Don't mind "MyLibelSuit", it's just Daryl Carstensen (aka TheCrimsonSkull, SunWestMovies) being the usual asshole that he is when confronted with the reality that he is a harasser, stalker and woman abuser.
I used to be naive enough to think our government loved us too, but I've seen too much in the last ten years or so to be that fooled anymore. I don't even believe buildings 1 and 2 fell because of fires in the tops of them, let alone building 7.
this is ridiculous. I guarantee all these conspiracy theorists are still hung up on George Bush and want to to find out that he was responsible. Get over it. He wasn't in any way responsible and neither was the U.S. government. Does it make sense to think that 2 of the tallest buildings in the world came crashing down to the ground and created quite the impact. No matter how that other building fell down, it happened naturally. This is such a joke.
@stevemesaros from manchester england . what makes u think those so called upper class people care about u or any one that u no ? and dont be ignort by dismissing other sides to the story. Take in all the evidence before make a decison . peace
Even Puerto Rican William Rodriguez figured it out. And he‘s damn near as stoopid as myself (damn near). He claimed, “Der wuz bombs in dems billdins an de gobment did it so de peoples would get all patriotic and beg the gobment to protect them as they sent their poverty stricken young sons and daughters to a war the elite of the world so desired.” And no, he was not talking about poor ghetto blacks, he was talking about the poor whites from small town America - the ones doing most of the dying.
I’m one of the stoopidest people in the world, I mean dense and dumb from the word go. And my daddy was the same. But, from the first moment I saw any of those three WTC buildings fall, I knew damn well they didn’t fall by the planes or by fire - it was a controlled demolition and an act of self-terrorism as a pretext to war. You entell, intalag… ‘smart’ people should have figured that out as well.
Jct: It's incredible to find out how many people believe what they are told. Most didn't get to see, so they believe the lie, but how about those who did get to see, and still push the lie. Pushing a lie on TV for all to see. Lots of people have been paid good money to blow their reputations in public, the FEMA and NIST engineers are now discredited for life.
The collapse of Building 7 is the most influential piece of evidence in this whole case
If you really believe, in your heart of hearts,that this building collapsed because of fire damage, you really need to have a long hard look at yourself
Nothing is this world could be more obvious than that,
Same analogy could be applied to the "plane" that "hit" the pentagon,
what we all can see is a big hole, but no plane, no plane pieces, no broken seats, no dead bodies, no wing damage on the building, nothing that we use to see in a plane crash. Heres my question: How the most security place in the world, with cameras in each corner, doesnt have any footage of the plane hitting the building? And Why?
Nothing in this world could be more obvious than that,
Same analogy could be applied to the "plane" that "hit" the pentagon,
what we all can see is a big hole, but no plane, no plane pieces, no broken seats, no dead bodies, no wing damage on the building, nothing that we use to see in a plane crash. Heres my question: How the most security place in the world, with cameras in each corner, doesnt have any footage of the plane hitting the building? And Why?
im surprised this video is still on youtube! its on my favorites. i think its the single most peice of damning evidence out there! if a person can't believe this video they just won't believe any other videos
our government did this, we needed them to fall to make money thats what wars are for. the goverment does stuff all the time with out letting the people know. do all now think SCIENCE is fake. go back to school if think that...
well it was clearly due to fire wasn't it? fire in buildings generally cause them to drop at near free fall speed? Its amazing that the "fire" weakend the steel so uniformly that the building fell into itself!
It is obious it was controlled, but are not the position of the government agencies now that it was actually demolished? However, I fail to understand how they could set the charges so quickly.
Could the hijackers have penetrated the security of the WTC carrying explosives past security guards and Bomb sniffing dogs the answer is NO. Other people did plant the explosives and in my opinion they also took control of the Aircraft guidance system and planned 911. I dont believe the 19 terrorists named had anything to do with it. The real terrorists were men who wanted to create the Wars in the middle east. .The US Military Forces and CIA ETC outwitted by 19 guys i dont think so.
wah doi think? i think some one used high military grade explosive only made by the us gov starts with a p. and is virtually silent when detonated and releases this white dust. which was all over the ppl at ground zero. wanna kno how i kno. my dad is a chemist at a college my cusin from new york got some and my dad ran some test. if we needed a reason to go to war why didnt we just vote on it instead of killing alot of ppl....ya kno
Your comparing oranges and controlled demolitions. The media is saying it was done by apples and cave people. I have done much research and builing 7 fell due to controlled oranges, not cave apples. This means 9/11 was an inside job, so grab your pitch forks and torches and we'll put them to good use at the next Bilderberg meeting.
yeah wouldnt be surprised if the 9/11 occurrences were caused by certain elements in our very own country just to provoke fear and warm up for war or some other messed-up reason.
Audio, visual and physical evidence of explosive charges are also not to be ignored. I'm not saying you are deffinately wrong, I'm just prefering to stick to more rational explanations.
We're both more right than those who still believe that WTC7's collapse was caused by fire.
@ShillBasher Irrational you prefer to call it, but you cannot explain ALL of evidence until you consider explosions were nuclear and that directed energy was used to contain the force of explosions to within the field. Don't cancel out Judy Wood because she isn't laying it out for you, she is giving you food for thought, and it's up to you to draw your own conclusions.
The shills are always in the suits and ties saying "This is what happened" and "Make your check payable to..."
I just find it hard to view what you are say as being 'improbable'
Look, we all have our own opinions based on our own line of research, but I've been looking into this event for a few years and on the whole I would have to conclude that the more 'exotic' explanations are unlikely to be anything more than a product of over reaction or, at worst, disinformation.
This video is about believing what your eyes tell you. My eyes tell me that WTC7 was brought down with explosives.
"evidence for you to ignore" loaded statement perhaps?
Look, I'm going to have to be with you blunt here, ok. We've entered into a discussion about a subject we both clearly have an interest in, yet it seems that you don't wish to discuss anything. What you appear to want is for me to just take what you believe as being fact. In my experience people who are unable to express their OWN opinions, or who can't do so calmly, are to be taken lightly.
I've watched it... THERFORE: I'm not ignoring it, am I. Lik,e you, I do find the video's content thought provoking. That doesn't mean I necesarily agree with all of it's content, but I do think it's worth talking about.
Are you willing and able to discuss these issues?. I'm offering you the chance to enter into dialogue about the subject, do you want to do that or not?
Posting links and then insinuating that I will "ignor it" isn't really what I'm after.
@markhsv Taken many years to wake up? Sadly, for most fat ass lazy americans thats true. But i knew it was inside job from day one. I was only 13-14 at the time and i knew.
If enough of the metal in 7 was tempered it would all give at once, because the entire building is linked together to support it's massive weight. If there is enough heat damage near the center of the building and if those supports at the center gave way FIRST all the surrounding ones would collapse NOT AT THE SAME TIME.
Yes, wow you are a genius.... because falling "debris" can cause a fire strong enough (although most was put out) to weaken ALL of the support beams of an enormous building enough so that they all collapse at the same time. You are aware that if even ONE of the beams was unaffected it would not have been an even fall, right?
What is your argument against this simple mided video....Are the demolitions they showing fake?...or is the thing they are calling an orange in the video actually an apple?
Hadn't thought about it, it may not be an orange.
I think 7 fell from fire damage. I'm in the construction business, In every building being constructed any metal support members are encased in fire proof materials. The reason it's done is the red iron needs protected from the effect heat from a fire has. Once the red iron is heated enough it changes. After the heat is taken away and the metal cools it's now tempered and is brittle and it will not perform as designed.
The building can break....And will take time and come down slowly right...and not come falling down at free fall speed?....And for some reason i don't believe your in the construction buisness because i have heard from people who help build the world trade centre say that the buildings should not have come down like that.
I'm not an engineer or and architect, I know what I know from life and study.
The reason the Titanic sunk was the metal used in it's hull was not tested properly. If I recall it had a high sulfur content, that made it brittle. Had the hull been contructed as designed the ship would have received a huge dent from the iceberg instead of a huge hole.
Tall building move continuously, if they can't flex they break.
Wait a minute i thought you were in the construstion buisness??...And i think the people who built the WTC know a lot more about what it can and can't handle...Aswell as how much damage should be caused....So unless you say they are lying you have no argument.
If enough of the metal in 7 was tempered it would all give at once, because the entire building is linked together to support it's massive weight. If there is enough heat damage near the center of the building and if those supports at the center gave way first all the surrounding ones would collapse as the amount of weight they are now holding increases.
I weigh close to 190 pounds, I can stand on an undamaged empty aluminum (beer) can. If the sides are touched just a little it collapses.
If you touch only one side of the can, it doesn't collapse in an even manner.
