@LindaStevensBZ ahahahahah... then why was WTC7 not mentioned in the final reports?... and also why are 7 hijackers still alive? (they should be dust just in case you couldn't work that one out ;)... oh, and lets not forget the architect admitted WTC7 was taken down with explosives.. and they haven't found any evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11... list goes on, the official story is comedy!
@TheMoo1231 'moo moo,WTC7 not mentioned in the final reports?" BECAUSE IT WASN'T ATTACKED AND NO ONE DIED IN IT " why are 7 hijackers still alive?" ETHER THEY JUMPED AND FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED INTO THE MARRIOT HOTEL POOL ON ITS ROOF OR THERE ARE OTHER MUSLIMS WITH THE SAME NAME, WHICH ONE BRAINIAC? HINT: HOW MANY JOHN SMITHS ARE THERE " not forget the architect admitted WTC7 was taken down with explosives? WHO'S THAT, RICHARD GAGE I SUPPOSE? LMAO!
@911TRUTHINATOR AHAHAHAAH YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARDED CUNT STOP WATCHING FOX NOISE... GO AND LEARN SOMETHING ON AE911TRUTH OR SOMETHING YOU FUCKTARD.... aahahah you make me laugh. You're blocked now, go and fuck yourself. LOL quote of the year "because it wasn't attacked and no one died" TROLOLOLOLOLOL.!
Toward the end of this debate Leslie Robertson makes a "molten steel? What molten steel?" claim about the molten steel found at Ground Zero. Recently a video surfaced of a talk Robertson gave in 2002 where he claimed he saw "like a little river of molten steel". See my video:
There was no molten steel, he knows that this wasn't steel, it was Aluminum, from other parts of the building, and the plane.
That's what he's referring to.
Other comments? This was before the reports came out, and all the details known, they were SPECULATING, ever hear of that? Why the hell would you expect someone to know 100% what went on in the building at just a glance?
That's idiotic. Surprisingly, even in your video, many STILL got it right.
@Alaskaslim You're wrong. In 2002 Mr. Robertson said he was in the rubble pile and he pulled up a piece of concrete and underneath was "like a little river of molten steel". You wouldn't expect to know 100% what went on, but you would expect the laws of physics to be validated. The presence of molten steel contradicts the 2d law of thermodynamics. But there is was.
"The presence of molten steel contradicts the 2d law of thermodynamics."
No, after several months of sitting there and burning, that's exactly what you'd expect, the NIST, the ASCE, and several other trade organizations have stated as such.
What either don't seem to know or get, is that 9/11 is now one of the most highly studied cases in the Architectural/civil engineering industry. No one just "ignored it".
@Alaskaslim That's what YOU'd expect, but it would be contrary to the 2d law of thermodynamics. No matter how long you cook steel in an oven, it will never get hotter than the oven.
NIST cut off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus was able to dodge the seven essential mysteries of the collapses.
@Alaskaslim Over 1650 architects and engineers support me in calling for new investigations of the destruction of the three skyscrapers at Ground Zero.
@punx 1650 OUT OF 10,000,000 ON THIS PLANET` ARE JUST THE NORMAL % of INSANE people in any career here's one of the few REAL structual engineers of AE911TRUTH
@911TRUTHINATOR AE911Truth has 50 real structural engineers. Charles Pegelow is not listed as a member of AE911Truth. His license was in civil engineering, not structural. Glad I could clear that up for you. I know you will be anxious to remove your deceptive video.
He is saying Cheney had given order pertaining to an incoming plane BEFORE it was 50 miles out, and a young man came in every 10 miles to report the distance, eventually asking if the orders still stand.
Unless Cheney was ordering coffee, it was a shoot down, or stand down order. Neither of which are the government's fairy tale of passengers taking down the plane, neither does the 5 mile debris radius/empty hole.
you really dont think Norad had continental defense protocol? are you a complete fucking retard? you better believe that weve had defense plans all the way back to when our first fuckin fighter planes were rolled off the line. why the fuck do you think they make them asshole? to look at? to wax? im a retard? i dont think so you naive fuck
i watched them report wtc7 as leveled way before it fell. i saw that report live. i watched live the second jet hit and for 5 days after that non-stop. the news and how its reported is also another smoking gun. the p.r for this tragedy was set up far in advance. i know. i watched it unfold before my eyes
you really think that things are that transparent in our world? you think because everyone has cameras that we cant be fooled by those in true power? its called plausible deniablility, but when you have a trail of coincendences then that trail starts to smoke with fucking brimstone k? it stinks to high hell. if you dont smell something rotten in Denmark than its because you believe to strongly if the "foundation" of your world. the wars that have followed are proof enough, regardles of the smoke
See Part 3 at 4:55 where Mr. Roberston denies that anyone saw molten steel at Ground Zero. He told a different story in 2002, saying he saw a "little river of molten steel". See my video:
Mr. Robertson claims that the towers were designed for a low-speed impact for a 707. A 1964 white paper says the towers' design would resist impact from a 707 at 600 mph. Since a 73-ton 707 might carry 80 tons of fuel and had four heavy engines, it would certainly be a match for a 90 ton 767 with only 33 tons of fuel and only two engines.
Well, explosives can't make a building "fall through itself at free-fall speeds" either, if that's what you're thinking of, however it can remove sufficient support (columns) so that the remaining columns must carry more loads. If these loads lead to stresses in the columns that exceeds the yield strength of the material, the column will fail due to material yielding. If lateral support (say floors connected to a column) is removed, the buckling length of the column will be increased (cont.)
WOW Leslie Robertson lies like a rug. He doesn't believe what he is saying. He's lying through his teeth. Funny that he relates it to a couch burning in a mall... wtf??? He's not qualified to talk about building 7. No kidding. He says a lot of changes were made to the towers over the years for tenants.. strengthening... so, if they were made stronger over the years... why would they then collapse? LIAR.
Not sure if any has posted these numbers yet...but I believe Silverstein leased the WTC for 15 million dollars...and the fact that he got insurance on the buildings was NOT the major point...it was that Silverstein INSISTED the insurance covering terrorist attacks and his right to rebuild if the fell...When all the smoke cleared...and his lawyers convinced the jury that the attacks counted as TWO SEPERATE terrorist attacks...Silverstein made 7 BILLION dollars off the insurance claim...WOW
@ Truthinator, although we don't generally agree on most of the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 I think yo bring a lot of valuable information and arguments to the table. Thanks for the post. Would you be able to specify the name of the radio show, anchor, date etc. Would really appreciate it. Thanks again.
Leslie Robertson was not the Chief engineer for the Twin Towers, John Skilling was, he hired Robertson. You should look into what both John Skilling and Frank A. Demartini had to say about the towers. Frank A. Demartini was hired in 1993 after the 93 bombings as building manager unfortunately he died in the attacks. Also in 1998 John Skilling passed. They both say that planes could not take down Twin Towers.
@MultiBlinLaden, Robertson WAS the cheif engineer for the design of the structural elements--keeping the building up. Skillings white paper was a POLITICAL statement (against people who were opposed to the project claiming planes would crash into buildings) And DeMartini was about 14 when the building was designed.
Les robertson is the ONE and ONLY authority on this issue.
@piwacket33 And what exactly makes you an expert? At least you said "weaken" and not "melt", which is the common CT misconception.... But, really, steel IS weakened when subjected to heat. Just check out any material science book on the subject....
@mlrs84 The fire lasted slightly over an hour, do the math. BTW I studied structural engineering at RPI, so I may not be an expert, but I do have a lot of common sense, that's really all it takes. Yes, of course steel is weakened when it is heated,but it has to get a lot hotter for a lot longer than 2 hours. google the windsor building in madrid spain, burned for two days, completely gutted, some upper floors collapsed, but the steel structure remained standing. Still drinking the koolaid?
@piwacket33 You say that the Windsor burned and "some upper floors collapsed, but the steel structure remained standing". The fact is that the steel structure collapsed, and the concrete core remained. Had there not been a concrete core, then most likely the entire top would have collapsed. Would the entire structure fall? Who knows? You can't compare two entirely different structures, especially when one was hit by a plane and saturated with jet fuel and the other was not.
@mlrs84 The majority of the jet fuel (similar to kerosene) was burned in that big fireball you saw when the "plane" entered the tower. What remained were relatively cool office fires (note the black smoke indicative of a low-temp fire). The Windsor building burned for two days and the entire thing was gutted by fire, the steel structure was partially collapsed after two days.
@piwacket33 And, please tell me how to "do the math". I'm also a structural engineer, and the only way I know of calculating the response to fire of a structure as complex as a skyscraper is to use nonlinear finite element analysis. By the tone of your post, it seems you can intuitively say that the fires were not hot enough.... how? Are you also an expert in fires? And if all it takes is common sense, then how come people study for years to become engineers?
@mlrs84 Seems like common sense to me to deduce that a building cannot fall through itself at free fall speeds. I don't think anyone would have to study engineering to understand that would be an impossibility. Seeings as you are a structural engineer can you tell us how in any fire calculations the structural steel could simultaneously remove all its support over about 8 floors in the case of WTC7 causing it to collapse symmetrically and at free fall?
(cont from below) and the capacity of the column to carry axial load will be severely decreased. This is true for a normal temperature steel column. If, in addition, the temperature in the steel is raised, the Young's modulus will be decreased and the capacity further decreased. If in addition to this there even exists some kind of geometric imperfection this will also decrease the capacity. You probably won't believe me now either, but at least I tried to explain to you...
So, what I tried to say is that "explosives don't explode the building down to the ground", rather it removes enough support so that the remaining structure yields and gravity takes over. You see where I'm going here? Plane=explosives in the sense that it removes support, fires heat (no, I never said melt) the steel reducing the young's modulus, sagging floors pull the perimeter columns inwards creating geometric imperfections and eccentricities in the columns.
@piwacket33 That dipstick is a shill. Just take a look at his damned lame channel page. And if that ain't enough to raise your eyebrows, just change the 84 at the end of his name to a '1', and check out how similar the channel pages are both like plain brown paper bag accounts.
When I find shit like that and see how ALL those kinds of accounts try to hose serious discussions on the 9/11 threads, I can only smile at how Robertson stumbled a few times in the vid.
@codevictim You're absolutely right. Thanks for the heads up on the shill thing. I've just been in reaction mode and playing into this type of thing. Some people have got a lot of time on their hands, I guess. Not me... my life is so full it's bursting. (happily so)
re: stumbling ... you wonder what the payoff is for him?
Thanks again cv... always nice to know there are some clear thinking people out there who don't just tow the "company line". Have a very happy New Year!!!
@MultiBlinkey And the planes themselves, the kinetic energy of the impact, did NOT take down the structures. However, the intense fires that weakened the steel combined with the structural damage from the plane was too much for the structures and they succumbed.
