Ye the debris hitting the tower started numerous fires in the building melting through steel structures like a knife through butter, completely disintergrating the entire building, makes sense...cocksucker
This video totally convinced me now that I was wrong. Very wrong. I never considered that these debris could damage WTC 7 so badly that it fell in 6 sec in it's own footprint. And don't forget these immense fires. They must've nearly melted that building. No wonder there was molten steal found in the ashes. Look at Newtonians 3rd law. What an idiot he must've been. This video disproves his so called "axioms" completely.
Thanks for this video mate. You're a personal hero for me now
I'm yet to meet ANYONE in the truther movement who will claim NO damage happened to building 7. What kind of idiotic intro is that? Find me ONE PERSON who claims that! I challenge you!! On the other hand we ALL know that the damage done was technically 'structural' yet would not lead to the PENTHOUSE COLLAPSING FIRST! That's the issue. Obviously structures were cut. lo-temp diesel fires can't weaken steel significantly in this scenario.
WTC7 took a major hit from the N tower. You can see it even more clearly from other videos. What most of the "Conspiracy" videos omit is the beginning of the collapse, a good 8 seconds before the main facade goes down- some footage shows the W penthouse disappearing as the building begins to collapse internally. This then continues from W (the most heavily damaged end, with large fires raging on the lower floors) to E, until by the time the facade goes down, there is already v. little behind it.
in the worst air accidents they found "rests" of a plane... i remember a 747 crashing into a 20 mts building, the plane recently taked off so it was full of gasoline... of course the building was damaged but not even close to fall.. of course was a controlled demolition
@SheepAsleepWakeUp Im almost certain that the 'squibs' are pulverized materials being ejected out the building due to the building being compressed. As for flashes, I have never seen any, and I've watched all the collapse videos that I'm aware of, and even if there are flashes, who's to say it isn't just the sun reflecting from the building, or the electronics in the building sparking?
@SheepAsleepWakeUp "The building fell at the rate of gravity. It collapsed in less than 7 seconds." If the building really fell that fast than it would be falling FASTER Than the rate of gravity numbnuts. Gravity pulls at 9.81M/s^2
r2 = distance from centre of m2 to falling body (m1) squared (ir radius squared) since you are to stupid to explain what all this means I'll tell you. The building when need rocket boosters to fall in 7 seconds.
I don't mean to be rude, but all I see here is only one piece of debris making a definite collision with the upper floors of tower 7. And I see 2 problems with this: 1 - One piece of debris cannot lead to enough damage to lead to a building's collapse 2 - The collapse was initiated at a much lower level, so this piece of debris is irrelevant. Unfortunately, because of the angle of this video, we cannot determine whether or not the other larger pieces impacted the tower at lower levels.
There is newly released documented evidence into the 9/11 investigation, I found this to be some of the most informative information about 9/11 so far.
This is also a terrific video to show that the tower did NOT fall at free-fall speed. In the second clip at the 22 second mark you can see a large piece of wall falling just to the right of WTC 7. It then disappears behind another building. That peice represents free fall speed. Then the video zooms out and you can see at 32 seconds that more debris is still falling away from the building, visible just above WTC 7. So 10 seconds later approx. 60-70 floors still remain behind the dust.
shame how this video DOESN'T actually manage to show any PROOF of "debris" actually HITTING B7...sure it looks "close"...but given depth perception all of it could have been landing a couple of hundred meters away...
the red-circle contents revealed NO proof of "impact"...
Maybe somebody should explain how chunks of WTC1&2 got launched all the way over to WTC7 in the first place.
Even if the building was damaged, it did not fall. WTC5,3 and others were hit and burned, but did not fall so why would WTC7? Even if it were to fall, it would be toward the damage area and not straight down at acceleration of gravity! High resolution videos clearly show squibbs and flashes/shockwaves from explosives....
@guesswhotoo6 "all the way over to WTC7" is incorrect as it sits just under 300 ft from WTC1 and 2 and the blastwave from the towers was what collapsed it. also those were not explosives dumbass they were outbursts of pressure because THE FUCKING BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
@tornadomad Glad to see somebody is reading after 9 months goes by. I should point out that the WTC 1 and 2 were likely being demo'ed, not collapsing. Unless they tipped over onto WTC7, there would be no motion in the lateral directions. Since the "collapse" was symmetrical straight down, I do not see the cause-effect relation you describe. However, if demo'ed, there is a possibility for damage to WTC7, I simply do not believe it severe enough to cause a straight down collapse of WTC7.
@tornadomad The "tilting" issue is another whole bunch of worms. We can see the tower top 20-30 floors tilting as a structural unit, sure enough. However, the motion stops and maybe even begins to reverse, while at the same time being destroyed separately. This is not an easy situation to explain. Further, given that the stronger remaining lower part is free to continue to stand, why did it destruct? Ask an engineer how to stop this on future construction, you will get the answer sought.
and if they killed 3,000 in the wtc 1 and 2 by controlled demolition, why wasn't anyone killed in wtc7?? Hmm. because it wasn't a demolition. they had time to get everyone out. Try standing under falling debris and see how well you hold up...wtc 1 and 2 shot debris outward toward wtc7 you can see that in any 911 video posted on youtube.
in wtc 7 there wasn't people cuz they told them to come out of the building and then they made a fire and after that they destroyed it by the controlled demolition ...they made the people out of wtc7 to make the fire and destroyed it with out victims in it and i agree there was a debris hit wtc but it wasn't big cuz there wasn't a hole in the building and wtc7's point of the collapse was in the lobby and we all know that the fire was in the top floors
If it was for oil that's funny because the U.S. doesn't own oil in Afghanistan or Iraq. Try again. and that debris is falling fast, wtc7 wasn't built well firefighters have said this numerous times. Are they in on the conspiracy too!?!? Puhlleeez.. it's right in front of you, DEBRIS HIT THE BUILDING!!!!........
ohh and u say building 7 collapse cuz the fire and the debris ...so why wtc 4 and 6 and 5 didn't collapse and even they were closer than wtc7 to the towers and the whole debris fell at the wtc 4&5&6 and they didn't collapse completely and the fire was in the whole floors of wtc 5 and he didn't collapse ...face it 911 was an inside job
9/11 was a demolition job blamed on Muslims to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and get billions more for defence fund, and make millions from no bid contracts in Iraq.
$Trillions in The Caspian Sea and piped through Afghanistan, Also Kurdistan where there are now many US oil companies. They also stooped the EV1 electric which was popular as it would reduce the need for oil and the Tax that all governments get from the oil which is more money than the oil companies make for getting it to us.
jim hoffman. maybe. ...and ma advice is to watch zeitgeist if you haven't already... I mean.... if you want. you know, the best thing we can do is critical thinking because we literally cannot trust anyone these days. very sad thing. peace
Steven jones never tested that. It is a hypothesis. He was also HIGHLY criticized by every engineering department at BYU. His area of expertise is energy not construction of buildings. There is no doubt that he is a very smart man, but he is f@cking crazy.
that red circling shows dust hitting the building. I realize wtc7 took some damage but even the gov. controlled and corrupt NIST admits the damaged had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLLAPSE. they said it was fire and fire alone. fire doesn't make a 47 story steel building free fall. 9/11 was an inside job.
