This video has got to be one of the silliest out there. Saying something that happened is impossible based solely on the letters that make up words that say it is impossible.
This comment has got to be one of the silliest out there. Creating a YT account just to say something that's happened must be impossible because typed words cant possibly direct me to research into the credible possibilities.
ok to all the debunkers, two questions- how could building 7 fall if it was not hit, and at freefall speed?? How come there was no video of a plane hitting the pentagon, the most monitored building in the world??
@MrCantstandliberals It was hit by a large chunk of steel which started many fires. It did NOT fall at freefall speed. The clip presented by many truther websites is only a segment of the total collapse. The 6 second clip is only of the outer wall collapsing. There was nothing supporting this wall because 10 seconds before, the penthouse crashed through the roof, gutting the interior columns. So the entire video was 16 seconds in total. There is a video of the plane hitting but no missile video.
@MazJax MazJax reporting live inside building 7. A large chunk of steel just went by my head and hit column 79 on the 13th floor! My god guy's, I have to get out of here..due to thermal expansion...this building is going to come down symmetrically! The other columns that are "noodles" can not support such a steel building! Are you really fucking kidding me with your bullshit! Are you and NIST, omnipresent? Can you really tell me that girders hit column 79 with a straight face? Show me your proof
I've answered every question in this video. Now, either you'll listen to them like an open-minded person would, or you'll just block me and call me a shill. Why cover up what's so blatantly obvious? Afraid of the REAL truth? Well, I'll tell you what, son. The Truth movement is over. Accept it and move on with your life. Goodbye.
@MazJax Ok, let me use "adult language." Where are the "time-change" parts that are indestructable...that the FBI left out..that could identify flight 77? How could "carbon based bodies" be identified...but titanium parts were obliterated? Did I meet your grade level? Or just surpass you? Answer that, and we will see how elementary your response will be! ;)
The WTC is totally incomparable to the Titanic. Just the questions are comparable. How could a ship deemed unsinkable sink in three hours with minor damage? On its first voyage? How could it break in half like that? Why did people report hearing explosions before it sank? How convenient is it that the designer had removed the extra lifeboats in such a short time! And for what? Because they looked bulky? Suuure...Was it a conspiracy by the government to cover up the tensions leading to WWI?
Because he described the sound as "Drilling" doesn't mean it WAS. It could have been anything. Many people compare tornadoes to sounding like trains. Just like how they compare falling steel floors to "explosions."
Bush's brother and cousin left that company a year before 9/11. How could they have been "in on it"? All they did was update security several years before. Nothing special there. And they certainly were not "in control" of security. That's absurd. Continued:
Bomb sniffing dogs were brought down to a NORMAL LEVEL after phone threats to the complex were dealt with. They had never been below normal level, ever. Besides, if there were enough bombs to take down the world's largest buildings, surely at least ONE DOG would have noticed them. There were no real power outages or floor shutdowns.
The drilling was used for construction. There was "always something going on" according to a WTC maintenance crew member. Not a big surprise.
Demo expert Danny Jowenko, (as well as many others) said rigging the WTC towers would have taken years of preparation WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO HIDE. It is impossible to have rigged America's largest office building during a few employee drills when it takes half a year to rig a 50 story building. Unless, of course, they sent ninjas to set the bombs. Which nobody ever found any fragment of.
The 707 is much smaller than the 767, and slower. The designers couldn't possibly predict the damage a 707 could have done, because a 707 had never hit a building before. Robertson describes the design as "707 flying at low speeds looking to refuel" (ie low on gas and slow, dealing LESS damage to the tower) They had no idea of what was to come on 9/11. Obviously, John Skilling (who died before 911) could not have imagined the size of a building fire the likes of the one on 9/11.
WTC collapsed on 9/11 because it was heavily damaged from outside sources, the planes for 1 and 2, and large debris for 7. Also, the fireproofing foam was clearly blown off by the intense blast from the planes, leaving the steel to burn and weaken.
The WTC was NOT designed to withstand the force of a hurricane on a concentrated, small area, like the plane inflicted.
They did not collapse at freefall speed. Debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the rest of the tower.
The top part of the Windsor Tower was Steel. That section collapsed. What was left was the concrete lower floors (concrete fares well in fires) and the concrete core. The only parts that collapsed were the steel parts. Just like WTC.
Both WTC towers had massive holes from the planes, allowing LOTS of oxygen intake. If the fires weren't hot, why did 300 people jump to their deaths, pushing each other out of the windows? To escape cool smoke?
The firefighters reported molten METAL, not steel.
They didn't fall int heir own footprint. Debris was scattered for many acres outside the site. Two non-WTC buildings had to be torn down because of damage from the towers.
Iron microspheres are also caused by the workers' cutting tools during clean-up.
Concrete and steel was crushed together because of the enormous force of the huge 15 stories collapsing on top of it. The WTC was MASSIVE. 15 floors weighed hundreds of thousands of tonnes.
The fire was not starved of oxygen. Plastic and jet fuel burns dark black. How could fires starved of oxygen bellow thick, hot dry smoke for an hour?
No firefighter reported seeing melted steel. What you have in those photos is red-hot, sagged steel. Steel glows at those temperatures. Molten steel cannot be picked up using a tractor. Molten steel would have destroyed the tractor. The molten metal described is most likely aluminium, which glows red at the WTC temperatures.
What is so mysterious about steel beams being bent after a BUILDING COLLAPSE?
The floors were made of thousands of pieces of steel. They wouldn't "be stacked"
The building wouldn't take 96 seconds. Impossible. The potential energy was so large in the upper floors, it tore through the rest of the building like nothing. This was mostly due to the poor "tube" design.
The building DID withstand the plane. The fires resulting were what caused the collapse and they were not factored by the designers.
Computers and other chemicals also burned, making the fires hotter.
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707."
@rigatony019 perhaps they're waiting for the ultimate act of debunking ...an official conspiracy theorist taking NIST's WTC7 collapse 2008 report data and PATENTING office fire controlled demolition?Ü
@rigatony019 FACT IS they can't patent office fire controlled demolition as the NIST WTC7 collapse excuse is BS and a bit like al capone judge and jury at his own trial ...end of!
I find it amusing that this video compares the collapse of a 100+ story skyscraper to pancake collapses in 5-6 story buildings as if they would produce the same result. Some people just can't comprehend the forces involved in the collapse of the world trade center.
@bd886 You don't understand the forces involved. Firstly, the upper floors of the south tower at free fall for the distance of one floor would impact the floor below at 30 times their own weight. That level of force could not be stopped. Secondly, the outer walls fell off because the floors that kept them aligned were destroyed and the forces involved caused them to bend over and snap. This is why shots of the debris show the outer columns laid out flat on the ground in large sections.
@bd886 there is a common pattern for building structural failure gravity collapses pre and post 9/11 ...they leave a rubble pile 10% the original height of the building that would have given us two appx' 120 ft piles of rubble for the towers , their piles were photographed well bellow the still standing WTC first floor walkway...or maybe I'm paranoid?
@TODB0AMER You're paranoid. The amount of rubble remaining would depend on the forces involved in the collapse. The vast majority of the contents of the building was pulverized and ejected all over the city as dust. Both collapses also initiated with the upper section of the building falling onto the lower one.
@InvernessMoon ...and YOU'RE A COINCIDENCE THEORIST , unless you can rationalise why this gravity collapse structural failure universally pulverised steel ,concrete, human victims fixtures and fittings leaving a 0.01 original height rubble pile for the first and last time 9/11?
@InvernessMoon momentum would apply equally to all structural failure gravity collapses AND controlled demolitions. Where did the towers go?why so little rubble? LESS THAN 1/10th the rubble of the universal constant...WHY?
@TODB0AMER Universal constant? Obviously it's not a universal constant based on observation. As for momentum, what do you mean by "apply equally" exactly? The momentum involved in the collapses were far beyond anything previously observed, and yet people fallaciously attempt to compare them to the collapses/demolitions of small buildings with designs (such as concrete-encased columns) unlike the towers. As for where the rubble pile went, all that dust spread around the city came from somewhere.
@InvernessMoon when has structural steel ever been dustified by a gravity collapse? was the salvaged steel ever audited ? did it match the tonnage steel that went into the twin towers construction as with all other types of collapse? momentum? the lightest thinest steel section pulverised the heaviest thickest effing steel section. 9/11stinks and you KNOW it does!
@TODB0AMER I don't know who claimed the steel was pulverized, but it wasn't me. Everything but the steel was pulverized by the force of the collapse, such as the concrete layers on each floor.
@InvernessMoon well what type of rubble pile do you suppose the twin tower collpase would leave if steel cannot be dustified by a structural failure collapse? There are appx' 240 1/4 mile exterior steel uprights , 47 1/4 mile core sections , 220 X 1 acre steel pan floor sections and their attendant 220 mazes of steel tubular trusses and 220 1 square acre ribbon of steel banding giving us a knee high rubble pile FFS!
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
@ctcole77 I'm trying to find a picture of Flight 175's 20ft diameter exit hole in WTC2 9/11 (an object of the nosecone and fuselage's proportions and trajectory was filmed exiting WTC2 from several angles) can you provide me with a link to this?
@ctcole77 do you think it a fraud that an object the size of flight 175's nosecone and fuselage is filmed from several angles exiting the south tower on flight 175's trajectory 9/11... BUT leaves no exit hole? (I haven't time for anal nitpicky non questions, if the monkeys won't answer MY substantive question I'll have to ask the organ grinder)
ZERO 220 x 1 acre concrete floors, their steel pans and tubular steel truss supports stacked at ground level after a pancake collapse? are we supposed to believe this was caused by structural failure and gravity alone?
Explosions do not necessarily equal explosives. Things explode in fires. The point is there were no explosions loud enough to indicate an explosion strong enough to sever steel columns. An explosion of that strength would have been heard by everyone for blocks around--10's of thousands of people. There were no explosions like that on 911 except the initial explosion of the impact.
