NIST: Okay, so the White House has told us fire caused the collapse of WTC 7. Now we just have to figure HOW THE FUCK THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE
3 years later
NIST employees: Okay, after seven kajillion computer simulations, we finally have something--it's like a .000001% chance, but it does show that it is physically possible to cause the collapse with fire. Like 30 different unusual things need to happen, but it is possible.
We could end all the debate if NIST would submit it's report and data of the computer simulation for peer review. That is the obvious key to this mystery. We would then know that the king has no clothes. The cover up was easier to unravel than a fourth rate adventure novel. It is only a matter of time now. I think they will use the Madrid fault line as a "distraction" soon. Nebraska nuclear power plant is underwater now. Danger Will Rodgers!
There are pictures of the damage to building 7. And eyewitness accounts. Both courtesy of firefighters. The reasons there are not many of them and most people haven't seen them are three: a) the portions of the building sustaining the damage were in the bottom 25% of it's total height and were obscured by surrounding buildings, b) a shitstorm of amount of smoke from fires burning unfought for hours c) no one but the firemen could get close enough to see these things.
NIST reports in a nutshell: "Look, here's how we think it happened! That means that IS how it happened! Evidence? What evidence? Look at how much detail we put into describing what we think happened!"
How hard can it be to obtain a few fragments of steel from the damaged floors to check if they were subjected to high enough temperatures to collapse anyway? It's not like that steel was destroyed or anyth... Oh right.
It may be convenient to not clearly explain someone's opinion so you can just dismiss it as ridiculous, but it's not very intellectually impressive. Their explanation was extremely cogent.
@AdIgnorantiam millions of steel framed high rise building disasters, mostly fires, and never does ever collapse, let alone exactly like a CD except by CDs. 3 of them happen in the same place on the same day. Even if it werent ridiculously obvious that steel framed structures cant 'drop' at freefall speed as in WTC7, and cant maintain their 'drop' accel as WTCs 1 & 2, its so statistically improbable that only an idiot would take the govts bs explanation. Dude, you can see all the f-ing squibs!
@fulluvshit Fires? Simple fires brought the WTC down? Not a high velocity impact that severely weakened the steel structures, and then sprayed tons of jet fuel in the vicinity which instantly ignited and fueled an extreme fire that just raised the temperature more over its burn?
And hurricanes and tornadoes are just windstorms, really. And that tsunami in Japan? Just an abnormally high tide.
I admit here in the face of all those who may read this that explosives make a sound. I never denied it, and it has nothing to with, well anything, considering how self evident such a concept is. Yes, boom is boom, loud is loud. Explosives make a loud noise.
I also admit that flying birds can fly, and gravity makes things fall...
"tonight's forecast: dark. continued mostly dark this evening, breaking to widely scattered light in the morning, man."
Ok, with you here. What's the noise level on thermate? Why do demo industry people say "we can control noise level"? Maybe I misunderstand- I know thermate or anything like it is not par for the course in demolition...would planted incendiaries not be considered a "cutting charge"? Could we have been having a cross purposes semantic debate without any real disagreement? That would explain a lot.
2) You would have to ask them why they say "we can control the level." But (applied to a CD theory on 911) it is a moot point for 2 reasons. First, they dont eliminate the noise, and it is still unmistakeable for many many miles around. Secondly, whatever mitigating techniques a CD crew could use would be even MORE obvious to the tenants of the building than just the drilling of thousands of pounds ot explosives into the wall would be,
3) incendiaries would not be a charge, since "cutting charge" is a specific term. With charge meaning a specific, measured quantity of explosive material.
4) Further no one has ever yet gotten thermite thermate nanothermate, double secret probation thermate or anything else to cut through 14 inch hollow box cols (or anything close in size) with the speed and precision needed to make them usable for the type of "demolition" claimed by some to occur on 911.
This isn't logical. If fire can do it, then less material is necessary too. That's just plain logic. The building was empty for 7 hours, that's a lot of time.
Here's where I'll kook on you, I guess:
The Enron documents- Enron got money from Merrill Lynch, documents lost when 7 went.
CIA documents.
SEC documents related to thousands of cases, 3000 closed inconclusive due to lost documents.
Just because its not logical TO YOU doesnt make it false. Thats why "common sense" is one of the logical fallacies. That its illogical to YOU is meaningless. That it IS logical to people who know WTF they are talking about is more persuasive.
And since the world record for largest CD of a steel building (a building slightly smaller than B7) took 4 months to prep the building, no 7 hours is a ridiculous blink of an eye when it comes to seeting up a demo.
Wow, you get no more benefit of the doubt, and a hiatus on conversation. I tried to extend you some civility in the interest of moving forward in our debate, and you responded with four shit eating comments taking advantage of my openness. Fuck off for a while, Edge. You're in timeout for being a prick.
There is no civility in repeatedly LYING about what someone says.
Don't pretend the High road, son. Youve been dealing shit-eating comments from the start. Youre just pissed that your games didnt work so well with me.
Nor was there anything uncivil about what I said. Calling you out when you lie is not ME being uncivil.
All I DID point out was that just because YOU dont understand something doesnt make it false. Therefore, "its lot logical" is a meaningless argument.
I don't understand the leap from fire being capable of instituting a symmetrical global collapse and the necessity of thousands of pounds of demo materials. If fire alone can do it, then 10 seconds before it gave way, someone could have given the key column a good kick and it would have gone, right?
NIST (and you) are only willing to talk about a traditional demo scenario, which I agree was not present, but then this LEAP from no demo materials to tons. Sunder said 100lbs. Whether it happened...
I believe the mechanism for global collapse due to demolition would have been very different from that of thermal expansion. To conclude that if fire could have done it then surely a single good kick to the key column could have is a bit wrongheaded IMHO. Thermal expansion is not the innocuous phenomenon you may think it is.Grab a standard physics text and check out what happens when railroad tracks (exposed only to sunlight) heat up a little too much and expand....they turn into spaghetti.
"NIST (and you) are only willing to talk about a traditional demo scenario"
simply a lie. I have talked about the "non-traidtional" demos.
And as I have said, no one has ever been able to get thermite (or its variants) to violate the laws of physics and melt sideways through 14 inch (or thicker) steel cols--much less do so with the speed and precision needed to be usable in a controlled demolition.
Ignore the facts if you must. But dont pretend we didnt have this discussion. lol
...it's absurd to suggest that it's impossible. I would (going out on a limb here) imagine that you feel the same way when you hear someone suggest that it's impossible for XYZ of the NIST account. We ought to talk more reasonably about likelihood, and not undercut the debate, IMO.
As an aside I don't understand why "truthers" think they're proving something when they gleefully exclaim fires have never caused this sort of collapse before. First of all I'm not entirely sure that's true. Second of all just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future.
Show me where I gleefully exclaim that fires have never caused this sort of collapse before?
"Second of all just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future" but this does not prove that it CAN happen in the future.
ie, "anything's possible" is more poor logic Physman
Thermal expansion is not really "new science". Also, I don't understand why you think thermal expansion put forward by NIST is flawed. Do you have any scientific basis for your argument? Simply stating that too many unlikely events occurred on 9/11 is not a very strong argument. It seems you believe that the occurrence of one unlikely event affects the probability of a separate event, which is of course not the case. Lastly, I believe "dumb logic" is an oxymoron :)
You're right, a series of unlikely events, while a stronger argument than "anything's possible", is not a very strong argument.
Unfortunately, "This is the first and only documented occurrence (of thermal expansion leading to global symmetrical collapse of a skyscraper), and we won't do any math to see if one guy could have brought it down with a backpack" LENDS CREDENCE to skepticism. Just like "There's no tape of what hit the Pentagon." Fuck you, of course there is.
No I do not work for the government nor do I have any friends or associates that do. I don't know why you would categorize the thermal expansion argument as anything is possible...it makes sense physically. The unusually long beams of WTC 7 were exposed to a large amount of heat for a long time. Thermal expansion is proportional to length so the beams expanded significantly. I ask again...what scientific reason do you have for doubting the NIST report? Thanks :)
The scientific reason I have for doubting the NIST report is that it is not supported with experimental evidence, ie a real world model (of ANY scale). If NIST would simply demonstrate the phenomenon (a fundamental step in the scientific method), some skepticism would go away. More to the point, NIST's LOGICAL rationale for refusing to calculate a demolition scenario ("unlikely to have actually occurred") is staggeringly unscientific, and undermines NIST's credibility.
I wasn't describing thermal expansion as "anything is possible", I was describing your question "...just because something has not happened in the past it can not happen in the future?...that doesn't mean the explanation is incorrect" as "anything is possible."
Reclaiming my time- why, if you believe we've been told the truth about these events, and you believe the evidence would bear that out, would you spend the time you do dissuading people from seeking said evidence?
Please, feel free to seek out evidence. Just because you're a conspiracy theorist, however, does not mean you don't have to defend your theory....why would you expect otherwise? The conspiracy theorists have it a little too easy IMHO....after all if one part of the conspiracy is disproven simply drop it (eg pods, squibbs) and throw out more conjecture (thermite..no no nanothermite). Anyway nice chatting with you I have to run for now :)
I find the official synopsis of the events on 9/11 to be perfectly logical, consistent and reasonable. Therefore, I believe the official report to be correct. The term conspiracy theorist, as used today, describes someone who believes the official version of events is a cover up. So no, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Anyway, I'd like to get back to the NIST report....see next comment please :)
My, your very own definitions of words! And yet, were I to go and look up "conspiracy" and "theory" in a dictionary, they've had meanings all along, meanings that Miriam Webster stands by.
