Yet another weak strawman claim! First, he never said that they were alike, his video (RK) was pointing out that truthers like to claim that no fire has made any steel structure to collapse, yet his video shows that fire can do just that. I find it funny that truthers jump straight to some of the said buildings for examples, yet this guy tries to push it away when it shows that fire can damage steel! Point is, fire can dame steel, as RK's video's main point is about.
This music makes these videos unwatchable. I would rather have a baby through my pee hole than listen to this garbage. (Music...not information, for those who will soon bash me for my comment)
lol you proved absolutely nothing in this video, you talked alot buuuut no proof of any other steel tower collapse, and i can guarantee you the fire that brought down this tower or building you speak of was three or four times hotter then wtc twins and especially wtc7. i have yet to see small fires take down steel, maybe one that is fueled by some kind of high burning gases for a sufficient amount of time, which neither twins or 7 had
debunkers are desperately clutching at straws in a bid to make their case float. But anyway you look at it - its an inside job from the mysterious 'deaths' and 'suicides' of 911 key witnesses to the infamous phantom black box disappearing acts to the thermite in the rubble dust... OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF 911 RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
@jesusfreak1975 desperately clutching? ROFLMAO. our case floats because its actually the truth. 1) Thermite in the rubble dust? you dont even know your own party's claim. there was no thermite in the dust, there were elements in the dust that are common byproducts of the use of thermite. however, the main one, ammonium nitrate was not found. meaning there was no thermite. 2) "any way you look at it." question: if thats the case, why investigate? you already know what happened...LOL
@Tommygb21 no. 1) they did find traces of thermite in the dust. 2) building 7 fell and no plane hit it. 3) obama bush and clinton all warned not to investigate 911 - why if they've nothing to hide? 4) WHY did NIST not carry out all the legal standard testing and investigation techniques as they do usually at disaster sites? WHy are there so many 'mysterious deaths' of witnesses after 911? i dont claim to know exactly what happened but the govs way of dealing with it was extremely fishy...
@jesusfreak1975 1) no they didnt. 2) about 20% of the building's lower structure was destroyed by the north tower's collapse. then fires burned unabated for about 7 hours. contrary to your camp's assertions, fires DO destroy steel structures. 3) no they didnt. why dont you start using a little context in your claims. they all said, in essence, to RE-investigate is a waste of taxpayer's money, bc there's no basis for RE investigation. 4) NIST .... continued.
@jesusfreak1975 ... continued .... NIST works on the scientific method, not you tube video conspiracy theorists excited misunderstanding of scientific data. in the case of their investigation, once they ruled out variable X and Y, there is NO need to test for Z. No matter how much YOU scream "IT DONT MAKE SENSE," you cant change the FACTS of the matter. 5) there were no "mysterious deaths." all relevant info was released and the rest kept confidential IAW patient's rights.
@jesusfreak1975 one of the most important biproducts, you fuckin idiot, is ammonium nitrate, which there were no traces of, so how in the FUCK do you think im arguing for you? The other biproducts are natural biproducts of things like drywall, melted plastic, carpet, etc. didnt i already say that? thats right, i did. it was YOU who actually claimed that ppl FOUND ACTUAL THERMITE. moron.
Please provide a source that says ammonium nitrate is a byproduct. It's not. You might be referring to barium nitrate, which is an ingredient in thermate, but only a specific type of thermate called Thermate-TH3. And it's not just byproducts that were found, but actual unignited thermite.
@citizenfor911truth1 You're the one claiming that they found thermite, therefore you need to provide hard, scientific evidence. Steven Jones' fraudulent paper doesn't count.
@citizenfor911truth1 It would be even better if the "science" was actually peer reviewed. Of course, even if his paper was peer reviewed, one would have to question the integrity of a peer reviewer who approves or endorses a conclusion based on incomplete testing and inconclusive data.
@citizenfor911truth1 In other words: you don't have any evidence for the claims in your videos and you still haven't explained how the thermite remained in place to do anything, post-aircraft impact.
The videos themselves provide the evidence. The peer reviewed science is providing the evidence. How are you not getting that? Again, it seems that in your world, you first need evidence to back up the evidence! As for the thermite staying in place, you do realize that the collapses initiated at the floors with the least amount of structural damage, right?
@citizenfor911truth1 Your videos don't present any evidence. Sidestepping the peer review process in the first place, negates peer review. incomplete testing and inconclusive data is not evidence. The plane impacts dislodged many components on several floors. The collapses initiated from the impact and fire floors.
Evidence of sidestepping? Care to provide any? According to the NIST report (which I have read by the way) the collapse of the North Tower initiated at the 98th floor. That floor had the lowest amount of structural damage. Only the tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor.
@citizenfor911truth1 Sure: 1) He failed to get a peer review. 2) He failed to send his samples out to independent labs for verifications of his findings. 3) he failed to fully test his samples. 4) He had the paper published without the knowledge of the publication (which is nothing more than a vanity publication anyways) 5) he never proves a reaction, since he only tested his samples in open air. Testing in open air and getting combustion is not a reaction in a sterile setting.
1) The paper was thoroughly peer reviewed. 2) Actually, there has been independent analyzation of the work. 3) How? 4) The woman quit for questionable reasons. 5) They were comparing there tests done to previously conducted tests with nanothermite that were also done in open air. 6) Examples?
@citizenfor911truth1 1) The paper was not thoroughly peer reviewed. 2) Sidestepping the process is not peer review. 3) There has been no independent analysis of his work and they refused to conduct the exact same tests they demanded NIST conduct. 4) The woman quit in direct wake of this paper. 5) Conducting tests in open air negates findings of reactions, since combustion is not reaction.
@citizenfor911truth1 The collapses of the buildings initiated from the impact and fire floors. Last I checked, the inward bowing covered several floors.
@citizenfor911truth1 "Exterior wall analysis found that an inward pull force of 6 kips at each column at floors 95 to 99 starting 80 min after the aircraft impact, caused a maximum inward bowing of 31 in."
Obviously the inward bowing spread across several floors. However, that has nothing to do with the question you posed to me. You asked how the themite could have stayed in place. I pointed out that the floor where the collapse started had little damage, i.e. the thermite would not have been displaced by the impact where the collapse started.
"Obviously the inward bowing spread across several floors. However, that had nothing to do with the question you posed to me."
LOL!!! Uh, yeah it does! How would they have been able to predict where the planes would have impacted and how would the pilots been able to tell which floors had the thermite on them? The inward bowing is a result of degradation of structural strength and integrity. The inward bowing happened across several floors
But the actual initiation started at floor 98. Again, you are asking me to speculate, which I don't feel the need to do. I deal in harder evidence than that.
@citizenfor911truth1 "i.e. the thermite would not have been displaced by the impact where the collapse started"
So, an engine falling down an elevator shaft and major movement of critical components, both due to impact and thermal stresses would have left the thermite untouched? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
@citizenfor911truth1 Impacts from the plane dislodging critical components and the violent vibration associated with the impact absolutely would have knocked any thermite in the impact and fire regions out of place.
And you know this because you were inside the buildings? Considering that the buildings swayed at most 22 inches, I doubt thermite placed in key sections would have been knocked off by indirect effects. It's concievable if the debris directly impacted the areas, but again, hardly any debris impacted the 98th floor.
@citizenfor911truth1 "An you know this because you were inside the buildings?" Evidently you were there. Complete movement of at least 22 inches of an entire structure would dislodge the thermite, especially if it dislodged beams. The 98th floor was the fulcrum for the the mechanical behaviors of the columns prior to and at collapse initiation.
Yet according to NIST, the fireproofing in the Towers would only have been knocked off by direct impacts from the debris. And now your saying that indirect impacts would knock off preplanted thermite devices? I think not.