IF THE WORLD DIDN'T RELY ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA IT WOULD BE SUCH A BETTER PLACE. LISTEN. NO PLANE HIT BUILDING SEVEN AND BY THAT IT MEANS NO JET FUEL CAN HELP BRING THOSE STEEL FRAMES DOWN EITHER. NOW TELL ME IF YOU STILL BELIEVE BUILDING SEVEN WAS THE FIRST FIRE-INDUCED COLLAPSE OF A STEEL-FRAME HIGH-RISE. THE FACT YOU GUYS BELIEVE THE NEWS OVER BASIC SCIENCE WORRIES ME. TAKING DOWN A BUILDING ESPECIALLY IN THAT SIZE WOULD TAKE WEEKS IN ADVANCED. NOT 8 HOURS. PRE-PLANNED DEMOLITION.
" NOW TELL ME IF YOU STILL BELIEVE BUILDING SEVEN WAS THE FIRST FIRE-INDUCED COLLAPSE OF A STEEL-FRAME HIGH-RISE."
.
Your caps key seem to be stuck.
WTC 7 was the third steel frame high rise to collapse. WTC1+2 were the first. Many steel frame constructions have collapsed due to fire alone.
The cause of the collapse can been seen in the remains of WTC 5. WTC 5 had a major internal collapse due to fire alone. And there you have it! I hope this clears your incredulity.
THIS PROPAGANDA. IT IS FUCKING 2011 BY NOW IF YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR THE FULL STORY, WHY HAVE YOU....YOU'RE VERY...VERY DELUSIONAL. NOW USE CRITICAL THINKING HERE. LARRY SILVERSTEIN, THE OWNER OF BUILDING SEVEN TOLD THEM TO PULL IT MEANING BLOW IT UP IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOLITION (WHICH IM SURE HE KNOWS ALOT ABOUT FROM EXPERIENCE THROUGH HIS CAREER). FIRST RESPONDERS DO NOT JUST TELL YOU THERE WERE BOMBINGS BEFORE THE PLANES HIT FOR NO REASON.
It is fucking 2011. And not a single conspiracist has ever shown by means of a REPRESENTATIVE experiment how you could control demolish a cross section of a steel frame support section using (any deriviate of) thermite.
What are they waiting for!
Could they not find any scrap building or other steel contruction to demonstrate that what they claim must have happened is actually possible?
Given, of course, similar conditions, like uncontrolled fires.
@wimahlers IT IS FUCKING 2011 AND INSECURE PEOPLE STILL THINK THEY'RE 100% SURE THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY WITH IT'S COUNTLESS FLAWS ARE TRUE AND STILL ARGUE WITH "NUTCASES" WHICH ARE COMPLETE STRANGERS OVER THE INTERWEB. YOU SIR ARE CRAZY. NO POINT IN ARGUING.
@wimahlers Have the read the survivor testimonies? How can you say none of them heard explosives when many of them said they heard explosions?
The detonation did not start on the impacted floors, but if you can protect an airplane black-box, you can protect low sensitivity secondary explosives.
You aim an airplane using the autopilot or other remote mechanism.
WTC5? It suffered a partial collapse after being severely damaged by debris. If that happened at WTC7 no-one would complain.
@DarkwingScooter, . "WTC5? It suffered a partial collapse after being severely damaged by debris." . Haven't you read the reports? There were 3 types of damages in WTC 5. Type 1: Damaged by direct impact debris. Type 2: Damaged NOT by impact debris but by fire ONLY. Type 3: Damaged by both 1 and 2. I was asking for you to explain the substantial internal collapse of type 2 damage. So, what caused the internal collapse of WTC 5 in the type 2 area? Do not evade but explain!
"... the survivor testimonies? How can you say none of them heard explosives when many of them said they heard explosions?"
.
Many? There were 16 survivors only that survived the collapse of WTC 2 (2 survivors) and WTC 1 (14 survivors). None of them heard any explosion AT THE MOMENT of collapse. Nor was any explosion registeered on any electronic device AT THE MOMENT of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
But all this is hypothetical since you claim thermite ONLY was used.
@wimahlers The survivor testimonies are not only from people who directly survived the collapse but who survived the event itself. Does this really need to be spelled out for you?
Same with WTC5, if you think the truther position is that high-rises cannot suffer collapses from fires you are grossly misunderstanding the truther position, I suggest you start from scratch and shift your brain into gear this time. The truther position is about THE NATURE of the collapses, not the fact of them.
"The survivor testimonies are not only from people who directly survived the collapse but who survived the event itself. Does this really need to be spelled out for you?"
.
Does this mean that you do agree that there were no explosive sounds AT THE MOMENT of the collapses of WTC1,2 and 7?
And I know the were explosive sounds. I have said this before. Better yet, there are many vidoes you can see on youtube where you can hear these explosive sounds. It is irrelevant.
"Same with WTC5, if you think the truther position is that high-rises cannot suffer collapses from fires you are grossly misunderstanding the truther position, ..."
.
Well, you are the first to confirm.
And therefore this is the first time I can ask the subsequent question. Here it goes:
If WTC 5 substantially internally collapsed due to fire alone is it conceivable, given the fact you just confirmed, that something similar also internally did happen in WTC 7?
@DarkwingScooter Given THE NATURE of WTC 5, and given THE NATURE of the FDNY prediction WTC 7 would collapse, and given THE NATURE of the odd construction of WTC 7 with its extreme floor span, and given THE NATURE of the effect of fire and the strength on steel, and given THE NATURE of uncontrolled fires for 7 hours, and given THE NATURE that the FBI did not find any trace of explosive evidence, a NATURAL collapse is conceivable.
I just loving to use the term "THE NATURE" instead of fact.
"The detonation did not start on the impacted floors"
.
Wait. You are inconsistent. What is it? Was it thermite or explosives?
If you say both than you have to explain why. Why use thermite if you are going to use explosives anyway.
And if the detonation did not start at the impacted floors than you have to explain why the collapse did start on the impacted floors. You also have to explain why the 16 survivors did not hear any explosion. And no evidence found on site.
@wimahlers Why shouldn't you use both thermite and explosives if that is the most effective. I don't think high explosives were needed myself, nano-thermite will make low explosives bangs if contained.
But there is no intrinsic reason why both could not have been used.
The collapse did not start at the impacted floors, if you dismiss the "perimeter pull in" theory the core has been cut. If that is the case then the highest INTACT core would be at the impact floor to produce the pull in.
"Why shouldn't you use both thermite and explosives"
.
So, you claim thermite was used to hide the explosive sounds but explosive sounds being heard did not matter. You claim that there are super experts conspiracists who new this never used combination would work the first time on a skyscraper, also a first time, and would leave no traces identified by anybody who was actually working in the aftermath. But it was noticed by the brilliancy of people who were never there.
@DarkwingScooter, . "The collapse did not start at the impacted floors" . Now that is news to me! On what floor did it start? And what is your verifiable and verified source for this? Note: I hope you do not present the old and death beaten claim of the "antenne went first" argument. As claimed here: watch?v=wXhpC1p1lYo Here is a more serious and more elaborate contemplation regarding this claim (and more): tinyurl*com/5s34m4p BTW, do you know a demolition expert that agrees with you?
@wimahlers "And what is your verifiable and verified source for this?"
Verifiability is a pseudo-scientific criterion, precisely because it is abused by people like you. Benson's position is falsified by observation, the antenna moved before the tilt started, the tilt only started after the top starting falling.
nDGCFDoMmuA
You can figure out the rest from there, it follows pretty logically.
I strongly recommend to re-read Mystylplx's reply. And I quote:
Explosions do not necessarily equal explosives. Things explode in fires. The point is there were no explosions loud enough to indicate an explosion strong enough to sever steel columns. An explosion of that strength would have been heard by everyone for blocks around--10's of thousands of people. There were no explosions like that on 911 except the initial explosion of the impact.
@wimahlers Thermate cutting vertical columns, see "The thermate debate" by physicsandreason. I believe that case is closed.
As for explosives. In one comment you complain that no-one heard explosions, then when it is pointed out to you that almost all witnesses reported explosions you retreat to claiming that the explosions weren't loud enough. There is no need for super loud explosions to effect a demolition, it is a stupid argument to begin with so I advise you drop it.
"Thermate cutting vertical columns, see "The thermate debate" by physicsandreason. I believe that case is closed."
.
Debate?
Really, did you actually say "debate"?
Really?
You really think that you can prove that you can control demolish a damaged burning building given similar results as seen at the WTC on 9/11/2001 with just a debate or this: watch?v=Qamecech9m4 ?
Really?
I strongly suggest to contact your nearest accredited university and VERIFY your argument.
"In one comment you complain that no-one heard explosions, then when it is pointed out to you that almost all witnesses reported explosions you retreat to claiming that the explosions weren't loud enough."
.
Yeah! That is what you want me to have said because that really is ridiculous. Now here is what I actually said, and I repeat verbatim:
No explosions were registered or reported by the 16 survivors AT THE MOMENT of the collapse.
The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later.
What are the odds that they can not recover 6/8 of the black boxes. Only flight 93's were found yet the recording that implicate the muslims were not officially released. Even the families did not get to hear the last 3 minutes.
A plane can get so low to the ground it can hit the pentagon from the side where it has been reinforced? Piloted by amateurs that are still alive yet 0 videos are released.
@megamogx They are not utrained, these terrorists were trained to fly a plane... This was planed out, they didn't just wake up one morning saying "hey lets do this" no...
"The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later."
.
Yes that would be amazing! Except for the fact that they all died in the deliberate plane crashes on 9/11/2001. None of them was alive after 9/11/2001.
well i have seen the molten iron video, and it is proved other metals in the buildings could of been melting " aluminum, or just other softer metals".
i just dont like to draw conclusions when nobody will ever really know what happened or sure. Because evidence is available for both sides of the argument. But its just striking when someone who designed the building would admit that it was damaged bad, but people still wont believe that guy
@thisphotoisproof If by "proved" you mean that someone said that it must have been those things without providing any proof beside incredulity then I suppose it has been "proven".
I on the other hand hold that when something looks and behaves like molten iron and looks and behaves nothing like any combination of molten aluminium and organics or anything other than molten iron then the rational conclusion should probably be that it is molten iron and not something else.
well regardless, i still believe the engineer who was in the building when it happened who says the damage was really bad, it really takes away from the people who say the damage wasnt a big deal.
i wont argue about the melting object because nobody will ever know what it really was, and we would be wasting our time trying to figure that out. But i do appreciate you talking to me without calling me a retard, moron or idiot like most people who i challenge do.
You can believe what you like. I don't really have a vested interest in proving a conspiracy theory, but I am interested in the sociological aspect of what causes people to accept either one theory or the other, which requires me to take a firm evidence based position, rather than one based on trust, supposition and incredulity.
