9/11 was an inside job!! This video has been tampered with!!! Don't bother watching it. Note the sky, the borders, and the background. They are hiding the real events from you. The media is working hand in hand with the government to help them cover-up the real events of that day!!!
Look at the "BLACK BORDERS" on the WTC Towers!! Then the next group of pictures show a "Bright white BORDER"! What does that indicate?I've always heard when you see these borders, that the video has been tampered with by the use of computer graphics! Look at the background and the sky! It was bright blue that day,&it is dull weird grey! Why would they TAMPER with it?This video is also missing an explosion that went off about 20 floors below the impact site, about 6 seconds be4 the collapse.
When the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable, they were forced to say that by the Jews. When they said the building was leaning and creaking and likely to collapse, they were lying. The firefighters are liars.
@bagintree I think they were told that by some"HIGHER UP' officials. They were just repeating what was told to them. In all the chaos of that day, I don't think anyone knew what was going on, except the perpetrators!! I would love to know WHO the "higher up officials" were though!!!
You do realize that the smoke at the base could just be the fallen debris burning from the actual impacts, right?
Don't believe me? Then search for a vid of a car burning at the base of the South Tower just before collapse. Goes to show that anything that exploded out of the towers as a flaming projectile will reach the ground below and can cause a resulting fire.
That smoke, was it perhaps coming from WTC7 and squares with key WTC7 witness (now dead) Barry Jennings's testimony of explosions in 7 BEFORE the collapse of 1&2?
Inside Job.....Thermate prefabricated to fit beams and installed....large crew never needed, just access......Drone Planes with laser targeting.....Building 7 falls without losing it's shape.....Demolition.....WTC 1 and 2 turn to dust before even hitting the ground.....Demolition......Inside Job....."Pull it"
Who was the Saudi Prince that offered Guiliani millions after 9/11? Remember Guiliani refused to take the money? <------- I think it was all done for the masses and television.
offf cuse they have to cut basement over..is what peopel here an see basement.this plan agains building and small fire take building big and strong down...never.and the have nevly proving termite in dust..some not belives what they lot at this date.
its total smash and demo...no way other..to stat war on blame other money and control.
Bombs don't produce steady streams of smoke. However all of the burning debris that fell does. As do the several car fires that were filmed at the base of the towers before it collapsed. Also, bombs produce loud bangs which no one outside the towers heard before the collapse. watch?v=LTXFnAIP6A0
so 'Sxpert', inmtrigue me, who carried out these attacks?
I mean, obviously, you can back up these claims with your vast amount of experience on the frontline in Afghan/Iraq so can you vouch for this such peaceful religion that is Islam?
These two videos you posted clearly show concrete being turned to dust in the initial impacts, despite them both being much less energetic collapses. Not all of it turns to dust, but again, they are much less energetic collapses. Another fail.
9. No extreme temps at the impact hole vs extreme temps in the basements/underground..meaning some heat source was used in the basements. enter thermite.
While thermite could be used to undermine the structure of the building, if it was used in the basement, why didn't the structure fail at the bottom first?
As for #4, where are the temperatures in the basement that support thermite? All you have is smoke.
I'm no different than you, other than in opinion. Well, I also don't try to discredit you with name calling and baseless accusations, so that makes us different.
I'll stand behind that statement. I'll also amend the quote above.
I said, "Well, I also don't try to discredit you with name calling and -baseless accusations-."
They are gullible idiots. As evidenced by the September Clues. It is heavily edited to promote its own conclusions about 9/11. It is not an objective examination of fact. It is deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Therefore, people who believe it, are gullible idiots.
@KidMeatball If there was nothing happening in the basements of the towers then please explain the smoke we see rising from ground level in this video. If it was Bldg. #7 then how did the fires start when supposedly it did not catch fire until part of the north tower fell on it. Clearly the north tower is still intact here. Noone has provided proof that explosives WEREN'T planted in the basement....yet testimony from several people seems to imply that there were.
@unafraidtruther Ugh. How many times do I have to say it? There were plenty of fires burning in the street. There were fires all over the towers from jet fuel penetrating the elevator shafts. In case you missed it, two jets exploded, spreading burning debris all over the place.
One cannot prove a negative. If you believe there were explosives in the basement, it is up to you to provide convincing evidence. I don't believe there was explosive because I haven't seen convincing evidence.
So, a carpet and desk fire limited to 4-6 floors and lasting only 56 minutes contributed to the collapse of a 1350 ft steel framed building? Really? And when the building collapsed, the upper floors smothered the bottom floors or fire impact areas. The entire building turned to dust and the fire impacted areas were ejected laterally.
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, an aircraft hit the building, damaging some trusses and knocking fire proofing off the others. The jet fuel explosion spread fire all over multiple floors at once. The office material fire then burned at around 2000f for an hour on the overloaded and unprotected steel and led to a collapse.
You speak as if you were actually there? How can possibly know all of this when there's no definite proof of any of your statements? For example, where is any evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off? Back to reality: There's no logical way that you would know any of this with 100% certainty. Its all disinformation for morons that are stupid enough to believe it..
@muzicmaker2001 Whoa there, a truther is demanding proof and stating that there is no way to know for sure when you weren't there. Right back at you! No one can ever know anything for certain. The difference between you and I is that in the absence of 100% certainty either way I choose to believe the most likely scenario given the evidence and you choose to misrepresent evidence to support an otherwise baseless and convoluted theory that's really just an insinuation.
So, did you take the temp of the carpet burning at around 2000F for an hour? That is hilarious. Again, there is no evidence of the 2000F burning carpet, the fireproofing being knocked off or any evidence that heat even contributed to the collapse. It is complete BS. If you disagree, post some real evidence...not just your words.
@muzicmaker2001 The fireproofing was spray on. It could be knocked off with a hammer. A 220,000 pound plane smashed into the building and exploded out the other side. You think its a stretch that the fire proofing didn't make it? Also, the NIST link you provided was referring to WTC7. You said the building only burned 56 minutes. I think you need to figure out what you're talking about. The 2000f temp is from my link below of common room fire temp. Surprise, you didn't read it.
Your theories are great, but I asked for real evidence and/or proof? From impact to collapse, South Tower lasted 56 mins, North Tower, 102 mins. And the NIST quote is directly from "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers " relating to WTC1 and 2, not WTC7. Research.
@muzicmaker2001 You show smoke and call your case proven. Then when I provide facts and links you say that nothing I'm saying is 100% concrete proof. Nothing could EVER meet the criteria of proof you apply to the official theory yet you don't apply that same criteria to your own theory. Where is your 100% concrete proof?
I never understand why debunkers think anyone should listen to them when they offer absolutely no proof? And, I don't have 100% concrete proof..noone does. This is why you are making yourself look desperate when making statements with no backing evidence.