@citizenfor911truth1 "Yet according to NIST, the fireproofing in the Towers would only have been knocked off by direct impacts from the debris." Now you have proven that you haven't read the NIST report. They actually said that they were unable to model additional SFRM removal due to unknown variables. That means they at least thought that more SFRM was removed at impact, that wasn't in the direct path of the impacts. And,a jet engine falling down an elevator shaft would have removed more.
Their shotgun tests showed that the fireproofing was only knocked off where there were direct hits. Again, all this talk about how the thermite could or couldn't have been displaced is speculative argumentation, which I don't find very productive. Now if you don't mind, I actually do need to get some sleep. I may continue this tomorrow.
@citizenfor911truth1 They conducted multiple tests and they also showed how it can be removed by simply moving your hand across it. Secondly, little pellets from a shotgun are not as massive as a whole 150 tons of airliner. Much of which, had large pieces that were larger than the components that they impacted.
I've actually provided you with plenty of answers. You simply are not happy with them. That's not my problem. By the way, have you blocked me from your channel by any chance?
@citizenfor911truth1 You haven't provided me with any answers thus far, and no I haven't blocked you from my channel.In fact, you have made declarative statements which you still have yet to substantiate.
"I haven't blocked you from my channel" It appeared that one of my comments was deleted from your page, but I may be wrong. "You haven't provided me with any answers thus far" This is just flat-out nonsense and lying on your part. I have given answers to the questions you've raised. Again, you simply don't like them and have been disputing them. If you want to dispute my answers, fine. But don't claim I haven't provided answers. I clearly have.
@citizenfor911truth1 Yeah, you are wrong. None of your comments have been deleted form my page. You haven't provided answers so far. You HAVE imagined things and thrown a lot of revisionism my way, though. No arguing that. You have actually NOT answered my questions.
"You HAVE imagined things and thrown a lot of revisionism my way" It is actually imagining that I have not done yet. You asked me how they could have known where the planes would hit. I have made it clear that would be speculation on my part. In other words, imagining, which I have not done. I did not "imagine" that the NIST report claims that the collapse of WTC1 started at the 98th floor. This answers your question of how the demolition wouldn't be affected by the planes.
@citizenfor911truth1 You're the one insisting on Thermite, calling me a "Thermite denier" in the process, and can't answer as to how they could have known where the thermite was placed and how to crash the planes in such a way, so as to not remove it upon impact.
"calling me a "Thermite denier" in the process" I have called you that once. Is it really worth complaining over? If you insist on answers based more on speculation, so be it. There are actually several answers to your questions provided at the site 911research. You see, many of your questions have actually already been answered by others. It is this site I will be quoting from, at the FAQ section.
Q: How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?
A: There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel.
Second, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The high explosive RDX, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Third, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft, given that the planes may have been flown by GPS-equipped autopilots providing targeting accuracy to within a few meters.
Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. The casings of jetliners' black boxes protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000ºF for up to 30 minutes.
@citizen The dispersal of debris would easily knock charges out of place, especially if the debris can remove columns out of place at impact and there is no means of being able to predict where the debris would land and travel post-impact. Secondly, the extreme amount of energy at impact: I.E. tens of millions of joules of kinetic energy along with hundreds of giga joules of chemical energy at the time of impact would literally blow away charges set in place at impact - without detonating them.
You may read that one of the options is that the planes were flown with GPS autopilots, and the explosives could have been placed so as to avoid the areas where the planes would impact. And nanothermite didn't exist before 9/11? Please read "Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker."
@citizenfor911truth1 It doesn't matter if the planes were flown remotely with GPS. There is simply NO WAY to predict how the debris is going to disperse and avoid columns where there is supposedly pre-planted thermite charges. If the charges were placed in places other than impact, that still doesn't explain how the pilots (even if flying with GPS equipment from a remote control booth somewhere) can avoid the areas where the thermite would have been placed.
Even if some of the explosives were knocked off, they could still have been detonated. And for the umpteenth time, the collapse started at the floor were the least amount of debris was located.
@citizenfor911truth1 Of course they still could have been detonated, but if they are not in place to affect specific columns, which explosives are used for, it is completely and totally meaningless. They serve no purpose. Floor 98 was not the least damaged floor. Can you specify how this is so? I have asked you to specify several times now.
"Can you specify how this is so?" I've already answered that. The tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor. Only five perimeter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed.
@citizenfor911truth1 Since when is the tip of the wing going to have any bearing on the thermal damage the fire and impact floors experienced? You don't have to sever core columns on a floor for it to give way at the perimeter where the fire and inward bowing is occurring.
@citizenfor911truth1 The NIST report does not say that the 98th floor was the least damaged floor, especially when they themselves state that inward bowing is observable from the 95th floor to the 98th floor.
The inward bowing and the structural damage caused by the plane impacts are not the same thing. The report shows that only five permiter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed. This is far less damage than any of the other floors.
@citizen "The inward bowing and the structural damage cause by the plane impacts are not the same t hing."
No one said they were.
"The report shows that only five perimeter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed This is far less damage than any of the other floors."
The NIST report has never stated, implied, or suggested that the degree of damage to the structure is only attributable to the plane impacts: they (in fact) clearly state that it is the combination of the 2.
The structural damage is a seperate factor in the collapse. The fires caused further weakening, but again, your original concern had to do with the initial damage caused by the plane impacts.
@citizenfor911truth1 The fires are one of the two damage origins. My concern was in getting you to specify how the plane impacts could have circumvented the location and placement of thermite charges, since you're the one arguing that there were thermite charges placed and that they are responsible for the collapses. Stop dodging the issue.
I'm not dodging anything. I'm actually trying to stay on topic. Your the one moving the subject to how the fires caused the inward bowing. I'm trying to stay focused on the issue of the planes affecting the charges. As before, I do need to get some sleep, so we'll continue this another time.
@citizenfor911truth1 You're deviating off-topic, and grossly I might add. I have asked you how the planes' impacts could have circumvented the location and placement of thermite charges you insist were planted there.
@citizenfor911truth1 LOL!!! Congratulations on another, utter and complete failure. You didn't answer what I asked (STILL) and once again reverted revisionism and "Steven Jones said, Steven Jones said, Steven Jones said."
@CaptMandrake360 off your head fool, freefall and failure from the bottom floors is clear CD, drink a pint of fluoride and keep calm for them, disinfo FannyBaws
@krs306 You're the one who said that a collapse from the bottom up, is indicative of a CD. The buildings didn't collapse from the bottom up. They all collapsed from regions well above ground level. You said there was "Asemetrical" (whatever that means) damage to the building. It caused considerable damage to a neighboring building. By your logic: asymmetrical damage should cause asymmetrical damage, which is exactly what happened and is the opposite of your assumptions of what a CD is. LOL!!!
@CaptMandrake360 Borrow a IQ and get it up ye ya fudge packing bum Capitan, it was Global symmetrical failure in uniformed acceleration = Controlled Demolition you dirty lover of goats muppet
@krs306 Once the progression of failures exceeded the structure's ability to uphold loads, global failure finally set in. Yes, unlike you, I actually have a job.
@Fannybaws LOL!!! You still haven't explained how any of the phenomenon you're inventing, equates to anything real, one way or the other. I am only on on the weekends. You're on here 24/7 under all of your gay-ass accounts posting some of the best comedic gibberish I've ever seen, homo.
@citizenfor911truth1 On top of which, NIST clearly states that both towers collapse for different structural damage origins. The North Tower (the one we're discussing) actually collapsed due "more to the thermal effects." [NIST] So, you're core columns and plane impacts argument is really not genuine nor does it have any bearing on your talking points.
