@businessguys And everything the government tells us is true? Is that what you think? Really, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I am sincerely interested in knowing if you believe everything the government tells us. Personally, I don't believe the government had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, but I think they played a part in covering it up, after the fact.
'..some of the hijackers are still alive..and most of them were from Saudi Arabia.." and this is supposed to be some big sophisticated US government operation?? - where the people who were going to be blamed for it are supposed to be dead but they are still alive!! Talk about illogical arguments. Does he have any evidence that these hijackers are still alive ? - to make a statement you need to have evidence. Please lets see an interview with one of them.
Hal Sparks has a radio show in Chicago every Saturday and I listened one day expecting to hear some know nothing celebrity talk about things he doesn't understand. But Hal is an intelligent guy who actually knows politics, he was talking about during the health care debate how the process worked and how things had to go into committee and get kicked back to the House etc. He actually knows his shit.
Love what Hal says about a right to dig a little deeper. It's not about proving or disproving any specific thing. It's about having the guts and the balls to not just accept what we are spoon fed, from either perspective and to really try and be an informed nation. We get people on both sides talking from purely ignorant and underinformed ways that just refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that there are lies and misrepresentations of what happened.
If you have any questions about 9/11, check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. There are over 1300 professional, degreed and licensed A&E that use science to explain the way the buildings fell. They also took debris from the drust and the steel and found military explosives. In fact, they said the explosives are so complicated that they can only be produced in a state-of-the-art lab. Check out ae911truth (dot) org
I agree with Hal. In fact, he's articulated things I've thought for a very long time far better than I could have. And good on him for always always always saying what he thinks and offering opinions in a candid, honest fashion. He's someone to look up to.
lol. who dislikes this video? what do 18 people dislike about it? does he not come out ENOUGH about 9/11 being an inside job? did you want him to lie and say that it looks like the wtc buildings were not demolished when they clearly were?
@hurricanejbb "Oh man, I had such respect for Hal. Now that I know he's in with the tinfoil hat crowd, I'll never look at him the same way again."
Media World Is Complete. If someone can sing/dance/act/be funny, "entertain" the sheep - great. But should he dare to have a personal OPINION different to the government shepherds, then he must automatically be a tinfoil hat nutjob. Pathetic.
@hurricanejbb Obviously never had that much respect for him then did you. So he has a different train of thought to you you write him off? Where you a fan of him before because of his political stance? I dont think so, so wtf are you even talking about. He's asking questions and what he mentions about 9/11 doesn't add up. He's sceptical and he's inquisitive. Even if he's wrong I would have thought your respect would go up for him - putting his career on the line like that.
@vysehrad Well put. It's revealing that he believes 5 of the hijackers are still alive. It is also revealing when he talks in absolutes, as he does about the Blg 7. It suggests a predisposition to believing what you want to believe rather than what the preponderance of (real) evidence points to. I still wonder why so many truthers ignore Chomsky's suggestion that if there were controlled demolition (he and I don't believe so), it's logical to conclude it was terrorists and not the US gov.
@hurricanejbb Anyone who can believe that 3 steel structures can fall at near free fall speed and that is a normal occurance should be institutionalized for being insane. The fact of the matter is there is too much proof proving that the official story is the conspiracy. Read some of the oral histories from 911 and you will discover many people that heard and were injured by explosions in the buildings. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a trip down the rabbit hole.
Funny, because my investigation keep finding more and more information confirming the idea that 9/11 was an Inside Job...
I wouldn't call anyone's belief's "stupid", maybe under-informed...
When you have CIA connected insider trading, insurance fraud, NORAD stand down orders, War Game exercises, SEC fraud with Sarbanes-Oxley regulation, CIA funded and trained hijackers (patsies), tiers upon tiers of evidence pointing to a conspiracy... How do you deny all of it?
@WarCrime911 "investigation keep finding more and more information confirming the idea that 9/11 was an Inside Job..."
No, in fact, it doesn't. You keep finding more and more information, and you blindly fill in the major gaps in your information with your preconceptions, falsely leading you to believe that it is confirming your views, when in fact, it's not doing any such thing.
@pudgenet Please note that watching mainstream media does not constitute an investigation. Any objective analysis of the events will absolutely contradict the official story. The evidence is overwhelming.
project northwoods didn't succeed, remember? and it's really cute when people signify their disagreement on the internet by calling the other person "kid".
which is more comforting: a vast conspiracy of government/military/corporate interests orchestrated an incredibly complex attack on american soil staged to look like a terrorist attack; or everyday people can be killed going to work at random by people who have never met you yet hate you and everything you stand for. "truthers" simply can't handle how incredibly unprotected their lives actually are.
Actually, I believe both are true, and neither is comforting. My government creating false-flag operations to make me fear an enemy that they created in the first place is not a very comforting thought at all.
for what purpose? what possible purpose could that serve? to create a fear/military state? no one in power who is smart enough to orchestrate something like that is also dumb enough to fail to realize that a plan like that would never work. there's never been a successful fear state, and it would work even less now, in a world suffused with instantaneous communication. time to take off the tinfoil hat.
Most of what they say is completely false, like that any of the accused hijackers are still alive; that *any* of the 9/11 Commissioners said the report was "bullshit"; that the only way WTC7 could have fallen was controlled detonation; and so on.
He is not stupid, but he is not smart enough to realize he isn't as smart as he thinks he is. Proof that a little knowledge is ... only a LITTLE knowledge.
Thank you, government operative. How anybody with a rational mind can believe the government B.S. is beyond me, but then I am an educated man with an I.Q. of 141, unlike most dumb, fat Americans.
Wow. I point out various things he said that are false, and you respond merely with insipid fallacies, including ad hominem and red herring.
This isn't about intelligence or education, per se. It's about gullibility. Again: it's simply not true that the accused hijackers are alive, or that any of the 9/11 Commissioners said the report was "bullshit," or that the only way WTC7 could have falled was controlled detonation.
You just WANT to believe it, so you do. It's that simple.
You don't think our government is ful of crap, with all the lies they've fed us and all the corruption, and out and out theft of our tax dollars? You jus want to desperately believe in our government, don't you? Time for a cange.
