Actually conventional explosives, in sufficient amounts, can reduce the concrete portion of a building to fine dust; this often happens in controlled demolitions. And I do not see evidence of any steel beams being reduced to dust at the WTC. Nor do I see evidence of nukes at the WTC. Conventional explosives could have brought down the WTC, and probably did.
Nope, the steel support columns WERE turned into dust. Moreover, there was no demolition. This is according the world's leading experts Implosion World (Protec). Read their PDF: "A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" by Brent Blanchard
One obvious thing missing in the demoltion and nuke theory is seismic evidence. Until it is produced these theories have to be rejected.
demitri kalezov, underground precisely planted nuclear explosion, forcing incredibly hot pulverised and shattered rock up and through the tower reducing its innards to near dust, explains the seismic anomaly, the microscopic dust, the whole shebang. watch his interview - its long ,detailed and scientific. nobogeymen, no arabs just the explained mechanics of how you can demolish a building with a nuclear device.
why did you end the video there? in the 5 seconds that followed, the viewer would see the boxes and the remaining spire turn to dust... Dr Judy Woods- has the evidence uncut-
can someone please explain to me why the "conspirators" deemed planted explosives to be necessary? I would think crashing airplanes into the buildings would be enough to provoke a war in which the people of the federal reserve would gain profit...You people are idiots if you think explosives were planted. Do you know how much of it would be needed to take down the towers? How is it that no one noticed any of it being planted? The government could never pull this off, get over yourselves.
@Coolz444 Have you ever seen a demolition fail? The entire building remains in tact as it capsizes at the base, or center because it wasn't exploded by dynomite!! Jet fuel doesn't explode, nor does a building explode after being hit by a plane. There had to be another explanation. You people just don't want to accept the fact that your world isn't as you see it on the surface.
@Coolz444 So, there is a shortage of explosives so there's no way they could have put enough in the buildings to explode it. Right. How could the government never have pulled this off? Far worse things have been pulled off by fewer people. If you believe 19 men without hardly a pilot liscence who could fly a cesna, from Saudi Arabia could pull this off, anything is possible.
I was watching and waiting for the "spire" to turn to dust, which is what happened on that day. There is CNN footage of it doing this shot from mid-Manhattan. One second it is a spire of steel, the next second it is a cloud of dust.This dustification is what lead me to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I had originally thought she was a crackpot until I spent a few hours on her website.
@desafinad0 Yes exactly, me too. Interesting facts indeed. The toasted cars' steel parts became toasted. I've found a video (which I even e-mailed her: watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ . This is an ambulance in fire, and as you can see there's a very weird fire sudden burst of 3 seconds which doesn't looks natural: as if you place a metal piece inside the microwave. It looks intact, wasn't hit by fallen debris, so I can't really get why it was burning that way.
I don't understand you truthers. First, you say that the columns should be intact do to the pancake theory (the floors collapse on each other leaving the core columns intact). Then, when there is a video showing the core columns, you say that it has to be a demolition. I have the easy job. I believe terrorists attacked the WTC. You have the hard job. You have to find every 'illogical' thing that happened that day, when it is clearly something that can physically happen.
@IntaLSM lol No doubt. I think truthers have to abandon rational thought to remain truthers. lol Not to mention they have to argue against physics, common since, clear video evidence & umpteen bazillion eyewitnesses.
i dont believe there were nukes. I think this video was put here to throw people off the real evidence of thermite being used to break the steel structure. But, i wouldn't be surprised if I found out small nukes were used... worse things have been done..
Nuclear explosions? Seriously? Is there no end to the well of stupidity created by truthers? If we could figure a way to turn stupidity into energy we would be set.
@randomtrader1 lol Use your brain. Seriously.Nothing points to a 9/11 conspiracy. Suppose the gov did want to fake an attack. Why would they do something involving so many civilians with so many witnesses? With so many possibilities for failure? Does that even sound vaguely plausible? lol No, it doesn't. If the gov was going to fake an attack they would have done something like nuke a US ship in the middle of nowhere. Easier to pull off, fewer involved, they could say terrorists have nukes.
@randomtrader1 That would have been much more likely to be successful & scared the public more. The gov doesn't have a good track record of keeping secrets long term & attacking their own population would be suicide. There is just no physical evidence, no motivation to pull off something like that. You have to be an utter fool to think 9/11 was an inside job. Govs have faked attacks but even if they wanted to 9/11 is not even in the realm of possibilities of what they would have done.
@shananagans5 I agree, you gotta be a stupid fool to believe 911 was an inside job. I mean the fact there is videos showing steel turning into dust would never persaude anyone to believe it was somehow blow into dust. I'm sure everyone is going to believe what you say. Don't you know when to stop lieing. I sugest you give up wirting crap if you don't want to make youself look stupid.
@benjyboba I don't recall steel turning to dust anywhere. Lots of bent twisted beams like you would expect in a collapse, yes. Lots of photos of those beams also. Is there any evidence of thermite? Explosions for controlled demolition? You do realize how loud the explosions are in a controlled demolition? How come nobody heard those? With all the films you would think ONE of them would have recorded that? Maybe the gov paid off/threatened the sound waves? Maybe the sound waves are in on it. lol
@shananagans5 i HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE INNER STEEL CORE TURNING INTO DUST, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO ACTUALLY NOW ADMIT THAT IT TURNED INTO DUST.BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES. YOU IDIOT CLAIMS ON SOUND AS A DIVERSION DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE SOLID VIDEO EVIDENCE, YOU JUST MADE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT SHANANAGANS5. HERE IS THE PROVE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
@benjyboba lol It's dust from concrete & it got hit by debris. You all see what you want to see no matter how wild & ignore everything that doesn't fit your little delusion. I agree, there is video evidence. It's hard to dispute. Terrorists flew jets into buildings & killed 1,000s No sound of explosives going off a little diversion? We watched a hotel go down in Vegas & we were about a mile away & it was very loud. Like a gun 15 or 20 feet away loud. Every vid with sound would have picked it up
@shananagans5 shananagens5 CLAIMS ITS DUST FROM CONCREATE, YOUR SEE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE. Well I SEE A STANDING STRUCTURE THAT FELL DOWN WITHOUT FALLING OVER, AND IT TURNED INTO DUST. SOLID OBJECTS STAND AND IT SHOULD TOPLE OVER NOT FALL STRAIGHT DOWN YOU UNINTELIGENT IDIOT.. THIS IS THE VIDEO HE CLAIMS OR IS HE TOO DUMB TO RELISE i LINNKED IT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
@benjyboba You think a giant building should topple over like a stick? Seriously? If a building that size even started to fall over the structure at the bottom would give out starting a downward motion. Gravity will not take a break for a few seconds. If you really think a building like that could just topple over without it starting to crush at the bottom too you really need to learn some very basic physics. You look foolish arguing against basic physical laws.
@benjyboba There is video after video where you can hear people talking when the collapse starts & guess what? No explosions & they are much less than a mile away. This is NYC with tall buildings everywhere. There would have been the sound of the explosions and echos from everywhere. Explosions cause sound waves. Is that just another scientific fact you all choose to ignore?
@shananagans5 YOU HAVE A VERY WEAK CLAIM AND HAVE CHANGED THE SUBJECT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WE BOTH SAW THE DUST ON THIS VIDEO, STEEL TURNING TO DUST ON THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 WHAT THE HELL HAS EXPLOSIONS GOT TO DO WITH STEEL TURNING INTO DUST.YOU IGNORANT IDIOT. WHATEVER THE METHOD USED IT TURNED TO DUST YOUR TRUELY THICK AS SHIT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
@benjyboba You ignore the sound because it doesn't fit your delusion? Look at the top when it starts to collapse. If starts to go off to the side slightly then the structure under gives out starting the downward motion. Once it's moving it exceeds the ability of the structure to support it. Mass x velocity squared. It doesn't take much downward motion to give the effect of drastically increased weight & buildings that size don't have a huge safety margin built in.
@shananagans5 i WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE SOUND DICKHEAD, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE STEEL TURNING INTO DUST IN THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 IF YOU GOT THE BRAINS TO WORK OUT HOW TO WATCH IT YOUR SEE THE INNER CORE STANDING AFTER THE COLLAPSE BEFORE TURNING INTO DUST. THERE WAS NO GREAT WEIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE AT ALL. GROW A FUCKING BRAIN YOU MORON.