I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned at least, that forces me to accept the conspiracy theory. You are welcome to believe otherwise.
"what causes people to accept either one theory or the other"
.
I can help you with that. One side has all the evidence the other side has none.
Skeptics and rationalists go with the evidence. Incredulous people go with the unverified and often contradictory and always baseless claims. In a strange way they feel much safer if such an event is done by a super secret organization trying to take over the world than a random determined group of idiots they cannot control.
@wimahlers Exactly, the official story is filled with contradictory and baseless claims.
The rational skeptic must go where the simplest explanation lies: That is explosive demolition. Explosive demolition explains everything and is free from contradictory evidence (but not false evidence presented in its defense, if you understand the distinction).
If you think that the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports were free from catastrophic contradiction though, you are not rational or skeptical.
"The rational skeptic must go where the simplest explanation lies: That is explosive demolition."
.
So you say using silent explosives, never seen being propped, never found in the remains, detonated in burning impact areas about 1 hour after 2 planes crashed in 2 buildings, collapsing in such a way that they hit and structually damaged a third building that burnt for about 7 hours and was then also silently detonated is the simplest explanation? That is rational?
@wimahlers Thermate doesn't make a loud noise, can cut the vertical columns and there are several independent lines of evidence suggest that it was there. It is consistent with all the observations inconsistent with none of the observations.
It is a simple matter, the effects are know.
NIST didn't find evidence for it because by there own admission they never looked, discounted the evidence and apparently believed (with NatGeo and PM) that it can't cut vertical columns.
Don't show me how thermite (any deriviate thereof) can burn through metal - a well known fact. Show me how it can cut through support beams similar to, and representative for, those used at the WTC WITH SIMILAR RESULTS. Demonstrate a support construction demolition using thermite only. Put your deeds were your mouth is. Why haven't you done so after 10 years? Fear it doesn't work?
"there are several independent lines of evidence suggest that it (=thermite) was there."
.
No there isn't! This is claimed only. Jones and Harrit are not independent. The source of the substance is questionable. Non of the papers were presented for scientific peer review. Those that were reviewed by peers - outside scientific peer review - were heavily criticised. conspiracy websites only list the favorable papers but not the critics. No thermite damage was ever reported.
@DarkwingScooter ... oh ... about those "pools of molten steel".
Let's ignore the fact for the moment that there is zero evidence for molten steel. Ignoring that, show me how you can create "pools of molten steel" with thermite only.
How?
How much do you need?
How do you ignite the thermite AFTER the building is collapsed?
How did they keep the setup together - whatever the setup was - during the collapse?
Allegedly it was reported that there was a pool of molten metal in WTC 6. Explain!
It is claimed that the steel frame work could not possibly have collapsed due to fire alone. If this is your claim than how do you explain the substantial internal collapse of WTC 5?
What caused this internal collapse of WTC 5?
Oh ... about Harrit's report ... given the alleged ratio of thermite chips found in the dust at least 500,000 KG of thermite must have been consequentially used. And nobody has notiiced this before? Really?
"NIST didn't find evidence for it because by there own admission they never looked, ..."
.
Of course not! They also have not looked for lizard people (Icke) or directed energy weapons (Woods).
The considred it, but, ok, they haven't looked ... as none of the conspiracists has ever done a REPRESENTATIVE experiment in the past 10 years to show that it is even possible to CONTROL demolish a steel frame constructed building using (any deriviate of) thermite only. Show me!
"NIST ... apparently believed (with NatGeo and PM) that it can't cut vertical columns."
.
No! NIST "believes" and so do I that a) the thermite accusation leads to inconsistencies of any technical hypothesis given the known evidence. And b), indeed, that you cannot control demolish WTC 1,2 or 7 using thermite resulting in the collapse as observed and evidenced by the rubble.
But you disagree. Fine!
In that case show me a REPRESENTATIVE experiment proving your claim.
@wimahlers The thermite accusation leads to no inconsistency and NIST did not claim this. They didn't look for it and believed that it couldn't do what can be easily demonstrated it does (if you have not watched the Cole video at this point you need to do so).
If you can effect a controlled demolition using random fires alone what ON EARTH makes you think you could not effect it with fires AND thermite? This is a logical error of the first order!
@wimahlers The thermite theory lead to no contradiction, but the NIST theory contradicts itself when it claims to reflect reality in the case of WTC 7 (because it proposes a theory that has already been empirically falsified at the time of the report), and contradicts itself in the case of WTC 1 & 2.
If you have read Bazant's papers and don't understand why the OS is self-contradicting there is no hope for you.
"If you can effect a controlled demolition using random fires alone what ON EARTH makes you think you could not effect it with fires AND thermite? This is a logical error of the first order!"
.
You do understand the first word in the term "controlled demolition" versus the first word in the term "uncontrolled fires"? Do you?
But don't feel ashamed, it is a logical error of the first order made by many truthers.
"Exactly, the official story is filled with contradictory and baseless claims."
.
So you claim. But can you name one? Preferable from an accredited source.
And yes! I do think that the NIST report is free from catastrophic contradictions (note: The 9/11 Comission report is irrelevant because it was not focussed on the technical research. NIST was).
And before you start, no! No researcher claims, has ever claimed or will ever claim that the steel melted. Get over it!
Molten aluminum behaves exactly like molten iron and looks almost exactly like it. The difference is that all molten iron glows and aluminum only starts glowing well past its melting point. Another difference is that iron turns black as it cools while aluminum remains silvery.
@thisphotoisproof A bit like superman eh? No need for physics or stuff like that. Superheros and super duper fast planes can do anything they want, reality bends to their will just like you imagine it does to yours.
@thisphotoisproof Common sense is not a good way of answering questions of scientific fact.
It is not very hard to find images of buildings that have fallen down due to earthquakes. They invariably fall sideways.
To my knowledge no tall skyscraper has ever fallen down for any reason natural though (aside from allegedly on 9/11), there are good reasons why tall buildings are far less susceptible to earthquake damage than shorter ones.
The OFFICIAL cause of WTC1,2+7 collapse was office fires.
no but common sense tells me that if a giant plane going 500+ smashes into a building and destorys 30% of the buildings support instantly..wich was the case. i just dont see how its 'not possible" for the building to collapse. I mean the top floors were top heavy from the roof and they just tore through the rest of the building and caused the walls to spill over the sides...it wasnt really free fall or clean.. it was a very messy collapse. WTC 7 was damaged bad from towers
@thisphotoisproof You are right, 30% of the support is about how much it destroyed. 30% of a building with in excess of 200% designed redundancy leaves you with a lot of structure left over. Which is why the official position is that "the impacts had no significant effect on the subsequent collapse".
The buildings were designed to sustain (according to the lead engineer if I recall) "multiple impacts" of large jetliners EACH.
Impacts look impressive, but the building has a FAR greater mass.
well the witnesses in the buildings said allthough you cant tell by videos, the buildings actually bent back up to 10 feet when the plane hit and then bent back into place. I know they were designed to withstand jetliners of the 1960s , but it was never officially tested so they were just estimating what the building might be able to absorb. Im not just pulling this info out of nowhere, one of the engineers was in the building and said he knew it was badly damaged.
@thisphotoisproof They were designed to withstand 707's, which is roughly the same size as the 767. Skilling made the comment about multiple planes in the late 80's.
Buildings sway substantially in the wind, they are required to do so. Wind forces are orders of magnitude greater than the plane exerted on the building and it was a calm day.
There were multiple scientific modeled estimates on the amount of column damage, none of them support your notion of catastrophic impact damage.
the guy who helped design the trade center, who was there on 9/11 called the WTC security and even told them how bad the damage was and that he couldnt gaurantee the buildings safety.... he knew it was hit to a point of no return
and he even testified on how bad the damage was, it was fatal damage to the buildings cores. Im not saying that to make it seem like it wasnt an inside job... because lets face it.... theres plenty of evidence to show that the towers could of naturally came down, so you cant just throw it out and say its all useless because a designer of the builing even admits that the structure was in trouble.
@thisphotoisproof There is a difference between damage that is severe enough to make the building not worth repairing (fatal) and will come down any moment (fatal).
The main problem is not even whether the planes could have initiated the initial failure, NIST thinks it didn't and I would venture most people who run the number would come to the same conclusion. The main problem is the global nature of the initial failure. It wasn't one part failing and first, the initial failure was fairly even.
Actually the initial failure wasn't even at all. The collapse started right where the planes hit and the upper floors tilted (not even) initially and only straightened out once they impacted onto the lower floors.
@Mystylplx There is no indication that the upper floors impacted the lower floors in the way you think. look at Verinage demolitions and you will see a clear "jolt" of the impact as the upper and lower bodies collide. There is no evidence of this behavior at WTC.
The collapse also likely did not start AT the level of impact, probably some floors below. You are being fooled by the illusion (suggested by NIST) that the perimeter failed first, while the antenna shows that this was not the case.
@thisphotoisproof And then AFTER the initial failure if run the numbers for a progressive "pancake" collapse, at just slower than free-fall (I think 66% or thereabouts) the collapse is WAY too fast for a pancake mechanism.
This is why NIST also abandoned THAT idea and went with Bazant's crush down/up hypothesis. Only problem with THAT is that is such a logical disaster area of a theory that it amounts to a reductio ad absurdum proof of explosive demolition.
@thisphotoisproof And all this is BEFORE you start looking at anomalies like the squibs, the heat in the rubble pile, the molten iron pouring from the building in broad daylight (yes, there were alternate theories, but none are empirically justifiable).
That is BEFORE you even start considering the whole thermite line of reasoning.
Whether the plane damage initiated the collapse is ultimately neither here nor there. Either way, it doesn't affect the only possible conclusion that can be drawn.
"the molten iron pouring from the building in broad daylight (yes, there were alternate theories, but none are empirically justifiable)."
The theory that it was iron is the LEAST empirically justifiable of them all. No one is really sure what that stuff was as no-one took a sample prior to the collapse, but the theory that it was iron makes the least sense of all.
someone show me a video of a skyscrapper falling any other way but free fall. you cant find one. buildings dont simply fall over, or collapse slowly..... its free fall.... watch every building collapse on youtube... its all freefall.. i dont understand whats so different , the wtc collapsed just like any other skyscrapper would.