Yes, like I said, you WANT to believe it. Just because our government lies a lot and is full of corruption does not mean that they are lying about THIS. I brought up specific things, and rather than provide proof (that doesn't exist!) for those things, you say "well, the government lies a lot." That doesn't prove your point at all.
Of course, NOTHING proves your point ... least of all the actual, you know, facts.
Please look up Dr. Joerg Scneider and Dr. Hugo Bachman, both prominent structural engineers and see what they have to say about the physical impossibility of the government's story about 9/11, that is if you're willing to listen to what two respected professionals have to say on the matter. Let's hear why they are wrong; you haven't proven anything by your pro-government rants.
And I can give you a dozen structural engineers who say what they say about WTC7 is completely wrong ... every one of them a more well-respected professional than either of them.
That you keep lying about me, saying I am pro-government, is more evidence (as if any is needed) that you are irrational. I have not said a single thing that is pro-government.
The really funny thing is that many people consider me anti-government ... your assertion that I am just out to defend the government is nonsense, borne entirely of your own blindness: you can't even discuss the facts, you just have to defend your own irrational belief by assuming anyone who doesn't see things as you do must be corrupt ... which is bizarre since no facts actually back up your belief. That's what makes it irrational, of course.
Many scientists, physicists, and people far more intelligent than I are saying that the government line about 9/11 is physically impossible; YouTube is filled with their brilliant, RATIONAL explanations and I am not going to indulge your game, govermment apologist. You just can't wrap your limited vision around the possibility that we were all duped, can you, and that our government may have a dark agenda.
Many MORE scientists, physicists, engineers, and so on, are saying it is NOT physically impossible at all.
You are using the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.
YouTube is filled with explanations, yes. They are neiher brilliant nor rational. I am simply a person who demands evidence, and that you think this means I am a "govt apologist" proves you're the one with limited vision. I never thought there was no possibility of a "dark agenda," but there's simply no truth to your claims.
It is truth that our government monumentally failed us on 9/11; do you deny that? Where was our vaunted superior defense system on that day? Why weren't our government officials impeached for failing to protect us? If we can take out one man in a street from a satellite, why couldn't we protect our people? Please, tell me the truth as you see it; since you keep saying I'm making claims, which I am NOT, what IS the truth? SO easy to throw mud without facts.
Obviously, there were many failures of many kinds on 9/11. What's that got to do with this discussion? I don't think every failure should result in impeachment, especially since most of the failures were the result of lack of political will in the face of unpopularity ... so the people are as much to blame for many of the failures, as the officials.
As to your line about the satellite ... it makes no sense, you don't get it. I happen to know you don't have any idea what our satellites can do, and even if you did (which would be a national security breach), that would be when we know a specific person and location, which has nothing to do with the failures of 9/11.
As to not making claims ... whatever. I said Sparks was wrong, and you attacked me for that, which means you are defending the claims I said were wrong. That is how it works.
By the way... the fucking military unit responsible for keeping tabs on Al Quaeda was forced to stop them from the attacks before they happened. Then again, assclowns who jerk off to japanimation are too busy felating to the wet dreams of 50 year old Japanese men, to understand anything that requires an IQ of 3 to see. Good luck retards. "The Internet makes you stupid, indeed." :D Enjoy the fruits of your labor dumbshits.
Never heard of this dude. Talking about monetizing the debt. Has he ever heard of Ben Bernanke? You are NOT CHANGE. You are more of the same old diarrhea we've seen for decades! How many times are you going to change the wording and think us STUPID HICKS won't get it? We got it every time. THAT'S WHY YOU HAD TO CHANGE THE WORDING!! We get it. Why don't you?
DO you know anything about We Are Change? largely, they are opposed to someone such as Ben Bernake, as the entire system of the Federal Reserve is the downfall of the economy.
Sadly, I find that Something Awful, which used to be a valid comedy/satircal look at internet culture has succombed to the idiocy that it attempts to mock. They have every right to be absolute morons, but that doesn't deny the fact that they make themselves look like the dumbasses that they are. After all, there's nothing better than repeating White House talking points. What next, the turrists are gunna get us if we don't eat sum freedumb fries? Grow up, morons and read a fucking books.
Hal Sparks is neither an actor nor a comedian. He's a no-talent ass-clown who was fired from his hosting duties on Talk Soup. I couldn't give a rat's ass what he thinks of 9/11. He has no credibility.
indeed... and these morons just keep eating up. hopefully, one of these days these idiot celebrities will realize they don't know what they're talking and will hopefully make a correction. but i'm sure that'll only feed the hysteria of the rest of the conspiracy theorists. they'll just reason that they were either forced to makes such comments or that they were bought off by the nwo.
but then again, that's the m.o. of the conspiracy theorist. look for any hint of anything that could be taken ambiguously and assume that it supports your theories, even though it doesn't.
Side note, it's very interesting how people like you, who give the same responses, use the same structure & the same techniques... who seem to know a lot about the NIT report... trawl 9/11 'conspiracy' videos for hours & hours... posting inflammatory & insulting remarks.
If 9/11 wasn't an inside job & everyone knows it... why the fascination.
Hilarious... people are waking up - read the poll results.
i don't care your side notes. you're an idiot. my fascination has to do with the fact that after 8 years and numerous reports that have been written on this subject, there is still a large number of people who think 911 was an inside job. maybe you're someone who can just sit idly by as stupidity continually gets repeated, but i'm not.
ok, so i watched your video. it was more of the same. eyewitness testimonies of people who quite honestly don't know the difference between molten steel and other metals. i think the video i sent you covers this issue pretty well. let me know when you've watched it.
did you even watch the video i sent you? i think it answers your questions pretty well. there are a number of metals which have much lower melting points than steel, all of which could be accounted for. furthermore, i don't see how molten metal of any sort is evidence of a controlled demolition, especially weeks after. (cont.)
let's say you're in the business of controlled demolitions. why would you use anything that's going to be unsafe to remove weeks after a demolition? tell me how molten metal proves a controlled demolition.
shouldn't this question be raised in either event? and shouldn't it be even more peculiar in the event of a controlled demolition? can you show me one controlled demoltion where molten metal of any kind is found weeks after?
i believe i asked you first. and you never answered my question. but if you want an answer, fine. my best guess is there was molten metal weeks after because there was a sufficient amount heat trapped at the base like in a thermos (go ahead, laugh). layers of concrete provided a good amount of insulation so that very little heat could escape. again this i just my guess, and i still don't see how this proves a controlled demolition. (cont.)
so could you please give me any examples you know of controlled demoltions where molten metal is found weeks after? furthermore, could you show me some examples of controlled demolitions where surrounding building are usually damaged to the extent that wtc7 was damaged?
oxygen is needed for fire, genius. oxygen is not needed for heat to remain constant. where is all that oxygen inside a thermos that keeps hot things hot?
