Ahem..is this the SAME MIT..which estimates that 767s could fly at 500+ MPH at 800 ft above the ground?..keep working for the government dumbasses...until your money is worth shit and those handouts dry up..then you can polish Mitt Romneys ass..servants will be CHEAP.
@Denierbud11 The evidence is already there, you just have to do your own research. Please explain to me. 500,000 tons of building came down but when the dust cleared, everyone was wondering where the building had gone. I reapeat this 500,000 tons of buiding, Thats equivalent to 250,000 two ton cars piled up. Imagine the pile compaired to what was left, most of it was turned to dust, ps i'm not a proper turther, i'm indiviual and I can't be assed to track the source The New Hiroshima - judy wood
@Denierbud11 The pile was too small, but ill tell you what happened to the rest of it, it was turned into dust, Thats what really happened. I mean a 2 ton car, The weight of building works out to be 250 ,000 cars stacked up. That builing was well over 1000 ft high and a few hundred feet on each side. It was crazyness how it could all vanish. You gotta be a right dickhead to try and lie against something so obvious.
@Denierbud11 Explain how, 500,000 tons don't make much noise when it hits the ground at 120 mph. Google who is constantly measuring for earthquakes. Information was recorded. Why about all the vechiles that were half burnt and the paper that wasnt. There is nothing but madness on that day. Everyone knows the truth who is educated, not the whole truth but know it was definately Dustified.
@Denierbud11 Of course it made noise you dopey sod, it should have but barely any noise at all compaired to the sugested weight and speed, thats how stupid you are, only ever do part of the calculation. The terrorist if you listen to any speach, they talk about themselves. Listen to it next time when you watch the speaches. They also talk about what they are going to do aswell.
@Denierbud11 Can['t you not logically see that its going to make a tremendous noise. compaired to none at all. Why do you want a name of a person, its logical or are you honestly that thick.Watch a video of a car hitting a concreate wall at 120 mph, watch the blokes face and his comment about the noise. physics sugest 500,000 tons falling from over 1000 ft at 120 mph hitting the ground is going to be quiet ? I'm trying to say do your own reasearch and stop beliveing others. Only way for truth
@Denierbud11 it did make a tremendous noise -- you are the one claiming it didn't!
If you think the noise was not loud enough then YOU need to support that! its not burden to disprove an unsupported claim by you.
Wrong, it was Nist who claimed so little noise. Do me a favour and watch both parts of this video "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood". I don't care if you like or hate it but please watch it and your see NIST said it was low noise. Watch both parts, its very long in total
like no shit -- two large planes flew into two large buildings
On December 7, 1941, lots of strange things happened - like four battleships sunk in air attack when never before had an American battleship been sunk in air attack
They did not turn to dust, they created large amounts of dust when the collapsed, but that is expected in any large building collapse. There was an incredible amount of debri left -- it took how many thousands of trucks to remove the debrir -- have you seen the pictures of the debri?
Just making claims and throwing insults means nothing -- bring evidence numb nuts or leave the discussions to adults.
I sugest everyone goto wikipedia and search for "Timeline of United States military operations", then browse through the huge list at how many countries and invasions they have had over the years. Do they really need this many wars in so many places. Are they defending their country, Defending is from home, so they must be attacking. I say we all stop fighting, without people, no one can fight any more. Bring your loved ones home. Lets have world peace. wars create wars and peace creates peace.
Danny Jowenko, the only expert to opine that WTC 7 was a demolition is on record as saying the towers clearly collapsed due to fire and structural damage from the planes
@Denierbud11 Destroying the evidence at a crime scene is a crime. Why does the top nist men ignore possibilities, From the 1993 bombings, anyone would have thought that would be the first thing to check for. Its a cover up. If I am wrong I appoligise but logically things don't add up. Watch the video "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". I also watch official videos, so i'm not biased but I sway truthers logical explainations as it shows experimental proof.
@Denierbud11 You are seriously dumb, What the hell does large planes hit the towers have to do with it falling down, Now im gonna get a lecture. So my point is nist ignored the fact that thermitic materials were found. Meaning explosives. So nist asumed the planes brought it down. Those towers were made to withstand multiple plane hits as stated during the building videos. Also watch empire state vid and they say about designing future buildings to withstand. Nist logic don't add up.
@Denierbud11 Now your being laughed at by real scientists. Check out this video "What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like", Learn physics that matter.Why didn't the top of the towers crush into itself. There is plenty of old videos of contruction of the towers and you hear they were designed to withstand airplane hits. If you talk about fires, then please state them as nano thermite, not uncontrolled jet fuel, that burnt off anyway. ps watch all 9 parts in the other vid i post to you. Learn
Like who? name the demolition expert who thinks WTC was a demolition?
Or do you believe Judy Woods and her space beams?
Why do you refuse to look at evidence outside of the twoofer camp? Why do you cast shame and accusations at the FDNY who lost 300 brothers and sister on that day?
You, who claim the statements are false with out reading them, you have no reason to point fingers at anyone's examination of evidence.
@Denierbud11 Would you honestly trust a paid agency, the money is what causes people to do as they are told. I have looked at the official stuff only to find information that doesn't add up. Am I suposed to believe like all the other uneducated people. If the offical did a proper investigation then I would believe them. Discovery chanel done a vid, can thermite melt a steel beam. It never but some randon person did the experiement for themselves and found it needed to be enclosed, then it cuts.
@Denierbud11 your a sicker fuck that anyone can imagine, using inocent victims to hide the truths. Actually the sick people are the ones who brought down the buildings. You can't intergrate the truth and victims as if they are the same thing. Lieing is disrespectful. There is more truthers than lieing cunts. You have to abuse people, I want the truth for the inocent who suffered. The sick ones are the ones who commit the crime, not the people that want the truths revealed. Truthers have feelings
@Denierbud11 In building 7, no one was hurt, there was no victims.in the other towers, people were murdered. The rescuers were murdered. Lets not go away from the fact that, the people that brought the towers down, didn't come from another country. If you look your find truthers who had loved ones lost and they are not stupid. Building 7 was a controlled demolition for a fact. Truthers are not to blame for the murders, They just try to put the real name to the murderers. We are fed bullshit.
@Denierbud11 Stop trying to twist my words to make me sound to others like I am abusing. We all know how an idiot thinks. Who do you think suports the victims more, the truthers or the conspirators. No truther has ever attacked a victim, only conspirators have done that. Do you think the real criminals should get away with the crimes. They comit a crime, then blame someone else and go and commit another crime. Its called deception. I was talking about wtc 7, so don't prentend it was two towers.
@Denierbud11 Money is control. I tell you what i'll pay you good money to do something for me and you will do it. No one was harmed in building 7. Your so simple minded, I could fool you easily. Maybe they knew it was coming down and were paid to keep quiet. They kept the area clear and safe. Please explain to me, why all the other buildings surrounding the towers, were still standing with much worse damage. It does not make sense. A lot of strange things happened on that day and only that day.
@Denierbud11 Its simply obvious the top people were in on it or told advice or even paid to keep say what they did. Why should I have an attitude like I do. Its because too many people tell lies. Not everyone needs to know, people will do a lot for money. Well lets try looking at some physics, how nist manipulated things to suit themselves. Watch this "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". Whos to say the fire people wasn't fucking fbi in discuise. I keep an open mind and not believe much
@Denierbud11 Truthers do not need to see evidence, of course they need evidence, are you a complete idiot. You totally ignored everything they said, What is evidence. Well if someone told you a lie and then someone else did experiement and proved the physics. Then wouldn't you know they are lieing. People like you are too simple to think logical. I'll call you a half wit. Your the sort of person who would go invade another country wtihout solid proof they attacked. Look at history proof they lie
the statements of eyewitnesses, such as the words and testimony of over 500 first responders, transcribed and publically available - the evidence that you refuse to examine and dismiss out of hand
ignorance, arrogance and stupidity all come to mind
@Denierbud11 Manipulation, if someone has something to hide they manipulate it. Sometimes they don't need to hide something, when the person involved is being deceived. No one had any intentions of saving building 7, the original intention was to demolition it. Buildings on fire do not collapse how stupid nist say. Nist ignore everything they been told.If nist listened to truthers and did experiements, then they wouldn't have their jobs. They got no choice. wtc 7 is a deception. They way it fell
One question, I'd like to ask, had this plane been flying much faster, could that pole have chopped the wing completely off. Anyone know what the lamposts were made out of with the pentagon plane. It hit quite a few, apparently they designed to fall over but at those speeds, they wouldnt have fallen a few feet where they were and could have done massive impact damage. Also why so many people try to tell me to stop listening to truthers. I do my own reasearch. They are persuading me to lies ?
The wings don't seem to cut through a pole, so a steel beam would cut them off too. Also would like to mention. I see a plane test at 500 mph against concreate, its on youtube. look it up, the plane disintergrates. The floors had concreate on the wtc and also the building was designed to sway in the wind. If you believe the offical bullshit then your a fool.