@thisphotoisproof Except that no other skyscraper in history has collapse due to any mechanism other than demolition. All those videos you are looking at are demos.
(although one or two tall buildings have toppled sideways from earthquakes, but that again belies your case rather than strengthens it)
even if 9/11 was a set up.... i dont think they meant for the towers to come down... i honestly believe it was a structure failure.
demos are loud... NYC would of heard it happening... the towers fell silent other than the noise from the debris... there was cameras all around the city that day... a demo would of been caught. have u ever seen a demo?. its BANG BANG BANG with flashes viotlently for like 30 seconds before a building falls... that never happened
Look up "Verinage demolition", there is no need even for explosives to demolish a large building.
/watch?v=BnYChrtuogU
Explosive demos are a minority.
But demolitions of any type have specific signatures which are due to the simple fact that they are planned rather than random natural events. It is THIS signature that leads to the inevitable conclusion that this was a demo of some description.
theres no way they demolished the trade center like that without anyone noticing... peopel were there working u cant just take floors out the building.
@thisphotoisproof They didn't. Please learn to separate propositions in your mind.
You said that you needed "a god like explosion to demo those towers". This is a false statement, as demonstrated by my examples. That doesn't mean that the towers were demo'd like that, only that your proposition is incorrect.
There are several good guesses as to how it was actually done, but none of them involve "a god like explosion", many use mostly gravity to do the bulk of the work.
still... there would of had to be some way to bring it down i dont think gravity was the plan even if there was a plan.. again im not saying it wasnt an inside job, but i honestly believe the towers fell from structure failure and it wasnt the initial plan
and plus there is even proof of structure failure in photos, that clearly show bowing of the walls by up to 20 inches, here is a video made by someone who actually knows what they are talking about
@thisphotoisproof There were attempts to explain the inward bowing of the walls. Unfortunately the only adequate explanation for that is that the floors are pulling them inwards.The only adequate explanation for THAT is the floors are no longer connected to the core. The only adequate explanation for THAT is that the core was cut, and the only adequate explanation for THAT is that the core was severed by thermite.
you would need a god like explosion to demo those towers... aka... a plane flying into it at 500mph. that is true force that cant be replicated without large bombs really..... when the plane hit its estimated about 30% of the towers support was severely weakened or destroyed completely...
@thisphotoisproof Even NIST doesn't think that the plane alone could have brought down the buildings. A hurricane force wind exerts FAR more force than plane could, and the buildings were designed to sustain both.
30% column loss was insignificant (also according to NIST) when the buildings had redundancies of >200%.
Bombs have the advantage of being where you want them to be when you want them to be, so intrinsically it requires orders of magnitude less force. You can't just say "energy".
i love youtube arrogence lol. i think "they" have convinced you all to become self evident to your own theories and believe youube heresay and defend it like an american democrat defending its party regardless of what they do. its almost like people like being youtube celebs. ok lets use absolutions. all the towers fell vertically, when cylindrical objects topple and do not piledrive. regardless of what theory you accept. there was CLEARLY somethin else goin down,
33 people still don't understand 7th grade physics it seems. 33 people will trust that the lord is their shepard until the shepard leads them to the slaughter as is the job of the shepard. He watches over the flock of sheep until it's time for the slaughter.
Funny how "Truthers" never wanted the truth, that killed them.
R.I.P. 9/11 "Truthers"
Less the 2.5% believe in the "Inside Job" now. You've droped below those who think the Moon Landings were faked and even those who believe Elvis is still alive...
@BadBunnyRides Yeah you weak minded puppets and shills wish that was the case, you're way off the mark sunshine, keep chowin down on that zionist cock.
@BadBunnyRides Ah shill, i see you write the same bullshit comment on every truth vid, man you fuckin retards are dumb as shit. Nobody is falling for your lies, keep sucking that zionist cock.
@enddebtslavery You've got nothing, no proof, no evidence, no science, no physics and not a single whistle blower in over 10 YEARS...
Wake up.
You've been SUCKERED you idiot. These jerks got you to "Believe" so they could sell DVD's, become Talk Show Hosts and make a name for themselves. Stop drinking the damn cool-aid and go find the REAL truth.
@BadBunnyRides Hey shill try your bullshit on the flouride supping dipshits out there. You cunts ignore the questions raised by scientists, fire fighters reports of explosions on the day, news reports on the day, basic physics, people hearing explosions in the underground, no significant plane wreckage at the Pentagon or Shanksville, etc etc. This has been debated in the Japanese and EU parliaments, most europeans know this was bullshit for war, you carry on believing Fox retard.
@enddebtslavery Sucker. You have NOTHING. Everything you say has been debunked, discredited and disproved for YEARS. There's more proof Santa Claus is real!
@BadBunnyRides Shut up you cock, go and waste your life in someone else's time. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being and fewer people are buying the lies anymore.You'll get yours retard, the control system keeping people asleep is failing by the day.
I see from your channel comments your day job as a shill is not working out for you.
@enddebtslavery Don't be mad at me because YOUR a sucker. You do have one thing right; people are NOT buying into the bullshit lies of the Truthers any more. You "Cause" is dead, your ~experts~ shown for the fakes they are and no one but the anti-america croud believe it anymore. Not because there's proof,but because ANYTHING they can chant against the USA is something they'll use.
@BadBunnyRides I'm not mad at you, i either feel sorry for you for being so weak and dumb or pity you for being a shill. You're like the guy who protests homosexuality just a little too much, so much so that maybe he needs to question his own standing.
@enddebtslavery You just don't "get it" do you? If you were a real "Truther" you'd be looking for..? Yes, the truth, but like 99% of your ilk, you don't want that. When you lose discusions, you attack spelling, or grammer, or just be and asshole and avoid that you lost...because if you DO admit it, your little world comes crashing down and you know you're a failure.
@BadBunnyRides Piss off turd, where have i 'attacked' your grammer? i get it alright, you are a planted lame ass who can't handle the fact people with a brain find you out in five minutes. You are one of the dumbest and persistant shills i've come across.
@enddebtslavery ....wow...you seriously suck at reading comprehension. Notice the sentences before the one you refer too, that gives you the subject; "Truthers", not you specifically. However, because of your inability to even understand simple sentence structure, now I know why you're a tin-foil hat wearing idiot. You just don't have the intellectual ability of a normal person.
@BadBunnyRides 'Epic win' , how old are you 10? in fact thats an embarressment to 10 year olds. My god, you accuse me of 'attacking' your grammer then you somehow find the tiniest lameass arguement, which i guess only a 10 year old can understand, in my grammer or interpretation there of. Way to go with debunking 9/11 and the USS Liberty.
@BadBunnyRides Am i conversing with comic book guy or what? Yeah you have the win retard maybe when you grow up you'll realise all your hot air was just that.
@enddebtslavery I won, game over, Truthers lost because they have NOTHING! How's that feel Mr. Tinfoil-hat? You have ZERO, NOTHING, NADA backing your delusional crazy talk. Now, as I said before...fuck off.
Or like every other truthy you can't read? Should I type slower? Maybe use smaller words?
This video has got to be one of the silliest out there. Saying something that happened is impossible based solely on the letters that make up words that say it is impossible.
1Dougy85 3 weeks ago
@1Dougy85
This comment has got to be one of the silliest out there. Creating a YT account just to say something that's happened must be impossible because typed words cant possibly direct me to research into the credible possibilities.
zemecis 2 weeks ago
@zemecis You created a YT account just to say that?
Which statement in this video might point to any uncredible possibilites?
"Steel I beams bent in the shape of horseshoes"
Falling from nearly a quarter mile and trying to hold hundreds of tons together?
For sure, impossible that steel could bend during the destruction of the wtc.
1Dougy85 2 weeks ago
ok to all the debunkers, two questions- how could building 7 fall if it was not hit, and at freefall speed?? How come there was no video of a plane hitting the pentagon, the most monitored building in the world??
MrCantstandliberals 1 month ago
@MrCantstandliberals It was hit by a large chunk of steel which started many fires. It did NOT fall at freefall speed. The clip presented by many truther websites is only a segment of the total collapse. The 6 second clip is only of the outer wall collapsing. There was nothing supporting this wall because 10 seconds before, the penthouse crashed through the roof, gutting the interior columns. So the entire video was 16 seconds in total. There is a video of the plane hitting but no missile video.
MazJax 1 month ago
@MazJax MazJax reporting live inside building 7. A large chunk of steel just went by my head and hit column 79 on the 13th floor! My god guy's, I have to get out of here..due to thermal expansion...this building is going to come down symmetrically! The other columns that are "noodles" can not support such a steel building! Are you really fucking kidding me with your bullshit! Are you and NIST, omnipresent? Can you really tell me that girders hit column 79 with a straight face? Show me your proof
TheScottybobear 1 month ago
Wow, 22sec. into the video and the lack of rational thinking already, or valid examples.
zenitSpb 1 month ago
I've answered every question in this video. Now, either you'll listen to them like an open-minded person would, or you'll just block me and call me a shill. Why cover up what's so blatantly obvious? Afraid of the REAL truth? Well, I'll tell you what, son. The Truth movement is over. Accept it and move on with your life. Goodbye.
MazJax 2 months ago
@MazJax Not!
TheScottybobear 1 month ago
@TheScottybobear Did you just use a 4th grade comeback?
MazJax 1 month ago
@MazJax Ok, let me use "adult language." Where are the "time-change" parts that are indestructable...that the FBI left out..that could identify flight 77? How could "carbon based bodies" be identified...but titanium parts were obliterated? Did I meet your grade level? Or just surpass you? Answer that, and we will see how elementary your response will be! ;)
TheScottybobear 1 month ago
The WTC is totally incomparable to the Titanic. Just the questions are comparable. How could a ship deemed unsinkable sink in three hours with minor damage? On its first voyage? How could it break in half like that? Why did people report hearing explosions before it sank? How convenient is it that the designer had removed the extra lifeboats in such a short time! And for what? Because they looked bulky? Suuure...Was it a conspiracy by the government to cover up the tensions leading to WWI?
MazJax 2 months ago
Because he described the sound as "Drilling" doesn't mean it WAS. It could have been anything. Many people compare tornadoes to sounding like trains. Just like how they compare falling steel floors to "explosions."