Who cares where and how you make it? It was unavailable for use partly because it wasn't being mass produced at the time and since then, it has been produced in limited quantities. It also, is mostly used as an enhancement for already existing explosives materials. It is too unpredictable and unstable for use in an application such as this.
The point is that it was possible to produce nanothermite prior to 9/11. We cannot know it "wasn't being mass produced at the time." The key point is that it did exist prior to 9/11.
@citizenfor911truth1 Yeah, you could produce extremely small quantities in a lab. That was one of the biggest problems with NT, is that it is extremely difficult to manufacture and mass produce and it's effectiveness and predictability of outcome wasn't known at that time. If the people who created the atomic bomb and who make weapons of mass destruction regularly couldn't do it, then it simply wasn't available.
The first and second possibilities are probably what happened. Prior to 2001, the national laboratories and Pentagon contractors had developed advanced energetic nanocomposites which, in addition to providing much higher energy densities than conventional high explosives, were engineered to be very stable and require highly specific conditions for detonation.
@citizenfor911truth1 What good are they if they are removed at impact and how did the pilots know where the pre-planted charges would be? Secondly, "nano-thermite" wasn't even available on 9/11.
Please review all the answers I provided from 911research. I have no doubt you will dispute them, but there is NO disputing that I have given you answers to your questions.
This is ridiculous. You are acting like a child. The site I am quoting from ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. Is that not what you wanted? You dismiss it purely on the grounds that it is a "conspiracy" site. What a pathetic tactic. Handwaving? I think so. Please act reasponsibly and actually look at what your critics write. It's easy to think your answers are not being answered when you don't look at the sources providing them.
@citizenfor911truth1 Your hilariously fraudulent conspiracy website answers nothing. Yes, I dismiss their revisionism purely on the grounds that it is a conspiracy site.
Then there is no point in discussing this with you. Your biased approach of what is a "credible" source will clearly prevent us from having a civil discussion.
@citizenfor911truth1 "And now your saying that indirect impacts would knock off preplanted thermite devices? I think not."
First of all, you have to answer my question about how they knew where the thermite was in the first place and how the thermite in the impact and fire regions would have stayed in place.
@citizenfor911truth1 once again, you amateurs dont know your own theories. barium nitrate is NOT a byproduct of thermate-th3. it is an ADDITIVE to THERMITE that effective makes the thermite burn at HIGHER sustained temperatures. we use it in the military to destroy equipment top down.
Ammonium Nitrate IS a byproduct of the burning of ANY form of thermite ON steel. in this case, your idiot leader Jones claims that this is how the towers were purposefully collapsed. w/o AN, the theory DOA
"barium nitrate is NOT a byproduct of thermate-th3" I've heard differently from other debunkers. You're actually one of the first who's addmitted barium nitrate wouldn't be a byproduct.
"Ammonium Nitrate IS a byproduct of the burning of ANY form of thermite ON steel." Please provide a source to back this up. The products of a thermite reaction are molten iron and aluminum oxide.
@gooconnection Yeah, that's why they censor and persecute Holocaust revisionists, not because they're uncovering some ugly lies, but because they don't have credibility. If it's all completely real, why don't they let everyone study it to the core?
The comment about the fuel load of the oil rig being unlimitless vs the 10,000 gallons of jet fue. The author clearly ignores the additional fuel load of a fully furnised office building.
This video sort of shoots itself in the foot. By contrasting the WTC collapses to lots of other collapses, it basically confirms that all kinds of steel structures can collapse from fire.
Is the steel in skyscrapers somehow immune from the fires that have weakened steel in other structures? Of course not.
When this reality falls apart at the seams, which it's doing right now, what will happen? The truthers will feel vindicated and the debunkers, cointelpro or stupid, fat, ignorant americans who don't understand 7th grade physics will have some detailed explanations to give as to how they could not understand why people have questions about 911 and why it bothered them so much that people would bother asking questions about the government's "conspiracy" theory about 19 hijackers with boxcutters.
lol. You obviously did not understand my comment. lol.
"...But,, based on all the evidence I have seen, that leads me to believe that is what the planes were for." You see, evidence is not required to confirm a belief--that's what makes it a belief!
"I prefer to deal with the scientific evidence that points to demolition, like the pieces of unexploded nanothermite found in the debris." Once again, you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts your hypothesis and have a valid argument.
"You see, evidence is not required to confirm a belief--that's what makes it a belief!" I could not come to the belief I currently have without looking at the evidence first. This is not a religion for me.
"Once again, you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts your hypothesis and have a valid argument." What? How does the planes hitting the buildings contradict the fact that actual EXPLOSIVES were found in the debris?And you're telling me that I gnore evidence?
Ugh. Umm... this might not be a religion for you, but it's certainly a fantasy, and a disturbing one at that/ EXPLOSIVES were not found in the debris, dummie. You prefer to examine "evidence" that confirms this, but don't seem to realize that not everything written on the internet constitutes scientific evidence. "Look, I obviously cannot prove that's what the planes were used for." No, but you state that your suspicions are "obviously" true throughout your video. Lame.
"it's certainly a fantasy, and a disturbing one at that/ EXPLOSIVES were not found in the debris, dummie." That happens to be documented in a peer reviewed journal. Care to try and debunk that? We have saying on the website I write for: Put up, or shut up.
Care to cite that? You think that all engineers recieve the same type of education (why you think Steven Jones, who specializes in physics as it relates to the Book of Mormon, is credible). You think that posting something on the internet, or writing for a website, and having people agree with you, is "peer-review." You're hopeless. lol.
"why you think Steven Jones, who specializes in physics as it relates to the Book of Mormon, is credible" A baseless assertion. Trying to discredit due to his religious beliefs is pathetic.
"You think that posting something on the internet, or writing for a website, and having people agree with you, is "peer-review." You're hopeless. lol." And you clearly are a troll. Have you bothered to look at any of the papers they do have in mainstream journals?
"Trying to discredit due to his religious beliefs is pathetic." I'm religious actually, and quite sensitive to the constitutional right to religious freedom. I also believe in the constitutional separation of church and state, and with it, the separation of church and science. Most people have believed that since the eighteenth century.
"Have you bothered to look at any of the papers they do have in mainstream journals?" Could you provide me with one... ?
Ugh. You're naive, man. Steven Jones claims, through supposedly "scientific" research and evidence collection, that Jesus Christ interacted with the ancient Maya.
"Could you provide me with one... ?" Gladly: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)cb9f7r"
Are you joking? 911truth.org is not a mainstream journal! You seriously don't get it. You really are hopeless.
Your last visit to YouTube was a day ago... why have you refused to answer any of my questions? Hey! If you don't answer all of my questions than you're like the government! And if you're like the government, and we the public have you on record lying, not telling the truth, or withholding information, that means you too are liable for conspiracies like 9/11! Please, tell me the truth, citizen... I can handle it.
Although I did sign in yesterday, I do have other things to do in my life than just respond to random youtubers. You shouldn't assume that I am "refusing" to answer your questions. Many people like you post questions on my videos and although I would like to answer them all, I simply don't have time. That being said, I will gladly respond to your questions.
This video is hardly a de-bunking. How does pointing out that a skyscraper is not an interstate bypass prove that 9/11 was a controlled demolition? The original video was de-bunking the notion that 9/11 was unprecedented, which it was, but only in that it was the first time a skyscraper had been hit by a commercial airliner going over 400 miles per hour.
The point of this video was to show how misleading it is to compare the WTC buildings with other smaller structures. I don't doubt that steel can fail due to fire, but the fact remains that no steel-framed high-rise skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. My point is simply that these structures are far too different from the Towers to be a reasonable comparison, and that fair comparisons should be done with similar structures.
