I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
@BuddyBros no, if there were, it would have fallen to the ground of evidence. Nose can not just disappear into the air at all ...think, it goes throught...and vanish (?)
because you're gifted with divine knowledge about this government i know nothing about? im sure. you're like....the lowest point of humanity. i can't even believe there are millions, possibly billions of people just like you.
Everybody you know what it was a plane it was going 500mph on impact that's why it's blurry so unless you saw it with a speed cam you can't say it was a missile
If you keep playing it back from shortly before that "strange projectile" becomes visible, you can see the "strange projectile" passes IN FRONT of the smoke, the top right corner of the tower just hit, and only then flies out to the blue sky area. Thus, just a modicum of critical thinking demonstrates that this blurry object is, surprise, a bug or bird in the foreground (if you know anything about optics, that explains why it's blurry - not it's "speed").
that stumps me, if you pause the video at 0:06 you see the nose sticking out of the other side of the building?? Then at 0:14 that thing shoots by.. WTF????
@quez76 that is why i hate people who always talk about conspiracy saying like a ufo did it, a missle , it was planned and such more just like you it's a plane it was flight 175 why did flight 175 never made it to the airport cause that was flight 175 which ed crashed idiot
@YouNeedToSubscribeMe lol, why are you getting so upset? calm down, im asking you if you paused it at 4 seconds. did you? so you mean to tell me that black thing looks like a plane to you?
@quez76 And you're basing your theory off of a grainy video shot from far away when there there are plenty of other video clearly depicting a plane from a closer angle.
@quez76 no but it's a plane still and there are some other videos that has a clear video but this video has a bad quality and one more thing, so are you saying it's a missile??? go and watch other videos because this one is a bad quality video
@Oz1976 All missles do not explode on impact. Do your research, now as for this video....I've started lookin into the 9/11 cover up a few days ago but this is the first i've seen that a missile hit. Very hard to tell, the plane looks funny in this footage, i've seen better
@jbrar97 Lol yeah predator drone that's at least 200ft long instead of 27 feet. You sure you used to be an ex navy predator drone chief engineer? You sure you're not, full of crap?
yeah it's called a fucking nose cone from an airplane...there were fucking planes asshole...stop this nonsense...not to mention, MISSILES explodes on IMPACT not once they're INSIDE their target...so sick of this shit....yeah the govt launched missiles at the towers in broad daylight while myself and 1000's of others were on the streets watching, fucking idiot "NPT" bullshit
@Maziyar As did 1000's of other New Yorkers that crowded the cities streets that day dumbass. But I wouldn't expect someone who was 10 years old at the time to comprehend what actually happened that day. The YouTube Generation has spawned so much idiocy it's depressing.
that's fine but I haven't heard or seen people say that they saw a plane.. FROM THE GROUND.. People from New York on video or in person. and I've never seen or heard from the victims of 9/11 families from the planes that hit the towers. I constantly hear about those that lost their lives IN the towers.
bullshit sign up for that forum. let the world see our discussion right here on youtube. If those were the plane parts then why does THE PLANE go INTO the towers but you claim that a missile blows up on contact. so does a plane. it does not cut through a building like the WTC like a hot knife through butter.
Engine under a scaffolding? Tire under a scaffolding? these parts rolled under a scaffolding.
the towers were designed better than that. they needed something extra to fall
@Maziyar Wrong, the fuel in the plane starts at the wings you dumb fuck. Not in the nosecone, as in a missle, the warhead is guess where? In the fucking nose cone. You're a dumbass.
A 425,000 pound plane travelling 500 mph has more than enough force to crash through a skeleton mesh of steel. You don't know shit about physics, the impacts, or the structure being discussed. You are flat out wrong and an uneducated moron.
If you knew anything about NY streets, your statement is idiocy
@Maziyar Are you seriously this stupid? The HEAD FREAKING ENGINEER, Leslie Robertson, has no reason to think the airplane couldn't and didn't go into the WTC. Yet you, some shmuck kid with no intelligence, no education, and certainly no physics or structural engineering degree thinks he's wrong? He built the fucking thing and doesn't agree with you. Are you seriously this retarded?
Seriously...
Oh christ and illuminati video....you're batshit paranoid and delusional
you saw the fire from that hotel. incredibly intense.
the reason why the flight in pennsylvania and the pentagon is less talked about is because of the footage.
hardly any footage of those events but the evidence is still there.
A plane hit the pentagon. How. Where was NORAD. We're talking about the most guarded building in the world. they can't even release a smooth video of a plane hitting.
A couple of dim witts from the middle east flew a plane into the pentagon. hilarious
@Maziyar Look up the term "Logical Fallacy" that is what your argument is for the Pentagon. It is NOT the most guarded building in the world, the White House is more guarded than the Pentagon. It is NOT in restricted airspace, flights from Reagan Intl Airport REGULARLY fly over the Pentagon. It does not have "Surface to Air" Missile Batteries. It's a freaking office building, it is not some military stronghold like you'd wish it to be.
Dim wits? Come on, that's just ridiculous. Go read.
I agree. so perhaps you agree that flight 93 was shot down in pennsylvania and not brought down by the passengers. Maybe it's insane to think that history doesn't repeat itself but we did it for vietnam so we could take on communism in china by installing "democracy". Now our next target? Iran. Wait for it..
@Maziyar Dude where have you been the last 5 years? Seriously all your arguments are out of date and flawed.
1. For HOURS before WTC 7 fell, firefighters knew it was going to. Quotes: "That buildings leaning", "That building is coming down next" Search: Firefighters at WTC 7
2. Due to this presumption, it went out over AP and other wires that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
3. BBC anchor misquoted said "fell" instead of "is going to fall" Search: BBC explanation to WTC 7
@Maziyar you're an idiot, the hotel was also a different type of construction, did not have it fire proofing blown off, nor had structural damage from a plane impact. Are you blind, stupid or retarded? Which is it, it's gotta be one of them.
Fire could burn for days and wont collapse? Are you retarded? Proof FIRE FUCKS UP STEEL:
@Maziyar As for 3,4,5, and 6...I hear they were 47 stories tall and had an 18 story hole in the south facade...oh they weren't more than 15 stories tall? Oh and they were built in a traditional girder mesh? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about AT ALL.
It doesn't matter dude fact is wtc 7 was farther away, took less damage and collapsed. not only collapsed. fell down weightless. and some minor damage over 8 1/2 hours caused this? i mean come on what more do you need. what excuse are you need to find?
a plane didn't even hit wtc 7 but you Still want to try and Disprove the evidence.
Evidence tells you what? you talk about structural failure constantly. How much structural failure is good enough for you. ANY amount of structural failure would do it huh?
you can run but you can't hide. somewhere else your gonna hear this shit and you'll say it's the dumbest garbage i've ever heard in my life but until that time keep doin what your doin.
1) You have NO evidence, the EVIDENCE (IE scientific facts already proven) proves WTC 7 underwent a "progressive collapse". You're right about one thing, it wasn't hit by a plane, it WAS hit by a 110 story building collapsing into it's south facade with the force of a 1/2 megaton nuclear bomb. (look up total kinetic energy of WTC 1)
2) Go read the NIST report son. Read it and comprehend it. (wtc . nist . gov)
3) who's running? I've been right here rebuking your idiocy nonstop.
motherfucker. the twin towers didn't fall down horizontally. they fell down vertically. how does building 7 catch the collapse? oh yeah cuz someone insured that building so that if it were to fall they would get paid.
oh and when did they do that? hmmmm. but building 3 or building 5. no no no. those can't collapse.
we live in a country that presents information but you must connect those dots. honestly. LOOK AT THE WORLD and what are we talking about. Donald Trump.