@cristoballs please clarify. what do you mean by non-standard? exactly what sort of info are you looking for? are you asking for video footage of demolitions that are top-down with the base also being blown out and with nanothermite being used?
@bigb47 perhaps you should direct your question to marcoddy. he was the one who suggested this was not a "standard" demolition. i was merely asking him to give some examples of these non-standard demolitions he spoke of. and yes, video footage would be nice. but i'll take any evidence of such demolitions.
ohhhh!!!! so it was "standard" controlled demolition. in an effort to bring down the two main towers and wtc7, the conspirators decided to go with a completely experimental procedure, because heck, if you're gonna blow up some building, why not take a chance and use an untested method, right?
well, since this wasn't a "standard" controlled demolition, can you give any examples of non-standard controlled demolitions where molten metal was found at the base, weeks after the explosions... other than the wtc, of course.
ok, so what metal was it that became molten? And how did all this metal gather together in the 9/11 - WTC - thermos that you have magically created in your own mind?
tell me something, genius. why is it i can do a google search of the term "support column", and i can find a hundred different websites relating specifically to structural engineering that use that exact term? don't believe me? search for yourself dumbass. i love it. you realize you can't argue the physics of the collapse with me, so now you're moving on in a lame attempt to parse words. and you've failed at that too. keep talking though. i enjoy making an idiot of you.
@cristoballs This is HILARIOUS. You have google searched 'Support column' and found the term does indeed exist...
I never said there was no such thing, I said that ALL columns are support columns. Because this is the JOB of a column... they SUPPORT things above them. No columns are there just for show. They ALL support .
You claimed that 'once the SUPPORT columns have gone, the rest fail'
The rest (that AREN'T support columns) - what are they ? Non support columns?
your argument is useless then. you're trying to assert that i don't know what i'm talking about because i used the term support column, when it is used by engineers all the time. there's a reason for that too. not all columns used in building design are used for support, as you claimed the are. some are there merely for decorative purposes. they may provide a minimal amount support, but they are not important to the overall support of the building, idiot.
In describing BUILDING 7 - you said (and I paraphrase)
'Once the support columns have gone, the rest are effectively useless'
The fact that you referred to some columns as 'Support columns' and other columns as 'the rest', means that by very definition, you are claiming that some were 'Support columns' and others were not.
Please can you tell me (by column number) which columns in building 7 were NOT support columns?
Your readers await. & idiot is not a debating word.
what's funny is you claimed i made that same statement yesterday, and i corrected you on it yesterday. so why are you still making this same lame assertion that i said that i never said? is it that hard for you to accept reality?
"it's simple once enough support columns give way, the remainder are essentially useless"
So you believe that the building stood firm (visually from the exterior pre-collapse) while these support columns were all tumbling down, and then the remainder of the columns suddenly all gave way, allowing the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds?
I hope you realise the people reading this are laughing at you.
if you were paraphrasing you would have at least conveyed the same message i expressed, and you certainly would have gotten it right after being corrected on it once before, but you didn't. i don't know if it's that you honestly don't see the difference between the two phrases, in which case you're an idiot. or you do know the difference and you intentionally misquoted me, in which case you're a liar. simply saying that you were "paraphrasing" does absolve you of either.
"So you believe that the building stood firm (visually from the exterior pre-collapse) while these support columns were all tumbling down, and then the remainder of the columns suddenly all gave way, allowing the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds?"
no. i never said that. the building was obviously damaged from the falling debris from the main towers. the fires within building also added to the loss of it's structural integrity. (cont.)
NIST & FEMA both agree that the damage prior to collapse had litle or no effect. Plus, the columns which supposedly gave way first are on the opposite side to the towers.
How do office fires create a loss of structural integrity? If fire damages steel, it BENDS, it doesn't suddenly just give way.
Steel simply does not behave like that. Neither do columns.
i'll even send you a link to the final copy, so that way you don't have to search for the report. i imagine, if such a statement exists within the report you should be able to point it out in a matter of minutes. and no paraphrasing. i want the exact text. we both know how you like to take creative license when it comes to paraphrasing.
whenever you get a chance... there's no rush, really. i know you're probably busy with all sorts of other conspiracies, and that taking the time to actually look for facts probably just gets in the way of that.
Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.
I doubt i'll get any kind of apology. But if you're gonna be a good 'debunkee' you should know your topic.
as i stated earlier, it wasn't just the structural damage that was caused by the falling debris that caused building to collapse, but the fires that followed that caused the structure to weaken to point of collapse. of course, idiots such as yourself ignore the fact that the building was on fire, and would rather believe that explosives were used when there is no evidence of them.
it's really funny that you're using a report titled "NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse" to try and prove that the collapse was caused explosive devices, especially when in that very report it explains why explosives couldn't have been used.
the reason i ask that you read the full report is that it is obvious you are unable to comprehend how a fire could weaken the structure of wtc 7 simply by reading the summary. and it's with good that you can't. it's because there is no explanation of that in the summary. you have to actually read the report. but if you're too lazy to read, then it's no wonder that you latch on to these incredibly stupid conspiracy theories.
there you go again, lying. here's what was actually said.
you: NIST & FEMA both agree that the damage prior to collapse had litle or no effect.
me: really? show the exact portion of the nist report that says that.
prior to the collapse, takes into consideration both the damage that was caused by the falling debris from the main towers, as well as the weakening of the support columns caused by the fires. (cont.)
now, you're trying to change the story, saying that you meant "initial damage", when before you stated "damage prior to the collapse". keep trying to re-write history.