@mlrs84 If you watch the North Tower collapse you will see the "pile driver" upper section above the plane impact actually destroys itself before collapsing supposedly through the building. And the South Tower falls over to the side. WTC7 collapses at free fall speed for over 2 seconds this means the 8 floors worth of steel would have to be simultaneously removed. How can fire do this?
@MultiBlinkey The builders and engineers of Titanic also (in)famously said that it couldn't sink, so that engineers say something like that, is unfortunate, but should not be taken as a absolute proof that something can't happen. Subjected to the right forces, ALL constructions will fail at some point.
@mlrs84 The builders and engineers of Titanic also didn't designed it to collide with glaciers. The twin towers were designed with plane impacts in mind.
@Ahlywog I'm sure you mean iceberg not a glacier.... However, my point was, like I said, that every single structure ever built on this planet will have a breaking point. Engineers try to envision what can happen to a structure and design it to withstand anticipated events. True, the WTC was designed with plane IMPACT in mind, and it was quite evident on 9/11 that the towers survived the impact itself. However, the fires were not considered in the 1960's and are what brought these towers down.
@mlrs84 You know I keep hearing that said "they forgot about the fires." Where is everyone getting that from? How absolutely stupid would these engineers have to be to design a building to take the impact of a plane and totally forget that planes have fuel? They had jets when the buildings were designed. Jets mean jet fuel (in one form or another.) Were the buildings not designed to withstand ANY fire seeing as even NIST admits the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes?
@Ahlywog I said the fires were "not considered" in the design, not "forgotten". I think it has to do with the mathematical models of how to correctly predict how fuel would be dispersed and the ensuing fires would behave. This is a highly dynamic model, even the less complex plane-impact model made by NIST took several months for a high-speed computer to finish, how would this be done in the 60s? The simulation was simply not possible at that time. Stop relating everything to conspiracies!
@mlrs84 Can you cite the source on where you get this "not considered in the design" business from? Are you quoting something in specific? This is one of those arguments that I hear repeated constantly but when I ask for a source I never get it.
And it IS a conspiracy. If more than one person was involved, whether it be terrorists or 'shadow government agents' or who-ever, it's a conspiracy.
@Ahlywog Yup, source is the documentary "WTC Anatomy of the Collapse" from 2002. About 35 minutes in, Robertsons says "To the best of my knowledge the considerations of the fuel in the airplane in terms of an explosion or great fire WAS NOT CONSIDERED". He goes on to say "Now, we were not responsible for that aspect of the design so I may be wrong, but I believe it was not considered. And further, had it been considered it would have been proven to be impossible to deal with it"
@Ahlywog And another source, the PBS documentary "Why the towers fell". Just google the PBS transcript of the episode, as I'm not allowed to post link here. You will probably just add this in your conspiracy pile as your mind is probably already made up, but you asked for sources and you got them!
@Ahlywog the towers were designed to absorb the impact of a slow flying (approx. 200mph), low on fuel ( if if it had enough fuel it would fly to another city) 707 lost in the fog looking for the airport, the same as what happened to the b25 that hit the empire state building.
why the towers fell part 1
watch?v=YpUZkTe_9bA
the fall of the world trade center - complete program,same as ":why the towers fell" with bbc narration.
@MultiBlinkey Leslie Robertson said in a more recent phone interview that the twins towers were "pieces of shit" and built to sub standard specifications. That is obviously a clear contradiction to what he said in interviews in the late 80s as well as what he is saying in this video. In his phone interview he also stated he was part of the NIST oversight committee.
@MultiBlinkey Correction! I was thinking Charlie Thornton. Not Leslie Robertson. Charlie Thornton said they were built to sub standard specifications that would not have even passed standards then, let alone now. He said that the FEMA reports were a white wash because no one wants to admit to the horrible design of the buildings which he equated to a high school gym or a walmart. He was also part of the NIST oversight committee.
@MultiBlinkey How can you say 2 people that DIED BEFORE THE EVENT can say that planes could not take down the towers? They say they were DESIGNED to withstand an impact from a 707, not a 767. Not to mention, you could not possibly REAL WORLD test that design. There's no way to be certain. I would bet that had they survived/lived to see what happened, their tune would be different. The design was actually flawed and no building will be built with a truss + tube in tube architecture ever again.
@Oz1976 Since a 707 had 4 engines instead of just 2, it had almost twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns that a 767 had. Also, a 600 mph design spec was used for the 707, much faster speed than the 767.
@punxsutawneybarney The fact of the matter is Leslie Robertson agrees with the collapse mechanics. The buildings DID their job, they didn't fall over on impact, they stood for 50+ minutes each. The failure was in the escape routes and protection of the core. That's why he's gone away from that design for his new project, the tower in China. The towers did their job, they didn't fall immediately and allowed for 1000's to escape below the impacts.
@Oz1976 He has no choice but to pretend he believes in the official story. If he said anything else, he'd be written off as unhinged. The fact remains that in 2002 he claimed he saw a little river of molten steel, and in 2006 he poo pooed the idea that anybody had ever seen such a thing.
@punxsutawneybarney Funny...he wasn't even in New York during the week of September 11th... He was in China. But you know so much, i'm sure you can post a 2002 source for this supposed molten steel river. I'm betting, if there is one, he said molten METAL, not steel, especially considering he wasn't even there.
@runelord37 It was a gravity collapse. Frank Di Martini radioed down during rescue operations that he thought WTC 1 was going to collapse. Leslie Robertson agrees with the collapse mechanics and admitted while they thought their math was sound, there is no way to REAL WORLD TEST an airplane crashing into the buildings the way they were on 9/11. He admits the fireproofing was not sufficient nor the drywall considering most of it was dislodged.
@Oz1976 it was a gravity collapse cause you and other fuckin monkey men say so? good call. guess that makes you feel like you live in the good guy country where everything is rosy and conspiracy never exists. the universe tends TOWARDS chaos asshole. fireproofing cannot remove a huge steel frame. it cannot bring about collapse close to free fall speed or eject material as far as it did or reduce concrete to dust or see no bending or tipping in an uneven stress impact. and im dumb? okey dokey
@runelord37 It was a gravity collapse because that's what the structural engineers that investigated determined and is corroborated by the video record. Monkeymen? How deluded are you? And I never said conspiracies don't exist. If that were the case we wouldn't even have that word...CONSPIRACY. However, the reason we also know about them is why? Cause someone involved leaked/screwed up/blew the whistle. 10 years and not one of those whistleblowers...not one. You have no clue about the collapse.
@Oz1976 you cannot defy newtons 3rd law ape. go look it up. think with logic not emotion. you have equal and opposing force, therefore it cannot simply implode. nist studies up to the point of collapse nmot beyond that. unreal how many fucking fearmongering morons there are in this world. dont fear reality, just adjust. false flags happen. why couldnt they happen on 9/11? why all the firsts? why all the coincedences? wake up
@runelord37 Newton's 3rd Law wasn't broken. Stop regurgitating that bullshit from "The Physics of 9/11"...it's utter idiocy. You don't comprehend what happened and are propogating nothing more than bullshit. The fearmongering is on the "truth" side son. The one's spewing NWO this and illuminati that, fucking Alex Jones shit. Wake up? ROFL...you're the one in a dream.
youtube.com/watch?v=_u-KrdtSFsE
bastison .net/ <-- translate from french to english at the bottom
@Oz1976 you dont comprehend it either...so lets just agree that neither of us are experts. so with that being said , i think ill side with a prof of physics., k buddy? i wont even try to argue the merits or logic from a laymen standpoint. what i will say is that all i hear about 9/11 from the official side is that it was a day of "firsts" . now if you want to swallow that garbage wholesale on top of the fact or Norads standown and shipping off crime scene evidence for it to be destroyed....ya ok
@runelord37 Oh that's where you're quite wrong. I understand 9/11 quite well, I had 3 friends die in those towers. I stood there and watched the second plane hit it. I know 9/11. And I know it wasn't some whackjob idiotic mega-conspiracy by our government. Norad didn't standdown, that's ridiculous. You have no clue what you're talking about, and spouting off shit that was debunked 6 years ago.
@Oz1976 sorry you lost people. my condolences. doesnt make you more in command of fact however. Norad did stand dowm or else it wouldnt have intercepted both planes and the object that struck the pentagon. you really think it was coincedence that all of our air defense with the exception of a few jets was out of the country flying mock runs at something exactly like what took place that very day? wow..well if you can swallow that horseshit, you are very ill. im sorry.
@runelord37 No it didn't, that's a fallacy. NORAD has intercepted ONE flight originating from the continental United States in the 20 years prior to 911. ONE. Payne Stewart, the golfer's, plane. All other intercepts were out over the oceans or gulf...hence why the 2 F-15's that were scrambled ended up out over the Atlantic at their normal rendevous point. And that ONE intercept took over 45 minutes. David Ray Griffin fed you a buncha bullshit from a VIDEO GAME (flight simulator). You're an idiot
@Oz1976 dude youre talking completely out your fucking ass....where was norad that day? wanna tell me? thats right..like i said they were on a tactial simulation mission. what your telling me is that they couldnt scramble what we DID have to intercept whatever hit the pentagon? yeah ok...let me know when you take your head partially out of your ass so i can slap you in your idiot face. you NEED to badly to believe your world is safe and explanable dont you? go back to the pasture
@runelord37 Listen to the ATC recordings and you'll understand the confusion you dumb mother fucker. Prior to 911, NORAD had never had our defenses pointed INWARD. Dumbass. THEY DID SCRAMBLE WHAT WE HAD. 4 jets were scrambled, it was TOO LATE dumb fuck. The FAA and NEADS reacted too slow. Shoot down order was not given until it was TOO LATE. Get it through your dumb fuck pea brain, NORAD did NOT stand down. No, it's YOU that needs to believe it's explainable, I believe TERRORISTS happen. Dumbass
@Oz1976 "Prior to 911, NORAD had never had our defenses pointed INWARD. Dumbass."
Uhhh...are you having a laugh? You expect anyone to believe hijackings were not considered pre-9/11? That is pure disinformation! NORAD was simulating hijacked airlines the very day of 9/11, remember the NORAD official saying "is this real world or exercise"? This is one reason they were delayed.
Bush tried to have people believe hijackings had never been considered pre 9/11. Utter nonsense.
@Oz1976 "Shoot down order was not given until it was TOO LATE"
Then what was Mineta of the National Transportation and Safety Board talking about in his testimony:
watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Listen to him. Doesn't quite fit your fairly tale aka the official conspiracy theory. Cheney knew a plane was inc and had given orders, either to stand down or shoot down, neither of which matches the official fairly tale of passengers bringing the plane down, neither does the 5 mile debris radius/empty hole.
