Remember that FBI refused to add Bin laden to the "wanted" list because in their own words - "there is no sufficient evidence that bin laden was connected to 911".
Bush and the neocons could not accept this so they appointed a chosen team to come up with a new conclusion...a conclusion that would put the blame on Bin Laden and Iraq.
In the end, the reason was: "Iraq has nuclear devices, mobile bio platforms and VX-gas".
10 years later, 1million arabs dead and not a single trace has been found...
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
A&E truth now has help in spreading the lie that biochemistry, pretends to be a forensic expert. In my country it is the explosive "dirty sand" in steel. It is used and industrial paints. He found the rest of the painting of the towers. I´m not alone, all the universities and engineering schools in the U.S., Brazil, Western Europe, Australia and Asia. See what was found in France against A&E truth and their lies
@ElJefer Leaked documents prove that it has engaged in even earlier "false flag" attacks.
For example, the entry into ww1 germans were slipped info that Lucitania was carrying major war tech, this obviously gave them no choice.Consequently the US used this as the main reason to enter the war.
Pearl harbor is another example, where the general and active manager of the naval base states he was given no information about the incoming attack, even though washingtown had the knowledge.
DiceyJJ Harrit, Jones, Chandler, and the other scholars at AE911 are brave men, we need to find WHO produced and sprayed this nano-thermite in WTC 1, 2, and 7, and how they "got past" security, or did "security" consent to it?
Pudsigt nok har de venstresnoede en interesse i at positionere Bush/USA via denne teori på samme måde som de mener at de højresnoede har en interessere i at angrebet skete; hvad fanden skal vi almindelige mennesker nongensinde tro?
Hvad er det for nogle "venstreorienterede", du taler om? Ønsker Enhedslisten en ny undersøgelse? Hvad er det desuden - ud over den officielle røver historie om "Osama og de 19 små flykaprere", som er en "teori?
I USA er der lige så mange højre- som venstreorienterede som kræver en ordenlig undersøgelse af 9/11. Ikke mindst inden for det militære og efterretning er der MASSER, der kræver svar. Det har skam ikke noget med et politisk ståsted at gøre.
It's sad that people are so easily brainwashed by conspiracy crap. Harrit is conspiracy kook who has rolled out the tired old debunked claims that the hijackers are still alive, that the bomb-sniffing dogs were all removed, that "pull it" means blow up. And now here he is claiming super duper nonexistent paper-thin "nanothermite" can melt steel. Bullshit.
Sure, it's sad that the world has been brainwashed by the conspiracy theory of "Osama & the 19 Lil Hijackers." It has caused so much war crimes, suffering and deaths afterwards.
If you want to find the primer paint - or whatever it is that you claim would be able to create the excact same types of igniting, nano scaled red/gray chips - go ahead and do so. We're still waiting for the explaination as to what this nano-thermite is and how it occured, if it isn't nano-thermite.
I am amazed at how this turned out to be. I saw the plane hit and many so called expert say there was no airplane. I hear people claiming nano thermite. so small and powerful making it inconspicious to do the job yet when ask how many nano thermite was needed to do it , they say tons upon tons upon tons of it. Doesnt this contradict their nano thermite alibi of not being seen because its inconspicious. people are playing with words he he he Please dont mind me, Im not an expert just an observer.
ofcourse the planes hit, but who says it takes tons upon tons of thermite to cut through the support...? the government scientists? i saw in mythbuster once they used thermite, just a handfull had really huge effect, or was it brainiac... meh what ever, but it doesnt take many kg's to cut the support
@plysmeister my friend, the person above said that on timeline 5:35. It was brought in on trucks then pallets, many tons of it. He said many tons of it because he is claiming that the combination used makes it an explosive and not for cutting thru or melting the steel. Look into the translation on timeline 2:35 to 2:55. Explosions, mushroom burst, 30 ton of steel column flying at 110 miles per hour description.
@plysmeister nano thermite alone wont cut 8 inch thick beams but c4 cutter charges wrapped around nano thermite will and there are many vids on here about the bombs going off in lower levels of the WTC,and many witnesses.I'm ex Navy EOD and anyone in demolition knows when you use powerful charges to ignite thermite,it will blow some of it unignited into the dust.Plus a couple charges could have be duds and did'nt blow.It happens.
This guy is a ridiculous hack trying to earn some notoriety or 5 minutes of fame by jumping on the "inside job" bandwagon. If the squibs below the falling debris were separate explosions, these would happen before the thing was collapsing. But these "squibs" are simply cased BY the collapsing building as compressed AIR leaves the building. LOL. This is insane.
It's quite insane that you can go to the JREF Forum and find people desperate about e.g. cliaming that Jones should have used XRD rather than EDX on the nano particles.
"But these "squibs" are simply cased BY the collapsing building"
No, they're not. They are visible several meters above the plane when the Soth Tower start to collapse. And they're seen so far below the collapsing point that they can't have anything to do with the "collapse" - that also have the tops desintegrating and therefor cannot function as a pile driver for the pan caking.
- Demand NIST/The gov. to hand out dust to show that it isn't found there.
- Tell Pileni or some other nano-expert to make a peer reviewed paper proving it to be paint - or whatever - in stead of "debunking" by stating: "It's a political report."
- Go out and find remains/dust the next time you have a building collapse near you and prove that what Jones/Harrit found is "regularly occuring in buildnings."
- Demand that Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Los Alamos National Laboratories or other militari agnebcies that have produced and used nano-thermite release data and/or samples prior to 2002.
@CRoadwarrior he is no "hack" he is co-author and professor with Steven E. Jones also a respected professor of "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" do your research before trolling, thanks
Maybe Mr Harrit found thermite in WTC dust but the vid in background(taken from some conspiracy theory video) is not a proof. Anyone could add some small clouds to original footage. BUT I didn't find original vid so I can't proof it either.If someone knows where to find the original please contact me.
Not nearly enough americans have viewed this video.... When people say to me that im a conspiracy theorist regarding 911 i say... NANO-THERMITE please explain why it was there:o)
@damienh26 It wasn't there. The explanation is as simple as that. You can easily find all the details to debunk this guys research with a simple google search.
Look at the new hero, Damn there seems to be many these days. ~S~ Salute. My heart goes out to all those people that day. I too know how it feels to lose someone to cold blooded murder. These people ALL deserve JUSTICE!. Many countries lost people there. It's simply not fair this is covered up. I support the new investigation, 3,000 this day, Now over 600,000 world wide deaths do to terrorist chasing. Let's all roll get this opened soon. I'm sick of debates when clearly they were not alone.
True, I'm an idiot cause I don't buy our gov explanation, If they had part in this. I want their asses hung. NO body and I mean NO BODY is above the law. Where is God ole mighty for those peoples justice.
Call me anything, I saw many liars that day, I see no plane at pentagon or in the hole where Fl,93 crashed.WTC#7 was pulled. Rescue was not given a chance. And murder was pushed for oil. GOD DAMNED THE MURDERERS. Many Americans want justice too. I hope Bush is hung he lied to us all.
Securacom also had security contracts for the airport involved as well. The nano material can even be sprayed on columns support beams. The explosive detecting dogs were pulled by securacom two weeks before 911 and building wide air vent maintenance commenced. Thermite can generate such high temperatures that it has even been used before as solid rocket fuel.. This nano thermite was first publicly discussed in a us military tech symposium april 2001. Very few wordwide have this tech capacity..
I admit i may be a wee bit biased, calling myself ZWO and all.. :D
But please consider these search words for you to apply her eon yt or any search engine of your choice; Four Dancing Israelis - Fox News Israeli Involvement 911 Special - Michael Chertoff - sending home 160 arrested mossad back to israel due to their visas having expired! Chertoff is a 3.generation rabbi, dual israeli us citizen, his mommy was the first female mossad ever, ever.
LOL Correction; it was Five Dancing Israelis, they got arrested because they put up cameras prior to the attacks and were recording the whole thing, cheering & high-fiving... OH AND THEY WERE DRESSED LIKE ARABS! hahahaaa one day people will know....
but is the all trick.. british special agents did the same in Iraq
Google this: british agent state attack in basra.
But what happen next was the big surprise to me, they where freed by tanks and the british army!! Even when they new that the agents had killed an Iraqi policemen
No doubt that CIA,Mi5,Blackwater.. are connecting with Taliban,Al quida and other miltitant groups... its all stated from Europe and America to distroy the middle east and to preserve power in Europe.
you need to remember who created the world we see today.. The British empire is behind all genocides in the world! Uganda. pakistan/India Arabs/Israelis Native indians/European colonial powers Genocide on mongolian in Russia genocide in China(opium trade) The Iraq/Iran war... ................ Who is the biggest power in the world? no doubt its the European Powers, there proxy wars need be stopped! They site begind and let others kill each other.. Divide and conquer as the teach.
The british empire and aristocracy were infiltrated via the infiltration of the scottish royals. What i mean is the Brits are themselves controlled by the Zionists such as the House of Rothschilds, who formed the financial & power institutions of britain, Bank of Britain is OWNED by rothschilds as well as is the Fed Reserve, first british priminister Benjamin D'Israeli LOL Rothschilds sponsored all wars since Napoleon.
Your internet "experience" is mirrored, information is gleaned for Intel and scrubbed for propaganda purposes? Books are removed from Libraries and Books outlets in preparation for a Controlled Shutdown of all media including the internet? Health Care and the Justice System has been Weaponized for Class Warfare? History Happens? Watch Alex Jones Adam Curtis David Icke and the men who killed jfk tmwkjfk
How on Earth could the government drive in several tons of the explosive material by trucks, place it in the different floors in World Trade Center unntoiced?
I find Mr. Harrit's conspiracy hard to believe. O:
A few weeks before 9/11 there was a black-out of electricty in wtc buildings.. please watch some documents about this event.. and don't say shit about something that you had not see or read.
The question, however, is not how they brought the thermite there.. BUT WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE THERMITE DOING IN THOSE 3 BUILDINGS,,, open your eyes!
if the U.S. government is behind it then they'd simply find ways of masking the material in like the reverse of a jail break. Doesnt have to be tonnes of the stuff delivered at once. it could have been stored through out the building. People plan these things like the Oklahoma bombing fraud.
Easily, they drive in on trucks and then place it on each floor - Simple. Its called "hiding in plain sight" The whole thing was a false flag operation...