And my point is that no fair comparison can be made because no plane that close to that size or close to that speed has ever flown into a steel framed skyscraper before or after. And even if there was, for the sake of argument, a valid comparison that could be made between two such buildings, it would still be nearly impossible to completely replicate the speed, size, and angle of the plane's entry into the building.
Although it is true that no building has been hit by a plane like that, it has to be evaluated how much different the damage and fires were in comparison to other incidents. As this paper demonstrates, the floors where the collapses initiated at the Towers was quite minimal: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3pmly7b
And here's perhaps the most obvious question of all: if 9/11 was a controlled demolition, why use planes at all? Why not, and again this is for the sake of argument (i.e., this is a discursive argument and not what positively happened), just say that terrorists placed a series of bombs in the towers thus causing them to collapse?
"if 9/11 was a controlled demolition, why use planes at all?" The planes were obviously there as an excuse for the collapses. No one would believe that the terrorists could plant explosives in the building, but they would believe they would crash planes into them.
Do you have any evidence that the planes were used as an excuse for the collapse? The point I mde was that you have provided no evidence for your claims... only theories. The notion that "The planes were obviously there as an excuse for the collapses..." is not verified by evidence in even a single peer-reviewed article from any public or private educational institution... it is merely a fabrication of either your imagination or ignominity. I hope it is the former.
I am hypothesizing that the planes were used as excuses. If these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, I think that is clearly what they would have been used for. That and the fact that there is evidence that the planes alone could not have caused the buildings to collapse leads me to believe that is what the planes were used for. You asked me what the planes would have been used for, and that is what I believe.
"If these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, I think that is clearly what they would have been used for. That and the fact that there is evidence that the planes alone could not have caused the buildings to collapse leads me to believe that is what the planes were used for." How many times do we have to go through this? WHAT evidence? Just saying evidence exists, or putting up a YouTube video, is not in accordance with the sci. method. What evidence?
"I am hypothesizing that the planes were used as excuses."
"You asked me what the planes would have been used for, and that is what I believe."
You see, this is where you have it all wrong. A belief and a hypothesis are two very, very, different things. I hypothesis is a 'guess' that you research and provide evidence for in an attempt to prove w/ the sci. method. A 'belief' is the exact opposite, it is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking even when confronted with contrary evidence.
Look, I obviously cannot prove that's what the planes were used for. I'm not the guy who did it. But,, based on all the evidence I have seen, that leads me to believe that is what the planes were for. But that is a matter of speculation. I prefer to deal with the scientific evidence that points to demolition, like the pieces of unexploded nanothermite found in the debris.
You have failed to answer any of my questions. None of the 9/11 "truthers" respond when you ask them to provide evidence for their claims. They've collectively ignored me since I began challenging their hypotheses, which are sadly misguided at best and rapaciously manipulative at worst. People like them--stubborn "demagogues," some people call them--are the very justification for the suppression of dissent in more tyrannical socieites than this one.
I find it amazing you can SHOW the steel framed part of the Windsor tower collapsing, while your text says the steel framed parts are more resistant to fire than the concrete encased steel. That survived, in the windsor tower fire.
Don't believe what I see with my eyes, believe what a truther tells me.
Isn't that the whole 9/11 Truth movement in a nutshell?
The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates.
Continued... The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building.
My main point concerning the Windsor Tower is that it was quite differently designed than the WTC. The WTC were 100% steel framed buildings, and other 100% steel framed buildings have not collapsed from fires.
I have a whole video on the WTC collapse, just so you know. watch?v=GfDVm7v2sD4
And, as I have already explained, the Bijlmermeer was only a PARTIAL collapse after being hit from a MUCH MORE POWERFUL PLANE. Yet we have two 110 story skyscrapers totally collapsing from being hit by smaller planes.
Your videos are text scrolls that don't match the events they portray.
Once again, you want me to watch a video that summarizes exactly the opposite of what the video of the event actually shows.
Just as an example, your WTC video above, says "alleged" inward bowing.
2nd, 3 floors of Truss were cut by the plane in WTC 1, and SIX floors of truss were cut at WTC 2 (NCSTAR 1) and the fires did exactly the damage they did in NCSTAR 1-6, didn't they?
Are you still on that? I've already pointed out that that building, the Bijlmermeer, only partialy collapsed after being hit by a BIGGER plane than the planes that hit the Towers. And the structural damage was not the main cause of the collapse. The fires supposedly were the main factors. Building 7's collapse is blamed totally on fire. No plane hit it.
Yet another weak strawman claim! First, he never said that they were alike, his video (RK) was pointing out that truthers like to claim that no fire has made any steel structure to collapse, yet his video shows that fire can do just that. I find it funny that truthers jump straight to some of the said buildings for examples, yet this guy tries to push it away when it shows that fire can damage steel! Point is, fire can dame steel, as RK's video's main point is about.
EdwardTheGray 3 weeks ago
This music makes these videos unwatchable. I would rather have a baby through my pee hole than listen to this garbage. (Music...not information, for those who will soon bash me for my comment)
Joeysnamehere 3 months ago
lol you proved absolutely nothing in this video, you talked alot buuuut no proof of any other steel tower collapse, and i can guarantee you the fire that brought down this tower or building you speak of was three or four times hotter then wtc twins and especially wtc7. i have yet to see small fires take down steel, maybe one that is fueled by some kind of high burning gases for a sufficient amount of time, which neither twins or 7 had
sh9683 3 months ago
The two being: the plane impacts AND the subsequent fires.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
*to the 99th floor*
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
By the way, I love how you call it trolling when you're the one who posts these comedic videos.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
debunkers are desperately clutching at straws in a bid to make their case float. But anyway you look at it - its an inside job from the mysterious 'deaths' and 'suicides' of 911 key witnesses to the infamous phantom black box disappearing acts to the thermite in the rubble dust... OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF 911 RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
jesusfreak1975 4 months ago
@jesusfreak1975 desperately clutching? ROFLMAO. our case floats because its actually the truth. 1) Thermite in the rubble dust? you dont even know your own party's claim. there was no thermite in the dust, there were elements in the dust that are common byproducts of the use of thermite. however, the main one, ammonium nitrate was not found. meaning there was no thermite. 2) "any way you look at it." question: if thats the case, why investigate? you already know what happened...LOL
Tommygb21 4 months ago
@Tommygb21 no. 1) they did find traces of thermite in the dust. 2) building 7 fell and no plane hit it. 3) obama bush and clinton all warned not to investigate 911 - why if they've nothing to hide? 4) WHY did NIST not carry out all the legal standard testing and investigation techniques as they do usually at disaster sites? WHy are there so many 'mysterious deaths' of witnesses after 911? i dont claim to know exactly what happened but the govs way of dealing with it was extremely fishy...
jesusfreak1975 4 months ago
@jesusfreak1975 1) no they didnt. 2) about 20% of the building's lower structure was destroyed by the north tower's collapse. then fires burned unabated for about 7 hours. contrary to your camp's assertions, fires DO destroy steel structures. 3) no they didnt. why dont you start using a little context in your claims. they all said, in essence, to RE-investigate is a waste of taxpayer's money, bc there's no basis for RE investigation. 4) NIST .... continued.
Tommygb21 4 months ago
@jesusfreak1975 ... continued .... NIST works on the scientific method, not you tube video conspiracy theorists excited misunderstanding of scientific data. in the case of their investigation, once they ruled out variable X and Y, there is NO need to test for Z. No matter how much YOU scream "IT DONT MAKE SENSE," you cant change the FACTS of the matter. 5) there were no "mysterious deaths." all relevant info was released and the rest kept confidential IAW patient's rights.