@Maziyar You're an idiot. Larry Silverstein owned the Lease on the WTC, the insurance payment he recieved did not cover his losses when combined with what he had to pay to rebuild. So much so he had to give up his lease back to the Port Authority for the Freedom Tower.
As for WTC 7 not getting hit? You're an idiot.
youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4 start at :26 seconds left building is 7
youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI
debunking911 . com/pull.htm < do yourself a favor AND READ!
Sorry but unfought fires in WTC 7 on the south half of the building after the impact of WTC 1 on it DID cause enough damage for column 79 to fail, causing the east mechanical penthouse to collapse through the building initiating the progressive collapse.
because i'm arguing with someone who doesn't use facts. he didn't give authority back to the port authority.
he still has authority. why hasn't he paid for the freedom tower to be rebuilt. he wants the money.
building 7 is back up... because he helped bring it down. if he wanted that new tower he would fork over the dough. follow the money trail. there's your answer.
@Maziyar Wrong wrong wrong again. And yes I am being factual you retarded pissant. I've posted SOURCED facts, You've posted NOTHING FACTUAL, only speculation. Get it through your skull.
In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") will be owned by the Port Authority as well as Tower Five
theres alots of things confusing about 911, but i believe it wasnt an inside job. guys and gals american government is not corrupted. we should be happy to live in america. other countries such as middle east is hard to live in. there is alots of inoccent people in middle east that need help from extremists, terrorists etc.
its heading from upper left to down right at an very hard angle or not? or will you say to me that the black thing in the video goes from left to right horizontal? i think its an shadow of an plane. There is no mistaking an raptor with mach 2.2. i worked on similiar planes, by the way.
the only reason why bush was in office was so he could be stupid. it would explain how they didn't -think- about a terrorist attack. it would explain how someone so incompetent could be our president. you really think that 2 people of the same family could be president? george w bush and senior. they wanted oil from middle east to their oil company.
0:13 this object ripping past the far side of the towers appears to be a supersonic plane. i suspect a Raptor let loose a few thermite missiles and this aided the destruction, hence the cover up. This blur is not a bug or bird, it comes from behind the towers. Large and fast, >mach 2. A street level citizen would not even have seen this fly by, by the time you heard it, it would have been over the ocean.
@FlashgottakaMK what angle? it is streaking straight across the sky. When you see a plane going over the horizon do you think it is crashing? Someone with far better computer skills than I should put all the videos together in a 3d composite. Then you could see the position this craft must be flying.
@FlashgottakaMK at 0:13 there is a very fast moving object that comes from behind the right side of the towers and zips off, down and to the right. It is only visible in this camera angle and is probably traveling away at mach 2 or greater. this could not be from the plane as it is going faster than the plane ever was going. I noticed this the first time I saw this shot back in '01.
@NOmeansnoFAN its a shadow of an plane i think. look closer, it goes by in front of the left tower on the upper right. or some type of lens effect. if that would be a raptor or something it would definitly fly into the ground at that angle and on that speed. no chance to pull up from that angle.
@FlashgottakaMK ot os not heading down but away. This gives the appearance of down. This angle is upwards the object travelling away appears to go down. As I stated up there^ if you see a plane going over the horizon do you think it is crashing?
@NOmeansnoFAN theres alots of things confusing about 911, but i believe it wasnt an inside job. guys and gals american government is not corrupted. we should be happy to live in america. other countries such as middle east is hard to live in. there is alots of inoccent people in middle east that need help from extremists, terrorists etc.
@FlashgottakaMK ""GAY"" IS ALL THAT THE LITTLE KIDS CAN SAY, IN INTERNET. IM A VERY RICH MAN, AND HAVE MANY FAST CARS, AND A VERY SEXY WIFE!!! WE LIVE IN THE BEAUTIFUL ISLAND MAURITIUS!! =) CAN IT BE BETTER?
Plane is my final answer :) . studies have shown the massive titanium engine traversed the building undamaged. Without the extra weight of the plain attached it excellerated to a spead of aprox 2000 mph.
So a bird can travel faster than whatever hit the WTC??? As we see the video is in slow motion and what ever hit the WTC was also in slow motion... Whatever that was that came flying from the sky was going incredibly fast in comparison with the supposed jet that was estimated at 542 MPH!!!
@NOmeansnoFAN by thermate do you mean thermite? Because they don't make thermite missiles, they would be pointless, thermite burns it doesn't explode.
@sikofu2 no I meant thermate, mate. By adding 2% sulfur to the mix of Iron oxide and aluminum powder, the melting point of steel is greatly reduced. And there was something put in these buildings to eat away at the core columns. A missile could easily deliver the needed material, timed charge to go off once the structure has been penetrated. Either that or the charges were dropped from that helicopter that flies right through the smoke in another video.
@sikofu2 well, buddy, I already live in my world, as do we all. You check out anything I have posted, it is based on fact, actual events and reality. you on the other hand just spout denial of ppls claims with no opinion of your own, just bs negativity.
Everything i have stated is true, thermate, the helicopter the jet, ir what ever that was, what do you have such an issue with? the realization the world, especially your gov't may be feeding you shit? Surprise, surprise.
@NOmeansnoFAN Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none. Show me one video of a missile hitting the towers or the pentagon, I've never seen one. Where is the residue from the plane that crashed in PA if the planes are in your opinion carrying the thermate. How would a registered police helicopter dropping thermate on the roof cut core columns? I've done a lot of research into both sides of 9/11 never seen a drop of evidence to support what you're saying.
@sikofu2 massive pools of molten steel at the bases of three steel skyscrapers. Nano thermate found in WTC dust A jet turbine helicopter would not fly through the smoke like that it would lose power, this helo was deployed from an off shore American ac carrier. The Russians have satellite surveillance of this occurring. The main site that had this info disappeared off the net. All evidence states Mossad was involved in all of this.
@NOmeansnoFAN Okay reality check, nanoTHERMITE was a substance in lab testing back in 2001, not available in large quantities. Ever taken a physics class? When you compress things(like when a 500,000 ton building falls down) they heat up.Oh and never mind that the nano thermite was debunked. All helo's use turbine engines. And what carrier was this you say? where was it located, Too bad your "PROOF" mysteriously doesn't exist.
@sikofu2 try looking it up. the "debunking" site can't even spell sulfur right. There are reams of pages on the steel droplets and traces of unburned nano-thermate found in the dust. A woman saved some dust on 9/11 and it was analyzed by an Independent lab and found these traces. There have been many tests finding this stuff. Military r and d is years ahead of what is publicly know this stuff existed pre 2001.
@NOmeansnoFAN k well nano thermite is like i said in development at the time and large quantities are still not available to this day. And no samples with a consistent chain of evidence tracking have every surfaced to begin with. Find me evidence supporting nano thermite that's not from a sample a "thruther" happened to produce. But I may as well talk to a wall because you never answer my questions or provide any proof. You just talk about it like undeniable proof exists.
"Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none. Show me one video of a missile hitting the towers or the pentagon, I've never seen one."
Thermobaric bombs are made with thermite components!!! Here is a video of a thermobaric bomb!!!
@ctrackmonger You are so wrong on this. The main ingredient of a thermobaric bomb is a liquid fuel such as ethylene oxide. Some of them contain some nanoparticles of energetic matter such as aluminum. This however is nothing like thermite and is also not a MISSILE. They are usually retarded bombs to allow the delivery vehicle to get out of the blast radius. So keep looking for a thermite missile that will keep you busy till someone builds one.
"and which previously held the accolade of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.[38] The bomb contains a 14,000 pound (6,400 kilogram) charge of a liquid fuel such as ethylene oxide, mixed with an energetic nanoparticle such as aluminium, surrounding a high explosive burster."
