9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast

[74pbg]

Yes, it was suspicious fast for an intact structure below! That's what i thought as i saw it collapse!

[PostalCode74]

Air resistance would not slow the collapse by 50%. We can see this in the videos. The ejected debris falls in about 9-10 seconds. Also, resistance from the structure would only be about 40-50%, not a few thousand percent!

Lets do the math. Fall + air resistance = 9-10 seconds. 9-10 seconds + 50% = 13-15 seconds.

Seems to me like the collapse was at just about the correct speed for a structural failure.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@PostalCode74

Please see the second link in the video description to see that the collapses were too fast.

[freshkryp69]

Stop it @ 3:23 , and watch the huge explosion!

[freshkryp69]

The concrete falling to the ground when the buildings were was being vaporized or dusyified. What dam force of nature can make concrete separate all mechanical bonds?

[ryconster]

Nice nice vid,, love it haa, ride on!!

[TimothyRaymond1]

There’s a reason why most people believe in the official story. It’s the only logical one. It’s the only one that doesn’t rely on remote-controlled planes, cruise missiles, secretly placed explosives and elaborate government conspiracies. The buildings were destroyed by Al-Qaeda terrorists; they admitted to doing it. The government was not involved. I’m not a government agent. I’m not a sheep. I’m just using common sense.

[lukealandrummond]

@TimothyRaymond1 So i go and admit to a murder, does that mean i committed? And tbh, That isn't why people believe the official story, it's because they are scared. You drill something into someone enough, they'll eventually believe it. A bit like the lie of 19 student Hi-jackers that lived in the middle easy came to america, hi-jacked the plane with a knife, flew 18 minutes without being intercepted and managed to control the plane going at 500+ mph and the leadeer of all this lived in a cave.

[robonintendo]

Ok, so NIST and the commission came up with 10 seconds first right? The truth movement doesn't feel they are a good source as well correct? Then why did the movement parrot those findings? Why believe that official story when you feel they lie about most everything else? Why not just do your own research to debunk them in the first place instead of parroting their claim? I don't understand that, can someone clear that up please?

[AlexanderTheGood89]

...All this shows is that the so-called 9/11 experts have misunderstood what "peer reviewed" means.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

Ironically, in their attempt to appear "credible" and "serious," they've run a number of articles debunking the egregiously unhinged theories like Judy Wood's "space beams" and stuff they've run in their own journal, like the "elephant plane" theory. The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. But now 9/11 conspiracy theories must be taken seriously, because, look, this research is "peer-reviewed!" ...

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." But by your logic I should disregard it entirely because it's not a mainstream journal.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Yes, you should. And instead, you should focus your attention towards peer-reviewed, university published, articles. This has been my point from the very beginning. It's not so much that you're not trying to understand, you're just being misled by some very manipulative and wealthy people. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"you should focus your attention towards peer-reviewed, university published, articles." Others have, and as I have already pointed out, the movement currently has six papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

"you're just being misled by some very manipulative and wealthy people." Yes, these people have so clearly brainwashed me. If only you had warned me sooner! I might have been saved!

[Zero2Legend]

where did you get your information from?

[SexyMelon]

Time and time again, the most common and sometimes only response there is coming from self-professed "debunkers" is plain insult.

Interesting, pattern, ins't it?.. Almost as if there was no actual evidence they can bring up to the contrary...

[Flakester1]

One just has to look at the basic psychology of a debunker responses.

Usually full of mocking, name calling. Usually backed up with little evidence. They refuse to listen to what truthers have to say, and usually interrupt with loud argumentative behavior. As if to say "I CANT HEAR YOU".

Inside debunkers are scared of the truth, and are setting up a psychological wall. The cant emotionally handle the idea that they Americans are being told a lie by their own government.

America isn't free.

[littlebier8]

Hahahaha "un-debunked." You know what two negatives make, right? You should call this series "9/11 BUNK!"

[citizenfor911truth1]

@littlebier8

That's great. Now would you like to actually point out anything I got wrong?