@muzicmaker2001 I gave you evidence. Demanding 100% concrete proof is completely and totally impossible. You actually said the only way I can have 100% concrete proof is if I were there in the building when it happened. You are admitting that you are applying a burden of proof that is impossible. This kind of bat shit crazy debating is why no one takes you people seriously.
@muzicmaker2001 In all the pictures of steel after the collapse how much of it had fire proofing on it? None. No fire proofing could survive the collapse. It could be knocked off with a hammer! How could it survive a plane hitting it? Explain that to me? I dont' have proof that the plane didn't disappear inside the building and cause no damage at all. Does that mean we should assume thats the case despite simple physics/logic?
@muzicmaker2001 Well, office fires burn at 1200c. Thats above 2000f. This was an office fire. wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame - So why would we assume that it burned below 2000f? Do you have proof that it was an abnormally cool fire? In the absence of proof it should be assumed to be typical, not atypical.
@muzicmaker2001 Well, office fires burn at 1200c. Thats above 2000f. This was an office fire. wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame - So why would we assume that it burned below 2000f? Do you have proof that it was an abnormally cool fire? In the absence of proof it should be assumed to be typical, not atypical.
@muzicmaker2001 All you ever do is "ask questions" and then call your case "proven." Then when we provide links to scientific experiments and articles on fires you declare that thats not "proof" of anything. The last guy said that I had to fly to his house and show him my proof or else I don't have any proof. You're saying I have to provide 100% concrete proof like video of the steel as the building is collapsing. Complete and total cop out arguments.
In the 1990s British Steel Building Research performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
@muzicmaker200 Good for the British. When they conduct the same test on a 100 story building instead of 8 and replicate the design of the WTC perfectly and damage the structure with a 757 before before starting the fire on 4 floors simultaneously then they'll have a valid experiment. Heres a real world test for you: Windsor in Madrid burned for only 2.5 hours with only 10 floors of weight and all the steel collapsed. Why?
Here's your science and logic. A steel framed high rise has never collapse due to fire before or after 911. Also, even in an controlled study with six trials in the study I just posted. So, how do you feel about probabiltiy? No collapse in real environments and in controlled. And before you start with the expected shill response (plane impact), WTC7 was not hit by a plane..
@muzicmaker2001 We've been over this before. No steel framed high rise ever burned on so many complete floors simultaneously with structural damage. So WTC is the first of its kind. So it can be said that every single steel only high rise that was damaged and then had fires spread across 4 floors at once has collapsed due to the fire.
@muzicmaker2001 That same section is found in the WTC7 report NCSTAR1a. If you didn't know it exists you should go read it. I'll take your word for it that it also appears in the main report because it doesn't really matter either way. Both were steel, both fail at 1100 so no reason either would exceed 1100.
@muzicmaker2001 Go back and read my links about the maximum temps of room fires, how to tell the temp of fire by its color, and how backdrafts are created by unusually cool fires (Only 1500f). If you're going to ignore them or not accept them then continuing is pointless.
"The office material fire then burned at around 2000f for an hour "
Really?
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, exactly! Fire burns at 2000f. Steel fails at 1100f. The building collapsed. Why do you think the steel needs to exceed failure point in order to have failure?
I'm glad you brought this up because you do know that people were seen at the North Tower impact hole approx 20 mins before the collapse, right? This means that the steel beneath them had 80 of the total 102 mins to heat up to 1100F or failure. But, how can people walk on top of the 1100F heated steel? Obviously, they can't because this heat wasn't there...
@muzicmaker2001 The people at the holes were in already burned out areas. The holes provided plenty of oxygen and allowed those areas to burn out quicker. The heat did not transfer up or down very well because the floors had a layer of concrete which does not conduct heat. Remember the steel is all connected and conducts head. Fire does not have to remain constant at any one point in order for the entire structure to continue heating.
Answering a question with another question? That's called avoidance. You do realize that fact that you shills are here sheds light on the possibility of a cover up? You are actually hurting your case. If 911 was filled with so much irrefutable evidence, there would be no need for you, correct? Unless you have another motive for touring multiple 911 YT pages as if you have something to lose?
@muzicmaker2001 Ah yes, the infamous shill argument. My evidence should be ignored because I'm against conspiracies therefore I MUST work for the government. I'm not even pro government buddy. I'm just anit-bullshit. I debate you guys for that moment of satisfaction when you have no way to debate my evidence so you just declare me a shill or set some impossible burden of proof, as if the official story must be proven or you have to accept conspiracy with no proof by default.
@muzicmaker2001 Prove that I have something to lose. Prove that I visit only 9/11 pages. Why would you even consider making such wild presumptions? Oh, to change the subject?
Then, why debate 911 on the pages I just listed? Why not let the evidence speak for itself? Shills act as if the evidence is so obvious and truthers are morons, but then they have to invest tons of time defending 911. Does that make sense to you? Change the subject? I'm still waiting for definite proof of the 2000F carpets and fireproofing that was knocked off, even though its sprayed on...funny.
@muzicmaker2001 So I can't debate 9/11 without it meaning I'm trying to hide something? You're debating 911. So what are you trying to cover up? Why are you so afraid of 9/11 not being a conspiracy? Don't be a hypocrite. Yes, I know you're still waiting for proof of the exact temps of the fire. And if you don't get proof that it was normal fire temps you will be forced to assume it was well below normal temp by default because thats the way truthers come to conclusions. Good bye.
I'm here for one purpose. To spread the truth. That is my agenda and motive. If the the OV is already the accepted truth, you are here to.....???? Good luck on your next 911 page.
@muzicmaker2001 Also, you said "contributed to the collapse of a 1350 ft steel framed building?" as if 1350ft and all steel were reasons it should not have collapsed. It should obviously be the opposite. All steel makes it much more susceptible to fire and its height is the very reason the heated steel was under so much stress. Thats why the second building hit was the first to collape - it was hit lower so the steel in the fire was supporting more weight.
@muzicmaker2001 Oh wait, were you saying that the fire couldn't have been 2000f because the steel was only heated to 1100f? Did you think the heat transfer is instant? If so please let me know so I can never waste time arguing with you again.
@muzicmaker2001 See, any normal office fire would start in one location and then spread slowly outward and upward. By the time it spread to multiple floors and to the other end of a large football field sized floor the fuel material near the source would have burned out. This would mean that the total area of fire would be much less at any given time and the heat transfer to the steel would be much less. Since the fire started in a huge area all at once its heat transfer was significant.
@muzicmaker2001 Here are some links for typical office fire temperatures. You'll see that the room temp in a carbon fire is over 2000f - wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - and a 1500deg fire is considered a low temperature fire due to lack of oxygen - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame which can then lead to backdrafts which cause temps to rise to 3500f briefly. Red to orange flame is 1650-2200f - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Fire- Steels failure point as tested for in fire proofing is 1100f
@KidMeatball I think the convincing evidence of explosions in the basement......before the plane impacts and before the collapse of both towers lies in the all the testimony provided by members of the NYPD the NYFD members of the Port Authority and many civilians which can all be found in a number of places online. Just because the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge these people doesn't mean they never heard/saw the things they claim to have happened.