Tommygb21 4 months ago
@Tommygb21 lol. 1) watch?v=bvay28lZiHU 2) watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU 3) watch?v=00soZ7rQw3U
jesusfreak1975 4 months ago
@ toomygb21 elements and byproducts of thermite lol... now you're arguing my case for me. cheers!
jesusfreak1975 4 months ago
@jesusfreak1975 one of the most important biproducts, you fuckin idiot, is ammonium nitrate, which there were no traces of, so how in the FUCK do you think im arguing for you? The other biproducts are natural biproducts of things like drywall, melted plastic, carpet, etc. didnt i already say that? thats right, i did. it was YOU who actually claimed that ppl FOUND ACTUAL THERMITE. moron.
Tommygb21 4 months ago
@Tommygb21
Please provide a source that says ammonium nitrate is a byproduct. It's not. You might be referring to barium nitrate, which is an ingredient in thermate, but only a specific type of thermate called Thermate-TH3. And it's not just byproducts that were found, but actual unignited thermite.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "And it's not just byproducts that were found, but actual "unigited thermite."
The reason there was "unignited thermite" found, is because it wasn't thermite.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
How did I know you'd start trolling? You clearly need to provide more than just "nuh uh, no they didn't!" How about some scientific critisism?
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You're the one claiming that they found thermite, therefore you need to provide hard, scientific evidence. Steven Jones' fraudulent paper doesn't count.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Yes, in your world, peer reviewed science doesn't count. Message recieved.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 It would be even better if the "science" was actually peer reviewed. Of course, even if his paper was peer reviewed, one would have to question the integrity of a peer reviewer who approves or endorses a conclusion based on incomplete testing and inconclusive data.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 In other words: you don't have any evidence for the claims in your videos and you still haven't explained how the thermite remained in place to do anything, post-aircraft impact.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
The videos themselves provide the evidence. The peer reviewed science is providing the evidence. How are you not getting that? Again, it seems that in your world, you first need evidence to back up the evidence! As for the thermite staying in place, you do realize that the collapses initiated at the floors with the least amount of structural damage, right?
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Your videos don't present any evidence. Sidestepping the peer review process in the first place, negates peer review. incomplete testing and inconclusive data is not evidence. The plane impacts dislodged many components on several floors. The collapses initiated from the impact and fire floors.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Evidence of sidestepping? Care to provide any? According to the NIST report (which I have read by the way) the collapse of the North Tower initiated at the 98th floor. That floor had the lowest amount of structural damage. Only the tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Sure: 1) He failed to get a peer review. 2) He failed to send his samples out to independent labs for verifications of his findings. 3) he failed to fully test his samples. 4) He had the paper published without the knowledge of the publication (which is nothing more than a vanity publication anyways) 5) he never proves a reaction, since he only tested his samples in open air. Testing in open air and getting combustion is not a reaction in a sterile setting.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
1) The paper was thoroughly peer reviewed. 2) Actually, there has been independent analyzation of the work. 3) How? 4) The woman quit for questionable reasons. 5) They were comparing there tests done to previously conducted tests with nanothermite that were also done in open air. 6) Examples?
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 1) The paper was not thoroughly peer reviewed. 2) Sidestepping the process is not peer review. 3) There has been no independent analysis of his work and they refused to conduct the exact same tests they demanded NIST conduct. 4) The woman quit in direct wake of this paper. 5) Conducting tests in open air negates findings of reactions, since combustion is not reaction.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 The collapses of the buildings initiated from the impact and fire floors. Last I checked, the inward bowing covered several floors.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"The first exterior sign of collapse (downward movement of the building) was observed at floor 98." -NIST NCSTAR 1-6 pg. 156
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "Exterior wall analysis found that an inward pull force of 6 kips at each column at floors 95 to 99 starting 80 min after the aircraft impact, caused a maximum inward bowing of 31 in."
[NCSTAR 1-6 Ex. summary pg. lix]
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Obviously the inward bowing spread across several floors. However, that has nothing to do with the question you posed to me. You asked how the themite could have stayed in place. I pointed out that the floor where the collapse started had little damage, i.e. the thermite would not have been displaced by the impact where the collapse started.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Here is a typical tap out by you:
"Obviously the inward bowing spread across several floors. However, that had nothing to do with the question you posed to me."
LOL!!! Uh, yeah it does! How would they have been able to predict where the planes would have impacted and how would the pilots been able to tell which floors had the thermite on them? The inward bowing is a result of degradation of structural strength and integrity. The inward bowing happened across several floors
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
But the actual initiation started at floor 98. Again, you are asking me to speculate, which I don't feel the need to do. I deal in harder evidence than that.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1 I am not asking you to speculate. You're doing plenty of it on your own. You have yet to present ANY evidence.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "i.e. the thermite would not have been displaced by the impact where the collapse started"
So, an engine falling down an elevator shaft and major movement of critical components, both due to impact and thermal stresses would have left the thermite untouched? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Did this happen at the 98th floor? No, considering that the engine was never at the 98th floor.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Impacts from the plane dislodging critical components and the violent vibration associated with the impact absolutely would have knocked any thermite in the impact and fire regions out of place.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
And you know this because you were inside the buildings? Considering that the buildings swayed at most 22 inches, I doubt thermite placed in key sections would have been knocked off by indirect effects. It's concievable if the debris directly impacted the areas, but again, hardly any debris impacted the 98th floor.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "An you know this because you were inside the buildings?" Evidently you were there. Complete movement of at least 22 inches of an entire structure would dislodge the thermite, especially if it dislodged beams. The 98th floor was the fulcrum for the the mechanical behaviors of the columns prior to and at collapse initiation.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Yet according to NIST, the fireproofing in the Towers would only have been knocked off by direct impacts from the debris. And now your saying that indirect impacts would knock off preplanted thermite devices? I think not.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "Yet according to NIST, the fireproofing in the Towers would only have been knocked off by direct impacts from the debris." Now you have proven that you haven't read the NIST report. They actually said that they were unable to model additional SFRM removal due to unknown variables. That means they at least thought that more SFRM was removed at impact, that wasn't in the direct path of the impacts. And,a jet engine falling down an elevator shaft would have removed more.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Their shotgun tests showed that the fireproofing was only knocked off where there were direct hits. Again, all this talk about how the thermite could or couldn't have been displaced is speculative argumentation, which I don't find very productive. Now if you don't mind, I actually do need to get some sleep. I may continue this tomorrow.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 They conducted multiple tests and they also showed how it can be removed by simply moving your hand across it. Secondly, little pellets from a shotgun are not as massive as a whole 150 tons of airliner. Much of which, had large pieces that were larger than the components that they impacted.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 LOL!!! So, still no answers? No surprise there.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
I've actually provided you with plenty of answers. You simply are not happy with them. That's not my problem. By the way, have you blocked me from your channel by any chance?
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You haven't provided me with any answers thus far, and no I haven't blocked you from my channel.In fact, you have made declarative statements which you still have yet to substantiate.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"I haven't blocked you from my channel" It appeared that one of my comments was deleted from your page, but I may be wrong. "You haven't provided me with any answers thus far" This is just flat-out nonsense and lying on your part. I have given answers to the questions you've raised. Again, you simply don't like them and have been disputing them. If you want to dispute my answers, fine. But don't claim I haven't provided answers. I clearly have.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Yeah, you are wrong. None of your comments have been deleted form my page. You haven't provided answers so far. You HAVE imagined things and thrown a lot of revisionism my way, though. No arguing that. You have actually NOT answered my questions.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"You HAVE imagined things and thrown a lot of revisionism my way" It is actually imagining that I have not done yet. You asked me how they could have known where the planes would hit. I have made it clear that would be speculation on my part. In other words, imagining, which I have not done. I did not "imagine" that the NIST report claims that the collapse of WTC1 started at the 98th floor. This answers your question of how the demolition wouldn't be affected by the planes.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You're the one insisting on Thermite, calling me a "Thermite denier" in the process, and can't answer as to how they could have known where the thermite was placed and how to crash the planes in such a way, so as to not remove it upon impact.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"calling me a "Thermite denier" in the process" I have called you that once. Is it really worth complaining over? If you insist on answers based more on speculation, so be it. There are actually several answers to your questions provided at the site 911research. You see, many of your questions have actually already been answered by others. It is this site I will be quoting from, at the FAQ section.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Q: How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?