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

I will. The freefall speed of the buildings would be 9.22 seconds. The evidence you provide from the 9.11 commission (which is ridiculous given that conspiracists constantly lament that collection's lack of credibility) suggests that it occured in 10 seconds. You disagree with this claim, and so do I. The reason the WTC towers came down the way it did is because of the forces of momentum and gravity, understood by even "crude calculations" in elastic dynamic analysis[MIT]

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

I cite the Commission to show that it was the official reports that were the first to say that the collapses occured in 10 seconds. The key thing is that the Towers collapse times were clearly consistent with demolition. A natural collapse should take far longer.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Once again, can you provide me with anything even resembling evidence for this belief? Without providing a peer-reviewed article supporting this claim, you've abandoned scholarship and critical thinking. When someone points out how you're wrong according to actual science, you merely respond with your baseless belief that the "Towers collapse times were clearly consistent with demolition." Even demolition experts have spoken out about these lies of the truth movement.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89 "can you provide me with anything even resembling evidence for this belief?" Here is the most detailed analyzation I have seen: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)44bgf9v

"Even demolition experts have spoken out about these lies of the truth movement" So far only one demolition expert has written a technical article on why the Towers could not have been demolitions, and it has been refuted: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)2ztdqz

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

These are not peer-reviewed articles, and hence, not evidence. A good way to determine whether something is reliable or not on the internet, is if the URL has a (dot)edu in it. That means it came from an actual university, who employ experts to provide evidence and rigorous reviewers to examine that evidence. If an article on a scholarly subject does not come from such an institution, it could be written by anyone, it could be plagiarized, it could even be the dreaded govt

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

I have seen several debunkers put papers online that are not peer-reviewed, and others such as yourself have no problem referencing them. Even if a paper is not peer-reviewed that doesn't mean its wrong. You have to actually show why it is wrong.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

Again, care to actually address the science though?

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Gladly. Firstly, Hoffman is a website engineer, which might explain his gross knowledge gaps in the field of physics. I'm shocked that you would seriously trust the scientific analysis of someone in website design over someone in structural engineering. "a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires" << This is the conclusion of Hoffman's article. It too is theory...

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"Firstly, Hoffman is a website engineer, which might explain his gross knowledge gaps in the field of physics." From wikipedia: "Jim Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization" You can criticize his expertise all you want, but it does not prove him wrong.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

It makes him unqualified to single-handedly prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition. You can trust him blindly and without peer-review all you want, but it does not prove him right. You seem to be one of those--"well, if there's two sides to an argument then both people can be right"--sort of person. You really don't seem to understand what peer-review or critical thinking or the scientific method are. What's your expertise?

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"It makes him unqualified to single-handedly prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition." Again, either point out why he was wrong, or stop complaining. Unless you actually address him specifically, I see your complaints as pointless rambling. "You really don't seem to understand what peer-review or critical thinking or the scientific method are. What's your expertise?" I do understand that very well. I never claim to have expertise, but I reference people who do.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

You don't understand what engineering is. You don't understand who is credible and who isn't and you don't understand what expertise is important in these matters. You don't understand what peer review is. You've made this very, very, very, clear with your responses. Please, for the love of god, just research the official story without the veil of suspicion over your head. I'm an open minded person, but what you're offering me is in no way, shape, or form, credible research

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"You don't understand who is credible and who isn't and you don't understand what expertise is important in these matters." I understand these very well. I also understand that you clearly love commiting the fallacy of appeal to authority. I have been researching the official story for the last 4 years of my life, and I find the story to be complete garbage. Go to the website I write for and see for yourself why I hold these beliefs: 911debunkers . blogspot . com

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

"I understand these very well. I also understand that you clearly love commiting the fallacy of appeal to authority. I have been researching the official story for the last 4 years of my life, and I find the story to be complete garbage. Go to the website I write for and see for yourself why I hold these beliefs: 911debunkers . blogspot . com"