"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7"
meaning, the initial damage caused by the debris had little effect. however, the report also says:
"a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems..."
yes, then you changed "initial damage" to "damage prior to collapse". these are not the same things.
and no i can't explain why other building have never collapsed due to thermal expansion. i haven't had the time to go through and analyze the structure of every building that's ever caught fire. however, it might have something to do with the fact that the water mains were damaged to wtc7, thus cutting off the sprinkler system, but i can't say for certain.
Insults - smears. Anyone reading can simply google cointelpro, 9/11, tactics.. to understand simply how you guys work. Lowest form of debate, utterly transparant. Let's see if you can go through the whole handbook on one thread shall we... Twoofers - Check Idiot - Check 'Other conspiracies' - Check Delluded - Check Conspiracy 'theory' - Check Moron - Check Come on son... you're still missing a few.
i think what's really hilarious about you conspiracy theory idiots, is the fact that as soon as anyone comes along and exposes you for the dumbasses you are, you immediately resort to claiming that we're either "shills" or that we're in on the conspiracy as well. yes, everyone who disagrees people like alex jones must be part of the nwo... oh no!!! you've figured us out!!!
Your tactics are the same... you've been studied. The phrases you use are exactly the same, the same structure of your replies. The same insults, the same profiles.
People are waking up, daily more & more people are understanding what cointel actually is.
As I said, it's a good job you guys exist, because it makes understanding how it all fits together a lot easier.
You only fool the weakest of minds, because in truth, you're not atcually that clever.
"You only fool the weakest of minds, because in truth, you're not atcually that clever."
right... because people like hal sparks, rosie o'donnell, and charlie sheen are clearly icons of intellectual superiority... oh and let's forget you either.
I support a new independent investigation of the events leading up to the events of 911, with a grand jury investigation into the fraudulent report submitted by N.I.S.T. to the 911 Commission.
What we are talking about here is murder/treason by elements within our government.
As hard as it is to comprehend, and the implications and ramifications that it will present, the questions must be asked and answered.
All the polls show that the people do not believe the official 911 Story/Lie!
You should also know on the day of the event the FDNY observed that building 7 was leaning! Well it had just been hit by parts of WTC1 after all, and was on fire. There were so concerned they got a surveyors transit to measure the increasing lean, as it got worst they took steps to clear the area because of the real danger of collapse. All the firemen there knew the building was messed up and in danger. Unless you think the FDNY were in on it?
i think what i really love about this video, is the two and a half minute build-up before sparks actually starts giving his expert opinion of 9/11. this should be proof enough that the people who 5 starred and favorited this video are complete idiots. "ooohhhh!!! he was in spider-man 2. he must know what he's talking about!!!! screw listening to scientists. we have hal sparks. he makes funny comments on vh1."
ok, so that i'm clear on what you're saying. you're saying that building 7, an 18 story building, fell completely at free fall speed and that it only took 2.5 seconds for the entire building to collapse? is that correct?
let's do a little math, shall we? an 18 story building is a roughly about 180ft tall, give or take. acceration due to gravity is 32ft/sec^2. going back to physics we know that d, which would be the height of the building would have to equal, 0.5gt^2. you're claiming that the entire building fell in 2.25 seconds. so t=2.25, and g=32. now, if we plug in the numbers would should get approx. 180ft, right?
note: wtc is actually a 47 story building. the 18 stories that i mentioned is actually part of the "observed descent" mentioned in the report. so for a 47-story building to fall in 2.25 seconds, acceleration due to gravity would have to be almost 6 times greater than it actually is.
NIST have agreed that there was 2.25 seconds of FREEfall before collapse.
Seriously, please can you explain how there can be 2.25 seconds (8 storeys) of pure freefall acceleration? Freefall acceleration means 100% of the energy is being used to fall, there is zero energy left over to crush the columns that are STOPPING it from committing suicide.
How could 8 storeys worth of steel suddenly jump out of the way? What made it lose 100% of it's strength?
"Seriously, please can you explain how there can be 2.25 seconds (8 storeys) of pure freefall acceleration?"
it's simple once enough support columns give way, the remainder are essentially useless. they may provide a momentary buffer, but they will break within a fraction of a second. this is all accounted for in the initial descention phase. after the support columns are gone, there's really not much holding the remainder of the top portion of the building in place. (cont.)
dude, i understand more about physics than you ever will. i don't know what's funnier. the fact that you still buy into all this b.s., even after it's been explained to you, or the fact that you think people who disagree with you are somehow either uneducated or shills. you're a joke.
but if you're going to parse like an idiot, because i stated that the columns that gave way were support, then it's clear that you've conceded that you've lost the argument and are looking to salvage what little respect you can in this debate.
Cristoballs....Stop wasting your time. Trying to debate a 9/11 twoofer is like trying to debate an eight year old on whether Santa exists or not. Its a fruitless debate. You can throw all the information you want at them that only takes 5 mins to look up and they'll come back at you with a strawman argument...
@cristoballs Hilarious... the image you're trying to project to anyone reading this... is that in a skyscraper... there are two different types of column...
Column A - Support columns
Column B - Essentially useless columns.
ALL columns are support columns, this is what columns do, this is their job.There's not two types, there's not 'Support columns' and 'Other columns, the ones that are useless when the support columns have gone'
"it's simple once enough support columns give way"
did i say anything about there being two types of support? no. all i was saying is that once enough of the load bearing elements give way, the remainder are useless. think of it like this. (cont.)
let's say you have a structure made up of match sticks. they're made to support a load of let's say a hundred pounds, and you have an 80 load on it. clearly, you have some match sticks that provide redundant support. now, let's say you start to remove the match sticks one by one. eventually, you'll notice some bending as the load becomes too great for the match sticks to support the load, not all of the match sticks will break simultaneously. (cont.)
parade of the Truther morons
businessguys 10 months ago
@businessguys And everything the government tells us is true? Is that what you think? Really, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I am sincerely interested in knowing if you believe everything the government tells us. Personally, I don't believe the government had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, but I think they played a part in covering it up, after the fact.