@ctrackmonger which is a completely different from thermite. In thermite the ratio is 33% aluminum 66% ironoxide and in nothing else. In SOME(but not all) fuels used for for thermobaric bombs contain a small amount(1.3-4.5% by weight) aluminum powder. So get your facts straight before you assume. By your reasoning my truck is composed of thermite since it has rusty bolts and aluminum heads.
Oh yes would also like to point out to you if you heat thermite before you ignite it, it will blow up in your face... So if thermite was used upon the impact floors the fires would have achieved this before detonation of the magnesium or potassium permanganate fuses used!!!
@ctrackmonger Okay I notice a theme you have here, that is to ignore my factual based rebuttals and object with your imagined scenarios. My original statement was, "Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none." You still haven't done this. Instead you now have countered with trying to get me to debate a point(thermite or thermate being used in the WTC) that you have show no facts or evidence for. You state your opinion which is based on misinformation by truthers
"You state your opinion which is based on misinformation by truthers"
Well if you believe that NIST is the biggest misinformation whore out there. Kind of how they found 250 degrees C. on only 0.25-0.50% steel from WTC 1&2 and ZERO% from WTC7... I can go all day, especially when you come at me with strawmen attacks!!! Before you accuse people of misinformation, look at H6, the MOAB.. It is a mixture of thermite properties and RDX...
Reply 1:The MOAB is 30 feet, 1.75 inches (9.17 m) long, has a diameter of 40.5 inches (102.9 cm) and weighs 22,600 lb (10.3 tonnes) (of which 18,700 lb (8.5 tonnes) are high explosives.) Its blast radius is 450 feet (137.61 m, 150 yd), though the massive shockwave created by the air burst is said to be able to destroy an area as large as nine city blocks.
@ctrackmonger Reply 2: Although its effect has often been compared to that of a nuclear weapon, it is only about one thousandth the power of Little Boy, the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima. The MOAB's blast is equivalent to around 11 tons of TNT, whereas the Hiroshima blast was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT; modern nuclear missiles are far more powerful than the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima. However, the MOAB bomb's yield is comparable to the smallest of nuclear devices.
@ctrackmonger Reply 3: Aside from two test articles, the only known production is of 15 units at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A single MOAB was moved to the Persian Gulf area in April 2003 but it was never used.[6] Since none of those are known to have been used as of early 2007, the U.S. inventory of GBU-43/B presumably remains at approximately 15.
@ctrackmonger Reply 4: K so we have established that a MOAB is very large and powerful with a blast radius of 450 feet. WT1 and 2 were both 208 feet in length and width. which would place the blast radius at over 2 times the size of the length and width of each tower. Actually it would place both towers inside the blast radius of one MOAB. There was no explosion of this magnitude on 9/11.
"Reply 4: K so we have established that a MOAB is very large and powerful with a blast radius of 450 feet. WT1 and 2 were both 208 feet in length and width."
I guess you have never heard of scaling things down? It is not that hard to do!!! H6 is not only used in the MOAB my friend!!!
@ctrackmonger Reply 5: I don't belive that the NIST is putting out misinformation so your argument is either missing proper syntax or is invalid. Show me where they say all the found for heated steel is up to 250 degree C for all the steel pulled out of the rubble and I will debate it with you because you're plain out lying now. And for the last time for Christ's sake the EXPLOSIVE use in a MOAB has no resemblance to thermite. Thermite burns through metal, H6 explodes.
"Show me where they say all the found for heated steel is up to 250 degree C for all the steel pulled out of the rubble and I will debate it with you because you're plain out lying now."
The next 4 comments is 1 page from NCSTAR 1-3 page xli...
""A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels."
"Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C (note that the exposure could have occurred pre- or post-collapse). These areas were:
WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web;
"Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to the fires were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time."
As for this quote you might say they found 600 but refer to 1-3E and they never compare!!!
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire affected floors, which had adequate paint for analysis. Note the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers."
"A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels."
Better yet NIST only had 236 pieces of steel, 231 were from WTC 1&2 combined, the other 5 came from WTC 5, none was recovered from WTC 7!!! In total NIST inspected 0.25-0.50% of the steel from WTC 1&2 and none from WTC 7, yet they wrote reports on all three with no physical evidence showing compromised steel.. How do you write a 10,000 + page report and not have physical evidence to prove your hypothesis is true, isn't that lacking supporting evidence?
What really gets me though is that FEMA collected aprox. 150 pieces of steel, they found temps to be 700-800 degrees C. in the WTC 1&2 stockpile, they then shared 41 pieces with NIST, so aprox. 30% of the steel they tested, yet NIST only could produce 250 degrees C. in tests!! Think you can give me a good enough answer to that one?
@ctrackmonger Your data is insufficient to comment on. What steel are you claiming was tested? Core column steel or the floor joists? Also heating steel to 700-800 Celsius will significantly weaken it. Not sure what % of the original strength would be left at those temps but at 1000 C the strength of steel would be 10% normal cold strength. And temperatures of 1000 C are widely accepted to have occurred in the WTC. And the columns were not heated, the joists were and failed pulling the core in.
Well I just told you, NIST found the steel to have reached 250 degrees C., FEMA found the steel from WTC 1&2 to have reached 700-800 degrees C., and they also found 1000 degrees C for WTC 7, with 2 eutectic steel pieces recovered from WTC 7. Do you know what eutectic temperature of steel is? That is the solidus of steel, which is above 1000 degrees C., matter of fact it is 1130 degrees C.. No i am not talking about core columns, had you read the quote you would have seen that!!!
@ctrackmonger But the NIST didn't find just steeel heated to 250 C, they found steel heated to 1000 C. It says so in their report. You're just trying to cloud the issues here by quoting the austenizing temperatures of .83% carbon steel and 2.1% carbon steel.(above 2.1% it's considered cast iron not steel anymore.) Yet you continue to lie about what the NIST has reported.
@sikofu2 As a matter of fact this is where i take my NIST info from here is the direct link to NCSTAR 1-3 and 1-3E All reports, wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/ NCSTAR 1-3 wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index(dot)htm PDF 1-3 wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3(dot)pdf PDF 1-3E wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3E Physical Properties(dot)pdf Now show me where the steel hit the temps you implied!!! That is the ACTUAL WTC STEEL!!!
"You're just trying to cloud the issues here by quoting the austenizing temperatures of .83% carbon steel and 2.1% carbon steel."
No I was telling you what the LOWEST POSSIBLE TEMP IS, FOR STEEL TO TURN INTO LIQUID!!! That is called the eutectic temperature also.. THE LOWEST POINT ANY INGREDIENT IN STEEL CAN BEGIN TO MELT!!!! To get any steel that is eutectic you have got to reach the minimum temperature for melting, I hope you can comprehend this little bit of information!!!
@ctrackmonger Again clouding the issue with straw man fallacies, No one in the NIST has ever said the the steel MELTED, they say that the heat reduced the strength to the point of failure on the floor support joists which in turn pulled the core and exterior columns towards the the center of the floors as the floors sagged. You're reading the wrong reports. You need to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, where they did the experiments to do the modeling and show the results of the modeling.
"You need to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, where they did the experiments to do the modeling and show the results of the modeling."
I did read that report!!! CASE B and CASE D is what NIST took, that was SEVER DAMAGE to SFRM. A computer simulation does not constitute EVIDENCE. If you only find 250 degrees C. then that means your input temps should be 250 degrees C. Are we clear yet? You stated they found steel that reached 1000 degrees, I told you to prove it, I also sent you the reports!!
@ctrackmonger Well if a computer simulation based on real life experiments doesn't constitute evidence to you than good luck in life I'm done debating with a mental midget.