You clearly don't understand. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to what is credible. You are not.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

And you are now claiming to know what is credible. From the looks of your channel you are only a year older than me, so I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that all your sources are credible and mine are not.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Because mine are peer-reviewed and disseminated from major universites around the world. Yours are offered by anonymous internet users, religious studies majors, and engineers who know nothing about structural engineering--none of which having produced one peer-reviewed article, one piece of material evidence, or one piece of actionable intelligence suggesting an inside job. This is common sense.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"Because mine are peer-reviewed and disseminated from major universites around the world." I feel that I must remind you that the NIST report was NOT peer reviewed, so by your logic I should disregard it.

"none of which having produced one peer-reviewed article" Oh really? Think again: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3ruylgo

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Okay, seriously? You've done this several times now: provided links rebutting my notion that there are no peer reviewed articles on 9/11 being an inside job by offering links to articles that are NOT peer reviewed. I've moved beyond thinking that you do not understand what peer reviewed is, and am now convinced you do know but are playing stupid. These links are all self-promoting spam and will be reported as such.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

Not peer reviewed? So James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman's papers weren't published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? The link I provided allowed you to see two links to two peer reviewed papers. Spam? I don't think so.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Bentham is not a credible peer-review system. I made this point in reply one or two, I believe. Not only have scientists received unwanted solicitations from Bentham's, but that they are even encouraged to submit in journals outside their fields of expertise, thru generic form letters.

library . yale . edu (slash) ~llicense (slash) ListArchives (slash) 0804 (slash) msg00027 . html

Yale recently wrote on Bentham's lack of credibility as a sci. journal and legal problems.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

You, like others, try to attack the credibility of the journal without addressing the actual content. Bentham is a fine journal: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3wkeyyj

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Nope, I'm not addressing the actual content; I'm attacking the process by which it is published. When you are not an expert in the field of physics, like you or I, you must search the most credible sources for your information. If I was building a house, I would probably read a book that has been reviewed upon publication by experts. To do otherwise would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it? I mean, I wouldn't follow a building made by a religion teacher put on the internet.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

If you or any debunker would like to write a peer reviewed refutation of the Active Thermitic Material paper, you're more than welcome to. Until then, I'll say it again: Either put up or shut up.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

The thermite theory comes directly from junk science, it can't be falsified because it's so incredibly stupid to begin with. This is why it was pubished in Bentham, which does not follow the regular guidelines of peer review. We've been through this ten times, dummie. This is like that old argument, "Prove God doesn't exist."

Besides, weren't you saying this was a controlled demolition before? Now thermite? lol.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"Besides, weren't you saying this was a controlled demolition before? Now thermite?" Thermite was used in the demolition. Not that hard to figure out. Just so you know, BYU (Steven Jones' university) also reviewed the paper, and said it represented sound science. watch?v=MVtzsRFGN1o

The paper's findings were also indpendently confirmed by chemical engineer Mark Basile: watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

That is not true. BYU did NOT review the paper. Jones has no experience in structural engineering. You're either really naive or you're playing dumb to keep up the impression that you're not really naive. This is both spam and misinformation, and you know it.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

The Journal of 9/11 studies undergoes such a lenient peer-review process that articles have been written debunking theories published in, well, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It's not uncommon for studies published in the same journal to contradict one another, of course. But this is not a scholarly journal! It's an Open Source website that allows virtually anyone to spout off any accusation without peer-reviewed, empirically researched, scientific EVIDENCE.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"It's an Open Source website that allows virtually anyone to spout off any accusation without peer-reviewed, empirically researched, scientific EVIDENCE." Care to back that claim up?