"as used today" by two kinds of people:
those who have had their brains tickled in Orwellian fashion to subconsciously tack "theory" onto "conspiracy"
and those like you who know this and actively reenforce it.
And what's the result? We are incapacitated from acknowledging conspiracies! Qui bono?
Ok fine call it an alternate theory it makes no difference to me. Can you tell me why you would choose not to believe the NIST report? What do you know that the scientists/engineers who created the report didn't know? I believe you're objections to the report are based solely on the fact that the government created it, not on its scientific validity.
justify acceptance of a theory not supported by experimental evidence producing results predicted by the theory.
btw, wanna see some real world examples of the capacity of controlled demolition?
it is the responsibility of citizens to insist that its government operate transparently, and the responsibility for the predicating event of the posture of the US in the world is, obviously, fundamental.
tell me there are things the leaders know that we don't that would cause panic and so they have to do what they have to do.
but don't come on my channel and pretend that, given the obvious interest we have in certainty, you can tell anyone to accept "new science" with no math.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... anyway I still don't see any reason to question the official story. You have yet to provide a valid scientific reason.
deviation from the scientific method is not a valid reason? no experimental confirmation of a theory that would cancel further investigation into possible participants in the murder of 3000 people? Seems awfully cavalier to me.
NIST has not provided valid scientific confirmation that their theory is correct.
BTW: the trick of putting the aegis on citizens of the US to disprove their leaders assertions rather than the gov't to SHOW what it says is true is SICK. Works though, I notice.
NIST has not provided valid scientific confirmation that their theory is correct"....how are you qualified to make this assessment? And please no more grand standing. Perhaps before creating a video mocking the NIST report you should take a few classes in physics/ engineering and then actually read the report.
After an event happens, and the event has an explanation, thats called the EXPLANATION. Its not a secret anymore at that point. People know what happened.
The conspiracy theory is the secret explanation--not any explanation--for the event.
Example: Movies of man on the moon.
Explanation: Nasa did it.
CT: It was secretly filmed at a soundstage at Area 51.
Of course it was. But a "conspiracy" is not a "conspiracy theory." A gun is not the same as gun control. a family is not the same as "family values." "Dead" does not mean the same as "Dead Weight."
A conspiracy theory is NOT any time people conspire. It is a specific term. with a specific definition. Sorry.
You state in your video that the report concluded that the large gash had very little to do with the collapse. Don't you think that if in fact the NIST report was a cover up they would use the large gash to their advantage and claimed it as a major factor in the collapse?
Well, I don't know about NIST, but the clear eyed debunkers sure were certain about it from day one.
Truth: I don't believe it's impossible that 9/11 happened JUST as we were told. I don't believe it's impossible that thermal expansion is exactly what caused WTC7 to collapse. I observe that the illogical refusal to do math on a demolition scenario, especially if it would reaffirm the thermal expansion scenario, contributes to mistrust. I say "it matters, so let's make sure." Not the only one.
I could just as easily ask you "Don't you think that if in fact the NIST report's conclusion ("fire did it") was the only possible explanation for 7's collapse, they would take advantage of the overwhelming evidence and SHOW (by designing an experiment and rigorously testing the theory...you know...the scienTIFic method) that the conclusion comes out the same every time? They didn't. Computer simulations, no math on a guy planting a cutting charge, and here we are talking about it.
Let's assume that a single guy with a single cutting charge could have brought down building 7 (I don't really think that's reasonable but putting that aside for now). Does the fact that it's possible mean that it happened...seems like an "anything is possible argument" if there ever was one. Do you have any evidence to suggest that one person brought down the building with a single cutting charge?
don't think a guy with a single cutting charge could bring down wtc7? guy with a match though...
"Does the fact that it's possible mean that it happened" - thermal expansion
oops again, right?
and here's where the scientific method would be such a useful thing...
evidence for controlled demolition? um, only all history of construction and demolition of steel framed buildings contrasted with all history of fires in steel framed buildings...
" Guy with a match?" how am I supposed to take you seriously when you make such ridiculous oversimplifications? Further, the NIST report does address the concern that you have regarding a single explosive...and the evidence that that explosive would have produced, all of which were absent, (i.e. significantly more broken windows, cutting columns prior to demo, high intensity sound wave ).
You should take a closer look at the report (see pg. 68 hypothetical blast scenarios).
Ok I'll tell you...you're wrong. The fires (plural) that burned in WTC 7 began not at a single location but on several (up to 10) floors. Please read the report . Where is this evidence to which you refer?
False. Cutting charges do indeed have to sound. Explosives are simply devices that release large amounts of energy rapidly. As that energy wave travels outward, it compresses the air molecules in front of it, which creates the sound that you hear.
But there is no getting around it. Explosives release energy. The wave exands outward and must compresses the air in front of it. The sound is the unavoidable result.
False. Controlling sound is well within the capabilities of the commercial demolition industry, and, if we're imagining the possibility that someone was hired to demo WTC7 secretly (as you suggest), you'd bet that their capabilities would be even more high tech...
point is, despite your framing of the question and answer, "No sound" doesn't equal "no cuts could possibly have been made", AND there are reports contradicting your "no sound" assertion. Twas noisy that day, to be sure.
Simply repeating "its possible" doesnt make it possible.
If energy is released at a very high rate (which is what explosived do) then the air ahead of the wave has to be compressed. That has to result in noise.
I mean, you could MacGuyver together a torch leaning on a column...would that be an explosive and make an explosive sound?
I agree, simply repeating it's possible doesn't PROVE IT'S TRUE - thermal expansion.
And as for your disdain for modeling the effect...might as well not bother- Sunder says, given identical circumstances(!), the building might not come down again.
"I agree, simply repeating it's possible doesn't PROVE IT'S TRUE"
Therefore we agree. The "silenced explosives" are irrelevant, Despite how often you repeat it.
Its not a disdain for physical models. It is just an acceptance of the facts that unless it is an inch-perfect, life sized, perfect replication of every detail, its not going to ever give the exact same result.
That's what's funny about Sunder's assertion. Physics is physics, as you say. So why would the lead scientist pitching the collapse theory say that, given identical circumstances, it might not happen again (ie it might not collapse at all, let alone globally, symmetrically, into its footprint)?
You would have to ask sunder why he would say that. I'm not an engineer. And obviously not you either. So even if I knew what he meant, likely you wouldnt understand it.
Plus, given your propensity to make things up and pretend someone else said them, I don't really accept that he said that in the first place. Until it is corrorated, independantly, I wouldnt.
However, Reasonable belief says no to situations are ever, exactly 100% identical. So, differences might be expected.
LOL, take your own advice and read to what you are resoonding to. Obviously, unless you think sunder is reading your YT page, youre obviously NOT asking him.
In a reply to ME you stated "So why would the lead scientists pitching the collapse...." THATs not a question TO sunder. But THATS simply what I replied to.
Again, I'm not saying loud isn't necessarily loud, the argument you'd like to hand me.
I'm saying defend "not likely to have actually happened" (ie a 100lb bag being walked into wtc7) being used to justify ruling out demolition as a theory.
And it's MARKED that you (and NIST) refuse to touch this issue.
It's like how our pols will say "Bush didn't blow up the World Trade Center", but they won't say "The 9/11 Commission Report is the whole truth".
Maybe I'm missing something 23456D but why do you keep bringing up the 100lb bag theory? Do you have any evidence for this theory ? Proving something did not happen is not how science, or logic, works (ie disproving a negative).
Sunder proposed the 100lb bag theory in the NIST WTC7 draft report press conference. I have the whole thing posted, if you haven't seen it help yourself.
And you mean proving a negative, not disproving a negative. Don't talk about logic anymore, the grownups are speaking.
This fellow "Edgeman" has sapped some civility from me. Sorry, Physman. Seriously though, you ought to understand that the very point you were making (you can't prove a negative) is exactly why NIST must hold its thermal expansion scenario up against other hypothesis, and their rationale for rejecting CD includes asserted negatives (no guy with a bag, HAD to be noisy bombs) that aren't just unprovable and unknowable, they are only being forwarded by disinfo people (like this Edge fellow).
"I mean, you could MacGuyver together a torch leaning on a column...would that be an explosive and make an exposive sound?"
But since a torch would be closer to an incendiary, and NOT an explosive, the question is inapplicable to the discussion--and demostrates an inability to comprehend the difference between something that burns and something that explodes.
You're the only one who insists on talking about things that explode. I can refer you to other videos or discussion threads where people are having that conversation, then it can be you and another person talking about explosions and explosives.
Go to my account and watch the Sunder press conference. Then you can come back here. I have it posted, it's what this video is about, go do the due diligence. Watch it with Physman, you guys can piss on the comment boards side by side.
"You're the only one who insists on talking about things that explode"
Wrong again.
1) I am not insisting
2) I replied to your incorrect assertion that cutting charges need not make noise.