@shananagans5 ITS STILL STANDING AFTER THE BUILDING COLLAPSED IN THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 THEN THE STEEL COLUMNS TURNS TO DUST. IF YOU DONT VIEW THE VIDEO IN MY LINK THEN YOUR LOOKING AT THE WRONG VIDEO,
@benjyboba I watched it. It didn't turn to dust. It fell. You can even see when debris impacts the bottom of it & as it fell the dust obscures it. Lots of dust tends to do that. lol Not to even mention you can't just vaporize steel. Well, near the center of a nuke you could but that's clearly not the case here.
@shananagans5 ARE YOU TALKING OF THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 YOU JUST SAID TO ME YOU CANT VAPORIZE STEEL, WELL THERE ARE VIDEOS OF NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION OF THE TOWERS. THE ONLY FACT IM SAYING IS THE STEEL CANT FALL DOWN BECAUSE ITS SOLID AND NOTHING TO CRUSH IT AS ITS FREE STANDING AFTER COLLASPE AND IT TURNS INTO DUST. WHOS TO SAY THERE ISNT ANOTHER UNKOWN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE OF DOING THIS. WE SEE IT HAPPEN AND NO ONE CAN DENY IT TURNED TO DUST.
@benjyboba lol Listen to yourself. I mean seriously. Does it look like that piece is in the middle of a nuclear explosion? Unknown military technology? That just breaks every law of matter & energy to vaporize steel? Seriously, listen to yourself & the arguments you are making. Does it make any since? Any at all? You are ignoring the fact that planted bombs would make noise & coming up with an "unknown military technology" Does that sound rational? Seriously, step back & look at your claims.
@shananagans5 I didn't say how it was done and your thinking up all the possibilities and imediately dismissingi them. It still don't change the fact that STEEL TURNED TO DUST BEFORE OUR VERY EYES. I DID HOWEVER WATCH THE NUCLEAR DEMOLITION VIDEOS AND THE EXPERT SUPODELY SAID IT WOULD BE QUIET. I do know the TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE AND THE TECHS KNOW ABOUT ISN'T THE SAME AS WE HAVE REASEARCHED IN SECRECY. THE CARS HALF BURNED BUT THE PAPER NEVER, WHAT ABOUT HUTCHINSONS EFFECT, STILL TURNED DUST
NO radiation =NO nukes. 1,500.000 tons of dust = molecular disassociation (DEW). If the US can't see the dust, can't see there's little debris then the whole country needs glasses or a brain transplant. Keep on pushing the 'demolition' theory then pass to the 'Nuclear bomb' theory and you'll be doing exactly what they want. They've got us arguing about it and 911truth claiming that their 'truth' is the best 'truth'. It's all going just as they planned!
And as for your theory that the spire proves that explosives were planted.. it doesn't. In fact it shows that the towers collapse didn't happen at free fall speed..and that it was progressive. If you were going to take down a 110 story tower that receives its rigidity and strength from a core structure. You'd want to make sure that your boss doesn't see it still standing after the whole rest of the building falls down. Nice try on proving conspiracies, keep it up! You'll get it one day!
@terryk1233 First, you watch the 'spires' turn into dust with your OWN eyes and then you defend the 'demolition' theory, while at the same time you laugh at people trying trying to prove what your OWN eyes witness! That has got to be the height of stupidity Sir!
The floor brackets were welded to the core, but only fastened to the floor trusses with 2 5/8 inch bolts.. Explain to me again how them still being visible on the core after the floors fell proves your demolition theory?
If it was some nukes that brought the towers down, then we would have seen a small mushroom cloud {which we didn't}. Also there was no radiation present afterwards.
Dr. Judy Woods has shown high resolution photographs of this same "spire" disintegrating; turing into very fine particulate matter. The demolition theory doesn't hold water.
@mujaku There are still things not to forget. For example Newtons laws. Why they didnt take place at this time? If u make still pics dividing the collapsing for one second sections, u'll see more. It accelerates. Now get back to Newtons laws and study the construction of the tower. Something doesnt make sense. U c u gotta pay attention to every things not only things what is ment to debunk theories and assumptions to make the camp cheering u've choosen.
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Soc'
Forget theories for a moment. Let the EVIDENCE speak.
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Soc'
Forget theories for a moment. Let the EVIDENCE speak.
a nuclear explosion that caused a top down demolition, stripped the exterior, but did not damage the core? Sorry, there are plenty of videos with four loud explosions that are happening as the spire still demonstrates equilibrium and stability. The building did not drop then begin collapsing, nor did it mechanically collapse after a nuke, it blows apart in 10 seconds, too fast for a collapse from fire but far too slow for a nuke. The nuke story is caveman bigfoot aliens and nessie bullshit
@911InvestigationVids Nukes may have been used in the sub-level to break connection between bedrock and support. Fact remains you guys brought down your own towers. It was made in USA production. Horror movie with real victims. How can you top that? I cant wait to see the remake or making of, anyone know when they come out? Maybe next film can have 6000 dead and we can argue, Arabs, no Zionist no illuminatti for the next ten years.
@Jimbofx911 There aws not 3000 dead. There aws no nukes. In science we would take the most likely way that they demolish buildings and test that. Since that passes all tests, there is no need for another "theory". The nuke deal is easily disproven, not even possible or likely. The caveman with a secret global spy ring that defys logic and physics is more likely than the nuke tale. Thats all a diversion to make the truth look like idiots, a false path down an empty rabbit hole
@911InvestigationVids Even if no nukes were uses, the evidence it in plain sight for all to see. Cutter charges, lots of them were used to slice up the towers cores. The only thing easy to disprove are NIST fairy tails. Like the pancake theory. Millions spent to have a guy with a laptop and freeware shame them. I trust what I know, what A&E, MIT, NYFD and so many others know and that is a mass murder was committed and the responsible are still free. They will face justice.
@Jimbofx911 I am amazing how how ignorant and just plain stupid people are who still believe 911 was a terrorist attack. How could you see the scientific evidence and not believe the truth? They said flight 93 incinerated. Bull crap. Remember the Columbia fell from space going over 4,000 mph, falling debris over 4 states and they were still able to peice it together.
@Jimbofx911 People see the attack two ways, excluding of course the criminals that planned it. First are the kind that see it with emotion, no logic. They cannot or will not accept that corrupt people, a big gang of them, committed this crime. The other is people who look at the reality of what they see, and know there is more to it then meets the eye. Some of those, very educated people, like David Chandler and people that he works with know without a doubt fiction like NIST report
must be contested for inaccurate information they are using to mislead the public. People are not stupid even if they cannot see that WTC 1 and 2 were demolished with explosives. It is a painful cross-over from one side to the other, and many protect themselves from that pain and reality by blocking out awareness of the matter or refusal of accepting what is clear as water. Just the way the brain works
@911InvestigationVids Thermite........ Or Super thermite or the other military grade thermite. Cut the beams. Im a machinist and seeing the steal beams no steal beam that thick would bend that far without cracking without heat being added. And no steal would heat up that much with compression. Not only that but the beams were covered with asbspetos . Jet fuel burning would have been able to heat the beams up that much with the abspestos
@11thhourreprieve The buildings had massive amounts of asbestos in them. The port authorities wouldn't let the owner update the buildings without removing the asbestos. It would have cost more than what the buildings were worth to remove the asbestos. If you don't believe me look at all the sick people now from the attacks and look up asbestos on wtc. And to your question to Am I off my head obviously not. I just do my research.
@burnbabey12 Thanks for the clarification. In all honesty I wouldn't have expected wtc to have had any asbestos, I guess I learned something significant. I would expect the concrete dusts alone to prove seriously hazardous to health but throw in asbestos... it's quite a mix. High removal costs alone would be motive enough to fake an attack or allow one to happen, so uncouth people are to make or save money.
@11thhourreprieve Thanks for the sarcasm and the concrete dust caused health problems to but the buildings were constructed right when asbestos was banned. The asbestos being in the buildings is public record if you don't believe me then look it up. Far as attack the trade centers were a sign of american strength. Bringing them down to get the support of the people to per sue their interest in the middle east. Just like the Tonken Gulf incident.
@11thhourreprieve Which the goverment finally came out and openly admited in the incident they were never fired upon. Again they needed the support of the people to per sue their interests.
If you look at the photo beginning at 0:22 and again at 0:59, you can see that the connecting seats for the trusses are all bent downward, consistent with the fatal collapse of the building, after structural failure due to the plane impacts and fires. The reason why there was a segment of the core left, is A) because of the chaos of the collapse and B) it was being surrounded by the piling debris that used to be intact sub-systems built with it during the building's service life.
it wasnt demolition.. it was direct energy weapons - this exact spire turns to dust in this video - tell me how a DEMOLITION can turn REINFORCED STEEL into DUST
as for the spire falling this just goes with the established premise of the structure by the bloke who designed it and he stated before it was even built that the inner columns and the outer columns are not free standing and only got theyre strength from the floors since the floors and the outer columns were gone there was nothing to keep the spire up , and the s shaped wave would have caused leverage at the base breaking it
only powerful explosives could clear away the core to its skeleton, so when the floors came down what do you think happened to the air in the 2 sq acres of floor space ?
small nukes hahahah easy way to fix this since steel absorbs radiation and is difficult to decontaminate i dare someone to go to one of the many memorials with a gigercounter and see if they can find anything more than normal levels of radiation !