"The 12 inch telephone pole cuts off the outer panel but, the heavier inboard section breaks off a larger 13 inch telephone pole. The basic wing structure remains intact"
Clearly the 12" pole DID NOT "cut the wing off". If you review the video carefully you will see that only the tip of the wing is clipped off(as the vo states).
@NWOisBS yeh but dont you think the 2.5 in thick steel on the wtc which was as strong as the t50s front armor would be enough to cut a wing in half which clearly didnt happen on 9/11
"Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) with the grade of steel presumably dictated by the stresses indicated by the calculated gravity and wind loads." - NIST NCSTAR 1-3 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster- Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
@NWOisBS ive herd this one before if you look at the picture with the women standing in the hole in the building you can see the column is obviously larger than she is so i dont think .25 in is the correct measurement false info presented, but thats my opinion so its just an opinion like evryone elses
"column is obviously larger than she is so i dont think .25 in is the correct measurement false info presented, "
WTF? That makes absolutely no sense!
If you people would take some time to research how the perimeter walls were fabricated you would know that they were built using hollow box columns constructed of 1/4" plate steel(for the upper floors).
Refer to chapter 2 of the doc in my previous comment or check other sources. This is a well documented fact.
i think the funniest comment of all is wat about the windows there not made out of steel a comment like this is a mockery to steel frame construction and its funny how the building was designed to take a plane no matter how much kinetic energy it had
I see truthers tried to have a WTC 7 demonstration during the occupy wallstreet rally -- epic fail, they had 20 some people show -- I have more people over my house for Thanksgiving!
"At normal speeds, during a perfectly inelastic collision, an object struck by a projectile will deform, and this deformation will absorb most, or even all, of the force of the collision. " - feel free to try google for the next part
the entire world believes, other than a few truthers who hide behind their screens -- there is not one expert who will go on record saying phyics tells us this is impossible -- why do you think that is?
@Denierbud11 Is that your rebuttal? "No experts have come forward so it is moot." ??
Tell me.... pretend you are a Physics Expert/Professor... The whole nation is whipped up in a War on Terror fervor.. Are you going to step out alone in front of everyone and say what we saw on video was impossible? How about ten years later when the entire world has been endlessly saturated with 9/11 News-Loops, Movies, and Documentaries, etc. Are you now going to come forward?
@Denierbud11 I think it was Purdue University, and there was no mention of the physical makeup of the plane in relation to the WTC. None. They just showed the plane impact animation and said "that's what happened"
As far as I know (and I've looked), To this day there has not been one expert / scientific demonstration or explanation of how the aluminum/fiberglass airplane wings were able to penetrate the multiple steel columns and floor slabs of the WTC.
no -- its fairly obviouse that the planes hit, that the planes entered the towers -- what did you expect, the planes to bounce off? the outside of the towers were aluminum clad with a thin steel frame -- no concrete other than the floor slabs -- not much to stop a 200,000 lb plane moving at 500 mph
In WWII, jap planes were destroying armored warships with much smaller planes -- a B-25 (or B-26) hit the empire state building - that building had concrete walls
@Denierbud11 That you're comparing the Boeing to WW2 Kamikaze planes, WHICH WERE LADEN WITH BOMBS, TORPEDOES, EXPLOSIVES, ETC. is pretty revealing of your knowledge here.
What did I expect the 9/11 planes to do? Obey the laws of physics and motion. Planes are very fragile and will come apart very easily when met with resistance. (many videos demonstrate this) Yes the arrays of steel columns and concrete floors, would have tore the airplanes to crap in reality.
@Denierbud11 To clarify, it does not give the airplane special powers over a building just because it is heavy and fast. The force of 200,000 lbs traveling at 500 mph applied to the WTC building, is applied equally and oppositely back onto the airplane. It doesn't matter how heavy or how fast it was going, the materials of the plane were much weaker than the materials of the WTC walls. The body of the plane does not show any deformation as the front enters the building. It is fake.
to be clear, you are dead wrong and you demonstrate that most twoofers did not pass fundamental physics
pick up a physics book, flip to the chapter on impact mechanics -- or ask a person more knowledgeable than you, most likely anyone you pass on the street
@Denierbud11 It's called Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
I see you don't comprehend this basic concept, and have resorted to group-think "twoofer" ad hominem attacks. So long, clown. No more time wasted on you.
@Denierbud11 You can blather and blubber about physics terminology all you want but the video above shows a TELEPHONE POLE cutting through a plane like butter.
@Denierbud11 No I'm good. It's such a weird thing to see anti-truth people so willingly and bitterly attack critical thought, suppress information, and defend people who would send them to die for far, far, far less than even a 1% increase in revenue. Don't you realize you are only hurting yourself by getting all shitty about just letting people have their "conspiracy theories"?
@Denierbud11 yeah thousands saw a commercial airliner that made the hole the size of a commercial airliner -- from all walks of life
go to ground zero and try the no plane crap
Thats easy to fake, The building had bombs in it and they blew it up. There isnt many vids on net of the towers considering the amount of people in the area. then have the wreckage ready at ground zero. I'm not saying this happened, just its possible to fake. You try to make it sound like its not possible.
@LifePsyop Velocity and momentum are the ONLY thing that matter in the collision. Are you seriously stating that they don't matter? Look up the equations for conservation of momentum, my man, because that's what's relevant to the issue. Denierbud11 was correct.
@Denierbud11 "In WWII, jap planes were destroying armored warships with much smaller planes -- a B-25 (or B-26) hit the empire state building - that building had concrete walls". What about the bombs on board the planes, think about what you don't relise. Also, check out the 500 mph plane into concreate on youtube. See the effects.There is more to physics than just weight and energy.
the youtube video is a phantom jet hitting a reinforced concrete wall that is designed to resist it -- the WTC had NO concrete along the exterior -- the walls were aluminum clad and steel.
and many of the kamikazis did not have bombs -- get off the truther sites and do some real research
@Denierbud11 Do you relise what you just said, TRUTHERS "read a fucking dictionary to what truth means". Learn about physics for youself, dont listen to a bunch of liars. You say that it was designed for the crash but I challenge you to build a concreate block and smash a carinto at high speed. In actual fact try a car into steel box columns of the same as wtc dimentions and design. I do my own reasearch, What happends to car when they crash, they crumple. so the plane isn't capable of crumpling
@Denierbud11 I'll leave that up to you to work out what I mean. Numbers don't sugest circumstances. I try not to watch too much tv as its full of lies. Crazy how two different stations in different parts of the world are both saying different things. That means someone is lieing. I often sound like i'm talking mumble jumble but I know what I mean. Sorry if I not great at english. take care
@Denierbud11 Do you mean the controlled media, the ones who air the collaspe of building on wrong date by accident. The media quite often do as they are told. Mistakes arent lies but if you do enough viewing, your find many live broadcasts and lots of infomation which seems suspect to prior knowledge. What did the government say at the election and what did they do once elected. We could say that for everyyear they been in power. Almost. Who listens to the public. Look at history to relise.
"the ones who air the collaspe of building on wrong date by accident"
Who would this be? Are you referring to the BBC claiming that WTC 7 had collapsed a half hour before it did? That is hardly proof of anything. Media often gets the story wrong -- hours before the building collapsed the FDNY was predicting a collapse and pulled its men back.
@Denierbud11 They had prior knowledge and find the vid for yourself to see how long before it actually fell, the time difference was too much to bullshit a lie like that. I would like to know how they predicted a collapse anyway, when there was hardly any damage and fires don't bring down buildings like they say. Look at the madrid building that burnt for 20 hours. There is some video of it and its a proper fire, it don't fall. Also look at the proper research on building 7 showing it was a lie.
it was a half hour -- the BBC was a half hour early -- they made a mistake - only in truther world does the news NEVER get a story wrong
and the FDNY stated ahead of time the building was going to collapse - that is a fact, so the question to you is simple, were they truthful, liars or incompetent?
@Denierbud11 Please tell me how the FDNY said it was going to collaspe, Is that proof it was planed to bring it down. All I can say is we got too many idiots in the world. No one could pridict a building was going to collapse. It shouldn't have collapsed when you do your reasearch and find out how the building was built. There is no way i'm going to accept the lies. They might lie to idiots but not to me or many other truthers. It was a controlled demolition, Do some research and your learn why.
@Denierbud11 Do you not know what the word Conspiracy means, no bullshit paperwork or anything reveals any truth. For example, why was there so much important information not included in the 911 commision report. They ignored it simply because they conspired. Just watch the interview with the guy from fema when his asked about molten metel. Watch his reactions with body launguage. You have to be dumb not to notice. I got nothing more to say as it then becomes a pointless argument.
@Denierbud11 I'm glad you responded like the fool that you are, stop trying to direct people to the lies. Now do you understand ignorance of truthers. Look up 911 lies never stop. Look at the reaction on the guy and how interested he is in the truth. Thats good enough for me to not want to read a ton of controlled bullshit. These people have no choice but to lie. See his reactions. Faith or common sense and lots of research of science. What you don't understand is its called control (deceptions)
@Denierbud11 Well if you have the buliding standing behind when it was said and they didn't notice it, then they must have been told it collapsed. Which means someone had prior knowledge. You don't say its collasped until its collasped. If you were on the scene and someone said wtc 7 just collasped, wouldn't you look and see for yourself and ask questions. No one would know its going to collapse unless they planed to bring it down. Madrid building stood after 20 hour fire.