BIoodRedBIood 9 months ago
'..some of the hijackers are still alive..and most of them were from Saudi Arabia.." and this is supposed to be some big sophisticated US government operation?? - where the people who were going to be blamed for it are supposed to be dead but they are still alive!! Talk about illogical arguments. Does he have any evidence that these hijackers are still alive ? - to make a statement you need to have evidence. Please lets see an interview with one of them.
cwlldoran 11 months ago
Hal Sparks has a radio show in Chicago every Saturday and I listened one day expecting to hear some know nothing celebrity talk about things he doesn't understand. But Hal is an intelligent guy who actually knows politics, he was talking about during the health care debate how the process worked and how things had to go into committee and get kicked back to the House etc. He actually knows his shit.
starkweather444 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@starkweather444 You are 100% correct
alanb4130 9 months ago
Another brainless Twooftard.
kangtimelord 1 year ago
@kangtimelord another brainless youtube comment.
efcdk92 10 months ago
@Twoofer efcdk92,
I think you mistyped - "another brainless youtube video"
kangtimelord 10 months ago
@kangtimelord Nope after rechecking my spelling and grammar. I believe my original comment still stands
efcdk92 10 months ago
@Twoofer efcdk92,
My condolences, that proves you're an idiot.
kangtimelord 10 months ago
@kangtimelord Proves your an ignorant dickhead.
efcdk92 10 months ago
buy silver!
silverexplosion 1 year ago
Love what Hal says about a right to dig a little deeper. It's not about proving or disproving any specific thing. It's about having the guts and the balls to not just accept what we are spoon fed, from either perspective and to really try and be an informed nation. We get people on both sides talking from purely ignorant and underinformed ways that just refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that there are lies and misrepresentations of what happened.
MrsVanHansis 1 year ago
Hal is actually very intelligent rational person if you ever talk to him.
lilsm555 1 year ago
It took me 10 years, but I now consider myself a truther.
humanills 1 year ago
Much props to Hal Sparks for comin out and sayin that shit. Most don't even have the courage.
Tupac4lyfe44440 1 year ago 2
@Tupac4lyfe44440 I wouldnt say that. Many have the courage nowadays because you can't prove a lie, hence the truth always rises.
Arcanecide 6 months ago
He's a comedian
pmckendry 1 year ago
/?v=9G5OG22D
wgwe1z1 1 year ago
If you have any questions about 9/11, check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. There are over 1300 professional, degreed and licensed A&E that use science to explain the way the buildings fell. They also took debris from the drust and the steel and found military explosives. In fact, they said the explosives are so complicated that they can only be produced in a state-of-the-art lab. Check out ae911truth (dot) org
ObamaIsDaAntiChrist 1 year ago
Let's build a replica and crash a plane through and see what happens, I'm guessing it won't peel like a frigin banana !
purple2275 1 year ago
Fool.
jksonny 1 year ago
I agree with Hal. In fact, he's articulated things I've thought for a very long time far better than I could have. And good on him for always always always saying what he thinks and offering opinions in a candid, honest fashion. He's someone to look up to.
JayeLucas 1 year ago
dallars to euros=Iran thats the deal,not nuks!
wwdhhhh 1 year ago
lol. who dislikes this video? what do 18 people dislike about it? does he not come out ENOUGH about 9/11 being an inside job? did you want him to lie and say that it looks like the wtc buildings were not demolished when they clearly were?
lol.
bigb47 1 year ago
He's right.
Shizor25 1 year ago
Oh man, I had such respect for Hal. Now that I know he's in with the tinfoil hat crowd, I'll never look at him the same way again.
hurricanejbb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hurricanejbb "Oh man, I had such respect for Hal. Now that I know he's in with the tinfoil hat crowd, I'll never look at him the same way again."
Media World Is Complete. If someone can sing/dance/act/be funny, "entertain" the sheep - great. But should he dare to have a personal OPINION different to the government shepherds, then he must automatically be a tinfoil hat nutjob. Pathetic.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@hurricanejbb Obviously never had that much respect for him then did you. So he has a different train of thought to you you write him off? Where you a fan of him before because of his political stance? I dont think so, so wtf are you even talking about. He's asking questions and what he mentions about 9/11 doesn't add up. He's sceptical and he's inquisitive. Even if he's wrong I would have thought your respect would go up for him - putting his career on the line like that.
Crazyfish66 1 year ago
@hurricanejbb A lot of intelligent people have irrational beliefs.
vysehrad 1 year ago
@vysehrad Well put. It's revealing that he believes 5 of the hijackers are still alive. It is also revealing when he talks in absolutes, as he does about the Blg 7. It suggests a predisposition to believing what you want to believe rather than what the preponderance of (real) evidence points to. I still wonder why so many truthers ignore Chomsky's suggestion that if there were controlled demolition (he and I don't believe so), it's logical to conclude it was terrorists and not the US gov.
bman342 1 year ago
@hurricanejbb Anyone who can believe that 3 steel structures can fall at near free fall speed and that is a normal occurance should be institutionalized for being insane. The fact of the matter is there is too much proof proving that the official story is the conspiracy. Read some of the oral histories from 911 and you will discover many people that heard and were injured by explosions in the buildings. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Take a trip down the rabbit hole.
Empire895 1 year ago
Shut up, Hal Sparks haters!
Let him believe whatever he wants, just because he's a celebrity doesn't mean he is stupid
MegaStupidMagic 1 year ago 13
@MegaStupidMagic Correct. It is because he believes these idiotic conspiracy theories that means he is stupid.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet Yawn, and if you had at least taken some time to investigate the facts, you wouldn't be the ignorant idiot that you are.
Empire895 1 year ago
@Empire895 Funny, because I did investigate it, which is how I know Hal's (and apparently your) beliefs are stupid.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet,
Funny, because my investigation keep finding more and more information confirming the idea that 9/11 was an Inside Job...