@AccessDenied55 I agree it does. It proves the pancake theory. Notice how the building with the top that fell even left the spire, and the one that fell more on a lean wedge the core over leaving no spire. Could not of been demo.
The buildings were poorly designed. Even Robertson, the designer, admits that jetfuel was not considered in their impact analysis. Once the hat trusses failed, collapse was inevitable. To solve the riddle of 9/11, you need to forget about 1, 2 & 7, and concentrate instead on the Pentagon anomalies.
@tmlnation DIRECT CONTRADICTION - that "insurance policy" myth was debunked years ago, search "911 debunked insurance" and watch the video (all the way through).
Nobody made a dime of profit off WTC insurance, which didn't cover the whole cost of replacement, and terror coverage was a STANDARD part of ALL the leases on the towers since at least the early 90s. It just so happened that the lease renewed in July of 2001, but that was because the previous lease had expired normally.
@Rep0007 <----- This is a fake sock-bot troll account. Commenting on 9/11 videos since 2008, with no comments and two favorites on the channel page. I see comments from hundreds of these fake ass accounts monthly
There is only one theory that stands to be fact and has more evedence than any of these dumb ass ideas and that is Dr Judy woods idea of DUSTIFICATION.Tthe published theroist - truther - knower - what ever you want ot call her. She has never been a conspiricy theorist untill she saw what happned on 9/11.
Nuclear devices? That don't register on seismic recordings?
(About half a dozen seismic stations picked up the collapses. They showed a gradually increasing wave that grew and then subsided just as the collapses did. No spikes or odd sign waves)
This must be the new "kinder gentler" nuclear device. The neighbor friendly nuclear device.
"Take out a building and don't bother your neighbors".
Nuclear Devices? Interesting that none of those registered on the half a dozen seismic recording devices that recorded the collapse. And showed that it was gradually increasing sound that peaked then subsided. Just like the collapse.
LMAO - Just the other day I had a truther telling me that the "pancake" theory couldn't be true because otherwise some of the core would have had to remain.
Truthers please pick one lie and stick with it. You're insulting us and embarrassing yourselves.
@captainbueno it's actually true. how could steel columns pancake just because the floors around it are pancaking? the whole pancake theory is centered around the floors, not the internal support columns. The floors wouldn't take the columns with them, they simply aren't strong enough. What exactly about this proposition makes you "laugh your ass off"? And watch a video of this spire collapsing. It turns to dust in mid air. Don't believe me? Take 2 minutes and look for yourself.
@butanerios Don't ask me - ask a truther who insists that pancaking wasn't possible because supposedly none of the core remained, yet here we see part of core remaining. I was LMAO because you guys can't just stick to one plausible consistent lie.
And how big is a small nuclear device? How much energy do they release? What is their radiological signature? Where were they placed? How much noise do they make?
No need for nuclear devices if what she says is true about the military "thermite bombs with sulphur potential". Those military guys know a thing or two - and we don't have a clue about what they know!
It's pretty easy to understand why the spire was stripped clean. The floors collapsing on each other not only blew debris through the outer walls, but also inwards to the core, shredding everything but the steel structure.
So because the middle beam stood after the rest fell shows demolition?
Honestly I think that would show the opposite. Think about it if there was bombs or whatever than don't you think they would go after the main support? The outside was mostly glass so when the PLANE crashed into it it mostly damaged the outer part. I understand people want a FULL report, but why can't people face the facts and stop making up these ridiculous theories?
So because the middle beam stood after the rest fell shows demolition?
Honestly I think that would show the opposite. Think about it if there was bombs or whatever than don't you think they would go after the main support? The outside was mostly glass so when the PLANE crashed into it it mostly damaged the outer part. I understand people want a FULL report, but why can't people face the facts and stop making up these ridiculous theories?
Sorry, but nuclear bombs vaporize steel to, and in large amounts. The little steel that was melted was due to nano-thermite, just as found in ALL dust samples. Try AE911truth(dot)org for the FACTS, not the BS....
You've put all these theories to the test have you? You had a spare sky scrapper to see if your stupid theories are true and would happen 100% of the time? Daft bum head. The only people that should be making videos about the towers are architects and people that worked on the buildings. No one else. And even those guys don't know for sure what would happen, because this hasn't happened before.
That is a corner. spandrels visible and the corner angle intact. At each corner the 2 columns are 45 degrees, not 90. You see it in the spire. The spire corner indicates the visible pulverization wave pathway. The devices were not dead center under the building and the spire corner was furthest from literal ground zero.
150 KTON nukes whose primary radiation and heat were contained at a mathematically calculated theoretically ideal depth to exploit secondary pulverization effect.
They went from truthers, to conspiracy theorists, to people who defend a position. I thought the truthers was healthy for the nation. I even went as far as being a conspiracy theorist, not believing what I saw. But the people who throw away evidence that disproves their claim are making it difficult to move on. For this video really if it was nuclear, people would have been severly radiated. Definately one of the most rediculous claims yet.
Gosh, where's the damn proof of this horrible claim? How would you know what a tower looks like when a nuclear bomb goes off? That's really the most stupid claim I've read on YouTube so far. You have proven absolutely nothing, only that the core indeed stood for some seconds. It doesn't confirm any nuclear explosion theory.
Actually this proves that it was not a demolition, if you talk to anyone who does demolition, they destroy the core columns first so they wouldn't be hung up like this, so you just incase proved yourself wrong, good job
@thatcanadianperson 100% agreement with you, I think these people suffer from some kind of mental problem... the fact that it does not resemble a demolition in any way proves it was a demolition? huh?
@thatcanadianperson BUT if the video continues (the maker of the vid does not) it suddenly falls into its own footprint. u can say what u want about the towers but there was no wait above that spire.
@thatcanadianperson You idiot, the WTC demolition was no ordinary economical demolition, it was a project designed to make the demolition look like a collapse, and obviously since idiots like you believe it, they succeeded. Even though evidence for high tech nano thermite was found in all WTC dust samples, according to you skyscrapers can be imploded by setting them on fire by damaging a few floors, the plane did not even go through the core columns in the first place.
@thatcanadianperson you are fucked in the head you ignorant son of a bitch,,,,,,,,,if you talk to anyone who does demolition??,,,,,,,hahahahaha,,,,,you act like this was a conventional demolition,,,,,,do you have any idea what the military actually has in it's repetoire,,,,,,,,try nasa,,,,,fuckstic,,,,,all the do is further technology,,,,,,,,and this was a sophisticated and very percise and technological destruction of these towers,,,,,,,it was done with many military ufo around manhattan
Absolutely incorrect. Just because some "they" destroy core columns first in other buildings has nothing, and that means absolutely nothing, to do with the failure to destroy this one. When it does finally go down, it's fall is almost vertically, and just before it falls there is an S-shaped wave in it indicating a large shock at the bottom, i.e. explosives at the base.
sooo part of the building still standing briefly proves what??? It proves that if it was demolished (which according to foil helmet wearing people is true), the plans were conceived in crayon by retarded people.
Terrorist attaks using commercial planes brought the towers down you fuckwit! End of story... Have some respect for the people that died and the families! insensitive twat!!!!
From what architects say: if the building did collapse from the fires and plane fuel, the building would've only collapsed by 1/4 of the building. Which means both of the towers would've still been standing by at least 40 to 50 floors. A plane crash cannot cause an entire building to diminish into dust. Look at WTC 5 & 6. They never collapsed. They were only damaged. Yet 1, 2, 7, and the hotel magically disappeared like a magic trick. We need explanations for WTC 5 & 6, WHY DIDN'T THEY COLLAPSE?
That's why we have the "DEBUNKED THEORY" to support this.... remember that the WTC were constructed on exterior columns and the core columns which is thought to be stronger and bigger than the exterior columns. there were no inner columns which is supposed to help the core columns to support the floor. If you think this is an INSIDE JOB then your nuts because if it is an inside job then they should not let the that to happen. they should let the building fall down w/o a trace...
@joncmaxwell that is part of the core though. The core was much larger, but for some reason that part remained still for a couple of seconds and then came down. I think it was the express elevator shaft of the core, which carried visitors to the 107th floor. You can still see the concrete wall too. If that's what you meant though - then you're right. That is the side of the skeletal core.