@wontuguessmyname I did mean the whole structure didn't fall. I did watch another video about that building and lots of other info. But after it didnt crush itself into dust. Thats a long fire 20 hours.and it was a blazing inferno. The pile driver effect. Watch "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting" 9 parts about physics, I know some of the madrid fire tower fell but it wasn't complete collapse and it made wtc fires look small. wtc had 3 hour fire in the past over 6 floors.
Clearly you either did not read the MACE study on the Windsor Tower Fire or you are not very asute. There were several major structural differences between the Windsor Tower and the WTC buildings. The Windsor Tower had two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) which the WTC towers lacked. The Windsor Tower had a reinforced concrete central core - WTC towers did not.
The Windsor also did not had a 767 slam into it at 500 mph.
@wontuguessmyname You miss it completely, the fire in the towers couldn't have caused it to collapse. Thats a fact proven by independant investigators. Its been proven it would take 50% structure failure too and it was very little damage done. The colour of the smoke and colour of the fire tells us it wasn't even hot enough to weaken the steel. So now explain a 20 hour fire, could a simple fire get as hot as a 20 hour fire. The difference between the two towers and the madrid fire was huge.
"the fire in the towers couldn't have caused it to collapse."
Really? Well technically speaking the 767 slamming into the side of the Towers and damaging the structure as well as dislodging fireproofing from the steel were also a contributing factor.
If you do a little research you will find that building fires can easily reach temperatures of about 1000 ºC. The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less.
"Your as thick .." - I'm clearly more educated and informed than you.
"90% don't believe the offical story" Not according to a poll conducted by Angus Reid Global Monitor(03/21/10) - Most Americans Reject 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
"Only 15 per cent of respondents think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible".
"David chandler isnt dismissed, its fucking ignored" There's a reason he's ignored, physics!
@wontuguessmyname I watched the video and see how nist are trying to merge a progressive collapse with a total collapse. The building didn't collapse until the dust puffs apear clearly on many videos on the right of the building (noticeable on some vids). The whole building from that point falls at freefall speed aprox. This was a planned demolition. Explain how dust puffs apear down the whole right hand side simaltainiously. David Chandler is right and nist are trying to misslead the people.
@Denierbud11 I guess you best do yourself a favour and actually search for the video. When you find it then try and dispute it on that video if you think your cleather enough. Why should I explain it to you as your not interested in telling the truth but deceiving people. Try watching many controlled demolition videos then tell me if they exist or not, When measureing freefall, we don't measure the time it takes but actual acceleration. ps I am replying to wtc 7, just to make it clear.
@Denierbud11 More like the official is delusions, everyone with good education knows this. Proof is in the fact the official trys working by overall including progressive time but gravity is truely worked out by acceleration, Whos to say the top left wasnt planed to make it look the way they wanted as when the whole building fell it was at aprox freefall speed. No building progressively completely collaspses inside then the outside sudenly goes in to freefall once it fully collapsed. your mental
@Denierbud11 Its called physics and its already been proven, all you do is to continue to lie, its all you have left. What I mean by this, i'll explain it for the people without education. You measured the time taken from first noticeable movement until it was completely down. Lets just say we got in a car and pulled away gently at first, then waited a few seconds then slammed the pedal to the floor. This comparison is an example of acceleration between start and finish dont have to be the same
@Denierbud11 Explain to me how the small portion exhibited free fall. To have any free fall means there was no resisitance. Lets look how symetrically it fell down with a wedge in the middle. So it started collapse on left and then wedged in middle and decided to come down symetrically. It was brought down, there are vids on youtube showing wtc 7 with dust puffs appear symaltaniously down the side of the building. I'm not going to believe lies. Why would a conspiracy theorist want to lie for ?
@Denierbud11 You and/or nist are either liars or thick in the head.How would it be air being forced out instantaniously from top to bottom of building. That could not be a progressive collapse whatsoever. So everysingle floor symaltaniously collapsed together, when you claim it was a progressive collapse. You absolutely got no logic at all. The only people you can fool is uneducated people who don't care less about anything. Please explain on twin tower why we see dust puff through the corners
@Denierbud11 Well the building dont fall until the dust puff happen. Why do a group of paid agents think they are so cleather. Do you get paid well. Your names apear on 911 sites like a bad rash then the same group back each others lies. You keep pointing to nist which been proven by 1200 people they ignored factors. The ignorance of nist in other videos shows an inteligent person exactly what they are like. A stupid person accepts them as being right because they called experts, expert liars
@Denierbud11 No one needs to proof nist wrong as everyone fuckings knows they are wrong. Why do anyone need to proof it to others. Have you not seen the videos when they simply ignore and talk shit on stage making themselves look stupid. My goodness. You don't need solid evidence to prove someone is lieing. Its called logic and physics. If you told me you were somewere at 1 am and lied and I had information you were 100 miles away at 1.10, then i know you lied. Its about money not truth.
your incredulity is not evidence -- NIST report is accepted and supported by the scientific community -- there are over 100 peer reviewed articles that support or comment on their final report -- not one peer reviewed article says the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition
its about truth, not incredulity
saying you do not believe it is not evidence -- and no one needs to meet YOUR standard of proof -- just the scientific and legal standard
@Denierbud11 Its about lieing cunts and cover ups and money scams, deceipt against the inocent. There is 1200 engineers at least that all agree it was not a natual collapse as physics sugest otherwise. Stop trying to direct me to people who are in on the conspiracy. I dont need to prove to you or anyone to know for myself the truth. Go and anoy someone else that don't have good education. Your Telling me buisness dont lie, go away child.
@Denierbud11 To review, you need something to review, they had nothing to review only what was written down by decievers. They had deceptive information. Carry on fooling only the foolish. There is no reason for a twoofer to make things up. Many people in other countries all know it was brought down.
@Denierbud11 Your now trying to make me look like im stupid. Shows how well you know me doesn't it. The whole world isn't exactly friendly is it ?, look at the news everyday. Look at the military timeline on wikipedia, its sick how many conflicts they have had. All for what, what about all the elections, they say we do this and that and then please themselvse. All for what, BIG BUISNESS ? Money, Ruling. The world is a fantastic place, the people in it got bad attitues and their values are wrong
@Denierbud11 No I make myself look very intelligent, if only you could read it properly. Why do you expect people to provide evidence when it was proven that it was destroyed and rules were ignored by Nist. What I write, makes people do their own reasearch in order to find out what I speak about. You only think me as silly because you don't actually understand what i'm truely saying.
in what way have you done your own research? have you read the FDNY transcripts? listened to the calls? read the Arlington Fire Department report? The Shanksville report? In what way have YOU done any original research? Have you visited the site at Shanksville?
@Denierbud11 Exactly what you don't do, you just believe what you are told. Conspiracies are when people lie together. All Official writting can and will be arranged to cover up. You obviously don't understand. Research in my part is the impossibility of the physics under a given circumstance. Terrorists do not exist, otherwise there would be hundreds of attacks, look at history. Very rare of any attack. If they did exist, America deserves it for attacking other countries.
@Denierbud11 I have had so many arguments with idiots in the past and allways prooved them wrong in the end. You have a habbit of trying to controll the circumstances of the situtation and only talk about partial information and ignore the big picture, I look at the whole situation and all the information. Lets have a competition, Truthers vs conspirators, inteligence tests. I bet we will win, unless you want to fix the answers and cheat.
win at what? paranoid delusions? what do you think you could win? you can't even do research and even refuse to try
can't imagine you winning any intelligent argument but go for it -- bring your best evidence -- but here is a hint, you cannot prove a delusion by citing another paranoid delusion
@Denierbud11 The towers turned to dust, isnt that enough for you to be curious, where did the towers go. They were massive yet hardly anything was left. Lots of strange things happened that day. Your just a typicial stupid half wit. You only ever at one time look at half of the picture. It was crazy. What does 110 floors look like piled up on top of each other as in progresive collapse. Where did it all go.
@Denierbud11 Look up Dr Judy Wood, where did the Towers Go, Look at what she presents to us. The towers did turn into dust. Hardly any remains for such huge towers. They were definately obliterated, how is another question but people do have ideas. Watch her videos, it doesn't put the blame on anyone at all but shows some crazy things I never knew happend on that day that is just so crazy. Make your own mind up after watching. Its sure will give you a different view of what happened.
its a lie, Judy Woods is a lie and is delusional -- space beams? seriously/
Look at the photos of ground zero, look at the photos released by that FEMA whisle blower -- you know the one twoofers love who is hiding in Argentina -- there were small mountains of debris
you are wrong -- google image "WTC Ground Zero" see how wrong and fucked up you are
@Denierbud11 Well what I see is Two Fucking huge towers, yet no where near enough debris left and lots of dust clouds. There was beams at ground zero as i've seen them but the size of the buildings were just so much.500 tons of building in a pile would be a huge stack unless it was blow to kindom come. As it was a progressive collapse (claimed), they should have piled up much higher. Any pics don't give justification in my opinion. Everything was obliterated. I have seen many pictures.