Bush's brother and cousin left that company a year before 9/11. How could they have been "in on it"? All they did was update security several years before. Nothing special there. And they certainly were not "in control" of security. That's absurd. Continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
Bomb sniffing dogs were brought down to a NORMAL LEVEL after phone threats to the complex were dealt with. They had never been below normal level, ever. Besides, if there were enough bombs to take down the world's largest buildings, surely at least ONE DOG would have noticed them. There were no real power outages or floor shutdowns.
The drilling was used for construction. There was "always something going on" according to a WTC maintenance crew member. Not a big surprise.
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
Demo expert Danny Jowenko, (as well as many others) said rigging the WTC towers would have taken years of preparation WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO HIDE. It is impossible to have rigged America's largest office building during a few employee drills when it takes half a year to rig a 50 story building. Unless, of course, they sent ninjas to set the bombs. Which nobody ever found any fragment of.
MazJax 2 months ago
The 707 is much smaller than the 767, and slower. The designers couldn't possibly predict the damage a 707 could have done, because a 707 had never hit a building before. Robertson describes the design as "707 flying at low speeds looking to refuel" (ie low on gas and slow, dealing LESS damage to the tower) They had no idea of what was to come on 9/11. Obviously, John Skilling (who died before 911) could not have imagined the size of a building fire the likes of the one on 9/11.
MazJax 2 months ago
WTC collapsed on 9/11 because it was heavily damaged from outside sources, the planes for 1 and 2, and large debris for 7. Also, the fireproofing foam was clearly blown off by the intense blast from the planes, leaving the steel to burn and weaken.
The WTC was NOT designed to withstand the force of a hurricane on a concentrated, small area, like the plane inflicted.
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
They did not collapse at freefall speed. Debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the rest of the tower.
The top part of the Windsor Tower was Steel. That section collapsed. What was left was the concrete lower floors (concrete fares well in fires) and the concrete core. The only parts that collapsed were the steel parts. Just like WTC.
Caracas building was NOT steel.
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
Both WTC towers had massive holes from the planes, allowing LOTS of oxygen intake. If the fires weren't hot, why did 300 people jump to their deaths, pushing each other out of the windows? To escape cool smoke?
The firefighters reported molten METAL, not steel.
They didn't fall int heir own footprint. Debris was scattered for many acres outside the site. Two non-WTC buildings had to be torn down because of damage from the towers.
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
Iron microspheres are also caused by the workers' cutting tools during clean-up.
Concrete and steel was crushed together because of the enormous force of the huge 15 stories collapsing on top of it. The WTC was MASSIVE. 15 floors weighed hundreds of thousands of tonnes.
The fire was not starved of oxygen. Plastic and jet fuel burns dark black. How could fires starved of oxygen bellow thick, hot dry smoke for an hour?
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
No firefighter reported seeing melted steel. What you have in those photos is red-hot, sagged steel. Steel glows at those temperatures. Molten steel cannot be picked up using a tractor. Molten steel would have destroyed the tractor. The molten metal described is most likely aluminium, which glows red at the WTC temperatures.
What is so mysterious about steel beams being bent after a BUILDING COLLAPSE?
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
The floors were made of thousands of pieces of steel. They wouldn't "be stacked"
The building wouldn't take 96 seconds. Impossible. The potential energy was so large in the upper floors, it tore through the rest of the building like nothing. This was mostly due to the poor "tube" design.
The building DID withstand the plane. The fires resulting were what caused the collapse and they were not factored by the designers.
Computers and other chemicals also burned, making the fires hotter.
continued:
MazJax 2 months ago
and the dust was half a foot high like snow but i guess pncake suggested theories vaporive whole skyscrapers
poznanski666 3 months ago
LOL! IT'S NOT MOLTEN METAL, OH GOD!
watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&feature=player_embedded
Watch that, if you actually have a brain.
bud389 3 months ago
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707."
bud389 3 months ago
@bud389 707 has a faster top speed
poznanski666 3 months ago
@poznanski666 Don't tell that to me, tell that to NOVA, on PBS' website, the place i got the quote from.
bud389 3 months ago
truthers still exist? but why?
rigatony019 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@rigatony019 perhaps they're waiting for the ultimate act of debunking ...an official conspiracy theorist taking NIST's WTC7 collapse 2008 report data and PATENTING office fire controlled demolition?Ü
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER good luck
rigatony019 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rigatony019 FACT IS they can't patent office fire controlled demolition as the NIST WTC7 collapse excuse is BS and a bit like al capone judge and jury at his own trial ...end of!
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER its a fact cause you say its a fact? Sorry, copy/paste may be enough for you but I'm not so easily persuaded.
rigatony019 4 months ago 4
@rigatony019 well go patent office fire controlled demolition using NIST's WTC7 collapse data ...and I'll be your first investor no sh!t Ü
(do you understand why truthers still exist now?)
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER no. I don't even think you have a clue what you're talkin about.
rigatony019 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@rigatony019 english not your first language ? parlez vous ? hablas espanol?
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
I find it amusing that this video compares the collapse of a 100+ story skyscraper to pancake collapses in 5-6 story buildings as if they would produce the same result. Some people just can't comprehend the forces involved in the collapse of the world trade center.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@bd886 You don't understand the forces involved. Firstly, the upper floors of the south tower at free fall for the distance of one floor would impact the floor below at 30 times their own weight. That level of force could not be stopped. Secondly, the outer walls fell off because the floors that kept them aligned were destroyed and the forces involved caused them to bend over and snap. This is why shots of the debris show the outer columns laid out flat on the ground in large sections.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago 2
@bd886 there is a common pattern for building structural failure gravity collapses pre and post 9/11 ...they leave a rubble pile 10% the original height of the building that would have given us two appx' 120 ft piles of rubble for the towers , their piles were photographed well bellow the still standing WTC first floor walkway...or maybe I'm paranoid?
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER You're paranoid. The amount of rubble remaining would depend on the forces involved in the collapse. The vast majority of the contents of the building was pulverized and ejected all over the city as dust. Both collapses also initiated with the upper section of the building falling onto the lower one.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon ...and YOU'RE A COINCIDENCE THEORIST , unless you can rationalise why this gravity collapse structural failure universally pulverised steel ,concrete, human victims fixtures and fittings leaving a 0.01 original height rubble pile for the first and last time 9/11?
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER Momentum.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InvernessMoon momentum would apply equally to all structural failure gravity collapses AND controlled demolitions. Where did the towers go?why so little rubble? LESS THAN 1/10th the rubble of the universal constant...WHY?
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER Universal constant? Obviously it's not a universal constant based on observation. As for momentum, what do you mean by "apply equally" exactly? The momentum involved in the collapses were far beyond anything previously observed, and yet people fallaciously attempt to compare them to the collapses/demolitions of small buildings with designs (such as concrete-encased columns) unlike the towers. As for where the rubble pile went, all that dust spread around the city came from somewhere.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@InvernessMoon when has structural steel ever been dustified by a gravity collapse? was the salvaged steel ever audited ? did it match the tonnage steel that went into the twin towers construction as with all other types of collapse? momentum? the lightest thinest steel section pulverised the heaviest thickest effing steel section. 9/11stinks and you KNOW it does!
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
@TODB0AMER I don't know who claimed the steel was pulverized, but it wasn't me. Everything but the steel was pulverized by the force of the collapse, such as the concrete layers on each floor.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InvernessMoon well what type of rubble pile do you suppose the twin tower collpase would leave if steel cannot be dustified by a structural failure collapse? There are appx' 240 1/4 mile exterior steel uprights , 47 1/4 mile core sections , 220 X 1 acre steel pan floor sections and their attendant 220 mazes of steel tubular trusses and 220 1 square acre ribbon of steel banding giving us a knee high rubble pile FFS!
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 I'm trying to find a picture of Flight 175's 20ft diameter exit hole in WTC2 9/11 (an object of the nosecone and fuselage's proportions and trajectory was filmed exiting WTC2 from several angles) can you provide me with a link to this?
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER
I don't have that picure.
Now, please answer the questions uneducated gullible shill.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 It was a trick question, this link shows there was no 20ft exit hole in WTC2 9/11 watch?v=EHMvXKVDE4o (around 3:30 ish)
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER
Still waiting for you to answer the questions.
911 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB!
ctcole77 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 do you think it a fraud that an object the size of flight 175's nosecone and fuselage is filmed from several angles exiting the south tower on flight 175's trajectory 9/11... BUT leaves no exit hole? (I haven't time for anal nitpicky non questions, if the monkeys won't answer MY substantive question I'll have to ask the organ grinder)
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER
Are you really that stupid?
The plane was destroyed as it traveled through the building.
In 1945 when a B-25 hit the Empire State Building did it leave an exit hole? NO.
The plane hit the building spilling out jet fuel which ignited fires - just like the WTC.
Any more strawman arguments?
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 It looks like I'll have to take my substantive 911 question above to your paymaster/ organ grinder King Kong junior Ü
(Empire State building '45? snigger!)
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@ctcole77 but the plane that hit reinforced brick walls at the pentagon went through many layers and a perfect puncture exit?
I have too many questions.
Where can I find answers?
FnkDctr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
What did the USA give the government of Pakistan concerning Bin Laden and 911 in early October of 2001?
How can Operation Northwoods be an example of "false flag terrorism" if it never happened?
ctcole77 2 months ago
ZERO 220 x 1 acre concrete floors, their steel pans and tubular steel truss supports stacked at ground level after a pancake collapse? are we supposed to believe this was caused by structural failure and gravity alone?
TODB0AMER 4 months ago
Explosions do not necessarily equal explosives. Things explode in fires. The point is there were no explosions loud enough to indicate an explosion strong enough to sever steel columns. An explosion of that strength would have been heard by everyone for blocks around--10's of thousands of people. There were no explosions like that on 911 except the initial explosion of the impact.