I still can't believe more physicists haven't come forward and shown that tower 1 and 2 were exploded very methodically. The more you look at it, the more controlled demolition patterns you start to see. Unfortunatly for those gifted in physics, those with this unique ability to recognize patterns, they is no way to convince 99.9% of the rest of the population as they would never see it themselves. Only solution: proof by reenactment if anyone is willing to spend a billion for that.
Well I've talked to several of my old physics professors. Most were polite and just said it's an unfortunate event, but not surprising to see buildings fall when the steel trusses fail.
One of my Ph.D-degree profs was a little more blatant:
"Waste of time! Trying to convince these nuts that the skyscrapers collapses due to fire is as much a waste as trying to convince religious people of evolution. I have better things to do with my time." And then he showed me his latest published papers.
That's exactly what I mean. People need to go ask someone with a phd to talk for them or to tell them what to think. why is that? Because 99.9% of people are incapable of thinking for themselves, to investigate, to educate themselves. When you grow up watching TV, your consciousness is altered: you become a robot, a parrot who repeat what the authorities tell them. Your phd guy obviously has an effect on you, much like a religious figure on a religious freak.
00:20 - this section of video shows nothing relevant. We know WTC1 collapsed, this shows nothing hitting WTC7.
99:28 onward - this part shows debris falling toward building 7, then the corner becomes completely obscured by the dust cloud which this video's editor has kindly circled for us.
This video shows no proof of anything hitting WTC7, it only assists those who wish to make assumptions that it was hit.
If you reply, please cite facts and evidence rather than use childish insults.
I was there in the area at building 7 yes it was damaged and smoke was coming from it however just before it went down an alarm went off? and we all started running to the river were boats were. I did not see any flames or active heavy smoke like I have been to other city buildings burning. Like I said it was damaged but not like WTC towers and the other buildings close to building 7 were not as damaged.
Give me a break, there was another small building that one of the towers fell on top of, and still didnt collapse. yea half of it was gone but the base of it was still in tact. And you're trying to say a little but of debris that hit on one side of WTC 7 magically made the whole thing colapse?
La différence, c'est que le "small building" en question, à savoir le Marriott hotel, faisait 23 étages de haut, alors que le WTC7 avait une hauteur de près de 200 mètres. Pas besoin d'être très malin pour saisir toutes les différences que cela implique en terme de masse devant être supporté par la base.
I apologize for typing french, but my english is too bad. Use Google translation if you want to read what i say.
Fire was found to be the only significant factor to cause the total collapse. All other factors were found to be of little to no significance.
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires" NIST NCSTAR 1A
"Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7" NIST NCSTAR 1A
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on the initiating the collapse of WTC 7" NIST NCSTAR 1A
. . . the NIST director has determined that certain evidence . . is voluntarily provided . . not directly related to the building failure . . and that disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information.
In other words: we aren't telling you all of our information. Only what we feel like. We can't check their work because they're not providing us with all of their information.
"Do point out another example where a fire caused a colapse like that."
Can you show an event before the Titanic Sank where a "Unsinkable" ship sank after hitting an iceberg? NO? Well the Titanic must have been deliberately sunk.
Using a logical fallacy to justify your opinion is quite silly.
mutedmajority. As for that the other plane. You say one of the stupidest thing I have read from a truther in a long time. Flight 93 was not even headed for NY but was headed towards Washington DC, most likely the White House. AND, are you also saying that when the other plane DIDN'T hit WTC7 the people in charge of blowing WTC7 up COULD NOT simple stop the controlled demolition? Do you even know how to think?
@motorartist " As for that the other plane. You say one of the stupidest thing I have read from a truther in a long time. Flight 93 was not even headed for NY but was headed towards Washington DC, most likely the White House"
Actually, it was headed for Capitol Hill. Khalid Sheik Mohammed told Al-Jazeera this.
mutedmajority: You win a prize for being completely uninformed. WTC7 fell NOTHING like the towers, The towers failed right at the fire floors high up in the building, WTC7 Failed lower down in the structure. Both of them completely unlike a true controlled demolition.
They had it rigged to fall just like the towers. A plane was supposed to crash into each. When those people took over and crashed the other plane, their plan was screwed, they had a building coming down and no explanation for why without the plane.
Fact: No attempt was made to put out the fires at WTC7, unlike a normal building fire. Ergo no cooling of the fire areas with water, It was left to burn, and the FDNY knew this may had resulted in a collapse. They had more important things to like look for survivors in the other towers.
The collapse was not a PERFECT symmetrical fashion. Look at 30 West Broadway, known as Fiterman Hall. It was hit by WTC7 debris. Hit so badly it must now be demolished.
Falling debris are speculated to have damaged 3 columns near the south facade. There was some fires spread out on different floors. None of this could have cause a collapse of the whole steel structure. If a collapse was even possible, it would have been asymmetrical or local around the actual asymmetrical damage. Still WTC7 fell down in a perfect symmetrical fashion. Obviously all supporting columns must have failed at approximately the same time or this would be physically impossible.
well if it got hit, then that means that the government didnt do it? argh i dunno man... i dont know what to think anymore. ive been researching way too much conspiracy theories lately, maybe i should just give up and forget the whole thing? :/
Everything about the attasck was wierd. Everything that happened afterward was wierd. The way the buildings that fell were constructed was wierd. Your point?
my point is you have no point. your explanation doesn't convince me. you think i don't understand you. i do. not good enough science you give. get my point now?
You appear to lack the experience to interpret what you know of the science. I have been face-to-face with some impressive fires and have to laugh at the absurd things some people say about the strangeness of the collapse. That's what damaged, heated steel does.
The Bouwkunde fire in Delft. Concrete is actually more resistant to fire than steel is. That is why the Empire State Building survived the B-25 crash.
The structure of the Bouwkunde was not compromised before the fire. The part that collapsed all fell into its own footprint because the standing portions of the building held it in place. The same applies to the Windsor tower fire. The concrete cor held the steel within the footprint of the building when it collapsed.
Actually, that it got hit explains everything. It explains how the steel members got broken and how the fires got started to heat, expand, warp, break the joints of and otherwise compromise the structural integrity of the whole assembly. For those who think that it should have fallen to the damaged side, BS! The undamaged north face of the building held it back from slumping south. No bombs are seen anywhere. Bombs throw small projectiles farther out than the huge ones.
check it out dude.. i'm not saying there was some big cover up, i don't know shit about much at all to be honest. but dude that building came down weird. even if everything you said is true it's still weird. i'm a little shocked you don't at least acknowledge it's fucking odd the way it came down. you seem so convinced. all i was saying is you gotta do better than that to get me on board.
There was really no other way that it could fall, due to the way it was built. Remember that one side was not damaged by anything other than heat, and that not a great deall. The undamaged side held the falling parts in place to a great enough degree to keep it mostly in one place.