@Denierbud11 Now your asking for serious calculations. Whos going to suply all the details.Think of all the other stuff that was inside the buidings. There was an awful lot on each floor. Furniture toilets, you name it it was inside each floor. pictures of a smaller building showing each floor piled up. Its really quite high for a small building. ps talk for yourself not for others, Some people can think for themselves or at least they should.500,000 tons suposedly though. alot of weight
its your claim there was not enough debri -- its your burden not mine
prove dustified, prove judy woods moon beams from outerspace
have you seen her lately? she looks like she is in need of serious medication, I guess you do as well
do you know they rescued people who were inside the building when it collapsed, how did people survive if everything was dustified ?? if everything was dustified, why did debri hit all those nearby buildings?
@Denierbud11 You truely are thick as shit, Why does it have to be 100% or nothing at all. You can see from the video some falling off. It definately had dust.
yes, a lot of dust -- all buildings that fall create a lot of dust, nothing unexpected
so if it wasn't 100% dustified, what % was dustified -- break out your judy woods calculator and estimate how much was missing that you think should have been there
@Denierbud11 Well its one hell of a calculation considering, I have no idea what was on every single floor. We have the building itself with the steel but on top of it we have all the stuff inside. I think a model bulit then droped to the ground would give a rough idea of the size of the rubble. If you compair other buildings after destruction you can get an idea. I can't be assed to do the calculations to be honest. What about the lack of impact noise.
for the building debri - i think that anyone would half a brain would say you could ignore things like office furniture and concentrate on the building
compare other buildings after destruction - go ahead, do the math
@Denierbud11 What you trying to say it all got dustyfied, that will be a first. What was That lady talking about when the earthquake measuring didn't show the impact noise like it should have. If you dont understand then dont worry cause your not interested in considering it anyway.
@Denierbud11 You really don't think logical at all, its really simple to understand. The building didn't hit the ground hard enough, most was dustified. Maybe. Don't worry as I said, your not interested in the data anyway as you wouldn't understand what it meant.
@Denierbud11 You are so simple minded. I expect you be happy enough to state the tons of weight of the plane hitting the building but not the weight on the ground. I guess its called physics and knowledge. Can be used in conjuction together to get a rough idea. When physics manage strange things, it then sugests other forces were at work, Hopefully I've now dustified this situation.
@Denierbud11 I've just proved you don't think logical, read back on all and think for youself instead of believing everything your told. I'm sure many truther would understand it. It was turned to dust, hence why no weight and low measurements. Who constantly measure vibrations in the earth. 500,000 tons is a lot to hit the ground with. I'm just showing how you can't think logic. You don't think for youself dude. Need someone to give you information. I am a scientist. think about it ?
@Denierbud11 Quote what scientist, what was published, You claim its wild, you claim guys do it all the time. Let me write what you really meant so idiots can read you clearly. Your trying to say there is no evidence if someone don't name scientist or put it in offical report. Your now saying the people who record earthquakes are a wild claim. You simply want to dismiss people from the truth. The buildings mass vanished, where did it go. It was dustified. I am a scientist who done readings.
You claim the buildings did not fall hard enough or some such shit
back up your claim -- I assume you are not making this up -- so you must have got this from a rebutable source -- cite your source, what the hell is so hard about that?
@Denierbud11 Have already put the source but you can't think logical, Dam your making yourself loook sillly. Would you agree that some very strange things happened on that day.
@Denierbud11 look for it yourself you dopey person, i'm proving how much you even think for yourself. My age is irelevant but i'm old to know enough history to prove its all bullshit.
Ahem..is this the SAME MIT..which estimates that 767s could fly at 500+ MPH at 800 ft above the ground?..keep working for the government dumbasses...until your money is worth shit and those handouts dry up..then you can polish Mitt Romneys ass..servants will be CHEAP.
DecassyJake 3 days ago
HOW THE AIRPLANE WINGS CUT THRU THE PERIMETER WALL
T. WIERZBICKI and X. TENG, "How the airplane wing cut
through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center",
MIT Impact and Crashworthiness Lab Report #75,
March, 2002 (submittal: Intl Journal of Impact Engineering)
Merlin5by5 6 days ago
now our twoofer is free to cite his source
watch him run
Denierbud11 1 week ago
now for instance, if I wanted to show that the collapse made the correct noise, i would cite a paper like this
"Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack"
Won-Young Kim
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University,
Palisades, N. Y. 10964, USA
and
Gerald R. Baum
Environmental Geology and Mineral Resources Program
Denierbud11 1 week ago
oh good lord what an awful person I am -- I ask for sources before accepting proposed evidence
gee -- I guess truthers do it some other way
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 The evidence is already there, you just have to do your own research. Please explain to me. 500,000 tons of building came down but when the dust cleared, everyone was wondering where the building had gone. I reapeat this 500,000 tons of buiding, Thats equivalent to 250,000 two ton cars piled up. Imagine the pile compaired to what was left, most of it was turned to dust, ps i'm not a proper turther, i'm indiviual and I can't be assed to track the source The New Hiroshima - judy wood
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
no the evidence is not there -- this is your claim, not mine
the pile was as large as it should have been -- its your claim something is amiss, so prove it
shit or get off the pot
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 The pile was too small, but ill tell you what happened to the rest of it, it was turned into dust, Thats what really happened. I mean a 2 ton car, The weight of building works out to be 250 ,000 cars stacked up. That builing was well over 1000 ft high and a few hundred feet on each side. It was crazyness how it could all vanish. You gotta be a right dickhead to try and lie against something so obvious.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
gibberjabber, argument from incredulity followed by ad hominems
wow, who'd a thunk it
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Explain how, 500,000 tons don't make much noise when it hits the ground at 120 mph. Google who is constantly measuring for earthquakes. Information was recorded. Why about all the vechiles that were half burnt and the paper that wasnt. There is nothing but madness on that day. Everyone knows the truth who is educated, not the whole truth but know it was definately Dustified.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
it did make noise when it hit the ground, it was properly recorded and is documented in many peer reviewed papers readily available
do you need references to peer reviewed papers that discuss the readings?
try : Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Of course it made noise you dopey sod, it should have but barely any noise at all compaired to the sugested weight and speed, thats how stupid you are, only ever do part of the calculation. The terrorist if you listen to any speach, they talk about themselves. Listen to it next time when you watch the speaches. They also talk about what they are going to do aswell.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
"barely any noise at all compaired to the sugested weight and speed"
support this statement -- who made these calculations?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Can['t you not logically see that its going to make a tremendous noise. compaired to none at all. Why do you want a name of a person, its logical or are you honestly that thick.Watch a video of a car hitting a concreate wall at 120 mph, watch the blokes face and his comment about the noise. physics sugest 500,000 tons falling from over 1000 ft at 120 mph hitting the ground is going to be quiet ? I'm trying to say do your own reasearch and stop beliveing others. Only way for truth
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
it did make a tremendous noise -- you are the one claiming it didn't!
If you think the noise was not loud enough then YOU need to support that! its not burden to disprove an unsupported claim by you
Denierbud11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Denierbud11 it did make a tremendous noise -- you are the one claiming it didn't!
If you think the noise was not loud enough then YOU need to support that! its not burden to disprove an unsupported claim by you.
Wrong, it was Nist who claimed so little noise. Do me a favour and watch both parts of this video "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood". I don't care if you like or hate it but please watch it and your see NIST said it was low noise. Watch both parts, its very long in total
benjyboba 1 week ago
truther: 911 was an inside job
skeptic: how do you know?
truther: I saw it on a youtube video
Denierbud11 1 week ago
Truthers run before demands for evidence like a vampire recoils before a crusifix
Denierbud11 1 week ago
gotta love the truthers, if something does not look right to them, its a conspiracy -- even if they have no informed idea of how it should have looked
why research when you have the twoof
Denierbud11 1 week ago
demand evidence and every truther scatters like a cock roach
Denierbud11 1 week ago
"Serious calculations" - twoofers worse nightmare -- having to support their delusions in the real world
Denierbud11 1 week ago
building collapse = dust clouds
watch?v=3Cb44ynJc34
Denierbud11 1 week ago
"lots of strange things happened that day"
like no shit -- two large planes flew into two large buildings
On December 7, 1941, lots of strange things happened - like four battleships sunk in air attack when never before had an American battleship been sunk in air attack
Denierbud11 1 week ago
They did not turn to dust, they created large amounts of dust when the collapsed, but that is expected in any large building collapse. There was an incredible amount of debri left -- it took how many thousands of trucks to remove the debrir -- have you seen the pictures of the debri?
Just making claims and throwing insults means nothing -- bring evidence numb nuts or leave the discussions to adults.