Mystylplx 4 months ago
I see that wimahlers is still deluding himself.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago
What kind of psycho do you have to be to watch two airliners full of jet fuel slam into the building and think to yourself... naaa that wasnt it!
emtpilot132 4 months ago
IF THE WORLD DIDN'T RELY ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA IT WOULD BE SUCH A BETTER PLACE. LISTEN. NO PLANE HIT BUILDING SEVEN AND BY THAT IT MEANS NO JET FUEL CAN HELP BRING THOSE STEEL FRAMES DOWN EITHER. NOW TELL ME IF YOU STILL BELIEVE BUILDING SEVEN WAS THE FIRST FIRE-INDUCED COLLAPSE OF A STEEL-FRAME HIGH-RISE. THE FACT YOU GUYS BELIEVE THE NEWS OVER BASIC SCIENCE WORRIES ME. TAKING DOWN A BUILDING ESPECIALLY IN THAT SIZE WOULD TAKE WEEKS IN ADVANCED. NOT 8 HOURS. PRE-PLANNED DEMOLITION.
johncp1989 4 months ago
@johncp1989,
.
" NOW TELL ME IF YOU STILL BELIEVE BUILDING SEVEN WAS THE FIRST FIRE-INDUCED COLLAPSE OF A STEEL-FRAME HIGH-RISE."
.
Your caps key seem to be stuck.
WTC 7 was the third steel frame high rise to collapse. WTC1+2 were the first. Many steel frame constructions have collapsed due to fire alone.
The cause of the collapse can been seen in the remains of WTC 5. WTC 5 had a major internal collapse due to fire alone. And there you have it! I hope this clears your incredulity.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers P.S. I USE CAPS BECAUSE I CAN AND IF I DID OR DIDN'T YOU SHOULD STILL UNDERSTAND BASIC ENGLISH.
johncp1989 4 months ago
THIS PROPAGANDA. IT IS FUCKING 2011 BY NOW IF YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR THE FULL STORY, WHY HAVE YOU....YOU'RE VERY...VERY DELUSIONAL. NOW USE CRITICAL THINKING HERE. LARRY SILVERSTEIN, THE OWNER OF BUILDING SEVEN TOLD THEM TO PULL IT MEANING BLOW IT UP IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOLITION (WHICH IM SURE HE KNOWS ALOT ABOUT FROM EXPERIENCE THROUGH HIS CAREER). FIRST RESPONDERS DO NOT JUST TELL YOU THERE WERE BOMBINGS BEFORE THE PLANES HIT FOR NO REASON.
johncp1989 4 months ago
@johncp1989,
.
"IT IS FUCKING 2011"
.
It is fucking 2011. And not a single conspiracist has ever shown by means of a REPRESENTATIVE experiment how you could control demolish a cross section of a steel frame support section using (any deriviate of) thermite.
What are they waiting for!
Could they not find any scrap building or other steel contruction to demonstrate that what they claim must have happened is actually possible?
Given, of course, similar conditions, like uncontrolled fires.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers IT IS FUCKING 2011 AND INSECURE PEOPLE STILL THINK THEY'RE 100% SURE THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY WITH IT'S COUNTLESS FLAWS ARE TRUE AND STILL ARGUE WITH "NUTCASES" WHICH ARE COMPLETE STRANGERS OVER THE INTERWEB. YOU SIR ARE CRAZY. NO POINT IN ARGUING.
/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
johncp1989 4 months ago
@johncp1989 I am a skeptic. Convince me. Let Gage execute a representative experiment using thermite (any deriviate) to prove his point.
Explain why the 16 survivors inside WTC1+2 never heard any explosive sounds.
Explain how you start a detonation on the impacted floors. Floors that were damaged due to the impact and were badly burned.
Explain to me how you aim WTC1+2 to hit WTC 7 and start uncontrolled fires over there as well.
Explain the substantial internal collapse of WTC 5. Explain!
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers Have the read the survivor testimonies? How can you say none of them heard explosives when many of them said they heard explosions?
The detonation did not start on the impacted floors, but if you can protect an airplane black-box, you can protect low sensitivity secondary explosives.
You aim an airplane using the autopilot or other remote mechanism.
WTC5? It suffered a partial collapse after being severely damaged by debris. If that happened at WTC7 no-one would complain.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"... the survivor testimonies? How can you say none of them heard explosives when many of them said they heard explosions?"
.
Many? There were 16 survivors only that survived the collapse of WTC 2 (2 survivors) and WTC 1 (14 survivors). None of them heard any explosion AT THE MOMENT of collapse. Nor was any explosion registeered on any electronic device AT THE MOMENT of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
But all this is hypothetical since you claim thermite ONLY was used.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers The survivor testimonies are not only from people who directly survived the collapse but who survived the event itself. Does this really need to be spelled out for you?
Same with WTC5, if you think the truther position is that high-rises cannot suffer collapses from fires you are grossly misunderstanding the truther position, I suggest you start from scratch and shift your brain into gear this time. The truther position is about THE NATURE of the collapses, not the fact of them.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"The survivor testimonies are not only from people who directly survived the collapse but who survived the event itself. Does this really need to be spelled out for you?"
.
Does this mean that you do agree that there were no explosive sounds AT THE MOMENT of the collapses of WTC1,2 and 7?
And I know the were explosive sounds. I have said this before. Better yet, there are many vidoes you can see on youtube where you can hear these explosive sounds. It is irrelevant.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"Same with WTC5, if you think the truther position is that high-rises cannot suffer collapses from fires you are grossly misunderstanding the truther position, ..."
.
Well, you are the first to confirm.
And therefore this is the first time I can ask the subsequent question. Here it goes:
If WTC 5 substantially internally collapsed due to fire alone is it conceivable, given the fact you just confirmed, that something similar also internally did happen in WTC 7?
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Given THE NATURE of WTC 5, and given THE NATURE of the FDNY prediction WTC 7 would collapse, and given THE NATURE of the odd construction of WTC 7 with its extreme floor span, and given THE NATURE of the effect of fire and the strength on steel, and given THE NATURE of uncontrolled fires for 7 hours, and given THE NATURE that the FBI did not find any trace of explosive evidence, a NATURAL collapse is conceivable.
I just loving to use the term "THE NATURE" instead of fact.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"The detonation did not start on the impacted floors"
.
Wait. You are inconsistent. What is it? Was it thermite or explosives?
If you say both than you have to explain why. Why use thermite if you are going to use explosives anyway.
And if the detonation did not start at the impacted floors than you have to explain why the collapse did start on the impacted floors. You also have to explain why the 16 survivors did not hear any explosion. And no evidence found on site.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers Why shouldn't you use both thermite and explosives if that is the most effective. I don't think high explosives were needed myself, nano-thermite will make low explosives bangs if contained.
But there is no intrinsic reason why both could not have been used.
The collapse did not start at the impacted floors, if you dismiss the "perimeter pull in" theory the core has been cut. If that is the case then the highest INTACT core would be at the impact floor to produce the pull in.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"Why shouldn't you use both thermite and explosives"
.
So, you claim thermite was used to hide the explosive sounds but explosive sounds being heard did not matter. You claim that there are super experts conspiracists who new this never used combination would work the first time on a skyscraper, also a first time, and would leave no traces identified by anybody who was actually working in the aftermath. But it was noticed by the brilliancy of people who were never there.
wimahlers 4 months ago
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers "And what is your verifiable and verified source for this?"
Verifiability is a pseudo-scientific criterion, precisely because it is abused by people like you. Benson's position is falsified by observation, the antenna moved before the tilt started, the tilt only started after the top starting falling.
nDGCFDoMmuA
You can figure out the rest from there, it follows pretty logically.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter About explosions in general ...
I strongly recommend to re-read Mystylplx's reply. And I quote:
Explosions do not necessarily equal explosives. Things explode in fires. The point is there were no explosions loud enough to indicate an explosion strong enough to sever steel columns. An explosion of that strength would have been heard by everyone for blocks around--10's of thousands of people. There were no explosions like that on 911 except the initial explosion of the impact.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers Thermate cutting vertical columns, see "The thermate debate" by physicsandreason. I believe that case is closed.
As for explosives. In one comment you complain that no-one heard explosions, then when it is pointed out to you that almost all witnesses reported explosions you retreat to claiming that the explosions weren't loud enough. There is no need for super loud explosions to effect a demolition, it is a stupid argument to begin with so I advise you drop it.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"Thermate cutting vertical columns, see "The thermate debate" by physicsandreason. I believe that case is closed."
.
Debate?
Really, did you actually say "debate"?
Really?
You really think that you can prove that you can control demolish a damaged burning building given similar results as seen at the WTC on 9/11/2001 with just a debate or this: watch?v=Qamecech9m4 ?
Really?
I strongly suggest to contact your nearest accredited university and VERIFY your argument.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"In one comment you complain that no-one heard explosions, then when it is pointed out to you that almost all witnesses reported explosions you retreat to claiming that the explosions weren't loud enough."
.
Yeah! That is what you want me to have said because that really is ridiculous. Now here is what I actually said, and I repeat verbatim:
No explosions were registered or reported by the 16 survivors AT THE MOMENT of the collapse.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@johncp1989,
.
"/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98"
.
I think everybody should see this video. It is a classic. Almost 5 minutes of strawman arguments only. Brilliant.
Now back to the real world...
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers THAT VIDEO ONLY SHOWS HOW DELUSIONAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE TO THE MEDIA.
johncp1989 4 months ago
The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later.
What are the odds that they can not recover 6/8 of the black boxes. Only flight 93's were found yet the recording that implicate the muslims were not officially released. Even the families did not get to hear the last 3 minutes.
A plane can get so low to the ground it can hit the pentagon from the side where it has been reinforced? Piloted by amateurs that are still alive yet 0 videos are released.
megamogx 4 months ago
@megamogx They are not utrained, these terrorists were trained to fly a plane... This was planed out, they didn't just wake up one morning saying "hey lets do this" no...
irMaddDogg 4 months ago
@megamogx,
.
"The conspiracy is that 19 arabs could take over 4 airplanes well still being alive years later."
.
Yes that would be amazing! Except for the fact that they all died in the deliberate plane crashes on 9/11/2001. None of them was alive after 9/11/2001.
wimahlers 4 months ago
well i have seen the molten iron video, and it is proved other metals in the buildings could of been melting " aluminum, or just other softer metals".
i just dont like to draw conclusions when nobody will ever really know what happened or sure. Because evidence is available for both sides of the argument. But its just striking when someone who designed the building would admit that it was damaged bad, but people still wont believe that guy
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof If by "proved" you mean that someone said that it must have been those things without providing any proof beside incredulity then I suppose it has been "proven".
I on the other hand hold that when something looks and behaves like molten iron and looks and behaves nothing like any combination of molten aluminium and organics or anything other than molten iron then the rational conclusion should probably be that it is molten iron and not something else.
