumbass.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy I know about the transfer floors. Yes it took 3 elevators to get to the top. I believe these 2 separate floors, each transfer stations, were called sky lobbies used as observation floors. But what "roof line" was at these floors? Roof lines are at the roof which is located at the top of building? I can't find these 2 mid building roof line structures you speak of, please show me a link, I will look at it.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy And they could not be "air locked" or else humans could not get past them in elevators. Elevator shafts are nor air tight, and both upward and downward elevator shafts ended on the floor. even if they were some what air tight then you would have a problem when 2 different bound elevators doors were opened at the same time... But what ever, what does "air locked" floors have to do with structural integrity of the tower?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy and what are you talking about they disappeared in mid air? The roof fell with the entire top of the building (from point of collapse to the roof) kind of like one solid piece! Go watch the videos, the top sections stayed in tact until they disappear in the smoke cloud and probably until they topple over and smack the ground. (in the video of tower 2 falling from the street with the group of fire fighters, you can here a very distinct thud at 14 seconds into the collapse)
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : Each roofline was attached to the core. That's impossible. You have no clue what you are talking about...Lol all those comments & you are clueless. Ask Jesus for the answer.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL what about the other 2 buildings. You don't even know the construction of these towers. Would you like a copy of the CAD drawing?!?!....LMAO
EPIC FAILURE!!!!!!
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Yeah actually, you got it? I have autoCAD 04, no F that, your probably punk enough to send me a virus! LOL
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy And what other 2 building do you speak of? Now you lost me, explain please.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Now, I have given you an example based on facts (not fairytale), the facts are there, go do your research by using more than just bias conspiracy BS videos. NOW where is your example? You asked for one and I gave you one based on facts, not BS, now show me some lava already? Don't slander around again but give me a true realistic example. You also never answered my simple question! What caused these "lava" pits in the rubble? How did the "insiders" do it? heaters?....
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 I have no idea what caused it. The world could be an illusion for all I know. But if your are right, that would make Newton wrong. Fema reported 2700d. It WAS a volcanic eruption. So if the laws of motion don't mean anything to you, go ahead. If it doesn't mean anything to you that there are over 20 faked images from the media, then go right ahead and live your IGNORANT life. You are a SLAVE, & they laugh at you more than me, so the joke is on you.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy The joke is not on me! see you are the ignorant one because you still do not see my point? You claim that "lava" in the rubbles proves it was an inside job? WTF? Explain it? How and WHY would anyone want to make "lava" appear in the rubble? It makes NO sense!! what so ever!! AGAIN! I am not defending anyone as far as pointing fingers!! And I know our media brainwashes just like every other country! But wouldn't be easier to just say the "insiders" just used 4 jumbo jets?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 Again with the strawman. You ARE a joke. You can't admit to being wrong in your own comments then comeback & say otherwise. You didn't even know that these towers were designed as 3 building stacked on top of each other. So yes, you are a joke, sorry. Critical thinking 101, Fake images by the media = SCAM
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : The lava makes perfect sense as an objective because there is no explantion for the temp other than a greater force that burn much hotter than jet fuel. Progressive collapse isn't even possible regardless. So it is a pointless to argue over it.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy "Progressive collapse isn't even possible regardless. So it is a pointless to argue over it." Stop saying these False factoids with nothing to back them up? Explain to me how the collapses were impossible? Did I not explain how they were possible well enough in my posts? (go re read my posts well before you say "No")
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : The speed of the collapse. Even if 10 colums were taken out, there isn't enough force to go through the steel roof which was made of an intense net of steel going 10ft high through the entire floor of the building minus the elevator shafts. The drastic change in resistance would have caused the mass above to fall off instead of through the stronger mass below. Had that roofline not been there, maybe...but with the roofline. NO WAY.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "What more do you need?!?! " Well maybe a group of theorists that agree with one story that makes sense and does not involve hundreds of thousands of people to be involved and paid off! That is just silly!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "As if airliners have never taken the precaution of an unwanted guest making forced entry into the cockpit during mid flight. What did you ask Santa for this year? Only 3 more weeks" High jacking have happened many times before.... so now you are saying that it was impossible on 911? You know there were 36 highjack attempts that day right? Only 4 of which were successful!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : ROFL. Pay attention little boy. You keep putting yourself in check. 36 attempts that day...buha buha ah ah a. Arabs everywhere terrorizing our freedom. A huge threat. So many attacks before & after this impossible event. What should we do, they have box cutters. They knew who did it 10 minutes after it happened. They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 Oh and I asked Santa for a gopro Hero 2, and the F***er better give me what I want this year, or I am gonna call up my buddy G dub and have him get his crew together and shoot missiles o blow the north pole to smitheroonies!! d:-p
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "Inside job means everything should be questioned." True, sure..But you still haven't been getting WTF I have said over and over, sure, it may have been and inside job, but saying dumb shit like, there was no plane at the pentagon, causes more need for explanation and more physics that literally don't work. Say the pentagon for example, there were like 5 or 7 tall street light poles that were knocked over and damaged by the plane, one of which...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 went into a taxi cab driving down the highway, on the way to the pentagon. How does a missile do that? Oh wait i know, it had batman cables shoot out the sides to grab up the poles, that's how. Your making jumbo jets full of loved ones disappear into thin air, now you gotta prove how the plane (or at least half of the parts there of) was planted at the pentagon with nobody noticing. So not we need a crash site on land to wreck the plane near the pentagon where nobody could see like
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 like a mini area 51, call it area 52, where after the wreck, they had a semi load up half the plane parts then bring them to the pentagon, again without nobody noticing...am I doing ok, I am trying to understand this missile theory, seems pretty ridiculously impossible if you ask me. Maybe you can better explain it? P.S. Ill look at your linked videos later, I got other things to do tonight better spent than this. sorry to disappoint..