Denierbud11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I sugest everyone goto wikipedia and search for "Timeline of United States military operations", then browse through the huge list at how many countries and invasions they have had over the years. Do they really need this many wars in so many places. Are they defending their country, Defending is from home, so they must be attacking. I say we all stop fighting, without people, no one can fight any more. Bring your loved ones home. Lets have world peace. wars create wars and peace creates peace.
benjyboba 1 week ago
"You keep pointing to nist which been proven by 1200 people they ignored factors"
When did this happen? who are these 1200 and how have they proven NIST liars?
Denierbud11 4 weeks ago
Danny Jowenko, the only expert to opine that WTC 7 was a demolition is on record as saying the towers clearly collapsed due to fire and structural damage from the planes
Denierbud11 1 month ago
How can passing judgment without examining the evidence produce the truth?
I guess when its the twoof, evidence does not matter
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Destroying the evidence at a crime scene is a crime. Why does the top nist men ignore possibilities, From the 1993 bombings, anyone would have thought that would be the first thing to check for. Its a cover up. If I am wrong I appoligise but logically things don't add up. Watch the video "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". I also watch official videos, so i'm not biased but I sway truthers logical explainations as it shows experimental proof.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"Destroying the evidence at a crime scene is a crime"
who did that ??
"From the 1993 bombings, anyone would have thought that would be the first thing to check for"
except for the fact that large planes struck the towers
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 You are seriously dumb, What the hell does large planes hit the towers have to do with it falling down, Now im gonna get a lecture. So my point is nist ignored the fact that thermitic materials were found. Meaning explosives. So nist asumed the planes brought it down. Those towers were made to withstand multiple plane hits as stated during the building videos. Also watch empire state vid and they say about designing future buildings to withstand. Nist logic don't add up.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"You are seriously dumb, What the hell does large planes hit the towers have to do with it falling down"
LOL
argument from incredulity or stupidity -- someone please opine
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Now your being laughed at by real scientists. Check out this video "What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like", Learn physics that matter.Why didn't the top of the towers crush into itself. There is plenty of old videos of contruction of the towers and you hear they were designed to withstand airplane hits. If you talk about fires, then please state them as nano thermite, not uncontrolled jet fuel, that burnt off anyway. ps watch all 9 parts in the other vid i post to you. Learn
benjyboba 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benjyboba
"Now your being laughed at by real scientists."
Like who? name the demolition expert who thinks WTC was a demolition?
Or do you believe Judy Woods and her space beams?
Why do you refuse to look at evidence outside of the twoofer camp? Why do you cast shame and accusations at the FDNY who lost 300 brothers and sister on that day?
You, who claim the statements are false with out reading them, you have no reason to point fingers at anyone's examination of evidence.
Denierbud11 1 month ago
truthers do not need to see evidence, they know the truth based upon what they see on truther sites
pathetic children
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Would you honestly trust a paid agency, the money is what causes people to do as they are told. I have looked at the official stuff only to find information that doesn't add up. Am I suposed to believe like all the other uneducated people. If the offical did a proper investigation then I would believe them. Discovery chanel done a vid, can thermite melt a steel beam. It never but some randon person did the experiement for themselves and found it needed to be enclosed, then it cuts.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
I honestly trust the men who risk their lives every day -- the same men who had over 300 of their sons, brothers and fathers die that day
that you slander them with an unsupported accusation is dispicable -- you sir are the worst of man -- no human life is lower than you
so fuck off
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 your a sicker fuck that anyone can imagine, using inocent victims to hide the truths. Actually the sick people are the ones who brought down the buildings. You can't intergrate the truth and victims as if they are the same thing. Lieing is disrespectful. There is more truthers than lieing cunts. You have to abuse people, I want the truth for the inocent who suffered. The sick ones are the ones who commit the crime, not the people that want the truths revealed. Truthers have feelings
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
Go to a FDNY fire house -- tell them your theory that they are liars -- be sure to bring a friend to photo your ass kicking
anyone like you is not after the truth -- you've declared the victims to be liars without examining their words
there are some sick fucks in the truth movement
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 In building 7, no one was hurt, there was no victims.in the other towers, people were murdered. The rescuers were murdered. Lets not go away from the fact that, the people that brought the towers down, didn't come from another country. If you look your find truthers who had loved ones lost and they are not stupid. Building 7 was a controlled demolition for a fact. Truthers are not to blame for the murders, They just try to put the real name to the murderers. We are fed bullshit.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Stop trying to twist my words to make me sound to others like I am abusing. We all know how an idiot thinks. Who do you think suports the victims more, the truthers or the conspirators. No truther has ever attacked a victim, only conspirators have done that. Do you think the real criminals should get away with the crimes. They comit a crime, then blame someone else and go and commit another crime. Its called deception. I was talking about wtc 7, so don't prentend it was two towers.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
my words
"no one controls a group like the FDNY and for you to dismiss them out of hand is the height of ignorance"
your words
"Would you honestly trust a paid agency"
enough said
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Money is control. I tell you what i'll pay you good money to do something for me and you will do it. No one was harmed in building 7. Your so simple minded, I could fool you easily. Maybe they knew it was coming down and were paid to keep quiet. They kept the area clear and safe. Please explain to me, why all the other buildings surrounding the towers, were still standing with much worse damage. It does not make sense. A lot of strange things happened on that day and only that day.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
Fact
FDNY commanders predicted the building would collapse
fact
there is no evidence they were manipulated
fact
you refuse to look at their statements, so convinced are you in the power the twoof
there is no evidence you will not ignore, you simply beilieve what you wish to believe
worse than that, you claim the statements you have not read were manipulated
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Its simply obvious the top people were in on it or told advice or even paid to keep say what they did. Why should I have an attitude like I do. Its because too many people tell lies. Not everyone needs to know, people will do a lot for money. Well lets try looking at some physics, how nist manipulated things to suit themselves. Watch this "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". Whos to say the fire people wasn't fucking fbi in discuise. I keep an open mind and not believe much
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"Whos to say the fire people wasn't fucking fbi in discuise. I keep an open mind and not believe much"
That statement is not a product of an open mind -- its either a statement from ignorance or arrogance
The FDNY commanders are known, have been with the department for many years, many have family lost that day
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Truthers do not need to see evidence, of course they need evidence, are you a complete idiot. You totally ignored everything they said, What is evidence. Well if someone told you a lie and then someone else did experiement and proved the physics. Then wouldn't you know they are lieing. People like you are too simple to think logical. I'll call you a half wit. Your the sort of person who would go invade another country wtihout solid proof they attacked. Look at history proof they lie
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"What is evidence"
the statements of eyewitnesses, such as the words and testimony of over 500 first responders, transcribed and publically available - the evidence that you refuse to examine and dismiss out of hand
ignorance, arrogance and stupidity all come to mind
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Manipulation, if someone has something to hide they manipulate it. Sometimes they don't need to hide something, when the person involved is being deceived. No one had any intentions of saving building 7, the original intention was to demolition it. Buildings on fire do not collapse how stupid nist say. Nist ignore everything they been told.If nist listened to truthers and did experiements, then they wouldn't have their jobs. They got no choice. wtc 7 is a deception. They way it fell
benjyboba 1 month ago
One question, I'd like to ask, had this plane been flying much faster, could that pole have chopped the wing completely off. Anyone know what the lamposts were made out of with the pentagon plane. It hit quite a few, apparently they designed to fall over but at those speeds, they wouldnt have fallen a few feet where they were and could have done massive impact damage. Also why so many people try to tell me to stop listening to truthers. I do my own reasearch. They are persuading me to lies ?
benjyboba 1 month ago
The wings don't seem to cut through a pole, so a steel beam would cut them off too. Also would like to mention. I see a plane test at 500 mph against concreate, its on youtube. look it up, the plane disintergrates. The floors had concreate on the wtc and also the building was designed to sway in the wind. If you believe the offical bullshit then your a fool.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 and a video that is uncontested, untampered with, and doesn't look like it was shot on your parents fuck cam in the 80's.
railroadwino1 1 month ago
@railroadwino1
leave it to truthers to start slandering
Denierbud11 1 month ago
Where did you get 14 inch of steel idiot ? It was built with box section get a life fuckwit.
geocom75 1 month ago
thumbs up for logic :")
pupspepper 1 month ago
prophecy2020
regarding your comment @3:37
.."the wing was cut off by a 12'[sic] phone pole"
FYI 12' means 12 feet
Voice Over @3:16
"The 12 inch telephone pole cuts off the outer panel but, the heavier inboard section breaks off a larger 13 inch telephone pole. The basic wing structure remains intact"
Clearly the 12" pole DID NOT "cut the wing off". If you review the video carefully you will see that only the tip of the wing is clipped off(as the vo states).