Call me crazy...
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
well regardless, i still believe the engineer who was in the building when it happened who says the damage was really bad, it really takes away from the people who say the damage wasnt a big deal.
i wont argue about the melting object because nobody will ever know what it really was, and we would be wasting our time trying to figure that out. But i do appreciate you talking to me without calling me a retard, moron or idiot like most people who i challenge do.
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof Likewise.
You can believe what you like. I don't really have a vested interest in proving a conspiracy theory, but I am interested in the sociological aspect of what causes people to accept either one theory or the other, which requires me to take a firm evidence based position, rather than one based on trust, supposition and incredulity.
I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned at least, that forces me to accept the conspiracy theory. You are welcome to believe otherwise.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"what causes people to accept either one theory or the other"
.
I can help you with that. One side has all the evidence the other side has none.
Skeptics and rationalists go with the evidence. Incredulous people go with the unverified and often contradictory and always baseless claims. In a strange way they feel much safer if such an event is done by a super secret organization trying to take over the world than a random determined group of idiots they cannot control.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers Exactly, the official story is filled with contradictory and baseless claims.
The rational skeptic must go where the simplest explanation lies: That is explosive demolition. Explosive demolition explains everything and is free from contradictory evidence (but not false evidence presented in its defense, if you understand the distinction).
If you think that the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports were free from catastrophic contradiction though, you are not rational or skeptical.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"The rational skeptic must go where the simplest explanation lies: That is explosive demolition."
.
So you say using silent explosives, never seen being propped, never found in the remains, detonated in burning impact areas about 1 hour after 2 planes crashed in 2 buildings, collapsing in such a way that they hit and structually damaged a third building that burnt for about 7 hours and was then also silently detonated is the simplest explanation? That is rational?
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers Thermate doesn't make a loud noise, can cut the vertical columns and there are several independent lines of evidence suggest that it was there. It is consistent with all the observations inconsistent with none of the observations.
It is a simple matter, the effects are know.
NIST didn't find evidence for it because by there own admission they never looked, discounted the evidence and apparently believed (with NatGeo and PM) that it can't cut vertical columns.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"Thermate ... can cut the vertical columns"
.
So you claim. But I am a skeptic. Show me!
Don't show me how thermite (any deriviate thereof) can burn through metal - a well known fact. Show me how it can cut through support beams similar to, and representative for, those used at the WTC WITH SIMILAR RESULTS. Demonstrate a support construction demolition using thermite only. Put your deeds were your mouth is. Why haven't you done so after 10 years? Fear it doesn't work?
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"there are several independent lines of evidence suggest that it (=thermite) was there."
.
No there isn't! This is claimed only. Jones and Harrit are not independent. The source of the substance is questionable. Non of the papers were presented for scientific peer review. Those that were reviewed by peers - outside scientific peer review - were heavily criticised. conspiracy websites only list the favorable papers but not the critics. No thermite damage was ever reported.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter ... oh ... about those "pools of molten steel".
Let's ignore the fact for the moment that there is zero evidence for molten steel. Ignoring that, show me how you can create "pools of molten steel" with thermite only.
How?
How much do you need?
How do you ignite the thermite AFTER the building is collapsed?
How did they keep the setup together - whatever the setup was - during the collapse?
Allegedly it was reported that there was a pool of molten metal in WTC 6. Explain!
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter ... oh ... about the thermite claim ...
It is claimed that the steel frame work could not possibly have collapsed due to fire alone. If this is your claim than how do you explain the substantial internal collapse of WTC 5?
What caused this internal collapse of WTC 5?
Oh ... about Harrit's report ... given the alleged ratio of thermite chips found in the dust at least 500,000 KG of thermite must have been consequentially used. And nobody has notiiced this before? Really?
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"NIST didn't find evidence for it because by there own admission they never looked, ..."
.
Of course not! They also have not looked for lizard people (Icke) or directed energy weapons (Woods).
The considred it, but, ok, they haven't looked ... as none of the conspiracists has ever done a REPRESENTATIVE experiment in the past 10 years to show that it is even possible to CONTROL demolish a steel frame constructed building using (any deriviate of) thermite only. Show me!
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"NIST ... apparently believed (with NatGeo and PM) that it can't cut vertical columns."
.
No! NIST "believes" and so do I that a) the thermite accusation leads to inconsistencies of any technical hypothesis given the known evidence. And b), indeed, that you cannot control demolish WTC 1,2 or 7 using thermite resulting in the collapse as observed and evidenced by the rubble.
But you disagree. Fine!
In that case show me a REPRESENTATIVE experiment proving your claim.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers The thermite accusation leads to no inconsistency and NIST did not claim this. They didn't look for it and believed that it couldn't do what can be easily demonstrated it does (if you have not watched the Cole video at this point you need to do so).
If you can effect a controlled demolition using random fires alone what ON EARTH makes you think you could not effect it with fires AND thermite? This is a logical error of the first order!
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"The thermite accusation leads to no inconsistency"
.
Neither does space aliens, lizard people, Thor or any random selection of other mythical suggestions.
Oh wait, thermite is not mythical but tangible. So what? You have zero proof.
But thermite does indeed lead to an inconsistency.
It is inconsistent with the fact that the FDNY pulled out because they concluded that a collapse was iminenent.
Truthers say it is impossible. That is inconsistent!
wimahlers 4 months ago
@wimahlers The thermite theory lead to no contradiction, but the NIST theory contradicts itself when it claims to reflect reality in the case of WTC 7 (because it proposes a theory that has already been empirically falsified at the time of the report), and contradicts itself in the case of WTC 1 & 2.
If you have read Bazant's papers and don't understand why the OS is self-contradicting there is no hope for you.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"If you can effect a controlled demolition using random fires alone what ON EARTH makes you think you could not effect it with fires AND thermite? This is a logical error of the first order!"
.
You do understand the first word in the term "controlled demolition" versus the first word in the term "uncontrolled fires"? Do you?
But don't feel ashamed, it is a logical error of the first order made by many truthers.
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter,
.
"Exactly, the official story is filled with contradictory and baseless claims."
.
So you claim. But can you name one? Preferable from an accredited source.
And yes! I do think that the NIST report is free from catastrophic contradictions (note: The 9/11 Comission report is irrelevant because it was not focussed on the technical research. NIST was).
And before you start, no! No researcher claims, has ever claimed or will ever claim that the steel melted. Get over it!
wimahlers 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Molten aluminum behaves exactly like molten iron and looks almost exactly like it. The difference is that all molten iron glows and aluminum only starts glowing well past its melting point. Another difference is that iron turns black as it cools while aluminum remains silvery.
Mystylplx 4 months ago
by thermite?. cuz last time i checked a plane going 500mph can pretty much sever/destroy anything in its path.
thisphotoisproof 5 months ago
@thisphotoisproof A bit like superman eh? No need for physics or stuff like that. Superheros and super duper fast planes can do anything they want, reality bends to their will just like you imagine it does to yours.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
no... im just using common sense... you dont need thermite to destroy a building. hell.. an earthquake could of brought down those towers..
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof Common sense is not a good way of answering questions of scientific fact.
It is not very hard to find images of buildings that have fallen down due to earthquakes. They invariably fall sideways.
To my knowledge no tall skyscraper has ever fallen down for any reason natural though (aside from allegedly on 9/11), there are good reasons why tall buildings are far less susceptible to earthquake damage than shorter ones.
The OFFICIAL cause of WTC1,2+7 collapse was office fires.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
no but common sense tells me that if a giant plane going 500+ smashes into a building and destorys 30% of the buildings support instantly..wich was the case. i just dont see how its 'not possible" for the building to collapse. I mean the top floors were top heavy from the roof and they just tore through the rest of the building and caused the walls to spill over the sides...it wasnt really free fall or clean.. it was a very messy collapse. WTC 7 was damaged bad from towers
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof You are right, 30% of the support is about how much it destroyed. 30% of a building with in excess of 200% designed redundancy leaves you with a lot of structure left over. Which is why the official position is that "the impacts had no significant effect on the subsequent collapse".
The buildings were designed to sustain (according to the lead engineer if I recall) "multiple impacts" of large jetliners EACH.
Impacts look impressive, but the building has a FAR greater mass.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
well the witnesses in the buildings said allthough you cant tell by videos, the buildings actually bent back up to 10 feet when the plane hit and then bent back into place. I know they were designed to withstand jetliners of the 1960s , but it was never officially tested so they were just estimating what the building might be able to absorb. Im not just pulling this info out of nowhere, one of the engineers was in the building and said he knew it was badly damaged.
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof They were designed to withstand 707's, which is roughly the same size as the 767. Skilling made the comment about multiple planes in the late 80's.
Buildings sway substantially in the wind, they are required to do so. Wind forces are orders of magnitude greater than the plane exerted on the building and it was a calm day.
There were multiple scientific modeled estimates on the amount of column damage, none of them support your notion of catastrophic impact damage.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
the guy who helped design the trade center, who was there on 9/11 called the WTC security and even told them how bad the damage was and that he couldnt gaurantee the buildings safety.... he knew it was hit to a point of no return
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof
and he even testified on how bad the damage was, it was fatal damage to the buildings cores. Im not saying that to make it seem like it wasnt an inside job... because lets face it.... theres plenty of evidence to show that the towers could of naturally came down, so you cant just throw it out and say its all useless because a designer of the builing even admits that the structure was in trouble.
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof There is a difference between damage that is severe enough to make the building not worth repairing (fatal) and will come down any moment (fatal).
The main problem is not even whether the planes could have initiated the initial failure, NIST thinks it didn't and I would venture most people who run the number would come to the same conclusion. The main problem is the global nature of the initial failure. It wasn't one part failing and first, the initial failure was fairly even.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
Actually the initial failure wasn't even at all. The collapse started right where the planes hit and the upper floors tilted (not even) initially and only straightened out once they impacted onto the lower floors.
Mystylplx 4 months ago
@Mystylplx There is no indication that the upper floors impacted the lower floors in the way you think. look at Verinage demolitions and you will see a clear "jolt" of the impact as the upper and lower bodies collide. There is no evidence of this behavior at WTC.