@Cathiina lol simpleton. or maybe not. i understand. its your fear, but as Frank Herbert said in Dune " Fear is the mindkiller". join us and be awake. fear is like anything, but more so. whatever doesnt kill you makes you stronger. conquering fear is the most powerful catalyst of transformation
bazant & zou has calculated the residual capacity of the intact floor bellow, and the force applied from the collaspe front mass, the math states the intact floor was overloaded by a factor of 30 ( peer reviewed paper) those numbers are from original design specs, its not my fault you have been duped
why have other steel buildings collapsed from fire alone
why do they have fire proofing regulations to protect structural steel columns from heat
Bazant hypothesises a 'jolt' to overcome the resistance, this jolt is not observed in any reduction in velocity or acceleration. Thus Bazant is wrong.
You have yet to provide link to the blueprints :)
Oh dear we are caught in another lie, matt-no-facts. No steel high rise has ever fully collapsed due to fire, and many have burned a lot hotter and a lot longer. Fire proofing is a precaution, in the same way steel buildings are built to support 5 times their load.
Please provide evidence of a steel high-rise fully collapsing from fire, you can't. You cannot claim examples and not cite any.
I have never claimed a reduction in acceleration, now you are just repeating your lies and revealing just how corrupt and mind-meltingly obtuse you really are.
Neither you or any of you corrupt /shill cronies can refute the physics I've prevented so you just lie and skirt the issue.
you wrote "I'll explain it for you so even your nonanalytical mind can comprehend
gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s if something accelerates at 64 % free fall speed there was resistance thus a reduction in acceleration has occurred since it was not 9.8 m/s
the acceleration was less than it would have been with no resistance, ergo there was resistance that caused a reduction in the gravitational acceleration
you claimed we were talking about the north twoer, we were not, that is a lie
isn't this supposed to be proof of unspent explosives being found. why is everyone debating about resistance. if nanothermite was there, it was there, discussing how fast the buildings came down doesnt change that fact. it is what it is.
vinnied22. I'm pointing out that you don't even need to bring up the nanothermite. The collapse physics proves demolition outright. That way, if the whole nanothermite thing ends up being a strawman setup by the Govt, there is still proof in the collapses themselves :)
It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a peer reviewed scientific journal article which is not actually peer reviewed.
This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham peer reviewed journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.
Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article entitled Deconstructing Access Points contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective
floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots.
Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal The Open Information Science Journal as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.
I love it, thousands of pounds brought in on pallets then all planted with not one single witness, and you truthers say I'm naive
one more question for you
why no visible thermite reaction on perimeter columns
keep in mind for a CD these thermite charges would need to be on all perimeter columns on all floors, but curiously no thermite reaction can be observed at anytime
A thermite-looking burning is clearly visible on one tower's corner (but I guess that 20-30 ft-torrent of bright orange-molten metal was just kerosene...right?)
B keep in mind that you are a bullshitting CUNT that makes up little rules to stop his "arguments" from falling down
the CORE (the core that they pretended didn't even exist for the first couple of years after 9-11) was the main load-bearing structure of the Tower(s) bring them down ..and..the Towers came down
this is all you do, isn't it?...make claims about what would be required and shit...and then..when you get answers you don't like...simply repeat like a stupid, spoilt BRAT..."answer the question".
I answer it AGAIN..
NO...it wasn't a normal demolition...NO DEMOLITION of THAT scale has EVER been DONE...let alone under the cover of a "terrorist attack"..why would it need to "be like any controlled demolition"?
.....(as putting them on the outside of the building would be risky..or "fishy" to say the least...and ..as I've said...challenging YOUR bullshit statements of "fact" Mathew...."unnecessary")
..so...before you ask...why then would one corner start spewing thermite.if all thermite charges where supposed to be in the core
..I don't KNOW
...all I can say is THAT stuff is NOT "burning jet-fuel" is it?...maybe something FUCKED UP:-)...a LOT of thing FUCKED UP for them that day.
..ps...don't get too hung up on the Steven Jones's theories....I don't...that is not MY argument...I chose that link simply cos it has a good long view of the molten substance...and I am simply asking you WHAT the fu*k is THAT?
(and save "burning Aluminium"...get a piece of aluminium...try and burn it with Kerosene...and let me know when it begins too look ANYTHING like THAT.)
mattfactsof911 you silly little shill. Explosions were seen all the way around and down the building as it collapsed, squibs were visible many floors below the collapsing area.
Most of the concrete was pulverised to a fine dust, only explosives can achieve this.
Exactly and they did, did you even read my post or look at the video? They occur ahead of the collapse. Wrong. Concrete breaks into solid chunks with some associated dust, there were no pancaked stories at the bottom, no significant concrete slabs, sorry, explosives were used.
Wrong again, Bentham IS a peer review journal, liar.
collapsing towers more force than explosives?!! Hahaha you really are stupid lol!
The north tower accelerated through the lower section at 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which is much less than it's weight when supported at rest. This means the resistance was removed by explosives.
Bazant & Zhou have been debunked by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed. The top mass accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36% the weight of the top section, proving resistance was removed, do the math.
as the columns failed the load is tranfered to the other columns, when the reduced number of columns could no longer support the load imposed on them, they failed
F + ma
thus overloading the intact floors bellow the collapse front mass by a factor of 30 you do the math
Bazant & zou has been peer reviewed and thus far not one single truther has produced a peer reviewed paper
have you read it " jolt " to initiate collapse page # pls
Also the fact remains that a jolt requires a deceleration that was not observed. Sorry there is no refutation to this, Bazant & Zhou have been thoroughly debunked.
Please read The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti.
argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy, peer review does not make the paper correct.
Please watch: watch?v=GQ-07OFep5A for more irrefutable proof of CD
Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed.
accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36
could you explain this, first you claim no resistance was observed but yet you claim 36 % resistance
which is it, either there was resistance or there wasnt
Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed.
well first you claimed there was no observed reduction in velocity, then you claimed it accelerated at 64% of free fall
well I would hate to break it to you, but accelerating slower than free fall speed is observing a reduction in velocity
Wrong. The vector acceleration is uniformly downward meaning an increase in velocity. Any uniform vector acceleration is an increase in velocity, the amount of acceleration is irrelevant. I really shouldn't have to point that out, it is incredibly basic. The top mass accelerates downward at 64% freefall, the vector acceleration or increase in velocity is thus uniformly downward. We should have seen a reduction in acceleration, and we didn't.
We should have seen a reduction in acceleration, and we didn't.
well if it didnt accelerate at 9.8 m/s then there is a reduction in acceleration isnt there, unless the acclereration of gravitiy is 6.272 m/s in truther world
basic physics if it didnt fall at free fall speed there was resistance wasnt there, unless you believe air resistance caused a 34 % reduction in acceleration
Your argument is illogical. The difference you're talking about is not a reduction in acceleration as it did not start out at freefall. The acceleration was UNIFORM, and that's the point.
The reduction in acceleration should've happened when the top section encountered the intact lower section after collapsing the distance of 3.7 metres(1 story). This was not observed.
Also as the top section was exerting 36% of it's weight, the lower section had over 90% of it's resistance removed.
The reduction in acceleration should've happened when the top section encountered the intact lower section after collapsing the distance of 3.7 metres(1 story). This was not observed.
can you not understand english, you claim it only fell at 64 % free fall speed
Are you serious? I've explained it to you several times. Also can you not read?!! I said 36% resistance, not 34%! Your grammar is atrocious.
The remaining structural integrity discounting explosives provided 36% resistance. Newton's 3rd law states that the top section thus exerted resistance = 36% of it's static weight proving a large percentage of the lower section's resistance was removed by non-gravitational phenomena.
If you can't understand it by now, perhaps you're choosing not to.
I've previously referred you to a paper debunking Bazant' s hypothesis. Their 'overload' hypothesis requires a jolt or impact shock. This would cause a rapid reduction that was not observed in the uniform acceleration.
For the top section to ACCELERATE through the lower section, the weight of the top section must be more than the resistance, if the weight is less (which it was) then it would slow down, it accelerated, proving resistance was removed by explosives.
the impact shock you refer to is what ? the intact upper section accelerating over the 3.7 M distance between floors and impacting the intact floor bellow the collapse
This would cause a rapid reduction that was not observed in the uniform acceleration.
no actually it would cause a minimal reduction in acclereation as the floor was overloaded by a factor of 30
and the reduction in acceleration was observed, hence no free fall
Wrong. It would cause a rapid and large reduction in acceleration as it encountered the intact lower section, it cannot continue the same acceleration while having to expend much more energy to crush. Basic Physics. Also, NO REDUCTION IN ACCELERATION WAS OBSERVED!! You claim it was observed.
You show me at what point the acceleration decreased, haha, c'mon, show me....this'll be good.
I have changed nothing. II never claimed there was no resistance, do you really think blatantly lying constitutes an argument? When you're defeated logically, lying as a response just makes you look even more of a fool.
As I have claimed all along, and is proven by basic physics a significant portion of the lower section's resistance was removed, a point you have yet to refute :)
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more)
Wrong. Even if the floor below gave way, that would absorb the momentum, not to mention the plastic steel shortening and the elastic distribution over several floors.
The top section can only accelerate through the lower section if it's weight is greater than the resistance, which is impossible as all parts of the building were built to support 5 times the load above it. Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten.
sorry buddy those are the design specs, from original engineering blueprints
math doesnt lie but truthers sure do
learn what your talking about
elastic deformation is steels ability to deform and return to original shape once steel reaches its yeild point the deformation is plastic, the load imposed was well beyong the yeild point, as the numbers show
Those are not from any blueprints, please provide a link to the blueprints providing that information. the load wasn't well beyond the yield point as the numbers show, especally seeing as the elastic deformation was distributed over multiple floors. The building was built to support 5 times the weight above it so I'm afraid your facts are wrong. The entire building beneath has distributed load-bearing you cannot treat it on a single floor vs the load above basis, that is wrong.
@mattfactsof911 look man. i know this is an oldish post but....all you have to do to absolutely be sure of demoltion is barrry jennings and mike hesse's testimony. there you lose. get your head out of your ass. stop being a slave to your fear. the world you believe to be stable isnt. there is no absolute good or evil. you live in a facist country, now deal with it
"Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten"
then why did the collapse not proceed at free fall speed hmm because there was resistance wasnt there or did the laws of physics get suspended that day.
Your grammar is atrocious, learn English please. You seem to be 'unable' to understand what I have repeatedly told you. There was 36% resistance, much less than the 100% when the building is at rest.
Are you pretending to be incredibly stupid, or just attempting an amateur form of childish obfustication?
Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten.
There was 36% resistance, much less than the 100% when the building is at rest.
you are obviously incredible stupid
so if the collapse proceeded at 64 % free fall speed, what provided the resistance, if the resistance was removed by explosives like you claim, what provided the 36 % resistance, you just copy other peoples arguments that you dont even understand that is why your argument is incoherent
You really are this incredibly, mind-meltingly retarded?!!! ROFL!!!!!
Ok, little boy, let's play a game, which is greater 100% or 36% resistance? Tada!! It's 100% the total that it normally has when at rest, i.e. fully Supported :)
Thus, 64% is missing, it really is incredibly basic, you obviously didn't even study basic mathematics lol!
I fully understand and have explained the concept to you, which part would you like clarification on?
the fact is the intact floor did not posses the capacity to arrest collapse( 100 % resistance)
the fact is the combined weight of 20 floors acceleration over the space of 3.7 M dynamically overloaded the intact floor bellow.
pretty simple set a 5 pound weight on a glass coffee table, it has the capacity to support the 5 lb static load, now drop a one pount weight from 3.7 meters
OK, your facts are wrong for a start , we are lying again aren't we? tsk tsk. It wasn't 20 floors it was 12, get your facts straight.
As I've pointed out the load bearing is distributed across multiple stories and it's wrong to assume the above mass vs one floor.
Your example shows your incredible stupidity and zero grasp of physics. You would have to make the coffee table the height of the North tower lol! Either that or scale the distance down relative to the table size to an inch or so.
The North tower was 12 floors, the building we were talking about, get your facts straight.
12 floors half disintegrating before the lower section even begins to collapse, absorbing energy, and accelerating through at 64% freefall speed, the lower section exerting 7.2% of it's normal resistance.
who said we were talking about the north tower, now all you can do is lie hahah pathetic
"I have never claimed a reduction in acceleration"
well moron if it accelerated at 64 % free fall speed there was a reduction in acceleration of 36 %, thats how stupid you are, you claim no reduction in acceleration then claim it fell at 64 % free fall speed hahah I laugh at you
you have been exposed as a blind follower with no knowledge of physics or metallurgy
Oooh we are getting angry aren't we? Please cease childish name-calling and address the facts. How is referring to the North tower a lie? lol! (Shakes head)
I shall explain it as simply as possible so even a simpleton like yourself can understand it. A reduction in acceleration occurs when the acceleration is less than it was previously. It accelerated from zero at a uniform 64%. Please show at what point the acceleration was less than it was previously.
"or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed"
"The top mass accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36% "
so the tiop mass didnt accelerate at free fall speed which means it did encouner resistance, so what are trying to say it slowed down but didnt encounter resistance, what slowed to collapse down then, moon beams
furthermore, The top section half-disintegrated before the lower section started to move, absorbing most of the downward energy, combined with the plastic steel shortening and elastic distribution over mutiple stories means the collapse would be almost immediately halted.
A thermite-looking burning is clearly visible on one tower's corner (but I guess that 20-30 ft-torrent of bright orange-molten metal was just kerosene...right?)
so are you saying that thermite on one corner of one wtc tower it caused the collapse of 2 buildings
if this isn't what you are claiming why would there be thermite on one small section of perimeter columns
..NO...of course I'm NOT saying THAT one visible corner thermite "burning" "caused" the "collapse"...I don't expect it was MEANT to be "visible"..(each corner of each building may have had a similar charge burning that stayed, as they were supposed to, non-VISIBLE from the outside... it's also possible a unexpected "channel" could have been caused by debris....and "drained" the molten substance from the core to a leaking-out point at that corner)
READ again....don't write "are you saying"...and then desperately attempt to "straw-man" your way into a "vantage-point"...I'm NOT wasting my time on that.
What drugs are you on? Because you happened to see molten iron pouring out of one window, you assume that thermite was only at that window? That's like saying I only saw one Chinese person today therefore only one Chinese person exists lol!
I'm sorry but nanothermite has been found, analysed and published ina peer review journal and the collapse physics proves Controlled demolition outright and is irrefutable.
Will someone please ask this douche bag why nobody outside his little cabal of misfits who "already knew" the wtc towers were brought down via controlled demolition, has been allowed access to his sample? A reasonable person would expect verification by a neutral third party to be an integral part of the scientific process. But not this fucktard, apparently.
Anyone who blindly believes this moron is just hopeless.
As a direct result of government myths about 9/11, this country has engaged itself in a global war on terror. It has launched unprovoked, illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, causing the deaths of over 5,000 young Americans and probably a million Iraqis and Afghans. It has imposed on us the misnamed Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential directives 20 and 51, which give the president dictatorial powers.
1. why did it take so many years to put the dust under the microscope?
2. why in Denmark and not in the u.s.? Shouldn't the u.s. be interested in finding out every single detail about the event? Why didn't they investigate on the dust in 2001?
3. Has the security of the WTC answered as to how these materials were transported in to the buildings? If yes, what is their answer?
your own government is the culprit and thats why there were no investigation on this matter. Your government is AlciaDA who engineered and exicuted the attack. The WTC security people were your masters jews who control your government .
1.: Ask Jones. Other laboratories examined dust during the cleanup in 2001 and 2002.
2.: As far as I know the samples was tested in the States by Jones. He said that independent laboratories would have a go at them, but that never happened.
3.: You won't find any one related to WTC security who thinks that explosives or nano thermite was ever brought into the building.
so, what are you saying? Is this scientist lying? what reason does he have to? Is he lying also that there has not been an oficial forensic investigation ever? How are we to know who is honest and who isn't?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I personally don't believe anything Harrit is saying concerning 9/11.
Jones and Harrit said before they did any tests and before they had any samples that thermite was used, so to me it looks more like an attempt to justify them selves.
I see - and what would their motives be? publicity? but why would someone risk their reputation only to provoke with conspiracy theories? don't you think these scientists would recieve death threats after they came out with this "evidence"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Both Harrits and Jones had lost their reputation before the nano paper. The paper is an attempt to go "all in" to save what is left of the dying truth movement and it failed.
I found a most interesting article on Ron Craig that you mentioned -- I think I'm getting a pretty good idea of the case so far. I've been reading about the structure of the buildings being prone to easy collapse when hit by an object on top, due to the removal of columns in the interior which had to be done to give large space for the offices. It's unlikely there was any thermite there! well, thanks a lot for the info - I appreciate it.
Yes scaleshchess, especially WTC 7 was a VERY unique building and the circumstances in which it collapsed was also very unique. No firefighting was done and no sprinklers were working, that combined with extensive fires on several floors doomed the building.
NO OTHER building in history was build like WTC 7 and had fires burning for 7 hours without any attempt to fight these fires by sprinklers or firefighters.
What reason does he have to lie? Are you really that ignorant?
This fool, like Jones etal., has been convinced the WTC collapsed were controlled demolitions since the day they occurred. He says so, EXPLICITLY, himself. And now, through amazingly good fortune, he finds samples (which he will share with NOBODYthat prove he was right all along.
And you wonder why his neutrality should be in question? Good grief, you truthers get more embarrassing every year.
I did not hear him say he will share them with nobody. I did: however, hear that they were peer reviewed by other scientists. He is a prestigious individual who are you?
You heard wrong. Harrit and his fellow loons paid to have their "study" published in a discredited online journal. The editor of said journal was never told that their bunk would be published, and resigned as soon as she found out. The company, Bentham Publishers, has gone completely dark and won't respond to requests as to who the "peer reviewers" were.
Google "CRAP paper accepted by journal" for more insight into Bentham's peer review process.
I do not know that they paid. The company site is up and running. As far as going "DARK" you should consider the persuasive power of fear. A side note: I have a question for you sir. What is your agenda on the subject? I have seen and heard enough in the form of rational dissent since sept 11 01 to solidify my belief that 911 was done to persuade Americans to accept radical and unprecedented change. Obviously, we are not benefiting from this. I offer you the gulf of tonkin incident that is known
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is incredibly murky, and disputed to this day. More importantly, whatever did or did not happen is in NO WAY comparable to 9/11. Provoking an enemy to attack an American military vessel is rather different from mass murder of american citizens and self-inflicting hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage.
Rational dissent is not the issue. The politically motivated weaving together of an endless series of lies and distortions is the issue. That's 911Truth.
The Gulf of Tonkin has been publicly acknowledged as an event that never took place. As far as a comparison in contrast goes--you say there are no similarities. I direct you to the vietnam war sir. I believe, if my history serves me correctly, many many people died needlessly and trillions in economic and environmental devastation were an end result. You have an agenda. I can live with that. I am through talking with you except to say the only conspiracy is the dying agenda driven pagemarker
The Gulf of Tonkin has never been "publicly acknowledged" as an event that never took place. Get over yourself. You clearly know next to nothing about the incident. Some have disputed as to whether North Vietnamese ships fired upon the U.S., while others who were there insist that they did.
"Publicly acknowledged" that it never took place? Please.
As for the Vietnam War, people like yourself refuse to grasp that occasionally in the world it is necessary to fight. And while the U.S. may have lost the "battle" that was Vietnam, we won the greater war against communist oppression.
The same story played out in Korea. Go and ask a South Korean from that era if the death and destruction of that war was "needless". You are aware of what life is like in North Korea to this day, aren't you?
The Beacon--January 31st 2009 "Government Lies--The Gulf Of Tonkin" Cites several, hundreds of recently declassified documents that prove the second attacks never took place. North Korea, I have never been there have you? I know they are heavily restricted in trade and other matters. Vietnam killed thousands and there were no clear markers as to what you refer to as the spread of communism. Your "communism" sounds familiar. Today it is called the war to stop the spread of terrorism. as a resut
It's a controversial analysis that some believe proves the second attack (not the first, which is not in dispute) never took place. That the sailors who thought they had been attacked were wrong, that the gov't figured this out after the fact, and that they suppressed it in order to make their case for war.
Some buy it, some don't. It's not straightforward. Regardless, the main point is that it's a controversial analysis, not any form of "public acknowledgement" whatsoever.
if you have anger issues check with your local doctor and don't call random youtubers ignorant. Understand?
If you had bothered to do some research as I did you'd get a grip and learn the facts. until you do that keep it shut and stop spamming the page - this guy explained to me the reasons that the conspiracy theory does not stand - we don't need parasites like you to keep ranting about your delusions.