I wouldn't call anyone's belief's "stupid", maybe under-informed...
When you have CIA connected insider trading, insurance fraud, NORAD stand down orders, War Game exercises, SEC fraud with Sarbanes-Oxley regulation, CIA funded and trained hijackers (patsies), tiers upon tiers of evidence pointing to a conspiracy... How do you deny all of it?
WarCrime911 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@WarCrime911 "investigation keep finding more and more information confirming the idea that 9/11 was an Inside Job..."
No, in fact, it doesn't. You keep finding more and more information, and you blindly fill in the major gaps in your information with your preconceptions, falsely leading you to believe that it is confirming your views, when in fact, it's not doing any such thing.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet Please note that watching mainstream media does not constitute an investigation. Any objective analysis of the events will absolutely contradict the official story. The evidence is overwhelming.
cmillertime7 1 year ago
@cmillertime Yawn. One example of this overwhelming evidence, please. Make it a good one. It will take me seconds to debunk it.
pudgenet 1 year ago
" there's never been a successful fear state" stay stupid Sheeple baaaaaah
mmongo55 1 year ago
project northwoods didn't succeed, remember? and it's really cute when people signify their disagreement on the internet by calling the other person "kid".
gobacid 1 year ago
which is more comforting: a vast conspiracy of government/military/corporate interests orchestrated an incredibly complex attack on american soil staged to look like a terrorist attack; or everyday people can be killed going to work at random by people who have never met you yet hate you and everything you stand for. "truthers" simply can't handle how incredibly unprotected their lives actually are.
gobacid 2 years ago
Actually, I believe both are true, and neither is comforting. My government creating false-flag operations to make me fear an enemy that they created in the first place is not a very comforting thought at all.
Userlevel6 1 year ago
for what purpose? what possible purpose could that serve? to create a fear/military state? no one in power who is smart enough to orchestrate something like that is also dumb enough to fail to realize that a plan like that would never work. there's never been a successful fear state, and it would work even less now, in a world suffused with instantaneous communication. time to take off the tinfoil hat.
gobacid 1 year ago
Apparently you've never heard of Project Northwoods. It's all about power and control. Time to do some research, kid.
Userlevel6 1 year ago
lol, Sheldon at 7:23
xPhalx 2 years ago
Wow.
I had no idea Hal Sparks was so damned gullible.
Most of what they say is completely false, like that any of the accused hijackers are still alive; that *any* of the 9/11 Commissioners said the report was "bullshit"; that the only way WTC7 could have fallen was controlled detonation; and so on.
He is not stupid, but he is not smart enough to realize he isn't as smart as he thinks he is. Proof that a little knowledge is ... only a LITTLE knowledge.
pudgenet 2 years ago
Thank you, government operative. How anybody with a rational mind can believe the government B.S. is beyond me, but then I am an educated man with an I.Q. of 141, unlike most dumb, fat Americans.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Wow. I point out various things he said that are false, and you respond merely with insipid fallacies, including ad hominem and red herring.
This isn't about intelligence or education, per se. It's about gullibility. Again: it's simply not true that the accused hijackers are alive, or that any of the 9/11 Commissioners said the report was "bullshit," or that the only way WTC7 could have falled was controlled detonation.
You just WANT to believe it, so you do. It's that simple.
pudgenet 2 years ago
You don't think our government is ful of crap, with all the lies they've fed us and all the corruption, and out and out theft of our tax dollars? You jus want to desperately believe in our government, don't you? Time for a cange.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Yes, like I said, you WANT to believe it. Just because our government lies a lot and is full of corruption does not mean that they are lying about THIS. I brought up specific things, and rather than provide proof (that doesn't exist!) for those things, you say "well, the government lies a lot." That doesn't prove your point at all.
Of course, NOTHING proves your point ... least of all the actual, you know, facts.
pudgenet 2 years ago
Please look up Dr. Joerg Scneider and Dr. Hugo Bachman, both prominent structural engineers and see what they have to say about the physical impossibility of the government's story about 9/11, that is if you're willing to listen to what two respected professionals have to say on the matter. Let's hear why they are wrong; you haven't proven anything by your pro-government rants.
billyguns2 2 years ago
And I can give you a dozen structural engineers who say what they say about WTC7 is completely wrong ... every one of them a more well-respected professional than either of them.
That you keep lying about me, saying I am pro-government, is more evidence (as if any is needed) that you are irrational. I have not said a single thing that is pro-government.
pudgenet 2 years ago
The really funny thing is that many people consider me anti-government ... your assertion that I am just out to defend the government is nonsense, borne entirely of your own blindness: you can't even discuss the facts, you just have to defend your own irrational belief by assuming anyone who doesn't see things as you do must be corrupt ... which is bizarre since no facts actually back up your belief. That's what makes it irrational, of course.
pudgenet 2 years ago
Many scientists, physicists, and people far more intelligent than I are saying that the government line about 9/11 is physically impossible; YouTube is filled with their brilliant, RATIONAL explanations and I am not going to indulge your game, govermment apologist. You just can't wrap your limited vision around the possibility that we were all duped, can you, and that our government may have a dark agenda.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Many MORE scientists, physicists, engineers, and so on, are saying it is NOT physically impossible at all.
You are using the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.
YouTube is filled with explanations, yes. They are neiher brilliant nor rational. I am simply a person who demands evidence, and that you think this means I am a "govt apologist" proves you're the one with limited vision. I never thought there was no possibility of a "dark agenda," but there's simply no truth to your claims.
pudgenet 2 years ago
It is truth that our government monumentally failed us on 9/11; do you deny that? Where was our vaunted superior defense system on that day? Why weren't our government officials impeached for failing to protect us? If we can take out one man in a street from a satellite, why couldn't we protect our people? Please, tell me the truth as you see it; since you keep saying I'm making claims, which I am NOT, what IS the truth? SO easy to throw mud without facts.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Obviously, there were many failures of many kinds on 9/11. What's that got to do with this discussion? I don't think every failure should result in impeachment, especially since most of the failures were the result of lack of political will in the face of unpopularity ... so the people are as much to blame for many of the failures, as the officials.
pudgenet 2 years ago
As to your line about the satellite ... it makes no sense, you don't get it. I happen to know you don't have any idea what our satellites can do, and even if you did (which would be a national security breach), that would be when we know a specific person and location, which has nothing to do with the failures of 9/11.