Direct Energy weapon. that is why the magnetic field dipped at 9:20 AM. directed energy is the only thing that would cause metal to turn to dust and it is the ONE aspect about all TRUTH videos that they leave out.
hey this is because there was so much metal that was on the building and this is a large and tall building so obviosly your gonna see some metal still barely standing
@anthonyc31 what is the link to that. Nuclear bombs would set of the siesmetic stations around the NEW YORK area. Directed Energy Weapons you can see it right as the tower collapses as the 75 story core column disipate to dust. Does it matter though. Live hard and rich hell with the rest of it.
@doughauf Please watch Part 1 and Part 2 of Dimitri Khalezov's explanation to the events of 9/11 on my channel (Third Truth). Unfortunately, you need to watch both parts because Part 1 explains the nuclear demolition in great detail, and in Part 2, he provides clear evidence that proves the Seismic readings shared were bogus. Dimitri provides the single most detailed and logical explanation of virtually all events on 9/11. I highly recommend that you make time to watch.
spiral acutally does vanish like magic, acutally in two different spiral areas.
Too bad we Prez Obombya silenced the man behind the op, otherwise we could enhance interrogate him to tell us how he melts steel like a Vatican Warlock Assassian.
all this video proves is that demolition charged were NOT used. If they were, then the core would have been completely destroyed. As we can see, it was not.
not if the power of the charge was too small...... If it pancaked, The whole core would have been left standing. That was just a spire, of what should have been 47 beams of steel and concrete. Take a look at the videos of the WTC Construction. They had to use some type of pre-installed explosives. I think it's crazy outrageous.
@Born2Flesh well theres no way to really know if explosives were used, but I think if they were, then they would have brought then entire core down, not just part of it. I think the fact part of the core was left, suggests that there were not any explosives.
You can not be that stupid? The only part left of the 47 steel beam core, was the single spire. You don't ask yourself, What happen to the other 46 steel beams that made up the core? Are you fucking stupid?
@Born2Flesh no i dont ask myself what happened to the rest of the core, because nobody can know for sure. All i know for sure is that if explosives were used, then there wouldn't be any spire. The whole thing would be gone at the same time.
@AndehX If it had recieved the weight of the building above downward on it it would be bent, crushed, and gone. Here we see one single beam standing with equilibrium then fall directly into itself. notice the nubs where the floors used to be, those are smoking in some videos. The downward force on those connections would not have left 3 foot nubs, the same force should have bent or accordianed the straight piece of steel. Why is it standing? The core was scrubbed of floors outward, not down
@Born2Flesh This argument ends now though, because arguing with people over the internet is like banging your head against a brick wall. its completely pointless because a normal person + anonimity + the internet = complete arsehole who things hes right about everything. ie. a troll.
Not to mention the fact that the nuclear fission reaction from said bomb would not have left the steel intact, how can you even argue this...it's asinine.
This video is so flawed it's pathetic. Small nuclear weapons? Come on. They would have atomized the core had they been detonated in the building. And we would have HEARD the detonation, not only that, no massive heat surge on any thermal imaging, nor radiation nor seismic recordings which were plentiful that day from numerous organizations.
@mooglebee it's quite easy to falsify their idiotic claims
Don't you love how speculation and assumption are passed of as fact nowdays? The spire could have been left standing for any number of reasons, one of which you pointed out in your video. The "stripping" could also have been caused by any number of things. I don
Actually conventional explosives, in sufficient amounts, can reduce the concrete portion of a building to fine dust; this often happens in controlled demolitions. And I do not see evidence of any steel beams being reduced to dust at the WTC. Nor do I see evidence of nukes at the WTC. Conventional explosives could have brought down the WTC, and probably did.
gregoryfegel 3 days ago
Get your facts straight go to AE for 9/11 truth
revolutionary17 5 days ago
Nope, the steel support columns WERE turned into dust. Moreover, there was no demolition. This is according the world's leading experts Implosion World (Protec). Read their PDF: "A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" by Brent Blanchard
One obvious thing missing in the demoltion and nuke theory is seismic evidence. Until it is produced these theories have to be rejected.
mujaku 1 week ago
demitri kalezov, underground precisely planted nuclear explosion, forcing incredibly hot pulverised and shattered rock up and through the tower reducing its innards to near dust, explains the seismic anomaly, the microscopic dust, the whole shebang. watch his interview - its long ,detailed and scientific. nobogeymen, no arabs just the explained mechanics of how you can demolish a building with a nuclear device.
simples.
0TheChinaSyndrome0 2 weeks ago
why did you end the video there? in the 5 seconds that followed, the viewer would see the boxes and the remaining spire turn to dust... Dr Judy Woods- has the evidence uncut-
|- this dude's pushin bunk smack.
misselissisme 1 month ago
the spire turns to dust - which this video does not show !
No S wave or P wave before the towers went away...
No nukes used - not enough debris left
No controlled demolition - 22 miles of cable needed
No collaspe - they just turned to dust !!
only dust and paper left !!!!
psonikadia 1 month ago
can someone please explain to me why the "conspirators" deemed planted explosives to be necessary? I would think crashing airplanes into the buildings would be enough to provoke a war in which the people of the federal reserve would gain profit...You people are idiots if you think explosives were planted. Do you know how much of it would be needed to take down the towers? How is it that no one noticed any of it being planted? The government could never pull this off, get over yourselves.
Coolz444 1 month ago
@Coolz444 Have you ever seen a demolition fail? The entire building remains in tact as it capsizes at the base, or center because it wasn't exploded by dynomite!! Jet fuel doesn't explode, nor does a building explode after being hit by a plane. There had to be another explanation. You people just don't want to accept the fact that your world isn't as you see it on the surface.
GodsaveHisAnnointed2 1 month ago
@GodsaveHisAnnointed2 jet fuel doesn't explode like dynomite, is what I meant....
GodsaveHisAnnointed2 1 month ago
@Coolz444 So, there is a shortage of explosives so there's no way they could have put enough in the buildings to explode it. Right. How could the government never have pulled this off? Far worse things have been pulled off by fewer people. If you believe 19 men without hardly a pilot liscence who could fly a cesna, from Saudi Arabia could pull this off, anything is possible.
GodsaveHisAnnointed2 4 weeks ago
Yeah, but how about the next frames after this spire? It simply vanishes into the dust.
ranieri7x 1 month ago
@ranieri7x
I was watching and waiting for the "spire" to turn to dust, which is what happened on that day. There is CNN footage of it doing this shot from mid-Manhattan. One second it is a spire of steel, the next second it is a cloud of dust.This dustification is what lead me to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I had originally thought she was a crackpot until I spent a few hours on her website.
desafinad0 1 month ago
@desafinad0 Yes exactly, me too. Interesting facts indeed. The toasted cars' steel parts became toasted. I've found a video (which I even e-mailed her: watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ . This is an ambulance in fire, and as you can see there's a very weird fire sudden burst of 3 seconds which doesn't looks natural: as if you place a metal piece inside the microwave. It looks intact, wasn't hit by fallen debris, so I can't really get why it was burning that way.
ranieri7x 1 month ago
Nukes Doesn't explain the tons of molten steel... but thermite does
batfly 1 month ago
I don't understand you truthers. First, you say that the columns should be intact do to the pancake theory (the floors collapse on each other leaving the core columns intact). Then, when there is a video showing the core columns, you say that it has to be a demolition. I have the easy job. I believe terrorists attacked the WTC. You have the hard job. You have to find every 'illogical' thing that happened that day, when it is clearly something that can physically happen.
IntaLSM 1 month ago
@IntaLSM lol No doubt. I think truthers have to abandon rational thought to remain truthers. lol Not to mention they have to argue against physics, common since, clear video evidence & umpteen bazillion eyewitnesses.
shananagans5 1 month ago
i dont believe there were nukes. I think this video was put here to throw people off the real evidence of thermite being used to break the steel structure. But, i wouldn't be surprised if I found out small nukes were used... worse things have been done..
fodads 1 month ago
@fodads Here's a vid of that same steel bar. Come back and give ur explanation or opinion what happens. Thermite or thermate doesnt do it.
/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
Scumbot404 1 month ago
that isn't even the spire bitch
JerseyShore117 1 month ago
i love those people who look up these videos just to comment and "disprove" people and make them feel like morons.
deidara0430 2 months ago
there were no nukes. this disinformation designed to make truthers look stupid.