[BadBunnyRides]

Fail...again with the CD theory? No explosive residue was ever found by the NYCPD, FBI, 12 Independent Contractors or Homeland Security. The amount of explosives needed, according to the 48 Demolitions Companies who were asked what it would have taken, was in the order of 12-16 tons (6-8 each tower) of Group B explosives (e.g. Semtex H, RDX, C4, etc.). Emplacement of the explosives would have taken between 25 to 35 days, radio detonators could not have been used, it would be wire only.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@BadBunnyRides

Actually, explosive residues were found, if you'd like to watch this video on the subject. watch?v=hcFOd16IHdE

What's more, all I'm hearing from demolition companies is that it would have been really hard to do. That's not proof it couldn't have been done. Radio detonators couldn't have been used? Totally wrong.

watch?v=7mlAcu6TRH0 minute 5:28

[BadBunnyRides]

@citizenfor911truth1 I, as part of my job as a PMC, blow things up (just so you know where my personal knowledge comes from). No, there were no particle samples ever taken that showed Group B explosive residue. None. I'm not sure you understand the way we find this out, the testing equipment I've used in the field can narrow down not only type of explosive, but who made it and where it was made. Sometimes down to the day and batch number.

[BadBunnyRides]

@citizenfor911truth1 Prt II (sorry was very busy today); The "Radio Controlled Detonators", I listened to Steven E. Jones and his information is correct, Demo teams (even myself) use RCD quite a bit. However (yes here it comes), you would have to be completely insane to pace those in the Twin Towers. The RF, UHF and VHF energy being put out from the Radio towers on top of them would have been to much of a risk. As in STNW (Screw that! No way!) kind of risk.

[theTOOLshed1]

How about this.

WTC 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A FUCKING PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[theTOOLshed1]

@theTOOLshed1

Just saying to any moron that claims a building can collapse from a plane hitting it. Even if that were true (which it isn't), you still have WTC 7 to explain. And looking at the videos from that collapse, we can CLEARLY see that it was a planned demolition.

[759009946576]

@theTOOLshed1 Only in your imagination, Twoofer. Only in your imagination.

[BBBWWWVVV]

@759009946576 Why don't debunkers have any real evidence to point to?

[759009946576]

@theTOOLshed1 How about this: IT WAS ON FIRE FOR 7 HOURS! ON NEARLY EVERY SINGLE FLOOR!!! Or are you going to accuse the firefighters of being liars?

[theTOOLshed1]

@759009946576

watch?v=k3RnkVzVmQA

[BBBWWWVVV]

@759009946576 Wut was on fire for 7 hours? certainly not the towers, certainly not on every floor. only 8 floors. even NIST doesn't claim all the tower was on fire?

[Feyd01]

LOL, typical troofers. I really like the way the clock stop before they've even finished falling.

In any case, this is a non argument, as neither of the WTC towers fell at 15 seconds. The south tower's inner core remained intact for a short while. How is this possible if they were blown up?

Quite simply it isn't, silly little troofers.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@Feyd01

You need to watch this video: watch?v=zGzJxDSVRTA

[heafers84]

watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

watching this video i get a 5.4 second collapse time

[mooners40]

the truth is too much for some

[Matu1]

Looks like Kangtimelord got some serious facts to look at and cant handle it, only solution is to resist it.

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer Matu1,

So you're saying I can't handle the "Twoof"? Hi-Larious.

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

And you supposed to be 47 years old? I dont want to disrespect but shouldn't you act like one?

[kangtimelord]

@Matu1,

Uh, you Twoofers now telling everyone how to act now?

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

You cant be 47 ;D

[kangtimelord]

@Matu1

Sure I can be, I'm just immature for my age. Doesn't mean I'm an idiot though.

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

I seriously have no idea whats going on in your head, but where i have stated that you are an idiot? But it is good that you have some doubts about yourself so you are not so hopeless that i first thought you are.

[kangtimelord]

@Matu1,

You have no doubts about yourself? That sounds egotistical to me.

I have no doubts that 9-11 was NOT an inside job.

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

You are taking stuff out of context. I read your dialog with owner of this video too and i saw that its really pointless to talk with you at all, you dont want to debate, you dont want to look at facts, you only want to disrespect and have somekind of obsession to do that.Good luck with your attitude and i also feel sorry for people in real world who have met you, well that ofcourse if you act like that outside from your 4 walls.