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : I don't clam what hit. I only claim what didn't. When did I say that a missile hit the pentagon you white trash retard? The whole thing could be fake for all I know, but again you are a RETARD. It is impossible to fly a plane at those speeds, with that altitude, & hit a target.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy NO NO! If you say that those 4 hijacked planes did not hit in said places, then you have to PROVE what happened to them, that is part of your case! Don't even talk about these flights never being hijacked to me, instead talk to the mother, father, brother, sister, etc of a loved one who was one one of those flights. Talk to many families, explain to them where there family member and entire plane went, like I said, your theory needs a lot of explaining and is IMPOSSIBLE!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
Comment removed
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy It IS possible. And no, it's not difficult.
MaxwellEindhoven 2 months ago
@MaxwellEindhoven : ROFL....NO IT ISN'T!!!!!!
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : LOL
redneck....this will teach you how planes work.
watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 "They had a confession tape, list of hijackers(recovered from Atta's car), & 2 passports recovered from the wreckage. YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU BUY THAT, SORRY." I don't buy that or give a shit, 102nd time, don't care,..... off subject, and ignored....
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@bubbasteve8 : I'm sure you have figured out by now that the entire event is impossible according to the official story that you are defending. No hard feelings, at least you know what didn't happen now. The best thing to take from this is to realize why they did it, & to stop demonizing people from the middle east for a crime they did not commit.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBoriBoy I was trying to make you see the truth, that the official story is true, but that does not defend any said party to blame. You still don't get it. The truth is that theorists not only have failed to disprove the "official story/explanation" but have even further failed to prove that these ridiculous claims could have even been possible, for who ever you are blaming, to pull off. Your talking about even thousands in the media in on this big conspiracy. IMPOSSIBLE!!!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Is it possible that the Bush admin., government, Bushes dog's ex dog sitter's sisters ex boyfriend could be involved? YES and no one like you, me, or any little pip squeak behind a desk in his mommy n daddy's Hollywood home would ever get a hold of secret documents (like theorists claim) to be able to prove anything. It's a joke!! So with that said, for the 110th time. Sure you may be right about the Government or Bush clan to be involved. But no missiles were involved!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Yes, those people DID commit this crime, only you're too stupid to fucking accept it. It's proven over and over again, but you seem to comfort yourself by saying it was the government?
MaxwellEindhoven 2 months ago
@MaxwellEindhoven : I never said the government did it RETARD!!! I only claim what DIDN'T happen. Could the building have been hit by a plane?!?! SURE. But, not at those speeds, & it wasn't flight 11. Sorry...Oh, & the Naudet brothers clip is FAKE. So please explain how it is possible for Al Q to give the media a FAKE news clip?!?!
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Lol, what's fake? The entire documentary? I hate to burst your little bubble, but it actually DID happen. The Naudet clip (of what I presume you're talking about) of the first impact, isn't the only video that catched that very moment. Why do they record the exact same thing then? Not to mention the thousands of eye whitness reports, all of them confirming the exact same event. Why would every single one of them tell they whitnessed something that wasn't there?
MaxwellEindhoven 2 months ago
@MaxwellEindhoven : YES. Was the Blair Witch Project real?!?! And, no I was taking about the South Tower that includes the OMG soundbite which I had prior to 9/11. Please explain how I had the same exact sound effect prior to 9/11???
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Alright, so if the Blair Witch Project is fake, the Naudet documentary must also be fake. Right. Interesting. Why and how could I possible explain something about an OMG soundbite? I don't fucking care about a soundbite? It's about thousands of EYEWHITNESSES!!! THEY ALL CONFIRM WHAT THE NAUDET BROTHERS RECORDED!!! Please explain to me why there are literally thousands of video's and photographs, made by citizens and tourists, all confirming the same thing?
MaxwellEindhoven 2 months ago
@MaxwellEindhoven : 100s of witnesses heard 11 shots & dealy plaza but the news said 3. What is your point. It's he said she said. We have evidence that the event is a lie silly.
BadBoriBoy 2 months ago
@BadBoriBoy I'm talking about people who witnessed it and had a camera with them. Images often say more than words. And NO, you don't have evidence, that's the point. You just have some rumors, that you could never back up with real evidence.
MaxwellEindhoven 2 months ago