The collapse also likely did not start AT the level of impact, probably some floors below. You are being fooled by the illusion (suggested by NIST) that the perimeter failed first, while the antenna shows that this was not the case.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkwingScooter
"There is no indication that the upper floors impacted the lower floors in the way you think."
You mean besides every video that clearly shows the upper floors impacting the lower floors?
"The collapse also likely did not start AT the level of impact,..."
You mean besides every video which clearly show the collapse starting at the impact points?
Mystylplx 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof And then AFTER the initial failure if run the numbers for a progressive "pancake" collapse, at just slower than free-fall (I think 66% or thereabouts) the collapse is WAY too fast for a pancake mechanism.
This is why NIST also abandoned THAT idea and went with Bazant's crush down/up hypothesis. Only problem with THAT is that is such a logical disaster area of a theory that it amounts to a reductio ad absurdum proof of explosive demolition.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof And all this is BEFORE you start looking at anomalies like the squibs, the heat in the rubble pile, the molten iron pouring from the building in broad daylight (yes, there were alternate theories, but none are empirically justifiable).
That is BEFORE you even start considering the whole thermite line of reasoning.
Whether the plane damage initiated the collapse is ultimately neither here nor there. Either way, it doesn't affect the only possible conclusion that can be drawn.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkwingScooter
"the molten iron pouring from the building in broad daylight (yes, there were alternate theories, but none are empirically justifiable)."
The theory that it was iron is the LEAST empirically justifiable of them all. No one is really sure what that stuff was as no-one took a sample prior to the collapse, but the theory that it was iron makes the least sense of all.
Mystylplx 4 months ago
someone show me a video of a skyscrapper falling any other way but free fall. you cant find one. buildings dont simply fall over, or collapse slowly..... its free fall.... watch every building collapse on youtube... its all freefall.. i dont understand whats so different , the wtc collapsed just like any other skyscrapper would.
thisphotoisproof 6 months ago
@thisphotoisproof Except that no other skyscraper in history has collapse due to any mechanism other than demolition. All those videos you are looking at are demos.
(although one or two tall buildings have toppled sideways from earthquakes, but that again belies your case rather than strengthens it)
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
even if 9/11 was a set up.... i dont think they meant for the towers to come down... i honestly believe it was a structure failure.
demos are loud... NYC would of heard it happening... the towers fell silent other than the noise from the debris... there was cameras all around the city that day... a demo would of been caught. have u ever seen a demo?. its BANG BANG BANG with flashes viotlently for like 30 seconds before a building falls... that never happened
thisphotoisproof 5 months ago
@thisphotoisproof You mean "some demos are loud" don't you?
Look up "Verinage demolition", there is no need even for explosives to demolish a large building.
/watch?v=BnYChrtuogU
Explosive demos are a minority.
But demolitions of any type have specific signatures which are due to the simple fact that they are planned rather than random natural events. It is THIS signature that leads to the inevitable conclusion that this was a demo of some description.
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
theres no way they demolished the trade center like that without anyone noticing... peopel were there working u cant just take floors out the building.
thisphotoisproof 5 months ago
@thisphotoisproof They didn't. Please learn to separate propositions in your mind.
You said that you needed "a god like explosion to demo those towers". This is a false statement, as demonstrated by my examples. That doesn't mean that the towers were demo'd like that, only that your proposition is incorrect.
There are several good guesses as to how it was actually done, but none of them involve "a god like explosion", many use mostly gravity to do the bulk of the work.
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
still... there would of had to be some way to bring it down i dont think gravity was the plan even if there was a plan.. again im not saying it wasnt an inside job, but i honestly believe the towers fell from structure failure and it wasnt the initial plan
and plus there is even proof of structure failure in photos, that clearly show bowing of the walls by up to 20 inches, here is a video made by someone who actually knows what they are talking about
watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
thisphotoisproof 5 months ago
@thisphotoisproof There were attempts to explain the inward bowing of the walls. Unfortunately the only adequate explanation for that is that the floors are pulling them inwards.The only adequate explanation for THAT is the floors are no longer connected to the core. The only adequate explanation for THAT is that the core was cut, and the only adequate explanation for THAT is that the core was severed by thermite.
/watch?v=Xry3wSYcVlY
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
And the only adequate explanation for THAT is that you don't know what you are talking about.
Mystylplx 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
(The walls bowed OUTWARD. As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.)
Mystylplx 4 months ago
@Mystylplx Watch the start of this video: 0fbk3SoKdIE
Apology accepted.
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
@DarkwingScooter
you would need a god like explosion to demo those towers... aka... a plane flying into it at 500mph. that is true force that cant be replicated without large bombs really..... when the plane hit its estimated about 30% of the towers support was severely weakened or destroyed completely...
thisphotoisproof 5 months ago
@thisphotoisproof Even NIST doesn't think that the plane alone could have brought down the buildings. A hurricane force wind exerts FAR more force than plane could, and the buildings were designed to sustain both.
30% column loss was insignificant (also according to NIST) when the buildings had redundancies of >200%.
Bombs have the advantage of being where you want them to be when you want them to be, so intrinsically it requires orders of magnitude less force. You can't just say "energy".
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
I want to watch but I could not listen to the horrible music.
mmacburt 6 months ago
@mmacburt then hit mute. Whoa mind blown!!!
klimacs 5 months ago
i love youtube arrogence lol. i think "they" have convinced you all to become self evident to your own theories and believe youube heresay and defend it like an american democrat defending its party regardless of what they do. its almost like people like being youtube celebs. ok lets use absolutions. all the towers fell vertically, when cylindrical objects topple and do not piledrive. regardless of what theory you accept. there was CLEARLY somethin else goin down,
gordonculp 6 months ago
question I hope someone can answer if the fire was cool burning how could there be molten metal?
Kenthba 6 months ago
@Kenthba Simple,what is an 80 TON plane made out of? What is the melting point of that metal? What was the recorded temp. of the fires that day?
Answer those and you'll have your answer.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
33 people still don't understand 7th grade physics it seems. 33 people will trust that the lord is their shepard until the shepard leads them to the slaughter as is the job of the shepard. He watches over the flock of sheep until it's time for the slaughter.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
The truth has destroyed this post long ago, yet I still see cheap shots from people... how sad.
dwhite1up 7 months ago
Funny how "Truthers" never wanted the truth, that killed them.
R.I.P. 9/11 "Truthers"
Less the 2.5% believe in the "Inside Job" now. You've droped below those who think the Moon Landings were faked and even those who believe Elvis is still alive...
HA!
BadBunnyRides 7 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Yeah you weak minded puppets and shills wish that was the case, you're way off the mark sunshine, keep chowin down on that zionist cock.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Ah shill, i see you write the same bullshit comment on every truth vid, man you fuckin retards are dumb as shit. Nobody is falling for your lies, keep sucking that zionist cock.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery You've got nothing, no proof, no evidence, no science, no physics and not a single whistle blower in over 10 YEARS...
Wake up.
You've been SUCKERED you idiot. These jerks got you to "Believe" so they could sell DVD's, become Talk Show Hosts and make a name for themselves. Stop drinking the damn cool-aid and go find the REAL truth.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Hey shill try your bullshit on the flouride supping dipshits out there. You cunts ignore the questions raised by scientists, fire fighters reports of explosions on the day, news reports on the day, basic physics, people hearing explosions in the underground, no significant plane wreckage at the Pentagon or Shanksville, etc etc. This has been debated in the Japanese and EU parliaments, most europeans know this was bullshit for war, you carry on believing Fox retard.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery Sucker. You have NOTHING. Everything you say has been debunked, discredited and disproved for YEARS. There's more proof Santa Claus is real!
WAKE UP!
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Shut up you cock, go and waste your life in someone else's time. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being and fewer people are buying the lies anymore.You'll get yours retard, the control system keeping people asleep is failing by the day.
I see from your channel comments your day job as a shill is not working out for you.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery Don't be mad at me because YOUR a sucker. You do have one thing right; people are NOT buying into the bullshit lies of the Truthers any more. You "Cause" is dead, your ~experts~ shown for the fakes they are and no one but the anti-america croud believe it anymore. Not because there's proof,but because ANYTHING they can chant against the USA is something they'll use.
WAKE UP!
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides I'm not mad at you, i either feel sorry for you for being so weak and dumb or pity you for being a shill. You're like the guy who protests homosexuality just a little too much, so much so that maybe he needs to question his own standing.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery You just don't "get it" do you? If you were a real "Truther" you'd be looking for..? Yes, the truth, but like 99% of your ilk, you don't want that. When you lose discusions, you attack spelling, or grammer, or just be and asshole and avoid that you lost...because if you DO admit it, your little world comes crashing down and you know you're a failure.
wake up sucker.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Piss off turd, where have i 'attacked' your grammer? i get it alright, you are a planted lame ass who can't handle the fact people with a brain find you out in five minutes. You are one of the dumbest and persistant shills i've come across.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery ....wow...you seriously suck at reading comprehension. Notice the sentences before the one you refer too, that gives you the subject; "Truthers", not you specifically. However, because of your inability to even understand simple sentence structure, now I know why you're a tin-foil hat wearing idiot. You just don't have the intellectual ability of a normal person.
So now that you've been completely destroyed...
Epic Win.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides 'Epic win' , how old are you 10? in fact thats an embarressment to 10 year olds. My god, you accuse me of 'attacking' your grammer then you somehow find the tiniest lameass arguement, which i guess only a 10 year old can understand, in my grammer or interpretation there of. Way to go with debunking 9/11 and the USS Liberty.
More like epic brakedown in mentallity.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery You lost, now climb down off your cross, get a hammer and nails, use the wood to build a bridge and...get over it.
Done and Won.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides Am i conversing with comic book guy or what? Yeah you have the win retard maybe when you grow up you'll realise all your hot air was just that.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery OK, you know what? I really just don't care any more for your silly BS...fuck off.
That clear enough for you?
You're nuttier then squirrel pop.
Done and won. Go away.
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago
@BadBunnyRides You're a fucking baby who's just been spanked.
enddebtslavery 6 months ago
@enddebtslavery I won, game over, Truthers lost because they have NOTHING! How's that feel Mr. Tinfoil-hat? You have ZERO, NOTHING, NADA backing your delusional crazy talk. Now, as I said before...fuck off.
Or like every other truthy you can't read? Should I type slower? Maybe use smaller words?
BadBunnyRides 6 months ago