"funny because you think that you can put a bunch of important sounding words into a sentence you must think ur smarter than me but ur sentece makes no sense bro but that dosent realy matter"
So what you "ur" saying is "ur" as dumb as a box of rocks, Yep, typical truther. Face it, there are few people more duncical than you. BRO! Where did the air come from!!!!
its funny because even tho tower 7 you say was hit by the collapsing tower you can acutally see the bombs going off in the collapsing tower as it falls look closely
You are seeing compressed air ejecting dust and material. Why are most of the CT believers so obviously lacking the ability of logical thinking? Maybe its because its a necessary fundament in their religion, without it their believes would not make any sense. Its their own logic but sadly its deconnected from reality. Facts are irritating and confusing elements and are therefore ignored. Nothing must disturb the alternate reality.
funny because you think that you can put a bunch of important sounding words into a sentence you must think ur smarter than me but ur sentece makes no sense bro but that dosent realy matter
were does the compressed air come from how come building 7 was not mentioned in the offical report and im just viewing the situation from both sides if anything ur the one who should be being insulted for only accepting one side of a false theory
Oh and in order to have a DNA match you kinda gotta have a sample in the 1st place to compare it to.. I guess according to the "official story" that our government has told us, our government has a DNA sample of every human being on the planet.. I'm really surprised how dumb our society is believe this shit.. Wake the fuck up people..
Let me get this straight.. A plane hits the side of a building.. It explodes into a fireball 300ft. in every direction.. The building falls into a pile of burning debris.. We identify who caused this by a passport that was found.?.?. ROFLMAO.. They also used DNA evidence.. LOLOL.. Yeah and pigs fly..
if anything the building should have fallen where the damage was most severe. The damage it received was only on one corner. The building should have fallen at an angle onto the damaged corner. But instead of falling in the path of least resistance it fell perfectly symmetrically and perpendicularly to the grown. And the official reasoning is that Fires caused this straight down free fall collapse.
Thats not true,the building wasn't only damaged on one corner,it sustained severe damage. It's easy to see that one piece hit the corner in this video,but that doesn't mean thats the only piece that hit it,and you can see all kinds of debris falling behind it all along the building.
So you have gone from a inside job loon to a NO planer loon?
And that would not explain the hundreds of people who saw planes hit in person standing on the streets of NY. Joe I know from past experience you are as dumb as they get, and that is saying a lot in trutherville, but fake airplanes?
you can tell the way the world trade centers (the big ones fall that there was bombs put inside the building ..look at wtc7 and the 2 other collapse and look at a dimolition done on purpose to take an old building down you can tell 110% that its the same
You don't have to look far to find reports from FDNY people who saw the fires, saw the were big and who knew these fire may well cause a total collapse. Sorry but they saw it and none of them describe them as SMALL.
Did you know WTC7 had a large bulge between floors 10 and 13 that the FDNY put a transit on to measure its movement, there were strange creaking noises coming out of WTC 7, the building was leaning to one side, they saw from the structural damage combined with transit and laser doppler vibrometer data that the building would soon collapse on its own. Nothing like a controlled demolition.
ok, so this small penthouse on top collapsed first, in 10 seconds. remains the fact that the other, say 90%, of the building did in fact go down very fast. This wtc 7 was filmed many times an i haven't seen any huge or even big fire's, only a few smaller fires. come on, look.
"well whoopdey-fucking-do. i havnt heard any1 say that debris didnt hit it, i havnt heard any1 from the "truth" movement say that it was completely undamaged either."
Yeah not now, because us debunkers proved them wrong. Ask yourself "why have truthers proven to be so wrong on so many things?" Thes guy still believe PULL means controlled demolition and that the towers fell in 10 seconds, can you say morons?
well whoopdey-fucking-do. i havnt heard any1 say that debris didnt hit it, i havnt heard any1 from the "truth" movement say that it was completely undamaged either.
A genuine collapse is one that is not "doctored" by outside man made forces...such as explosives.
The building should have crumbled in on itself, yet debri was throw up and out on a ballistic trajectory, leaving the main debri field 20 to 30 stories below.
Demolition squibs? 7+ hours before it collapses? Get real Joe. Debris on the roof is supposed to prove what? It couldn't have been damaged on the side and collapsed?
FACT: WTC was ONLY 300 ft from the 1300 ft. tall North tower. Other buildings further away were also hit. Didn't take much at all for the top parts of WTC1 to hit 7. As you can see.
The camera angle of this video is not trustworthy to the source. The poster is saying that debri traveled air borne across two city blocks to hit a building at an angle at least 35 stories up.
A genuine collapse brings material straight down...not 1,700 ft on ballistic tragectory heading.
Some times our governemnt is held back from releasing things for legal reasons. Now I need to stop here before I get flagged as a pro-big government guy. I am not, I consider myself a cool thinker who does not jump to extrodinary conclustion without doing the dig. Again, best of luck to all of you who are looking for the truth.you will find it but only if
Your right, the government could do much more to help it's own image. It doesn't build a strong case for itself when it plays the "need to know" card.
I have learned though, that many things we think "should" be public, and indeed probably should be, are protected by our laws.
Fire does not have to melt the steel for it to be "destroyed". When the fire hits the steel the steel expands. Check out this book for a more detailed look at this principle...best of luck with your research. Truth.
The influence of the thermal expansion of beams on the structural behaviour of columns in steel-framed structures during a fire
Author: Bailey C.G.1
Source: Engineering Structures, Volume 22, Number 7, July 2000, pp. 755-768(14)
dude, let us know how much it expanded in percentage, the temperature range of the fire, and what effect this might of had on the building.
My research is little to do with scientists and engineers actually, but trying to understand whats the situation before 9/11, in US politics, arabs,etc. I think 19 arabs are unlikely to have caried out attacks. I think theres a strong case for the suspicion of US and Isreali officials in Intel agencies to have coordinated w/ arabs from years before to plan.
The rate of expansion or contraction of iron and steel, which are practically the same, is one one-hundredth of an inch per ft. for a change of temperature of 100º. If a vertical post or column of iron or steel is 150 feet in height, the total expansion for a change of 100º in temperature will be one and one-half inches; and for a change of 1,000º (to red heat), fifteen inches; and this change frequently occurs during a fire.
I also don't understand why the jet fuel seems to keep coming up...I believe acted simply as an ignitor but normal residential fire usually burns much hotter than 600 Deg. F.
Also, I hear little of the actual plane being a significat factor. The plane in at least one instance "landed" on a few floors. The added wieght (65 tons if it was empty) would be very significant
This video actually shoes the building "twist" and collapse at the corner first. This makes sence to me from a fire fighters perspective. Buildings, before they collaps, usually show some deformation. This video shows that the corner was severaly weekend. Any exposed metal supports in the area would be bent already to most likely from the impact.
I actually don't trust the government either...I am not rulling out the possibility of another reichstag. I am simply saying, in my opinion the naturaly laws of physics were more than sufficient to collapse these buildings.