NWOisBS 2 months ago 3
@NWOisBS yeh but dont you think the 2.5 in thick steel on the wtc which was as strong as the t50s front armor would be enough to cut a wing in half which clearly didnt happen on 9/11
poznanski666 2 months ago
@poznanski666
"2.5 in thick steel on the wtc "
"Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) with the grade of steel presumably dictated by the stresses indicated by the calculated gravity and wind loads." - NIST NCSTAR 1-3 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster- Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
NWOisBS 1 month ago
@NWOisBS ive herd this one before if you look at the picture with the women standing in the hole in the building you can see the column is obviously larger than she is so i dont think .25 in is the correct measurement false info presented, but thats my opinion so its just an opinion like evryone elses
poznanski666 1 month ago
@poznanski666
"column is obviously larger than she is so i dont think .25 in is the correct measurement false info presented, "
WTF? That makes absolutely no sense!
If you people would take some time to research how the perimeter walls were fabricated you would know that they were built using hollow box columns constructed of 1/4" plate steel(for the upper floors).
Refer to chapter 2 of the doc in my previous comment or check other sources. This is a well documented fact.
NWOisBS 1 month ago
i think the funniest comment of all is wat about the windows there not made out of steel a comment like this is a mockery to steel frame construction and its funny how the building was designed to take a plane no matter how much kinetic energy it had
poznanski666 2 months ago
@poznanski666
"the building was designed to take a plane no matter how much kinetic energy it had "
this is a lie
Denierbud11 2 months ago
I see truthers tried to have a WTC 7 demonstration during the occupy wallstreet rally -- epic fail, they had 20 some people show -- I have more people over my house for Thanksgiving!
Which shows how fringe truthers are
Denierbud11 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Denierbud11 or it shows how dumb american people are
poznanski666 2 months ago
"At normal speeds, during a perfectly inelastic collision, an object struck by a projectile will deform, and this deformation will absorb most, or even all, of the force of the collision. " - feel free to try google for the next part
Denierbud11 2 months ago
So does anyone believe an aluminum plane wing is going to cut through multiple steel columns, 1/4 inch thick, 1/8 inch thick, or however thick it was?
Does it matter how fast the plane was going? Newton's 3rd Law of motion anyone? Equal and opposite reaction on impact.
And how about actual floor slabs where the plane impacted as well. At least part of it would have hit a level of flooring.
And still the entire plane enters the building?
Give me a break.
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@LifePsyop
the entire world believes, other than a few truthers who hide behind their screens -- there is not one expert who will go on record saying phyics tells us this is impossible -- why do you think that is?
even AE911 knows this is a stupid argument
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 Is that your rebuttal? "No experts have come forward so it is moot." ??
Tell me.... pretend you are a Physics Expert/Professor... The whole nation is whipped up in a War on Terror fervor.. Are you going to step out alone in front of everyone and say what we saw on video was impossible? How about ten years later when the entire world has been endlessly saturated with 9/11 News-Loops, Movies, and Documentaries, etc. Are you now going to come forward?
Think about it.
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@LifePsyop
Wasn't it Princeton that did an animated simulation of the impact -- and it was published and peer reviewed as well
and yes, I would expect an expert to come forth -- surely there is one honest PhD out there
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 I think it was Purdue University, and there was no mention of the physical makeup of the plane in relation to the WTC. None. They just showed the plane impact animation and said "that's what happened"
As far as I know (and I've looked), To this day there has not been one expert / scientific demonstration or explanation of how the aluminum/fiberglass airplane wings were able to penetrate the multiple steel columns and floor slabs of the WTC.
Do you not find that a bit odd?
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@LifePsyop
no -- its fairly obviouse that the planes hit, that the planes entered the towers -- what did you expect, the planes to bounce off? the outside of the towers were aluminum clad with a thin steel frame -- no concrete other than the floor slabs -- not much to stop a 200,000 lb plane moving at 500 mph
In WWII, jap planes were destroying armored warships with much smaller planes -- a B-25 (or B-26) hit the empire state building - that building had concrete walls
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 That you're comparing the Boeing to WW2 Kamikaze planes, WHICH WERE LADEN WITH BOMBS, TORPEDOES, EXPLOSIVES, ETC. is pretty revealing of your knowledge here.
What did I expect the 9/11 planes to do? Obey the laws of physics and motion. Planes are very fragile and will come apart very easily when met with resistance. (many videos demonstrate this) Yes the arrays of steel columns and concrete floors, would have tore the airplanes to crap in reality.
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 To clarify, it does not give the airplane special powers over a building just because it is heavy and fast. The force of 200,000 lbs traveling at 500 mph applied to the WTC building, is applied equally and oppositely back onto the airplane. It doesn't matter how heavy or how fast it was going, the materials of the plane were much weaker than the materials of the WTC walls. The body of the plane does not show any deformation as the front enters the building. It is fake.
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@LifePsyop
to be clear, you are dead wrong and you demonstrate that most twoofers did not pass fundamental physics
pick up a physics book, flip to the chapter on impact mechanics -- or ask a person more knowledgeable than you, most likely anyone you pass on the street
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 It's called Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
I see you don't comprehend this basic concept, and have resorted to group-think "twoofer" ad hominem attacks. So long, clown. No more time wasted on you.
LifePsyop 2 months ago
@LifePsyop
yep -- good luck in life, watch out for the hollow earth, fake moon landing and holocaust deniers
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@LifePsyop LOL, velocity and mass is what I meant to write.
D'oh!
belowthepovertyline 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 You can blather and blubber about physics terminology all you want but the video above shows a TELEPHONE POLE cutting through a plane like butter.
railroadwino1 1 month ago
@railroadwino1
that plane is landing, much smaller, and the poles still do not stop the plane
and what the hell, its not like thousands of people did not see it from the streets -- many saw and heard it
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Maybe they thought they saw a commercial airliner is what you mean to say.
railroadwino1 1 month ago
@railroadwino1
yeah thousands saw a commercial airliner that made the hole the size of a commercial airliner -- from all walks of life
go to ground zero and try the no plane crap
Denierbud11 1 month ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Denierbud11 No I'm good. It's such a weird thing to see anti-truth people so willingly and bitterly attack critical thought, suppress information, and defend people who would send them to die for far, far, far less than even a 1% increase in revenue. Don't you realize you are only hurting yourself by getting all shitty about just letting people have their "conspiracy theories"?
railroadwino1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Denierbud11 yeah thousands saw a commercial airliner that made the hole the size of a commercial airliner -- from all walks of life
go to ground zero and try the no plane crap
Thats easy to fake, The building had bombs in it and they blew it up. There isnt many vids on net of the towers considering the amount of people in the area. then have the wreckage ready at ground zero. I'm not saying this happened, just its possible to fake. You try to make it sound like its not possible.
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@LifePsyop Velocity and momentum are the ONLY thing that matter in the collision. Are you seriously stating that they don't matter? Look up the equations for conservation of momentum, my man, because that's what's relevant to the issue. Denierbud11 was correct.
belowthepovertyline 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 "In WWII, jap planes were destroying armored warships with much smaller planes -- a B-25 (or B-26) hit the empire state building - that building had concrete walls". What about the bombs on board the planes, think about what you don't relise. Also, check out the 500 mph plane into concreate on youtube. See the effects.There is more to physics than just weight and energy.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
the youtube video is a phantom jet hitting a reinforced concrete wall that is designed to resist it -- the WTC had NO concrete along the exterior -- the walls were aluminum clad and steel.
and many of the kamikazis did not have bombs -- get off the truther sites and do some real research
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Do you relise what you just said, TRUTHERS "read a fucking dictionary to what truth means". Learn about physics for youself, dont listen to a bunch of liars. You say that it was designed for the crash but I challenge you to build a concreate block and smash a carinto at high speed. In actual fact try a car into steel box columns of the same as wtc dimentions and design. I do my own reasearch, What happends to car when they crash, they crumple. so the plane isn't capable of crumpling
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
what the hell are you saying?
the plane hit the WTC -- thousands witnessed the event
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 I'll leave that up to you to work out what I mean. Numbers don't sugest circumstances. I try not to watch too much tv as its full of lies. Crazy how two different stations in different parts of the world are both saying different things. That means someone is lieing. I often sound like i'm talking mumble jumble but I know what I mean. Sorry if I not great at english. take care
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
its possible that a station simply has the story wrong, being wrong is not a lie -- a lie is an intentional act
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Do you mean the controlled media, the ones who air the collaspe of building on wrong date by accident. The media quite often do as they are told. Mistakes arent lies but if you do enough viewing, your find many live broadcasts and lots of infomation which seems suspect to prior knowledge. What did the government say at the election and what did they do once elected. We could say that for everyyear they been in power. Almost. Who listens to the public. Look at history to relise.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"the ones who air the collaspe of building on wrong date by accident"
Who would this be? Are you referring to the BBC claiming that WTC 7 had collapsed a half hour before it did? That is hardly proof of anything. Media often gets the story wrong -- hours before the building collapsed the FDNY was predicting a collapse and pulled its men back.