@99Eternal Funny, he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given. So what orders were the young man talking about? Cheney can't give the shoot down order, only Bush could. Mineta says, he didn't know what that meant and he ASSUMES it means the shoot down order. You can't comprehend what he's saying? He's assuming that conversation meant the shoot down order. "There was an order to shoot the plane down?" repsonse "Well I don't know that specifically". Next?
@Oz1976 "Cheney can't give the shoot down order, only Bush could"
Incorrect. If that were true, I doubt a young man would be coming in telling Cheney the plane is 50, 40, 30, 20 miles out then asking Cheney if the orders still stand as Mineta testified.
"he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given"
So we should then ignore the fact that Cheney was clearly giving an order directly relating to an incoming plane?! And the 5-mile debris radius/empty hole away from debris?
@99Eternal What order? Mineta says in that testimony that he doesn't know what order it pertains to and he assumes it meant the shoot down order. He clearly is ASSUMING, his testimony can be clearly seen as him assuming as he even says "I do not know that specifically". You're a typical truther cherry picking. Cheney did not have the power, only Bush did, that is a fact. It wasn't a 5 mile debris field either. That's a misnomer perpetrated by truthers using mapquest to define the debris field.
@Oz1976 "It wasn't a 5 mile debris field either. That's a misnomer perpetrated by truthers using mapquest to define the debris field. "
Anyone capable of looking up witness statements will see that what you have just said is complete and utter bullshit.
Do you actually think your opinion, being a random youtuber with no credentials who wasn't even there, bears ANY magnitude whatsoever compared to witnesses who saw the debris themselves, and officials who actually cleaned the entire mess up?
@99Eternal No it's not bullshit. The idiot that came up with the "5 mile debris field" used Mapquest to see travel time from the crash site to the lake where the furthest debris was found. BY ROAD, it's 5 miles, make a straight line...guess what...it's TWO. Look it up you dimwit.
@Oz1976 It doesn't matter whether it was 2 miles, 5 miles, or 100000 miles. The physical evidence fits a shootdown. Look at the hole, the plane was in a dive, yet the debris is scattered for miles?
You are also ignoring the order given by Cheney as per Mineta of the NTSB's testimony and it;s relevance to the above. They knew a plane was incoming for at LEAST 50 miles and Cheney had given an order BEFORE Mineta arrived. Do you understand what that means, you fool?!
@Oz1976 "Funny, he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given. "
And do you comprehend what that actually means, you inbred shill?
That means an order was given even before the 50 mile mark. What type of order would the VP be giving regarding the military and a hijacked airplane that they were clearly aware was incoming? Unless you can suggest something else, he was either giving a stand or shoot down order. Neither of which coincide with the governments official fairy tale.
@99Eternal No you dumb mother fucker, it means HE HAS NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN, WHERE OR BY WHO THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN, you incompetant fuck. You're an idiot. Plain and simple. As typical of the TWOOF movement, you cherry pick quotes and take them OUT OF CONTEXT and fail to comprehend them. There was no inside job you dumb cunt. Call me a shill all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're a moron and a sheep to the profiteering scam that is 911 Truth. Dumb fuck .
@Oz1976 Is that really the best you can do - elementary playground insults?
Acting like a child is not going to take away Mineta's testimony.
"it means HE HAS NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN, WHERE OR BY WHO THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN"
We know exactly who gave the order, he specifically said the man asked DICK CHENEY "do the orders still stand?" CHENEY replied "of course.." according to Mineta testimony.
The mere fact that a stand/shootdown order was given destroys the official story.
@Oz1976 "you cherry pick quotes and take them OUT OF CONTEXT and fail to comprehend them"
I linked you the ENTIRE testimony. How is it possible to take something out of context when that something IS the ENTIRE context?
I think you need to look up the definition of comprehend, and context. You clearly do not comprehend the entire context of his testimony, nor the implications of a stand or shoot down order being given before the plane was 50miles out.
@99Eternal And you FAIL to comprehend that testimony. FACT: ONly the president could give the shoot down order. FACT: At the time of the conversation Norman Minetta overheard that order HAD NOT been given. FACT: Does the order still stand? Means, THERE WAS NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER, it had not yet been given so the C-130 tailing Flight 77 could NOT attempt to take out the plane. The shootdown order wasn't officially given till after 10am.
@Oz1976 Fact the SOP or Standing Operating Procedure is to NOT shoot down anyone...the pilot then radios back to his higher ups and asks for permission to fire..Why would someone ask for permission to NOT shoot. BTW figher pilots never even got close enough to fire missles...what was the permission to shoot at?
@Oz1976 "He's assuming that conversation meant the shoot down order."
What else could it have been? Stand down or shoot down. Neither fits the official fairly tale of passengers bringing down the plane, neither does the physical evidence aka the empty hole in the ground and the 5 mile debris radius miles from that empty hole.
Your arguments bear no magnitude. But please, feel free to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself.
@jtrish23 What is there to laugh at the idea that the Oro is the illuminati, or that your predetermined mind flickers about death and destruction and it is this notion that you need to be superior to others?
$16MILLION dollars to investigate 9/11 but to investigate Bill Clinton THEY SPENT $40MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!...I ASK THE QUESTION "WHICH ONE WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM?"
That doesn't mean one was more important than the other considering how LONG Kennth Starr DRAGGED on the investigation into Clinton's misdeeds. 1 investigation has nothing to do with the other. And it is NOT evidence in of itself of anything but truthers willingness to believe any idiocy they believe helps them.
you just don't make sense!!!!! take a good look at yourself before you make a fool of yourself to comment about what i said but can't answer the question shows me how blind to the FACTS you are.
Yes, it does make sense. And more $ being spent on 1 as opposed to the other isn't evidence in of itself. The truther non- movement has no facts. My eyes are WIDE OPEN.
there is a lot you need to learn this then my little comment. i see you hate my comment so much you gave me a "thumbs down". stop the hate i just ask the question that's very simple.
Are you kidding? I don't "hate comments". I don't "hate". That's way oversued and illused at the same time, these days. It's a same you can't comprehend your speculation about speinding more for 1 over the other is unfounded speculation, NOTHING else. It's certainly NOT evidence, nor could it be used as such.
your eyes maybe be "wide open" but your mind is closed. i was not saying that was evidence but only stating that there is something WRONG with that picture. don't you agree???
No, my mind is open. No, there's nothing wrong with that, since Kenneth Starr was the one that dragged the investigation into Clinton on and on. Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and has been proven in a US court lf law rendering a guilty verdict.
thats a LIE ksm allegedly admitted to the attacks BY stating he was the MASTER MIND of it NOT osama or Al queada. the FBI states that there is NO evidence that points to bin laden connection to 9/11 only through the group the americans created called Al queada. ( data base) which they started to help organized the afgans to fight the Russians. NOTHING has been PROVEN except that the government is covering up the TRUTH about 9/11 and RELIGION. if they said aliens exist no1 would believe in god.
No, it's a FACT. What have you been sniffing. Osama's the leader of al-Qaeda & has admitted it to the world. FBI never said they didn't have evidence aginst OBL. Americans didn't create AQ, OBL & his colleague Zarhawi did. Al-Qaeda MEANS THE base. Googletranslate. com can help u with that. Few of that Mujh army went into AQ, not all. It has been proven. Try to catch up please.
htt p: // w w w . vaed. uscourts. gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution. ht ml
i see you don't know shit!!!!! go to the fbi's web site and for yourself if osama ic charged with 9/11!!!!! do it I DARE you!!!!! americans help the afgans with Russia by creating a data base to keep track of the fighters they had that's whereb the name al queada came from. you need to do your homework before you come to class or you're just gonna end up with a big fat "F"... you my believe what you say but that doesn't mean you're right. check your facts before you make yourself look foolish.
Just because he hasn't been charged does NOT mean they do not have evidence. It means they don't have enough to bind him over for a jury trial. Becuz they don't have enough does NOT mean he didn't take part in it and isn't responsible for it. NO, I just showed you IN FACT, you are mistaken about that & supported it with facts & more than credible sources. I even showed you how you're wrong about the "data base", claim. You didn't present facts. THAT's why I showed them to you.
you MUST be a moron!!!!!! "Becuz they don't have enough does NOT mean he didn't take part in it and isn't responsible for it"... where's your "proof" that he took part in it? the FBI doesn't have any proof but you do???? what world do you live in? your facts come from your opinion. which ain't worth shit. don't you think that if they had evidence on him that they would charge him with 9/11? plz tell me your not an IDIOT!!!!
Osama bin LAden is NOT the whole of al-Qaeda. There are thousands of members of al-Qaeda fool. You clearly do not understand the justice system. They have to have a certain amount of evidence. OBL is well insulated by others surrounding him. He APPROVED the plan. He recruited people for it. He made sure it came to fruition. It doesn't mean others from al-Qaeda haven't been charged and convicted because they HAVE. There are more on the way. Thanks for admitting they're facts.
You clearly have no idea what you're ranting about it. You really shouldn't call anyone an idiot when you make such a glaring grammatical error. It's, "you ARE not an idiot." No,I'm not an idiot..
Tell us how 19 pissed radical Muslims wanting to marytr themselves armed with mace and folding utility knives trained in hand to hand combat by other terrorists with only a flight attendant and a flimsy door between them and in flight crew strapped in by a 5 point harness seatbelt in a tight confined space with their attention focused ahead of them could NOT have done this, in detail, can you?
don't you think you need to know that 6 of the "19" highjackers that weren't even them. their idenities were stolen and they were found to still be alive so again check your facts before you go to air with a false story as this one. a cockpit door is not "flimsy". the door of your bed room is flimsy. and did those "19 pissed radical Muslims " knocked down WT7 too with planted explosives? you need to do your homework and stop watching network t.v.(NAT GEO History chan& discovery)
Please show me an interiew dated post 9/11/2001. Surely, if they're alive you can parade to the world! When you do please ask what kind of magic carpets they used to escpae the planes because flight attendants reported 19 hijackers. I DO have facts. The cockpit door to flight cabins ARE flimsy. Also, a flight attendant carries a key to it. WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion & poor design. The FDNY weren't surprised & had been concerned it would collapse. Those are good sources.
@Sharky2055 you know all this but not even the fbi nor can the 9/11 commission agree with you.("WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion & poor design") you think you know it all but you know nothing. i don't have to show you facts look them up yourself because what ever i show you you won't believe me any way. find it yourself. google them for all i can but you need to do better research if you think you're smarter than me.
Yes, they do. I DO KNOW. You don't have facts to show. But no you don't HAVE to show me anything. If you don't want to back up whatever you write and look like an utter fool that refuses to back what they spew. That's fine with me. When you refuse to show it, that speaks volumes and leads people to believe, YOU DO NOT HAVE IT TO SHOW TO BEGIN WITH. WHEN YOU MAKE CLAIMS IT'S NOT INCUMBANT UPON ME TO DO your RESEARCH. That is up to YOU to do. I obviously HAVE done my research.