That is the question we must find the answer to my friend, were the natural laws of physics able to pull off all these motions... every sound, every bit of information we have to put it back together and test it. Test it with our current world, our beliefs and our knowledge of what other people are capable of... individuals in powerful places can be psycotic, arabs can be psycotic, put em together and what do you get? Who those individuals are, and how they are in cahoots, that is the question.
I agree. I don't have that much time. Some of the research that has been done on both sides really amazes me. My solution is simple. Take the power away from them. I believe in a small federal government and a strong local government. Why? I am a Vice-Mayor. People gripe to me all the time.
Do I like it? Not always, but it is the way a democracy should work. With a strong Federal Government you can't access your leadership. There really isn't anyway of making yourself heard. Voting doesn't even seem to work anymore. I knew the hackable voting boothes were just around the corner.
If you are a politician, I dont know how things are done there, but to a certain degree, here in London UK, there seems to be interesting mechanisms of public enquiry (not enough). If you can figure out a way in which people can partcipate simply into political processes by daily enquiries, consultation booths at transportation terminals, mobiles, internet, information gathering, community centers, etc... that would be very cool! good luck!
To some extent I do that. I host a monthly town hall meeting that is seperate from the normal "business" meeting which is usually boring and long. The town hall meetings can get pretty lively and keep me on my toes. Though, I have to say, I have watched some of your debates in I think the House of Commons, and they look exciting. Please forgive me in my ignorance if it is not the House of Commons. I really don't know. :)
Who said anything about the Governement. I in fact doubted the governement at first. I then did the research. Why must you think that because I side with hundreds of scientists and engineers on the issue I am "believing" the governement? Think clearly, your words will then come out making more sense.
Truthers say the building was not hit at all, this shows it was. So they are lying. This video is nothing compared to the eyewitnesses who were there, the NYFD. They saw the 20 story gash, saw the fires, saw the building start to lean and bulge. These were experienced firefighter who KNEW this building was coming down, and NOT because of imaginary bombs, but because of the damage and fire, But I guess you think the NYFD is lying?
????.compilation?. it's one clip showing a tiny piece hitting. do you really believe this shows a building demolishing event?. have you seen photos of wtc 5 and 6?.
Ye the debris hitting the tower started numerous fires in the building melting through steel structures like a knife through butter, completely disintergrating the entire building, makes sense...cocksucker
Ceyfin1 3 months ago
This video totally convinced me now that I was wrong. Very wrong. I never considered that these debris could damage WTC 7 so badly that it fell in 6 sec in it's own footprint. And don't forget these immense fires. They must've nearly melted that building. No wonder there was molten steal found in the ashes. Look at Newtonians 3rd law. What an idiot he must've been. This video disproves his so called "axioms" completely.
Thanks for this video mate. You're a personal hero for me now
Moron
Kornhulio18 4 months ago
Comment removed
Kornhulio18 4 months ago
I'm yet to meet ANYONE in the truther movement who will claim NO damage happened to building 7. What kind of idiotic intro is that? Find me ONE PERSON who claims that! I challenge you!! On the other hand we ALL know that the damage done was technically 'structural' yet would not lead to the PENTHOUSE COLLAPSING FIRST! That's the issue. Obviously structures were cut. lo-temp diesel fires can't weaken steel significantly in this scenario.
sounddoctorin 4 months ago
yeah rite... some rocks get on the stell will made all build fall... retard joke
duzotepp 4 months ago
OMFG SMOKE HIT WTC7!! NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE! THE US GOVT DIDN'T LIE TO THE WHOLE WORLD ABOUT WHAT THEY DID!
64adamw64 5 months ago
I think anyone who has done any research knows that building 7 was damaged prior to the collapse. It's not a secret.
Iffy50 6 months ago
WTC7 took a major hit from the N tower. You can see it even more clearly from other videos. What most of the "Conspiracy" videos omit is the beginning of the collapse, a good 8 seconds before the main facade goes down- some footage shows the W penthouse disappearing as the building begins to collapse internally. This then continues from W (the most heavily damaged end, with large fires raging on the lower floors) to E, until by the time the facade goes down, there is already v. little behind it.
phaasch 8 months ago
Comment removed
phaasch 8 months ago
in the worst air accidents they found "rests" of a plane... i remember a 747 crashing into a 20 mts building, the plane recently taked off so it was full of gasoline... of course the building was damaged but not even close to fall.. of course was a controlled demolition
locosio92 8 months ago
What is the point of this stupid video? This does not prove anything! 9/11 was all a controlled demolition. Nobody can dispute that.
SheepAsleepWakeUp 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp No it wasn't.
NobleSquad 1 year ago
@NobleSquad The building fell at the rate of gravity. It collapsed in less than 7 seconds. Yes it was!
SheepAsleepWakeUp 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp That does not mean it was a controlled demolition. It collapsed down onto itself so it would fall as fast as it did...
NobleSquad 1 year ago
@NobleSquad Look at some of the videos. You can see squibs and flashes coming out of the side of the buildling on its way down.
SheepAsleepWakeUp 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp Im almost certain that the 'squibs' are pulverized materials being ejected out the building due to the building being compressed. As for flashes, I have never seen any, and I've watched all the collapse videos that I'm aware of, and even if there are flashes, who's to say it isn't just the sun reflecting from the building, or the electronics in the building sparking?
NobleSquad 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp "The building fell at the rate of gravity. It collapsed in less than 7 seconds." If the building really fell that fast than it would be falling FASTER Than the rate of gravity numbnuts. Gravity pulls at 9.81M/s^2
AcomsRazor1776 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp
f = force
m1 = mass 1 (ie falling body)
m2 = mass 2 (ie attracting planet)
G = gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
r2 = distance from centre of m2 to falling body (m1) squared (ir radius squared) since you are to stupid to explain what all this means I'll tell you. The building when need rocket boosters to fall in 7 seconds.
AcomsRazor1776 1 year ago
@SheepAsleepWakeUp Can't dispute it with someone who is an idiot.
tryithere 7 months ago
I don't mean to be rude, but all I see here is only one piece of debris making a definite collision with the upper floors of tower 7. And I see 2 problems with this: 1 - One piece of debris cannot lead to enough damage to lead to a building's collapse 2 - The collapse was initiated at a much lower level, so this piece of debris is irrelevant. Unfortunately, because of the angle of this video, we cannot determine whether or not the other larger pieces impacted the tower at lower levels.
VTFreestyle224 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is newly released documented evidence into the 9/11 investigation, I found this to be some of the most informative information about 9/11 so far.
youtube.com/user/investigations2012
HempNinja1 1 year ago
This is also a terrific video to show that the tower did NOT fall at free-fall speed. In the second clip at the 22 second mark you can see a large piece of wall falling just to the right of WTC 7. It then disappears behind another building. That peice represents free fall speed. Then the video zooms out and you can see at 32 seconds that more debris is still falling away from the building, visible just above WTC 7. So 10 seconds later approx. 60-70 floors still remain behind the dust.
raythetse 1 year ago
finally a video that proves these god damn conspiracy theorists wrong... THANK YOU
tornadomad 1 year ago
shame how this video DOESN'T actually manage to show any PROOF of "debris" actually HITTING B7...sure it looks "close"...but given depth perception all of it could have been landing a couple of hundred meters away...
the red-circle contents revealed NO proof of "impact"...
sorry "mr debunker"
homerbear46 2 years ago
Maybe somebody should explain how chunks of WTC1&2 got launched all the way over to WTC7 in the first place.