@unafraidtruther media doesn't report on those people because they actually listened to what they said. Most if them describe an explosion and then go on to say something like, "later we found out it was a plane hitting the building," but you don't get that far. You hear the word explosion and stop listening. A lot of eyewitness testimony can be attributed to the traumatic nature of the day amplifying certain events. It is human nature to exaggerate and people on the day did like most people do.
5: Steel is being ejected -after- the collapse starts. Where is the sharp concussive blast associated with such forces? Such a blast would be audible all over Manhattan.
6: Tons of steel and concrete meeting head on will behave as such. Steel>concrete.
7: Maybe three or four? With no audible reference one can determine it was not a large enough explosion to collapse a building. Unless you have news of some sort of silent explosive.
There was only 56 (South) and 102 minutes (North) forom impact to collapse. Knowing that, what caused this smoke plume that is so massive that is seen as high as the impact hole?
Can you explain how you know with 100% certainty that "there was no explosion" when you weren't there? And remember, the fires were approx. 800 ft up and there are many floors in between these fires. Burning debris falling where...thru floors?
Burning debris from a plane hitting a building. There was a huge fireball. A lot fell to the street. Have you not watched any video?
I don't know for certain there was no explosion, however, I have seen no evidence of one in the basement or sublevels or lobby. The only reports of explosions are at the time the planes hit the towers. The fireballs from the elevators happened when the planes hit the towers.
You seem to be making many incorrect assumptions here. First, there is photographic evidence of smoke coming from inside the building here....
watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
Is there (video) evidence of this burning debris on the street? Next, the majority of the accounts of explosions were after impact (see the video I just posted). Another example:
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
There is also two accounts of explosions BEFORE the impact...no plane, no elevators
The first link clearly shows a van on fire. In the street. With white smoke coming off it.
All videos of the plane impacts show a huge fireball, and debris from the explosion falling to the street. Much of it likely burned out or never ignited. Some of it caused things like vans and cars to burn. Openly. In the street.
These witnesses are recounting their experiences. They are scared and are likely not really sure exactly what they saw. Besides, the video is heavily edited to remove continuity
So, you don't have evidence of a fire so massive that it reaches the impact hole which is approx. 800-1000 ft up (the above video)? ONE van fire? You can't be serious? Speaking for the witnesses again? And, I didn't realize that 100% of your recent activity is aimed at 911/conspiracy videos. That explains alot now. Peace..
You're the one who claimed there were no fires on the street.
Whats wrong with watching and commenting on a subject I'm interested in? What does it mean? Am I part of the cover up? Okay, you win, I work for both Osama Bin Laden and George Bush. They pay me to comment on YouTube videos.
There is no point in debating with disinfo agents, trolls or shills. These pathogens are not interested in evidence, logic or common sense. Their only agenda is to keep the 911 lie alive. But, it is interesting how you refer to truthers as idiots, morons, etc, but continue to debate with them day after day, week after week? So, what does that make you? Question: If the events of 911 are completely true backed by irrefutable evidence, why the need to invest all of this time defending it?
Why do you invest time to claim that there is some sort of conspiracy, stalker? I waste my time here because its interesting, much like most others here. If only your claims I am some sort of shill were true. Then I could actually get paid to do this, then maybe I wouldn't waste so much time here.
Most of what I claim is that the videos people post are not what they claim. Like this video. Not evidence of basement explosions.
What you call stalking was only to prove a point. And that is, your obvious agenda. But, I do like your explanation. You waste your time here everyday on nothing but 911 videos because it's interesting? That's a new one. I've heard it's a hobby, I'm bored, I'm educating the public, etc, but not interesting. The first sign of an agenda is anyone who speaks in absolutes. In other words, there DEFINITELY was no explosions, no nano-thermite, no molten metal (steel), etc. See it now?
Fine, I have an agenda. You got me. That in itself doesn't make me a shill for an organization. Ever notice how truthers like yourself like to dodge the subject when they run into someone who points out the flaws in their beliefs? They hide behind statements like, "oh you clearly work for the government." It still doesn't prove explosives at the base of the building.
Besides, if there were explosives at the base of the buildings wouldn't we see the bottom start to collapse before the top?
A rational person who wasn't actually there in the buildings really can't answer these questions. There lies the difference. I evaluate the evidence, witness accounts, etc and make logical conclusions. That is all I can do. But, debunkers seem to have some unexplained insight and know with 100% certainty there is no "evidence of basement explosions", for example. This insight, of course, is total BS just to cover the lie.
You said, "I evaluate the evidence, witness accounts, etc and make logical conclusions." Actually, what you are doing is evaluating -some- of the evidence, -parts- of what these witnesses say, and picking the parts that support your theory and throwing the rest away. I.E. There is smoke coming from the base of the buildings, it must be from explosives, despite numerous witness reports of fire from the initial crash affecting the basement, lobby, and other floors. Still not evidence of explosives
Some of the evidence:: 1. Near free fall collapse 2. Witness accounts of explosions 3. No direct evidence of extreme temps at impact hole 4. No origin of extreme temps in the basements 5. Massive steel ejected laterally 6. Concrete pulverized at the initiation 7. Demo flashes 8. Smoke plume rising from base before either Tower collapsed 9. Nano-thermite discovered/analyzed And the history of steel framed building fires. Obviously, none of these are normal for a building collapse
Hi folks. The only question that will ever matter to Justice for this crime is this . . .
Did anybody get any warning to leave the WTC area BEFORE it was damaged by anything? Make a careful study of this one thing, and your perception about this crime, and the criminals who took any part of it, or held any information about it BEFORE it went down will answer every question about this.
i was there at 911 and the fire men said that the fuel in the plane exploded down the elevator shaft and it did because all the windows smashed out and the sounds were not explosions most of them were people and debris falling but the wtc 7 was taken down because the fire men said it would help but i dont no how i think it was to make people angry
i think everything should be rexamined very suspiciously
i have always been able to smell bs and the whole thing stinks like a goddamn sewer the lies deceptions manipulations torture occupation the money made ive seen alot of things that counter reason under bush and irrational people tend to have amoral rationals ie... its moral if it will benifit them (and it has alot)
because you would never blow up a building dont bs yourself that a leader of a country wouldnt
Bush is working for Sauda Arabia not for Americans.
Bush Administration (Bull Shitt Rapeministration) Liars, manipulators, helped in economic oppression of the American middle and low class. How hard is it to get a loan, give a real reasonable open reason why?, and not one with mirrors, an shadows.
You have your opinion, but one small car fire doesn't create a massive smoke plume 800 or more ft high and that envelops the whole street area near both Towers. One of my cars actually caught on fire.