@Sharky2055 but why do you say things that are soooooo wrong and think you're right? wt7 was poorly designed??? you must be a fool to believe that. the FBI HAS EVIDENCE THAT OSAMA DID 9/11?? you're wrong again. have you heard of "PNAC"??? OPERATION NORTH WOODS??? HAVE YOU HEARD OF AARON RUSSO??? all three can teach you a great deal about 9/11 so plz feel free to do so.
I said poor design because 1 column failed because it wasn't enough stupport at the bottom. WTC 7 was in danger of collapse early on according to the FDNY. they were very worried about it. Or don't you believe them? Al-Qaeda is MORE THAN OBL. OBL is the leader. That PNAC Northwooods crap is called speculation, opinion and is NOT nor can be used as evidence itself. If you believe so then please tottle over to your nearest major city & tell the District Attorney every. Please hurry!
Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
ht tp : // w w w. structuremag. org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07. pdf
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.... -FDNY Chief Cruthers
We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a 100yards away& Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodys going into 7, theres creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10mins after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, & I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements& things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing& that was abandoned. Chief Boyle FDNY
Do you have any intention of showing any sources at all? Why don't you answer the question directly? Not being able to speaks volumes saying you CAN'T answer it.
@jtrish23 ht tp : // w w w. infoplease. com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism. ht ml
The Mujahideen
Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. 1000's of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghan.
After the Soviets withdrew from Afghan., bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight elsewhere (including Bosnia)& comprise the basis of al-Qaeda.
to make a long story short the "official" story dosen't make sense, has a lot of holes, and brings up MANY unanswered questions then it answers. TOO MANY LIES & COVER UPS
Yet, you haven't shown 1 shred of evidence nor supported anything you've claimed even when asked to do so. I've shown you the FDNY's own words. Do you think they're lying about 7? You haven't proven anything. No doubt you made your reply, "short", because you know you've got nothing.
you state one bullshit comment from 1 "so-called" firefighter and thats your facts?? you are a type of dude that wouldn't believe the truth even if it smacked you in the face unless your local news channel told you it was. just open your eyes & mind
GROW UP! You didn't present anythign to support your claims, even when asked several times. YOU also didn't answer my questions. Instead you AVOIDED them. Now you hrl that video. Stop the juvenile antics and accept the truth. You didn't do your research. I did. It was directly from the FDNY. THAT you can't refute, which is why you've scurried away from the exchange here. Now you're sending me bullshit videos. Don't bother. Just admit you were mistaken. No shame in that.
why don't you open your mind and eyes and stop being the bitch ass that you are? just view what i sent you without prejudice and then state your ignorant comment. these videos i sent holds more facts then you have shown. I'm not trying to school you but to make you see the bullshit you believe. a man decisions are only as good as his information.
My mind IS open. It's Mrs.Bitch to you! Ass I'm not. My comment wasn't ignorance, it was TRUTH. You've not shown anything to support your claims. Let's see something besides a BS video. School me? I've schooled you. Why can't you answer my questions? I've supported what I've said with factual information with credible sources. Unless you think the FDNY is lying? Why couldn't you answer that simple question earlier? Why can't you answer ANY questions & avoid them instead?
wow you a female???? i'm done talking to you. woman are sooo stubborn so forget. I'm not here to school you. you haven't proven anything but that you have no idea what you're talking about. it's so pathetic to take one person comment and state a quote. they're is over 200 firefighters that state for the record that the "offical" story done by the government is TOTALLY wrong. FACTS not my opinion. so check your fact and get it correct.
ONLY for my husband. It's NOT like you'd know. Not that you'd ever be so privileged! I'd much rather scrape you off the bottom of my shoes where you dwell abd belong.
Y'all are simply a bunch of bitter, lonely Dysfunctionals with barely discernable lives. The same gullible Suckers who buy into everything from Penis Enlargement pills, to Don Lapre's "How to Make Internet Millions", to this 911 BS.
As sure as the earth rotates on its axis...I can guarantee you CTards will still be Virgins this time next year, and the 911 CT will remain nothing but a large Internet CircleJerk of socially and educationally impaired Morons. LOL!
Are you serious? Let's look at some things. !) When the towers went down they imploded on themselves. 2) Tow planes struck but three towers went down, and 3) Jet fuel is 4 parts kerosene. Kerosene does not burn at a temperature hot enough to burn steel. Look at all that before you go on being another cow.
Something can implode on itself. In the case of the towers, the force of gravity and the mass of the object plus the foundation being weak cause the towers to implode on themselves. Which makes me further believe that it was controlled demolition that brought them down not a hijacked jet liner. It simply doesn't make sense.
of course something can implode INTO (i dont think 'on' is the appropriate terminology) itself. The towers did not implode.. there was no change in pressure. WHy would you think that? Which control demolition uses pressure for implode? They all use gravity.
I'd like to point out the buildings only partially fell straight down. A good chunk went to the side. In one video, you can make out the top part completely the side of the rest of the falling building. That section hit the roads and the buildings.
And you really need to look closer at how building 7 was made to understand why it fell. First was it's support struts. Second was it's high preasure gas line facing the Trade Towers. Finally several gas generators used in building 7.
Your comment shows a very distinct lack of critical thinking skills, preferring to rely on insults and ad hominem attacks to support your argument. You just denigrated an entire group of people, most of whom you have never even met, based on an untenable narrow-minded opinion. You are no different from a racist.
You insult people & show your exquisite intelligence by being ingnorant to 100s of facts that stack up against the Gov. account of 9-11. I bet you read the enquirer "well they wrote it so it must be true. Instead of spending time trying to sound cute with your insults , why don't you do some research. There's just to much info. to believe anything other than the Government was involved... and OJ did not kill his wife. He was innocent, thats what the courts/media told me.Give me a freakn break.
Steven Jones blatanly took photo's from the ground zero clean up and claimed they were proof of nano-thermite when the photo's were easily explained (one of the pictures is a group of fire fighters around a damn light lol). How this man has any credibility left is beyond me.
Sad fuck, you have to ok your comments first on your channel? Fucking joke. I don't like your non-free speech zone. You block and delete anyone who debunks your idiotic theories. Sad really.
Leslie Robertson JUST re-built WTC7 in NY for Larry Silverstein. Larry Silverstein made $7.3 BILLION from the twin towers falling. Why wouldn't Leslie Robertson back up Larry Silverstein when Leslie RECENTLY made a HUGE amount of money from the REBUILD of WTC7? Just go to Leslie Robertson's co. website and see that he rebuilt WTC7? Check out all the buldings he RECENTLY rebuilt in NY, and some are owned by Larry Silverstein. Just a co-incidence that Leslie's co. works for Larry.
silverstien cleaned up of the backs of the victims and the tax payers on an incident he knew was gonna happen fuck silvestien and all his neocon buddys the murdering thief got 14 billion fuking dollars fuk him hang his traitor ass
Really? Strange, because he has been paying the lease for the WTC, which nothing is rebuilt yet, and he has recently rebuilt WTC7 which costed him around 7 billion.
The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive -$6.3 billion.
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. Whats more, dont imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money
If WTC 7 would have survived 9-11 and stood, it would have been demolished later.
WHY?
Because 7 could never have been economically repaired.
By mid-afternoon, it was obvious that 7 was toast and a total loss. Larry S was going to get his insurance money regardless.
That being the case, why try to pull off a super secret CD job?
WTF?
THAT WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS FROM THE INSURERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!
Quit blindly slurping up all of Dick Gages CT Urine!
HAHA!
LindaStevensBZ 5 days ago
OMG...Jones is such a POS!
You Truthers are just...lame.
LindaStevensBZ 1 week ago
@LindaStevensBZ ahahahahah... then why was WTC7 not mentioned in the final reports?... and also why are 7 hijackers still alive? (they should be dust just in case you couldn't work that one out ;)... oh, and lets not forget the architect admitted WTC7 was taken down with explosives.. and they haven't found any evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11... list goes on, the official story is comedy!
TheMoo1231 6 days ago
@TheMoo1231 'moo moo,WTC7 not mentioned in the final reports?" BECAUSE IT WASN'T ATTACKED AND NO ONE DIED IN IT " why are 7 hijackers still alive?" ETHER THEY JUMPED AND FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED INTO THE MARRIOT HOTEL POOL ON ITS ROOF OR THERE ARE OTHER MUSLIMS WITH THE SAME NAME, WHICH ONE BRAINIAC? HINT: HOW MANY JOHN SMITHS ARE THERE " not forget the architect admitted WTC7 was taken down with explosives? WHO'S THAT, RICHARD GAGE I SUPPOSE? LMAO!
911TRUTHINATOR 6 days ago
@911TRUTHINATOR AHAHAHAAH YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARDED CUNT STOP WATCHING FOX NOISE... GO AND LEARN SOMETHING ON AE911TRUTH OR SOMETHING YOU FUCKTARD.... aahahah you make me laugh. You're blocked now, go and fuck yourself. LOL quote of the year "because it wasn't attacked and no one died" TROLOLOLOLOLOL.!
TheMoo1231 5 days ago
Toward the end of this debate Leslie Robertson makes a "molten steel? What molten steel?" claim about the molten steel found at Ground Zero. Recently a video surfaced of a talk Robertson gave in 2002 where he claimed he saw "like a little river of molten steel". See my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney
There was no molten steel, he knows that this wasn't steel, it was Aluminum, from other parts of the building, and the plane.
That's what he's referring to.
Other comments? This was before the reports came out, and all the details known, they were SPECULATING, ever hear of that? Why the hell would you expect someone to know 100% what went on in the building at just a glance?
That's idiotic. Surprisingly, even in your video, many STILL got it right.
Alaskaslim 1 month ago
@Alaskaslim You're wrong. In 2002 Mr. Robertson said he was in the rubble pile and he pulled up a piece of concrete and underneath was "like a little river of molten steel". You wouldn't expect to know 100% what went on, but you would expect the laws of physics to be validated. The presence of molten steel contradicts the 2d law of thermodynamics. But there is was.
punxsutawneybarney 1 month ago
@punxsutawneybarney
"The presence of molten steel contradicts the 2d law of thermodynamics."
No, after several months of sitting there and burning, that's exactly what you'd expect, the NIST, the ASCE, and several other trade organizations have stated as such.
What either don't seem to know or get, is that 9/11 is now one of the most highly studied cases in the Architectural/civil engineering industry. No one just "ignored it".
And yet, none support you.
Alaskaslim 1 month ago
@Alaskaslim That's what YOU'd expect, but it would be contrary to the 2d law of thermodynamics. No matter how long you cook steel in an oven, it will never get hotter than the oven.