"Well if a computer simulation based on real life doesn't constitute evidence to you then I am done debating"
Let me make this as simple as possible for the thinking impaired...
If we know the steel alters at 625 degrees C., and we make sure the simulation is set for 625 degrees C., then that simulation is biased to the fact that fire induced the collapse, there is no chance for the steel to survive when you automatically use the alteration temperature as your input...
@ctrackmonger They used the numbers from there experiments for the simulation. Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G it's all in there. Your statement shows you've obviously not read it. Come back when you have. Saying what you just did shows your unwillingness to read the information that's out there and look at both sides of the arguments. You just want to argue and provide no real facts based in reality to back it up, just opinions.
"They used the numbers from there experiments for the simulation. Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G it's all in there. Your statement shows you've obviously not read it."
Yea of course they did huh, kind of like how they found 1000 degrees C. according to you.. Even after I posted the quote from NIST you still said they found 1000 degrees C.!!! Then you have the nerve to tell me I didn't read the report?? It is okay I already made you look stupid!!!
So when are you going to send me a quote stating they found 1000 degrees in recovered steel? Oh that's right you couldn't possibly do that now could you? I mean no such report exists stating they found those temps!!! You are a blatant liar, nothing more!!!
@ctrackmonger You are correct, I misspoke when I said that, I meant to state the simulations and test showed that the temperatures of the fire in the WTC showed that the floor joists reached 1000 C. However that doesn't prove you correct by a long shot. Want to tell me all about how termite is very similar to high explosives again? Or how a MOAB was obviously used to blow up the WRC?
"Want to tell me all about how termite is very similar to high explosives again? Or how a MOAB was obviously used to blow up the WRC?"
Well I never claimed any of it blew up the WTC, that was all just brain candy!!! But once again what I do know is that NIST did have any evidence whatsoever, that fire caused this collapse.. No proof SFRM was jarred loose, no proof the steel saw temps in excess of 250 degrees C. I am just stating the facts from NIST nothing else!!
@ctrackmonger You may not have said a MOAB was used but you did state that a MOAB's explosive has thermite like properties, scroll down if you missed yourself saying that.
"You may not have said a MOAB was used but you did state that a MOAB's explosive has thermite like properties,"
Of course I did, look up H6 Explosives... That is the main EXPLOSIVE in the MOAB. What makes it so powerful is the H6, that can be used under water, because it has it's own oxidizer... The same exact oxidizer used in THERMITE.. Got that yet?
@ctrackmonger And of course now is the time I bring the real hammer of reality down on you. See I've debated this argument many a time with turdburglers like you.
One question for you to answer for me: What was the goal of the NIST investigation of the WTC collapse. Do you believe they were government sanctioned to determine the official cause of the collapse?
@ctrackmonger The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used; improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials; revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and improved public safety.
Look right at the beginning . Its a sunny day..AND YET! The PLANE is a black long object AKA Missile!
Tornadofreak2 2 months ago
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
I think the American people, intelligent and will know who did this criminal act and it is not reasonable to living in the mountains of Afghanistan or the downtrodden in the Arab world are carried out this cowardly criminal act that I hope you know who did this
Phoenix6990 4 months ago
You say the planes were CGI, I say all of the videos of Tower 7 collapsing are CGI.
They did this to cover up the fact that the The Twin Towers and #7 fell too slow, and to hide Bush, Cheney and Rove running out the back door.
fascistcat 4 months ago
holy shit look at the nose of the plane come out the other side... is that even possible
BuddyBros 5 months ago
@BuddyBros no, if there were, it would have fallen to the ground of evidence. Nose can not just disappear into the air at all ...think, it goes throught...and vanish (?)
EvilKnievel1980 4 months ago
That's like the worst FX editing I've seen in a long time...
Fuzhark 5 months ago
at 0:14, something very fast from the other building.
vaccavo 5 months ago
lolol It looks like a UAV
cheeseburgerplz 5 months ago
how about the zillion other videos that clearly show a plane hitting. My dad saw it live. Maybe he is in on it?
MrDigitalgenie 5 months ago
Look at the shot where Bush was informed of the incident, it is not a look of surprise, it is " Oh, it has begun"
thehumancritic1 5 months ago
the title should be changed. it's just a plane, not a missile.
ninjaboy552 5 months ago
@ninjaboy552 A typical stupid american that doesn't know anything about his government
Tornadofreak2 2 months ago
@Tornadofreak2
because you're gifted with divine knowledge about this government i know nothing about? im sure. you're like....the lowest point of humanity. i can't even believe there are millions, possibly billions of people just like you.
ninjaboy552 2 months ago
Everybody you know what it was a plane it was going 500mph on impact that's why it's blurry so unless you saw it with a speed cam you can't say it was a missile
skullenbonez 5 months ago
If i ever meet a person who thinks it was fake, staged, an inside job, etc. i swear to god i cannot be held accountable for my actions
yomamma950 5 months ago
1000s of people witnessed seeing a plane. 100s of videos clearly show a plane. Can human beings possibly be even more retarded than these people?
ollywatkins 5 months ago
search cruise missile in Google images, notice the stubby wings and no tail fin.
cacacody 6 months ago
it was debree from the plane that hit the tower.
Scotishirony 6 months ago 5
@Scotishirony i dont think it is actually, look in the smoke at the top left hand corner, you can see it travels through it
Satyr910 5 months ago
If you keep playing it back from shortly before that "strange projectile" becomes visible, you can see the "strange projectile" passes IN FRONT of the smoke, the top right corner of the tower just hit, and only then flies out to the blue sky area. Thus, just a modicum of critical thinking demonstrates that this blurry object is, surprise, a bug or bird in the foreground (if you know anything about optics, that explains why it's blurry - not it's "speed").
stormculture 6 months ago
wutz the blur at the end,.,.,anyone else see it?
SleepyEyeMusic 7 months ago
that stumps me, if you pause the video at 0:06 you see the nose sticking out of the other side of the building?? Then at 0:14 that thing shoots by.. WTF????
PurePowerPunk 7 months ago
what is that at 14 sec that came out of the tower already hit thanks
lenn1200 8 months ago
WTC 7
We Will Never Forget
EchtRelaxed 8 months ago
anyone who thinks this is a plane needs to go to the eye doctor
quez76 9 months ago
@quez76 why it is a plane
YouNeedToSubscribeMe 5 months ago
@YouNeedToSubscribeMe pause it at 4 seconds, look closely, do you still think that is a plane?
quez76 5 months ago
@quez76 that is why i hate people who always talk about conspiracy saying like a ufo did it, a missle , it was planned and such more just like you it's a plane it was flight 175 why did flight 175 never made it to the airport cause that was flight 175 which ed crashed idiot
YouNeedToSubscribeMe 5 months ago
@YouNeedToSubscribeMe lol, why are you getting so upset? calm down, im asking you if you paused it at 4 seconds. did you? so you mean to tell me that black thing looks like a plane to you?
quez76 5 months ago
@quez76 And you're basing your theory off of a grainy video shot from far away when there there are plenty of other video clearly depicting a plane from a closer angle.
xTruLyXaNxIcoNx 5 months ago
@quez76 but its a plane still
YouNeedToSubscribeMe 5 months ago
@YouNeedToSubscribeMe just answer my question? does it look like a plane to you?
quez76 5 months ago
@quez76 no but it's a plane still and there are some other videos that has a clear video but this video has a bad quality and one more thing, so are you saying it's a missile??? go and watch other videos because this one is a bad quality video
YouNeedToSubscribeMe 5 months ago
@YouNeedToSubscribeMe no not saying its a missle
quez76 5 months ago
@quez76 It was a plane you fucking idiot, you conspiracy theorists should just go die
xTruLyXaNxIcoNx 5 months ago
@quez76 Yep clearly looks like a missle
Look up "2nd plane WTC" it's pretty obvious, heck it's even in the related videos
xTruLyXaNxIcoNx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
at 00:12 what is that that emerges from the black smoke of tower 1??
gstanz67 10 months ago
Comment removed
gstanz67 10 months ago
Comment removed
gstanz67 10 months ago
@Oz1976 All missles do not explode on impact. Do your research, now as for this video....I've started lookin into the 9/11 cover up a few days ago but this is the first i've seen that a missile hit. Very hard to tell, the plane looks funny in this footage, i've seen better
mochedda99 10 months ago
@jbrar97 Lol yeah predator drone that's at least 200ft long instead of 27 feet. You sure you used to be an ex navy predator drone chief engineer? You sure you're not, full of crap?