MarshallLore 2 months ago
@MarshallLore You don't need disinformation to make truthers look stupid. They do an exceptionally good job of that themselves.
shananagans5 2 months ago
@shananagans5 I've got a great tv drama for you to watch. "The Lone Gunman" (pilot episode) X-files spin off check it out..great story
MarshallLore 1 month ago
Nuclear explosions? Seriously? Is there no end to the well of stupidity created by truthers? If we could figure a way to turn stupidity into energy we would be set.
shananagans5 2 months ago
@shananagans5 ...... Yep, ok im a truther..... so I guess that makes you a liar?...
randomtrader1 1 month ago
@randomtrader1 lol Use your brain. Seriously.Nothing points to a 9/11 conspiracy. Suppose the gov did want to fake an attack. Why would they do something involving so many civilians with so many witnesses? With so many possibilities for failure? Does that even sound vaguely plausible? lol No, it doesn't. If the gov was going to fake an attack they would have done something like nuke a US ship in the middle of nowhere. Easier to pull off, fewer involved, they could say terrorists have nukes.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@randomtrader1 That would have been much more likely to be successful & scared the public more. The gov doesn't have a good track record of keeping secrets long term & attacking their own population would be suicide. There is just no physical evidence, no motivation to pull off something like that. You have to be an utter fool to think 9/11 was an inside job. Govs have faked attacks but even if they wanted to 9/11 is not even in the realm of possibilities of what they would have done.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 I agree, you gotta be a stupid fool to believe 911 was an inside job. I mean the fact there is videos showing steel turning into dust would never persaude anyone to believe it was somehow blow into dust. I'm sure everyone is going to believe what you say. Don't you know when to stop lieing. I sugest you give up wirting crap if you don't want to make youself look stupid.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba I don't recall steel turning to dust anywhere. Lots of bent twisted beams like you would expect in a collapse, yes. Lots of photos of those beams also. Is there any evidence of thermite? Explosions for controlled demolition? You do realize how loud the explosions are in a controlled demolition? How come nobody heard those? With all the films you would think ONE of them would have recorded that? Maybe the gov paid off/threatened the sound waves? Maybe the sound waves are in on it. lol
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 i HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE INNER STEEL CORE TURNING INTO DUST, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO ACTUALLY NOW ADMIT THAT IT TURNED INTO DUST.BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES. YOU IDIOT CLAIMS ON SOUND AS A DIVERSION DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE SOLID VIDEO EVIDENCE, YOU JUST MADE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT SHANANAGANS5. HERE IS THE PROVE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba lol It's dust from concrete & it got hit by debris. You all see what you want to see no matter how wild & ignore everything that doesn't fit your little delusion. I agree, there is video evidence. It's hard to dispute. Terrorists flew jets into buildings & killed 1,000s No sound of explosives going off a little diversion? We watched a hotel go down in Vegas & we were about a mile away & it was very loud. Like a gun 15 or 20 feet away loud. Every vid with sound would have picked it up
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 shananagens5 CLAIMS ITS DUST FROM CONCREATE, YOUR SEE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE. Well I SEE A STANDING STRUCTURE THAT FELL DOWN WITHOUT FALLING OVER, AND IT TURNED INTO DUST. SOLID OBJECTS STAND AND IT SHOULD TOPLE OVER NOT FALL STRAIGHT DOWN YOU UNINTELIGENT IDIOT.. THIS IS THE VIDEO HE CLAIMS OR IS HE TOO DUMB TO RELISE i LINNKED IT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba You think a giant building should topple over like a stick? Seriously? If a building that size even started to fall over the structure at the bottom would give out starting a downward motion. Gravity will not take a break for a few seconds. If you really think a building like that could just topple over without it starting to crush at the bottom too you really need to learn some very basic physics. You look foolish arguing against basic physical laws.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@benjyboba There is video after video where you can hear people talking when the collapse starts & guess what? No explosions & they are much less than a mile away. This is NYC with tall buildings everywhere. There would have been the sound of the explosions and echos from everywhere. Explosions cause sound waves. Is that just another scientific fact you all choose to ignore?
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 YOU HAVE A VERY WEAK CLAIM AND HAVE CHANGED THE SUBJECT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WE BOTH SAW THE DUST ON THIS VIDEO, STEEL TURNING TO DUST ON THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 WHAT THE HELL HAS EXPLOSIONS GOT TO DO WITH STEEL TURNING INTO DUST.YOU IGNORANT IDIOT. WHATEVER THE METHOD USED IT TURNED TO DUST YOUR TRUELY THICK AS SHIT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba You ignore the sound because it doesn't fit your delusion? Look at the top when it starts to collapse. If starts to go off to the side slightly then the structure under gives out starting the downward motion. Once it's moving it exceeds the ability of the structure to support it. Mass x velocity squared. It doesn't take much downward motion to give the effect of drastically increased weight & buildings that size don't have a huge safety margin built in.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 i WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE SOUND DICKHEAD, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE STEEL TURNING INTO DUST IN THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 IF YOU GOT THE BRAINS TO WORK OUT HOW TO WATCH IT YOUR SEE THE INNER CORE STANDING AFTER THE COLLAPSE BEFORE TURNING INTO DUST. THERE WAS NO GREAT WEIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE AT ALL. GROW A FUCKING BRAIN YOU MORON.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba No steel turned to dust. It was taken out by debris. You can even see it flex when it gets hit.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 ITS STILL STANDING AFTER THE BUILDING COLLAPSED IN THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 THEN THE STEEL COLUMNS TURNS TO DUST. IF YOU DONT VIEW THE VIDEO IN MY LINK THEN YOUR LOOKING AT THE WRONG VIDEO,
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba I watched it. It didn't turn to dust. It fell. You can even see when debris impacts the bottom of it & as it fell the dust obscures it. Lots of dust tends to do that. lol Not to even mention you can't just vaporize steel. Well, near the center of a nuke you could but that's clearly not the case here.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 ARE YOU TALKING OF THIS VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 YOU JUST SAID TO ME YOU CANT VAPORIZE STEEL, WELL THERE ARE VIDEOS OF NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION OF THE TOWERS. THE ONLY FACT IM SAYING IS THE STEEL CANT FALL DOWN BECAUSE ITS SOLID AND NOTHING TO CRUSH IT AS ITS FREE STANDING AFTER COLLASPE AND IT TURNS INTO DUST. WHOS TO SAY THERE ISNT ANOTHER UNKOWN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE OF DOING THIS. WE SEE IT HAPPEN AND NO ONE CAN DENY IT TURNED TO DUST.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba lol Listen to yourself. I mean seriously. Does it look like that piece is in the middle of a nuclear explosion? Unknown military technology? That just breaks every law of matter & energy to vaporize steel? Seriously, listen to yourself & the arguments you are making. Does it make any since? Any at all? You are ignoring the fact that planted bombs would make noise & coming up with an "unknown military technology" Does that sound rational? Seriously, step back & look at your claims.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 I didn't say how it was done and your thinking up all the possibilities and imediately dismissingi them. It still don't change the fact that STEEL TURNED TO DUST BEFORE OUR VERY EYES. I DID HOWEVER WATCH THE NUCLEAR DEMOLITION VIDEOS AND THE EXPERT SUPODELY SAID IT WOULD BE QUIET. I do know the TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE AND THE TECHS KNOW ABOUT ISN'T THE SAME AS WE HAVE REASEARCHED IN SECRECY. THE CARS HALF BURNED BUT THE PAPER NEVER, WHAT ABOUT HUTCHINSONS EFFECT, STILL TURNED DUST
benjyboba 1 month ago
NO radiation =NO nukes. 1,500.000 tons of dust = molecular disassociation (DEW). If the US can't see the dust, can't see there's little debris then the whole country needs glasses or a brain transplant. Keep on pushing the 'demolition' theory then pass to the 'Nuclear bomb' theory and you'll be doing exactly what they want. They've got us arguing about it and 911truth claiming that their 'truth' is the best 'truth'. It's all going just as they planned!
itsanillusion100 2 months ago
@itsanillusion100 What caused the resolidified rock in the base of each tower?
Gravity?
MrSammo1 2 months ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
And as for your theory that the spire proves that explosives were planted.. it doesn't. In fact it shows that the towers collapse didn't happen at free fall speed..and that it was progressive. If you were going to take down a 110 story tower that receives its rigidity and strength from a core structure. You'd want to make sure that your boss doesn't see it still standing after the whole rest of the building falls down. Nice try on proving conspiracies, keep it up! You'll get it one day!
terryk1233 2 months ago
@terryk1233 First, you watch the 'spires' turn into dust with your OWN eyes and then you defend the 'demolition' theory, while at the same time you laugh at people trying trying to prove what your OWN eyes witness! That has got to be the height of stupidity Sir!
itsanillusion100 2 months ago
The floor brackets were welded to the core, but only fastened to the floor trusses with 2 5/8 inch bolts.. Explain to me again how them still being visible on the core after the floors fell proves your demolition theory?
terryk1233 2 months ago
Comment removed
terryk1233 2 months ago
Comment removed
terryk1233 2 months ago
Comment removed
terryk1233 2 months ago
Comment removed
terryk1233 2 months ago
The spire proves pancaking...