Even if the building was damaged, it did not fall. WTC5,3 and others were hit and burned, but did not fall so why would WTC7? Even if it were to fall, it would be toward the damage area and not straight down at acceleration of gravity! High resolution videos clearly show squibbs and flashes/shockwaves from explosives....
guesswhotoo6 2 years ago
@guesswhotoo6 "all the way over to WTC7" is incorrect as it sits just under 300 ft from WTC1 and 2 and the blastwave from the towers was what collapsed it. also those were not explosives dumbass they were outbursts of pressure because THE FUCKING BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
tornadomad 1 year ago
@tornadomad Glad to see somebody is reading after 9 months goes by. I should point out that the WTC 1 and 2 were likely being demo'ed, not collapsing. Unless they tipped over onto WTC7, there would be no motion in the lateral directions. Since the "collapse" was symmetrical straight down, I do not see the cause-effect relation you describe. However, if demo'ed, there is a possibility for damage to WTC7, I simply do not believe it severe enough to cause a straight down collapse of WTC7.
guesswhotoo6 1 year ago
@guesswhotoo6 the South Tower did not fall symmetrically... it tilted sideways and a lot of debris fell on Tower 7
tornadomad 1 year ago
@tornadomad The "tilting" issue is another whole bunch of worms. We can see the tower top 20-30 floors tilting as a structural unit, sure enough. However, the motion stops and maybe even begins to reverse, while at the same time being destroyed separately. This is not an easy situation to explain. Further, given that the stronger remaining lower part is free to continue to stand, why did it destruct? Ask an engineer how to stop this on future construction, you will get the answer sought.
guesswhotoo6 1 year ago
and if they killed 3,000 in the wtc 1 and 2 by controlled demolition, why wasn't anyone killed in wtc7?? Hmm. because it wasn't a demolition. they had time to get everyone out. Try standing under falling debris and see how well you hold up...wtc 1 and 2 shot debris outward toward wtc7 you can see that in any 911 video posted on youtube.
nigletgook 2 years ago
in wtc 7 there wasn't people cuz they told them to come out of the building and then they made a fire and after that they destroyed it by the controlled demolition ...they made the people out of wtc7 to make the fire and destroyed it with out victims in it and i agree there was a debris hit wtc but it wasn't big cuz there wasn't a hole in the building and wtc7's point of the collapse was in the lobby and we all know that the fire was in the top floors
kokym8 2 years ago
Because people got out in time.....
FYI, there are many 1st hand accounts of the demo of wtc7.
guesswhotoo6 2 years ago
If it was for oil that's funny because the U.S. doesn't own oil in Afghanistan or Iraq. Try again. and that debris is falling fast, wtc7 wasn't built well firefighters have said this numerous times. Are they in on the conspiracy too!?!? Puhlleeez.. it's right in front of you, DEBRIS HIT THE BUILDING!!!!........
nigletgook 2 years ago
ohh and u say building 7 collapse cuz the fire and the debris ...so why wtc 4 and 6 and 5 didn't collapse and even they were closer than wtc7 to the towers and the whole debris fell at the wtc 4&5&6 and they didn't collapse completely and the fire was in the whole floors of wtc 5 and he didn't collapse ...face it 911 was an inside job
kokym8 2 years ago
You said yourself other buildings were hit by debris...why didn't they collapse as well?
redstarproductions 2 years ago
Why did it take all day to come down then?
The fire was hardly big enough, if it was big enough it would have been much bigger by 5:20pm, No sign of that.
MilesB1975 2 years ago
Nice banana peel implosion, while some stel may have hit the wtc7 it was not enough coupled witrh fires to create a uniform collapse.
realistromeo 3 years ago
9/11 was a demolition job blamed on Muslims to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and get billions more for defence fund, and make millions from no bid contracts in Iraq.
LH0didntdoit 3 years ago
It was all for oil!
$Trillions in The Caspian Sea and piped through Afghanistan, Also Kurdistan where there are now many US oil companies. They also stooped the EV1 electric which was popular as it would reduce the need for oil and the Tax that all governments get from the oil which is more money than the oil companies make for getting it to us.
0ddba11s 2 years ago
idiot that lil bity bit of damage that done proly broke a window or two that didnt make the whole building collapse you damn liar
dante1613 3 years ago
a steel building cannot come down like that unless it is a controled demolition, and that is a scientific fact
Crenberi 3 years ago
Oh really? Name the scientist that tested that.
FuryofRich 3 years ago
jim hoffman. maybe. ...and ma advice is to watch zeitgeist if you haven't already... I mean.... if you want. you know, the best thing we can do is critical thinking because we literally cannot trust anyone these days. very sad thing. peace
Crenberi 3 years ago
...Dr. Steven Jones...
Crenberi 3 years ago
Steven jones never tested that. It is a hypothesis. He was also HIGHLY criticized by every engineering department at BYU. His area of expertise is energy not construction of buildings. There is no doubt that he is a very smart man, but he is f@cking crazy.
FuryofRich 3 years ago
In one of the Steve Jones videos he says tests where ran on computer here in England and they stated the buildings should not have fallen.
This was for oil control.
0ddba11s 2 years ago
that red circling shows dust hitting the building. I realize wtc7 took some damage but even the gov. controlled and corrupt NIST admits the damaged had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLLAPSE. they said it was fire and fire alone. fire doesn't make a 47 story steel building free fall. 9/11 was an inside job.
jeroliver 3 years ago
I still can't believe more physicists haven't come forward and shown that tower 1 and 2 were exploded very methodically. The more you look at it, the more controlled demolition patterns you start to see. Unfortunatly for those gifted in physics, those with this unique ability to recognize patterns, they is no way to convince 99.9% of the rest of the population as they would never see it themselves. Only solution: proof by reenactment if anyone is willing to spend a billion for that.
jmminu 3 years ago
Well I've talked to several of my old physics professors. Most were polite and just said it's an unfortunate event, but not surprising to see buildings fall when the steel trusses fail.
One of my Ph.D-degree profs was a little more blatant:
"Waste of time! Trying to convince these nuts that the skyscrapers collapses due to fire is as much a waste as trying to convince religious people of evolution. I have better things to do with my time." And then he showed me his latest published papers.
TeensAreNotChildren 3 years ago
That's exactly what I mean. People need to go ask someone with a phd to talk for them or to tell them what to think. why is that? Because 99.9% of people are incapable of thinking for themselves, to investigate, to educate themselves. When you grow up watching TV, your consciousness is altered: you become a robot, a parrot who repeat what the authorities tell them. Your phd guy obviously has an effect on you, much like a religious figure on a religious freak.
jmminu 3 years ago
quite the explosions coming from the wtc I see.
911 zionist inside job.