Ahuc899 10 months ago
yeah it's called a fucking nose cone from an airplane...there were fucking planes asshole...stop this nonsense...not to mention, MISSILES explodes on IMPACT not once they're INSIDE their target...so sick of this shit....yeah the govt launched missiles at the towers in broad daylight while myself and 1000's of others were on the streets watching, fucking idiot "NPT" bullshit
Oz1976 10 months ago
@Oz1976
you saw the plane?
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar As did 1000's of other New Yorkers that crowded the cities streets that day dumbass. But I wouldn't expect someone who was 10 years old at the time to comprehend what actually happened that day. The YouTube Generation has spawned so much idiocy it's depressing.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
that's fine but I haven't heard or seen people say that they saw a plane.. FROM THE GROUND.. People from New York on video or in person. and I've never seen or heard from the victims of 9/11 families from the planes that hit the towers. I constantly hear about those that lost their lives IN the towers.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar are you serious? the only explanation for that is cause you've bought into the "Truther" bullshit and not even taken the time to look...
youtube.com/watch?v=-bz2kP_OhWE
youtube.com/watch?v=S8OiCHN8ZhE
youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU <---listen to the people screaming as the plane nears the wtc
youtube.com/watch?v=XW18k8EoJb4
Do yourself a favor...get off of youtube to find your "truth"
debunking911 . com
911myths . com
sites.google . com/site/wtc7lies
forums.randi . org
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Maziyar sites.google . com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
lol... blocked? great talking to you.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar blocked from sending me nonsense in my box...I told you where to continue the discussion if you have the mental capacity to do so.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
bullshit sign up for that forum. let the world see our discussion right here on youtube. If those were the plane parts then why does THE PLANE go INTO the towers but you claim that a missile blows up on contact. so does a plane. it does not cut through a building like the WTC like a hot knife through butter.
Engine under a scaffolding? Tire under a scaffolding? these parts rolled under a scaffolding.
the towers were designed better than that. they needed something extra to fall
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar Wrong, the fuel in the plane starts at the wings you dumb fuck. Not in the nosecone, as in a missle, the warhead is guess where? In the fucking nose cone. You're a dumbass.
A 425,000 pound plane travelling 500 mph has more than enough force to crash through a skeleton mesh of steel. You don't know shit about physics, the impacts, or the structure being discussed. You are flat out wrong and an uneducated moron.
If you knew anything about NY streets, your statement is idiocy
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
We're talking about The World Trade Center vs. A Plane
/watch?v=4efisaj4aBc
They can't make a building stronger than they did that one.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar Are you seriously this stupid? The HEAD FREAKING ENGINEER, Leslie Robertson, has no reason to think the airplane couldn't and didn't go into the WTC. Yet you, some shmuck kid with no intelligence, no education, and certainly no physics or structural engineering degree thinks he's wrong? He built the fucking thing and doesn't agree with you. Are you seriously this retarded?
Seriously...
Oh christ and illuminati video....you're batshit paranoid and delusional
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
you saw the fire from that hotel. incredibly intense.
the reason why the flight in pennsylvania and the pentagon is less talked about is because of the footage.
hardly any footage of those events but the evidence is still there.
A plane hit the pentagon. How. Where was NORAD. We're talking about the most guarded building in the world. they can't even release a smooth video of a plane hitting.
A couple of dim witts from the middle east flew a plane into the pentagon. hilarious
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar Look up the term "Logical Fallacy" that is what your argument is for the Pentagon. It is NOT the most guarded building in the world, the White House is more guarded than the Pentagon. It is NOT in restricted airspace, flights from Reagan Intl Airport REGULARLY fly over the Pentagon. It does not have "Surface to Air" Missile Batteries. It's a freaking office building, it is not some military stronghold like you'd wish it to be.
Dim wits? Come on, that's just ridiculous. Go read.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
I agree. so perhaps you agree that flight 93 was shot down in pennsylvania and not brought down by the passengers. Maybe it's insane to think that history doesn't repeat itself but we did it for vietnam so we could take on communism in china by installing "democracy". Now our next target? Iran. Wait for it..
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Oz1976
if the pentagon has 80 cameras why can they only produce a video that shows hardly anything?
remember
Condemnation WITHOUT INVESTIGATION is the height of ignorance.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar REally? 80 cameras? Post proof of that fact from anywhere that's NOT a conspiracy theorist/anti-government site...bet you can't.
911myths . com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
If you're after the truth, why do you continue to spread lies?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
How did the BBC report that Building 7 fell when it did NOT fall yet?
20 minutes later it fell.
so after a big backlash the bbc finally had to respond and they said the same thing that OUR administration said just recently.
" in the rush to get information we misspoke ".
cut the crap alright. Know what happened to that Original BBC footage. They lost it.
it's been almost 10 years. the more time passes. the more people look at the evidence.
but i can't do it for you..
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar Dude where have you been the last 5 years? Seriously all your arguments are out of date and flawed.
1. For HOURS before WTC 7 fell, firefighters knew it was going to. Quotes: "That buildings leaning", "That building is coming down next" Search: Firefighters at WTC 7
2. Due to this presumption, it went out over AP and other wires that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
3. BBC anchor misquoted said "fell" instead of "is going to fall" Search: BBC explanation to WTC 7
10 years and nothing..
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
THAT BUILDING WON'T COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF SOME WEAK FIRES.
The hotel video i sent you was WAY WAY WAY WAY more intense.
The fire could burn for 10 days!!! it won't collapse.
They don't give a damn about who gets killed just as long as the dice keep rolling.
looking for WMDS yeah we're gonna be threatened by these godless terrorists shuuuut up.
Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 took WAY more damage.
and BBC TALKED ABOUT THAT STORY FOR LIKE 15 MINUTES.
MISSPOKE MY ASS.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar you're an idiot, the hotel was also a different type of construction, did not have it fire proofing blown off, nor had structural damage from a plane impact. Are you blind, stupid or retarded? Which is it, it's gotta be one of them.
Fire could burn for days and wont collapse? Are you retarded? Proof FIRE FUCKS UP STEEL:
rustylopez.typepad . com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html
^^ wood / steel structure - fire happens, wood still standing, steel melted
Guess it was CD!!!
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Maziyar As for 3,4,5, and 6...I hear they were 47 stories tall and had an 18 story hole in the south facade...oh they weren't more than 15 stories tall? Oh and they were built in a traditional girder mesh? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about AT ALL.
Just stop. You're wrong. Plain and simple.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
It doesn't matter dude fact is wtc 7 was farther away, took less damage and collapsed. not only collapsed. fell down weightless. and some minor damage over 8 1/2 hours caused this? i mean come on what more do you need. what excuse are you need to find?
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Oz1976
a plane didn't even hit wtc 7 but you Still want to try and Disprove the evidence.