I'm simply pointing out the fact (as revealed by your McGyver reference) that you do not know the difference between an incendiary and an explosive. Kinda makes it difficult to take you seriously when you state things on that subject.
In the physical world there exists the possibility of controlled demolition with controlled noise level. That's a fact. You're right, I'm not an explosives or incendiary expert, like yourself...like NIST...fortunately they have thermite manufacturers on their 9/11 investigation payroll, have since 2002...
You misunderstood the McG reference. Read it again. The point wasn't that a torch is an explosive, it was that all that was necessary was a torch, so explosives are beside the point...
yes, EdgemanLL2, that is precisely the point being discussed: that NIST deciding not to do math on demolition on the basis of one way of demolishing a building (loud explosives) is illogical, being that incendiaries exist, and particularly being that their assertion is that FIRE ALONE can cause a demolition wave symmetrical collapse...
The absence of explosive noises wouldn't be grounds for ruling out a demolition investigation...that is precisely the discussion. get up or get out.
No, that may have been the point YOU were discussing with Phys.
I made the correction, when you said cutting charges need not sound.
THATS our issue. And despite denying you said it--even though the quote proves you did--you have at least NOW finally acknoledge the false statement "cutting charges need not sound."
As you admitted, yes, they do make sounds.
if you would like to change the subject to something else, Ill be glad to tell you what I know (if any) of the new subject.
Further, I made no suggestion of a possibility that someone was hired to demo7
Nor did I frame a question or an answer.
I just state the simple facts. If you release a shitload of energy isntantly (which is what explosives ARE) you cant avoid the physical fact that the air will be compressed ahead of that released energy wave, and a sound must be produced.
Ok, well then I agree! Explosions are loud. I hear you can muffle them, catch that sound energy before it disperses, but keeping things simple, sure, as you say: a loud thing is a loud thing.
Sure you could muffle it. But by admitting it would need to be muffled, that then concurrs that there really IS no getting around it, the explosives will make noise.
If YOU want to consider this in relation to 911, it would be ridicuous enough to pretend you can drill and wire tons of explosives into every floor of an occupide building with no one noticing.
Even more ridiculous to pretend you could hang enough sound-dampening barriers through the building and no one noticing.
"No getting around it" "No getting around it" "explosives explosives explosives"
The rhetorical technique (framing) is in your repetition and insistence that, to converse, we must go through the issues you raise (in this case "explosives - no getting around it")
Im sorry, but youre simply focusing on me, and not the issue. If you have some evidence of magical, silent explosives that defy all laws of physics by exanding rapdily, yet DONT disrupt the air around them, Ill be glad to review it.
But pretending I'm "framing" by simply stating facts, or other bizzare interpretations of my "technique" really doesnt address the issue. it does nothing to support your claim.
don't you see that you're saying "fire or explosives"? Sunder says incendiaries, about 100 lbs, could have brought the building down, no rock concert level sound necessary. But it's "unlikely" anyone carried it in. I'm not asking you to take anyone's word for the math on incendiaries, I'm asking NIST to DO that math because "unlikely to have actually happened" is not a scientific argument.
"don't you see that you're saying "fire or explosives"? "
No, what I see is that you cant or wont deal with what I actually say. So you make up something else throw a question mark behind it, and pretend I said it--logical fallacy. Straw man.
Rewording what someone else says, and pretending they said something else, its intellectually lazy and does NOT support ur point,
I assume it's correct that noisy bombs weren't used to bring WTC7 down. I never said they were. So who's pretending someone's saying something else? The straw man is "explosives".
If fire is capable, and, as Sunder's analysis concludes, one specific column failure is what caused the whole collapse, then explosives aren't necessary. A torch would do it. Or some incendiary. Or (if fire IS capable) a match.
I get that you want me to defend explosives. That's the deception, the framing.
It was not a question. Evidence by the lack of a question mark. It was a statement. We are in agreement that you were guessing when you assumed "noisy bobmbs" were not used to bring down the WTC7
EvidenceD. You talk a whole lot of shit about home school for someone with such a tepid handle on the English language. And logic. Here I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, reading your "sentences", I give you a little pun, and you come back at me angry and using words you don't understand.
Once more: explosives weren't necessary for a CD, there are other possibilities, it's a red herring, not what my video is about, not what I'm talking about on here.Talk explosives elsewhere.
blah blah blah. Edge is right. Cant discuss the facts. call Edge names. blah blah blah.
Once more, the subject was not if explosives WERE necc. The subject was your false claim that explosive charges need not sound.
I realise changing the subject is to save face is your instinct here, but it doesnt work. Changing the subject wont change the original comments. Explosives really do NEED to sound. Blowtorches and other "possibilities" are irrelevant.
This is all anecdotal, sloppy and definitely not scientific IMHO. Experts (not laymen such as yourself) analyzed the evidence, very thoroughly in my opinion, and drew a very calculated and reasonable conclusion.
If, by "experimental verification" you mean to build some type of model, there are gross errors in that suggestion. Not the least of which is that you would literally have to rebuild a full sized replica, and exactly duplicate the contents, and position. Not to mention the inability to to exactly deuplicate the speed, mass and damage from the falling debris that you would need to recreate.
I don't focus on alternative theories, I'm asking for transparent confirmation of the official story. So long as it's absent, it's absent. Period. No matter what the truth is, the absence of proof from our government (who failed us that day) is unacceptable.
Its only as good as the data it is modeled on. NIST, by their own admission, got most of their data through analysis of photo and video artifacts. Hardly adequate, especially when compared to typical FAA crash investigations or other similar inquiries, wherein materials analysis and partial reconstructions are done. Assumptions are unscientific, NIST makes a lot of them.
Could you explain to me how free fall acceleration is possible in a gravitational collapse, caused only by fire? Please do so whilst acknowledging the laws of conservation of energy, momentum & newton's laws of motion. I eagerly anticipate your reply.
Btw, great vid! Very tongue-in-cheek and it made me laugh a few times.
If you are referring to WTC 7 it seems that some of the interior supports collapsed prior to the outer facade collapse. Thus, the net force on the facade would have been mg set that equal to the mass of the facade (Newton's second law) and you arrive at an acceleration of g. Then when the facade hit the lower supporting structure that did not previously collapse the net force decreased resulting in a decrease in acceleration.
Your sweeping oversimplifications and smarmy comments send shivers up my spine. First of all have you read the NIST report , or at least watched the video on WTC 7. Have you ever heard of thermal expansion? Do you know that thermal expansion is directly proportional to length...the longer the beam the more thermal expansion becomes a factor.
if you notice, I actually have the ENTIRE NIST PRESS CONFERENCE posted for everyone to see. NIST "discovered" thermal expansion as a potential factor in building collapse in reference only to WTC7. They claim this is the first time it's ever happened, and it has never happened since. My impression of sound science has always been that a theory has to be shown to be consistently true to be regarded as accurate. And, to occam's razor, wouldn't one cut be simpler? Not satisfied.
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Is it your position that just because something has not happened in the past it can not happen in the future? Certain conditions need to be met for thermal expansion to be a significant factor in the collapse of a building. Those conditions aren't met often...that doesn't mean the explanation is incorrect.
Of course the purported rarity of the new science doesn't prove it's incorrect, it gives the theory cover. But when you consider the STATED likelihood of such a rare convergence of events (first time thermal expansion strikes- on a day FILLED with rare unlikely events no less), AT A MINIMUM you can't call the unlikelyhood that someone went into WTC 7 with a 100lb bag grounds to do NO CALCULATIONS (NIST) on what a CD would have required/looked like. Dumb logic, obvious, unacceptable.
Yeah, what's really funny is the guy tries to look like a real thinker, but all of his videos boil down to calling BS on people just because he doesn't want to believe them.
Of course there aren't any good pictures of the south face of WTC7. To take such a picture you would have to have been standing in the middle of Ground Zero.
Repeat after me: "fire AND structural damage. fire AND structural damage. fire AND structural damage."
But why did it collapse into it`s own footprint? If u slam an axe into the south side of a tree, scooping out 25% of that side.... and ignite the tree for good measure. Where will the tree fall? A: It will fall through the point of most resistance and assemble in a nice pile of rubble in the roots. B: It will fall towards the point where its structure has been weakened (south side) and where the resistance is virtually non-existant.
"But why did it collapse into it`s own footprint?"
Because the structure was weakened. It didn't have the rigidity left in it as a whole to tip over like a tree trunk. Once it started to fall, it did so more like a house of cards than like a tree trunk.
I agree on the loss of rigidity would compromise the building as a whole. However, every other structural collapse I have seen (videos, witnessed) has collapset towards the point of failure, and in big chunks. Not pulverizing like these ones, Take a M1 Abrams and pound one side of a building, steel or concrete and the result will be as I described above.
That is why I find this particular collapse abnormal.
AH's claim that the building lost its ridigity is wrong headed. Look how it maintains its form as it descends like an elevatorcar into the ground. Compare its rigitity to NIST's computer models that show how it should be crumpling up like a paper bag.
You don't seem to get the big bloopers from your camp Horjan THE SOUTH FACE OF THE WTC7 WITH "25% of the facade scooped out" - (David Coburn - PM - claimed he was given special permission to view it - no one knows why we were not allowed to see it ) - NIST doesn't publish it in their final report. WHY???? CAUSE POPULAR MECHANICS ARE FUCKING LIARS.