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer Matu1,

I don't have to deal with Twoofers "outside of my 4 walls" because I never see one in person. Either you Twoofers number about 30 in the country or you don't want yourself to be exposed outside of YouTube. I'd say both.

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer Matu1,

"You are taking stuff out of context."

Perhaps, but that's the Twoofer way, isn't it? Thought you'd be impressed.

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

What is twoofer? Should ask it, you call me like that for some reason, i dont know even why ;D And you probably wount leave your 4 walls in your free time because you are thinking that there is 30 people out there who have doubts about offical story.Please go outside and breath some fresh air.

[Matu1]

@kangtimelord

What is twoofer? Should ask it, you call me like that for some reason, i dont know even why ;D And you probably wount leave your 4 walls in your free time because you are thinking that there is 30 people out there who have doubts about offical story.Please go outside and breath some fresh air.

[mooners40]

@kangtimelord as usual - nothing to say except twoofers are morons - no intelligent rebuttal no debate - just a blanket denial and desire to continue life with hands over ears and head up ass - great come backs - such intelligence - genuine opinion? Any answers to the cold hard truths in this series of vids apart from twoofers are morons? Take a look at yourself - you answer nothing - you have no response - sit down - your entitled to your opinion but it is clearly not an informed one

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@mooners40

lol.

[mooners40]

@AlexanderTheGood89 laughing at the official story of 9/11?  Or maybe the new death of Osama - but no evidence and no body - ? thousands of people dying because of liars and warmongers isn't very funny

[kangtimelord]

This vid is a joke. Twoofers are the ones who claim CD because of free fall, not the other way around. Twoofers always put words into other peoples mouths when in fact Twoofers are putting their own foot in their mouth.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@kangtimelord

So the 9/11 Commission Report didn't say that the buildings fell in 10 seconds?

NIST didn't say the buildings came down essentially in free fall?

Controlled demolitions don't cause a building to fall at half the rate of free fall?

What exactly did I get wrong?

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer citizenfor911truth1,

You obviously didn't read my post. You're changing the Twoofer story. Only Twoofers claim CD because of mythical freefall, not non-Twoofers. I've only heard such from bonehead Twoofers. Accept facts, no CD debris evidence, thermite theory a joke, & Twoofer space beam theory borders on psychotic - there was no CD.

NNTR, typical Twoofer responses, like being called "in on it" or "baby killer" for not subscribing to bonehead Twoofer theories, I don't need them.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@kangtimelord

I'm not changing any stories. I'm simply making a point that the official investigators were the first ones to make the claim the buildings fell in free fall.

"no CD debris evidence" Perhaps you should watch this: watch?v=TSP-altsUvo minute 5:39

"thermite theory a joke" And you should watch this: watch?v=hcFOd16IHdE

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer citizenfor911truth1,

That's all you Twoofers respond with is links to horrid vids. I've seen a bunch and they're all quote mined jokes. You may not be changing your story, but you are changing the Twoofer story. Your claim that non-Twoofers claim CD only possible in free fall is simply not true. Twoofers claim such, not non-Twoofers.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@kangtimelord

"That's all you Twoofers respond with is links to horrid vids."

That's great, but how about some actual refutation instead of insults?

You can call me "twoofer" all you want, but it doesn't make you right.

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer citizenfor911truth1,

"how about some actual refutation instead of insults?"

What did you not understand in my last post?

[citizenfor911truth1]

@kangtimelord

I'm sorry. Between the "this vid is a joke" and the "horrid vids" and the constant usage of "twoofer," apparently I missed your educated rebuttal to my videos.

[kangtimelord]

@Twoofer citizenfor911truth1,

Perhaps I was harsh with "this vid is a joke", my apologies. Nonetheless, there is no lacking in other horrid Twoofer vids.

[chunkyboy100]

exposing every debunker lie, one at a time!

like it!

[CokeSupply]

Great video :) I might even send it to the shills :D