The protocals of the elders of the read...read it sheeple.
moviedude111 3 years ago
@moviedude111
Bulllshit on all counts. 9/11 WAS NOT an inside job, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a PLAGIARIZED FRAUD!
DTD110865 4 months ago
In my comment below, 99:28 should read 00:28, sorry.
slipperymeat 3 years ago
00:20 - this section of video shows nothing relevant. We know WTC1 collapsed, this shows nothing hitting WTC7.
99:28 onward - this part shows debris falling toward building 7, then the corner becomes completely obscured by the dust cloud which this video's editor has kindly circled for us.
This video shows no proof of anything hitting WTC7, it only assists those who wish to make assumptions that it was hit.
If you reply, please cite facts and evidence rather than use childish insults.
slipperymeat 3 years ago
I was there in the area at building 7 yes it was damaged and smoke was coming from it however just before it went down an alarm went off? and we all started running to the river were boats were. I did not see any flames or active heavy smoke like I have been to other city buildings burning. Like I said it was damaged but not like WTC towers and the other buildings close to building 7 were not as damaged.
CPVNYC 3 years ago
Give me a break, there was another small building that one of the towers fell on top of, and still didnt collapse. yea half of it was gone but the base of it was still in tact. And you're trying to say a little but of debris that hit on one side of WTC 7 magically made the whole thing colapse?
Bluesteel484 3 years ago
La différence, c'est que le "small building" en question, à savoir le Marriott hotel, faisait 23 étages de haut, alors que le WTC7 avait une hauteur de près de 200 mètres. Pas besoin d'être très malin pour saisir toutes les différences que cela implique en terme de masse devant être supporté par la base.
I apologize for typing french, but my english is too bad. Use Google translation if you want to read what i say.
vincentm5194 3 years ago
quoting the NIST WTC7 report as truth is like quoting the fox saying he didn't eat the chickens.....
youandmeandocsupra 3 years ago
Fire was found to be the only significant factor to cause the total collapse. All other factors were found to be of little to no significance.
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires" NIST NCSTAR 1A
"Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7" NIST NCSTAR 1A
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on the initiating the collapse of WTC 7" NIST NCSTAR 1A
Machida356 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NIST's WTC 7 report disclaimer No. 3:
. . . the NIST director has determined that certain evidence . . is voluntarily provided . . not directly related to the building failure . . and that disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information.
In other words: we aren't telling you all of our information. Only what we feel like. We can't check their work because they're not providing us with all of their information.
Criminal investigation.
bobbygnosis 3 years ago
"Do point out another example where a fire caused a colapse like that."
Can you show an event before the Titanic Sank where a "Unsinkable" ship sank after hitting an iceberg? NO? Well the Titanic must have been deliberately sunk.
Using a logical fallacy to justify your opinion is quite silly.
motorartist 3 years ago
mutedmajority. As for that the other plane. You say one of the stupidest thing I have read from a truther in a long time. Flight 93 was not even headed for NY but was headed towards Washington DC, most likely the White House. AND, are you also saying that when the other plane DIDN'T hit WTC7 the people in charge of blowing WTC7 up COULD NOT simple stop the controlled demolition? Do you even know how to think?
motorartist 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@motorartist " As for that the other plane. You say one of the stupidest thing I have read from a truther in a long time. Flight 93 was not even headed for NY but was headed towards Washington DC, most likely the White House"
Actually, it was headed for Capitol Hill. Khalid Sheik Mohammed told Al-Jazeera this.
DTD110865 4 months ago
mutedmajority: You win a prize for being completely uninformed. WTC7 fell NOTHING like the towers, The towers failed right at the fire floors high up in the building, WTC7 Failed lower down in the structure. Both of them completely unlike a true controlled demolition.
motorartist 3 years ago
They had it rigged to fall just like the towers. A plane was supposed to crash into each. When those people took over and crashed the other plane, their plan was screwed, they had a building coming down and no explanation for why without the plane.
mutedmajority 3 years ago
That building got pretty battered up. It might
not have been the government. ???
corwin11412 3 years ago
Fact: No attempt was made to put out the fires at WTC7, unlike a normal building fire. Ergo no cooling of the fire areas with water, It was left to burn, and the FDNY knew this may had resulted in a collapse. They had more important things to like look for survivors in the other towers.
motorartist 3 years ago
The collapse was not a PERFECT symmetrical fashion. Look at 30 West Broadway, known as Fiterman Hall. It was hit by WTC7 debris. Hit so badly it must now be demolished.
motorartist 3 years ago
Falling debris are speculated to have damaged 3 columns near the south facade. There was some fires spread out on different floors. None of this could have cause a collapse of the whole steel structure. If a collapse was even possible, it would have been asymmetrical or local around the actual asymmetrical damage. Still WTC7 fell down in a perfect symmetrical fashion. Obviously all supporting columns must have failed at approximately the same time or this would be physically impossible.
altusaccersitus 3 years ago
well if it got hit, then that means that the government didnt do it? argh i dunno man... i dont know what to think anymore. ive been researching way too much conspiracy theories lately, maybe i should just give up and forget the whole thing? :/
silverblaize 3 years ago
lol ok I guess i believe the official story....not
ChangeDaChannel 3 years ago
Everything about the attasck was wierd. Everything that happened afterward was wierd. The way the buildings that fell were constructed was wierd. Your point?
leftysergeant 3 years ago
my point is you have no point. your explanation doesn't convince me. you think i don't understand you. i do. not good enough science you give. get my point now?
petepamf 3 years ago
You appear to lack the experience to interpret what you know of the science. I have been face-to-face with some impressive fires and have to laugh at the absurd things some people say about the strangeness of the collapse. That's what damaged, heated steel does.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Oh wow.. You seem like a guy who really knows his shit.
Do point out another example where a fire caused a colapse like that.
I'm waiting....
petepamf 3 years ago
The Bouwkunde fire in Delft. Concrete is actually more resistant to fire than steel is. That is why the Empire State Building survived the B-25 crash.
The structure of the Bouwkunde was not compromised before the fire. The part that collapsed all fell into its own footprint because the standing portions of the building held it in place. The same applies to the Windsor tower fire. The concrete cor held the steel within the footprint of the building when it collapsed.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
so what if it did get hit...
explains nothing..
petepamf 3 years ago
Actually, that it got hit explains everything. It explains how the steel members got broken and how the fires got started to heat, expand, warp, break the joints of and otherwise compromise the structural integrity of the whole assembly. For those who think that it should have fallen to the damaged side, BS! The undamaged north face of the building held it back from slumping south. No bombs are seen anywhere. Bombs throw small projectiles farther out than the huge ones.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
check it out dude.. i'm not saying there was some big cover up, i don't know shit about much at all to be honest. but dude that building came down weird. even if everything you said is true it's still weird. i'm a little shocked you don't at least acknowledge it's fucking odd the way it came down. you seem so convinced. all i was saying is you gotta do better than that to get me on board.
petepamf 3 years ago
There was really no other way that it could fall, due to the way it was built. Remember that one side was not damaged by anything other than heat, and that not a great deall. The undamaged side held the falling parts in place to a great enough degree to keep it mostly in one place.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Thank you for this video!
commonsensetoday 3 years ago
"funny because you think that you can put a bunch of important sounding words into a sentence you must think ur smarter than me but ur sentece makes no sense bro but that dosent realy matter"
So what you "ur" saying is "ur" as dumb as a box of rocks, Yep, typical truther. Face it, there are few people more duncical than you. BRO! Where did the air come from!!!!