A little intimidated by popular mechanics are we? Anyways, I haven't read their book, and I haven't seen a lot of their interviews, so I don't know why you put me in their "camp". NIST covered the wtc 7 damage in their preliminary reports, where you can see the infamous southwest corner scooped out, and the illustration where the south side is 25% scooped out. You can't change what really happened focoist, wtc 7 fell due to fire and damage, get over it.
Another one who didn't read. He looked at the pictures though. Have any of you geniuses ever worked on a computer simulator?The computer doesn't do it for you. That why it took 6 years and they still didn't say anything that makes sense.The film of the fall don't support the report at all.If anything the report ruins their theory.The whole thing wouldn't go down symmetically if one column on the far side started a chain reaction.
Actually Mike you would do well to not make ASSUMPTIONS. NIST pretended their computer simulations of the Twin collapses were based on scientific input parameters. But when confronted by Journal of 9/11 Studies finally after many months of being asked to provide the data inputs, they admitted they didn't have any. Its called "Pwoof by simulation" - but don't worry Mike, we can count on apathetic ignorant civilians and arrogant ignorant Deniers to not notice what they dont want to see.
no there aint idiot. There is a photo of a corner of WTC7. It would be the south-west corner and it is taken from the north-west. That photo was public when Davin/Gavin was making these claims here:
watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
And think about it you infinite naive twit - Why the hell would such a photo be CLASSIFIED.
Negative, dumbass. There has been pictures. Naive, you calling me Naive??? CONSPIRACY THEORIEST calling someone NIAVE.... That's the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it.
The fact you pump this buzz word "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" reveals your true insincerity. Gulf of Tonkin being a hoax was a Conspiracy theory for 30 years until it was DECLASSIFIED and admitted a staged false-flag to get America into Vietnam.
Irwag/Afghan no different. Cheney recently exposed for wantin gto paint up PT boats as Iranian and get US Seals dressed as Iranians to attack a US Frigate - "Some people may be killed".
You fight for your enemies, enemies of the republic and democracy. SLAVE
WOW, the gulf of TONKIN is not 911, different players, different people, different reasons. Cheney isn't even VP anymore. US Seals do not do missions such as the one you just made up. Learn more about the military dipshit.
I fight the true enemies of our country, the republic, and the people. You are the small minority that thinks you make a difference, the reality is, you in the fucking way.
[Look, a video where fire destroyes another cement and steel structure. WOW.] - There were no witnesses to that event. NIST admitted in August 2008 that WTC7 was the first case in history where a building over 15 stories had totally collapsed due to fire. But you Deniers don't give us credit deserved - For the last 3 years you have all been claiming it was Diesel tanks and/or 25% of south facade scooped out - NIST finally rejected your kooky claims. Gavin Coburn of PM a proven liar - why he lie
Have you ever done a google image search for WTC7 south side? Obviously not. Oh...and whats this? Holy shit,a video of the entire south side of wtc7 all broken up and on fire- watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4
hey man screw these bitches under this. 9/11 was an inside job. I know right now noone can technically "prove that" but there are just way too many questions unanswered for me to believe the official story.
No word from tricky Dicky! I can bullshill better than DA's gestation vehicle anyday Mr Cheney! I expect you're thinking you've recruited too many shilsters now, it's looking top heavy in relation to the 9/11 truth opinion polls tooo many online buying the official fairy story lacks creedence and the bloodmoney is in a diminishing returns cycle!
NIST: Okay, so the White House has told us fire caused the collapse of WTC 7. Now we just have to figure HOW THE FUCK THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE
3 years later
NIST employees: Okay, after seven kajillion computer simulations, we finally have something--it's like a .000001% chance, but it does show that it is physically possible to cause the collapse with fire. Like 30 different unusual things need to happen, but it is possible.
NIST: Good enough.
employee: Peer review it?
NIST: lolwut?
eleutheromaniac 8 months ago
We could end all the debate if NIST would submit it's report and data of the computer simulation for peer review. That is the obvious key to this mystery. We would then know that the king has no clothes. The cover up was easier to unravel than a fourth rate adventure novel. It is only a matter of time now. I think they will use the Madrid fault line as a "distraction" soon. Nebraska nuclear power plant is underwater now. Danger Will Rodgers!
Daddyo930 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
demolition experts are now out of jobs.
charcoaljohnson 1 year ago
Thanks for your fine comments. I hope you didn't spend much time reading that report.
Some videos you might appreciate:
bit.ly slash iBlindGame
iBlindGame 1 year ago
There are pictures of the damage to building 7. And eyewitness accounts. Both courtesy of firefighters. The reasons there are not many of them and most people haven't seen them are three: a) the portions of the building sustaining the damage were in the bottom 25% of it's total height and were obscured by surrounding buildings, b) a shitstorm of amount of smoke from fires burning unfought for hours c) no one but the firemen could get close enough to see these things.
lee3po 1 year ago
NIST reports in a nutshell: "Look, here's how we think it happened! That means that IS how it happened! Evidence? What evidence? Look at how much detail we put into describing what we think happened!"
How hard can it be to obtain a few fragments of steel from the damaged floors to check if they were subjected to high enough temperatures to collapse anyway? It's not like that steel was destroyed or anyth... Oh right.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
It may be convenient to not clearly explain someone's opinion so you can just dismiss it as ridiculous, but it's not very intellectually impressive. Their explanation was extremely cogent.
AdIgnorantiam 2 years ago
@AdIgnorantiam millions of steel framed high rise building disasters, mostly fires, and never does ever collapse, let alone exactly like a CD except by CDs. 3 of them happen in the same place on the same day. Even if it werent ridiculously obvious that steel framed structures cant 'drop' at freefall speed as in WTC7, and cant maintain their 'drop' accel as WTCs 1 & 2, its so statistically improbable that only an idiot would take the govts bs explanation. Dude, you can see all the f-ing squibs!
fulluvshit 1 year ago
@fulluvshit Fires? Simple fires brought the WTC down? Not a high velocity impact that severely weakened the steel structures, and then sprayed tons of jet fuel in the vicinity which instantly ignited and fueled an extreme fire that just raised the temperature more over its burn?
And hurricanes and tornadoes are just windstorms, really. And that tsunami in Japan? Just an abnormally high tide.
AdIgnorantiam 10 months ago
I was taught to ever question my computer model what so ever. I was also taught trust my first instinct and common sense over a computer model.
xingmowang 2 years ago
Boy did this thread get nasty!
theCharmingDeviant 2 years ago
Brilliant mate!
Its a complete insult to basic inteligence!
"What a world we live in" - Well said!
Tetco01 2 years ago 2
thanks - I love your humour:-)
sodaphine 2 years ago
Probably the greatest video I've ever seen pertaining to the opposition of the official 911 report.
chicagobuilt 2 years ago
Thanks cb.
23456D 2 years ago
I admit here in the face of all those who may read this that explosives make a sound. I never denied it, and it has nothing to with, well anything, considering how self evident such a concept is. Yes, boom is boom, loud is loud. Explosives make a loud noise.
I also admit that flying birds can fly, and gravity makes things fall...
"tonight's forecast: dark. continued mostly dark this evening, breaking to widely scattered light in the morning, man."
23456D 2 years ago
"I never denied it, "
Actually, you have. It was in fact, the entire reason for my original comments.
23456D (2 days ago)
"evidence of explosives" by NIST is wrong coming and going: there are tapes and seismic evidence of explosions, AND a cutting charge need not sound. "
..need...not....sound.....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Ok, with you here. What's the noise level on thermate? Why do demo industry people say "we can control noise level"? Maybe I misunderstand- I know thermate or anything like it is not par for the course in demolition...would planted incendiaries not be considered a "cutting charge"? Could we have been having a cross purposes semantic debate without any real disagreement? That would explain a lot.
23456D 2 years ago
1) dont know what the noise level is
2) You would have to ask them why they say "we can control the level." But (applied to a CD theory on 911) it is a moot point for 2 reasons. First, they dont eliminate the noise, and it is still unmistakeable for many many miles around. Secondly, whatever mitigating techniques a CD crew could use would be even MORE obvious to the tenants of the building than just the drilling of thousands of pounds ot explosives into the wall would be,
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
3) incendiaries would not be a charge, since "cutting charge" is a specific term. With charge meaning a specific, measured quantity of explosive material.
4) Further no one has ever yet gotten thermite thermate nanothermate, double secret probation thermate or anything else to cut through 14 inch hollow box cols (or anything close in size) with the speed and precision needed to make them usable for the type of "demolition" claimed by some to occur on 911.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
double secret probation thermate - ha!
This isn't logical. If fire can do it, then less material is necessary too. That's just plain logic. The building was empty for 7 hours, that's a lot of time.
Here's where I'll kook on you, I guess:
The Enron documents- Enron got money from Merrill Lynch, documents lost when 7 went.
CIA documents.
SEC documents related to thousands of cases, 3000 closed inconclusive due to lost documents.
Trillions of dollars is a big motive.
Can't just be dismissed.
23456D 2 years ago
"This isn't logical..."
Just because its not logical TO YOU doesnt make it false. Thats why "common sense" is one of the logical fallacies. That its illogical to YOU is meaningless. That it IS logical to people who know WTF they are talking about is more persuasive.