You would need an even sided amount of beams to be brittle in order for 7 to fall in its almost perfect fashion as it did.
What is interesting is that the little floor on the roof which is dead center, collapsed before the rest of building followed. This could suggest controlled explosions on the centre beams, which would bring it down perfectly like this.
I dont even know how to respond to this idiocy. You analogy is laughably horrendous. Comparing yourself - a 190 lb person - to a beer can that weighs a few ounces with SMALL DEBRIS AND SOME FIRE on a fucking MASSIVE building is pathetic.
How sweet it must be to be ignorant "muhammadsholypenis." Wow your name alone discredits any points you may make. Calling me a moron and then an idiot subsequently does little to justify your claims (oh wait you have none, in fact you provide no evidence at all).
Answer me this ONE question and I will gladly shut up. How did a few guys from caves whose flight instructors said "they couldn't fly at all" execute 270 degree turns that advanced pilots cant do in fighter planes?
I look at it like this, I don't care what you believe about these buildings. This YouTube account is for bashing a cult (Islam).
I can agree with your point, generally Muslims are very dumb people. (They probably don't have shoes that require a knot to be tied).
My retard president Obongo also gets bashed, once in awhile, but at least he's smart enough to tie his shoes (as long as the teleprompter is working).
If you are an engineer or a commercial pilot you'd have weight.
BTW my user name has a purpose, if it didn't bother you then it served it's use.
...........here's your answer to the question. The guys that piloted the planes into the buildings had lived in America for quite awhile. One of them lived in the same neighborhood as one of my sisters. .....again you are correct they are cave monkeys........they just stepped it up a bit for their assignment. You or I could fly a plane as those guys did, with out flight school.
You are aware that the guy flew mere feet above the ground through the most restricted airspace in the country when he hit the pentagon? You really think you could do that?
I am not saying it wasn't muslims, I am saying there is no way they could have done it alone.
I really don't care to have long winded conversations with you about building 7.
I'm on YouTube to expose the perversion of Islam and It's leadership.
If anyone wants conclusive evidence about how the building fell all that needs happen is a test of the metal beams that were the foundation of the building.
They will either be tempered and out of specification, or the will show signs of explosives of some sort.
The only people still shilling the official story are Zionists who are petrified that the perpetrators, primarily the Mossad cell under the direction of Dov Zakheim and financed internally out of Richard B. Cheney's office. TREASON. Death to all traitors.
I love how the conspiracy nuts think they're smarter than everyone else just from looking at some videos.
I am looking out the window right now. The ground looks flat. Therefore I must conclude that the earth is flat. I don't want to hear any of your "round earth" argument based on years of scientific inquiry and study. I am not going to accept the "official" story you have been fed. I am just following common sense here. It looks flat.
only brainless single celled morons that have their ass so far up the govs assbeleive this was done by terrorists.keep your heads in there and go to sleep. slimy puppets.
Anyone watcing the Twin Towers (*WTC 1 and 2) can also clearly use common sense and visual identification to see they were blown to kingdom come.
You can see one tower start to lean over quite dramatically, and then it corrects itself and the squibs beneath it pulverize the beams in a pyroclastic blast.
For a leaning over structure of several thousand tonnes to suddenly correct itself without charges (explosives) violates the law of the conservation of momentum.
jet fuel at teh heat it burns isnt hot enough , nor would have burned long enough , especially the small amount given to weaken ANY of the structual supports or beams. Besides lets say that it would have burned long enough which would have been a very long time, and would have caused the upper beams to loose sum of their rigidity, just that section of the building would have caved or fallen over, being the area damaged was more near the side and the other portion
near the side and the other portion not as bad it would have leaned and possibly fallen over, (just the top) the rest of the building would have been fine. Maybe i have this understanding because i am a mechanical engineer , but anyone with a right sence of logic can understand this as many have. The theory you put out is the same as to say the building should have fallen over when the plane slammed into it if it was that weak. Finally how can a plane really fly into or through a building
impossible. A missle can blow an opening configured to let sum smaller plane craft in , etc, but a plane will crush up the minute it impacts the side of that building. 3 buildings down , said to be cause by fire. GET REAL , it was a controlled demolition using thermal explosives
They worked fast to load the charges in one day, or were they in there weeks ahead of time doing the work? I think they loaded ALL the buildings weeks ahead of 911 to be ready that day... "They" knew what they were doing...
The only documented information that was released was that the twin towers were electrically shut down on September 8 & 9th for "technical reasons".
I have a layout of the twin towers that show the technical service areas, which ironically are the same areas that the puffs of smoke (known as squibs) shot out of.
this is how a burning building looks like. search for more comparable videos of burning skyscrapers and you will see, why i had tears of laughing when i read your first statement.
plus wtc7 was only damaged on one side by falling depris, the other side was not damaged at all. so why did it came straight down without leaning to any side?
Ok, just for the record... I listened to the radio and television the entire day following the news, and guess what..? The British news coverage reported that WTC 7 was to be DEMOLISHED due to structural damage.... well what do you know... a portion of truth came out before the lie got rolling.
I was on the phone with a customer in France on 9/12. He told me that it was being reported over there that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military. How would he know that or say that if it were not true? I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I just know that what our government TOLD us happened is not true.
The firefighters also reported explosions, so did several news reporters that were at the World Trade Center. They reported NUMEROUS explosions in the buildings prior to their collapse.
This is REAL DENIAL , jet fuel at teh heat it burns isnt hot enough , nor would have burned long enough , especially the small amount given to weaken ANY of the structual supports or beams. Besides lets say that it would have burned long enough which would have been a very long time, and would have caused the upper beams to loose sum of their rigidity, just that section of the building would have caved or fallen over
NIST: Not In The Slightest True.. MESSAGE TO ALL WHO PASS HERE: .now i've jumped on this thread and spoken the truth..watch all the insults pile up from the shills... watch the vid decide for yourself... controlled demo or not?.. i know what i think.. 9/11 was an inside job. the 2 towers were reverse sequence bring downs. peace.
all load bearing columns were blown at the same time. = classic trap door drop. explosives were used. let the paid up muppets chat shit and hurl insults all they want. they live in a cartoon. some of them have been on this thread for up to a year pretending to be ordinary youtubers. sad but true. muppets.
painterfmw. I want to buy some of this silent explosive then i can rob banks without the police knowing. That is a lemon, you are a fruit, sit down in a dark room and put the phone on mute, open your mind up put the conspiracy aside and with some luck in a few years you will regain your pride. BUT DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH.
WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. That is why I originally stated, more proof may be required. Although, very little evidence remains. I studied the site of the first bombing back in 1993, and got a good look at the 2001 craters as well. I didn't find anything suspicious, but there wasn't much to work with, and rescue workers were still completing their work.
Buildings tend to fall to the side where the fire began and flashover has occurred. Flashover is a rapid burn caused by a number of possibilities, including, but not limited to sudden flow of air and oxygen, like windows shattering from extreme heat, or residents breaking them to get air. Buildings don't burn uniformly, and the point where the fire has been burning the longest is typically in the weakest state. They typically do not collapse perfectly in seconds.
A very interesting video with some tangible possibilities. When buildings collapse from fire, they tend to fall to the side where the burning began and where flashover has occurred. Buildings don't burn uniformly, and the point where the fire has been burning the longest is typically in the weakest state.
Having experience with demolitions, I have to agree with my colleague Jesse Ventura, the buliding collapses during 911 were more than suspicious. Although, more proof may be required.
Doubtful, but regardless, there's plenty coming out of your mouth. My opinion, unlike yours, is informed. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a "Post a Text Comment" notice. Maybe you're too stupid to grasp how it works. It is a solicitation to leave a comment.
Your response to my comment, is in fact, unsolicited.
Get a clue moron.
And again, buy a working bullshit detector, the one you're using is bullshit.
So you say, but you give little indication of how your opinion is informed. In fact, in contradiction, you use the typical "I don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about but want to appear authoritative" template:
"Statement of experience or qualification with [relevant subject], Statement of agreement with [full name of person with status], supposition, pretentious waffle continued ..."
Additionally, you are clueless. In what way does my comment "warrant a reply," eh? Because I made a comment that contains an opinion. I guess in your shallow mind that means that idiots like you can sprout up to make assertions without providing an ounce of your own support or evidence. Merely saying it's "bullshit," in a provocative manner, doesn't support your hypocritical argument.
You say it's bullshit and provide absolutely nothing as evidence, argument or theory.
Try again pinhead. It isn't my duty or responsibility or obligation to leave my resume in order to make an informed comment.