NIST cut off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus was able to dodge the seven essential mysteries of the collapses.
punxsutawneybarney 1 month ago
@Alaskaslim Over 1650 architects and engineers support me in calling for new investigations of the destruction of the three skyscrapers at Ground Zero.
punxsutawneybarney 1 month ago
@punx 1650 OUT OF 10,000,000 ON THIS PLANET` ARE JUST THE NORMAL % of INSANE people in any career here's one of the few REAL structual engineers of AE911TRUTH
watch?v=VHeE-ArPXnQ
911TRUTHINATOR 6 days ago
@911TRUTHINATOR AE911Truth has 50 real structural engineers. Charles Pegelow is not listed as a member of AE911Truth. His license was in civil engineering, not structural. Glad I could clear that up for you. I know you will be anxious to remove your deceptive video.
punxsutawneybarney 6 days ago
"You can't comprehend what he's saying?"
He is saying Cheney had given order pertaining to an incoming plane BEFORE it was 50 miles out, and a young man came in every 10 miles to report the distance, eventually asking if the orders still stand.
Unless Cheney was ordering coffee, it was a shoot down, or stand down order. Neither of which are the government's fairy tale of passengers taking down the plane, neither does the 5 mile debris radius/empty hole.
What don't YOU comprehend?
99Eternal 9 months ago
you really dont think Norad had continental defense protocol? are you a complete fucking retard? you better believe that weve had defense plans all the way back to when our first fuckin fighter planes were rolled off the line. why the fuck do you think they make them asshole? to look at? to wax? im a retard? i dont think so you naive fuck
runelord37 9 months ago
i watched them report wtc7 as leveled way before it fell. i saw that report live. i watched live the second jet hit and for 5 days after that non-stop. the news and how its reported is also another smoking gun. the p.r for this tragedy was set up far in advance. i know. i watched it unfold before my eyes
runelord37 9 months ago
you really think that things are that transparent in our world? you think because everyone has cameras that we cant be fooled by those in true power? its called plausible deniablility, but when you have a trail of coincendences then that trail starts to smoke with fucking brimstone k? it stinks to high hell. if you dont smell something rotten in Denmark than its because you believe to strongly if the "foundation" of your world. the wars that have followed are proof enough, regardles of the smoke
runelord37 9 months ago
See Part 3 at 4:55 where Mr. Roberston denies that anyone saw molten steel at Ground Zero. He told a different story in 2002, saying he saw a "little river of molten steel". See my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
lmao, they dare not talk about building 7, it fell into its own footprint at freefall speed wothout any plane hitting, it was a inside job, period.
irishgeal1 9 months ago
Leslie robertson fail
Seigu007 11 months ago
Mr. Robertson claims that the towers were designed for a low-speed impact for a 707. A 1964 white paper says the towers' design would resist impact from a 707 at 600 mph. Since a 73-ton 707 might carry 80 tons of fuel and had four heavy engines, it would certainly be a match for a 90 ton 767 with only 33 tons of fuel and only two engines.
punxsutawneybarney 11 months ago
Well, explosives can't make a building "fall through itself at free-fall speeds" either, if that's what you're thinking of, however it can remove sufficient support (columns) so that the remaining columns must carry more loads. If these loads lead to stresses in the columns that exceeds the yield strength of the material, the column will fail due to material yielding. If lateral support (say floors connected to a column) is removed, the buckling length of the column will be increased (cont.)
mlrs84 1 year ago
This seems to be a fairly comprehensive response to some of the information Leslie speaks about
Just google journal of 911 studies and Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf
matPolaschek 1 year ago
WOW Leslie Robertson lies like a rug. He doesn't believe what he is saying. He's lying through his teeth. Funny that he relates it to a couch burning in a mall... wtf??? He's not qualified to talk about building 7. No kidding. He says a lot of changes were made to the towers over the years for tenants.. strengthening... so, if they were made stronger over the years... why would they then collapse? LIAR.
piwacket33 1 year ago
Not sure if any has posted these numbers yet...but I believe Silverstein leased the WTC for 15 million dollars...and the fact that he got insurance on the buildings was NOT the major point...it was that Silverstein INSISTED the insurance covering terrorist attacks and his right to rebuild if the fell...When all the smoke cleared...and his lawyers convinced the jury that the attacks counted as TWO SEPERATE terrorist attacks...Silverstein made 7 BILLION dollars off the insurance claim...WOW
Metamorphosis33 1 year ago
@ Truthinator, although we don't generally agree on most of the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 I think yo bring a lot of valuable information and arguments to the table. Thanks for the post. Would you be able to specify the name of the radio show, anchor, date etc. Would really appreciate it. Thanks again.
phatcontrolla 1 year ago
What a load of toss, 10 minutes of Les Robertson talking shite, Steven jones is told there isn't much time and not to make to many points.
whitewedge 1 year ago
Leslie Robertson was not the Chief engineer for the Twin Towers, John Skilling was, he hired Robertson. You should look into what both John Skilling and Frank A. Demartini had to say about the towers. Frank A. Demartini was hired in 1993 after the 93 bombings as building manager unfortunately he died in the attacks. Also in 1998 John Skilling passed. They both say that planes could not take down Twin Towers.
MultiBlinkey 1 year ago 10
@MultiBlinLaden, Robertson WAS the cheif engineer for the design of the structural elements--keeping the building up. Skillings white paper was a POLITICAL statement (against people who were opposed to the project claiming planes would crash into buildings) And DeMartini was about 14 when the building was designed.
Les robertson is the ONE and ONLY authority on this issue.
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
@MultiBlinkey Any idiot can tell really that those fires did not weaken the steel. Only morons believe that gump.
piwacket33 1 year ago
@piwacket33 And what exactly makes you an expert? At least you said "weaken" and not "melt", which is the common CT misconception.... But, really, steel IS weakened when subjected to heat. Just check out any material science book on the subject....
mlrs84 1 year ago
@mlrs84 The fire lasted slightly over an hour, do the math. BTW I studied structural engineering at RPI, so I may not be an expert, but I do have a lot of common sense, that's really all it takes. Yes, of course steel is weakened when it is heated,but it has to get a lot hotter for a lot longer than 2 hours. google the windsor building in madrid spain, burned for two days, completely gutted, some upper floors collapsed, but the steel structure remained standing. Still drinking the koolaid?
piwacket33 1 year ago
@piwacket33 You say that the Windsor burned and "some upper floors collapsed, but the steel structure remained standing". The fact is that the steel structure collapsed, and the concrete core remained. Had there not been a concrete core, then most likely the entire top would have collapsed. Would the entire structure fall? Who knows? You can't compare two entirely different structures, especially when one was hit by a plane and saturated with jet fuel and the other was not.
mlrs84 1 year ago
@mlrs84 The majority of the jet fuel (similar to kerosene) was burned in that big fireball you saw when the "plane" entered the tower. What remained were relatively cool office fires (note the black smoke indicative of a low-temp fire). The Windsor building burned for two days and the entire thing was gutted by fire, the steel structure was partially collapsed after two days.
piwacket33 1 year ago
@piwacket33 And, please tell me how to "do the math". I'm also a structural engineer, and the only way I know of calculating the response to fire of a structure as complex as a skyscraper is to use nonlinear finite element analysis. By the tone of your post, it seems you can intuitively say that the fires were not hot enough.... how? Are you also an expert in fires? And if all it takes is common sense, then how come people study for years to become engineers?
mlrs84 1 year ago
@mlrs84 Black smoke = low temp fires.
Doctors also study for years what is mostly common sense.
piwacket33 1 year ago
@mlrs84 Seems like common sense to me to deduce that a building cannot fall through itself at free fall speeds. I don't think anyone would have to study engineering to understand that would be an impossibility. Seeings as you are a structural engineer can you tell us how in any fire calculations the structural steel could simultaneously remove all its support over about 8 floors in the case of WTC7 causing it to collapse symmetrically and at free fall?
matPolaschek 1 year ago
(cont from below) and the capacity of the column to carry axial load will be severely decreased. This is true for a normal temperature steel column. If, in addition, the temperature in the steel is raised, the Young's modulus will be decreased and the capacity further decreased. If in addition to this there even exists some kind of geometric imperfection this will also decrease the capacity. You probably won't believe me now either, but at least I tried to explain to you...
mlrs84 1 year ago
So, what I tried to say is that "explosives don't explode the building down to the ground", rather it removes enough support so that the remaining structure yields and gravity takes over. You see where I'm going here? Plane=explosives in the sense that it removes support, fires heat (no, I never said melt) the steel reducing the young's modulus, sagging floors pull the perimeter columns inwards creating geometric imperfections and eccentricities in the columns.
mlrs84 1 year ago
@piwacket33 That dipstick is a shill. Just take a look at his damned lame channel page. And if that ain't enough to raise your eyebrows, just change the 84 at the end of his name to a '1', and check out how similar the channel pages are both like plain brown paper bag accounts.
When I find shit like that and see how ALL those kinds of accounts try to hose serious discussions on the 9/11 threads, I can only smile at how Robertson stumbled a few times in the vid.
codevictim 1 year ago
@codevictim You're absolutely right. Thanks for the heads up on the shill thing. I've just been in reaction mode and playing into this type of thing. Some people have got a lot of time on their hands, I guess. Not me... my life is so full it's bursting. (happily so)
re: stumbling ... you wonder what the payoff is for him?
Thanks again cv... always nice to know there are some clear thinking people out there who don't just tow the "company line". Have a very happy New Year!!!
piwacket33 1 year ago
@MultiBlinkey and they didn't
boltjet135 1 year ago
@MultiBlinkey And the planes themselves, the kinetic energy of the impact, did NOT take down the structures. However, the intense fires that weakened the steel combined with the structural damage from the plane was too much for the structures and they succumbed.
mlrs84 1 year ago
@mlrs84 If you watch the North Tower collapse you will see the "pile driver" upper section above the plane impact actually destroys itself before collapsing supposedly through the building. And the South Tower falls over to the side. WTC7 collapses at free fall speed for over 2 seconds this means the 8 floors worth of steel would have to be simultaneously removed. How can fire do this?
matPolaschek 1 year ago
@MultiBlinkey The builders and engineers of Titanic also (in)famously said that it couldn't sink, so that engineers say something like that, is unfortunate, but should not be taken as a absolute proof that something can't happen. Subjected to the right forces, ALL constructions will fail at some point.
mlrs84 1 year ago
@mlrs84 The builders and engineers of Titanic also didn't designed it to collide with glaciers. The twin towers were designed with plane impacts in mind.
Ahlywog 11 months ago
@Ahlywog I'm sure you mean iceberg not a glacier.... However, my point was, like I said, that every single structure ever built on this planet will have a breaking point. Engineers try to envision what can happen to a structure and design it to withstand anticipated events. True, the WTC was designed with plane IMPACT in mind, and it was quite evident on 9/11 that the towers survived the impact itself. However, the fires were not considered in the 1960's and are what brought these towers down.
mlrs84 11 months ago
@mlrs84 You know I keep hearing that said "they forgot about the fires." Where is everyone getting that from? How absolutely stupid would these engineers have to be to design a building to take the impact of a plane and totally forget that planes have fuel? They had jets when the buildings were designed. Jets mean jet fuel (in one form or another.) Were the buildings not designed to withstand ANY fire seeing as even NIST admits the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes?