A: There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Second, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The high explosive RDX, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Third, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft, given that the planes may have been flown by GPS-equipped autopilots providing targeting accuracy to within a few meters.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. The casings of jetliners' black boxes protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000ºF for up to 30 minutes.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizen The dispersal of debris would easily knock charges out of place, especially if the debris can remove columns out of place at impact and there is no means of being able to predict where the debris would land and travel post-impact. Secondly, the extreme amount of energy at impact: I.E. tens of millions of joules of kinetic energy along with hundreds of giga joules of chemical energy at the time of impact would literally blow away charges set in place at impact - without detonating them.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
You may read that one of the options is that the planes were flown with GPS autopilots, and the explosives could have been placed so as to avoid the areas where the planes would impact. And nanothermite didn't exist before 9/11? Please read "Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker."
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 It doesn't matter if the planes were flown remotely with GPS. There is simply NO WAY to predict how the debris is going to disperse and avoid columns where there is supposedly pre-planted thermite charges. If the charges were placed in places other than impact, that still doesn't explain how the pilots (even if flying with GPS equipment from a remote control booth somewhere) can avoid the areas where the thermite would have been placed.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Even if some of the explosives were knocked off, they could still have been detonated. And for the umpteenth time, the collapse started at the floor were the least amount of debris was located.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Of course they still could have been detonated, but if they are not in place to affect specific columns, which explosives are used for, it is completely and totally meaningless. They serve no purpose. Floor 98 was not the least damaged floor. Can you specify how this is so? I have asked you to specify several times now.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
"Can you specify how this is so?" I've already answered that. The tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor. Only five perimeter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Since when is the tip of the wing going to have any bearing on the thermal damage the fire and impact floors experienced? You don't have to sever core columns on a floor for it to give way at the perimeter where the fire and inward bowing is occurring.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
You asked me to specify why the 98th floor was the least damaged floor. And my answer is quite simple. Because the NIST report says that.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 The NIST report does not say that the 98th floor was the least damaged floor, especially when they themselves state that inward bowing is observable from the 95th floor to the 98th floor.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
The inward bowing and the structural damage caused by the plane impacts are not the same thing. The report shows that only five permiter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed. This is far less damage than any of the other floors.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizen "The inward bowing and the structural damage cause by the plane impacts are not the same t hing."
No one said they were.
"The report shows that only five perimeter columns were severed, and no core columns were severed This is far less damage than any of the other floors."
The NIST report has never stated, implied, or suggested that the degree of damage to the structure is only attributable to the plane impacts: they (in fact) clearly state that it is the combination of the 2.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
The structural damage is a seperate factor in the collapse. The fires caused further weakening, but again, your original concern had to do with the initial damage caused by the plane impacts.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 The fires are one of the two damage origins. My concern was in getting you to specify how the plane impacts could have circumvented the location and placement of thermite charges, since you're the one arguing that there were thermite charges placed and that they are responsible for the collapses. Stop dodging the issue.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
I'm not dodging anything. I'm actually trying to stay on topic. Your the one moving the subject to how the fires caused the inward bowing. I'm trying to stay focused on the issue of the planes affecting the charges. As before, I do need to get some sleep, so we'll continue this another time.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You're deviating off-topic, and grossly I might add. I have asked you how the planes' impacts could have circumvented the location and placement of thermite charges you insist were planted there.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Still no link discussing how the 98th floor in WTC 1 was "the least damaged"? Why does this not surprise me?
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Just posted it on your channel pal.
citizenfor911truth1 3 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 LOL!!! Congratulations on another, utter and complete failure. You didn't answer what I asked (STILL) and once again reverted revisionism and "Steven Jones said, Steven Jones said, Steven Jones said."
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
It must be great living in denial. I oughta try it sometime.
citizenfor911truth1 3 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Right now, you're the prince of it. LOL!!!
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 Yo manrape, how did the plane dislodge the charges in No7 ?
Global failure with Asemetrical damage, AS IF
Total FannyBaws
krs306 3 months ago
@krs306 LOL!!! Exactly. There were no explosives in WTC 7, just like there were no explosives in the Twin Towers.
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 off your head fool, freefall and failure from the bottom floors is clear CD, drink a pint of fluoride and keep calm for them, disinfo FannyBaws
krs306 3 months ago
@krs306 Then why did it collapse from the upper sections and why did it cause extensive damage to a neighboring building? LOL!!!
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 Pyhisics, idiot what do you think happens when you plan a CD in a City
watch?v=IsrMzfhdmkU&feature=channel_video_title
krs306 3 months ago
@krs306 You're the one who said that a collapse from the bottom up, is indicative of a CD. The buildings didn't collapse from the bottom up. They all collapsed from regions well above ground level. You said there was "Asemetrical" (whatever that means) damage to the building. It caused considerable damage to a neighboring building. By your logic: asymmetrical damage should cause asymmetrical damage, which is exactly what happened and is the opposite of your assumptions of what a CD is. LOL!!!
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 Borrow a IQ and get it up ye ya fudge packing bum Capitan, it was Global symmetrical failure in uniformed acceleration = Controlled Demolition you dirty lover of goats muppet
Get a life fannyBaws
p.s how work ?
krs306 3 months ago
@krs306 Once the progression of failures exceeded the structure's ability to uphold loads, global failure finally set in. Yes, unlike you, I actually have a job.
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 Unlike you I have a job lol idiot, I assume this is why you sit on your bed bound arse allll day posting pish, cos you got a job
What caused your conspiracy, ie, the accelerate to cause global failure @ free fall speed, you monkey knob
NIST burned the floor for over 2 hours and it stood strong you unloved loner, time to think about life, get one
FannyBaws
krs306 3 months ago
@Fannybaws LOL!!! You still haven't explained how any of the phenomenon you're inventing, equates to anything real, one way or the other. I am only on on the weekends. You're on here 24/7 under all of your gay-ass accounts posting some of the best comedic gibberish I've ever seen, homo.
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@CaptMandrake360 Avoiding all reality as per usual you lonely wanker
Your the 24/7 poster and you got nothing to say
Pure FannyBaws
krs306 3 months ago
@Fannybaws Don't cry to me because your imaginations don't work. LOL!!!
CaptMandrake360 3 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 On top of which, NIST clearly states that both towers collapse for different structural damage origins. The North Tower (the one we're discussing) actually collapsed due "more to the thermal effects." [NIST] So, you're core columns and plane impacts argument is really not genuine nor does it have any bearing on your talking points.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "Please read nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker."