Evidence tells you what? you talk about structural failure constantly. How much structural failure is good enough for you. ANY amount of structural failure would do it huh?
you can run but you can't hide. somewhere else your gonna hear this shit and you'll say it's the dumbest garbage i've ever heard in my life but until that time keep doin what your doin.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar
1) You have NO evidence, the EVIDENCE (IE scientific facts already proven) proves WTC 7 underwent a "progressive collapse". You're right about one thing, it wasn't hit by a plane, it WAS hit by a 110 story building collapsing into it's south facade with the force of a 1/2 megaton nuclear bomb. (look up total kinetic energy of WTC 1)
2) Go read the NIST report son. Read it and comprehend it. (wtc . nist . gov)
3) who's running? I've been right here rebuking your idiocy nonstop.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
motherfucker. the twin towers didn't fall down horizontally. they fell down vertically. how does building 7 catch the collapse? oh yeah cuz someone insured that building so that if it were to fall they would get paid.
oh and when did they do that? hmmmm. but building 3 or building 5. no no no. those can't collapse.
we live in a country that presents information but you must connect those dots. honestly. LOOK AT THE WORLD and what are we talking about. Donald Trump.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar You're an idiot. Larry Silverstein owned the Lease on the WTC, the insurance payment he recieved did not cover his losses when combined with what he had to pay to rebuild. So much so he had to give up his lease back to the Port Authority for the Freedom Tower.
As for WTC 7 not getting hit? You're an idiot.
youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4 start at :26 seconds left building is 7
youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI
debunking911 . com/pull.htm < do yourself a favor AND READ!
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
Freedom Tower? Yeah they've been having problems with the money for that.
I watched both of the videos. And yes it was hit by the debris. So that caused the whole building to fall?
even with the fires that building wouldn't fall like that. it would crumble. it would have substantial damage.
Larry Silverstein wanted 7.1 billion for the insurance money... he ended up getting 4.5 billion.
he helped the NEW building 7 to divert the fact that he wouldn't pay for buildings 1 and 2
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar And? You add nothing to your case.
Sorry but unfought fires in WTC 7 on the south half of the building after the impact of WTC 1 on it DID cause enough damage for column 79 to fail, causing the east mechanical penthouse to collapse through the building initiating the progressive collapse.
wtc.nist . gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976
because i'm arguing with someone who doesn't use facts. he didn't give authority back to the port authority.
he still has authority. why hasn't he paid for the freedom tower to be rebuilt. he wants the money.
building 7 is back up... because he helped bring it down. if he wanted that new tower he would fork over the dough. follow the money trail. there's your answer.
Maziyar 9 months ago
@Maziyar Wrong wrong wrong again. And yes I am being factual you retarded pissant. I've posted SOURCED facts, You've posted NOTHING FACTUAL, only speculation. Get it through your skull.
In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") will be owned by the Port Authority as well as Tower Five
Oz1976 9 months ago
Pod?
TheSherrykelly 11 months ago
@jbrar97 i no rite? dis looks like a UAV dats wat it was called.....i always called it the "thing dat let u find ur enimies" on call of duty
Tarheelfan4lyfe97 11 months ago
keep pressing 6 you will see some aircraft thing
T50513 11 months ago
it was a piece from the second plane when it crashed in the tower that it hit the other tower its not a missile
11000corvette 1 year ago
@11000corvette how?? jet wings have explosives on em now???
nwoff88 1 year ago
DIE FUCKING AMERICAN WHITE PEOPLE!!!! BURN IN HELL!!!
GP FUCK YOURSELF!!
WHO WANNA FIGHT WITH ME IN THE FIGHT CLUB??
COME ON, THEN (260 POUNDS)
VodkaMannen1 1 year ago
@VodkaMannen1 Why dont you go to hell you gay asshole your just jeoulese because america is the most powerful and richest country in the world
JustAwsome2010 1 year ago
@JustAwsome2010 there not the richest actually they ove around 280million to china too much moeny spen on iraq boi
turkishsoldierbaran 1 year ago
@VodkaMannen1 hey voddka vodkka borris yeltson just because your russian doesnt mean your strong i would strait fuck your day up
DoctorDeezNuts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
theres alots of things confusing about 911, but i believe it wasnt an inside job. guys and gals american government is not corrupted. we should be happy to live in america. other countries such as middle east is hard to live in. there is alots of inoccent people in middle east that need help from extremists, terrorists etc.
fkthewaat 1 year ago
its heading from upper left to down right at an very hard angle or not? or will you say to me that the black thing in the video goes from left to right horizontal? i think its an shadow of an plane. There is no mistaking an raptor with mach 2.2. i worked on similiar planes, by the way.
FlashgottakaMK 1 year ago
usa biggest terrorists going
idontgivafuk1000 1 year ago
the only reason why bush was in office was so he could be stupid. it would explain how they didn't -think- about a terrorist attack. it would explain how someone so incompetent could be our president. you really think that 2 people of the same family could be president? george w bush and senior. they wanted oil from middle east to their oil company.
mouse9111 1 year ago
0:13 this object ripping past the far side of the towers appears to be a supersonic plane. i suspect a Raptor let loose a few thermite missiles and this aided the destruction, hence the cover up. This blur is not a bug or bird, it comes from behind the towers. Large and fast, >mach 2. A street level citizen would not even have seen this fly by, by the time you heard it, it would have been over the ocean.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN lol, total bullshit, it would fly totally in the ground if he fly that angle with 2.2 mach.
FlashgottakaMK 1 year ago
@FlashgottakaMK what angle? it is streaking straight across the sky. When you see a plane going over the horizon do you think it is crashing? Someone with far better computer skills than I should put all the videos together in a 3d composite. Then you could see the position this craft must be flying.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN what are you mean? where do you see an plane? i see only that wo is crashing in the tower
FlashgottakaMK 1 year ago
@FlashgottakaMK at 0:13 there is a very fast moving object that comes from behind the right side of the towers and zips off, down and to the right. It is only visible in this camera angle and is probably traveling away at mach 2 or greater. this could not be from the plane as it is going faster than the plane ever was going. I noticed this the first time I saw this shot back in '01.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN its a shadow of an plane i think. look closer, it goes by in front of the left tower on the upper right. or some type of lens effect. if that would be a raptor or something it would definitly fly into the ground at that angle and on that speed. no chance to pull up from that angle.
FlashgottakaMK 1 year ago
@FlashgottakaMK ot os not heading down but away. This gives the appearance of down. This angle is upwards the object travelling away appears to go down. As I stated up there^ if you see a plane going over the horizon do you think it is crashing?
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN theres alots of things confusing about 911, but i believe it wasnt an inside job. guys and gals american government is not corrupted. we should be happy to live in america. other countries such as middle east is hard to live in. there is alots of inoccent people in middle east that need help from extremists, terrorists etc.
fkthewaat 1 year ago
@FlashgottakaMK ""GAY"" IS ALL THAT THE LITTLE KIDS CAN SAY, IN INTERNET. IM A VERY RICH MAN, AND HAVE MANY FAST CARS, AND A VERY SEXY WIFE!!! WE LIVE IN THE BEAUTIFUL ISLAND MAURITIUS!! =) CAN IT BE BETTER?
I DON'T THINK SO, (smiling)
VodkaMannen1 1 year ago
@VodkaMannen1 yeah for sure. calm down boy.
FlashgottakaMK 1 year ago
@VodkaMannen1 DUDE YOU JUST SAID IN THE OTHER VIDEO YOU LIVE IN MIAMI. WHAT A FUCKEN RETARD
fkthewaat 1 year ago
thats scary knowing thats the way people died. just picture a giant plane coming straight at you! freaky!
acerin123 1 year ago
Someone had probably launched his computer^^
graigwatcher 1 year ago
Plane is my final answer :) . studies have shown the massive titanium engine traversed the building undamaged. Without the extra weight of the plain attached it excellerated to a spead of aprox 2000 mph.
ptgraham 1 year ago
@ptgraham
"Without the extra weight of the plain attached it excellerated to a spead of aprox 2000 mph."