And since the world record for largest CD of a steel building (a building slightly smaller than B7) took 4 months to prep the building, no 7 hours is a ridiculous blink of an eye when it comes to seeting up a demo.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Wow, you get no more benefit of the doubt, and a hiatus on conversation. I tried to extend you some civility in the interest of moving forward in our debate, and you responded with four shit eating comments taking advantage of my openness. Fuck off for a while, Edge. You're in timeout for being a prick.
23456D 2 years ago
There is no civility in repeatedly LYING about what someone says.
Don't pretend the High road, son. Youve been dealing shit-eating comments from the start. Youre just pissed that your games didnt work so well with me.
Nor was there anything uncivil about what I said. Calling you out when you lie is not ME being uncivil.
All I DID point out was that just because YOU dont understand something doesnt make it false. Therefore, "its lot logical" is a meaningless argument.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I think Edgeman made some great points. When will he be allowed to comment again?
Physman2011 2 years ago
I've never banned ANYONE from my comment boards. I just meant I wasn't going to converse with him for a while. All are always allowed to comment.
23456D 2 years ago
@EdgemanLL2 Drone.
Fantacyshroom 1 year ago
@Fantacyshroom Moron. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
So weird to hear you (anyone) say "fire alone" and then talk about the speed and precision and volume of materials necessary for CD.
Do me a solid and admit that it sounds weird.
23456D 2 years ago
"so weird to hear you say..."
Except I never said "fire alone."
Simply more of the "make shit up, and pretend Edge said it!' bullshit.
Pity. Truly is.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I don't understand the leap from fire being capable of instituting a symmetrical global collapse and the necessity of thousands of pounds of demo materials. If fire alone can do it, then 10 seconds before it gave way, someone could have given the key column a good kick and it would have gone, right?
NIST (and you) are only willing to talk about a traditional demo scenario, which I agree was not present, but then this LEAP from no demo materials to tons. Sunder said 100lbs. Whether it happened...
23456D 2 years ago
I believe the mechanism for global collapse due to demolition would have been very different from that of thermal expansion. To conclude that if fire could have done it then surely a single good kick to the key column could have is a bit wrongheaded IMHO. Thermal expansion is not the innocuous phenomenon you may think it is.Grab a standard physics text and check out what happens when railroad tracks (exposed only to sunlight) heat up a little too much and expand....they turn into spaghetti.
Physman2011 2 years ago
"then 10 seconds before it gave way, someone could have given the key column a good kick and it would have gone, right?"
youre simply making laymans guesses at this point.
Guessing might be fun. But it is not a basis for scientific research. Terribly sorry to have to tell you that.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"NIST (and you) are only willing to talk about a traditional demo scenario"
simply a lie. I have talked about the "non-traidtional" demos.
And as I have said, no one has ever been able to get thermite (or its variants) to violate the laws of physics and melt sideways through 14 inch (or thicker) steel cols--much less do so with the speed and precision needed to be usable in a controlled demolition.
Ignore the facts if you must. But dont pretend we didnt have this discussion. lol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
...it's absurd to suggest that it's impossible. I would (going out on a limb here) imagine that you feel the same way when you hear someone suggest that it's impossible for XYZ of the NIST account. We ought to talk more reasonably about likelihood, and not undercut the debate, IMO.
23456D 2 years ago
As an aside I don't understand why "truthers" think they're proving something when they gleefully exclaim fires have never caused this sort of collapse before. First of all I'm not entirely sure that's true. Second of all just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future.
Physman2011 2 years ago
Show me where I gleefully exclaim that fires have never caused this sort of collapse before?
"Second of all just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future" but this does not prove that it CAN happen in the future.
ie, "anything's possible" is more poor logic Physman
23456D 2 years ago
Thermal expansion is not really "new science". Also, I don't understand why you think thermal expansion put forward by NIST is flawed. Do you have any scientific basis for your argument? Simply stating that too many unlikely events occurred on 9/11 is not a very strong argument. It seems you believe that the occurrence of one unlikely event affects the probability of a separate event, which is of course not the case. Lastly, I believe "dumb logic" is an oxymoron :)
Physman2011 2 years ago
You're right, a series of unlikely events, while a stronger argument than "anything's possible", is not a very strong argument.
Unfortunately, "This is the first and only documented occurrence (of thermal expansion leading to global symmetrical collapse of a skyscraper), and we won't do any math to see if one guy could have brought it down with a backpack" LENDS CREDENCE to skepticism. Just like "There's no tape of what hit the Pentagon." Fuck you, of course there is.
23456D 2 years ago
No I do not work for the government nor do I have any friends or associates that do. I don't know why you would categorize the thermal expansion argument as anything is possible...it makes sense physically. The unusually long beams of WTC 7 were exposed to a large amount of heat for a long time. Thermal expansion is proportional to length so the beams expanded significantly. I ask again...what scientific reason do you have for doubting the NIST report? Thanks :)
Physman2011 2 years ago
Thanks for answering.
The scientific reason I have for doubting the NIST report is that it is not supported with experimental evidence, ie a real world model (of ANY scale). If NIST would simply demonstrate the phenomenon (a fundamental step in the scientific method), some skepticism would go away. More to the point, NIST's LOGICAL rationale for refusing to calculate a demolition scenario ("unlikely to have actually occurred") is staggeringly unscientific, and undermines NIST's credibility.
23456D 2 years ago
I wasn't describing thermal expansion as "anything is possible", I was describing your question "...just because something has not happened in the past it can not happen in the future?...that doesn't mean the explanation is incorrect" as "anything is possible."
Reclaiming my time- why, if you believe we've been told the truth about these events, and you believe the evidence would bear that out, would you spend the time you do dissuading people from seeking said evidence?
23456D 2 years ago
Please, feel free to seek out evidence. Just because you're a conspiracy theorist, however, does not mean you don't have to defend your theory....why would you expect otherwise? The conspiracy theorists have it a little too easy IMHO....after all if one part of the conspiracy is disproven simply drop it (eg pods, squibbs) and throw out more conjecture (thermite..no no nanothermite). Anyway nice chatting with you I have to run for now :)
Physman2011 2 years ago
Physman, you're not a conspiracy theorist?
23456D 2 years ago
No.
Physman2011 2 years ago
Isn't a conspiracy theorist someone who theorizes that there are conspiracies?
23456D 2 years ago
I find the official synopsis of the events on 9/11 to be perfectly logical, consistent and reasonable. Therefore, I believe the official report to be correct. The term conspiracy theorist, as used today, describes someone who believes the official version of events is a cover up. So no, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Anyway, I'd like to get back to the NIST report....see next comment please :)
Physman2011 2 years ago
reposting:
My, your very own definitions of words! And yet, were I to go and look up "conspiracy" and "theory" in a dictionary, they've had meanings all along, meanings that Miriam Webster stands by.
"as used today" by two kinds of people:
those who have had their brains tickled in Orwellian fashion to subconsciously tack "theory" onto "conspiracy"
and those like you who know this and actively reenforce it.
And what's the result? We are incapacitated from acknowledging conspiracies! Qui bono?
23456D 2 years ago
Ok fine call it an alternate theory it makes no difference to me. Can you tell me why you would choose not to believe the NIST report? What do you know that the scientists/engineers who created the report didn't know? I believe you're objections to the report are based solely on the fact that the government created it, not on its scientific validity.
Physman2011 2 years ago
justify acceptance of a theory not supported by experimental evidence producing results predicted by the theory.
btw, wanna see some real world examples of the capacity of controlled demolition?
it is the responsibility of citizens to insist that its government operate transparently, and the responsibility for the predicating event of the posture of the US in the world is, obviously, fundamental.
23456D 2 years ago
tell me there are things the leaders know that we don't that would cause panic and so they have to do what they have to do.
but don't come on my channel and pretend that, given the obvious interest we have in certainty, you can tell anyone to accept "new science" with no math.
As for what you believe I think...
oops, right?
23456D 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... anyway I still don't see any reason to question the official story. You have yet to provide a valid scientific reason.
Physman2011 2 years ago
deviation from the scientific method is not a valid reason? no experimental confirmation of a theory that would cancel further investigation into possible participants in the murder of 3000 people? Seems awfully cavalier to me.
NIST has not provided valid scientific confirmation that their theory is correct.
BTW: the trick of putting the aegis on citizens of the US to disprove their leaders assertions rather than the gov't to SHOW what it says is true is SICK. Works though, I notice.
23456D 2 years ago
NIST has not provided valid scientific confirmation that their theory is correct"....how are you qualified to make this assessment? And please no more grand standing. Perhaps before creating a video mocking the NIST report you should take a few classes in physics/ engineering and then actually read the report.
Physman2011 2 years ago
"isn't a conspiracy theorist someone who theorizes that there are conspiracies?"
:::shakes head sadly::: Umm. No.
Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
Date: 1909
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
And you don't believe that the event of 9/11 was the result of a secret plot? Do you think it happened by magic?
23456D 2 years ago
Lemme guess. Home schooled?
"Conspiracy theory" is not a prospective term.
After an event happens, and the event has an explanation, thats called the EXPLANATION. Its not a secret anymore at that point. People know what happened.
The conspiracy theory is the secret explanation--not any explanation--for the event.