Ahlywog 11 months ago
@Ahlywog I said the fires were "not considered" in the design, not "forgotten". I think it has to do with the mathematical models of how to correctly predict how fuel would be dispersed and the ensuing fires would behave. This is a highly dynamic model, even the less complex plane-impact model made by NIST took several months for a high-speed computer to finish, how would this be done in the 60s? The simulation was simply not possible at that time. Stop relating everything to conspiracies!
mlrs84 11 months ago
@mlrs84 Can you cite the source on where you get this "not considered in the design" business from? Are you quoting something in specific? This is one of those arguments that I hear repeated constantly but when I ask for a source I never get it.
And it IS a conspiracy. If more than one person was involved, whether it be terrorists or 'shadow government agents' or who-ever, it's a conspiracy.
Ahlywog 11 months ago
@Ahlywog Yup, source is the documentary "WTC Anatomy of the Collapse" from 2002. About 35 minutes in, Robertsons says "To the best of my knowledge the considerations of the fuel in the airplane in terms of an explosion or great fire WAS NOT CONSIDERED". He goes on to say "Now, we were not responsible for that aspect of the design so I may be wrong, but I believe it was not considered. And further, had it been considered it would have been proven to be impossible to deal with it"
mlrs84 11 months ago
@Ahlywog And another source, the PBS documentary "Why the towers fell". Just google the PBS transcript of the episode, as I'm not allowed to post link here. You will probably just add this in your conspiracy pile as your mind is probably already made up, but you asked for sources and you got them!
mlrs84 11 months ago
@Ahlywog the towers were designed to absorb the impact of a slow flying (approx. 200mph), low on fuel ( if if it had enough fuel it would fly to another city) 707 lost in the fog looking for the airport, the same as what happened to the b25 that hit the empire state building.
why the towers fell part 1
watch?v=YpUZkTe_9bA
the fall of the world trade center - complete program,same as ":why the towers fell" with bbc narration.
watch?v=53c-JUrFtvE
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
@MultiBlinkey Leslie Robertson said in a more recent phone interview that the twins towers were "pieces of shit" and built to sub standard specifications. That is obviously a clear contradiction to what he said in interviews in the late 80s as well as what he is saying in this video. In his phone interview he also stated he was part of the NIST oversight committee.
Ahlywog 11 months ago
@MultiBlinkey Correction! I was thinking Charlie Thornton. Not Leslie Robertson. Charlie Thornton said they were built to sub standard specifications that would not have even passed standards then, let alone now. He said that the FEMA reports were a white wash because no one wants to admit to the horrible design of the buildings which he equated to a high school gym or a walmart. He was also part of the NIST oversight committee.
Ahlywog 11 months ago
@MultiBlinkey How can you say 2 people that DIED BEFORE THE EVENT can say that planes could not take down the towers? They say they were DESIGNED to withstand an impact from a 707, not a 767. Not to mention, you could not possibly REAL WORLD test that design. There's no way to be certain. I would bet that had they survived/lived to see what happened, their tune would be different. The design was actually flawed and no building will be built with a truss + tube in tube architecture ever again.
Oz1976 10 months ago
@Oz1976 Since a 707 had 4 engines instead of just 2, it had almost twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns that a 767 had. Also, a 600 mph design spec was used for the 707, much faster speed than the 767.
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney The fact of the matter is Leslie Robertson agrees with the collapse mechanics. The buildings DID their job, they didn't fall over on impact, they stood for 50+ minutes each. The failure was in the escape routes and protection of the core. That's why he's gone away from that design for his new project, the tower in China. The towers did their job, they didn't fall immediately and allowed for 1000's to escape below the impacts.
/watch?v=Ejc4o4dDN3s
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 He has no choice but to pretend he believes in the official story. If he said anything else, he'd be written off as unhinged. The fact remains that in 2002 he claimed he saw a little river of molten steel, and in 2006 he poo pooed the idea that anybody had ever seen such a thing.
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney Funny...he wasn't even in New York during the week of September 11th... He was in China. But you know so much, i'm sure you can post a 2002 source for this supposed molten steel river. I'm betting, if there is one, he said molten METAL, not steel, especially considering he wasn't even there.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 What makes you think he saw the steel the week of 9/11?
He said "a little river of molten steel". See my video about it:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
@Oz1976 youre an idiot...it doesnt matter if it was built on plastic..its collapse and manner of collapse is prrog enough.
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 It was a gravity collapse. Frank Di Martini radioed down during rescue operations that he thought WTC 1 was going to collapse. Leslie Robertson agrees with the collapse mechanics and admitted while they thought their math was sound, there is no way to REAL WORLD TEST an airplane crashing into the buildings the way they were on 9/11. He admits the fireproofing was not sufficient nor the drywall considering most of it was dislodged.
You're the idiot my friend.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 it was a gravity collapse cause you and other fuckin monkey men say so? good call. guess that makes you feel like you live in the good guy country where everything is rosy and conspiracy never exists. the universe tends TOWARDS chaos asshole. fireproofing cannot remove a huge steel frame. it cannot bring about collapse close to free fall speed or eject material as far as it did or reduce concrete to dust or see no bending or tipping in an uneven stress impact. and im dumb? okey dokey
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 It was a gravity collapse because that's what the structural engineers that investigated determined and is corroborated by the video record. Monkeymen? How deluded are you? And I never said conspiracies don't exist. If that were the case we wouldn't even have that word...CONSPIRACY. However, the reason we also know about them is why? Cause someone involved leaked/screwed up/blew the whistle. 10 years and not one of those whistleblowers...not one. You have no clue about the collapse.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 you cannot defy newtons 3rd law ape. go look it up. think with logic not emotion. you have equal and opposing force, therefore it cannot simply implode. nist studies up to the point of collapse nmot beyond that. unreal how many fucking fearmongering morons there are in this world. dont fear reality, just adjust. false flags happen. why couldnt they happen on 9/11? why all the firsts? why all the coincedences? wake up
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 Newton's 3rd Law wasn't broken. Stop regurgitating that bullshit from "The Physics of 9/11"...it's utter idiocy. You don't comprehend what happened and are propogating nothing more than bullshit. The fearmongering is on the "truth" side son. The one's spewing NWO this and illuminati that, fucking Alex Jones shit. Wake up? ROFL...you're the one in a dream.
youtube.com/watch?v=_u-KrdtSFsE
bastison .net/ <-- translate from french to english at the bottom
nae . edu/File .aspx?id=7345
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 you dont comprehend it either...so lets just agree that neither of us are experts. so with that being said , i think ill side with a prof of physics., k buddy? i wont even try to argue the merits or logic from a laymen standpoint. what i will say is that all i hear about 9/11 from the official side is that it was a day of "firsts" . now if you want to swallow that garbage wholesale on top of the fact or Norads standown and shipping off crime scene evidence for it to be destroyed....ya ok
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 Oh that's where you're quite wrong. I understand 9/11 quite well, I had 3 friends die in those towers. I stood there and watched the second plane hit it. I know 9/11. And I know it wasn't some whackjob idiotic mega-conspiracy by our government. Norad didn't standdown, that's ridiculous. You have no clue what you're talking about, and spouting off shit that was debunked 6 years ago.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 sorry you lost people. my condolences. doesnt make you more in command of fact however. Norad did stand dowm or else it wouldnt have intercepted both planes and the object that struck the pentagon. you really think it was coincedence that all of our air defense with the exception of a few jets was out of the country flying mock runs at something exactly like what took place that very day? wow..well if you can swallow that horseshit, you are very ill. im sorry.
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 No it didn't, that's a fallacy. NORAD has intercepted ONE flight originating from the continental United States in the 20 years prior to 911. ONE. Payne Stewart, the golfer's, plane. All other intercepts were out over the oceans or gulf...hence why the 2 F-15's that were scrambled ended up out over the Atlantic at their normal rendevous point. And that ONE intercept took over 45 minutes. David Ray Griffin fed you a buncha bullshit from a VIDEO GAME (flight simulator). You're an idiot
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 dude youre talking completely out your fucking ass....where was norad that day? wanna tell me? thats right..like i said they were on a tactial simulation mission. what your telling me is that they couldnt scramble what we DID have to intercept whatever hit the pentagon? yeah ok...let me know when you take your head partially out of your ass so i can slap you in your idiot face. you NEED to badly to believe your world is safe and explanable dont you? go back to the pasture
runelord37 9 months ago
@runelord37 Listen to the ATC recordings and you'll understand the confusion you dumb mother fucker. Prior to 911, NORAD had never had our defenses pointed INWARD. Dumbass. THEY DID SCRAMBLE WHAT WE HAD. 4 jets were scrambled, it was TOO LATE dumb fuck. The FAA and NEADS reacted too slow. Shoot down order was not given until it was TOO LATE. Get it through your dumb fuck pea brain, NORAD did NOT stand down. No, it's YOU that needs to believe it's explainable, I believe TERRORISTS happen. Dumbass
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "Prior to 911, NORAD had never had our defenses pointed INWARD. Dumbass."
Uhhh...are you having a laugh? You expect anyone to believe hijackings were not considered pre-9/11? That is pure disinformation! NORAD was simulating hijacked airlines the very day of 9/11, remember the NORAD official saying "is this real world or exercise"? This is one reason they were delayed.
Bush tried to have people believe hijackings had never been considered pre 9/11. Utter nonsense.
99Eternal 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "Shoot down order was not given until it was TOO LATE"
Then what was Mineta of the National Transportation and Safety Board talking about in his testimony:
watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Listen to him. Doesn't quite fit your fairly tale aka the official conspiracy theory. Cheney knew a plane was inc and had given orders, either to stand down or shoot down, neither of which matches the official fairly tale of passengers bringing the plane down, neither does the 5 mile debris radius/empty hole.
99Eternal 9 months ago
@99Eternal Funny, he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given. So what orders were the young man talking about? Cheney can't give the shoot down order, only Bush could. Mineta says, he didn't know what that meant and he ASSUMES it means the shoot down order. You can't comprehend what he's saying? He's assuming that conversation meant the shoot down order. "There was an order to shoot the plane down?" repsonse "Well I don't know that specifically". Next?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "Cheney can't give the shoot down order, only Bush could"
Incorrect. If that were true, I doubt a young man would be coming in telling Cheney the plane is 50, 40, 30, 20 miles out then asking Cheney if the orders still stand as Mineta testified.
"he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given"
So we should then ignore the fact that Cheney was clearly giving an order directly relating to an incoming plane?! And the 5-mile debris radius/empty hole away from debris?