People who lie and distort the way truthers do deserve all the scorn heaped upon them. Funny that you morons claim "most people are with us", yet as soon as it's disclosed that an adviser to the U.S. president merely signed a statement vaguely supporting you fucktards (which he subsequently denied, realizing that admitting to any association with self-deluding insects would be the kiss of political death), he was immediately shoved under the bus in response to bipartisan outrage.
And it's very interesting to see you accuse ANYONE of having anger issues. You, a brainless moron who supports a fantasy based on nothing but lies and distortions, all done to accuse a great many people of mass murder, and many more of being indifferent to or actually abetting the act.
What you are - and this goes for a majority of truthers - is a sociopath.
1. The dust has been studied EXTENSIVELY. You are lying.
2. Except for the small % of morons to be expected in any large sample of people, we here in the U.S. recognize that the findings of an imbecile who "already knew" a CD had taken place, and who is unwilling to share his material sample WITH ANYONE outside of his cabal of fellow zealot, is not to be taken seriously.
3. Not one single person associated with WTC security has raised any suspicions.
the fact that it is still explosive though, that is damning. i don't think we have any idea about how it was applied to the building, it seems this is very advanced material and was probably used in a very advanced way.
Well, you can make your self if you want to. It's aluminum powder, and rust (iron oxide). I don't believe that qualifies as a "very advanced material"!
Never mind that the collapse began when columns buckled 911stories[dot]googlepages[dot]com[slash]ST1[dot]jpg/ST1-full.jpg and forums[dot]randi[dot]org[slash]showthread[dot]php?p=4948962 replace [dot] with . and [slash] with /
Never mind that the firefighters who were on the ground knew that wtc 7 was going to collapse because it was LEANING hours before it came down...... watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk&feature=PlayList&p=7832C7AE751CCE65&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=73 .... or just YT search 'Firefighter comments on WTC 7 on 9/11' For those of you who will continue to believe lies in the face of facts, evidence, and documentation see paranoiamagazine[dot]com.
If I were a zoologist do you think I would be qualified to make judgment on what occurred? Rather than a scientist you should ask 'are you a structural engineer?' No but when presented with physical evidence I can ascertain the truth. That is why I rely on the facts, evidence, and documentation provided by experts such as structural engineers. Are you a structural engineer? Did you bother to take the time to view even a single link I provided in order to learn what the 'scientists' say?
I've already seen loose change. Go to lolloosechange[dot]co[dot]nr and learn if the thermite is a lie, learn what a controlled demolition truly looks like, listen to what the firefighter has to say about the imminent collapse of wtc because it was LEANING ie had already structural failed hours before a CD could have occurred. Go to debunking911[dot]com and search for articles on this man, Niels Harrit, specifically. While your at debunking911[dot]com search for any question you have about 9/11.
Conventional controlled demolition of a building takes months to plan and execute. The building is prepped by gutting it so charges can be placed against the beams, trusses, and columns. Are you so gullible to believe that somehow thermite was placed in those buildings in sufficient quantity without having to remove walls and ceilings to expose the beams, trusses and columns w/o anyone noticing? Why do the squibs proceed randomly from the top rather than orderly from the bottom as in a real CD?
Never mind that the characteristics of the towers collapse dont resemble those of a controlled demolition. In a true CD the blasts start at the bottom and proceed up with the squibs following BEFORE the building collapses. Never mind that a true CD takes months to plan and execute but we are to believe that three buildings were rigged with thousands of pounds of thermite w/o anyone noticing or did they pay off the janitor too? see debunking911[dot]com and lolloosechange[dot]co[dot]nr
Hvorfor skal der forklares så meget som der gør? Det stinker langt væk af coverup hvor niels har fået lov til at afsløre 911 for danskerne - vi ved alle at de også styrer tv 2 - så brug hjernen og kom videre. Der var heller ingen fly.
That's true: you can't have a "melting blast". My point is that, depending on what substances it is mixed with, it can be used either as an explosive Or an incendiary, but Not both at the same time. I agree that using it as an incendiary is most likely.
And I think that the molten steel definitely shows that at least some of it were used as an incendiary.
However, the finding of Nano-thermite does not exclude the presence of regular explosives.
my point is nanothermite isn't some super explosive melting ray gun like substance. i am not sure why they would even really use nanothermite based HE/thermobaric weapons. just seems pointless and odd.
Remember that FBI refused to add Bin laden to the "wanted" list because in their own words - "there is no sufficient evidence that bin laden was connected to 911".
Bush and the neocons could not accept this so they appointed a chosen team to come up with a new conclusion...a conclusion that would put the blame on Bin Laden and Iraq.
In the end, the reason was: "Iraq has nuclear devices, mobile bio platforms and VX-gas".
10 years later, 1million arabs dead and not a single trace has been found...
syntaxed2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
URGENT-FRAUD "A & E TRUTH." - FRANCE
Effondrement des tours jumelles
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
aczjbr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A&E truth now has help in spreading the lie that biochemistry, pretends to be a forensic expert. In my country it is the explosive "dirty sand" in steel. It is used and industrial paints. He found the rest of the painting of the towers. I´m not alone, all the universities and engineering schools in the U.S., Brazil, Western Europe, Australia and Asia. See what was found in France against A&E truth and their lies
aczjbr 2 months ago
Whether or not it's true, we know the government had a motive and it has done this before with Vietnam
ElJefer 2 months ago
@ElJefer Leaked documents prove that it has engaged in even earlier "false flag" attacks.
For example, the entry into ww1 germans were slipped info that Lucitania was carrying major war tech, this obviously gave them no choice.Consequently the US used this as the main reason to enter the war.
Pearl harbor is another example, where the general and active manager of the naval base states he was given no information about the incoming attack, even though washingtown had the knowledge.
syntaxed2 2 weeks ago
@DiceyJJ
Of course the security company was Securacom and who was the president of se curacom?Marvin Bush , George Bush brother...
frankito78 3 months ago
DiceyJJ Harrit, Jones, Chandler, and the other scholars at AE911 are brave men, we need to find WHO produced and sprayed this nano-thermite in WTC 1, 2, and 7, and how they "got past" security, or did "security" consent to it?
DiceyJJ 6 months ago
Thetan troller den her tråd tror jeg ;-)
martinlindsgaard 7 months ago
Pudsigt nok har de venstresnoede en interesse i at positionere Bush/USA via denne teori på samme måde som de mener at de højresnoede har en interessere i at angrebet skete; hvad fanden skal vi almindelige mennesker nongensinde tro?
martinlindsgaard 7 months ago
@martinlindsgaard
Hvad er det for nogle "venstreorienterede", du taler om? Ønsker Enhedslisten en ny undersøgelse? Hvad er det desuden - ud over den officielle røver historie om "Osama og de 19 små flykaprere", som er en "teori?
I USA er der lige så mange højre- som venstreorienterede som kræver en ordenlig undersøgelse af 9/11. Ikke mindst inden for det militære og efterretning er der MASSER, der kræver svar. Det har skam ikke noget med et politisk ståsted at gøre.
patriotsquestion911. com
Thetan1974 7 months ago
It's sad that people are so easily brainwashed by conspiracy crap. Harrit is conspiracy kook who has rolled out the tired old debunked claims that the hijackers are still alive, that the bomb-sniffing dogs were all removed, that "pull it" means blow up. And now here he is claiming super duper nonexistent paper-thin "nanothermite" can melt steel. Bullshit.
bagintree 9 months ago
@bagintree
Sure, it's sad that the world has been brainwashed by the conspiracy theory of "Osama & the 19 Lil Hijackers." It has caused so much war crimes, suffering and deaths afterwards.
If you want to find the primer paint - or whatever it is that you claim would be able to create the excact same types of igniting, nano scaled red/gray chips - go ahead and do so. We're still waiting for the explaination as to what this nano-thermite is and how it occured, if it isn't nano-thermite.
Thetan1974 7 months ago
Bush and Cheaney had better get their RUNNIN SHOES ON is all I can say!
Kenny123456ish 1 year ago
@Kenny123456ish Suuuure, I bet Bush and Cheney are real scared.
philnoll 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philnoll And by this you MEAN?
Kenny123456ish 10 months ago
MYTHBUSTERS SHOULD TEST THE 9/11 OFFICAL STORY TO SEE IF JET FUEL FIRES ARE HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL.
zrah1092 1 year ago 2
I am amazed at how this turned out to be. I saw the plane hit and many so called expert say there was no airplane. I hear people claiming nano thermite. so small and powerful making it inconspicious to do the job yet when ask how many nano thermite was needed to do it , they say tons upon tons upon tons of it. Doesnt this contradict their nano thermite alibi of not being seen because its inconspicious. people are playing with words he he he Please dont mind me, Im not an expert just an observer.
ThePrayerHotline 1 year ago
@ThePrayerHotline
ofcourse the planes hit, but who says it takes tons upon tons of thermite to cut through the support...? the government scientists? i saw in mythbuster once they used thermite, just a handfull had really huge effect, or was it brainiac... meh what ever, but it doesnt take many kg's to cut the support
plysmeister 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThePrayerHotline 1 year ago
@plysmeister my friend, the person above said that on timeline 5:35. It was brought in on trucks then pallets, many tons of it. He said many tons of it because he is claiming that the combination used makes it an explosive and not for cutting thru or melting the steel. Look into the translation on timeline 2:35 to 2:55. Explosions, mushroom burst, 30 ton of steel column flying at 110 miles per hour description.
ThePrayerHotline 1 year ago
@plysmeister nano thermite alone wont cut 8 inch thick beams but c4 cutter charges wrapped around nano thermite will and there are many vids on here about the bombs going off in lower levels of the WTC,and many witnesses.I'm ex Navy EOD and anyone in demolition knows when you use powerful charges to ignite thermite,it will blow some of it unignited into the dust.Plus a couple charges could have be duds and did'nt blow.It happens.
spencermel 8 months ago
Wow...that Dan Turner is SO fit!!!!Have him bathed and brought to my tent,LoL!!
TheMrMarilyn 1 year ago
This guy is a ridiculous hack trying to earn some notoriety or 5 minutes of fame by jumping on the "inside job" bandwagon. If the squibs below the falling debris were separate explosions, these would happen before the thing was collapsing. But these "squibs" are simply cased BY the collapsing building as compressed AIR leaves the building. LOL. This is insane.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
It's quite insane that you can go to the JREF Forum and find people desperate about e.g. cliaming that Jones should have used XRD rather than EDX on the nano particles.