The smoke at the bottom of the building is from a car fire in the adjoining parking lot. RKOwens4 has a video up here somewhere showing that. Any damage to the bottoms of the towers would have made them lie down sideways into the river.
"RKOwens4 has a video up here somewhere showing that."
Link? The smoke is seen all throughout the street level and all the way up to the impact hole (800 ft or so). Also, this is time lapsed video. Did the FDNY let the car just burn? That must've been one hell of a car fire. Please stop.
Yes, they did let the cars burn. They were kind of busy at the time putting out other more demanding fires or hauling crispy critters to ambulances, and there were heavy objects landing in that area with a rather disturbing "SPLAT" at the time. Hardly makes sense to try to save someone's property at the risk of having some paniced dead guy fall on your head when there are so many people who need attention, dontcha think.
I watched the video. The claim is ONE?? small car fire caused this massive smoke plume reaching the impact hole? In the video, you can clearly see that the smoke caused by the car fire is separate from this massive plume. The smoke from the car fire is very small. Also, I have a video of smoke coming out of many sewage lids near the WTCs. And, witness accounts of basement explosions back this up. Some of these explosions were BEFORE the plane impacts.
Only Willie says the explosions in the basement were before the impact. Others in the basements didn't even know when the airplanes hit. That was fuel shoved down the elevator shafts. Tie a witness who we can all trust to the smoke coming out of the sewers before impact and you might have something. A fuel vapor blast in the basements would shove stuff out the sewers.
There were precisely TWO explosions below the impact. Schroeder witnessed one of Willie's two explosions long after the impact, from inside the lobby. FAIL.
Your right! Car fires would burn and emit white smoke, duh! It's not like they have fuel in them or plastic. Everyone knows cars would burn the same color as an airplane if it were on fire, and if you look at the hole in the side of the.... dumbass!
Actually, it depends on what part of the car is burning, whether the fire department is trying to put the fire out, whether the water lines have melted...lots of things effect the color of the smoke. Once it disperses, even thick black smoke can take on a whitish appearance in the sunshine between buildings.
I would take the opinion of a fireman over a hack on Youtube anyday! Thank you for your selfless dedication to saving dumbasses like me! Two things- Nadet movie speaks of jet fuel dumped down the express elevator shaft. And, in the basement were gift shops, food courts, venders w books and such. The express was for observation deck. Not sure it went to basement( In an open the doors way) Steel splitting explosions could start falmmable sources on fire. ie- lighters, aerasols... parking garage??
There is no mention in any of the FDNY oral histories of fires burning in ther parking levels after the explosion there. There is mention of both an express elevator and a freight elevator going the full length of the building. The explosion in the basement came from the freight elevator. The one Schroeder described was the express. Since Schroeder headed for the WTC immediately after impact, I think this accounts for Willie's two blasts.
In this video clip below, a construction worker remembers hearing/and feeling an explosion around 8:30, but the first plane struck around 8:46. He was in the sub-basement levels far below ground. Even if his time is off, there is not enough time (and too much space) for elevators falling to reach this location 800-1000 or more ft below where the plane struck. That is not logical.
Wrong. He is describing the plane hitting the tower, from his perspective in the basement. He very clearly states, "I just assumed that a car, or something exploded up on B1." At 8:30, he was summoned to the basement. Nowhere does he state that at 8:30, he felt an explosion.
A plane hitting the Tower 800 ft up causes walls in the basement to explode? Please stop. See my impact to collapse times and think. And, it's interesting how people can speak for witnesses and what they saw and heard when they weren't there..Here's other people backing up these basement explosions..
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 5 months ago
9/11 was an inside job!! This video has been tampered with!!! Don't bother watching it. Note the sky, the borders, and the background. They are hiding the real events from you. The media is working hand in hand with the government to help them cover-up the real events of that day!!!
molitor2005 9 months ago 3
Look at the "BLACK BORDERS" on the WTC Towers!! Then the next group of pictures show a "Bright white BORDER"! What does that indicate?I've always heard when you see these borders, that the video has been tampered with by the use of computer graphics! Look at the background and the sky! It was bright blue that day,&it is dull weird grey! Why would they TAMPER with it?This video is also missing an explosion that went off about 20 floors below the impact site, about 6 seconds be4 the collapse.
molitor2005 9 months ago
When the firefighters said WTC 7 was unstable, they were forced to say that by the Jews. When they said the building was leaning and creaking and likely to collapse, they were lying. The firefighters are liars.
bagintree 10 months ago
@bagintree I think they were told that by some"HIGHER UP' officials. They were just repeating what was told to them. In all the chaos of that day, I don't think anyone knew what was going on, except the perpetrators!! I would love to know WHO the "higher up officials" were though!!!
molitor2005 9 months ago
You do realize that the smoke at the base could just be the fallen debris burning from the actual impacts, right?
Don't believe me? Then search for a vid of a car burning at the base of the South Tower just before collapse. Goes to show that anything that exploded out of the towers as a flaming projectile will reach the ground below and can cause a resulting fire.
krayzeejojo 10 months ago
@krayzeejojo
I searched for cars burning at the base of the Towers and found this:
watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
That smoke, was it perhaps coming from WTC7 and squares with key WTC7 witness (now dead) Barry Jennings's testimony of explosions in 7 BEFORE the collapse of 1&2?
MarkB1ngham 11 months ago
Inside Job.....Thermate prefabricated to fit beams and installed....large crew never needed, just access......Drone Planes with laser targeting.....Building 7 falls without losing it's shape.....Demolition.....WTC 1 and 2 turn to dust before even hitting the ground.....Demolition......Inside Job....."Pull it"
Who was the Saudi Prince that offered Guiliani millions after 9/11? Remember Guiliani refused to take the money? <------- I think it was all done for the masses and television.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
offf cuse they have to cut basement over..is what peopel here an see basement.this plan agains building and small fire take building big and strong down...never.and the have nevly proving termite in dust..some not belives what they lot at this date.
its total smash and demo...no way other..to stat war on blame other money and control.
MultiAirbrusher 1 year ago
What are the white lines on edges of blds?
4624tone 1 year ago
Comment removed
DRAT311 1 year ago
Bombs don't produce steady streams of smoke. However all of the burning debris that fell does. As do the several car fires that were filmed at the base of the towers before it collapsed. Also, bombs produce loud bangs which no one outside the towers heard before the collapse. watch?v=LTXFnAIP6A0
DRAT311 1 year ago
So where's this "evidence"?
CrazyRay7979 1 year ago
@CrazyRay7979
lol, you blind?
WeedyMellow 1 year ago
'Evidence of WTC Basement Explosions'??? yeah damning evidence that weren't it? what a shit and totally pointless video that was.
phucoff1 1 year ago
@phucoff1
just another 911 disinfo troll and his comments. means nuttin'
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth
so 'Sxpert', inmtrigue me, who carried out these attacks?