911truthiness 4 years ago
@911truthiness I don't think duncical is a word but somehow it fits.
tryithere 7 months ago
its funny because even tho tower 7 you say was hit by the collapsing tower you can acutally see the bombs going off in the collapsing tower as it falls look closely
OPEN YOUR EYES THIS IS A CONSPIRACY
Atlantis2012ad 4 years ago
"you can acutally see the bombs going off in the collapsing tower as it falls look closely "
Must be some silent type of explosives..
Esnir 4 years ago
You use fake videos :DDD REAL debunker !!!
leptopp 4 years ago
theses are real vidieos not the fake snips you make
CarnivoreEschelon 4 years ago
You use strawman argument without proof to back it up nice Joe
CarnivoreEschelon 4 years ago
LOL, ROFL :DDD, I see squibs in 0:22. Thnx :)
leptopp 4 years ago
You are seeing compressed air ejecting dust and material. Why are most of the CT believers so obviously lacking the ability of logical thinking? Maybe its because its a necessary fundament in their religion, without it their believes would not make any sense. Its their own logic but sadly its deconnected from reality. Facts are irritating and confusing elements and are therefore ignored. Nothing must disturb the alternate reality.
moj68 4 years ago 2
funny because you think that you can put a bunch of important sounding words into a sentence you must think ur smarter than me but ur sentece makes no sense bro but that dosent realy matter
were does the compressed air come from how come building 7 was not mentioned in the offical report and im just viewing the situation from both sides if anything ur the one who should be being insulted for only accepting one side of a false theory
Atlantis2012ad 4 years ago
Oh and in order to have a DNA match you kinda gotta have a sample in the 1st place to compare it to.. I guess according to the "official story" that our government has told us, our government has a DNA sample of every human being on the planet.. I'm really surprised how dumb our society is believe this shit.. Wake the fuck up people..
GREETZ1 4 years ago
I guess that relitives suplying hair combs of victiems would not be a dna sample
CarnivoreEschelon 4 years ago
wow...
spacemonke 4 years ago
Let me get this straight.. A plane hits the side of a building.. It explodes into a fireball 300ft. in every direction.. The building falls into a pile of burning debris.. We identify who caused this by a passport that was found.?.?. ROFLMAO.. They also used DNA evidence.. LOLOL.. Yeah and pigs fly..
GREETZ1 4 years ago 2
Actually, the video's claims about "many" and "completely undamaged" are themselves truth-challenged.
empireamerica2 4 years ago
Hmmm...How come I've never seen this in the "truth" videos?Strange.
Check out my blog I just started where I posted a little article on how the collapses of the WTC buildings do NOT look like a Controlled demolition.
skepticalaaron.blogspot dot com
Aaron518 4 years ago
regardless read snipboy's comment...
spacemonke 4 years ago
if anything the building should have fallen where the damage was most severe. The damage it received was only on one corner. The building should have fallen at an angle onto the damaged corner. But instead of falling in the path of least resistance it fell perfectly symmetrically and perpendicularly to the grown. And the official reasoning is that Fires caused this straight down free fall collapse.
snipboy 4 years ago
Thats not true,the building wasn't only damaged on one corner,it sustained severe damage. It's easy to see that one piece hit the corner in this video,but that doesn't mean thats the only piece that hit it,and you can see all kinds of debris falling behind it all along the building.
Aaron518 4 years ago
that still doesnt explain the perfectly symmetric, "collapse"..i mean "demolition..."
even if there was "much more damage from the falling debris" the building would not have "collapsed" in the manner that it did...
how did other buildings, that were damaged MUCH greater than building 7 remain standing?
spacemonke 4 years ago
"how did other buildings, that were damaged MUCH greater than building 7 remain standing"
Which other high rise (40+ story) building got more severe damaged by the tower collapses and burned for over 6 hours without being contained?
Esnir 4 years ago
How manyothers were steel truss contruction with a substation under them?
CarnivoreEschelon 4 years ago
It hit the postal building and voverd varsity street. Look at the collapse it leans toward the postal building it did not fall into its footprint
CarnivoreEschelon 4 years ago 2
the collapse of WTC 7 could've been from three different things:
1. global warmings
2. gas prices
3. bad guys?
SweetGypsyTears 4 years ago
(911truthiness)"Thes guy still believe PULL means controlled demolition and that the towers fell in 10 seconds, can you say morons?"
Since you believe so whole-heartedly in the official stroy, I might mention that the 9/11 Commission Report even admits that they fell in 10 seconds.
thunderhead777 4 years ago 2
"5 fakes."
So you have gone from a inside job loon to a NO planer loon?
And that would not explain the hundreds of people who saw planes hit in person standing on the streets of NY. Joe I know from past experience you are as dumb as they get, and that is saying a lot in trutherville, but fake airplanes?
911truthiness 4 years ago
you can tell the way the world trade centers (the big ones fall that there was bombs put inside the building ..look at wtc7 and the 2 other collapse and look at a dimolition done on purpose to take an old building down you can tell 110% that its the same
-nicole
gracegraceybella 4 years ago
You don't have to look far to find reports from FDNY people who saw the fires, saw the were big and who knew these fire may well cause a total collapse. Sorry but they saw it and none of them describe them as SMALL.
911truthiness 4 years ago
Did you know WTC7 had a large bulge between floors 10 and 13 that the FDNY put a transit on to measure its movement, there were strange creaking noises coming out of WTC 7, the building was leaning to one side, they saw from the structural damage combined with transit and laser doppler vibrometer data that the building would soon collapse on its own. Nothing like a controlled demolition.
911truthiness 4 years ago
ok, so this small penthouse on top collapsed first, in 10 seconds. remains the fact that the other, say 90%, of the building did in fact go down very fast. This wtc 7 was filmed many times an i haven't seen any huge or even big fire's, only a few smaller fires. come on, look.
dizid10 4 years ago
"well whoopdey-fucking-do. i havnt heard any1 say that debris didnt hit it, i havnt heard any1 from the "truth" movement say that it was completely undamaged either."
Yeah not now, because us debunkers proved them wrong. Ask yourself "why have truthers proven to be so wrong on so many things?" Thes guy still believe PULL means controlled demolition and that the towers fell in 10 seconds, can you say morons?
911truthiness 4 years ago
But it was, as stated by all the firemen who were there. The damage was not fatal, the multi floor fires did the building in.
911truthiness 4 years ago
well whoopdey-fucking-do. i havnt heard any1 say that debris didnt hit it, i havnt heard any1 from the "truth" movement say that it was completely undamaged either.
bukkake2007 4 years ago
What the fuck is this supposed to prove?
bukkake2007 4 years ago
"Debris on the roof is supposed to prove what?"