MazJax 2 months ago
If it was some nukes that brought the towers down, then we would have seen a small mushroom cloud {which we didn't}. Also there was no radiation present afterwards.
The24547377 2 months ago
Dr. Judy Woods has shown high resolution photographs of this same "spire" disintegrating; turing into very fine particulate matter. The demolition theory doesn't hold water.
mujaku 2 months ago
@mujaku There are still things not to forget. For example Newtons laws. Why they didnt take place at this time? If u make still pics dividing the collapsing for one second sections, u'll see more. It accelerates. Now get back to Newtons laws and study the construction of the tower. Something doesnt make sense. U c u gotta pay attention to every things not only things what is ment to debunk theories and assumptions to make the camp cheering u've choosen.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
Jajaja, small nuclear bombs? or... Three 150kt undergronud NIG nuclear bombs?:
Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov and his banned book on Amazon; The Thid Truth
Inigo37 2 months ago
The mind of this retard:
Wait a second...! A piece of the tower stood! I should make a pointless video saying the towers were nuked. I'll be famous!! :D
*Looks away and Spire collapses*
malcolmmorin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Soc'
Forget theories for a moment. Let the EVIDENCE speak.
watch?v=ufWggCESyDg
watch?v=ZWjktDuIhR8
project3ss 2 months ago
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Soc'
Forget theories for a moment. Let the EVIDENCE speak.
watch?v=ufWggCESyDg
watch?v=ZWjktDuIhR8
project3ss 2 months ago
a nuclear explosion that caused a top down demolition, stripped the exterior, but did not damage the core? Sorry, there are plenty of videos with four loud explosions that are happening as the spire still demonstrates equilibrium and stability. The building did not drop then begin collapsing, nor did it mechanically collapse after a nuke, it blows apart in 10 seconds, too fast for a collapse from fire but far too slow for a nuke. The nuke story is caveman bigfoot aliens and nessie bullshit
911InvestigationVids 2 months ago 5
@911InvestigationVids Nukes may have been used in the sub-level to break connection between bedrock and support. Fact remains you guys brought down your own towers. It was made in USA production. Horror movie with real victims. How can you top that? I cant wait to see the remake or making of, anyone know when they come out? Maybe next film can have 6000 dead and we can argue, Arabs, no Zionist no illuminatti for the next ten years.
Jimbofx911 1 month ago
@Jimbofx911 There aws not 3000 dead. There aws no nukes. In science we would take the most likely way that they demolish buildings and test that. Since that passes all tests, there is no need for another "theory". The nuke deal is easily disproven, not even possible or likely. The caveman with a secret global spy ring that defys logic and physics is more likely than the nuke tale. Thats all a diversion to make the truth look like idiots, a false path down an empty rabbit hole
911InvestigationVids 1 month ago 2
@911InvestigationVids Even if no nukes were uses, the evidence it in plain sight for all to see. Cutter charges, lots of them were used to slice up the towers cores. The only thing easy to disprove are NIST fairy tails. Like the pancake theory. Millions spent to have a guy with a laptop and freeware shame them. I trust what I know, what A&E, MIT, NYFD and so many others know and that is a mass murder was committed and the responsible are still free. They will face justice.
Jimbofx911 1 month ago 3
@Jimbofx911 I am amazing how how ignorant and just plain stupid people are who still believe 911 was a terrorist attack. How could you see the scientific evidence and not believe the truth? They said flight 93 incinerated. Bull crap. Remember the Columbia fell from space going over 4,000 mph, falling debris over 4 states and they were still able to peice it together.
GodsaveHisAnnointed2 1 month ago
@GodsaveHisAnnointed2 I am amazed*...
GodsaveHisAnnointed2 1 month ago
@GodsaveHisAnnointed2 I beg your pardon???
Jimbofx911 1 month ago
@Jimbofx911 People see the attack two ways, excluding of course the criminals that planned it. First are the kind that see it with emotion, no logic. They cannot or will not accept that corrupt people, a big gang of them, committed this crime. The other is people who look at the reality of what they see, and know there is more to it then meets the eye. Some of those, very educated people, like David Chandler and people that he works with know without a doubt fiction like NIST report
Jimbofx911 1 month ago
must be contested for inaccurate information they are using to mislead the public. People are not stupid even if they cannot see that WTC 1 and 2 were demolished with explosives. It is a painful cross-over from one side to the other, and many protect themselves from that pain and reality by blocking out awareness of the matter or refusal of accepting what is clear as water. Just the way the brain works
Jimbofx911 1 month ago
@911InvestigationVids Thermite........ Or Super thermite or the other military grade thermite. Cut the beams. Im a machinist and seeing the steal beams no steal beam that thick would bend that far without cracking without heat being added. And no steal would heat up that much with compression. Not only that but the beams were covered with asbspetos . Jet fuel burning would have been able to heat the beams up that much with the abspestos
burnbabey12 4 weeks ago
@burnbabey12 asbestos? you off your head?
11thhourreprieve 1 week ago
@11thhourreprieve The buildings had massive amounts of asbestos in them. The port authorities wouldn't let the owner update the buildings without removing the asbestos. It would have cost more than what the buildings were worth to remove the asbestos. If you don't believe me look at all the sick people now from the attacks and look up asbestos on wtc. And to your question to Am I off my head obviously not. I just do my research.
burnbabey12 1 week ago
@burnbabey12 Thanks for the clarification. In all honesty I wouldn't have expected wtc to have had any asbestos, I guess I learned something significant. I would expect the concrete dusts alone to prove seriously hazardous to health but throw in asbestos... it's quite a mix. High removal costs alone would be motive enough to fake an attack or allow one to happen, so uncouth people are to make or save money.
11thhourreprieve 1 week ago
@11thhourreprieve Thanks for the sarcasm and the concrete dust caused health problems to but the buildings were constructed right when asbestos was banned. The asbestos being in the buildings is public record if you don't believe me then look it up. Far as attack the trade centers were a sign of american strength. Bringing them down to get the support of the people to per sue their interest in the middle east. Just like the Tonken Gulf incident.
burnbabey12 1 week ago
@burnbabey12 what sarcasm?
11thhourreprieve 1 week ago
@11thhourreprieve Sorry hard to tell through text
burnbabey12 1 week ago
@11thhourreprieve Which the goverment finally came out and openly admited in the incident they were never fired upon. Again they needed the support of the people to per sue their interests.
burnbabey12 1 week ago
if anything this video makes the demolition theory look even more rediculous .
stevepwnz 2 months ago
If you look at the photo beginning at 0:22 and again at 0:59, you can see that the connecting seats for the trusses are all bent downward, consistent with the fatal collapse of the building, after structural failure due to the plane impacts and fires. The reason why there was a segment of the core left, is A) because of the chaos of the collapse and B) it was being surrounded by the piling debris that used to be intact sub-systems built with it during the building's service life.
MrSkunkwork100 3 months ago
@MrSkunkwork100 JAJAJAJAJA: Leslie Raphael Serendipity
Inigo37 2 months ago
Utterly moronic.
I don't know what is worse, "micro-nuke" lunacy or the equally ridiculous "Magna Flame Gun" space beam stupidity.
kangtimelord 3 months ago
@kangtimelord Agreed!
MrSkunkwork100 3 months ago
it wasnt demolition.. it was direct energy weapons - this exact spire turns to dust in this video - tell me how a DEMOLITION can turn REINFORCED STEEL into DUST
add w w here. w.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sv0My2zfFA
nickwastakenwastaken 3 months ago
@nickwastakenwastaken LIKE THAT; Youtube; Dimitry Khalezov and his banned book on Amazon; The Third Truth.
Inigo37 2 months ago
美国也有五毛。。
HENRY0LIONHEART 3 months ago
as for the spire falling this just goes with the established premise of the structure by the bloke who designed it and he stated before it was even built that the inner columns and the outer columns are not free standing and only got theyre strength from the floors since the floors and the outer columns were gone there was nothing to keep the spire up , and the s shaped wave would have caused leverage at the base breaking it
imbetterthanyouis 3 months ago
only powerful explosives could clear away the core to its skeleton, so when the floors came down what do you think happened to the air in the 2 sq acres of floor space ?
small nukes hahahah easy way to fix this since steel absorbs radiation and is difficult to decontaminate i dare someone to go to one of the many memorials with a gigercounter and see if they can find anything more than normal levels of radiation !
imbetterthanyouis 3 months ago
The first solid evidence I know of
Start by watching the last 10 to 15 minutes and then the whole documentary.