I mean, obviously, you can back up these claims with your vast amount of experience on the frontline in Afghan/Iraq so can you vouch for this such peaceful religion that is Islam?
phucoff1 1 year ago
@phucoff1
it doesn't matter. as you were on your journey to spread lies troll
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth
fuckin thought as much.
phucoff1 1 year ago
The WTC buildings were controlled demolition jobs.
HoIlowPsycho 1 year ago
that looked like molten metal or something coming out of the building.
silentmajor 1 year ago
watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw
These two videos you posted clearly show concrete being turned to dust in the initial impacts, despite them both being much less energetic collapses. Not all of it turns to dust, but again, they are much less energetic collapses. Another fail.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
8: See 4. Also note plenty of fires in adjacent buildings and at street level.
9: Thermite creates massive amounts of smoke and heat when it burns. See your own evidence: "3. No direct evidence of extreme temps at impact hole
4. No origin of extreme temps in the basements" No evidence of extreme temperatures anywhere= no thermite.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
8. See my #4
9. No extreme temps at the impact hole vs extreme temps in the basements/underground..meaning some heat source was used in the basements. enter thermite.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
While thermite could be used to undermine the structure of the building, if it was used in the basement, why didn't the structure fail at the bottom first?
As for #4, where are the temperatures in the basement that support thermite? All you have is smoke.
I'm no different than you, other than in opinion. Well, I also don't try to discredit you with name calling and baseless accusations, so that makes us different.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
It's called 'controlled' demolition for a reason, right? When and where the building collapses was controlled.
" Well, I also don't try to discredit you with name calling "
From your post on September Clues. "This video is the best evidence that truthers are gullible idiots."
Remember, I'm the stalker? Just like every traveling debunker I've had the pleasure of meeting here, nothing but 100% BS and lies...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
I'll stand behind that statement. I'll also amend the quote above.
I said, "Well, I also don't try to discredit you with name calling and -baseless accusations-."
They are gullible idiots. As evidenced by the September Clues. It is heavily edited to promote its own conclusions about 9/11. It is not an objective examination of fact. It is deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Therefore, people who believe it, are gullible idiots.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
I rest my case....
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
? Which one? The one where you claim that the building came down as a result of controlled demo? Or the one where I call people names?
I think you know you are wrong and can no longer defend your position, therefore you should have said, "I give up. You win."
Ahem, you have still not provided evidence of explosives in the basement.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
@KidMeatball If there was nothing happening in the basements of the towers then please explain the smoke we see rising from ground level in this video. If it was Bldg. #7 then how did the fires start when supposedly it did not catch fire until part of the north tower fell on it. Clearly the north tower is still intact here. Noone has provided proof that explosives WEREN'T planted in the basement....yet testimony from several people seems to imply that there were.
unafraidtruther 1 year ago
@unafraidtruther Ugh. How many times do I have to say it? There were plenty of fires burning in the street. There were fires all over the towers from jet fuel penetrating the elevator shafts. In case you missed it, two jets exploded, spreading burning debris all over the place.
One cannot prove a negative. If you believe there were explosives in the basement, it is up to you to provide convincing evidence. I don't believe there was explosive because I haven't seen convincing evidence.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
@KidMeatball
Check out the fires on the street:
watch?v=DDGfgi7P1Jw
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" NIST, Sep 2005, PP 183
"But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes." -Lead Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
uh dude? it's an office building. Lots of flammable objects including carpeting and desks but you clearly have never been in an offfice.
Also the debris that hit the ground derp
BeyondLame 1 year ago
@BeyondLame
So, a carpet and desk fire limited to 4-6 floors and lasting only 56 minutes contributed to the collapse of a 1350 ft steel framed building? Really? And when the building collapsed, the upper floors smothered the bottom floors or fire impact areas. The entire building turned to dust and the fire impacted areas were ejected laterally.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, an aircraft hit the building, damaging some trusses and knocking fire proofing off the others. The jet fuel explosion spread fire all over multiple floors at once. The office material fire then burned at around 2000f for an hour on the overloaded and unprotected steel and led to a collapse.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
You speak as if you were actually there? How can possibly know all of this when there's no definite proof of any of your statements? For example, where is any evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off? Back to reality: There's no logical way that you would know any of this with 100% certainty. Its all disinformation for morons that are stupid enough to believe it..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Whoa there, a truther is demanding proof and stating that there is no way to know for sure when you weren't there. Right back at you! No one can ever know anything for certain. The difference between you and I is that in the absence of 100% certainty either way I choose to believe the most likely scenario given the evidence and you choose to misrepresent evidence to support an otherwise baseless and convoluted theory that's really just an insinuation.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
So, did you take the temp of the carpet burning at around 2000F for an hour? That is hilarious. Again, there is no evidence of the 2000F burning carpet, the fireproofing being knocked off or any evidence that heat even contributed to the collapse. It is complete BS. If you disagree, post some real evidence...not just your words.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 The fireproofing was spray on. It could be knocked off with a hammer. A 220,000 pound plane smashed into the building and exploded out the other side. You think its a stretch that the fire proofing didn't make it? Also, the NIST link you provided was referring to WTC7. You said the building only burned 56 minutes. I think you need to figure out what you're talking about. The 2000f temp is from my link below of common room fire temp. Surprise, you didn't read it.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
Your theories are great, but I asked for real evidence and/or proof? From impact to collapse, South Tower lasted 56 mins, North Tower, 102 mins. And the NIST quote is directly from "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers " relating to WTC1 and 2, not WTC7. Research.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 You show smoke and call your case proven. Then when I provide facts and links you say that nothing I'm saying is 100% concrete proof. Nothing could EVER meet the criteria of proof you apply to the official theory yet you don't apply that same criteria to your own theory. Where is your 100% concrete proof?
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
I never understand why debunkers think anyone should listen to them when they offer absolutely no proof? And, I don't have 100% concrete proof..noone does. This is why you are making yourself look desperate when making statements with no backing evidence.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I gave you evidence. Demanding 100% concrete proof is completely and totally impossible. You actually said the only way I can have 100% concrete proof is if I were there in the building when it happened. You are admitting that you are applying a burden of proof that is impossible. This kind of bat shit crazy debating is why no one takes you people seriously.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
" I gave you evidence"
Uhh, real evidence is:
1. The steel was tested and shown that fireproof was knocked off, not your opinion.
2. Some evidence that the fires reached 2000F, not your opinion.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 In all the pictures of steel after the collapse how much of it had fire proofing on it? None. No fire proofing could survive the collapse. It could be knocked off with a hammer! How could it survive a plane hitting it? Explain that to me? I dont' have proof that the plane didn't disappear inside the building and cause no damage at all. Does that mean we should assume thats the case despite simple physics/logic?