You want to refute me, great, then let's hear your vast credentials and qualifications, including dates of military service and unit served in, or other demolitions experience, your full name and occupation, and any relevant information supporting your theory or opinion.
"Try again pinhead. It isn't my duty or responsibility or obligation to leave my resume in order to make an informed comment."
You're quite right, you have no obligation to do anything whatsoever. But if you hope for people to receive you as an informed person, you usually need to back your statements up with something a little more tangible than self-certification. Otherwise people will just call bullshit, that's the way the internet works.
"You want to refute me, great, then let's hear your vast credentials and qualifications, including ..."
So you don't have to prove anything, but I do? Love the hypocrisy there!
Let's be fair, and this is a point you clearly don't get, credentials and qualifications, statuses, they don't prove a person's authority on a subject. I know plenty of people with fancy qualifications that know jack shit. What proves a person's authority is their ability to follow through.
People who really know what they hell they're talking about don't need to wave around credentials or status, they simply make their point and back it up. It's usually the people who don't know what they're talking about that wave around their implied qualification, and on the internet they're usually compulsive bullshitters.
You can almost guarantee that every compulsive bullshitter will reference at least one person with status by their full name, completely irrelevantly, instead of making logical points. My associate Bill McYackyack made a valid point on this in his thesis on yada yada bullshit.
"Additionally, you are clueless."
So you keep saying, but about what?
"In what way does my comment "warrant a reply," eh?"
I call bullshit and you feel insulted, that's understandable. After all, compulsive bullshitters usually bullshit to pamper their delicate ego. But if you wanted to prove me wrong, it's probably not wise to then respond like a text-book bullshitter.
I do call bullshit, so if I'm wrong enlighten me!
"wob wob, I don't have to you're not worth the time wob wob" xD
I stated an opinion with relevant details to back it up, and you said it's "bullshit," however, you don't cite a single piece of evidence, theory or opinion.
Let's assume you're right.
But, unfortunately for you, you haven't presented a challenge (spelled correctly-check your spelling ace).
A challenge would be a hint of credible, or not, theory conjecture or relevant evidence or opinion, you've given NONE.
"I stated an opinion with relevant details to back it up"
What relevant details? All you did was self-certify. You don't honestly believe that anybody in their right minds is going to accept your self-certification without question and go "gee Bill that boy sure knows what he's talking about!", do you?
"you don't cite a single piece of evidence, theory or opinion."
Look moron, why don't you try an experiment instead of wasting my time.
Build a small structure out of wood and brick and glass, about ten feet high. Then fill it with various objects, like an apartment would consist of; different materials and fabrics that burn at different temperatures and rates. Then, set fire to it anywhere you like. Make sure it is sealed and has some glass windows.
Then video tape it and post your results. Lets see if it drops straight down.
"Build a small structure out of wood and brick and glass, about ten feet high."
What on earth do you propose that represents? 1,368 ft steel mesh building, or even a 610 ft granite covered building is going to behave entirely differently to a 10 ft wood brick and glass building. I would hope somebody with demolitions experience would know that...
The point remains, so do the dynamics. Redirecting the issue makes you even dumber.
Please tell us all what Flashover or Backdrafts are. Give us some insight into the workings of your World Class IQ. Or is the "challenge" too much for you?
I suspect you're pushing the envelope just by parroting big words, like "challenge" and "bullshit."
"The point remains, so do the dynamics. Redirecting the issue makes you even dumber."
What point, that you show your self to clearly know nothing about the way different materials and different structures behave differently to each other? I'm not redirecting the issue, your experiment would not simulate what happened on 9/11.
"Please tell us all what Flashover or Backdrafts are."
Any moron can Google the answer to that before replying, what would that prove?
You challenge nothing at all. You glibly say words with no support, evidence, opinion or even loose theory or conjecture. In other words, you are a witless idiot.
Please explain for us all the concept of Flashover, or Backdraft.
And please, for all to see and enjoy, tell me how and why a building burns and crumbles perfectly, straight down in a matter of 13 seconds.
There is no contest. There is my initial statement of opinion, and you're unsupported and pathetic one word response, with no support or detail whatsoever.
I will not waste my time with a putz like you unless you offer up some "challenge" by way of supporting argument. Copying and pasting what I say and remarking like a clueless parrot will get you a failing mark.
"There is no contest. There is my initial statement of opinion, and you're unsupported and pathetic one word response, with no support or detail whatsoever."
I am contesting the implied authority in your original statement, what part of that don't you understand? I realise you won't admit this to your self, but you're doing a good job of proving me right.
And before you say it, in this context I mean "to call into question, to dispute".
There is no implied authority in my opinion, unless you're so unstable and jealous that you're reading something more into it.
That is my opinion, get it? Perhaps look the word up in a dictionary, I'm sure your Mum can help you with that.
In conclusion: It is highly suspicious that this building collapsed so perfectly and uniformly in a matter of 13 seconds, regardless of how long it burned for in advance. In my opinion, it is highly irregular.
"In conclusion: It is highly suspicious that this building collapsed so perfectly and uniformly in a matter of 13 seconds, regardless of how long it burned for in advance. In my opinion, it is highly irregular."
Which building are you talking about, and what evidence do you base that speculation on?
So you keep saying, but you've yet to tell me what I'm clueless about?
"The building in question is WTC7, which is the focus of this video"
As I thought, but I had to ask since in your original comment you implied references to all the buildings: "the buliding collapses during 911 were more than suspicious", given that a building only tends to collapse once.
"Please explain to us all exactly how this giant, steel-reinforced structure collapsed flawlessly into a neat little pile in 13 seconds?"
I make no assertion or pretence that I know what caused the collapse of 7 WTC, I haven't seen enough public evidence to come to a comprehensive conclusion on that building. I'm simply calling into question the implication that your opinion is informed.
Apparently you are still clueless. Did you not know that the two towers as well as several other buildings collapsed in the same manner; straight down into a perfect seemingly controlled demolition?
It's most unusual for even one building to go down this way, but three, or more.
It's most suspicious, regardless of your disposition on the subject.
"Did you not know that the two towers as well as several other buildings collapsed in the same manner"
Anybody who's watched the numerous videos of that day can see that the main two towers collapse quite differently to 7 WTC, even though there's very little to go by on 7 WTC.
Now person with implied experience in demolition, tell me, where does the collapse sequence normally initiate in a controlled demolition?
I will freely admit that from the very little video evidence there is for 7 WTC, the collapse does look strikingly similar to a controlled demolition. The collapse of the two main towers does not.
And in response to your inquiry, a controlled building demolition, not exactly my exact area of expertise, involves systematically removing the internal support structure of the building to be downed. From what little I know about building demolition, you would start with the lowest portion and in a timed order, gradually move up the structure. Timing is crucial and experience is critical as well. As the building crumbles onto itself the upper reaches are destroyed.
Yes. Depending on where the building is located. If you want it to fall in a certain direction, you start with your charges on that side. The charges are always initiated at the bottom first, then secondary bottom charges are used, then the top is generally detonated.
"The charges are always initiated at the bottom first, then secondary bottom charges are used, then the top is generally detonated."
Exactly, which is why the collapse of the two main towers looks nothing like a controlled demolition. The collapse sequence in the two main towers initiates at the area of impact and the upper section of the building appears to drive through the lower section.
Indeed. Not a lot of suspicion there, despite the circulation of many rumors. The last place to detonate would be the top, anyway you slice it. No credible demo expert would start at the top. It would probably tumble off to the side and cause a disastrous mess.
Although with the trade towers, the plane impacts were devastatingly accurate. Jet A (fuel) does not burn so hot, but the destruction to the internal supports was tremendous. Seemed natural to me, and that's what I reported.
That it is. To be fair it wouldn't surprise me if they did intentionally initiate the collapse of 7 WTC given the circumstance. Why they wouldn't make that public knowledge I don't know, but I don't believe that implies a greater conspiricy for the cause of 9/11 or the collapse of the two main towers.
I don't think you'd want to send in a demo team to bring down that building while it was building. Usually a controlled demolitions team takes a number of walk-throughs to assess the building thoroughly. How would this be conducted in a severely damaged building? It's far too risky to do. Many use computer simulations to get it right, but there wasn't time.
It is just peculiar. Conspiracy? I don't know, but it's strange at best.
There is some chatter that the Police in New York were telling citizens to stay back they are going to blow the building up (WTC7). Possibly rumor too. However, you still face the same problem; putting a team into a building with significant damage to it's structure. Most demo guys I know wouldn't touch it with a 1000 feet of Primacord.
WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings on the planet. Offices for CIA, Secret Service, SEC, NYC emergency command center, and numerous banks. Do you think WTC 7 could be readied for demolition in a matter of hours? If not, then it follows that any admission that the building was brought down intentionally would be tantamount to foreknowledge -- which is a conspiracy by definition. By the way, the official account is a conspiracy theory -- the question is, which theory most fits the facts.
"There you go talking out of your ass right off the mark." So..WTC7 was not a secure building??
"7 WTC was certainly structurally compromised" -- really? Proof please.
"What conspiricy does the official account theorise?" --"They hate us for our freedoms." A conspiracy by definition is two or more individuals conspiring to break the law. A "conspiracy theory" OUGHT to be an analysis of evidence to determine possible guilt.
It was undoubtedly secure one way or another, but I wouldn't be so flamboyant and fallacious as to call it one of the most secure buildings in the world. But then I don't talk out of my ass... ;)
"really? Proof please."
Just search Google Images for "7 WTC Damage".
"A conspiracy by definition is ..."
That's not answering my question. I didn't ask for a definition, I asked you what conspiricy the official account theorised?
"But then I don't talk out of my ass... ;)"--Like hell you don't.
"Just search Google Images for "7 WTC Damage"."--You said (out of your ass): "7 WTC was certainly structurally compromised" -- no images show STRUCTURAL compromise that would lead to sudden onset total collapse as seen in video.
"I asked you what conspiricy the official account theorised?" -- it is spelled "theorized" -- bin Laden, 19 Arab hijackers, "hate us for our freedoms" -- none of that rings a bell for you?
"no images show STRUCTURAL compromise that would lead to sudden onset total collapse as seen in video."
I never said there were.
"it is spelled "theorized""
My 'en-GB' spell checker begs to differ, but it's nice of you to resort to pedantry instead of answering my question.
"none of that rings a bell for you?"
Sure it does, but ambiguous statements don't answer my question. Are you so used to talking out of your ass that you're incapable of giving direct answers?
This is an apple
SacredSocietyAP 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't mind "MyLibelSuit", it's just Daryl Carstensen (aka TheCrimsonSkull, SunWestMovies) being the usual asshole that he is when confronted with the reality that he is a harasser, stalker and woman abuser.
If anyone confronts him, just report him.
WhyAskQuestions 4 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions You're libel is noted and I will use every word of it in a court of Law.
I'm suing you for lying about me and libeling me on a public forum.
MyLibelSuit 4 months ago
open your eyes americans and the rest of the world, and all stop paying taxes ! All, not 1 !
archerzz10 5 months ago
THEY TOOK OOUR JOOBS !!
PsychedelicInDaBrain 8 months ago
whoever disliked this video can consider himself a sheep. kthxbye.
QukyZMN 9 months ago
Its mesmerizing how all truthers are also expert engineers. Thats a bigger conspiracy right there.
emmthreejonny 10 months ago
I used to be naive enough to think our government loved us too, but I've seen too much in the last ten years or so to be that fooled anymore. I don't even believe buildings 1 and 2 fell because of fires in the tops of them, let alone building 7.
tonygwd 10 months ago
this is ridiculous. I guarantee all these conspiracy theorists are still hung up on George Bush and want to to find out that he was responsible. Get over it. He wasn't in any way responsible and neither was the U.S. government. Does it make sense to think that 2 of the tallest buildings in the world came crashing down to the ground and created quite the impact. No matter how that other building fell down, it happened naturally. This is such a joke.
stevemesaros 11 months ago
@stevemesaros Whatever helps you sleep at night. Also, I agreed with your assessment of your own comment at the end there.
DTX85 11 months ago
@stevemesaros you are a victim of bull shit
daniel27121993 11 months ago
@daniel27121993 or is that you? i don't need to waste my time believing such nonsense. what country are you from?
stevemesaros 11 months ago
@stevemesaros from manchester england . what makes u think those so called upper class people care about u or any one that u no ? and dont be ignort by dismissing other sides to the story. Take in all the evidence before make a decison . peace
daniel27121993 11 months ago
BRILLIANT
ambergypsy9 1 year ago
Even Puerto Rican William Rodriguez figured it out. And he‘s damn near as stoopid as myself (damn near). He claimed, “Der wuz bombs in dems billdins an de gobment did it so de peoples would get all patriotic and beg the gobment to protect them as they sent their poverty stricken young sons and daughters to a war the elite of the world so desired.” And no, he was not talking about poor ghetto blacks, he was talking about the poor whites from small town America - the ones doing most of the dying.
exposethemall45 1 year ago
I’m one of the stoopidest people in the world, I mean dense and dumb from the word go. And my daddy was the same. But, from the first moment I saw any of those three WTC buildings fall, I knew damn well they didn’t fall by the planes or by fire - it was a controlled demolition and an act of self-terrorism as a pretext to war. You entell, intalag… ‘smart’ people should have figured that out as well.
exposethemall45 1 year ago
Jct: It's incredible to find out how many people believe what they are told. Most didn't get to see, so they believe the lie, but how about those who did get to see, and still push the lie. Pushing a lie on TV for all to see. Lots of people have been paid good money to blow their reputations in public, the FEMA and NIST engineers are now discredited for life.
kingofthepaupers 1 year ago
google up Allan Weisbecker's essay on George Orwell and John O'Neill. You'll read something you haven't read before
travissteeman 1 year ago
5...4...3...2...1...KABOOM then demolition fail followed by people laughing.
While this was an informative video, I can't help but laugh at that particular example.
StarFighters76 1 year ago
@TruhterCP3O WTC7 was not hit by any aircraft.
FullofStarsatDusk 1 year ago
The collapse of Building 7 is the most influential piece of evidence in this whole case
If you really believe, in your heart of hearts,that this building collapsed because of fire damage, you really need to have a long hard look at yourself
It's called denial
popjoeandco 1 year ago
46 people who hit the dislike button must be working for the government!
kjalcaraz84 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Nothing is this world could be more obvious than that,
Same analogy could be applied to the "plane" that "hit" the pentagon,
what we all can see is a big hole, but no plane, no plane pieces, no broken seats, no dead bodies, no wing damage on the building, nothing that we use to see in a plane crash. Heres my question: How the most security place in the world, with cameras in each corner, doesnt have any footage of the plane hitting the building? And Why?
GillesSampaioBrazil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nothing in this world could be more obvious than that,
Same analogy could be applied to the "plane" that "hit" the pentagon,
what we all can see is a big hole, but no plane, no plane pieces, no broken seats, no dead bodies, no wing damage on the building, nothing that we use to see in a plane crash. Heres my question: How the most security place in the world, with cameras in each corner, doesnt have any footage of the plane hitting the building? And Why?
GillesSampaioBrazil 1 year ago
Comment removed
GillesSampaioBrazil 1 year ago
Comment removed
GillesSampaioBrazil 1 year ago
Awesome analogy - and I'd never seen Bdg 7 fall before.
Celienet 1 year ago
NO THATS A MANDARINE !!1!!11!
wika57 1 year ago
NIST and FEMA are full of idiots and liars. good video
adambomb805 1 year ago
B R A V O !
devliroy 1 year ago
im surprised this video is still on youtube! its on my favorites. i think its the single most peice of damning evidence out there! if a person can't believe this video they just won't believe any other videos
phatmatt1176 1 year ago
Binladin wonder fuel did its magic
allcingeye 2 years ago
our government did this, we needed them to fall to make money thats what wars are for. the goverment does stuff all the time with out letting the people know. do all now think SCIENCE is fake. go back to school if think that...
pdragon69 2 years ago
well it was clearly due to fire wasn't it? fire in buildings generally cause them to drop at near free fall speed? Its amazing that the "fire" weakend the steel so uniformly that the building fell into itself!
I wasn't aware that office fires can melt steel?
WTF! Have I been lied too?
nevillebartoz149 2 years ago
It is obious it was controlled, but are not the position of the government agencies now that it was actually demolished? However, I fail to understand how they could set the charges so quickly.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Could the hijackers have penetrated the security of the WTC carrying explosives past security guards and Bomb sniffing dogs the answer is NO. Other people did plant the explosives and in my opinion they also took control of the Aircraft guidance system and planned 911. I dont believe the 19 terrorists named had anything to do with it. The real terrorists were men who wanted to create the Wars in the middle east. .The US Military Forces and CIA ETC outwitted by 19 guys i dont think so.
johndownunder 2 years ago
wah doi think? i think some one used high military grade explosive only made by the us gov starts with a p. and is virtually silent when detonated and releases this white dust. which was all over the ppl at ground zero. wanna kno how i kno. my dad is a chemist at a college my cusin from new york got some and my dad ran some test. if we needed a reason to go to war why didnt we just vote on it instead of killing alot of ppl....ya kno
BlackBrian18 2 years ago
Your comparing oranges and controlled demolitions. The media is saying it was done by apples and cave people. I have done much research and builing 7 fell due to controlled oranges, not cave apples. This means 9/11 was an inside job, so grab your pitch forks and torches and we'll put them to good use at the next Bilderberg meeting.