Example: Movies of man on the moon.
Explanation: Nasa did it.
CT: It was secretly filmed at a soundstage at Area 51.
Helping at all.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Was Osama's plot with 19 guys a conspiracy or not?
23456D 2 years ago
Of course it was. But a "conspiracy" is not a "conspiracy theory." A gun is not the same as gun control. a family is not the same as "family values." "Dead" does not mean the same as "Dead Weight."
A conspiracy theory is NOT any time people conspire. It is a specific term. with a specific definition. Sorry.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
reposting:
You're right, a conspiracy theory is NOT any time people conspire.
A "CONSPIRACY" is any time people conspire.
I've not said "9/11 was a conspiracy theory".
We've both agreed it was a conspiracy.
And it's notable that, even in your (correct) definition, there is no implication that said theory is false.
Again, who's pretending someone said something they didn't?
23456D 2 years ago
1) "Again, who's pretending someone said something they didnt.?"
Again, YOU are. Example below.
2) "Ivenot said 911 was a conspiracy theory"
I never a claimed quote of you as saying it was. So ur reply is moot.
However, you did ask "Isnt a conspiracy theoriest someone who theorizes that there are conspiracies?"
I simply corrected your error. It is not someone who theorizes there are conspiracies. it is not "any time there is a conspiracy."
any clearer now?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
gets clearer and clearer with each reply, Edgeman.
23456D 2 years ago
You state in your video that the report concluded that the large gash had very little to do with the collapse. Don't you think that if in fact the NIST report was a cover up they would use the large gash to their advantage and claimed it as a major factor in the collapse?
Physman2011 2 years ago
Well, I don't know about NIST, but the clear eyed debunkers sure were certain about it from day one.
Truth: I don't believe it's impossible that 9/11 happened JUST as we were told. I don't believe it's impossible that thermal expansion is exactly what caused WTC7 to collapse. I observe that the illogical refusal to do math on a demolition scenario, especially if it would reaffirm the thermal expansion scenario, contributes to mistrust. I say "it matters, so let's make sure." Not the only one.
23456D 2 years ago
I could just as easily ask you "Don't you think that if in fact the NIST report's conclusion ("fire did it") was the only possible explanation for 7's collapse, they would take advantage of the overwhelming evidence and SHOW (by designing an experiment and rigorously testing the theory...you know...the scienTIFic method) that the conclusion comes out the same every time? They didn't. Computer simulations, no math on a guy planting a cutting charge, and here we are talking about it.
23456D 2 years ago
What's wrong with a computer simulation?
Let's assume that a single guy with a single cutting charge could have brought down building 7 (I don't really think that's reasonable but putting that aside for now). Does the fact that it's possible mean that it happened...seems like an "anything is possible argument" if there ever was one. Do you have any evidence to suggest that one person brought down the building with a single cutting charge?
Physman2011 2 years ago
don't think a guy with a single cutting charge could bring down wtc7? guy with a match though...
"Does the fact that it's possible mean that it happened" - thermal expansion
oops again, right?
and here's where the scientific method would be such a useful thing...
evidence for controlled demolition? um, only all history of construction and demolition of steel framed buildings contrasted with all history of fires in steel framed buildings...
23456D 2 years ago
" Guy with a match?" how am I supposed to take you seriously when you make such ridiculous oversimplifications? Further, the NIST report does address the concern that you have regarding a single explosive...and the evidence that that explosive would have produced, all of which were absent, (i.e. significantly more broken windows, cutting columns prior to demo, high intensity sound wave ).
You should take a closer look at the report (see pg. 68 hypothetical blast scenarios).
Physman2011 2 years ago
"Guy with a match" is a "ridiculous oversimplification"?
Let's see...
Well it was an office fire, right? No structural damage related to collapse, just fire...that's NIST's statement, right? Tell me if I'm wrong.
So, (again, TELL me if I'm wrong), a single match could cause WTC7 (or a comparable steel structure) to collapse as observed on 9/11...
"evidence of explosives" by NIST is wrong coming and going: there are tapes and seismic evidence of explosions, AND a cutting charge need not sound.
23456D 2 years ago
PS, I'm with you. We should ALL take a closer look at the report.
23456D 2 years ago
Ok I'll tell you...you're wrong. The fires (plural) that burned in WTC 7 began not at a single location but on several (up to 10) floors. Please read the report . Where is this evidence to which you refer?
Physman2011 2 years ago
False. Cutting charges do indeed have to sound. Explosives are simply devices that release large amounts of energy rapidly. As that energy wave travels outward, it compresses the air molecules in front of it, which creates the sound that you hear.
But there is no getting around it. Explosives release energy. The wave exands outward and must compresses the air in front of it. The sound is the unavoidable result.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
False. Controlling sound is well within the capabilities of the commercial demolition industry, and, if we're imagining the possibility that someone was hired to demo WTC7 secretly (as you suggest), you'd bet that their capabilities would be even more high tech...
point is, despite your framing of the question and answer, "No sound" doesn't equal "no cuts could possibly have been made", AND there are reports contradicting your "no sound" assertion. Twas noisy that day, to be sure.
23456D 2 years ago
Simply repeating "its possible" doesnt make it possible.
If energy is released at a very high rate (which is what explosived do) then the air ahead of the wave has to be compressed. That has to result in noise.
No getting around it. Sorry.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I mean, you could MacGuyver together a torch leaning on a column...would that be an explosive and make an explosive sound?
I agree, simply repeating it's possible doesn't PROVE IT'S TRUE - thermal expansion.
And as for your disdain for modeling the effect...might as well not bother- Sunder says, given identical circumstances(!), the building might not come down again.
23456D 2 years ago
"I agree, simply repeating it's possible doesn't PROVE IT'S TRUE"
Therefore we agree. The "silenced explosives" are irrelevant, Despite how often you repeat it.
Its not a disdain for physical models. It is just an acceptance of the facts that unless it is an inch-perfect, life sized, perfect replication of every detail, its not going to ever give the exact same result.
Physics is a stubborn bitch, eh?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
That's what's funny about Sunder's assertion. Physics is physics, as you say. So why would the lead scientist pitching the collapse theory say that, given identical circumstances, it might not happen again (ie it might not collapse at all, let alone globally, symmetrically, into its footprint)?
23456D 2 years ago
You would have to ask sunder why he would say that. I'm not an engineer. And obviously not you either. So even if I knew what he meant, likely you wouldnt understand it.
Plus, given your propensity to make things up and pretend someone else said them, I don't really accept that he said that in the first place. Until it is corrorated, independantly, I wouldnt.
However, Reasonable belief says no to situations are ever, exactly 100% identical. So, differences might be expected.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
your spelling and grammar (and vocabulary) are slipping, and I'm having trouble understanding you. calm down, think, then reply.
I AM asking Sunder why he would say that.
So are others.
Go talk explosives with someone else, guy. Not my issue.
23456D 2 years ago
LOL, take your own advice and read to what you are resoonding to. Obviously, unless you think sunder is reading your YT page, youre obviously NOT asking him.
In a reply to ME you stated "So why would the lead scientists pitching the collapse...." THATs not a question TO sunder. But THATS simply what I replied to.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Again, I'm not saying loud isn't necessarily loud, the argument you'd like to hand me.
I'm saying defend "not likely to have actually happened" (ie a 100lb bag being walked into wtc7) being used to justify ruling out demolition as a theory.
And it's MARKED that you (and NIST) refuse to touch this issue.
It's like how our pols will say "Bush didn't blow up the World Trade Center", but they won't say "The 9/11 Commission Report is the whole truth".
I think it's interesting.
23456D 2 years ago
"the argument youd like to hand me"
Again, more pretending something I never said.
you're new at this, aren't you?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I didn't say you said it, I said you did it.
Sooo, ok...answer the question...
23456D 2 years ago
neither of which was true.
What specifically was the question you refer to?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Calm down. Read what you're responding to.
23456D 2 years ago
LOLOL, the problem for YOU is I AM reading and responding.
Thats how I keep cutting off your cheap tricks, made-up quotes, and logical fallacies.
Hard to be calm when I am PNSLMFAO so hard.
Before, you asked me to answer the question. I asked you to specify which question.
So...which question are you pretending hasnt been answered?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Hi...me again :)
Maybe I'm missing something 23456D but why do you keep bringing up the 100lb bag theory? Do you have any evidence for this theory ? Proving something did not happen is not how science, or logic, works (ie disproving a negative).
Physman2011 2 years ago
Sunder proposed the 100lb bag theory in the NIST WTC7 draft report press conference. I have the whole thing posted, if you haven't seen it help yourself.
And you mean proving a negative, not disproving a negative. Don't talk about logic anymore, the grownups are speaking.
23456D 2 years ago
I see you're getting a bit snippy...too bad really I was enjoying our conversation. Yes you're right I meant proving a negative..I stand corrected.
Physman2011 2 years ago
This fellow "Edgeman" has sapped some civility from me. Sorry, Physman. Seriously though, you ought to understand that the very point you were making (you can't prove a negative) is exactly why NIST must hold its thermal expansion scenario up against other hypothesis, and their rationale for rejecting CD includes asserted negatives (no guy with a bag, HAD to be noisy bombs) that aren't just unprovable and unknowable, they are only being forwarded by disinfo people (like this Edge fellow).