99Eternal 9 months ago
@99Eternal What order? Mineta says in that testimony that he doesn't know what order it pertains to and he assumes it meant the shoot down order. He clearly is ASSUMING, his testimony can be clearly seen as him assuming as he even says "I do not know that specifically". You're a typical truther cherry picking. Cheney did not have the power, only Bush did, that is a fact. It wasn't a 5 mile debris field either. That's a misnomer perpetrated by truthers using mapquest to define the debris field.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "What order? Mineta says in that testimony that he doesn't know what order it pertains to"
WHAT THE FUCK ELSE COULD AN ORDER ABOUT AN INCOMING PLANE ON 9/11 BE?!?!?!
EITHER STAND DOWN OR SHOOT DOWN. CAN YOU THINK OF ANOTHER?
WAS CHENEY JUST ORDERING HIMSELF COFFEE?!?!?!
You are straight-up lying, and it is hilarious. Hell, you tried to say NORAD had never considered hijackings before 9/11.
Incredibly transparent, incompetent joke of a shill.
99Eternal 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "It wasn't a 5 mile debris field either. That's a misnomer perpetrated by truthers using mapquest to define the debris field. "
Anyone capable of looking up witness statements will see that what you have just said is complete and utter bullshit.
Do you actually think your opinion, being a random youtuber with no credentials who wasn't even there, bears ANY magnitude whatsoever compared to witnesses who saw the debris themselves, and officials who actually cleaned the entire mess up?
99Eternal 9 months ago
@99Eternal No it's not bullshit. The idiot that came up with the "5 mile debris field" used Mapquest to see travel time from the crash site to the lake where the furthest debris was found. BY ROAD, it's 5 miles, make a straight line...guess what...it's TWO. Look it up you dimwit.
Oz1976 8 months ago
@Oz1976 It doesn't matter whether it was 2 miles, 5 miles, or 100000 miles. The physical evidence fits a shootdown. Look at the hole, the plane was in a dive, yet the debris is scattered for miles?
You are also ignoring the order given by Cheney as per Mineta of the NTSB's testimony and it;s relevance to the above. They knew a plane was incoming for at LEAST 50 miles and Cheney had given an order BEFORE Mineta arrived. Do you understand what that means, you fool?!
99Eternal 8 months ago
@Oz1976 "Funny, he even says he wasn't there when the shoot down order was given. "
And do you comprehend what that actually means, you inbred shill?
That means an order was given even before the 50 mile mark. What type of order would the VP be giving regarding the military and a hijacked airplane that they were clearly aware was incoming? Unless you can suggest something else, he was either giving a stand or shoot down order. Neither of which coincide with the governments official fairy tale.
99Eternal 8 months ago
@99Eternal No you dumb mother fucker, it means HE HAS NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN, WHERE OR BY WHO THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN, you incompetant fuck. You're an idiot. Plain and simple. As typical of the TWOOF movement, you cherry pick quotes and take them OUT OF CONTEXT and fail to comprehend them. There was no inside job you dumb cunt. Call me a shill all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're a moron and a sheep to the profiteering scam that is 911 Truth. Dumb fuck .
Oz1976 8 months ago
@Oz1976 Is that really the best you can do - elementary playground insults?
Acting like a child is not going to take away Mineta's testimony.
"it means HE HAS NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN, WHERE OR BY WHO THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN"
We know exactly who gave the order, he specifically said the man asked DICK CHENEY "do the orders still stand?" CHENEY replied "of course.." according to Mineta testimony.
The mere fact that a stand/shootdown order was given destroys the official story.
99Eternal 8 months ago
@Oz1976 "you cherry pick quotes and take them OUT OF CONTEXT and fail to comprehend them"
I linked you the ENTIRE testimony. How is it possible to take something out of context when that something IS the ENTIRE context?
I think you need to look up the definition of comprehend, and context. You clearly do not comprehend the entire context of his testimony, nor the implications of a stand or shoot down order being given before the plane was 50miles out.
Incompetent shill.
99Eternal 8 months ago
@99Eternal And you FAIL to comprehend that testimony. FACT: ONly the president could give the shoot down order. FACT: At the time of the conversation Norman Minetta overheard that order HAD NOT been given. FACT: Does the order still stand? Means, THERE WAS NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER, it had not yet been given so the C-130 tailing Flight 77 could NOT attempt to take out the plane. The shootdown order wasn't officially given till after 10am.
911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta
Oz1976 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oz1976 "Does the order still stand? Means, THERE WAS NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER, it had not yet been given"
...are you having a laugh?...."does the order STILL stand"....
key word: "STILL"
"FACT: Only the president could give the shoot down order."
Who do you think you are fooling?
"FACT: At the time of the conversation Norman Minetta overheard that order HAD NOT been given"
..."do the orders STILL stand"...
Again - key word: "STILL"
Incompetent shill.
99Eternal 8 months ago
@Oz1976 Fact the SOP or Standing Operating Procedure is to NOT shoot down anyone...the pilot then radios back to his higher ups and asks for permission to fire..Why would someone ask for permission to NOT shoot. BTW figher pilots never even got close enough to fire missles...what was the permission to shoot at?
joecoool100 1 month ago
@Oz1976 "He's assuming that conversation meant the shoot down order."
What else could it have been? Stand down or shoot down. Neither fits the official fairly tale of passengers bringing down the plane, neither does the physical evidence aka the empty hole in the ground and the 5 mile debris radius miles from that empty hole.
Your arguments bear no magnitude. But please, feel free to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself.
99Eternal 9 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal
Thank you!
Sharky2055 1 year ago
jtrish23
the Oro did 9/11
warlord2080 2 years ago
@warlord2080 ....hahaha???wtf u laughing at??? you dumb ass!!!
jtrish23 1 year ago
@jtrish23 What is there to laugh at the idea that the Oro is the illuminati, or that your predetermined mind flickers about death and destruction and it is this notion that you need to be superior to others?
warlord2080 1 year ago
@warlord2080 911 WAS DONE BY THE ZIONEST JEWS!!!!!!!
jtrish23 1 year ago
$16MILLION dollars to investigate 9/11 but to investigate Bill Clinton THEY SPENT $40MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!...I ASK THE QUESTION "WHICH ONE WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM?"
jtrish23 2 years ago 6
@jtrish23
That doesn't mean one was more important than the other considering how LONG Kennth Starr DRAGGED on the investigation into Clinton's misdeeds. 1 investigation has nothing to do with the other. And it is NOT evidence in of itself of anything but truthers willingness to believe any idiocy they believe helps them.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
you just don't make sense!!!!! take a good look at yourself before you make a fool of yourself to comment about what i said but can't answer the question shows me how blind to the FACTS you are.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Yes, it does make sense. And more $ being spent on 1 as opposed to the other isn't evidence in of itself. The truther non- movement has no facts. My eyes are WIDE OPEN.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
there is a lot you need to learn this then my little comment. i see you hate my comment so much you gave me a "thumbs down". stop the hate i just ask the question that's very simple.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Are you kidding? I don't "hate comments". I don't "hate". That's way oversued and illused at the same time, these days. It's a same you can't comprehend your speculation about speinding more for 1 over the other is unfounded speculation, NOTHING else. It's certainly NOT evidence, nor could it be used as such.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
your eyes maybe be "wide open" but your mind is closed. i was not saying that was evidence but only stating that there is something WRONG with that picture. don't you agree???
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
No, my mind is open. No, there's nothing wrong with that, since Kenneth Starr was the one that dragged the investigation into Clinton on and on. Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and has been proven in a US court lf law rendering a guilty verdict.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
thats a LIE ksm allegedly admitted to the attacks BY stating he was the MASTER MIND of it NOT osama or Al queada. the FBI states that there is NO evidence that points to bin laden connection to 9/11 only through the group the americans created called Al queada. ( data base) which they started to help organized the afgans to fight the Russians. NOTHING has been PROVEN except that the government is covering up the TRUTH about 9/11 and RELIGION. if they said aliens exist no1 would believe in god.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
No, it's a FACT. What have you been sniffing. Osama's the leader of al-Qaeda & has admitted it to the world. FBI never said they didn't have evidence aginst OBL. Americans didn't create AQ, OBL & his colleague Zarhawi did. Al-Qaeda MEANS THE base. Googletranslate. com can help u with that. Few of that Mujh army went into AQ, not all. It has been proven. Try to catch up please.
htt p: // w w w . vaed. uscourts. gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution. ht ml
Sharky2055 2 years ago
* allow me to amend my "few", with many.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
i see you don't know shit!!!!! go to the fbi's web site and for yourself if osama ic charged with 9/11!!!!! do it I DARE you!!!!! americans help the afgans with Russia by creating a data base to keep track of the fighters they had that's whereb the name al queada came from. you need to do your homework before you come to class or you're just gonna end up with a big fat "F"... you my believe what you say but that doesn't mean you're right. check your facts before you make yourself look foolish.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Just because he hasn't been charged does NOT mean they do not have evidence. It means they don't have enough to bind him over for a jury trial. Becuz they don't have enough does NOT mean he didn't take part in it and isn't responsible for it. NO, I just showed you IN FACT, you are mistaken about that & supported it with facts & more than credible sources. I even showed you how you're wrong about the "data base", claim. You didn't present facts. THAT's why I showed them to you.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
you MUST be a moron!!!!!! "Becuz they don't have enough does NOT mean he didn't take part in it and isn't responsible for it"... where's your "proof" that he took part in it? the FBI doesn't have any proof but you do???? what world do you live in? your facts come from your opinion. which ain't worth shit. don't you think that if they had evidence on him that they would charge him with 9/11? plz tell me your not an IDIOT!!!!
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Osama bin LAden is NOT the whole of al-Qaeda. There are thousands of members of al-Qaeda fool. You clearly do not understand the justice system. They have to have a certain amount of evidence. OBL is well insulated by others surrounding him. He APPROVED the plan. He recruited people for it. He made sure it came to fruition. It doesn't mean others from al-Qaeda haven't been charged and convicted because they HAVE. There are more on the way. Thanks for admitting they're facts.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
You clearly have no idea what you're ranting about it. You really shouldn't call anyone an idiot when you make such a glaring grammatical error. It's, "you ARE not an idiot." No,I'm not an idiot..
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Tell us how 19 pissed radical Muslims wanting to marytr themselves armed with mace and folding utility knives trained in hand to hand combat by other terrorists with only a flight attendant and a flimsy door between them and in flight crew strapped in by a 5 point harness seatbelt in a tight confined space with their attention focused ahead of them could NOT have done this, in detail, can you?