DRAT311 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Well, office fires burn at 1200c. Thats above 2000f. This was an office fire. wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame - So why would we assume that it burned below 2000f? Do you have proof that it was an abnormally cool fire? In the absence of proof it should be assumed to be typical, not atypical.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Well, office fires burn at 1200c. Thats above 2000f. This was an office fire. wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame - So why would we assume that it burned below 2000f? Do you have proof that it was an abnormally cool fire? In the absence of proof it should be assumed to be typical, not atypical.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 All you ever do is "ask questions" and then call your case "proven." Then when we provide links to scientific experiments and articles on fires you declare that thats not "proof" of anything. The last guy said that I had to fly to his house and show him my proof or else I don't have any proof. You're saying I have to provide 100% concrete proof like video of the steel as the building is collapsing. Complete and total cop out arguments.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
In the 1990s British Steel Building Research performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker200 Good for the British. When they conduct the same test on a 100 story building instead of 8 and replicate the design of the WTC perfectly and damage the structure with a 757 before before starting the fire on 4 floors simultaneously then they'll have a valid experiment. Heres a real world test for you: Windsor in Madrid burned for only 2.5 hours with only 10 floors of weight and all the steel collapsed. Why?
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
Here's your science and logic. A steel framed high rise has never collapse due to fire before or after 911. Also, even in an controlled study with six trials in the study I just posted. So, how do you feel about probabiltiy? No collapse in real environments and in controlled. And before you start with the expected shill response (plane impact), WTC7 was not hit by a plane..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 We've been over this before. No steel framed high rise ever burned on so many complete floors simultaneously with structural damage. So WTC is the first of its kind. So it can be said that every single steel only high rise that was damaged and then had fires spread across 4 floors at once has collapsed due to the fire.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
"Also, the NIST link you provided was referring to WTC7"
Ok, we both know that this is incorret, WTC7 is not even mentioned in the report. So what's your response now?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 That same section is found in the WTC7 report NCSTAR1a. If you didn't know it exists you should go read it. I'll take your word for it that it also appears in the main report because it doesn't really matter either way. Both were steel, both fail at 1100 so no reason either would exceed 1100.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
"That same section is found in the WTC7 report NCSTAR1a"
Can you post the page number? My quote is from Chapter 6, page 90.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Go back and read my links about the maximum temps of room fires, how to tell the temp of fire by its color, and how backdrafts are created by unusually cool fires (Only 1500f). If you're going to ignore them or not accept them then continuing is pointless.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
"The office material fire then burned at around 2000f for an hour "
Really?
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, exactly! Fire burns at 2000f. Steel fails at 1100f. The building collapsed. Why do you think the steel needs to exceed failure point in order to have failure?
DRAT311 1 year ago
Comment removed
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
"Did you think the heat transfer is instant?"
I'm glad you brought this up because you do know that people were seen at the North Tower impact hole approx 20 mins before the collapse, right? This means that the steel beneath them had 80 of the total 102 mins to heat up to 1100F or failure. But, how can people walk on top of the 1100F heated steel? Obviously, they can't because this heat wasn't there...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 The people at the holes were in already burned out areas. The holes provided plenty of oxygen and allowed those areas to burn out quicker. The heat did not transfer up or down very well because the floors had a layer of concrete which does not conduct heat. Remember the steel is all connected and conducts head. Fire does not have to remain constant at any one point in order for the entire structure to continue heating.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
Provide proof of your following statements:
1. The carpets burned at 2000F for an hour
2. The fireproofing was knocked off
3. The people seen at the impact holes were in already burned out areas
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Provide the following proof:
1. The smoke at the base of the tower was caused by bombs.
2. The fire did not reach normal fire temps of 2000f.
3. The only thing that burned was carpet(Where ever the fuck you got that strawman argument from)
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
Answering a question with another question? That's called avoidance. You do realize that fact that you shills are here sheds light on the possibility of a cover up? You are actually hurting your case. If 911 was filled with so much irrefutable evidence, there would be no need for you, correct? Unless you have another motive for touring multiple 911 YT pages as if you have something to lose?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ah yes, the infamous shill argument. My evidence should be ignored because I'm against conspiracies therefore I MUST work for the government. I'm not even pro government buddy. I'm just anit-bullshit. I debate you guys for that moment of satisfaction when you have no way to debate my evidence so you just declare me a shill or set some impossible burden of proof, as if the official story must be proven or you have to accept conspiracy with no proof by default.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
If you appear like you have something to lose when anyone questions 911 and you visit only 911 pages, you might a shill. See a trend?
Molten Metal WTC Thermite 911 Demolition
September 11, 9/11 Pentagon Truth + Proof and Evidence
Pentagon plane crash proof
9/11 Debunked: Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Explained
9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: Not Molten Aluminum
Jesse Ventura on 9/11 with Alex Jones 2008
video of actual thermite detonations in WTC
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Prove that I have something to lose. Prove that I visit only 9/11 pages. Why would you even consider making such wild presumptions? Oh, to change the subject?
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
Then, why debate 911 on the pages I just listed? Why not let the evidence speak for itself? Shills act as if the evidence is so obvious and truthers are morons, but then they have to invest tons of time defending 911. Does that make sense to you? Change the subject? I'm still waiting for definite proof of the 2000F carpets and fireproofing that was knocked off, even though its sprayed on...funny.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 So I can't debate 9/11 without it meaning I'm trying to hide something? You're debating 911. So what are you trying to cover up? Why are you so afraid of 9/11 not being a conspiracy? Don't be a hypocrite. Yes, I know you're still waiting for proof of the exact temps of the fire. And if you don't get proof that it was normal fire temps you will be forced to assume it was well below normal temp by default because thats the way truthers come to conclusions. Good bye.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311
I'm here for one purpose. To spread the truth. That is my agenda and motive. If the the OV is already the accepted truth, you are here to.....???? Good luck on your next 911 page.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Also, you said "contributed to the collapse of a 1350 ft steel framed building?" as if 1350ft and all steel were reasons it should not have collapsed. It should obviously be the opposite. All steel makes it much more susceptible to fire and its height is the very reason the heated steel was under so much stress. Thats why the second building hit was the first to collape - it was hit lower so the steel in the fire was supporting more weight.