CaptainCrikey 2 years ago
OMFG the ending is to much nice Hahahaha Yeah !
HonKyTanKMaN 2 years ago
yeah wouldnt be surprised if the 9/11 occurrences were caused by certain elements in our very own country just to provoke fear and warm up for war or some other messed-up reason.
v2174230322 2 years ago
Why do these videos always cut out the east penthouse collapse?
thecandidate0607 2 years ago
Being that the Penthouse was centralized gives credence to the fact that the core columns failed first. Thus causing a total progressive collapse.
Fire can't do that.
katey1dog 2 years ago
Wow. Everyone needs to see this compelling video. It's obviously a controlled demolition.
I have seen other videos that show massive steel structure buildings almost completely engulfed in flame - yet they didn't collapse.
The WTC7 fire wasn't nearly as big as some, and we are supposed to believe it caused the structure to collapse!
Great Video. Compelling Argument. We need a real investigation into the events of 9/11/2001.
RobertWhitlock 2 years ago
You cant argue with science. Great video. The truth will come out I know!
KungFuChess 2 years ago
great question of epistemology:
to you believe what you are TOLD
or do you believe what you see?
do you know what youre told to be true?
do you know what you see to be true.
how do you know anything?
oranges are apples, in humpty dumpty land.
rofl
i despise descarte, i think he did too.
great vid5*****
WellSightedGentleman 2 years ago
ONE OF THE BEST CLIPS I'VE SEEN.
THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CANNOT EXPLAIN THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND AT THE BASE OF THE THREE TOWERS THAT FELL. WHY??
THERMITE (an explosive), WAS USED TO BRING THE TOWERS DOWN...
WE CAN ALL SEE IT FOR OURSELVES.
IT HAS TAKEN MANY,MANY YEARS FOR THIS INFOMATION TO COME OUT,BUT THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
PEOPLE ARE SLOWLY WAKING UP THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAID ABOUT 9/11 WAS A LIE.
PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID......
THEY KNOW A PLANE DIDN'T HIT THE PENTAGON
markhsv 2 years ago 13
People that type in caps are perverts and they all go to hell
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago 2
@markhsv Judy Wood, directed energy weapons not thermite Steven Jones is a disinfo agent.
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO
Don't think so!. Is there a chance that YOU have been mislead and that it was, in fact, explosives?.
The simplest explanation is often the best.
ShillBasher 1 year ago
@ShillBasher Evidence of radiation is to be ignored?
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO
Audio, visual and physical evidence of explosive charges are also not to be ignored. I'm not saying you are deffinately wrong, I'm just prefering to stick to more rational explanations.
We're both more right than those who still believe that WTC7's collapse was caused by fire.
All the best
ShillBasher 1 year ago
@ShillBasher Irrational you prefer to call it, but you cannot explain ALL of evidence until you consider explosions were nuclear and that directed energy was used to contain the force of explosions to within the field. Don't cancel out Judy Wood because she isn't laying it out for you, she is giving you food for thought, and it's up to you to draw your own conclusions.
The shills are always in the suits and ties saying "This is what happened" and "Make your check payable to..."
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO
I just find it hard to view what you are say as being 'improbable'
Look, we all have our own opinions based on our own line of research, but I've been looking into this event for a few years and on the whole I would have to conclude that the more 'exotic' explanations are unlikely to be anything more than a product of over reaction or, at worst, disinformation.
This video is about believing what your eyes tell you. My eyes tell me that WTC7 was brought down with explosives.
ShillBasher 1 year ago
There is much evidence for you to ignore: watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO
"evidence for you to ignore" loaded statement perhaps?
Look, I'm going to have to be with you blunt here, ok. We've entered into a discussion about a subject we both clearly have an interest in, yet it seems that you don't wish to discuss anything. What you appear to want is for me to just take what you believe as being fact. In my experience people who are unable to express their OWN opinions, or who can't do so calmly, are to be taken lightly.
The nuke theory is 'exotic', no?
ShillBasher 1 year ago
You are ignoring this evidence, no?
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO
I've watched it... THERFORE: I'm not ignoring it, am I. Lik,e you, I do find the video's content thought provoking. That doesn't mean I necesarily agree with all of it's content, but I do think it's worth talking about.
Are you willing and able to discuss these issues?. I'm offering you the chance to enter into dialogue about the subject, do you want to do that or not?
Posting links and then insinuating that I will "ignor it" isn't really what I'm after.
ShillBasher 1 year ago
@ShillBasher
Ooops, just read that back. I meant to write 'blunt with you' not "with you blunt". I think I must be mildly dyslexic or something : ^O
ShillBasher 1 year ago
watch?v=LfqLndV5pSI
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@markhsv Taken many years to wake up? Sadly, for most fat ass lazy americans thats true. But i knew it was inside job from day one. I was only 13-14 at the time and i knew.
D4rknb3h0ld3r 10 months ago
If enough of the metal in 7 was tempered it would all give at once, because the entire building is linked together to support it's massive weight. If there is enough heat damage near the center of the building and if those supports at the center gave way FIRST all the surrounding ones would collapse NOT AT THE SAME TIME.
sinularia 2 years ago
Yes, wow you are a genius.... because falling "debris" can cause a fire strong enough (although most was put out) to weaken ALL of the support beams of an enormous building enough so that they all collapse at the same time. You are aware that if even ONE of the beams was unaffected it would not have been an even fall, right?
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago 8
Youtube: Neils Harrit - Danish Scientist. RE: WTC dust samples... Game over.
seekYEthetruth 2 years ago
Nice work, this video will appeal greatly to the simple minded Muslims.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
OK non simple minded....Non Muslim...
What is your argument against this simple mided video....Are the demolitions they showing fake?...or is the thing they are calling an orange in the video actually an apple?
Miss100690 2 years ago
Hadn't thought about it, it may not be an orange.
I think 7 fell from fire damage. I'm in the construction business, In every building being constructed any metal support members are encased in fire proof materials. The reason it's done is the red iron needs protected from the effect heat from a fire has. Once the red iron is heated enough it changes. After the heat is taken away and the metal cools it's now tempered and is brittle and it will not perform as designed.
The building can break
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
The building can break....And will take time and come down slowly right...and not come falling down at free fall speed?....And for some reason i don't believe your in the construction buisness because i have heard from people who help build the world trade centre say that the buildings should not have come down like that.
Miss100690 2 years ago
I'm not an engineer or and architect, I know what I know from life and study.
The reason the Titanic sunk was the metal used in it's hull was not tested properly. If I recall it had a high sulfur content, that made it brittle. Had the hull been contructed as designed the ship would have received a huge dent from the iceberg instead of a huge hole.
Tall building move continuously, if they can't flex they break.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
Wait a minute i thought you were in the construstion buisness??...And i think the people who built the WTC know a lot more about what it can and can't handle...Aswell as how much damage should be caused....So unless you say they are lying you have no argument.
Miss100690 2 years ago
With your knowledge of building design and construction you are assuming the conclusions of the video to be correct ?
With my knowledge I'm coming to the exact opposite conclusion.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
Comment removed
Miss100690 2 years ago
If enough of the metal in 7 was tempered it would all give at once, because the entire building is linked together to support it's massive weight. If there is enough heat damage near the center of the building and if those supports at the center gave way first all the surrounding ones would collapse as the amount of weight they are now holding increases.
I weigh close to 190 pounds, I can stand on an undamaged empty aluminum (beer) can. If the sides are touched just a little it collapses.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
Comment removed
Miss100690 2 years ago
You make good points but..
If you touch only one side of the can, it doesn't collapse in an even manner.
You would need an even sided amount of beams to be brittle in order for 7 to fall in its almost perfect fashion as it did.
What is interesting is that the little floor on the roof which is dead center, collapsed before the rest of building followed. This could suggest controlled explosions on the centre beams, which would bring it down perfectly like this.
DonJuanDeMarco2 2 years ago
I dont even know how to respond to this idiocy. You analogy is laughably horrendous. Comparing yourself - a 190 lb person - to a beer can that weighs a few ounces with SMALL DEBRIS AND SOME FIRE on a fucking MASSIVE building is pathetic.
I guess reason is not inherent in all humans.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
Are you one of the morons that thinks the government caused the building to collapse?
Are you one of those idiots that believe the government waits for opportunities to kill Americans and blame it on the perverted cult of Islam?