Thetan1974 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
"But these "squibs" are simply cased BY the collapsing building"
No, they're not. They are visible several meters above the plane when the Soth Tower start to collapse. And they're seen so far below the collapsing point that they can't have anything to do with the "collapse" - that also have the tops desintegrating and therefor cannot function as a pile driver for the pan caking.
Thetan1974 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
If you want to debunk nano-thermite, you should:
- Demand NIST/The gov. to hand out dust to show that it isn't found there.
- Tell Pileni or some other nano-expert to make a peer reviewed paper proving it to be paint - or whatever - in stead of "debunking" by stating: "It's a political report."
- Go out and find remains/dust the next time you have a building collapse near you and prove that what Jones/Harrit found is "regularly occuring in buildnings."
Thetan1974 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
- Demand that Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Los Alamos National Laboratories or other militari agnebcies that have produced and used nano-thermite release data and/or samples prior to 2002.
Good luck, mr. "Patriot."
Thetan1974 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CRoadwarrior he is no "hack" he is co-author and professor with Steven E. Jones also a respected professor of "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" do your research before trolling, thanks
michaelspire 1 year ago
Maybe Mr Harrit found thermite in WTC dust but the vid in background(taken from some conspiracy theory video) is not a proof. Anyone could add some small clouds to original footage. BUT I didn't find original vid so I can't proof it either.If someone knows where to find the original please contact me.
majnos 1 year ago
@Soller84
don't hold you're breath
stupaod 1 year ago
Not nearly enough americans have viewed this video.... When people say to me that im a conspiracy theorist regarding 911 i say... NANO-THERMITE please explain why it was there:o)
damienh26 1 year ago 2
@damienh26 It wasn't there. The explanation is as simple as that. You can easily find all the details to debunk this guys research with a simple google search.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
Look at the new hero, Damn there seems to be many these days. ~S~ Salute. My heart goes out to all those people that day. I too know how it feels to lose someone to cold blooded murder. These people ALL deserve JUSTICE!. Many countries lost people there. It's simply not fair this is covered up. I support the new investigation, 3,000 this day, Now over 600,000 world wide deaths do to terrorist chasing. Let's all roll get this opened soon. I'm sick of debates when clearly they were not alone.
Snowman374th 2 years ago 5
That's sure the truth. Keep it comming
projectdeepcover 2 years ago 3
Wow.... pretty interesting...
Poor americans. Brainwashed... and then brainwashed again. As all of us. LOL
MuddahFukkah 2 years ago 24
True, I'm an idiot cause I don't buy our gov explanation, If they had part in this. I want their asses hung. NO body and I mean NO BODY is above the law. Where is God ole mighty for those peoples justice.
Call me anything, I saw many liars that day, I see no plane at pentagon or in the hole where Fl,93 crashed.WTC#7 was pulled. Rescue was not given a chance. And murder was pushed for oil. GOD DAMNED THE MURDERERS. Many Americans want justice too. I hope Bush is hung he lied to us all.
Snowman374th 2 years ago 17
You need visual proof of exotic explosives?....watch the videos with your own eyes.
You need multiple testimonies of explosives from eye witnesses & qualified professionals?....listen to the Firefighters.
You need testimony of a credentialed espert on demolition to tell you 911 was intentional?....listen to Danny Jawenko
You need physical evidence of Nano Thermite from the site?....listen Niels Harrit in this video
What else do you need?....confessions from the culprits themselves?
dyingtodeath 2 years ago 5
Securacom also had security contracts for the airport involved as well. The nano material can even be sprayed on columns support beams. The explosive detecting dogs were pulled by securacom two weeks before 911 and building wide air vent maintenance commenced. Thermite can generate such high temperatures that it has even been used before as solid rocket fuel.. This nano thermite was first publicly discussed in a us military tech symposium april 2001. Very few wordwide have this tech capacity..
ZionistWorldOrder 2 years ago
Who has the biggest benefit from 9/11?
The military complex, Oil companies and the elite...
But as we know, people will believe in Obamas hope..!:(
And no he wont bring the troops home from Iraq as he promised, and no he wont stop funding militant groups in the middle east.. See Iraq right now!
Metalgear55 2 years ago
Zionists have the most to gain from 911...
I admit i may be a wee bit biased, calling myself ZWO and all.. :D
But please consider these search words for you to apply her eon yt or any search engine of your choice; Four Dancing Israelis - Fox News Israeli Involvement 911 Special - Michael Chertoff - sending home 160 arrested mossad back to israel due to their visas having expired! Chertoff is a 3.generation rabbi, dual israeli us citizen, his mommy was the first female mossad ever, ever.
ZionistWorldOrder 2 years ago
LOL Correction; it was Five Dancing Israelis, they got arrested because they put up cameras prior to the attacks and were recording the whole thing, cheering & high-fiving... OH AND THEY WERE DRESSED LIKE ARABS! hahahaaa one day people will know....
ZionistWorldOrder 2 years ago
Arabs live in Israel if you didnt know....
Metalgear55 2 years ago
but is the all trick.. british special agents did the same in Iraq
Google this: british agent state attack in basra.
But what happen next was the big surprise to me, they where freed by tanks and the british army!! Even when they new that the agents had killed an Iraqi policemen
No doubt that CIA,Mi5,Blackwater.. are connecting with Taliban,Al quida and other miltitant groups... its all stated from Europe and America to distroy the middle east and to preserve power in Europe.
Metalgear55 2 years ago
Metalgear55 2 years ago
@Metalgear55
The british empire and aristocracy were infiltrated via the infiltration of the scottish royals. What i mean is the Brits are themselves controlled by the Zionists such as the House of Rothschilds, who formed the financial & power institutions of britain, Bank of Britain is OWNED by rothschilds as well as is the Fed Reserve, first british priminister Benjamin D'Israeli LOL Rothschilds sponsored all wars since Napoleon.
ZionistWorldOrder 2 years ago
If zionist is European bankers, then i agree..
Jews are the victim here, no doubt! Look at the middle east!
Metalgear55 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your internet "experience" is mirrored, information is gleaned for Intel and scrubbed for propaganda purposes? Books are removed from Libraries and Books outlets in preparation for a Controlled Shutdown of all media including the internet? Health Care and the Justice System has been Weaponized for Class Warfare? History Happens? Watch Alex Jones Adam Curtis David Icke and the men who killed jfk tmwkjfk
k9thru12 2 years ago
How on Earth could the government drive in several tons of the explosive material by trucks, place it in the different floors in World Trade Center unntoiced?
I find Mr. Harrit's conspiracy hard to believe. O:
Cathiina 2 years ago
A few weeks before 9/11 there was a black-out of electricty in wtc buildings.. please watch some documents about this event.. and don't say shit about something that you had not see or read.
The question, however, is not how they brought the thermite there.. BUT WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE THERMITE DOING IN THOSE 3 BUILDINGS,,, open your eyes!
hybrid212 2 years ago
if the U.S. government is behind it then they'd simply find ways of masking the material in like the reverse of a jail break. Doesnt have to be tonnes of the stuff delivered at once. it could have been stored through out the building. People plan these things like the Oklahoma bombing fraud.
remieres 2 years ago
Easily, they drive in on trucks and then place it on each floor - Simple. Its called "hiding in plain sight" The whole thing was a false flag operation...
XZAnGeLZX28777 2 years ago 2
@Cathiina lol simpleton. or maybe not. i understand. its your fear, but as Frank Herbert said in Dune " Fear is the mindkiller". join us and be awake. fear is like anything, but more so. whatever doesnt kill you makes you stronger. conquering fear is the most powerful catalyst of transformation
runelord37 1 year ago
bazant & zou has calculated the residual capacity of the intact floor bellow, and the force applied from the collaspe front mass, the math states the intact floor was overloaded by a factor of 30 ( peer reviewed paper) those numbers are from original design specs, its not my fault you have been duped
why have other steel buildings collapsed from fire alone
why do they have fire proofing regulations to protect structural steel columns from heat
the answers will reveal the truth
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Bazant hypothesises a 'jolt' to overcome the resistance, this jolt is not observed in any reduction in velocity or acceleration. Thus Bazant is wrong.
You have yet to provide link to the blueprints :)
Oh dear we are caught in another lie, matt-no-facts. No steel high rise has ever fully collapsed due to fire, and many have burned a lot hotter and a lot longer. Fire proofing is a precaution, in the same way steel buildings are built to support 5 times their load.
pixarian72 2 years ago
steel buildings have collapsed your a blind follower
fire proofing regulations are there so the steel doesnt lose its strength and collapse
this jolt is not observed in any reduction in velocity or acceleration. Thus Bazant is wrong.
but there was a reduction in acceleration you have claimed this multiple times
either there was resistance or there wasnt which is it
why do they have their fire proofing precaution hmm to prevent steel buildings from collapsing
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Please provide evidence of a steel high-rise fully collapsing from fire, you can't. You cannot claim examples and not cite any.
I have never claimed a reduction in acceleration, now you are just repeating your lies and revealing just how corrupt and mind-meltingly obtuse you really are.
Neither you or any of you corrupt /shill cronies can refute the physics I've prevented so you just lie and skirt the issue.
I win, have a nice day :)
pixarian72 2 years ago
you wrote "I'll explain it for you so even your nonanalytical mind can comprehend
gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s if something accelerates at 64 % free fall speed there was resistance thus a reduction in acceleration has occurred since it was not 9.8 m/s
the acceleration was less than it would have been with no resistance, ergo there was resistance that caused a reduction in the gravitational acceleration
you claimed we were talking about the north twoer, we were not, that is a lie
pathetic"
pixarian72 2 years ago
You are extremely dense, did you make it through school? You STILL lied and avoided the question, at what point did the acceleration decrease?
By your logic the moon has decreased in size because one can imagine it being twice as big, thus it decreased by 50%. WTF? You retard lol!
The 36% resistance was there from the start of acceleration, thus no reduction.
pixarian72 2 years ago
YOU WROTE "steel buildings have collapsed you blind loserchange follower
McCormick place, kader toy factory
just to name a few"
WRONG! McCormick place had major structural problems and was not a high rise, retard! Also it only PARTIALLY collapsed fool!
The Thai Kader toy factory was poorly designed and built with uninsulated steel girders and was also NOT a high rise.
Both buildings also were engulfed in flame. WTC7 had sporadic smaller fires.