Ha ha ha ha ha....
So if an object is traveling 542 MPH and met EQUAL or GREATER RESISTANCE, how does it accelerate, when it is under that resistance?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
cgi over a missile on LIVE TV..........hollywood needs that guy to work for them.......
desdinovaboc 1 year ago
looks like some one tampered with this
williemetoyer23 1 year ago
what is that in 00:13 min on the right sight of the second tower?
Systemmedien1983 2 years ago 2
A bird lol common sense is none to common
sikofu2 2 years ago
@sikofu2
So a bird can travel faster than whatever hit the WTC??? As we see the video is in slow motion and what ever hit the WTC was also in slow motion... Whatever that was that came flying from the sky was going incredibly fast in comparison with the supposed jet that was estimated at 542 MPH!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger I was mocking someone else's comment about a bird jackass.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2 well a raptor is a type of bird.....F-22 RAPTOR! sans its thermate missiles!
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN by thermate do you mean thermite? Because they don't make thermite missiles, they would be pointless, thermite burns it doesn't explode.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2 no I meant thermate, mate. By adding 2% sulfur to the mix of Iron oxide and aluminum powder, the melting point of steel is greatly reduced. And there was something put in these buildings to eat away at the core columns. A missile could easily deliver the needed material, timed charge to go off once the structure has been penetrated. Either that or the charges were dropped from that helicopter that flies right through the smoke in another video.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN you're too dumb to reply to with reality so go live in your world dude.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2 well, buddy, I already live in my world, as do we all. You check out anything I have posted, it is based on fact, actual events and reality. you on the other hand just spout denial of ppls claims with no opinion of your own, just bs negativity.
Everything i have stated is true, thermate, the helicopter the jet, ir what ever that was, what do you have such an issue with? the realization the world, especially your gov't may be feeding you shit? Surprise, surprise.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none. Show me one video of a missile hitting the towers or the pentagon, I've never seen one. Where is the residue from the plane that crashed in PA if the planes are in your opinion carrying the thermate. How would a registered police helicopter dropping thermate on the roof cut core columns? I've done a lot of research into both sides of 9/11 never seen a drop of evidence to support what you're saying.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2 massive pools of molten steel at the bases of three steel skyscrapers. Nano thermate found in WTC dust A jet turbine helicopter would not fly through the smoke like that it would lose power, this helo was deployed from an off shore American ac carrier. The Russians have satellite surveillance of this occurring. The main site that had this info disappeared off the net. All evidence states Mossad was involved in all of this.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN Okay reality check, nanoTHERMITE was a substance in lab testing back in 2001, not available in large quantities. Ever taken a physics class? When you compress things(like when a 500,000 ton building falls down) they heat up.Oh and never mind that the nano thermite was debunked. All helo's use turbine engines. And what carrier was this you say? where was it located, Too bad your "PROOF" mysteriously doesn't exist.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2 try looking it up. the "debunking" site can't even spell sulfur right. There are reams of pages on the steel droplets and traces of unburned nano-thermate found in the dust. A woman saved some dust on 9/11 and it was analyzed by an Independent lab and found these traces. There have been many tests finding this stuff. Military r and d is years ahead of what is publicly know this stuff existed pre 2001.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN k well nano thermite is like i said in development at the time and large quantities are still not available to this day. And no samples with a consistent chain of evidence tracking have every surfaced to begin with. Find me evidence supporting nano thermite that's not from a sample a "thruther" happened to produce. But I may as well talk to a wall because you never answer my questions or provide any proof. You just talk about it like undeniable proof exists.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none. Show me one video of a missile hitting the towers or the pentagon, I've never seen one."
Thermobaric bombs are made with thermite components!!! Here is a video of a thermobaric bomb!!!
/watch?v=c7UPU8nP_p0
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger You are so wrong on this. The main ingredient of a thermobaric bomb is a liquid fuel such as ethylene oxide. Some of them contain some nanoparticles of energetic matter such as aluminum. This however is nothing like thermite and is also not a MISSILE. They are usually retarded bombs to allow the delivery vehicle to get out of the blast radius. So keep looking for a thermite missile that will keep you busy till someone builds one.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"and which previously held the accolade of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.[38] The bomb contains a 14,000 pound (6,400 kilogram) charge of a liquid fuel such as ethylene oxide, mixed with an energetic nanoparticle such as aluminium, surrounding a high explosive burster."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger which is a completely different from thermite. In thermite the ratio is 33% aluminum 66% ironoxide and in nothing else. In SOME(but not all) fuels used for for thermobaric bombs contain a small amount(1.3-4.5% by weight) aluminum powder. So get your facts straight before you assume. By your reasoning my truck is composed of thermite since it has rusty bolts and aluminum heads.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
Oh yes would also like to point out to you if you heat thermite before you ignite it, it will blow up in your face... So if thermite was used upon the impact floors the fires would have achieved this before detonation of the magnesium or potassium permanganate fuses used!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Okay I notice a theme you have here, that is to ignore my factual based rebuttals and object with your imagined scenarios. My original statement was, "Show me one example of a termite or thermate missile, because there are none." You still haven't done this. Instead you now have countered with trying to get me to debate a point(thermite or thermate being used in the WTC) that you have show no facts or evidence for. You state your opinion which is based on misinformation by truthers
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"You state your opinion which is based on misinformation by truthers"
Well if you believe that NIST is the biggest misinformation whore out there. Kind of how they found 250 degrees C. on only 0.25-0.50% steel from WTC 1&2 and ZERO% from WTC7... I can go all day, especially when you come at me with strawmen attacks!!! Before you accuse people of misinformation, look at H6, the MOAB.. It is a mixture of thermite properties and RDX...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Reply 1:The MOAB is 30 feet, 1.75 inches (9.17 m) long, has a diameter of 40.5 inches (102.9 cm) and weighs 22,600 lb (10.3 tonnes) (of which 18,700 lb (8.5 tonnes) are high explosives.) Its blast radius is 450 feet (137.61 m, 150 yd), though the massive shockwave created by the air burst is said to be able to destroy an area as large as nine city blocks.
sikofu2 1 year ago
Comment removed
sikofu2 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Reply 2: Although its effect has often been compared to that of a nuclear weapon, it is only about one thousandth the power of Little Boy, the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima. The MOAB's blast is equivalent to around 11 tons of TNT, whereas the Hiroshima blast was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT; modern nuclear missiles are far more powerful than the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima. However, the MOAB bomb's yield is comparable to the smallest of nuclear devices.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Reply 3: Aside from two test articles, the only known production is of 15 units at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A single MOAB was moved to the Persian Gulf area in April 2003 but it was never used.[6] Since none of those are known to have been used as of early 2007, the U.S. inventory of GBU-43/B presumably remains at approximately 15.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Reply 4: K so we have established that a MOAB is very large and powerful with a blast radius of 450 feet. WT1 and 2 were both 208 feet in length and width. which would place the blast radius at over 2 times the size of the length and width of each tower. Actually it would place both towers inside the blast radius of one MOAB. There was no explosion of this magnitude on 9/11.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"Reply 4: K so we have established that a MOAB is very large and powerful with a blast radius of 450 feet. WT1 and 2 were both 208 feet in length and width."