Who cares where and how you make it? It was unavailable for use partly because it wasn't being mass produced at the time and since then, it has been produced in limited quantities. It also, is mostly used as an enhancement for already existing explosives materials. It is too unpredictable and unstable for use in an application such as this.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
The point is that it was possible to produce nanothermite prior to 9/11. We cannot know it "wasn't being mass produced at the time." The key point is that it did exist prior to 9/11.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Yeah, you could produce extremely small quantities in a lab. That was one of the biggest problems with NT, is that it is extremely difficult to manufacture and mass produce and it's effectiveness and predictability of outcome wasn't known at that time. If the people who created the atomic bomb and who make weapons of mass destruction regularly couldn't do it, then it simply wasn't available.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
The first and second possibilities are probably what happened. Prior to 2001, the national laboratories and Pentagon contractors had developed advanced energetic nanocomposites which, in addition to providing much higher energy densities than conventional high explosives, were engineered to be very stable and require highly specific conditions for detonation.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 What good are they if they are removed at impact and how did the pilots know where the pre-planted charges would be? Secondly, "nano-thermite" wasn't even available on 9/11.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Please review all the answers I provided from 911research. I have no doubt you will dispute them, but there is NO disputing that I have given you answers to your questions.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 A conspiracy website is not evidence. And you have not given me answers to questions.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
This is ridiculous. You are acting like a child. The site I am quoting from ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. Is that not what you wanted? You dismiss it purely on the grounds that it is a "conspiracy" site. What a pathetic tactic. Handwaving? I think so. Please act reasponsibly and actually look at what your critics write. It's easy to think your answers are not being answered when you don't look at the sources providing them.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 Your hilariously fraudulent conspiracy website answers nothing. Yes, I dismiss their revisionism purely on the grounds that it is a conspiracy site.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
Then there is no point in discussing this with you. Your biased approach of what is a "credible" source will clearly prevent us from having a civil discussion.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "Your biased approach of what is a "credible" source will clearly prevent up form having a civil discussion."
Says who? You're the one making false claims. You're once again hand waving in the face of factual data.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@CaptMandrake360
I am not hand waving away "factual data." I am growing irritated at someone who refuses to look at the sources I provide to answer questions.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 You seem to forget that I already have been to 911Research. I am simply asking for substantiation of your imagined claims.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 "And now your saying that indirect impacts would knock off preplanted thermite devices? I think not."
First of all, you have to answer my question about how they knew where the thermite was in the first place and how the thermite in the impact and fire regions would have stayed in place.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 That inward bowing is almost a whole three feet.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 How could they have known where the thermite was and where to hit? It's impossible.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 6) Has had to walk back and alter his claims a bit. There are more examples.
CaptMandrake360 4 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1 once again, you amateurs dont know your own theories. barium nitrate is NOT a byproduct of thermate-th3. it is an ADDITIVE to THERMITE that effective makes the thermite burn at HIGHER sustained temperatures. we use it in the military to destroy equipment top down.
Ammonium Nitrate IS a byproduct of the burning of ANY form of thermite ON steel. in this case, your idiot leader Jones claims that this is how the towers were purposefully collapsed. w/o AN, the theory DOA
Tommygb21 4 months ago
@Tommygb21
"barium nitrate is NOT a byproduct of thermate-th3" I've heard differently from other debunkers. You're actually one of the first who's addmitted barium nitrate wouldn't be a byproduct.
"Ammonium Nitrate IS a byproduct of the burning of ANY form of thermite ON steel." Please provide a source to back this up. The products of a thermite reaction are molten iron and aluminum oxide.
citizenfor911truth1 4 months ago
@gooconnection Yeah, that's why they censor and persecute Holocaust revisionists, not because they're uncovering some ugly lies, but because they don't have credibility. If it's all completely real, why don't they let everyone study it to the core?
qyxzz 5 months ago
unlimited*
crazygymnist12345678 5 months ago
The comment about the fuel load of the oil rig being unlimitless vs the 10,000 gallons of jet fue. The author clearly ignores the additional fuel load of a fully furnised office building.
crazygymnist12345678 5 months ago
This video sort of shoots itself in the foot. By contrasting the WTC collapses to lots of other collapses, it basically confirms that all kinds of steel structures can collapse from fire.
Is the steel in skyscrapers somehow immune from the fires that have weakened steel in other structures? Of course not.
PoetryHound 7 months ago
@PoetryHound i was thinking that myself as I watched.
TheRevJonnyNemo 6 months ago
When this reality falls apart at the seams, which it's doing right now, what will happen? The truthers will feel vindicated and the debunkers, cointelpro or stupid, fat, ignorant americans who don't understand 7th grade physics will have some detailed explanations to give as to how they could not understand why people have questions about 911 and why it bothered them so much that people would bother asking questions about the government's "conspiracy" theory about 19 hijackers with boxcutters.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
lol. You obviously did not understand my comment. lol.
"...But,, based on all the evidence I have seen, that leads me to believe that is what the planes were for." You see, evidence is not required to confirm a belief--that's what makes it a belief!
"I prefer to deal with the scientific evidence that points to demolition, like the pieces of unexploded nanothermite found in the debris." Once again, you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts your hypothesis and have a valid argument.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
"You see, evidence is not required to confirm a belief--that's what makes it a belief!" I could not come to the belief I currently have without looking at the evidence first. This is not a religion for me.
"Once again, you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts your hypothesis and have a valid argument." What? How does the planes hitting the buildings contradict the fact that actual EXPLOSIVES were found in the debris?And you're telling me that I gnore evidence?
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Ugh. Umm... this might not be a religion for you, but it's certainly a fantasy, and a disturbing one at that/ EXPLOSIVES were not found in the debris, dummie. You prefer to examine "evidence" that confirms this, but don't seem to realize that not everything written on the internet constitutes scientific evidence. "Look, I obviously cannot prove that's what the planes were used for." No, but you state that your suspicions are "obviously" true throughout your video. Lame.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
"it's certainly a fantasy, and a disturbing one at that/ EXPLOSIVES were not found in the debris, dummie." That happens to be documented in a peer reviewed journal. Care to try and debunk that? We have saying on the website I write for: Put up, or shut up.
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Care to cite that? You think that all engineers recieve the same type of education (why you think Steven Jones, who specializes in physics as it relates to the Book of Mormon, is credible). You think that posting something on the internet, or writing for a website, and having people agree with you, is "peer-review." You're hopeless. lol.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
"why you think Steven Jones, who specializes in physics as it relates to the Book of Mormon, is credible" A baseless assertion. Trying to discredit due to his religious beliefs is pathetic.
"You think that posting something on the internet, or writing for a website, and having people agree with you, is "peer-review." You're hopeless. lol." And you clearly are a troll. Have you bothered to look at any of the papers they do have in mainstream journals?
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
"Trying to discredit due to his religious beliefs is pathetic." I'm religious actually, and quite sensitive to the constitutional right to religious freedom. I also believe in the constitutional separation of church and state, and with it, the separation of church and science. Most people have believed that since the eighteenth century.
"Have you bothered to look at any of the papers they do have in mainstream journals?" Could you provide me with one... ?
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
"Most people have believed that since the eighteenth century." And Steven Jones clearly believes that as well.
"Could you provide me with one... ?" Gladly: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)cb9f7r
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1
"And Steven Jones clearly believes that as well."
Ugh. You're naive, man. Steven Jones claims, through supposedly "scientific" research and evidence collection, that Jesus Christ interacted with the ancient Maya.
"Could you provide me with one... ?" Gladly: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)cb9f7r"
Are you joking? 911truth.org is not a mainstream journal! You seriously don't get it. You really are hopeless.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
citizenfor911truth1...
Your last visit to YouTube was a day ago... why have you refused to answer any of my questions? Hey! If you don't answer all of my questions than you're like the government! And if you're like the government, and we the public have you on record lying, not telling the truth, or withholding information, that means you too are liable for conspiracies like 9/11! Please, tell me the truth, citizen... I can handle it.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
Although I did sign in yesterday, I do have other things to do in my life than just respond to random youtubers. You shouldn't assume that I am "refusing" to answer your questions. Many people like you post questions on my videos and although I would like to answer them all, I simply don't have time. That being said, I will gladly respond to your questions.
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
This video is hardly a de-bunking. How does pointing out that a skyscraper is not an interstate bypass prove that 9/11 was a controlled demolition? The original video was de-bunking the notion that 9/11 was unprecedented, which it was, but only in that it was the first time a skyscraper had been hit by a commercial airliner going over 400 miles per hour.