As to not making claims ... whatever. I said Sparks was wrong, and you attacked me for that, which means you are defending the claims I said were wrong. That is how it works.
pudgenet 2 years ago
By the way... the fucking military unit responsible for keeping tabs on Al Quaeda was forced to stop them from the attacks before they happened. Then again, assclowns who jerk off to japanimation are too busy felating to the wet dreams of 50 year old Japanese men, to understand anything that requires an IQ of 3 to see. Good luck retards. "The Internet makes you stupid, indeed." :D Enjoy the fruits of your labor dumbshits.
terramortim 2 years ago
Correction: they were force to refrain from stopping them.
Jokes on you suckers.
terramortim 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"they were force to refrain from stopping them"
False. That never happened.
pudgenet 2 years ago
I guess Something Awful wants to suffer the same fate as the rest of the corporate media. Enjoy, folks. :D
Sorry to say, you used to actually be relevent. What a bunch of fags.
terramortim 2 years ago
lol truthers are fags
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
Never heard of this dude. Talking about monetizing the debt. Has he ever heard of Ben Bernanke? You are NOT CHANGE. You are more of the same old diarrhea we've seen for decades! How many times are you going to change the wording and think us STUPID HICKS won't get it? We got it every time. THAT'S WHY YOU HAD TO CHANGE THE WORDING!! We get it. Why don't you?
koolawsomedude 2 years ago
DO you know anything about We Are Change? largely, they are opposed to someone such as Ben Bernake, as the entire system of the Federal Reserve is the downfall of the economy.
terramortim 2 years ago
Sadly, I find that Something Awful, which used to be a valid comedy/satircal look at internet culture has succombed to the idiocy that it attempts to mock. They have every right to be absolute morons, but that doesn't deny the fact that they make themselves look like the dumbasses that they are. After all, there's nothing better than repeating White House talking points. What next, the turrists are gunna get us if we don't eat sum freedumb fries? Grow up, morons and read a fucking books.
terramortim 2 years ago
Hal Sparks is neither an actor nor a comedian. He's a no-talent ass-clown who was fired from his hosting duties on Talk Soup. I couldn't give a rat's ass what he thinks of 9/11. He has no credibility.
DrDupe 2 years ago
He's the perfect example of a celebrity talking shit about something he hasn't actually investigated.
ercvstr 2 years ago
indeed... and these morons just keep eating up. hopefully, one of these days these idiot celebrities will realize they don't know what they're talking and will hopefully make a correction. but i'm sure that'll only feed the hysteria of the rest of the conspiracy theorists. they'll just reason that they were either forced to makes such comments or that they were bought off by the nwo.
cristoballs 2 years ago
he's a celebrity? Since when.
ohnoanotherputz 2 years ago
but then again, that's the m.o. of the conspiracy theorist. look for any hint of anything that could be taken ambiguously and assume that it supports your theories, even though it doesn't.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Side note, it's very interesting how people like you, who give the same responses, use the same structure & the same techniques... who seem to know a lot about the NIT report... trawl 9/11 'conspiracy' videos for hours & hours... posting inflammatory & insulting remarks.
If 9/11 wasn't an inside job & everyone knows it... why the fascination.
Hilarious... people are waking up - read the poll results.
marcoddy 2 years ago
i don't care your side notes. you're an idiot. my fascination has to do with the fact that after 8 years and numerous reports that have been written on this subject, there is still a large number of people who think 911 was an inside job. maybe you're someone who can just sit idly by as stupidity continually gets repeated, but i'm not.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Ah so you've got a moral obligation to inform the world we're all idiots - good use of your time.
Maybe you should get a job or something?
What caused the molten metal in the basement weeks after the event?
And yes, this has been reported by many many witnesses. Intelligent answers only please, not more insults as that's purile.
marcoddy 2 years ago
on molten metal, watch the following video.
watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
cristoballs 2 years ago
watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY
Watch this one, when the fire fighters are explaining that 'Molten metal flowed - like Lava'
Could you please tell me why they say this?
They're probably stupid conspiracy theorists too right?
marcoddy 2 years ago
i already sent you a video link explaining the molten metal. would you like me to send it to you again?
cristoballs 2 years ago
ok, so i watched your video. it was more of the same. eyewitness testimonies of people who quite honestly don't know the difference between molten steel and other metals. i think the video i sent you covers this issue pretty well. let me know when you've watched it.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Ok, so all these guys - the firemen especially... don't know the difference between molten steel & other metals?
So what do you believe they are describing?
Please, your best assumption on what it was exactly that they saw & are describing.
marcoddy 2 years ago
did you even watch the video i sent you? i think it answers your questions pretty well. there are a number of metals which have much lower melting points than steel, all of which could be accounted for. furthermore, i don't see how molten metal of any sort is evidence of a controlled demolition, especially weeks after. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
let's say you're in the business of controlled demolitions. why would you use anything that's going to be unsafe to remove weeks after a demolition? tell me how molten metal proves a controlled demolition.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Please explain how ANY molten metal could be there weeks after the event.
Best guess.
marcoddy 2 years ago
shouldn't this question be raised in either event? and shouldn't it be even more peculiar in the event of a controlled demolition? can you show me one controlled demoltion where molten metal of any kind is found weeks after?
cristoballs 2 years ago
Please answer the question without a barrage of other questions first.
marcoddy 2 years ago
i believe i asked you first. and you never answered my question. but if you want an answer, fine. my best guess is there was molten metal weeks after because there was a sufficient amount heat trapped at the base like in a thermos (go ahead, laugh). layers of concrete provided a good amount of insulation so that very little heat could escape. again this i just my guess, and i still don't see how this proves a controlled demolition. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
so could you please give me any examples you know of controlled demoltions where molten metal is found weeks after? furthermore, could you show me some examples of controlled demolitions where surrounding building are usually damaged to the extent that wtc7 was damaged?
cristoballs 2 years ago
Molten metal would be the result of a thermite/thermate reaction.