23456D 2 years ago
Lmao. yeah, blame me. HAHAHAHA
why do kooks always pretend anyone smarter than they are must be disinfo agents? paranoid much?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
paranoid a little. was much more concerned about you before you started posting on my boards, though, so, getting better all the time.
23456D 2 years ago
"I mean, you could MacGuyver together a torch leaning on a column...would that be an explosive and make an exposive sound?"
But since a torch would be closer to an incendiary, and NOT an explosive, the question is inapplicable to the discussion--and demostrates an inability to comprehend the difference between something that burns and something that explodes.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
You're the only one who insists on talking about things that explode. I can refer you to other videos or discussion threads where people are having that conversation, then it can be you and another person talking about explosions and explosives.
Go to my account and watch the Sunder press conference. Then you can come back here. I have it posted, it's what this video is about, go do the due diligence. Watch it with Physman, you guys can piss on the comment boards side by side.
23456D 2 years ago
"You're the only one who insists on talking about things that explode"
Wrong again.
1) I am not insisting
2) I replied to your incorrect assertion that cutting charges need not make noise.
I'm simply pointing out the fact (as revealed by your McGyver reference) that you do not know the difference between an incendiary and an explosive. Kinda makes it difficult to take you seriously when you state things on that subject.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
In the physical world there exists the possibility of controlled demolition with controlled noise level. That's a fact. You're right, I'm not an explosives or incendiary expert, like yourself...like NIST...fortunately they have thermite manufacturers on their 9/11 investigation payroll, have since 2002...
You misunderstood the McG reference. Read it again. The point wasn't that a torch is an explosive, it was that all that was necessary was a torch, so explosives are beside the point...
23456D 2 years ago
"in the physical world there exists the possibility of controlled demolition with controlled noise level. That's a fact."
its ALSO a fact that this was NOT the point being discussed.
The point was your original claim that explosives dont have to make noise. This is false. explosives would by necessity make noise.
discussing blowtorch fantasies or changing the subject to what exists in the possibility of controlled demolotions is NOT the discussion.
to you practice dodging?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
go to the top. go to the top of the thread.
23456D 2 years ago
yes, EdgemanLL2, that is precisely the point being discussed: that NIST deciding not to do math on demolition on the basis of one way of demolishing a building (loud explosives) is illogical, being that incendiaries exist, and particularly being that their assertion is that FIRE ALONE can cause a demolition wave symmetrical collapse...
The absence of explosive noises wouldn't be grounds for ruling out a demolition investigation...that is precisely the discussion. get up or get out.
23456D 2 years ago
No, that may have been the point YOU were discussing with Phys.
I made the correction, when you said cutting charges need not sound.
THATS our issue. And despite denying you said it--even though the quote proves you did--you have at least NOW finally acknoledge the false statement "cutting charges need not sound."
As you admitted, yes, they do make sounds.
if you would like to change the subject to something else, Ill be glad to tell you what I know (if any) of the new subject.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Further, I made no suggestion of a possibility that someone was hired to demo7
Nor did I frame a question or an answer.
I just state the simple facts. If you release a shitload of energy isntantly (which is what explosives ARE) you cant avoid the physical fact that the air will be compressed ahead of that released energy wave, and a sound must be produced.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Ok, well then I agree! Explosions are loud. I hear you can muffle them, catch that sound energy before it disperses, but keeping things simple, sure, as you say: a loud thing is a loud thing.
23456D 2 years ago
Sure you could muffle it. But by admitting it would need to be muffled, that then concurrs that there really IS no getting around it, the explosives will make noise.
If YOU want to consider this in relation to 911, it would be ridicuous enough to pretend you can drill and wire tons of explosives into every floor of an occupide building with no one noticing.
Even more ridiculous to pretend you could hang enough sound-dampening barriers through the building and no one noticing.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"No getting around it" "No getting around it" "explosives explosives explosives"
The rhetorical technique (framing) is in your repetition and insistence that, to converse, we must go through the issues you raise (in this case "explosives - no getting around it")
23456D 2 years ago
Im sorry, but youre simply focusing on me, and not the issue. If you have some evidence of magical, silent explosives that defy all laws of physics by exanding rapdily, yet DONT disrupt the air around them, Ill be glad to review it.
But pretending I'm "framing" by simply stating facts, or other bizzare interpretations of my "technique" really doesnt address the issue. it does nothing to support your claim.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
don't you see that you're saying "fire or explosives"? Sunder says incendiaries, about 100 lbs, could have brought the building down, no rock concert level sound necessary. But it's "unlikely" anyone carried it in. I'm not asking you to take anyone's word for the math on incendiaries, I'm asking NIST to DO that math because "unlikely to have actually happened" is not a scientific argument.
23456D 2 years ago
"don't you see that you're saying "fire or explosives"? "
No, what I see is that you cant or wont deal with what I actually say. So you make up something else throw a question mark behind it, and pretend I said it--logical fallacy. Straw man.
Rewording what someone else says, and pretending they said something else, its intellectually lazy and does NOT support ur point,
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I assume it's correct that noisy bombs weren't used to bring WTC7 down. I never said they were. So who's pretending someone's saying something else? The straw man is "explosives".
If fire is capable, and, as Sunder's analysis concludes, one specific column failure is what caused the whole collapse, then explosives aren't necessary. A torch would do it. Or some incendiary. Or (if fire IS capable) a match.
I get that you want me to defend explosives. That's the deception, the framing.
23456D 2 years ago
Assumptions arent facts.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
They certainly aren't.
23456D 2 years ago
"They Certainly aren't."
Excellent. So then I expect we are in agreement that when you guessed:
"I assume it's correct that noisy bombs weren't used to bring WTC7 down," you were not speaking factually. just guessing.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I don't guess I understand your question.
23456D 2 years ago
It was not a question. Evidence by the lack of a question mark. It was a statement. We are in agreement that you were guessing when you assumed "noisy bobmbs" were not used to bring down the WTC7
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
EvidenceD. You talk a whole lot of shit about home school for someone with such a tepid handle on the English language. And logic. Here I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, reading your "sentences", I give you a little pun, and you come back at me angry and using words you don't understand.
Once more: explosives weren't necessary for a CD, there are other possibilities, it's a red herring, not what my video is about, not what I'm talking about on here.Talk explosives elsewhere.
23456D 2 years ago
"You talk a whole lot of shit"
blah blah blah. Edge is right. Cant discuss the facts. call Edge names. blah blah blah.
Once more, the subject was not if explosives WERE necc. The subject was your false claim that explosive charges need not sound.
I realise changing the subject is to save face is your instinct here, but it doesnt work. Changing the subject wont change the original comments. Explosives really do NEED to sound. Blowtorches and other "possibilities" are irrelevant.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
top.
23456D 2 years ago
This is all anecdotal, sloppy and definitely not scientific IMHO. Experts (not laymen such as yourself) analyzed the evidence, very thoroughly in my opinion, and drew a very calculated and reasonable conclusion.
Physman2011 2 years ago
Your opinions are ANYTHING but humble, they're INCREDIBLY presumptuous, but fine. A reasonable conclusion.
Where is
the experimental verification
that their conclusion
is correct?
23456D 2 years ago
And a PS on this one:
my shit may be sloppy but at least it's honest.
23456D 2 years ago
Yes I believe you think you are correct....but that doesn't make up for your inability to form a scientific argument.
Physman2011 2 years ago
"Where's the experimental verification of the theory"
IS a scientific argument
23456D 2 years ago
If, by "experimental verification" you mean to build some type of model, there are gross errors in that suggestion. Not the least of which is that you would literally have to rebuild a full sized replica, and exactly duplicate the contents, and position. Not to mention the inability to to exactly deuplicate the speed, mass and damage from the falling debris that you would need to recreate.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
I don't focus on alternative theories, I'm asking for transparent confirmation of the official story. So long as it's absent, it's absent. Period. No matter what the truth is, the absence of proof from our government (who failed us that day) is unacceptable.
23456D 2 years ago
"What's wrong with a computer simulation?"
Its only as good as the data it is modeled on. NIST, by their own admission, got most of their data through analysis of photo and video artifacts. Hardly adequate, especially when compared to typical FAA crash investigations or other similar inquiries, wherein materials analysis and partial reconstructions are done. Assumptions are unscientific, NIST makes a lot of them.
theCharmingDeviant 2 years ago
Do you work for or do you have associates who work for the government?
23456D 2 years ago
U.S. government, that is.
23456D 2 years ago
Physman2011
Could you explain to me how free fall acceleration is possible in a gravitational collapse, caused only by fire? Please do so whilst acknowledging the laws of conservation of energy, momentum & newton's laws of motion. I eagerly anticipate your reply.
Btw, great vid! Very tongue-in-cheek and it made me laugh a few times.
Good job~!
Follz19 2 years ago
To Follz:
If you are referring to WTC 7 it seems that some of the interior supports collapsed prior to the outer facade collapse. Thus, the net force on the facade would have been mg set that equal to the mass of the facade (Newton's second law) and you arrive at an acceleration of g. Then when the facade hit the lower supporting structure that did not previously collapse the net force decreased resulting in a decrease in acceleration.