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 They had prior knowledge and find the vid for yourself to see how long before it actually fell, the time difference was too much to bullshit a lie like that. I would like to know how they predicted a collapse anyway, when there was hardly any damage and fires don't bring down buildings like they say. Look at the madrid building that burnt for 20 hours. There is some video of it and its a proper fire, it don't fall. Also look at the proper research on building 7 showing it was a lie.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
it was a half hour -- the BBC was a half hour early -- they made a mistake - only in truther world does the news NEVER get a story wrong
and the FDNY stated ahead of time the building was going to collapse - that is a fact, so the question to you is simple, were they truthful, liars or incompetent?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Please tell me how the FDNY said it was going to collaspe, Is that proof it was planed to bring it down. All I can say is we got too many idiots in the world. No one could pridict a building was going to collapse. It shouldn't have collapsed when you do your reasearch and find out how the building was built. There is no way i'm going to accept the lies. They might lie to idiots but not to me or many other truthers. It was a controlled demolition, Do some research and your learn why.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
have you read the transcripts of the oral testimony of the FDNY? If not I suggest you do so before continuing the discussion
just like a truther, you only get your information from other truthers and never investigate for yourself
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Do you not know what the word Conspiracy means, no bullshit paperwork or anything reveals any truth. For example, why was there so much important information not included in the 911 commision report. They ignored it simply because they conspired. Just watch the interview with the guy from fema when his asked about molten metel. Watch his reactions with body launguage. You have to be dumb not to notice. I got nothing more to say as it then becomes a pointless argument.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
so you have not read the transcripts and have no wish to actually do research
typical truther, you have the faith
rather funny and a bit pathetic
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 I'm glad you responded like the fool that you are, stop trying to direct people to the lies. Now do you understand ignorance of truthers. Look up 911 lies never stop. Look at the reaction on the guy and how interested he is in the truth. Thats good enough for me to not want to read a ton of controlled bullshit. These people have no choice but to lie. See his reactions. Faith or common sense and lots of research of science. What you don't understand is its called control (deceptions)
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
so again, there is a critical element of evidence of which you are ignorant and you have no desire to examine the evidence
the testimony of first responders who were there that day is evidence -- by any definition of the word
no one controls a group like the FDNY and for you to dismiss them out of hand is the height of ignorance
pathetic child
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 Well if you have the buliding standing behind when it was said and they didn't notice it, then they must have been told it collapsed. Which means someone had prior knowledge. You don't say its collasped until its collasped. If you were on the scene and someone said wtc 7 just collasped, wouldn't you look and see for yourself and ask questions. No one would know its going to collapse unless they planed to bring it down. Madrid building stood after 20 hour fire.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"Madrid building stood after 20 hour fire. "
Not entirely accurate
"A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire"
Google MACE Windsor Tower Fire
Read the report and maybe you'll learn something.
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@wontuguessmyname I did mean the whole structure didn't fall. I did watch another video about that building and lots of other info. But after it didnt crush itself into dust. Thats a long fire 20 hours.and it was a blazing inferno. The pile driver effect. Watch "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting" 9 parts about physics, I know some of the madrid fire tower fell but it wasn't complete collapse and it made wtc fires look small. wtc had 3 hour fire in the past over 6 floors.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
Clearly you either did not read the MACE study on the Windsor Tower Fire or you are not very asute. There were several major structural differences between the Windsor Tower and the WTC buildings. The Windsor Tower had two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) which the WTC towers lacked. The Windsor Tower had a reinforced concrete central core - WTC towers did not.
The Windsor also did not had a 767 slam into it at 500 mph.
Apples vs Oranges
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@wontuguessmyname You miss it completely, the fire in the towers couldn't have caused it to collapse. Thats a fact proven by independant investigators. Its been proven it would take 50% structure failure too and it was very little damage done. The colour of the smoke and colour of the fire tells us it wasn't even hot enough to weaken the steel. So now explain a 20 hour fire, could a simple fire get as hot as a 20 hour fire. The difference between the two towers and the madrid fire was huge.
benjyboba 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benjyboba
"The colour of the smoke and colour of the fire tells us it wasn't even hot enough to weaken the steel"
this is a lie that you repeat from board to board -- cite ANY fire analysis that supports this claim
bet you can't
liar
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"the fire in the towers couldn't have caused it to collapse."
Really? Well technically speaking the 767 slamming into the side of the Towers and damaging the structure as well as dislodging fireproofing from the steel were also a contributing factor.
If you do a little research you will find that building fires can easily reach temperatures of about 1000 ºC. The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less.
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@wontuguessmyname Your as thick as shit, 90% don't believe the offical story (fact), David chandler isnt dismissed, its fucking ignored.
benjyboba 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benjyboba
"Your as thick .." - I'm clearly more educated and informed than you.
"90% don't believe the offical story" Not according to a poll conducted by Angus Reid Global Monitor(03/21/10) - Most Americans Reject 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
"Only 15 per cent of respondents think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible".
"David chandler isnt dismissed, its fucking ignored" There's a reason he's ignored, physics!
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@benjyboba
David Chandler are you serious?
Chandler's "theories" were dismissed a long time ago anyone with an understanding of Physics watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@wontuguessmyname I watched the video and see how nist are trying to merge a progressive collapse with a total collapse. The building didn't collapse until the dust puffs apear clearly on many videos on the right of the building (noticeable on some vids). The whole building from that point falls at freefall speed aprox. This was a planned demolition. Explain how dust puffs apear down the whole right hand side simaltainiously. David Chandler is right and nist are trying to misslead the people.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
"Explain how dust puffs apear down the whole right hand side simaltainiously"
Explaint how those puffs could signify explosions sufficient to bring down the tower?
why is there not one demolition expert in the world that supports your theory?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 I guess you best do yourself a favour and actually search for the video. When you find it then try and dispute it on that video if you think your cleather enough. Why should I explain it to you as your not interested in telling the truth but deceiving people. Try watching many controlled demolition videos then tell me if they exist or not, When measureing freefall, we don't measure the time it takes but actual acceleration. ps I am replying to wtc 7, just to make it clear.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba
no, I am not going to search for a video that I think fullfills your delusions
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I think this poor kid has already drank too deeply of the twoof kool-aid to save with actual science. He still believes wtc 7 fell at freefall time.
wontuguessmyname 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 More like the official is delusions, everyone with good education knows this. Proof is in the fact the official trys working by overall including progressive time but gravity is truely worked out by acceleration, Whos to say the top left wasnt planed to make it look the way they wanted as when the whole building fell it was at aprox freefall speed. No building progressively completely collaspses inside then the outside sudenly goes in to freefall once it fully collapsed. your mental
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@benjyboba
argument from incredulity -- try providing something with evidence -- saying everyone knows is not an argument that supports twoofer delusions
Denierbud11 4 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Its called physics and its already been proven, all you do is to continue to lie, its all you have left. What I mean by this, i'll explain it for the people without education. You measured the time taken from first noticeable movement until it was completely down. Lets just say we got in a car and pulled away gently at first, then waited a few seconds then slammed the pedal to the floor. This comparison is an example of acceleration between start and finish dont have to be the same
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@benjyboba
appeal to authority, ad hominems followed by argument from incredulity
WTC did not fall in free fall for the duration, only a small portion exhibited free fall -- your analogies are completely off
Denierbud11 4 weeks ago 3
@Denierbud11 Explain to me how the small portion exhibited free fall. To have any free fall means there was no resisitance. Lets look how symetrically it fell down with a wedge in the middle. So it started collapse on left and then wedged in middle and decided to come down symetrically. It was brought down, there are vids on youtube showing wtc 7 with dust puffs appear symaltaniously down the side of the building. I'm not going to believe lies. Why would a conspiracy theorist want to lie for ?
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@benjyboba
read the NIST report
dust puffs while it is falling -- why is this a surprise? air is being forced out as the building collapses
Puffs BEFORE the collapse might mean something
Denierbud11 4 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 You and/or nist are either liars or thick in the head.How would it be air being forced out instantaniously from top to bottom of building. That could not be a progressive collapse whatsoever. So everysingle floor symaltaniously collapsed together, when you claim it was a progressive collapse. You absolutely got no logic at all. The only people you can fool is uneducated people who don't care less about anything. Please explain on twin tower why we see dust puff through the corners
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Well the building dont fall until the dust puff happen. Why do a group of paid agents think they are so cleather. Do you get paid well. Your names apear on 911 sites like a bad rash then the same group back each others lies. You keep pointing to nist which been proven by 1200 people they ignored factors. The ignorance of nist in other videos shows an inteligent person exactly what they are like. A stupid person accepts them as being right because they called experts, expert liars
benjyboba 4 weeks ago
@benjyboba
so who proved NIST lied? when
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 No one needs to proof nist wrong as everyone fuckings knows they are wrong. Why do anyone need to proof it to others. Have you not seen the videos when they simply ignore and talk shit on stage making themselves look stupid. My goodness. You don't need solid evidence to prove someone is lieing. Its called logic and physics. If you told me you were somewere at 1 am and lied and I had information you were 100 miles away at 1.10, then i know you lied. Its about money not truth.