AlexanderTheGood89 10 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
The point of this video was to show how misleading it is to compare the WTC buildings with other smaller structures. I don't doubt that steel can fail due to fire, but the fact remains that no steel-framed high-rise skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. My point is simply that these structures are far too different from the Towers to be a reasonable comparison, and that fair comparisons should be done with similar structures.
citizenfor911truth1 10 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
And my point is that no fair comparison can be made because no plane that close to that size or close to that speed has ever flown into a steel framed skyscraper before or after. And even if there was, for the sake of argument, a valid comparison that could be made between two such buildings, it would still be nearly impossible to completely replicate the speed, size, and angle of the plane's entry into the building.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
Although it is true that no building has been hit by a plane like that, it has to be evaluated how much different the damage and fires were in comparison to other incidents. As this paper demonstrates, the floors where the collapses initiated at the Towers was quite minimal: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3pmly7b
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
And here's perhaps the most obvious question of all: if 9/11 was a controlled demolition, why use planes at all? Why not, and again this is for the sake of argument (i.e., this is a discursive argument and not what positively happened), just say that terrorists placed a series of bombs in the towers thus causing them to collapse?
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
"if 9/11 was a controlled demolition, why use planes at all?" The planes were obviously there as an excuse for the collapses. No one would believe that the terrorists could plant explosives in the building, but they would believe they would crash planes into them.
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Do you have any evidence that the planes were used as an excuse for the collapse? The point I mde was that you have provided no evidence for your claims... only theories. The notion that "The planes were obviously there as an excuse for the collapses..." is not verified by evidence in even a single peer-reviewed article from any public or private educational institution... it is merely a fabrication of either your imagination or ignominity. I hope it is the former.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
I am hypothesizing that the planes were used as excuses. If these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, I think that is clearly what they would have been used for. That and the fact that there is evidence that the planes alone could not have caused the buildings to collapse leads me to believe that is what the planes were used for. You asked me what the planes would have been used for, and that is what I believe.
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
"If these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, I think that is clearly what they would have been used for. That and the fact that there is evidence that the planes alone could not have caused the buildings to collapse leads me to believe that is what the planes were used for." How many times do we have to go through this? WHAT evidence? Just saying evidence exists, or putting up a YouTube video, is not in accordance with the sci. method. What evidence?
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
What evidence? Have you not payed attention to ANY of the points in my video? Here's a brief list of evidence for you:
-The rate of the Towers' fall
-The horizontal ejection of debris
-The sounds of explosions heard by hundreds of witnesses
-The residue of thermate in the debris
-The unexploded pieces of nanothermite found in the debris
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
"I am hypothesizing that the planes were used as excuses."
"You asked me what the planes would have been used for, and that is what I believe."
You see, this is where you have it all wrong. A belief and a hypothesis are two very, very, different things. I hypothesis is a 'guess' that you research and provide evidence for in an attempt to prove w/ the sci. method. A 'belief' is the exact opposite, it is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking even when confronted with contrary evidence.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
@AlexanderTheGood89
Look, I obviously cannot prove that's what the planes were used for. I'm not the guy who did it. But,, based on all the evidence I have seen, that leads me to believe that is what the planes were for. But that is a matter of speculation. I prefer to deal with the scientific evidence that points to demolition, like the pieces of unexploded nanothermite found in the debris.
citizenfor911truth1 9 months ago
@citizenfor911truth1
You have failed to answer any of my questions. None of the 9/11 "truthers" respond when you ask them to provide evidence for their claims. They've collectively ignored me since I began challenging their hypotheses, which are sadly misguided at best and rapaciously manipulative at worst. People like them--stubborn "demagogues," some people call them--are the very justification for the suppression of dissent in more tyrannical socieites than this one.
AlexanderTheGood89 9 months ago
great vid keep it up.
producersunnyshadows 1 year ago
Nice content, and arguments, but PLEASE, if you ever make a 3.0, dump the music! This goes for a number of the other vids as well.
kaskadaks 1 year ago
Well now,cool music ;)
kongenjens 1 year ago
Great points, actually picked up a few . Thanks
usd25674 1 year ago
Hmm I wonder what that is pouring out of the windsor building while its on fire, oh my!
kev492001 1 year ago
Did Windsor eject beams laterally at 50 mph ? What gravity does that?
mooners40 1 year ago
I find it amazing you can SHOW the steel framed part of the Windsor tower collapsing, while your text says the steel framed parts are more resistant to fire than the concrete encased steel. That survived, in the windsor tower fire.
Don't believe what I see with my eyes, believe what a truther tells me.
Isn't that the whole 9/11 Truth movement in a nutshell?
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Continued... The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Does your video display exactly the opposite what your text tells me or not?
Does the steel framed portion of the Windsor Tower collapse or not?
Does the concrete encased steel in the core building survive or not?
I really have no enmity, and I am really pointing out the obvious.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
My main point concerning the Windsor Tower is that it was quite differently designed than the WTC. The WTC were 100% steel framed buildings, and other 100% steel framed buildings have not collapsed from fires.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
That's because OTHER 100% Steel Framed buildings didn't get hit by a Jumbo Jet.
AND, the one that did, at Bijlmermeer, you weasel your way out of, huh?
That's called delusion, citizenfor911 fantasy.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
I have a whole video on the WTC collapse, just so you know. watch?v=GfDVm7v2sD4
And, as I have already explained, the Bijlmermeer was only a PARTIAL collapse after being hit from a MUCH MORE POWERFUL PLANE. Yet we have two 110 story skyscrapers totally collapsing from being hit by smaller planes.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Your videos are text scrolls that don't match the events they portray.
Once again, you want me to watch a video that summarizes exactly the opposite of what the video of the event actually shows.
Just as an example, your WTC video above, says "alleged" inward bowing.
2nd, 3 floors of Truss were cut by the plane in WTC 1, and SIX floors of truss were cut at WTC 2 (NCSTAR 1) and the fires did exactly the damage they did in NCSTAR 1-6, didn't they?
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1
What the hell are "uninsulated steel girders"?
And what additional structural properties do "insulated steel girders possess?
I'm a civil engineer and I have NEVER heard of "uninsulated steel girders"?
citizenfor911LIES is just throwing up made up words that mean nothing,
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenfor911truth1
ROFL!
Every building in the entire world is "quite differently designed than the WTC".
911 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5 go to wikipedia and type in Windsor Tower to see how both towers of the WTC should have looked on 09.12.2001
Moreofthesamez 1 year ago
@Moreofthesamez
Better yet, go to wikipedia and ask for a CURRENT
picture of the Windsor Tower, which was torn down
because it's frame was damaged by FIRE.
Dumbass.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5 Exactly DAMAGED DUMBASS, it didnt collapse after 40 minutes, like the world trade paper towers lol
Moreofthesamez 1 year ago
@Moreofthesamez
Well, why NOT put a 200 ton aircraft on that burned
out frame?
LOL, what's the part about IMPACT AND FIRE, does
your little chimpanzee mind NOT comprehend?
The ONLY example of a prior Jumbo Jet impact
(partial) on a steel frame building, was the crash
at Bijlmermeer, in Denmark in 1993?
That building collapsed.
That makes 3 for 3, doesn't it?
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Are you still on that? I've already pointed out that that building, the Bijlmermeer, only partialy collapsed after being hit by a BIGGER plane than the planes that hit the Towers. And the structural damage was not the main cause of the collapse. The fires supposedly were the main factors. Building 7's collapse is blamed totally on fire. No plane hit it.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
How 'debunkers' can try and compare halls and roads to highrise superstructures is beyond me
mooners40 1 year ago 2
@mooners40 ya man
NWOmustfall 1 year ago
I enjoyed, and found this video informative.
It was already blatantly obvious to me that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but the details you provide are interesting.
whatever2dont 1 year ago