DRAT311 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 Oh wait, were you saying that the fire couldn't have been 2000f because the steel was only heated to 1100f? Did you think the heat transfer is instant? If so please let me know so I can never waste time arguing with you again.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 See, any normal office fire would start in one location and then spread slowly outward and upward. By the time it spread to multiple floors and to the other end of a large football field sized floor the fuel material near the source would have burned out. This would mean that the total area of fire would be much less at any given time and the heat transfer to the steel would be much less. Since the fire started in a huge area all at once its heat transfer was significant.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Here are some links for typical office fire temperatures. You'll see that the room temp in a carbon fire is over 2000f - wwwDOTdoctorfireDOTcom/flametmpDOThtml - and a 1500deg fire is considered a low temperature fire due to lack of oxygen - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Flame which can then lead to backdrafts which cause temps to rise to 3500f briefly. Red to orange flame is 1650-2200f - enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Fire- Steels failure point as tested for in fire proofing is 1100f
DRAT311 1 year ago
@KidMeatball I think the convincing evidence of explosions in the basement......before the plane impacts and before the collapse of both towers lies in the all the testimony provided by members of the NYPD the NYFD members of the Port Authority and many civilians which can all be found in a number of places online. Just because the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge these people doesn't mean they never heard/saw the things they claim to have happened.
unafraidtruther 1 year ago
@unafraidtruther media doesn't report on those people because they actually listened to what they said. Most if them describe an explosion and then go on to say something like, "later we found out it was a plane hitting the building," but you don't get that far. You hear the word explosion and stop listening. A lot of eyewitness testimony can be attributed to the traumatic nature of the day amplifying certain events. It is human nature to exaggerate and people on the day did like most people do.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
@KidMeatball Thank you for not arguing about WTC 7 as that incident can never be explained away as "collateral damage" due to WTC 1 falling on it.
unafraidtruther 1 year ago
@unafraidtruther I'm under the impression this thread is about basement explosions. Argue about WTC7 somewhere else.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
5: Steel is being ejected -after- the collapse starts. Where is the sharp concussive blast associated with such forces? Such a blast would be audible all over Manhattan.
6: Tons of steel and concrete meeting head on will behave as such. Steel>concrete.
7: Maybe three or four? With no audible reference one can determine it was not a large enough explosion to collapse a building. Unless you have news of some sort of silent explosive.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
5. It's still massive steel being ejected, right?
6. As in these examples?
watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw
7. Did you count these? Flashes unrelated to the fires were caused how? Is this normal?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Smoke is not definitive proof of an explosion. If that were the case, all my campfires have been caused by explosives.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
There was only 56 (South) and 102 minutes (North) forom impact to collapse. Knowing that, what caused this smoke plume that is so massive that is seen as high as the impact hole?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Er, not an explosion? I don't know. But it's clear there was no explosion. It is likely caused by piles of burning debris falling from the towers.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
Can you explain how you know with 100% certainty that "there was no explosion" when you weren't there? And remember, the fires were approx. 800 ft up and there are many floors in between these fires. Burning debris falling where...thru floors?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Burning debris from a plane hitting a building. There was a huge fireball. A lot fell to the street. Have you not watched any video?
I don't know for certain there was no explosion, however, I have seen no evidence of one in the basement or sublevels or lobby. The only reports of explosions are at the time the planes hit the towers. The fireballs from the elevators happened when the planes hit the towers.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
You seem to be making many incorrect assumptions here. First, there is photographic evidence of smoke coming from inside the building here....
watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
Is there (video) evidence of this burning debris on the street? Next, the majority of the accounts of explosions were after impact (see the video I just posted). Another example:
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
There is also two accounts of explosions BEFORE the impact...no plane, no elevators
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
The first link clearly shows a van on fire. In the street. With white smoke coming off it.
All videos of the plane impacts show a huge fireball, and debris from the explosion falling to the street. Much of it likely burned out or never ignited. Some of it caused things like vans and cars to burn. Openly. In the street.
These witnesses are recounting their experiences. They are scared and are likely not really sure exactly what they saw. Besides, the video is heavily edited to remove continuity
KidMeatball 1 year ago
So, you don't have evidence of a fire so massive that it reaches the impact hole which is approx. 800-1000 ft up (the above video)? ONE van fire? You can't be serious? Speaking for the witnesses again? And, I didn't realize that 100% of your recent activity is aimed at 911/conspiracy videos. That explains alot now. Peace..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
You're the one who claimed there were no fires on the street.
Whats wrong with watching and commenting on a subject I'm interested in? What does it mean? Am I part of the cover up? Okay, you win, I work for both Osama Bin Laden and George Bush. They pay me to comment on YouTube videos.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
There is no point in debating with disinfo agents, trolls or shills. These pathogens are not interested in evidence, logic or common sense. Their only agenda is to keep the 911 lie alive. But, it is interesting how you refer to truthers as idiots, morons, etc, but continue to debate with them day after day, week after week? So, what does that make you? Question: If the events of 911 are completely true backed by irrefutable evidence, why the need to invest all of this time defending it?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Why do you invest time to claim that there is some sort of conspiracy, stalker? I waste my time here because its interesting, much like most others here. If only your claims I am some sort of shill were true. Then I could actually get paid to do this, then maybe I wouldn't waste so much time here.
Most of what I claim is that the videos people post are not what they claim. Like this video. Not evidence of basement explosions.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
What you call stalking was only to prove a point. And that is, your obvious agenda. But, I do like your explanation. You waste your time here everyday on nothing but 911 videos because it's interesting? That's a new one. I've heard it's a hobby, I'm bored, I'm educating the public, etc, but not interesting. The first sign of an agenda is anyone who speaks in absolutes. In other words, there DEFINITELY was no explosions, no nano-thermite, no molten metal (steel), etc. See it now?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Fine, I have an agenda. You got me. That in itself doesn't make me a shill for an organization. Ever notice how truthers like yourself like to dodge the subject when they run into someone who points out the flaws in their beliefs? They hide behind statements like, "oh you clearly work for the government." It still doesn't prove explosives at the base of the building.
Besides, if there were explosives at the base of the buildings wouldn't we see the bottom start to collapse before the top?
KidMeatball 1 year ago
A rational person who wasn't actually there in the buildings really can't answer these questions. There lies the difference. I evaluate the evidence, witness accounts, etc and make logical conclusions. That is all I can do. But, debunkers seem to have some unexplained insight and know with 100% certainty there is no "evidence of basement explosions", for example. This insight, of course, is total BS just to cover the lie.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
You said, "I evaluate the evidence, witness accounts, etc and make logical conclusions." Actually, what you are doing is evaluating -some- of the evidence, -parts- of what these witnesses say, and picking the parts that support your theory and throwing the rest away. I.E. There is smoke coming from the base of the buildings, it must be from explosives, despite numerous witness reports of fire from the initial crash affecting the basement, lobby, and other floors. Still not evidence of explosives
KidMeatball 1 year ago
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
1: Says little. Near freefall, not freefall. What else would you expect?
2: There is ample video of huge explosions in the initial impacts. Most of the witnesses were speculating on what they felt or heard.
3: Structural failure due to heat was at the core of the building. Structural failure due to plane impact was throughout.
4: Flames from the jet fuel traveled down elevator shafts to the lobby and basement.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
Straight from the debunker's handbook. Anmother sign of an agenda/disinfo agent is claiming to have all of the answers. Did I mention that laready?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
1. I did say near free fall, right? There must be another example of steel framed building falling at near free fall?
2. You had to interview these witnesses to know this?
3. Still no physical evidence, ehh?
4. Who can I trust here? You or NIST?
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" NIST, Sep 2005, PP 183
"But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes." -Lead Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
911 was nothing more than a freemason / illuminati ritual in all our faces !!