benjyboba 2 weeks ago
@benjyboba
your incredulity is not evidence -- NIST report is accepted and supported by the scientific community -- there are over 100 peer reviewed articles that support or comment on their final report -- not one peer reviewed article says the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition
its about truth, not incredulity
saying you do not believe it is not evidence -- and no one needs to meet YOUR standard of proof -- just the scientific and legal standard
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Its about lieing cunts and cover ups and money scams, deceipt against the inocent. There is 1200 engineers at least that all agree it was not a natual collapse as physics sugest otherwise. Stop trying to direct me to people who are in on the conspiracy. I dont need to prove to you or anyone to know for myself the truth. Go and anoy someone else that don't have good education. Your Telling me buisness dont lie, go away child.
benjyboba 2 weeks ago
@benjyboba
so the entire peer review process, even in countries not friendly to the US, are all in on the conspiracy?
that's what twoofers are seen a delusional
pethetic scum
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 To review, you need something to review, they had nothing to review only what was written down by decievers. They had deceptive information. Carry on fooling only the foolish. There is no reason for a twoofer to make things up. Many people in other countries all know it was brought down.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
your incredulity is cute
if you had anything more, i'd be happy to show you why you are wrong
however, parahoid delusions that the whole world is against you is just beyond help
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Your now trying to make me look like im stupid. Shows how well you know me doesn't it. The whole world isn't exactly friendly is it ?, look at the news everyday. Look at the military timeline on wikipedia, its sick how many conflicts they have had. All for what, what about all the elections, they say we do this and that and then please themselvse. All for what, BIG BUISNESS ? Money, Ruling. The world is a fantastic place, the people in it got bad attitues and their values are wrong
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
you make yourself look stupid, you do not need my help
again, paranoid delusions are not evidence
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 No I make myself look very intelligent, if only you could read it properly. Why do you expect people to provide evidence when it was proven that it was destroyed and rules were ignored by Nist. What I write, makes people do their own reasearch in order to find out what I speak about. You only think me as silly because you don't actually understand what i'm truely saying.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
in what way have you done your own research? have you read the FDNY transcripts? listened to the calls? read the Arlington Fire Department report? The Shanksville report? In what way have YOU done any original research? Have you visited the site at Shanksville?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Exactly what you don't do, you just believe what you are told. Conspiracies are when people lie together. All Official writting can and will be arranged to cover up. You obviously don't understand. Research in my part is the impossibility of the physics under a given circumstance. Terrorists do not exist, otherwise there would be hundreds of attacks, look at history. Very rare of any attack. If they did exist, America deserves it for attacking other countries.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
so the answer to my question is that you have not done any research because you already believe the truther version
interesting - further proof of what a small mind truthers have
why do you call on people to do research when you yourself have not done any?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 I have had so many arguments with idiots in the past and allways prooved them wrong in the end. You have a habbit of trying to controll the circumstances of the situtation and only talk about partial information and ignore the big picture, I look at the whole situation and all the information. Lets have a competition, Truthers vs conspirators, inteligence tests. I bet we will win, unless you want to fix the answers and cheat.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
win at what? paranoid delusions? what do you think you could win? you can't even do research and even refuse to try
can't imagine you winning any intelligent argument but go for it -- bring your best evidence -- but here is a hint, you cannot prove a delusion by citing another paranoid delusion
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 The towers turned to dust, isnt that enough for you to be curious, where did the towers go. They were massive yet hardly anything was left. Lots of strange things happened that day. Your just a typicial stupid half wit. You only ever at one time look at half of the picture. It was crazy. What does 110 floors look like piled up on top of each other as in progresive collapse. Where did it all go.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
in what world did the towers turn to dust?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Look up Dr Judy Wood, where did the Towers Go, Look at what she presents to us. The towers did turn into dust. Hardly any remains for such huge towers. They were definately obliterated, how is another question but people do have ideas. Watch her videos, it doesn't put the blame on anyone at all but shows some crazy things I never knew happend on that day that is just so crazy. Make your own mind up after watching. Its sure will give you a different view of what happened.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
its a lie, Judy Woods is a lie and is delusional -- space beams? seriously/
Look at the photos of ground zero, look at the photos released by that FEMA whisle blower -- you know the one twoofers love who is hiding in Argentina -- there were small mountains of debris
you are wrong -- google image "WTC Ground Zero" see how wrong and fucked up you are
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Well what I see is Two Fucking huge towers, yet no where near enough debris left and lots of dust clouds. There was beams at ground zero as i've seen them but the size of the buildings were just so much.500 tons of building in a pile would be a huge stack unless it was blow to kindom come. As it was a progressive collapse (claimed), they should have piled up much higher. Any pics don't give justification in my opinion. Everything was obliterated. I have seen many pictures.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
lots of debri, lots of clouds and lots of dead -- steel imbedded in other buildings
yet no space beams or moon beams
how high should it have been? do the math, let's see what you have
prove the space beams -- yep, another twoofer who things arguments from incredulity
saying you do not believe it means not a damn thing to me, or anyone else
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Now your asking for serious calculations. Whos going to suply all the details.Think of all the other stuff that was inside the buidings. There was an awful lot on each floor. Furniture toilets, you name it it was inside each floor. pictures of a smaller building showing each floor piled up. Its really quite high for a small building. ps talk for yourself not for others, Some people can think for themselves or at least they should.500,000 tons suposedly though. alot of weight
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
its your claim there was not enough debri -- its your burden not mine
prove dustified, prove judy woods moon beams from outerspace
have you seen her lately? she looks like she is in need of serious medication, I guess you do as well
do you know they rescued people who were inside the building when it collapsed, how did people survive if everything was dustified ?? if everything was dustified, why did debri hit all those nearby buildings?
dustified - love that term
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 You truely are thick as shit, Why does it have to be 100% or nothing at all. You can see from the video some falling off. It definately had dust.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
yes, a lot of dust -- all buildings that fall create a lot of dust, nothing unexpected
so if it wasn't 100% dustified, what % was dustified -- break out your judy woods calculator and estimate how much was missing that you think should have been there
be sure to show your math
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Well its one hell of a calculation considering, I have no idea what was on every single floor. We have the building itself with the steel but on top of it we have all the stuff inside. I think a model bulit then droped to the ground would give a rough idea of the size of the rubble. If you compair other buildings after destruction you can get an idea. I can't be assed to do the calculations to be honest. What about the lack of impact noise.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
for the building debri - i think that anyone would half a brain would say you could ignore things like office furniture and concentrate on the building
compare other buildings after destruction - go ahead, do the math
"What about the lack of impact noise'
what the fuck does this mean? lack of what noise?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 What you trying to say it all got dustyfied, that will be a first. What was That lady talking about when the earthquake measuring didn't show the impact noise like it should have. If you dont understand then dont worry cause your not interested in considering it anyway.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
what was fuck are you talking about?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 You really don't think logical at all, its really simple to understand. The building didn't hit the ground hard enough, most was dustified. Maybe. Don't worry as I said, your not interested in the data anyway as you wouldn't understand what it meant.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
the building did not hit the ground hard enough? who the hell came to this conclusion?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 You are so simple minded. I expect you be happy enough to state the tons of weight of the plane hitting the building but not the weight on the ground. I guess its called physics and knowledge. Can be used in conjuction together to get a rough idea. When physics manage strange things, it then sugests other forces were at work, Hopefully I've now dustified this situation.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
no - you claimed the building did not hit the ground hard enough -- who made the claim and when?
is English a second language for you?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Scientists recorded data. The graphs show it.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
what scientist, what graph, when published, what was their opinion?
Is English a second language or do you just write on the 2nd grade level?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 I've just proved you don't think logical, read back on all and think for youself instead of believing everything your told. I'm sure many truther would understand it. It was turned to dust, hence why no weight and low measurements. Who constantly measure vibrations in the earth. 500,000 tons is a lot to hit the ground with. I'm just showing how you can't think logic. You don't think for youself dude. Need someone to give you information. I am a scientist. think about it ?
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
so you can't quote the scientist who said this, when he said it and when it was published
if you can't support your argument, just say so, no shame in a truther being wrong or unable to support some wild claim, you guys do it all the time
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Quote what scientist, what was published, You claim its wild, you claim guys do it all the time. Let me write what you really meant so idiots can read you clearly. Your trying to say there is no evidence if someone don't name scientist or put it in offical report. Your now saying the people who record earthquakes are a wild claim. You simply want to dismiss people from the truth. The buildings mass vanished, where did it go. It was dustified. I am a scientist who done readings.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
You claim the buildings did not fall hard enough or some such shit
back up your claim -- I assume you are not making this up -- so you must have got this from a rebutable source -- cite your source, what the hell is so hard about that?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Have already put the source but you can't think logical, Dam your making yourself loook sillly. Would you agree that some very strange things happened on that day.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
no you have not given a source -- saying "some guy" is not a source, just as "scientist recorded data" is also not a source
that you think it is shows how moronic you are
how old are you?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 look for it yourself you dopey person, i'm proving how much you even think for yourself. My age is irelevant but i'm old to know enough history to prove its all bullshit.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba
no, I am not going to look for what you THINK supports your unsupported claim
see -- this is how truthers work and why they are laughed at -- in the adult world, if you make a claim you are expected to support it
Denierbud11 1 week ago