Are you American, write your will and calling the FBI
You TUPE: NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK
CamillioD 3 months ago
I always thought this proved this was NOT a demolition
Im not a demolition expert, but I remember watching a demolition documentary and they put the explosive charges in the core columns..
AccessDenied55 3 months ago
@AccessDenied55 I agree it does. It proves the pancake theory. Notice how the building with the top that fell even left the spire, and the one that fell more on a lean wedge the core over leaving no spire. Could not of been demo.
MegaYeshua33 3 months ago
The buildings were poorly designed. Even Robertson, the designer, admits that jetfuel was not considered in their impact analysis. Once the hat trusses failed, collapse was inevitable. To solve the riddle of 9/11, you need to forget about 1, 2 & 7, and concentrate instead on the Pentagon anomalies.
FirstUsedBooks 3 months ago
@tmlnation 25 people need medication.
Rep0007 3 months ago
@tmlnation DIRECT CONTRADICTION - that "insurance policy" myth was debunked years ago, search "911 debunked insurance" and watch the video (all the way through).
Nobody made a dime of profit off WTC insurance, which didn't cover the whole cost of replacement, and terror coverage was a STANDARD part of ALL the leases on the towers since at least the early 90s. It just so happened that the lease renewed in July of 2001, but that was because the previous lease had expired normally.
Rep0007 3 months ago
"small nukes" LOL laughable man these truthers really are the nut fringe of uneducated, yet obsessed loonies!
Rep0007 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rep0007 <----- This is a fake sock-bot troll account. Commenting on 9/11 videos since 2008, with no comments and two favorites on the channel page. I see comments from hundreds of these fake ass accounts monthly
IranContraScumDid911 3 months ago
There is only one theory that stands to be fact and has more evedence than any of these dumb ass ideas and that is Dr Judy woods idea of DUSTIFICATION.Tthe published theroist - truther - knower - what ever you want ot call her. She has never been a conspiricy theorist untill she saw what happned on 9/11.
ChUnSt3R 3 months ago
Nuclear devices? That don't register on seismic recordings?
(About half a dozen seismic stations picked up the collapses. They showed a gradually increasing wave that grew and then subsided just as the collapses did. No spikes or odd sign waves)
This must be the new "kinder gentler" nuclear device. The neighbor friendly nuclear device.
"Take out a building and don't bother your neighbors".
What a load of BS!!
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
You my friend, you just proved yourself wrong...You have no clue of demolitions...
GaminCro 4 months ago
Nuclear Devices? Interesting that none of those registered on the half a dozen seismic recording devices that recorded the collapse. And showed that it was gradually increasing sound that peaked then subsided. Just like the collapse.
Time to change the bong water??
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
inside job..if you dont see it now you never will... people here should look up nuclear demolition..
@stewcal5 thousands of first responders have either died or are seriously ill ,, breathing problems and cancer to name a few.....
people are still dying today from what happened that day.... wake up!!!
bomberbruno1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bomberbruno1 Where's your proof if you're so sure of it.
MaxwellEindhoven 4 months ago
It doesn't mean demolition, retardos. XD It means a piece of the building managed to survive the collapse. -_-
malcolmmorin 4 months ago
LMAO - Just the other day I had a truther telling me that the "pancake" theory couldn't be true because otherwise some of the core would have had to remain.
Truthers please pick one lie and stick with it. You're insulting us and embarrassing yourselves.
captainbueno 4 months ago
@captainbueno it's actually true. how could steel columns pancake just because the floors around it are pancaking? the whole pancake theory is centered around the floors, not the internal support columns. The floors wouldn't take the columns with them, they simply aren't strong enough. What exactly about this proposition makes you "laugh your ass off"? And watch a video of this spire collapsing. It turns to dust in mid air. Don't believe me? Take 2 minutes and look for yourself.
butanerios 4 months ago
@butanerios Don't ask me - ask a truther who insists that pancaking wasn't possible because supposedly none of the core remained, yet here we see part of core remaining. I was LMAO because you guys can't just stick to one plausible consistent lie.
And how big is a small nuclear device? How much energy do they release? What is their radiological signature? Where were they placed? How much noise do they make?
Link to spires turning to dust?
captainbueno 4 months ago
Seriously? ....Seriously...? The Spire is a piece of the building that remained standing, God. 9/11 Was not a conspiracy, Fatass!
Told by Kyle Brovsloski.
malcolmmorin 4 months ago
Those columns disintegrated seconds after this photograph was taken.
JZJYRWO 4 months ago
You are truly a seriously misguided individual.
MrDasher01 5 months ago
Watch this: /watch?v=_aXzwXZI6Fo
No need for nuclear devices if what she says is true about the military "thermite bombs with sulphur potential". Those military guys know a thing or two - and we don't have a clue about what they know!
ThePeage 5 months ago
"Small nuclear devices"???
IDIOT.
Holymakinaw 5 months ago
It's pretty easy to understand why the spire was stripped clean. The floors collapsing on each other not only blew debris through the outer walls, but also inwards to the core, shredding everything but the steel structure.
InvernessMoon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So because the middle beam stood after the rest fell shows demolition?
Honestly I think that would show the opposite. Think about it if there was bombs or whatever than don't you think they would go after the main support? The outside was mostly glass so when the PLANE crashed into it it mostly damaged the outer part. I understand people want a FULL report, but why can't people face the facts and stop making up these ridiculous theories?
91noslenjc 5 months ago
So because the middle beam stood after the rest fell shows demolition?
Honestly I think that would show the opposite. Think about it if there was bombs or whatever than don't you think they would go after the main support? The outside was mostly glass so when the PLANE crashed into it it mostly damaged the outer part. I understand people want a FULL report, but why can't people face the facts and stop making up these ridiculous theories?
91noslenjc 5 months ago
Comment removed
91noslenjc 5 months ago
Sorry, but nuclear bombs vaporize steel to, and in large amounts. The little steel that was melted was due to nano-thermite, just as found in ALL dust samples. Try AE911truth(dot)org for the FACTS, not the BS....
Snoep76239 5 months ago
You've put all these theories to the test have you? You had a spare sky scrapper to see if your stupid theories are true and would happen 100% of the time? Daft bum head. The only people that should be making videos about the towers are architects and people that worked on the buildings. No one else. And even those guys don't know for sure what would happen, because this hasn't happened before.
GregOBehave 5 months ago
That is a corner. spandrels visible and the corner angle intact. At each corner the 2 columns are 45 degrees, not 90. You see it in the spire. The spire corner indicates the visible pulverization wave pathway. The devices were not dead center under the building and the spire corner was furthest from literal ground zero.
150 KTON nukes whose primary radiation and heat were contained at a mathematically calculated theoretically ideal depth to exploit secondary pulverization effect.
StratusBlue 5 months ago
They went from truthers, to conspiracy theorists, to people who defend a position. I thought the truthers was healthy for the nation. I even went as far as being a conspiracy theorist, not believing what I saw. But the people who throw away evidence that disproves their claim are making it difficult to move on. For this video really if it was nuclear, people would have been severly radiated. Definately one of the most rediculous claims yet.
stewcal5 5 months ago 9
Gosh, where's the damn proof of this horrible claim? How would you know what a tower looks like when a nuclear bomb goes off? That's really the most stupid claim I've read on YouTube so far. You have proven absolutely nothing, only that the core indeed stood for some seconds. It doesn't confirm any nuclear explosion theory.
MaxwellEindhoven 6 months ago
Magic jet fuel killed three buildings with two planes.
ChilesGreen 6 months ago
Actually this proves that it was not a demolition, if you talk to anyone who does demolition, they destroy the core columns first so they wouldn't be hung up like this, so you just incase proved yourself wrong, good job
thatcanadianperson 6 months ago 18
@thatcanadianperson 100% agreement with you, I think these people suffer from some kind of mental problem... the fact that it does not resemble a demolition in any way proves it was a demolition? huh?
handofsutekh 6 months ago
@thatcanadianperson BUT if the video continues (the maker of the vid does not) it suddenly falls into its own footprint. u can say what u want about the towers but there was no wait above that spire.
drifter402 4 months ago
@thatcanadianperson You are correct this proves not a controlled Demolish but something else. Can you guess what that something else might be??????
doughauf 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson It was not a typical demolition. Ask anyone that does demolition why they don't just set the building on fire...