There is a rutles conspiracy all over the world .. john f kennedy ...
world pleace wake up
NWOisOWN 2 years ago 8
Hi folks. The only question that will ever matter to Justice for this crime is this . . .
Did anybody get any warning to leave the WTC area BEFORE it was damaged by anything? Make a careful study of this one thing, and your perception about this crime, and the criminals who took any part of it, or held any information about it BEFORE it went down will answer every question about this.
claudius2u 2 years ago
i was there at 911 and the fire men said that the fuel in the plane exploded down the elevator shaft and it did because all the windows smashed out and the sounds were not explosions most of them were people and debris falling but the wtc 7 was taken down because the fire men said it would help but i dont no how i think it was to make people angry
MattmanRuLz11 2 years ago
stop beeing retard!
i was when ufo landed here, my friend who is a fireman talked with the leader of galaxy. all these craps are NOTHING BUT LIES!!!
wtc 7 demolished in less than 7 sec is evidence enough. GET YOURSELF A NEW LIFE! mattman, you rathead. YOU ARE A LIAR
Mahdiarmy 2 years ago 2
i think everything should be rexamined very suspiciously
i have always been able to smell bs and the whole thing stinks like a goddamn sewer the lies deceptions manipulations torture occupation the money made ive seen alot of things that counter reason under bush and irrational people tend to have amoral rationals ie... its moral if it will benifit them (and it has alot)
because you would never blow up a building dont bs yourself that a leader of a country wouldnt
xlightwavex 2 years ago
Bush made millions off from Persian gulf Oil.
Bush is working for Sauda Arabia not for Americans.
Bush Administration (Bull Shitt Rapeministration) Liars, manipulators, helped in economic oppression of the American middle and low class. How hard is it to get a loan, give a real reasonable open reason why?, and not one with mirrors, an shadows.
idrobinhood 3 years ago 3
The Towers fell top-down...that's what this whole 'Top-down CD vs. WTC collapse' fad is about.
ArmchairRevolution 4 years ago
You have your opinion, but one small car fire doesn't create a massive smoke plume 800 or more ft high and that envelops the whole street area near both Towers. One of my cars actually caught on fire.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The smoke at the bottom of the building is from a car fire in the adjoining parking lot. RKOwens4 has a video up here somewhere showing that. Any damage to the bottoms of the towers would have made them lie down sideways into the river.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
"RKOwens4 has a video up here somewhere showing that."
Link? The smoke is seen all throughout the street level and all the way up to the impact hole (800 ft or so). Also, this is time lapsed video. Did the FDNY let the car just burn? That must've been one hell of a car fire. Please stop.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
v=LTXFnAIP6A0
Yes, they did let the cars burn. They were kind of busy at the time putting out other more demanding fires or hauling crispy critters to ambulances, and there were heavy objects landing in that area with a rather disturbing "SPLAT" at the time. Hardly makes sense to try to save someone's property at the risk of having some paniced dead guy fall on your head when there are so many people who need attention, dontcha think.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
I watched the video. The claim is ONE?? small car fire caused this massive smoke plume reaching the impact hole? In the video, you can clearly see that the smoke caused by the car fire is separate from this massive plume. The smoke from the car fire is very small. Also, I have a video of smoke coming out of many sewage lids near the WTCs. And, witness accounts of basement explosions back this up. Some of these explosions were BEFORE the plane impacts.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
these people are brainwashed don,t weast your time on them when the time come we will be free and they will just puppts in the hands of the govrnment
khalid6591 4 years ago 7
Only Willie says the explosions in the basement were before the impact. Others in the basements didn't even know when the airplanes hit. That was fuel shoved down the elevator shafts. Tie a witness who we can all trust to the smoke coming out of the sewers before impact and you might have something. A fuel vapor blast in the basements would shove stuff out the sewers.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
"Only Willie says the explosions in the basement were before the impact."
Google Anthony Saltalamacia or watch this:
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Saltalamacia was also not in a position to hear the actual impact either, if he had just talked to Rodriguez.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
It's not the impact that is the question. It's the many explosions noticed in the sub-basement levels.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
There were precisely TWO explosions below the impact. Schroeder witnessed one of Willie's two explosions long after the impact, from inside the lobby. FAIL.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Your right! Car fires would burn and emit white smoke, duh! It's not like they have fuel in them or plastic. Everyone knows cars would burn the same color as an airplane if it were on fire, and if you look at the hole in the side of the.... dumbass!
RuffleTheTeacher 3 years ago
Actually, it depends on what part of the car is burning, whether the fire department is trying to put the fire out, whether the water lines have melted...lots of things effect the color of the smoke. Once it disperses, even thick black smoke can take on a whitish appearance in the sunshine between buildings.
Just my take on this as a veteran fire fighter.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
This huge smoke plume was not caused by car fires:
watch?v=T2GYHvstFpQ
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
It wascaused by fires of some sort. What was burning? High explosives do not cause smoke.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
I would take the opinion of a fireman over a hack on Youtube anyday! Thank you for your selfless dedication to saving dumbasses like me! Two things- Nadet movie speaks of jet fuel dumped down the express elevator shaft. And, in the basement were gift shops, food courts, venders w books and such. The express was for observation deck. Not sure it went to basement( In an open the doors way) Steel splitting explosions could start falmmable sources on fire. ie- lighters, aerasols... parking garage??
RuffleTheTeacher 3 years ago
There is no mention in any of the FDNY oral histories of fires burning in ther parking levels after the explosion there. There is mention of both an express elevator and a freight elevator going the full length of the building. The explosion in the basement came from the freight elevator. The one Schroeder described was the express. Since Schroeder headed for the WTC immediately after impact, I think this accounts for Willie's two blasts.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
In this video clip below, a construction worker remembers hearing/and feeling an explosion around 8:30, but the first plane struck around 8:46. He was in the sub-basement levels far below ground. Even if his time is off, there is not enough time (and too much space) for elevators falling to reach this location 800-1000 or more ft below where the plane struck. That is not logical.
watch?v=9c3gyprsa9Y
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Wrong. He is describing the plane hitting the tower, from his perspective in the basement. He very clearly states, "I just assumed that a car, or something exploded up on B1." At 8:30, he was summoned to the basement. Nowhere does he state that at 8:30, he felt an explosion.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
A plane hitting the Tower 800 ft up causes walls in the basement to explode? Please stop. See my impact to collapse times and think. And, it's interesting how people can speak for witnesses and what they saw and heard when they weren't there..Here's other people backing up these basement explosions..
watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
I doubt these are all planes...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
I really don't think you were saved...
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
In what way?
RuffleTheTeacher 2 years ago
This is a great response video for people who say that building demolitions must take place from the bottom first.
Bad ass. Keep up the fight.
japanesexxxxxxxxx 4 years ago 2