Well if I found debris on a roof where it should not be, I would have say that something projected it over there.
fanbutton 4 years ago
"Yup, the whole world is crazy, except you of course :o)"
Oh I sure that there are plenty of people out there who have rationalized the indisputable facts and are just as sane as I am.
But thanks for seeing it somewhat for what it is.
fanbutton 4 years ago
"What is a 'genuine collapse'?"
A genuine collapse is one that is not "doctored" by outside man made forces...such as explosives.
The building should have crumbled in on itself, yet debri was throw up and out on a ballistic trajectory, leaving the main debri field 20 to 30 stories below.
How does logic account for that?
fanbutton 4 years ago
Demolition squibs? 7+ hours before it collapses? Get real Joe. Debris on the roof is supposed to prove what? It couldn't have been damaged on the side and collapsed?
You are chock full of nonsense, as usual, Joe.
oakheadfootball 4 years ago
FACT: WTC was ONLY 300 ft from the 1300 ft. tall North tower. Other buildings further away were also hit. Didn't take much at all for the top parts of WTC1 to hit 7. As you can see.
911truthiness 4 years ago
The camera angle of this video is not trustworthy to the source. The poster is saying that debri traveled air borne across two city blocks to hit a building at an angle at least 35 stories up.
A genuine collapse brings material straight down...not 1,700 ft on ballistic tragectory heading.
fanbutton 4 years ago
You guys all sound like a bunch of nitwits and morons.
fanbutton 4 years ago
I think it was Albert Eistien who said, "The more you know, the more you know you don't know".
Peace
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
socrates
chachalaca777 4 years ago
Some times our governemnt is held back from releasing things for legal reasons. Now I need to stop here before I get flagged as a pro-big government guy. I am not, I consider myself a cool thinker who does not jump to extrodinary conclustion without doing the dig. Again, best of luck to all of you who are looking for the truth.you will find it but only if
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
never stop looking for. If you stop because you think you have found the "truth" you will most likely later discover you were wrong.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
Your right, the government could do much more to help it's own image. It doesn't build a strong case for itself when it plays the "need to know" card.
I have learned though, that many things we think "should" be public, and indeed probably should be, are protected by our laws.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
Fire does not have to melt the steel for it to be "destroyed". When the fire hits the steel the steel expands. Check out this book for a more detailed look at this principle...best of luck with your research. Truth.
The influence of the thermal expansion of beams on the structural behaviour of columns in steel-framed structures during a fire
Author: Bailey C.G.1
Source: Engineering Structures, Volume 22, Number 7, July 2000, pp. 755-768(14)
Publisher: Elsevier
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
dude, let us know how much it expanded in percentage, the temperature range of the fire, and what effect this might of had on the building.
My research is little to do with scientists and engineers actually, but trying to understand whats the situation before 9/11, in US politics, arabs,etc. I think 19 arabs are unlikely to have caried out attacks. I think theres a strong case for the suspicion of US and Isreali officials in Intel agencies to have coordinated w/ arabs from years before to plan.
chachalaca777 4 years ago
The rate of expansion or contraction of iron and steel, which are practically the same, is one one-hundredth of an inch per ft. for a change of temperature of 100º. If a vertical post or column of iron or steel is 150 feet in height, the total expansion for a change of 100º in temperature will be one and one-half inches; and for a change of 1,000º (to red heat), fifteen inches; and this change frequently occurs during a fire.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
I also don't understand why the jet fuel seems to keep coming up...I believe acted simply as an ignitor but normal residential fire usually burns much hotter than 600 Deg. F.
Also, I hear little of the actual plane being a significat factor. The plane in at least one instance "landed" on a few floors. The added wieght (65 tons if it was empty) would be very significant
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
watch?v=DPUME7lvsLU
This video actually shoes the building "twist" and collapse at the corner first. This makes sence to me from a fire fighters perspective. Buildings, before they collaps, usually show some deformation. This video shows that the corner was severaly weekend. Any exposed metal supports in the area would be bent already to most likely from the impact.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
I actually don't trust the government either...I am not rulling out the possibility of another reichstag. I am simply saying, in my opinion the naturaly laws of physics were more than sufficient to collapse these buildings.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
That is the question we must find the answer to my friend, were the natural laws of physics able to pull off all these motions... every sound, every bit of information we have to put it back together and test it. Test it with our current world, our beliefs and our knowledge of what other people are capable of... individuals in powerful places can be psycotic, arabs can be psycotic, put em together and what do you get? Who those individuals are, and how they are in cahoots, that is the question.
chachalaca777 4 years ago
I agree. I don't have that much time. Some of the research that has been done on both sides really amazes me. My solution is simple. Take the power away from them. I believe in a small federal government and a strong local government. Why? I am a Vice-Mayor. People gripe to me all the time.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
Do I like it? Not always, but it is the way a democracy should work. With a strong Federal Government you can't access your leadership. There really isn't anyway of making yourself heard. Voting doesn't even seem to work anymore. I knew the hackable voting boothes were just around the corner.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
If you are a politician, I dont know how things are done there, but to a certain degree, here in London UK, there seems to be interesting mechanisms of public enquiry (not enough). If you can figure out a way in which people can partcipate simply into political processes by daily enquiries, consultation booths at transportation terminals, mobiles, internet, information gathering, community centers, etc... that would be very cool! good luck!
chachalaca777 4 years ago
To some extent I do that. I host a monthly town hall meeting that is seperate from the normal "business" meeting which is usually boring and long. The town hall meetings can get pretty lively and keep me on my toes. Though, I have to say, I have watched some of your debates in I think the House of Commons, and they look exciting. Please forgive me in my ignorance if it is not the House of Commons. I really don't know. :)
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
I won't believe it until I see that debris actually hit the front and cause damage. There is nothing to see here.
Faerydragon 4 years ago
I agree the footage is not perfect, but the testimony of almost a dozen firefighters has me convinced.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
Is all a scam! If you believe the government then you are a sheep.
rod1575 4 years ago
Who said anything about the Governement. I in fact doubted the governement at first. I then did the research. Why must you think that because I side with hundreds of scientists and engineers on the issue I am "believing" the governement? Think clearly, your words will then come out making more sense.
sidsquidrick 4 years ago
Truthers say the building was not hit at all, this shows it was. So they are lying. This video is nothing compared to the eyewitnesses who were there, the NYFD. They saw the 20 story gash, saw the fires, saw the building start to lean and bulge. These were experienced firefighter who KNEW this building was coming down, and NOT because of imaginary bombs, but because of the damage and fire, But I guess you think the NYFD is lying?
911truthiness 4 years ago
Nice compilation!
boloboffin 4 years ago
????.compilation?. it's one clip showing a tiny piece hitting. do you really believe this shows a building demolishing event?. have you seen photos of wtc 5 and 6?.
genghis6199 4 years ago
Two clips, with a repeat and slowdown of the second. Compliation.
It shows an event that contributed to the collapse of 7.
Yes.
boloboffin 4 years ago