There are easier ways to make Islam look bad.
How will you respond after using all the big words you know?
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
How sweet it must be to be ignorant "muhammadsholypenis." Wow your name alone discredits any points you may make. Calling me a moron and then an idiot subsequently does little to justify your claims (oh wait you have none, in fact you provide no evidence at all).
Answer me this ONE question and I will gladly shut up. How did a few guys from caves whose flight instructors said "they couldn't fly at all" execute 270 degree turns that advanced pilots cant do in fighter planes?
Waiting
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
I look at it like this, I don't care what you believe about these buildings. This YouTube account is for bashing a cult (Islam).
I can agree with your point, generally Muslims are very dumb people. (They probably don't have shoes that require a knot to be tied).
My retard president Obongo also gets bashed, once in awhile, but at least he's smart enough to tie his shoes (as long as the teleprompter is working).
If you are an engineer or a commercial pilot you'd have weight.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
....well you didn't answer my question
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
....nice work.
BTW my user name has a purpose, if it didn't bother you then it served it's use.
...........here's your answer to the question. The guys that piloted the planes into the buildings had lived in America for quite awhile. One of them lived in the same neighborhood as one of my sisters. .....again you are correct they are cave monkeys........they just stepped it up a bit for their assignment. You or I could fly a plane as those guys did, with out flight school.
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
you sure about that?
You are aware that the guy flew mere feet above the ground through the most restricted airspace in the country when he hit the pentagon? You really think you could do that?
I am not saying it wasn't muslims, I am saying there is no way they could have done it alone.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
Comment removed
24carjos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol; Me too.
Let me know if ya find out?
NefariousEquivocator 2 years ago
I really don't care to have long winded conversations with you about building 7.
I'm on YouTube to expose the perversion of Islam and It's leadership.
If anyone wants conclusive evidence about how the building fell all that needs happen is a test of the metal beams that were the foundation of the building.
They will either be tempered and out of specification, or the will show signs of explosives of some sort.
love you
muhammadsholypenis 2 years ago
aww i love you too.. ;-)
Miss100690 2 years ago
The only people still shilling the official story are Zionists who are petrified that the perpetrators, primarily the Mossad cell under the direction of Dov Zakheim and financed internally out of Richard B. Cheney's office. TREASON. Death to all traitors.
avzett 2 years ago
I love how the conspiracy nuts think they're smarter than everyone else just from looking at some videos.
I am looking out the window right now. The ground looks flat. Therefore I must conclude that the earth is flat. I don't want to hear any of your "round earth" argument based on years of scientific inquiry and study. I am not going to accept the "official" story you have been fed. I am just following common sense here. It looks flat.
PoetryHound 2 years ago
only brainless single celled morons that have their ass so far up the govs assbeleive this was done by terrorists.keep your heads in there and go to sleep. slimy puppets.
rbaiton 2 years ago
Anyone watcing the Twin Towers (*WTC 1 and 2) can also clearly use common sense and visual identification to see they were blown to kingdom come.
You can see one tower start to lean over quite dramatically, and then it corrects itself and the squibs beneath it pulverize the beams in a pyroclastic blast.
For a leaning over structure of several thousand tonnes to suddenly correct itself without charges (explosives) violates the law of the conservation of momentum.
cveitch 2 years ago
"Common Sense" is no longer "Common".
darko2112 2 years ago
I like oranges.
MrEtchingAcid 2 years ago 2
Google or youtube: Niels Harrit - Nano Thermate WTC.
The game is up...
Its OFFICIAL 9/11 was indeed an inside job.
The proof is now undeniable. THE GAME IS UP
seekYEthetruth 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
jet fuel at teh heat it burns isnt hot enough , nor would have burned long enough , especially the small amount given to weaken ANY of the structual supports or beams. Besides lets say that it would have burned long enough which would have been a very long time, and would have caused the upper beams to loose sum of their rigidity, just that section of the building would have caved or fallen over, being the area damaged was more near the side and the other portion
KongKit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
near the side and the other portion not as bad it would have leaned and possibly fallen over, (just the top) the rest of the building would have been fine. Maybe i have this understanding because i am a mechanical engineer , but anyone with a right sence of logic can understand this as many have. The theory you put out is the same as to say the building should have fallen over when the plane slammed into it if it was that weak. Finally how can a plane really fly into or through a building
KongKit 2 years ago
impossible. A missle can blow an opening configured to let sum smaller plane craft in , etc, but a plane will crush up the minute it impacts the side of that building. 3 buildings down , said to be cause by fire. GET REAL , it was a controlled demolition using thermal explosives
KongKit 2 years ago
Comment removed
KongKit 2 years ago
Comment removed
KongKit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was an inside job!
log140 2 years ago
They worked fast to load the charges in one day, or were they in there weeks ahead of time doing the work? I think they loaded ALL the buildings weeks ahead of 911 to be ready that day... "They" knew what they were doing...
charlesjackson10 2 years ago
The only documented information that was released was that the twin towers were electrically shut down on September 8 & 9th for "technical reasons".
I have a layout of the twin towers that show the technical service areas, which ironically are the same areas that the puffs of smoke (known as squibs) shot out of.
RandomentalTV 2 years ago 3
there is no thinking involved its fact
wwechamp7 2 years ago
Great video. Keep up the good work. I added it to my favorites.
PowderedTowers 2 years ago
beijing anybody?
seekYEthetruth 2 years ago
Shit, this guy has a british accent, that means he's telling the truth
HINT: Fires were unfought for over 3 hours. Numerous accounts by firefighters validate three things.
1) There were massive fires between floors 7 and 13.
2) The order to pull out was issued around 2:30
3) Firefighters believed the building was going to fall, reported hearing creaking, and large damage in the southeast corner.
argondamn 2 years ago
massive fires!!!!Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
peterene 2 years ago 2
do you have seen a burning skyscraper in reality?
watch?v=Z3Y3Rw773Ok&feature=related
this is how a burning building looks like. search for more comparable videos of burning skyscrapers and you will see, why i had tears of laughing when i read your first statement.
plus wtc7 was only damaged on one side by falling depris, the other side was not damaged at all. so why did it came straight down without leaning to any side?
skaribou 2 years ago
Ok, just for the record... I listened to the radio and television the entire day following the news, and guess what..? The British news coverage reported that WTC 7 was to be DEMOLISHED due to structural damage.... well what do you know... a portion of truth came out before the lie got rolling.
realbluemeanie 2 years ago 3
I was on the phone with a customer in France on 9/12. He told me that it was being reported over there that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military. How would he know that or say that if it were not true? I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I just know that what our government TOLD us happened is not true.
demographicanomaly 2 years ago
The firefighters also reported explosions, so did several news reporters that were at the World Trade Center. They reported NUMEROUS explosions in the buildings prior to their collapse.
RandomentalTV 2 years ago 2
This is REAL DENIAL , jet fuel at teh heat it burns isnt hot enough , nor would have burned long enough , especially the small amount given to weaken ANY of the structual supports or beams. Besides lets say that it would have burned long enough which would have been a very long time, and would have caused the upper beams to loose sum of their rigidity, just that section of the building would have caved or fallen over
KongKit 2 years ago
nice vid!
azhd210 3 years ago
Quote "never underestimate the power of denial"
American Beauty.
minteko 3 years ago
NIST: Not In The Slightest True.. MESSAGE TO ALL WHO PASS HERE: .now i've jumped on this thread and spoken the truth..watch all the insults pile up from the shills... watch the vid decide for yourself... controlled demo or not?.. i know what i think.. 9/11 was an inside job. the 2 towers were reverse sequence bring downs. peace.
seekYEthetruth 3 years ago 3
all load bearing columns were blown at the same time. = classic trap door drop. explosives were used. let the paid up muppets chat shit and hurl insults all they want. they live in a cartoon. some of them have been on this thread for up to a year pretending to be ordinary youtubers. sad but true. muppets.
seekYEthetruth 3 years ago 2
painterfmw. I want to buy some of this silent explosive then i can rob banks without the police knowing. That is a lemon, you are a fruit, sit down in a dark room and put the phone on mute, open your mind up put the conspiracy aside and with some luck in a few years you will regain your pride. BUT DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH.
martinyozzer 3 years ago
WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. That is why I originally stated, more proof may be required. Although, very little evidence remains. I studied the site of the first bombing back in 1993, and got a good look at the 2001 craters as well. I didn't find anything suspicious, but there wasn't much to work with, and rescue workers were still completing their work.
opshadow1 3 years ago
Buildings tend to fall to the side where the fire began and flashover has occurred. Flashover is a rapid burn caused by a number of possibilities, including, but not limited to sudden flow of air and oxygen, like windows shattering from extreme heat, or residents breaking them to get air. Buildings don't burn uniformly, and the point where the fire has been burning the longest is typically in the weakest state. They typically do not collapse perfectly in seconds.
opshadow1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And you base that on what evidence?
himselfe 3 years ago
Amusing, how does my above comment warrant a vote of -6?
himselfe 3 years ago
A very interesting video with some tangible possibilities. When buildings collapse from fire, they tend to fall to the side where the burning began and where flashover has occurred. Buildings don't burn uniformly, and the point where the fire has been burning the longest is typically in the weakest state.