You lose!!!
pixarian72 2 years ago
isn't this supposed to be proof of unspent explosives being found. why is everyone debating about resistance. if nanothermite was there, it was there, discussing how fast the buildings came down doesnt change that fact. it is what it is.
so lets debate that .
vinnied22 2 years ago
vinnied22. I'm pointing out that you don't even need to bring up the nanothermite. The collapse physics proves demolition outright. That way, if the whole nanothermite thing ends up being a strawman setup by the Govt, there is still proof in the collapses themselves :)
pixarian72 2 years ago
It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a peer reviewed scientific journal article which is not actually peer reviewed.
This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham peer reviewed journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article entitled Deconstructing Access Points contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective
floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal The Open Information Science Journal as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Comment removed
homerbear46 2 years ago
I love how mr haris admits he believed it was an inside job before he even did any research, not very scientific
Q anohter danish scientist claims you have found nothing more that aluminum and rust
A "the material we found is super hi tech front line military research
t
It is not a random mix
its an advanced material that is difficult to get information on haha"
so if you cant prove nano thermite exsist how do you know you found it haha
lovely dodge of the question
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
"haha...haha"...you sound about 16...and you are SHIT at this...give up kid. (or learn to SPELL first)
"I love how mr haris admits he believed it was an inside job before he even did any research, not very scientific"
actually that is USUAL "scientific-process"...most scientists have a theory..BEFORE they attempt to prove it...
(to anyone with any intelligence...9-11 looks "fishy'...and the Commission-report is a JOKE)
what "point" do you think you are making?.
homerbear46 2 years ago
wow attack my spelling because you cant attach the content of my message, thats is oh so smart of you
no actually in the scientific process you have a hypothesis based on evidence, then you perform experiments to confirm you hypothesis
you dont have a hypothesis based on political reasons then search for evidence to support your pre-determined conclusion
Yes use some obscure explosive you cant prove even exists, much harder for people to present evidence against your theory.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
...can't "attach" the content
LMFAO
no actually in the scientific process you have a hypothesis based on (what one BELIEVES to be ) "evidence",
(that is a "theory") then you perform experiments to confirm you hypothesis
yes...THAT is what he's done.
how does thermite/thermate "not exist"?
you obviously think you have some expertise on this matter...so lets hear it?
homerbear46 2 years ago
I love it, thousands of pounds brought in on pallets then all planted with not one single witness, and you truthers say I'm naive
one more question for you
why no visible thermite reaction on perimeter columns
keep in mind for a CD these thermite charges would need to be on all perimeter columns on all floors, but curiously no thermite reaction can be observed at anytime
scientific conclusion- no thermite
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
nothing HERE at all is there Mathew?..all of that is just "stuff Mathew claims"....and why would there be any "witnesses"?
...everyone around the whole 9-11 SHOW is BOUGHT and PAID for AGAIN CP.
""Dont Believe the HYPE"- 911 PROPAGANDA"
..you are still arguing with "Loose-change" fans...stick to THAT level, kid.
do you know that an egg is structurally stronger than an Airplane...because your little "debunker" Hero...Edgeman...didn't...he laughed at it..
but got EGG on his face,didn't he.?
homerbear46 2 years ago
A thermite-looking burning is clearly visible on one tower's corner (but I guess that 20-30 ft-torrent of bright orange-molten metal was just kerosene...right?)
B keep in mind that you are a bullshitting CUNT that makes up little rules to stop his "arguments" from falling down
the CORE (the core that they pretended didn't even exist for the first couple of years after 9-11) was the main load-bearing structure of the Tower(s) bring them down ..and..the Towers came down
END OF STORY.
homerbear46 2 years ago
sigh
if I had a penny for every hard-case "debunker" BITCH...that tries to talk this SHIT..
seeing as on your page you are predictably claiming over the internet that you would "kick the shit" out of me.
typical "coward" bullshit that you are always claiming everyone else does
Mathew...FLY to Hong Kong...take a vacation...I PROMISE on my FAMILY's name...that I will meet you to see what you REALLY dare say to my face
it would be NOTHING apart from..."please stop kicking me...I am sorry"
homerbear46 2 years ago
"A thermite-looking burning is clearly visible on one tower's corner"
so when you CD a building you put thermite on one corner and it what falls down, dont be so obutse
no thermite reaction is visible , just like explosives they would need to be on all floors, like any controlled demolition
answer the question
why no visible thermite reaction
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
this is all you do, isn't it?...make claims about what would be required and shit...and then..when you get answers you don't like...simply repeat like a stupid, spoilt BRAT..."answer the question".
I answer it AGAIN..
NO...it wasn't a normal demolition...NO DEMOLITION of THAT scale has EVER been DONE...let alone under the cover of a "terrorist attack"..why would it need to "be like any controlled demolition"?
.there was NOTHING "normal" about ANY of this
THE CORE was ALL that was NEEDED...
homerbear46 2 years ago
.....(as putting them on the outside of the building would be risky..or "fishy" to say the least...and ..as I've said...challenging YOUR bullshit statements of "fact" Mathew...."unnecessary")
..so...before you ask...why then would one corner start spewing thermite.if all thermite charges where supposed to be in the core
..I don't KNOW
...all I can say is THAT stuff is NOT "burning jet-fuel" is it?...maybe something FUCKED UP:-)...a LOT of thing FUCKED UP for them that day.
homerbear46 2 years ago
but PLEASE Matthew...let's look again...tell me what YOU think THIS is?...cos I'm ALL FU*KING EARS!
c/p
"9/11 CONSPIRACY: EVIDENCE OF THERMITE AT THE SOUTH TOWER"
homerbear46 2 years ago
..ps...don't get too hung up on the Steven Jones's theories....I don't...that is not MY argument...I chose that link simply cos it has a good long view of the molten substance...and I am simply asking you WHAT the fu*k is THAT?
(and save "burning Aluminium"...get a piece of aluminium...try and burn it with Kerosene...and let me know when it begins too look ANYTHING like THAT.)
homerbear46 2 years ago
mattfactsof911 you silly little shill. Explosions were seen all the way around and down the building as it collapsed, squibs were visible many floors below the collapsing area.
Most of the concrete was pulverised to a fine dust, only explosives can achieve this.
pixarian72 2 years ago
actually squibs and explosions occure before collapse not during
only explosives can turn concrete to dust?
weird hit a piece of small piece of concrete with a hammer what happens hmm weird dust
now tell me how much force was applied by the collapsing towers, a lot more than explosives would produce
hahah the betham open is not a peer review, you truthers a just a cult following making up theories for subjects you dont understand
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Exactly and they did, did you even read my post or look at the video? They occur ahead of the collapse. Wrong. Concrete breaks into solid chunks with some associated dust, there were no pancaked stories at the bottom, no significant concrete slabs, sorry, explosives were used.
Wrong again, Bentham IS a peer review journal, liar.
collapsing towers more force than explosives?!! Hahaha you really are stupid lol!
pixarian72 2 years ago
OK education time.
The north tower accelerated through the lower section at 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which is much less than it's weight when supported at rest. This means the resistance was removed by explosives.
pixarian72 2 years ago
actually the intact floor was over loaded by a factor of 30( bazant & zou peer reviewed)
you do the math
betham open is peer reviewed hahahaha yeah for 800 $ they will publish anything
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Bazant & Zhou have been debunked by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed. The top mass accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36% the weight of the top section, proving resistance was removed, do the math.
pixarian72 2 years ago
over loaded by a factor of 30
as the columns failed the load is tranfered to the other columns, when the reduced number of columns could no longer support the load imposed on them, they failed
F + ma
thus overloading the intact floors bellow the collapse front mass by a factor of 30 you do the math
Bazant & zou has been peer reviewed and thus far not one single truther has produced a peer reviewed paper
have you read it " jolt " to initiate collapse page # pls
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Actually you got the formula wrong, it's F=ma.
Also the fact remains that a jolt requires a deceleration that was not observed. Sorry there is no refutation to this, Bazant & Zhou have been thoroughly debunked.
Please read The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti.
argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy, peer review does not make the paper correct.
Please watch: watch?v=GQ-07OFep5A for more irrefutable proof of CD
pixarian72 2 years ago 2
SORRY TYPO
+ AND = SAME BUTTON
W
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
What page is this on
" jolt " to initiate collapse page # pls
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed.
accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36
could you explain this, first you claim no resistance was observed but yet you claim 36 % resistance
which is it, either there was resistance or there wasnt
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
I never claimed no resistance was observed.
I claimed 36% resistance in the case of the North Tower. No resistance was observed for 2.5 seconds in the WTC7 collapse.
pixarian72 2 years ago
Bazant hypothesises a jolt to initiate collapse but that would require a sudden reduction in velocity or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed.
well first you claimed there was no observed reduction in velocity, then you claimed it accelerated at 64% of free fall
well I would hate to break it to you, but accelerating slower than free fall speed is observing a reduction in velocity
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Wrong. The vector acceleration is uniformly downward meaning an increase in velocity. Any uniform vector acceleration is an increase in velocity, the amount of acceleration is irrelevant. I really shouldn't have to point that out, it is incredibly basic. The top mass accelerates downward at 64% freefall, the vector acceleration or increase in velocity is thus uniformly downward. We should have seen a reduction in acceleration, and we didn't.
pixarian72 2 years ago
We should have seen a reduction in acceleration, and we didn't.
well if it didnt accelerate at 9.8 m/s then there is a reduction in acceleration isnt there, unless the acclereration of gravitiy is 6.272 m/s in truther world
basic physics if it didnt fall at free fall speed there was resistance wasnt there, unless you believe air resistance caused a 34 % reduction in acceleration
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Your argument is illogical. The difference you're talking about is not a reduction in acceleration as it did not start out at freefall. The acceleration was UNIFORM, and that's the point.
The reduction in acceleration should've happened when the top section encountered the intact lower section after collapsing the distance of 3.7 metres(1 story). This was not observed.
Also as the top section was exerting 36% of it's weight, the lower section had over 90% of it's resistance removed.
pixarian72 2 years ago
The reduction in acceleration should've happened when the top section encountered the intact lower section after collapsing the distance of 3.7 metres(1 story). This was not observed.
can you not understand english, you claim it only fell at 64 % free fall speed
well what caused the 34 % resistance
what caused the resistance, please answer
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Are you serious? I've explained it to you several times. Also can you not read?!! I said 36% resistance, not 34%! Your grammar is atrocious.
The remaining structural integrity discounting explosives provided 36% resistance. Newton's 3rd law states that the top section thus exerted resistance = 36% of it's static weight proving a large percentage of the lower section's resistance was removed by non-gravitational phenomena.