I guess you have never heard of scaling things down? It is not that hard to do!!! H6 is not only used in the MOAB my friend!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Reply 5: I don't belive that the NIST is putting out misinformation so your argument is either missing proper syntax or is invalid. Show me where they say all the found for heated steel is up to 250 degree C for all the steel pulled out of the rubble and I will debate it with you because you're plain out lying now. And for the last time for Christ's sake the EXPLOSIVE use in a MOAB has no resemblance to thermite. Thermite burns through metal, H6 explodes.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"Show me where they say all the found for heated steel is up to 250 degree C for all the steel pulled out of the rubble and I will debate it with you because you're plain out lying now."
The next 4 comments is 1 page from NCSTAR 1-3 page xli...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
NCSTAR 1-3 page xli
""A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
"Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C (note that the exposure could have occurred pre- or post-collapse). These areas were:
WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web;
WTC 1, east face, column 236, spandrel; and
WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector."
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
"Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to the fires were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time."
As for this quote you might say they found 600 but refer to 1-3E and they never compare!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire affected floors, which had adequate paint for analysis. Note the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers."
So it looks like I am not lying, am I!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
NCSTAR 1-3 page xli
"A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C. More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire involved floors, and that the results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@sikofu2
Better yet NIST only had 236 pieces of steel, 231 were from WTC 1&2 combined, the other 5 came from WTC 5, none was recovered from WTC 7!!! In total NIST inspected 0.25-0.50% of the steel from WTC 1&2 and none from WTC 7, yet they wrote reports on all three with no physical evidence showing compromised steel.. How do you write a 10,000 + page report and not have physical evidence to prove your hypothesis is true, isn't that lacking supporting evidence?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@sikofu2
What really gets me though is that FEMA collected aprox. 150 pieces of steel, they found temps to be 700-800 degrees C. in the WTC 1&2 stockpile, they then shared 41 pieces with NIST, so aprox. 30% of the steel they tested, yet NIST only could produce 250 degrees C. in tests!! Think you can give me a good enough answer to that one?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Your data is insufficient to comment on. What steel are you claiming was tested? Core column steel or the floor joists? Also heating steel to 700-800 Celsius will significantly weaken it. Not sure what % of the original strength would be left at those temps but at 1000 C the strength of steel would be 10% normal cold strength. And temperatures of 1000 C are widely accepted to have occurred in the WTC. And the columns were not heated, the joists were and failed pulling the core in.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
Well I just told you, NIST found the steel to have reached 250 degrees C., FEMA found the steel from WTC 1&2 to have reached 700-800 degrees C., and they also found 1000 degrees C for WTC 7, with 2 eutectic steel pieces recovered from WTC 7. Do you know what eutectic temperature of steel is? That is the solidus of steel, which is above 1000 degrees C., matter of fact it is 1130 degrees C.. No i am not talking about core columns, had you read the quote you would have seen that!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger But the NIST didn't find just steeel heated to 250 C, they found steel heated to 1000 C. It says so in their report. You're just trying to cloud the issues here by quoting the austenizing temperatures of .83% carbon steel and 2.1% carbon steel.(above 2.1% it's considered cast iron not steel anymore.) Yet you continue to lie about what the NIST has reported.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"But the NIST didn't find just steeel heated to 250 C, they found steel heated to 1000 C. It says so in their report."
Where does it state such things? That quote i gave you was from NCSTAR 1-3, you seem to not have any clue to what it says in the report!!!
Here is the link I emphasize that you look at these 2 reports, you are showing the ignorance of a baby right now!!!
NCSTAR 1-3
NCSTAR 1-3E
So please feel free to send those references of them stating 1000 degrees C.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"You're just trying to cloud the issues here by quoting the austenizing temperatures of .83% carbon steel and 2.1% carbon steel."
No I was telling you what the LOWEST POSSIBLE TEMP IS, FOR STEEL TO TURN INTO LIQUID!!! That is called the eutectic temperature also.. THE LOWEST POINT ANY INGREDIENT IN STEEL CAN BEGIN TO MELT!!!! To get any steel that is eutectic you have got to reach the minimum temperature for melting, I hope you can comprehend this little bit of information!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Again clouding the issue with straw man fallacies, No one in the NIST has ever said the the steel MELTED, they say that the heat reduced the strength to the point of failure on the floor support joists which in turn pulled the core and exterior columns towards the the center of the floors as the floors sagged. You're reading the wrong reports. You need to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, where they did the experiments to do the modeling and show the results of the modeling.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"You need to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, where they did the experiments to do the modeling and show the results of the modeling."
I did read that report!!! CASE B and CASE D is what NIST took, that was SEVER DAMAGE to SFRM. A computer simulation does not constitute EVIDENCE. If you only find 250 degrees C. then that means your input temps should be 250 degrees C. Are we clear yet? You stated they found steel that reached 1000 degrees, I told you to prove it, I also sent you the reports!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Well if a computer simulation based on real life experiments doesn't constitute evidence to you than good luck in life I'm done debating with a mental midget.
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"Well if a computer simulation based on real life doesn't constitute evidence to you then I am done debating"
Let me make this as simple as possible for the thinking impaired...
If we know the steel alters at 625 degrees C., and we make sure the simulation is set for 625 degrees C., then that simulation is biased to the fact that fire induced the collapse, there is no chance for the steel to survive when you automatically use the alteration temperature as your input...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger They used the numbers from there experiments for the simulation. Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G it's all in there. Your statement shows you've obviously not read it. Come back when you have. Saying what you just did shows your unwillingness to read the information that's out there and look at both sides of the arguments. You just want to argue and provide no real facts based in reality to back it up, just opinions.
sikofu2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
"They used the numbers from there experiments for the simulation. Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5G it's all in there. Your statement shows you've obviously not read it."
Yea of course they did huh, kind of like how they found 1000 degrees C. according to you.. Even after I posted the quote from NIST you still said they found 1000 degrees C.!!! Then you have the nerve to tell me I didn't read the report?? It is okay I already made you look stupid!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@sikofu2
So when are you going to send me a quote stating they found 1000 degrees in recovered steel? Oh that's right you couldn't possibly do that now could you? I mean no such report exists stating they found those temps!!! You are a blatant liar, nothing more!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger You are correct, I misspoke when I said that, I meant to state the simulations and test showed that the temperatures of the fire in the WTC showed that the floor joists reached 1000 C. However that doesn't prove you correct by a long shot. Want to tell me all about how termite is very similar to high explosives again? Or how a MOAB was obviously used to blow up the WRC?
sikofu2 1 year ago
@sikofu2
"Want to tell me all about how termite is very similar to high explosives again? Or how a MOAB was obviously used to blow up the WRC?"
Well I never claimed any of it blew up the WTC, that was all just brain candy!!! But once again what I do know is that NIST did have any evidence whatsoever, that fire caused this collapse.. No proof SFRM was jarred loose, no proof the steel saw temps in excess of 250 degrees C. I am just stating the facts from NIST nothing else!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
But once again what I do know is that NIST DIDN"T have any evidence whatsoever, that fire caused this collapse..
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger You may not have said a MOAB was used but you did state that a MOAB's explosive has thermite like properties, scroll down if you missed yourself saying that.
sikofu2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikofu2
"You may not have said a MOAB was used but you did state that a MOAB's explosive has thermite like properties,"
Of course I did, look up H6 Explosives... That is the main EXPLOSIVE in the MOAB. What makes it so powerful is the H6, that can be used under water, because it has it's own oxidizer... The same exact oxidizer used in THERMITE.. Got that yet?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger And of course now is the time I bring the real hammer of reality down on you. See I've debated this argument many a time with turdburglers like you.
One question for you to answer for me: What was the goal of the NIST investigation of the WTC collapse. Do you believe they were government sanctioned to determine the official cause of the collapse?
sikofu2 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used; improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials; revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and improved public safety.