Having experience with demolitions, I have to agree with my colleague Jesse Ventura, the buliding collapses during 911 were more than suspicious. Although, more proof may be required.
opshadow1 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You broke the dial on my bullshit detector.
himselfe 3 years ago
Thanks for your entirely unsolicited and uninformed opinion.
Perhaps you should get a working bullshit detector. Not to mention, the one your using won't function when it's up your ass.
opshadow1 3 years ago 4
"Thanks for your entirely unsolicited and uninformed opinion."
There's no need to be a hypocrite. If you're going to spout your 'unsolicited and uninformed' opinion, you can hardly begrudge me for replying.
"Not to mention, the one your using won't function when it's up your ass."
Well thankfully there's no bullshit up my ass! ;)
himselfe 3 years ago
"Well thankfully there's no bullshit up my ass!"
Doubtful, but regardless, there's plenty coming out of your mouth. My opinion, unlike yours, is informed. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a "Post a Text Comment" notice. Maybe you're too stupid to grasp how it works. It is a solicitation to leave a comment.
Your response to my comment, is in fact, unsolicited.
Get a clue moron.
And again, buy a working bullshit detector, the one you're using is bullshit.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"My opinion, unlike yours, is informed."
So you say, but you give little indication of how your opinion is informed. In fact, in contradiction, you use the typical "I don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about but want to appear authoritative" template:
"Statement of experience or qualification with [relevant subject], Statement of agreement with [full name of person with status], supposition, pretentious waffle continued ..."
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
"And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a "Post a Text Comment" notice."
Yes, yes there is... there's also a 'Reply' link on your comment, funny that isn't it?
"Maybe you're too stupid to grasp how it works. It is a solicitation to leave a comment."
It's also solicitation to leave a comment that warrants reply. But being a hypocrite you just want the right to make assertions without challange.
"Get a clue moron."
What am I missing a clue in exactly?
himselfe 3 years ago
Additionally, you are clueless. In what way does my comment "warrant a reply," eh? Because I made a comment that contains an opinion. I guess in your shallow mind that means that idiots like you can sprout up to make assertions without providing an ounce of your own support or evidence. Merely saying it's "bullshit," in a provocative manner, doesn't support your hypocritical argument.
You say it's bullshit and provide absolutely nothing as evidence, argument or theory.
You're a fool.
opshadow1 3 years ago
Try again pinhead. It isn't my duty or responsibility or obligation to leave my resume in order to make an informed comment.
You want to refute me, great, then let's hear your vast credentials and qualifications, including dates of military service and unit served in, or other demolitions experience, your full name and occupation, and any relevant information supporting your theory or opinion.
Until then, you're just a fool spitting dirt.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"Try again pinhead. It isn't my duty or responsibility or obligation to leave my resume in order to make an informed comment."
You're quite right, you have no obligation to do anything whatsoever. But if you hope for people to receive you as an informed person, you usually need to back your statements up with something a little more tangible than self-certification. Otherwise people will just call bullshit, that's the way the internet works.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
"You want to refute me, great, then let's hear your vast credentials and qualifications, including ..."
So you don't have to prove anything, but I do? Love the hypocrisy there!
Let's be fair, and this is a point you clearly don't get, credentials and qualifications, statuses, they don't prove a person's authority on a subject. I know plenty of people with fancy qualifications that know jack shit. What proves a person's authority is their ability to follow through.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
People who really know what they hell they're talking about don't need to wave around credentials or status, they simply make their point and back it up. It's usually the people who don't know what they're talking about that wave around their implied qualification, and on the internet they're usually compulsive bullshitters.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
You can almost guarantee that every compulsive bullshitter will reference at least one person with status by their full name, completely irrelevantly, instead of making logical points. My associate Bill McYackyack made a valid point on this in his thesis on yada yada bullshit.
"Additionally, you are clueless."
So you keep saying, but about what?
"In what way does my comment "warrant a reply," eh?"
In that it stinks of bullshit.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
"Because I made a comment that contains an opinion."
Hey you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, where's the problem?
"Merely saying it's "bullshit," in a provocative manner, doesn't support your hypocritical argument."
Indeed it doesn't, neither does saying you have experience in relevant subject x.
"You say it's bullshit and provide absolutely nothing as evidence, argument or theory."
Why would I? It's far more energy efficient and amusing to let you prove my point. ;)
himselfe 3 years ago
I call bullshit and you feel insulted, that's understandable. After all, compulsive bullshitters usually bullshit to pamper their delicate ego. But if you wanted to prove me wrong, it's probably not wise to then respond like a text-book bullshitter.
I do call bullshit, so if I'm wrong enlighten me!
"wob wob, I don't have to you're not worth the time wob wob" xD
himselfe 3 years ago
So your point is?
I stated an opinion with relevant details to back it up, and you said it's "bullshit," however, you don't cite a single piece of evidence, theory or opinion.
Let's assume you're right.
But, unfortunately for you, you haven't presented a challenge (spelled correctly-check your spelling ace).
A challenge would be a hint of credible, or not, theory conjecture or relevant evidence or opinion, you've given NONE.
You proved my point: you are an idiot.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"I stated an opinion with relevant details to back it up"
What relevant details? All you did was self-certify. You don't honestly believe that anybody in their right minds is going to accept your self-certification without question and go "gee Bill that boy sure knows what he's talking about!", do you?
"you don't cite a single piece of evidence, theory or opinion."
OK, I cite your response.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
Look moron, why don't you try an experiment instead of wasting my time.
Build a small structure out of wood and brick and glass, about ten feet high. Then fill it with various objects, like an apartment would consist of; different materials and fabrics that burn at different temperatures and rates. Then, set fire to it anywhere you like. Make sure it is sealed and has some glass windows.
Then video tape it and post your results. Lets see if it drops straight down.
Or, shut up and sit down.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"Build a small structure out of wood and brick and glass, about ten feet high."
What on earth do you propose that represents? 1,368 ft steel mesh building, or even a 610 ft granite covered building is going to behave entirely differently to a 10 ft wood brick and glass building. I would hope somebody with demolitions experience would know that...
himselfe 3 years ago
The point remains, so do the dynamics. Redirecting the issue makes you even dumber.
Please tell us all what Flashover or Backdrafts are. Give us some insight into the workings of your World Class IQ. Or is the "challenge" too much for you?
I suspect you're pushing the envelope just by parroting big words, like "challenge" and "bullshit."
Stop wasting my time.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"The point remains, so do the dynamics. Redirecting the issue makes you even dumber."
What point, that you show your self to clearly know nothing about the way different materials and different structures behave differently to each other? I'm not redirecting the issue, your experiment would not simulate what happened on 9/11.
"Please tell us all what Flashover or Backdrafts are."
Any moron can Google the answer to that before replying, what would that prove?
himselfe 3 years ago
"But, unfortunately for you, you haven't presented a challenge (spelled correctly-check your spelling ace)."
Oh pedantry too, how quaint!
"A challenge would be a hint of credible, or not, theory conjecture or relevant evidence or opinion, you've given NONE."
Actually, in the context of this argument, I use challenge correctly to refer to a call in contest.
himselfe 3 years ago
You challenge nothing at all. You glibly say words with no support, evidence, opinion or even loose theory or conjecture. In other words, you are a witless idiot.
Please explain for us all the concept of Flashover, or Backdraft.
And please, for all to see and enjoy, tell me how and why a building burns and crumbles perfectly, straight down in a matter of 13 seconds.
Enthrall us with your vast knowledge and acumen.
opshadow1 3 years ago
There is no contest. There is my initial statement of opinion, and you're unsupported and pathetic one word response, with no support or detail whatsoever.
I will not waste my time with a putz like you unless you offer up some "challenge" by way of supporting argument. Copying and pasting what I say and remarking like a clueless parrot will get you a failing mark.
Sorry, in this "challenge," you've already lost.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"There is no contest. There is my initial statement of opinion, and you're unsupported and pathetic one word response, with no support or detail whatsoever."