If you can't understand it by now, perhaps you're choosing not to.
pixarian72 2 years ago
so you change your argument now
first you claim there was no resistance and a reduction in acceleration never occured
then it was pointed out, that if it didnt fall at free fall speed there was resistance
Newton's 3rd law states that the top section thus exerted resistance = 36% of it's static weight proving a large percentage of the lower section's
now you claim it collapse too fast and the resistance that should have been there was not thus proving explosives we used
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
skill testing question if the intact floor is overloaded by a factor of 30 , how much resistance is there to collapse
what will the reduction in acceleration be
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
I've previously referred you to a paper debunking Bazant' s hypothesis. Their 'overload' hypothesis requires a jolt or impact shock. This would cause a rapid reduction that was not observed in the uniform acceleration.
For the top section to ACCELERATE through the lower section, the weight of the top section must be more than the resistance, if the weight is less (which it was) then it would slow down, it accelerated, proving resistance was removed by explosives.
pixarian72 2 years ago
the impact shock you refer to is what ? the intact upper section accelerating over the 3.7 M distance between floors and impacting the intact floor bellow the collapse
This would cause a rapid reduction that was not observed in the uniform acceleration.
no actually it would cause a minimal reduction in acclereation as the floor was overloaded by a factor of 30
and the reduction in acceleration was observed, hence no free fall
thus proving no need for explosives
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Wrong. It would cause a rapid and large reduction in acceleration as it encountered the intact lower section, it cannot continue the same acceleration while having to expend much more energy to crush. Basic Physics. Also, NO REDUCTION IN ACCELERATION WAS OBSERVED!! You claim it was observed.
You show me at what point the acceleration decreased, haha, c'mon, show me....this'll be good.
pixarian72 2 years ago
I have changed nothing. II never claimed there was no resistance, do you really think blatantly lying constitutes an argument? When you're defeated logically, lying as a response just makes you look even more of a fool.
As I have claimed all along, and is proven by basic physics a significant portion of the lower section's resistance was removed, a point you have yet to refute :)
pixarian72 2 years ago
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more)
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Wrong. Even if the floor below gave way, that would absorb the momentum, not to mention the plastic steel shortening and the elastic distribution over several floors.
The top section can only accelerate through the lower section if it's weight is greater than the resistance, which is impossible as all parts of the building were built to support 5 times the load above it. Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten.
pixarian72 2 years ago
sorry buddy those are the design specs, from original engineering blueprints
math doesnt lie but truthers sure do
learn what your talking about
elastic deformation is steels ability to deform and return to original shape once steel reaches its yeild point the deformation is plastic, the load imposed was well beyong the yeild point, as the numbers show
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Those are not from any blueprints, please provide a link to the blueprints providing that information. the load wasn't well beyond the yield point as the numbers show, especally seeing as the elastic deformation was distributed over multiple floors. The building was built to support 5 times the weight above it so I'm afraid your facts are wrong. The entire building beneath has distributed load-bearing you cannot treat it on a single floor vs the load above basis, that is wrong.
pixarian72 2 years ago
@mattfactsof911 look man. i know this is an oldish post but....all you have to do to absolutely be sure of demoltion is barrry jennings and mike hesse's testimony. there you lose. get your head out of your ass. stop being a slave to your fear. the world you believe to be stable isnt. there is no absolute good or evil. you live in a facist country, now deal with it
runelord37 1 year ago
"Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten"
then why did the collapse not proceed at free fall speed hmm because there was resistance wasnt there or did the laws of physics get suspended that day.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Your grammar is atrocious, learn English please. You seem to be 'unable' to understand what I have repeatedly told you. There was 36% resistance, much less than the 100% when the building is at rest.
Are you pretending to be incredibly stupid, or just attempting an amateur form of childish obfustication?
pixarian72 2 years ago
Thus resistance was removed by explosives. Very basic, you're beaten.
There was 36% resistance, much less than the 100% when the building is at rest.
you are obviously incredible stupid
so if the collapse proceeded at 64 % free fall speed, what provided the resistance, if the resistance was removed by explosives like you claim, what provided the 36 % resistance, you just copy other peoples arguments that you dont even understand that is why your argument is incoherent
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
You really are this incredibly, mind-meltingly retarded?!!! ROFL!!!!!
Ok, little boy, let's play a game, which is greater 100% or 36% resistance? Tada!! It's 100% the total that it normally has when at rest, i.e. fully Supported :)
Thus, 64% is missing, it really is incredibly basic, you obviously didn't even study basic mathematics lol!
I fully understand and have explained the concept to you, which part would you like clarification on?
pixarian72 2 years ago
the fact is the intact floor did not posses the capacity to arrest collapse( 100 % resistance)
the fact is the combined weight of 20 floors acceleration over the space of 3.7 M dynamically overloaded the intact floor bellow.
pretty simple set a 5 pound weight on a glass coffee table, it has the capacity to support the 5 lb static load, now drop a one pount weight from 3.7 meters
what happens ? just a example
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
OK, your facts are wrong for a start , we are lying again aren't we? tsk tsk. It wasn't 20 floors it was 12, get your facts straight.
As I've pointed out the load bearing is distributed across multiple stories and it's wrong to assume the above mass vs one floor.
Your example shows your incredible stupidity and zero grasp of physics. You would have to make the coffee table the height of the North tower lol! Either that or scale the distance down relative to the table size to an inch or so.
pixarian72 2 years ago
It wasn't 20 floors it was 12, get your facts straight.
or really this shows just how obtuse you are
south tower hit by flight 175 between floors 77 -85, tower hight 110 floors you do the math
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
The North tower was 12 floors, the building we were talking about, get your facts straight.
12 floors half disintegrating before the lower section even begins to collapse, absorbing energy, and accelerating through at 64% freefall speed, the lower section exerting 7.2% of it's normal resistance.
You do the maths.
pixarian72 2 years ago
The North tower was 12 floors
who said we were talking about the north tower, now all you can do is lie hahah pathetic
"I have never claimed a reduction in acceleration"
well moron if it accelerated at 64 % free fall speed there was a reduction in acceleration of 36 %, thats how stupid you are, you claim no reduction in acceleration then claim it fell at 64 % free fall speed hahah I laugh at you
you have been exposed as a blind follower with no knowledge of physics or metallurgy
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Oooh we are getting angry aren't we? Please cease childish name-calling and address the facts. How is referring to the North tower a lie? lol! (Shakes head)
I shall explain it as simply as possible so even a simpleton like yourself can understand it. A reduction in acceleration occurs when the acceleration is less than it was previously. It accelerated from zero at a uniform 64%. Please show at what point the acceleration was less than it was previously.
pixarian72 2 years ago
Just repeating your questions after I've already answered them proves that you've exhausted even your lies.
I've completely demolished you logically, and I love it, I could do this aaaaaaallllll day :)
pixarian72 2 years ago
"or at the very least a slowing down upon encountering the intact lower section but that was not observed"
"The top mass accelerated UNIFORMLY at 64% freefall which proves the lower section offered resistance = 36% "
so the tiop mass didnt accelerate at free fall speed which means it did encouner resistance, so what are trying to say it slowed down but didnt encounter resistance, what slowed to collapse down then, moon beams
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
"proving resistance was removed, do the math. "
well if the resistance was removed why did the collapse not occure at free fall speed, let me guess bush payed of the laws of physics
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
furthermore, The top section half-disintegrated before the lower section started to move, absorbing most of the downward energy, combined with the plastic steel shortening and elastic distribution over mutiple stories means the collapse would be almost immediately halted.
pixarian72 2 years ago
A thermite-looking burning is clearly visible on one tower's corner (but I guess that 20-30 ft-torrent of bright orange-molten metal was just kerosene...right?)
so are you saying that thermite on one corner of one wtc tower it caused the collapse of 2 buildings
if this isn't what you are claiming why would there be thermite on one small section of perimeter columns
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
..NO...of course I'm NOT saying THAT one visible corner thermite "burning" "caused" the "collapse"...I don't expect it was MEANT to be "visible"..(each corner of each building may have had a similar charge burning that stayed, as they were supposed to, non-VISIBLE from the outside... it's also possible a unexpected "channel" could have been caused by debris....and "drained" the molten substance from the core to a leaking-out point at that corner)
I say thermite was used MOSTLY in the CORE...
homerbear46 2 years ago
READ again....don't write "are you saying"...and then desperately attempt to "straw-man" your way into a "vantage-point"...I'm NOT wasting my time on that.
homerbear46 2 years ago
What drugs are you on? Because you happened to see molten iron pouring out of one window, you assume that thermite was only at that window? That's like saying I only saw one Chinese person today therefore only one Chinese person exists lol!
I'm sorry but nanothermite has been found, analysed and published ina peer review journal and the collapse physics proves Controlled demolition outright and is irrefutable.
pixarian72 2 years ago
Will someone please ask this douche bag why nobody outside his little cabal of misfits who "already knew" the wtc towers were brought down via controlled demolition, has been allowed access to his sample? A reasonable person would expect verification by a neutral third party to be an integral part of the scientific process. But not this fucktard, apparently.
Anyone who blindly believes this moron is just hopeless.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
As a direct result of government myths about 9/11, this country has engaged itself in a global war on terror. It has launched unprovoked, illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, causing the deaths of over 5,000 young Americans and probably a million Iraqis and Afghans. It has imposed on us the misnamed Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential directives 20 and 51, which give the president dictatorial powers.
uncledevo 2 years ago 2
what I'd like to know is,
1. why did it take so many years to put the dust under the microscope?
2. why in Denmark and not in the u.s.? Shouldn't the u.s. be interested in finding out every single detail about the event? Why didn't they investigate on the dust in 2001?
3. Has the security of the WTC answered as to how these materials were transported in to the buildings? If yes, what is their answer?
scaleshchess 2 years ago
your own government is the culprit and thats why there were no investigation on this matter. Your government is AlciaDA who engineered and exicuted the attack. The WTC security people were your masters jews who control your government .
partridgecaravan 2 years ago
I am not American -
I asked 3 honest questions and instead of answering them you attacked me - if you have no sufficient reply please do not bother - thank you.
scaleshchess 2 years ago
1.: Ask Jones. Other laboratories examined dust during the cleanup in 2001 and 2002.
2.: As far as I know the samples was tested in the States by Jones. He said that independent laboratories would have a go at them, but that never happened.