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@sharky2055
don't you think you need to know that 6 of the "19" highjackers that weren't even them. their idenities were stolen and they were found to still be alive so again check your facts before you go to air with a false story as this one. a cockpit door is not "flimsy". the door of your bed room is flimsy. and did those "19 pissed radical Muslims " knocked down WT7 too with planted explosives? you need to do your homework and stop watching network t.v.(NAT GEO History chan& discovery)
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Please show me an interiew dated post 9/11/2001. Surely, if they're alive you can parade to the world! When you do please ask what kind of magic carpets they used to escpae the planes because flight attendants reported 19 hijackers. I DO have facts. The cockpit door to flight cabins ARE flimsy. Also, a flight attendant carries a key to it. WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion & poor design. The FDNY weren't surprised & had been concerned it would collapse. Those are good sources.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@Sharky2055 you know all this but not even the fbi nor can the 9/11 commission agree with you.("WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion & poor design") you think you know it all but you know nothing. i don't have to show you facts look them up yourself because what ever i show you you won't believe me any way. find it yourself. google them for all i can but you need to do better research if you think you're smarter than me.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Yes, they do. I DO KNOW. You don't have facts to show. But no you don't HAVE to show me anything. If you don't want to back up whatever you write and look like an utter fool that refuses to back what they spew. That's fine with me. When you refuse to show it, that speaks volumes and leads people to believe, YOU DO NOT HAVE IT TO SHOW TO BEGIN WITH. WHEN YOU MAKE CLAIMS IT'S NOT INCUMBANT UPON ME TO DO your RESEARCH. That is up to YOU to do. I obviously HAVE done my research.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@Sharky2055 but why do you say things that are soooooo wrong and think you're right? wt7 was poorly designed??? you must be a fool to believe that. the FBI HAS EVIDENCE THAT OSAMA DID 9/11?? you're wrong again. have you heard of "PNAC"??? OPERATION NORTH WOODS??? HAVE YOU HEARD OF AARON RUSSO??? all three can teach you a great deal about 9/11 so plz feel free to do so.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
I said poor design because 1 column failed because it wasn't enough stupport at the bottom. WTC 7 was in danger of collapse early on according to the FDNY. they were very worried about it. Or don't you believe them? Al-Qaeda is MORE THAN OBL. OBL is the leader. That PNAC Northwooods crap is called speculation, opinion and is NOT nor can be used as evidence itself. If you believe so then please tottle over to your nearest major city & tell the District Attorney every. Please hurry!
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
ht tp : // w w w. structuremag. org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07. pdf
WTC 7
watch?v=1uxlrcQL5Dk
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.... -FDNY Chief Cruthers
nytimes. com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers. txt
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a 100yards away& Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodys going into 7, theres creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10mins after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, & I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements& things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing& that was abandoned. Chief Boyle FDNY
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Do you have any intention of showing any sources at all? Why don't you answer the question directly? Not being able to speaks volumes saying you CAN'T answer it.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23
There's no shame in admitting you're mistaken. I've in fact NOT lied to you.
ht tp : // translate. google. com/# english - data base
arabic - قاعدة بيانات
English - al-qaeda
arabic - القاعدة
Sharky2055 2 years ago
@jtrish23 ht tp : // w w w. infoplease. com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism. ht ml
The Mujahideen
Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. 1000's of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghan.
After the Soviets withdrew from Afghan., bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight elsewhere (including Bosnia)& comprise the basis of al-Qaeda.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
to make a long story short the "official" story dosen't make sense, has a lot of holes, and brings up MANY unanswered questions then it answers. TOO MANY LIES & COVER UPS
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
Yet, you haven't shown 1 shred of evidence nor supported anything you've claimed even when asked to do so. I've shown you the FDNY's own words. Do you think they're lying about 7? You haven't proven anything. No doubt you made your reply, "short", because you know you've got nothing.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
you state one bullshit comment from 1 "so-called" firefighter and thats your facts?? you are a type of dude that wouldn't believe the truth even if it smacked you in the face unless your local news channel told you it was. just open your eyes & mind
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
GROW UP! You didn't present anythign to support your claims, even when asked several times. YOU also didn't answer my questions. Instead you AVOIDED them. Now you hrl that video. Stop the juvenile antics and accept the truth. You didn't do your research. I did. It was directly from the FDNY. THAT you can't refute, which is why you've scurried away from the exchange here. Now you're sending me bullshit videos. Don't bother. Just admit you were mistaken. No shame in that.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
why don't you open your mind and eyes and stop being the bitch ass that you are? just view what i sent you without prejudice and then state your ignorant comment. these videos i sent holds more facts then you have shown. I'm not trying to school you but to make you see the bullshit you believe. a man decisions are only as good as his information.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
My mind IS open. It's Mrs.Bitch to you! Ass I'm not. My comment wasn't ignorance, it was TRUTH. You've not shown anything to support your claims. Let's see something besides a BS video. School me? I've schooled you. Why can't you answer my questions? I've supported what I've said with factual information with credible sources. Unless you think the FDNY is lying? Why couldn't you answer that simple question earlier? Why can't you answer ANY questions & avoid them instead?
Sharky2055 2 years ago
wow you a female???? i'm done talking to you. woman are sooo stubborn so forget. I'm not here to school you. you haven't proven anything but that you have no idea what you're talking about. it's so pathetic to take one person comment and state a quote. they're is over 200 firefighters that state for the record that the "offical" story done by the government is TOTALLY wrong. FACTS not my opinion. so check your fact and get it correct.
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23 Ha ha ha ha! You got beat up by a girl!
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdgemanLL2 .hahaha???wtf u laughing at??? you dumb ass!!!
jtrish23 1 year ago
"My mind IS open"
No Sharky, just your legs.
Kranski4 2 years ago
@Kranski4
ONLY for my husband. It's NOT like you'd know. Not that you'd ever be so privileged! I'd much rather scrape you off the bottom of my shoes where you dwell abd belong.
Sharky2055 2 years ago
Sex sells baby, that's why it cost more.
Didn't you know that?
Bluetooht 2 years ago
@Bluetooht...that's a good one....;)
jtrish23 2 years ago
@jtrish23
good question.
jsnow1492 1 year ago
Comment removed
jackpagan 2 years ago
Be honest 911 Nuts.
Y'all are simply a bunch of bitter, lonely Dysfunctionals with barely discernable lives. The same gullible Suckers who buy into everything from Penis Enlargement pills, to Don Lapre's "How to Make Internet Millions", to this 911 BS.
As sure as the earth rotates on its axis...I can guarantee you CTards will still be Virgins this time next year, and the 911 CT will remain nothing but a large Internet CircleJerk of socially and educationally impaired Morons. LOL!
TARDS!
LindaStevensBZ 2 years ago
Are you serious? Let's look at some things. !) When the towers went down they imploded on themselves. 2) Tow planes struck but three towers went down, and 3) Jet fuel is 4 parts kerosene. Kerosene does not burn at a temperature hot enough to burn steel. Look at all that before you go on being another cow.
KevmanX999 2 years ago
towers didnt implode.. you need a vacuum to do that.
opusbeme 2 years ago
Something can implode on itself. In the case of the towers, the force of gravity and the mass of the object plus the foundation being weak cause the towers to implode on themselves. Which makes me further believe that it was controlled demolition that brought them down not a hijacked jet liner. It simply doesn't make sense.
KevmanX999 2 years ago
of course something can implode INTO (i dont think 'on' is the appropriate terminology) itself. The towers did not implode.. there was no change in pressure. WHy would you think that? Which control demolition uses pressure for implode? They all use gravity.
opusbeme 2 years ago
I'd like to point out the buildings only partially fell straight down. A good chunk went to the side. In one video, you can make out the top part completely the side of the rest of the falling building. That section hit the roads and the buildings.
And you really need to look closer at how building 7 was made to understand why it fell. First was it's support struts. Second was it's high preasure gas line facing the Trade Towers. Finally several gas generators used in building 7.
stbays 2 years ago
Your comment shows a very distinct lack of critical thinking skills, preferring to rely on insults and ad hominem attacks to support your argument. You just denigrated an entire group of people, most of whom you have never even met, based on an untenable narrow-minded opinion. You are no different from a racist.
CokeSupply 2 years ago
You insult people & show your exquisite intelligence by being ingnorant to 100s of facts that stack up against the Gov. account of 9-11. I bet you read the enquirer "well they wrote it so it must be true. Instead of spending time trying to sound cute with your insults , why don't you do some research. There's just to much info. to believe anything other than the Government was involved... and OJ did not kill his wife. He was innocent, thats what the courts/media told me.Give me a freakn break.
elove20202003 2 years ago
Steven Jones blatanly took photo's from the ground zero clean up and claimed they were proof of nano-thermite when the photo's were easily explained (one of the pictures is a group of fire fighters around a damn light lol). How this man has any credibility left is beyond me.
Juniversal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sad fuck, you have to ok your comments first on your channel? Fucking joke. I don't like your non-free speech zone. You block and delete anyone who debunks your idiotic theories. Sad really.
manwello15 2 years ago
Steven Jones is WATER MAN
When a toliet needs flushed after someone took a huge shit in it, WATER MAN is there.
WhyAskQuestions 2 years ago
Leslie Robertson JUST re-built WTC7 in NY for Larry Silverstein. Larry Silverstein made $7.3 BILLION from the twin towers falling. Why wouldn't Leslie Robertson back up Larry Silverstein when Leslie RECENTLY made a HUGE amount of money from the REBUILD of WTC7? Just go to Leslie Robertson's co. website and see that he rebuilt WTC7? Check out all the buldings he RECENTLY rebuilt in NY, and some are owned by Larry Silverstein. Just a co-incidence that Leslie's co. works for Larry.
lera. com
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
lol he didn't make 7 billion.
gamingeh 2 years ago
how much did Larry Silverstein make from the insurance company then? The insurance policy was $3+ billion from each plane attack.
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
Ok. Larry Silverstein made $4.55 billion from the insurance co. I stand corrected.
And, now, Larry Silverstein wants $12.6 billion more from a bailout.
bbnemesis123 2 years ago
No shit sherlock, he paid for the insurance and should get his dues. Why isn't he entitled to something HE PAID FOR?!
gamingeh 2 years ago
silverstien cleaned up of the backs of the victims and the tax payers on an incident he knew was gonna happen fuck silvestien and all his neocon buddys the murdering thief got 14 billion fuking dollars fuk him hang his traitor ass
sawacheroke 2 years ago 2
Hey Sherlock, He didn't pay that much for it, He profited from the buildings coming down, and bought the buildings 6 weeks before 911!
cbat36 2 years ago 2
"He profited from the buildings coming down, and bought the buildings 6 weeks before 911! "
hey stupid moron truther, larry LEASED the wtc complex from the port authority and insurance was compulsory.
911TRUTHINATOR 2 years ago
Really? Strange, because he has been paying the lease for the WTC, which nothing is rebuilt yet, and he has recently rebuilt WTC7 which costed him around 7 billion.
gamingeh 2 years ago
The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive -$6.3 billion.
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. Whats more, dont imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money
JLaw012 2 years ago