I am contesting the implied authority in your original statement, what part of that don't you understand? I realise you won't admit this to your self, but you're doing a good job of proving me right.
And before you say it, in this context I mean "to call into question, to dispute".
himselfe 3 years ago
Lesson over!
Go back to playing with your dolls sonny.
opshadow1 3 years ago
There is no implied authority in my opinion, unless you're so unstable and jealous that you're reading something more into it.
That is my opinion, get it? Perhaps look the word up in a dictionary, I'm sure your Mum can help you with that.
In conclusion: It is highly suspicious that this building collapsed so perfectly and uniformly in a matter of 13 seconds, regardless of how long it burned for in advance. In my opinion, it is highly irregular.
Cut and paste away Nero.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"There is no implied authority in my opinion"
"Having experience with demolitions"
Now all hostilities aside, do you honestly believe that objective people are going to simply read that and assume you know what you're talking about?
"That is my opinion, get it? Perhaps look the word up in a dictionary, I'm sure your Mum can help you with that."
For somebody parading around like my intellectual superior, you do seem to spend more time trying to insult me than debating the point.
himselfe 3 years ago
"In conclusion: It is highly suspicious that this building collapsed so perfectly and uniformly in a matter of 13 seconds, regardless of how long it burned for in advance. In my opinion, it is highly irregular."
Which building are you talking about, and what evidence do you base that speculation on?
himselfe 3 years ago
Have you even watched this video?
I'm sorry but you remain entirely clueless.
The building in question is WTC7, which is the focus of this video.
You have no point to "debate."
In order to debate, you need some facts, or opinion. You simply don't have any.
Please explain to us all exactly how this giant, steel-reinforced structure collapsed flawlessly into a neat little pile in 13 seconds?
Thrill us with your expertise.
The ball's in your court Nero.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"Have you even watched this video?"
Yes.
"I'm sorry but you remain entirely clueless."
So you keep saying, but you've yet to tell me what I'm clueless about?
"The building in question is WTC7, which is the focus of this video"
As I thought, but I had to ask since in your original comment you implied references to all the buildings: "the buliding collapses during 911 were more than suspicious", given that a building only tends to collapse once.
(cont)...
himselfe 3 years ago
"Please explain to us all exactly how this giant, steel-reinforced structure collapsed flawlessly into a neat little pile in 13 seconds?"
I make no assertion or pretence that I know what caused the collapse of 7 WTC, I haven't seen enough public evidence to come to a comprehensive conclusion on that building. I'm simply calling into question the implication that your opinion is informed.
himselfe 3 years ago
Apparently you are still clueless. Did you not know that the two towers as well as several other buildings collapsed in the same manner; straight down into a perfect seemingly controlled demolition?
It's most unusual for even one building to go down this way, but three, or more.
It's most suspicious, regardless of your disposition on the subject.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"Did you not know that the two towers as well as several other buildings collapsed in the same manner"
Anybody who's watched the numerous videos of that day can see that the main two towers collapse quite differently to 7 WTC, even though there's very little to go by on 7 WTC.
Now person with implied experience in demolition, tell me, where does the collapse sequence normally initiate in a controlled demolition?
himselfe 3 years ago
I will freely admit that from the very little video evidence there is for 7 WTC, the collapse does look strikingly similar to a controlled demolition. The collapse of the two main towers does not.
himselfe 3 years ago
Yes, that is right.
And in response to your inquiry, a controlled building demolition, not exactly my exact area of expertise, involves systematically removing the internal support structure of the building to be downed. From what little I know about building demolition, you would start with the lowest portion and in a timed order, gradually move up the structure. Timing is crucial and experience is critical as well. As the building crumbles onto itself the upper reaches are destroyed.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"a controlled building demolition, not exactly my exact area of expertise"
What exactly is your area of expertise and how does it relate to the subject of buildings collapsing?
"From what little I know about building demolition, you would start with the lowest portion and in a timed order, gradually move up the structure."
So I take that you're stating (in a round about way) that controlled demolitions tend to be bottom up yes?
himselfe 3 years ago
Yes. Depending on where the building is located. If you want it to fall in a certain direction, you start with your charges on that side. The charges are always initiated at the bottom first, then secondary bottom charges are used, then the top is generally detonated.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"The charges are always initiated at the bottom first, then secondary bottom charges are used, then the top is generally detonated."
Exactly, which is why the collapse of the two main towers looks nothing like a controlled demolition. The collapse sequence in the two main towers initiates at the area of impact and the upper section of the building appears to drive through the lower section.
himselfe 3 years ago
Indeed. Not a lot of suspicion there, despite the circulation of many rumors. The last place to detonate would be the top, anyway you slice it. No credible demo expert would start at the top. It would probably tumble off to the side and cause a disastrous mess.
Although with the trade towers, the plane impacts were devastatingly accurate. Jet A (fuel) does not burn so hot, but the destruction to the internal supports was tremendous. Seemed natural to me, and that's what I reported.
opshadow1 3 years ago
But, the WTC7, the more I look at it, the more suspicious it becomes.
Exactly how did this rather tough structure drop so evenly, and in such short order?
I don't know, but it is tremendously unusual.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"but it is tremendously unusual."
That it is. To be fair it wouldn't surprise me if they did intentionally initiate the collapse of 7 WTC given the circumstance. Why they wouldn't make that public knowledge I don't know, but I don't believe that implies a greater conspiricy for the cause of 9/11 or the collapse of the two main towers.
himselfe 3 years ago
Agreed.
I don't think you'd want to send in a demo team to bring down that building while it was building. Usually a controlled demolitions team takes a number of walk-throughs to assess the building thoroughly. How would this be conducted in a severely damaged building? It's far too risky to do. Many use computer simulations to get it right, but there wasn't time.
It is just peculiar. Conspiracy? I don't know, but it's strange at best.
opshadow1 3 years ago
"building while it was burning."
opshadow1 3 years ago
There is some chatter that the Police in New York were telling citizens to stay back they are going to blow the building up (WTC7). Possibly rumor too. However, you still face the same problem; putting a team into a building with significant damage to it's structure. Most demo guys I know wouldn't touch it with a 1000 feet of Primacord.
opshadow1 3 years ago
WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings on the planet. Offices for CIA, Secret Service, SEC, NYC emergency command center, and numerous banks. Do you think WTC 7 could be readied for demolition in a matter of hours? If not, then it follows that any admission that the building was brought down intentionally would be tantamount to foreknowledge -- which is a conspiracy by definition. By the way, the official account is a conspiracy theory -- the question is, which theory most fits the facts.
painterFMW 3 years ago
"WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings on the planet."
There you go talking out of your ass right off the mark.
"If not, then it follows that any admission that the building was brought down intentionally would be tantamount to foreknowledge"
You don't need foreknowledge to bring down a structurally compromised building, and 7 WTC was certainly structurally compromised.
"By the way, the official account is a conspiracy theory"
What conspiricy does the official account theorise?
himselfe 3 years ago
"There you go talking out of your ass right off the mark." So..WTC7 was not a secure building??
"7 WTC was certainly structurally compromised" -- really? Proof please.
"What conspiricy does the official account theorise?" --"They hate us for our freedoms." A conspiracy by definition is two or more individuals conspiring to break the law. A "conspiracy theory" OUGHT to be an analysis of evidence to determine possible guilt.
painterFMW 3 years ago
"So..WTC7 was not a secure building??"
It was undoubtedly secure one way or another, but I wouldn't be so flamboyant and fallacious as to call it one of the most secure buildings in the world. But then I don't talk out of my ass... ;)
"really? Proof please."
Just search Google Images for "7 WTC Damage".
"A conspiracy by definition is ..."
That's not answering my question. I didn't ask for a definition, I asked you what conspiricy the official account theorised?
himselfe 3 years ago
"But then I don't talk out of my ass... ;)"--Like hell you don't.
"Just search Google Images for "7 WTC Damage"."--You said (out of your ass): "7 WTC was certainly structurally compromised" -- no images show STRUCTURAL compromise that would lead to sudden onset total collapse as seen in video.
"I asked you what conspiricy the official account theorised?" -- it is spelled "theorized" -- bin Laden, 19 Arab hijackers, "hate us for our freedoms" -- none of that rings a bell for you?
painterFMW 3 years ago
"no images show STRUCTURAL compromise that would lead to sudden onset total collapse as seen in video."
I never said there were.
"it is spelled "theorized""
My 'en-GB' spell checker begs to differ, but it's nice of you to resort to pedantry instead of answering my question.
"none of that rings a bell for you?"
Sure it does, but ambiguous statements don't answer my question. Are you so used to talking out of your ass that you're incapable of giving direct answers?
himselfe 3 years ago