Physman2011 2 years ago
To the maker of this video:
Your sweeping oversimplifications and smarmy comments send shivers up my spine. First of all have you read the NIST report , or at least watched the video on WTC 7. Have you ever heard of thermal expansion? Do you know that thermal expansion is directly proportional to length...the longer the beam the more thermal expansion becomes a factor.
Physman2011 2 years ago
Physman,
if you notice, I actually have the ENTIRE NIST PRESS CONFERENCE posted for everyone to see. NIST "discovered" thermal expansion as a potential factor in building collapse in reference only to WTC7. They claim this is the first time it's ever happened, and it has never happened since. My impression of sound science has always been that a theory has to be shown to be consistently true to be regarded as accurate. And, to occam's razor, wouldn't one cut be simpler? Not satisfied.
23456D 2 years ago
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Is it your position that just because something has not happened in the past it can not happen in the future? Certain conditions need to be met for thermal expansion to be a significant factor in the collapse of a building. Those conditions aren't met often...that doesn't mean the explanation is incorrect.
Physman2011 2 years ago
Of course the purported rarity of the new science doesn't prove it's incorrect, it gives the theory cover. But when you consider the STATED likelihood of such a rare convergence of events (first time thermal expansion strikes- on a day FILLED with rare unlikely events no less), AT A MINIMUM you can't call the unlikelyhood that someone went into WTC 7 with a 100lb bag grounds to do NO CALCULATIONS (NIST) on what a CD would have required/looked like. Dumb logic, obvious, unacceptable.
23456D 2 years ago
Classic example of incredulity.
Educate yourself!
Contact some universities and engineering agencies and scientifically educate yourself before venting your incredulous opinion.
It will safe you a lot of embarrassment. Like your embarrassingly naive comments and unbelief you just uttered in this video.
wimahlers 2 years ago 2
Yeah, what's really funny is the guy tries to look like a real thinker, but all of his videos boil down to calling BS on people just because he doesn't want to believe them.
ArrowHead83 2 years ago 2
wim, what's so naive about pointing out that there are no pictures of the damage? That seems shrewd to me.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
Of course there aren't any good pictures of the south face of WTC7. To take such a picture you would have to have been standing in the middle of Ground Zero.
Repeat after me: "fire AND structural damage. fire AND structural damage. fire AND structural damage."
ArrowHead83 2 years ago
But why did it collapse into it`s own footprint? If u slam an axe into the south side of a tree, scooping out 25% of that side.... and ignite the tree for good measure. Where will the tree fall? A: It will fall through the point of most resistance and assemble in a nice pile of rubble in the roots. B: It will fall towards the point where its structure has been weakened (south side) and where the resistance is virtually non-existant.
roxxphatcox 2 years ago
"But why did it collapse into it`s own footprint?"
Because the structure was weakened. It didn't have the rigidity left in it as a whole to tip over like a tree trunk. Once it started to fall, it did so more like a house of cards than like a tree trunk.
ArrowHead83 2 years ago
I agree on the loss of rigidity would compromise the building as a whole. However, every other structural collapse I have seen (videos, witnessed) has collapset towards the point of failure, and in big chunks. Not pulverizing like these ones, Take a M1 Abrams and pound one side of a building, steel or concrete and the result will be as I described above.
That is why I find this particular collapse abnormal.
roxxphatcox 2 years ago
AH's claim that the building lost its ridigity is wrong headed. Look how it maintains its form as it descends like an elevatorcar into the ground. Compare its rigitity to NIST's computer models that show how it should be crumpling up like a paper bag.
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
This vid shows how warped and black and white the "truthers" think. Comparing extreme fires and damage with a kid with a blowtorch, how sad is that!
Horjan 3 years ago
Not nearly as sad as the debunker's Hermmeneutics of Facticity!
NanoThermite911 3 years ago
The what of what?
Horjan 3 years ago
You don't seem to get the big bloopers from your camp Horjan THE SOUTH FACE OF THE WTC7 WITH "25% of the facade scooped out" - (David Coburn - PM - claimed he was given special permission to view it - no one knows why we were not allowed to see it ) - NIST doesn't publish it in their final report. WHY???? CAUSE POPULAR MECHANICS ARE FUCKING LIARS.
And Coburn is a jew by the way.
Focoist911 3 years ago
A little intimidated by popular mechanics are we? Anyways, I haven't read their book, and I haven't seen a lot of their interviews, so I don't know why you put me in their "camp". NIST covered the wtc 7 damage in their preliminary reports, where you can see the infamous southwest corner scooped out, and the illustration where the south side is 25% scooped out. You can't change what really happened focoist, wtc 7 fell due to fire and damage, get over it.
Horjan 3 years ago
Another one who didn't read. He looked at the pictures though. Have any of you geniuses ever worked on a computer simulator?The computer doesn't do it for you. That why it took 6 years and they still didn't say anything that makes sense.The film of the fall don't support the report at all.If anything the report ruins their theory.The whole thing wouldn't go down symmetically if one column on the far side started a chain reaction.
mikebuhroo 3 years ago
Says who? You?! You're no engineer.
McMcMeaty 3 years ago
Actually Mike you would do well to not make ASSUMPTIONS. NIST pretended their computer simulations of the Twin collapses were based on scientific input parameters. But when confronted by Journal of 9/11 Studies finally after many months of being asked to provide the data inputs, they admitted they didn't have any. Its called "Pwoof by simulation" - but don't worry Mike, we can count on apathetic ignorant civilians and arrogant ignorant Deniers to not notice what they dont want to see.
Focoist911 3 years ago
LOL! Here's some public scrutiny:
watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
Please comment on my video completely DEBUNKING the NIST Report on WTC 7!
WarCrime911 3 years ago
Whatever happened to Popular mechanics magazines' Gavin Coburn and his 25% WTC7 southside gouge out "classified photos"??
MarkB1ngham 3 years ago
watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
He is back in Israel I'd think.
Focoist911 3 years ago
There are pictures of the south side. GOOGLE, you DOUCHEBAG.
streakingcameraman 3 years ago
no there aint idiot. There is a photo of a corner of WTC7. It would be the south-west corner and it is taken from the north-west. That photo was public when Davin/Gavin was making these claims here:
watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
And think about it you infinite naive twit - Why the hell would such a photo be CLASSIFIED.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Negative, dumbass. There has been pictures. Naive, you calling me Naive??? CONSPIRACY THEORIEST calling someone NIAVE.... That's the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it.
watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Looks like a hell of alot of smoke=fire
Oh, also looks like alot of damage.
streakingcameraman 3 years ago
The fact you pump this buzz word "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" reveals your true insincerity. Gulf of Tonkin being a hoax was a Conspiracy theory for 30 years until it was DECLASSIFIED and admitted a staged false-flag to get America into Vietnam.
Irwag/Afghan no different. Cheney recently exposed for wantin gto paint up PT boats as Iranian and get US Seals dressed as Iranians to attack a US Frigate - "Some people may be killed".
You fight for your enemies, enemies of the republic and democracy. SLAVE
Focoist911 3 years ago
WOW, the gulf of TONKIN is not 911, different players, different people, different reasons. Cheney isn't even VP anymore. US Seals do not do missions such as the one you just made up. Learn more about the military dipshit.
I fight the true enemies of our country, the republic, and the people. You are the small minority that thinks you make a difference, the reality is, you in the fucking way.
streakingcameraman 3 years ago
there were no witnesses to the collapse of the bridge. Period. Look it up ignoramus.
Focoist911 3 years ago
watch?v=hXb5M8qKrjw&NR=1
Look, a video where fire destroyes another cement and steel structure. WOW.
streakingcameraman 3 years ago
[Look, a video where fire destroyes another cement and steel structure. WOW.] - There were no witnesses to that event. NIST admitted in August 2008 that WTC7 was the first case in history where a building over 15 stories had totally collapsed due to fire. But you Deniers don't give us credit deserved - For the last 3 years you have all been claiming it was Diesel tanks and/or 25% of south facade scooped out - NIST finally rejected your kooky claims. Gavin Coburn of PM a proven liar - why he lie
Focoist911 3 years ago
WHAT, there were no witnesses to the event, WHAT. No more arguing with you dipshit.
streakingcameraman 3 years ago
Have you ever done a google image search for WTC7 south side? Obviously not. Oh...and whats this? Holy shit,a video of the entire south side of wtc7 all broken up and on fire- watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4
What a world we live in,right?
Aaron518 3 years ago
What questions remain unanswered?
Idiots like you ask questions and then ignore the answers anyway.
dylanaverysmom 3 years ago
hey man screw these bitches under this. 9/11 was an inside job. I know right now noone can technically "prove that" but there are just way too many questions unanswered for me to believe the official story.
nikoli182281 3 years ago
You know, absolutely none of what you just said makes any sense at all.
It kind of like a stream of conciousness thing with no particular beginning or end and nonsense in the middle.
What a fruitloop you are mark.
dylanaverysmom 3 years ago
No word from tricky Dicky! I can bullshill better than DA's gestation vehicle anyday Mr Cheney! I expect you're thinking you've recruited too many shilsters now, it's looking top heavy in relation to the 9/11 truth opinion polls tooo many online buying the official fairy story lacks creedence and the bloodmoney is in a diminishing returns cycle!
MarkB1ngham 3 years ago