JZJYRWO 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson You idiot, the WTC demolition was no ordinary economical demolition, it was a project designed to make the demolition look like a collapse, and obviously since idiots like you believe it, they succeeded. Even though evidence for high tech nano thermite was found in all WTC dust samples, according to you skyscrapers can be imploded by setting them on fire by damaging a few floors, the plane did not even go through the core columns in the first place.
Man people are idiots.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson you are fucked in the head you ignorant son of a bitch,,,,,,,,,if you talk to anyone who does demolition??,,,,,,,hahahahaha,,,,,you act like this was a conventional demolition,,,,,,do you have any idea what the military actually has in it's repetoire,,,,,,,,try nasa,,,,,fuckstic,,,,,all the do is further technology,,,,,,,,and this was a sophisticated and very percise and technological destruction of these towers,,,,,,,it was done with many military ufo around manhattan
bigbopper993 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson
Absolutely incorrect. Just because some "they" destroy core columns first in other buildings has nothing, and that means absolutely nothing, to do with the failure to destroy this one. When it does finally go down, it's fall is almost vertically, and just before it falls there is an S-shaped wave in it indicating a large shock at the bottom, i.e. explosives at the base.
Dulcimerea 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson 18 ppl agree, eh? All of you talk to cutting edge/demo black-op teams who were the perps behind the biggest crime in history?
Read us all a story, would you?...sleep tight...
MrNoblemanoflove 2 months ago
sooo part of the building still standing briefly proves what??? It proves that if it was demolished (which according to foil helmet wearing people is true), the plans were conceived in crayon by retarded people.
davisotj1 6 months ago
Terrorist attaks using commercial planes brought the towers down you fuckwit! End of story... Have some respect for the people that died and the families! insensitive twat!!!!
1983noddy 6 months ago
do you even know what nuclear is?im pretty sure if it was a nuclear bomb of any sort it would be rather noticable.
planbkid23 6 months ago
From what architects say: if the building did collapse from the fires and plane fuel, the building would've only collapsed by 1/4 of the building. Which means both of the towers would've still been standing by at least 40 to 50 floors. A plane crash cannot cause an entire building to diminish into dust. Look at WTC 5 & 6. They never collapsed. They were only damaged. Yet 1, 2, 7, and the hotel magically disappeared like a magic trick. We need explanations for WTC 5 & 6, WHY DIDN'T THEY COLLAPSE?
ClubBangerTV 6 months ago
That's why we have the "DEBUNKED THEORY" to support this.... remember that the WTC were constructed on exterior columns and the core columns which is thought to be stronger and bigger than the exterior columns. there were no inner columns which is supposed to help the core columns to support the floor. If you think this is an INSIDE JOB then your nuts because if it is an inside job then they should not let the that to happen. they should let the building fall down w/o a trace...
ian12abatol 6 months ago
First off...that's not even the core of the building. That is a splint off the side of it.
joncmaxwell 6 months ago
@joncmaxwell that is part of the core though. The core was much larger, but for some reason that part remained still for a couple of seconds and then came down. I think it was the express elevator shaft of the core, which carried visitors to the 107th floor. You can still see the concrete wall too. If that's what you meant though - then you're right. That is the side of the skeletal core.
ClubBangerTV 6 months ago
9/11 = 100% Inside Job!
Born2Flesh 6 months ago
Direct Energy weapon. that is why the magnetic field dipped at 9:20 AM. directed energy is the only thing that would cause metal to turn to dust and it is the ONE aspect about all TRUTH videos that they leave out.
Doug Hauf
doughauf 7 months ago
Thermite Paint
wldeanml 8 months ago
It did not "dusitfy"
The Spire fell! (1:00)
/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&
Why does this video not show the "Spire" fall? Just one still frame image?
STOP MAKING THE TRUTH MOVEMENT LOOK LIKE IDIOTS!
kendoggydogg77 9 months ago
hey this is because there was so much metal that was on the building and this is a large and tall building so obviosly your gonna see some metal still barely standing
TheIzzy808 9 months ago
...and you are soooo full of shit.
Born2Flesh 6 months ago
Direct Energy Weapon
jerichomutant 9 months ago
No nuclear bombs just scalar weapons.
doughauf 9 months ago
@doughauf underground nuclear devices were used. Watch Dimitri Khalezov on my channel.
anthonyc31 5 months ago
@anthonyc31 what is the link to that. Nuclear bombs would set of the siesmetic stations around the NEW YORK area. Directed Energy Weapons you can see it right as the tower collapses as the 75 story core column disipate to dust. Does it matter though. Live hard and rich hell with the rest of it.
doughauf 5 months ago
@doughauf Please watch Part 1 and Part 2 of Dimitri Khalezov's explanation to the events of 9/11 on my channel (Third Truth). Unfortunately, you need to watch both parts because Part 1 explains the nuclear demolition in great detail, and in Part 2, he provides clear evidence that proves the Seismic readings shared were bogus. Dimitri provides the single most detailed and logical explanation of virtually all events on 9/11. I highly recommend that you make time to watch.
anthonyc31 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn what caused the 2 spires ... watch: /watch?v=UlM5fC-awmY
See Dimitri Khalezov explain:
- How 2 "spires" survived the demolition of WTC 1 and WTC 2
- Where the detonation charges were placed at WTC 1,2 and 7
- Why WTC 2, which was hit 2nd, collapsed before WTC 1, which was hit first
- Why WTC 7 was also demolished
- Why most of WTC 4 was destroyed
Read the description of that video to get more info.
anthonyc31 5 months ago
watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&feature=email
spiral acutally does vanish like magic, acutally in two different spiral areas.
Too bad we Prez Obombya silenced the man behind the op, otherwise we could enhance interrogate him to tell us how he melts steel like a Vatican Warlock Assassian.
euro944t 9 months ago
@euro944t 9/11: North Tower "Spire" Collapse
euro944t 9 months ago
all this video proves is that demolition charged were NOT used. If they were, then the core would have been completely destroyed. As we can see, it was not.
AndehX 9 months ago
not if the power of the charge was too small...... If it pancaked, The whole core would have been left standing. That was just a spire, of what should have been 47 beams of steel and concrete. Take a look at the videos of the WTC Construction. They had to use some type of pre-installed explosives. I think it's crazy outrageous.
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
@Born2Flesh well theres no way to really know if explosives were used, but I think if they were, then they would have brought then entire core down, not just part of it. I think the fact part of the core was left, suggests that there were not any explosives.
AndehX 9 months ago
You can not be that stupid? The only part left of the 47 steel beam core, was the single spire. You don't ask yourself, What happen to the other 46 steel beams that made up the core? Are you fucking stupid?
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
@Born2Flesh no i dont ask myself what happened to the rest of the core, because nobody can know for sure. All i know for sure is that if explosives were used, then there wouldn't be any spire. The whole thing would be gone at the same time.
AndehX 9 months ago
@AndehX If it had recieved the weight of the building above downward on it it would be bent, crushed, and gone. Here we see one single beam standing with equilibrium then fall directly into itself. notice the nubs where the floors used to be, those are smoking in some videos. The downward force on those connections would not have left 3 foot nubs, the same force should have bent or accordianed the straight piece of steel. Why is it standing? The core was scrubbed of floors outward, not down
IranContraScumDid911 9 months ago
@Born2Flesh This argument ends now though, because arguing with people over the internet is like banging your head against a brick wall. its completely pointless because a normal person + anonimity + the internet = complete arsehole who things hes right about everything. ie. a troll.
AndehX 9 months ago
Not to mention the fact that the nuclear fission reaction from said bomb would not have left the steel intact, how can you even argue this...it's asinine.
Oz1976 9 months ago
This video is so flawed it's pathetic. Small nuclear weapons? Come on. They would have atomized the core had they been detonated in the building. And we would have HEARD the detonation, not only that, no massive heat surge on any thermal imaging, nor radiation nor seismic recordings which were plentiful that day from numerous organizations.
@mooglebee it's quite easy to falsify their idiotic claims
debunking911 . com
911reality . com
911myths . com
ae911truth . info
Oz1976 9 months ago
the problem with all this conspiracy stuff is that there is no way to falsify it.
It reminds me of creationism.
its possible to interpret everything to fit the narrative, but not possible to ever prove it wrong, even in theory.
mooglebee 10 months ago
i like how any possible explosions have to be "nuclear" explosions :)
Jetkillr 10 months ago
What pure and utter BS!
DeedsResearcher 10 months ago
puhhhlease.
jeabou 10 months ago
Don't you love how speculation and assumption are passed of as fact nowdays? The spire could have been left standing for any number of reasons, one of which you pointed out in your video. The "stripping" could also have been caused by any number of things. I don