3.: You won't find any one related to WTC security who thinks that explosives or nano thermite was ever brought into the building.
josarhus 2 years ago
so, what are you saying? Is this scientist lying? what reason does he have to? Is he lying also that there has not been an oficial forensic investigation ever? How are we to know who is honest and who isn't?
scaleshchess 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I personally don't believe anything Harrit is saying concerning 9/11.
Jones and Harrit said before they did any tests and before they had any samples that thermite was used, so to me it looks more like an attempt to justify them selves.
josarhus 2 years ago
I see - and what would their motives be? publicity? but why would someone risk their reputation only to provoke with conspiracy theories? don't you think these scientists would recieve death threats after they came out with this "evidence"?
scaleshchess 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Both Harrits and Jones had lost their reputation before the nano paper. The paper is an attempt to go "all in" to save what is left of the dying truth movement and it failed.
josarhus 2 years ago
Right, gotcha.
I found a most interesting article on Ron Craig that you mentioned -- I think I'm getting a pretty good idea of the case so far. I've been reading about the structure of the buildings being prone to easy collapse when hit by an object on top, due to the removal of columns in the interior which had to be done to give large space for the offices. It's unlikely there was any thermite there! well, thanks a lot for the info - I appreciate it.
scaleshchess 2 years ago
Yes scaleshchess, especially WTC 7 was a VERY unique building and the circumstances in which it collapsed was also very unique. No firefighting was done and no sprinklers were working, that combined with extensive fires on several floors doomed the building.
NO OTHER building in history was build like WTC 7 and had fires burning for 7 hours without any attempt to fight these fires by sprinklers or firefighters.
josarhus 2 years ago
What reason does he have to lie? Are you really that ignorant?
This fool, like Jones etal., has been convinced the WTC collapsed were controlled demolitions since the day they occurred. He says so, EXPLICITLY, himself. And now, through amazingly good fortune, he finds samples (which he will share with NOBODYthat prove he was right all along.
And you wonder why his neutrality should be in question? Good grief, you truthers get more embarrassing every year.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
I did not hear him say he will share them with nobody. I did: however, hear that they were peer reviewed by other scientists. He is a prestigious individual who are you?
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
You heard wrong. Harrit and his fellow loons paid to have their "study" published in a discredited online journal. The editor of said journal was never told that their bunk would be published, and resigned as soon as she found out. The company, Bentham Publishers, has gone completely dark and won't respond to requests as to who the "peer reviewers" were.
Google "CRAP paper accepted by journal" for more insight into Bentham's peer review process.
So who are these "other scientists" you mention?
drzhivagho 2 years ago
I do not know that they paid. The company site is up and running. As far as going "DARK" you should consider the persuasive power of fear. A side note: I have a question for you sir. What is your agenda on the subject? I have seen and heard enough in the form of rational dissent since sept 11 01 to solidify my belief that 911 was done to persuade Americans to accept radical and unprecedented change. Obviously, we are not benefiting from this. I offer you the gulf of tonkin incident that is known
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is incredibly murky, and disputed to this day. More importantly, whatever did or did not happen is in NO WAY comparable to 9/11. Provoking an enemy to attack an American military vessel is rather different from mass murder of american citizens and self-inflicting hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage.
Rational dissent is not the issue. The politically motivated weaving together of an endless series of lies and distortions is the issue. That's 911Truth.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
The Gulf of Tonkin has been publicly acknowledged as an event that never took place. As far as a comparison in contrast goes--you say there are no similarities. I direct you to the vietnam war sir. I believe, if my history serves me correctly, many many people died needlessly and trillions in economic and environmental devastation were an end result. You have an agenda. I can live with that. I am through talking with you except to say the only conspiracy is the dying agenda driven pagemarker
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
The Gulf of Tonkin has never been "publicly acknowledged" as an event that never took place. Get over yourself. You clearly know next to nothing about the incident. Some have disputed as to whether North Vietnamese ships fired upon the U.S., while others who were there insist that they did.
"Publicly acknowledged" that it never took place? Please.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
As for the Vietnam War, people like yourself refuse to grasp that occasionally in the world it is necessary to fight. And while the U.S. may have lost the "battle" that was Vietnam, we won the greater war against communist oppression.
The same story played out in Korea. Go and ask a South Korean from that era if the death and destruction of that war was "needless". You are aware of what life is like in North Korea to this day, aren't you?
drzhivagho 2 years ago
The Beacon--January 31st 2009 "Government Lies--The Gulf Of Tonkin" Cites several, hundreds of recently declassified documents that prove the second attacks never took place. North Korea, I have never been there have you? I know they are heavily restricted in trade and other matters. Vietnam killed thousands and there were no clear markers as to what you refer to as the spread of communism. Your "communism" sounds familiar. Today it is called the war to stop the spread of terrorism. as a resut
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
It's a controversial analysis that some believe proves the second attack (not the first, which is not in dispute) never took place. That the sailors who thought they had been attacked were wrong, that the gov't figured this out after the fact, and that they suppressed it in order to make their case for war.
Some buy it, some don't. It's not straightforward. Regardless, the main point is that it's a controversial analysis, not any form of "public acknowledgement" whatsoever.
Stop lying please.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
point taken--we can agree on that.good day
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
if you have anger issues check with your local doctor and don't call random youtubers ignorant. Understand?
If you had bothered to do some research as I did you'd get a grip and learn the facts. until you do that keep it shut and stop spamming the page - this guy explained to me the reasons that the conspiracy theory does not stand - we don't need parasites like you to keep ranting about your delusions.
just fuck off already.
scaleshchess 2 years ago
People who lie and distort the way truthers do deserve all the scorn heaped upon them. Funny that you morons claim "most people are with us", yet as soon as it's disclosed that an adviser to the U.S. president merely signed a statement vaguely supporting you fucktards (which he subsequently denied, realizing that admitting to any association with self-deluding insects would be the kiss of political death), he was immediately shoved under the bus in response to bipartisan outrage.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
And it's very interesting to see you accuse ANYONE of having anger issues. You, a brainless moron who supports a fantasy based on nothing but lies and distortions, all done to accuse a great many people of mass murder, and many more of being indifferent to or actually abetting the act.
What you are - and this goes for a majority of truthers - is a sociopath.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
Yeahhh ... Donald Rumsfeld has killed almost 1 milion Iraqies and you call truthers sociopaths!
The war in IRAQ was an OFFICIAL LIE! They Neocons has killed many people so they are MASS MURDERS!
SolitonPL 2 years ago 16
1. The dust has been studied EXTENSIVELY. You are lying.
2. Except for the small % of morons to be expected in any large sample of people, we here in the U.S. recognize that the findings of an imbecile who "already knew" a CD had taken place, and who is unwilling to share his material sample WITH ANYONE outside of his cabal of fellow zealot, is not to be taken seriously.
3. Not one single person associated with WTC security has raised any suspicions.
Epic fail, chief.
drzhivagho 2 years ago
the fact that it is still explosive though, that is damning. i don't think we have any idea about how it was applied to the building, it seems this is very advanced material and was probably used in a very advanced way.
babystinky 2 years ago
"It seems this is very advanced material"
Well, you can make your self if you want to. It's aluminum powder, and rust (iron oxide). I don't believe that qualifies as a "very advanced material"!
dalla2k 2 years ago
thnx for the vid and translation
rikestard 2 years ago 4
Never mind that the collapse began when columns buckled 911stories[dot]googlepages[dot]com[slash]ST1[dot]jpg/ST1-full.jpg and forums[dot]randi[dot]org[slash]showthread[dot]php?p=4948962 replace [dot] with . and [slash] with /
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Never mind that the firefighters who were on the ground knew that wtc 7 was going to collapse because it was LEANING hours before it came down...... watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk&feature=PlayList&p=7832C7AE751CCE65&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=73 .... or just YT search 'Firefighter comments on WTC 7 on 9/11' For those of you who will continue to believe lies in the face of facts, evidence, and documentation see paranoiamagazine[dot]com.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
So? It still fell or imploded, straight down in a tidy fashon.
Is the nano thermate a lie? is it?
Are you a scientist?
Never mind the firefights who said they heard explosions.
watch loose change.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago 6
If I were a zoologist do you think I would be qualified to make judgment on what occurred? Rather than a scientist you should ask 'are you a structural engineer?' No but when presented with physical evidence I can ascertain the truth. That is why I rely on the facts, evidence, and documentation provided by experts such as structural engineers. Are you a structural engineer? Did you bother to take the time to view even a single link I provided in order to learn what the 'scientists' say?
tyburnstree 2 years ago
I've already seen loose change. Go to lolloosechange[dot]co[dot]nr and learn if the thermite is a lie, learn what a controlled demolition truly looks like, listen to what the firefighter has to say about the imminent collapse of wtc because it was LEANING ie had already structural failed hours before a CD could have occurred. Go to debunking911[dot]com and search for articles on this man, Niels Harrit, specifically. While your at debunking911[dot]com search for any question you have about 9/11.
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Conventional controlled demolition of a building takes months to plan and execute. The building is prepped by gutting it so charges can be placed against the beams, trusses, and columns. Are you so gullible to believe that somehow thermite was placed in those buildings in sufficient quantity without having to remove walls and ceilings to expose the beams, trusses and columns w/o anyone noticing? Why do the squibs proceed randomly from the top rather than orderly from the bottom as in a real CD?
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Never mind that the characteristics of the towers collapse dont resemble those of a controlled demolition. In a true CD the blasts start at the bottom and proceed up with the squibs following BEFORE the building collapses. Never mind that a true CD takes months to plan and execute but we are to believe that three buildings were rigged with thousands of pounds of thermite w/o anyone noticing or did they pay off the janitor too? see debunking911[dot]com and lolloosechange[dot]co[dot]nr
tyburnstree 2 years ago
Hvorfor skal der forklares så meget som der gør? Det stinker langt væk af coverup hvor niels har fået lov til at afsløre 911 for danskerne - vi ved alle at de også styrer tv 2 - så brug hjernen og kom videre. Der var heller ingen fly.
NiScontex 2 years ago
That's true: you can't have a "melting blast". My point is that, depending on what substances it is mixed with, it can be used either as an explosive Or an incendiary, but Not both at the same time. I agree that using it as an incendiary is most likely.
And I think that the molten steel definitely shows that at least some of it were used as an incendiary.
However, the finding of Nano-thermite does not exclude the presence of regular explosives.
Anders785 2 years ago
my point is nanothermite isn't some super explosive melting ray gun like substance. i am not sure why they would even really use nanothermite based HE/thermobaric weapons. just seems pointless and odd.
nixrate 2 years ago