In this 'thermos' you have described... there would be a serious lack of OXYGEN.
OXYGEN is needed in any furnace to make molten metal.
Please can you explain how this thermos (a sealed environment) could make molten metal, when to generate & maintain massive heat, you need oxygen.
marcoddy 2 years ago
oxygen is needed for fire, genius. oxygen is not needed for heat to remain constant. where is all that oxygen inside a thermos that keeps hot things hot?
cristoballs 2 years ago
this is simple thermodynamics, something which is clearly over your head, as you made clear by joking about the thermos example that i gave.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Simple thermal dynamics?
That the heat inside this 'thermos' existed already, & it was just trapped?
So the trapped heat from the office fires was hot enough to melt & maintain a molten state... metals (but not steel) from within the trade centre?
And you're saying i'm the one with crazy ideas?
marcoddy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So the trapped heat from the office fires was hot enough to melt & maintain a molten state... metals (but not steel) from within the trade centre?"
yes. now you're getting it. see, it's not so difficult to understand. is it?
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
btw, i'm still waiting on some examples of non-standard controlled demolitions. whenever you get a chance, please let me know about them. thanks.
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
@cristoballs please clarify. what do you mean by non-standard? exactly what sort of info are you looking for? are you asking for video footage of demolitions that are top-down with the base also being blown out and with nanothermite being used?
bigb47 1 year ago
@bigb47 perhaps you should direct your question to marcoddy. he was the one who suggested this was not a "standard" demolition. i was merely asking him to give some examples of these non-standard demolitions he spoke of. and yes, video footage would be nice. but i'll take any evidence of such demolitions.
cristoballs 1 year ago
In answer to your question, this is only valid if one compares the destruction of the twin towers to a standard controlled demolition. Which I am not.
I believe the towers were brought down with a kind of explosive, but certainly not in a standard controlled demolition.
marcoddy 2 years ago
ohhhh!!!! so it was "standard" controlled demolition. in an effort to bring down the two main towers and wtc7, the conspirators decided to go with a completely experimental procedure, because heck, if you're gonna blow up some building, why not take a chance and use an untested method, right?
cristoballs 2 years ago
well, since this wasn't a "standard" controlled demolition, can you give any examples of non-standard controlled demolitions where molten metal was found at the base, weeks after the explosions... other than the wtc, of course.
cristoballs 2 years ago
*so it wasn't a "standard"...
cristoballs 2 years ago
gotta go for now. i eagerly await your response. good laughs.
cristoballs 2 years ago
ok, so what metal was it that became molten? And how did all this metal gather together in the 9/11 - WTC - thermos that you have magically created in your own mind?
marcoddy 2 years ago
no no. i answered your question. now answer mine. can you give me an example of a controlled demolition where molten metal is found weeks after?
cristoballs 2 years ago
Cristoballs, you have lost this debate.
Everyone who's reading it who understands a SHRED about construction knows it. ALL columns are support columns, that's what columns do.
Your cointelpro buddy Josh has also just followed the 'Cointelpro 101' handbook.
Seriously - I'm GLAD you guys exist, as more wake up, they need to see you shills & how you operate in order to fully understand the bigger picture.
marcoddy 2 years ago
tell me something, genius. why is it i can do a google search of the term "support column", and i can find a hundred different websites relating specifically to structural engineering that use that exact term? don't believe me? search for yourself dumbass. i love it. you realize you can't argue the physics of the collapse with me, so now you're moving on in a lame attempt to parse words. and you've failed at that too. keep talking though. i enjoy making an idiot of you.
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs This is HILARIOUS. You have google searched 'Support column' and found the term does indeed exist...
I never said there was no such thing, I said that ALL columns are support columns. Because this is the JOB of a column... they SUPPORT things above them. No columns are there just for show. They ALL support .
You claimed that 'once the SUPPORT columns have gone, the rest fail'
The rest (that AREN'T support columns) - what are they ? Non support columns?
marcoddy 2 years ago
your argument is useless then. you're trying to assert that i don't know what i'm talking about because i used the term support column, when it is used by engineers all the time. there's a reason for that too. not all columns used in building design are used for support, as you claimed the are. some are there merely for decorative purposes. they may provide a minimal amount support, but they are not important to the overall support of the building, idiot.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Correction.
In describing BUILDING 7 - you said (and I paraphrase)
'Once the support columns have gone, the rest are effectively useless'
The fact that you referred to some columns as 'Support columns' and other columns as 'the rest', means that by very definition, you are claiming that some were 'Support columns' and others were not.
Please can you tell me (by column number) which columns in building 7 were NOT support columns?
Your readers await. & idiot is not a debating word.
marcoddy 2 years ago
interesting... you've just proven your ability to distort history. here's what you said i said.
"Once the support columns have gone, the rest are effectively useless"
and here's what i actually said
"it's simple once ENOUGH support columns give way"
well, now that we've established that you're a liar, why should anyone take you seriously?
cristoballs 2 years ago
what's funny is you claimed i made that same statement yesterday, and i corrected you on it yesterday. so why are you still making this same lame assertion that i said that i never said? is it that hard for you to accept reality?
cristoballs 2 years ago
*that i said something that i never said...
cristoballs 2 years ago
I already said I paraphrased.
"it's simple once enough support columns give way, the remainder are essentially useless"
So you believe that the building stood firm (visually from the exterior pre-collapse) while these support columns were all tumbling down, and then the remainder of the columns suddenly all gave way, allowing the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds?
I hope you realise the people reading this are laughing at you.
marcoddy 2 years ago
if you were paraphrasing you would have at least conveyed the same message i expressed, and you certainly would have gotten it right after being corrected on it once before, but you didn't. i don't know if it's that you honestly don't see the difference between the two phrases, in which case you're an idiot. or you do know the difference and you intentionally misquoted me, in which case you're a liar. simply saying that you were "paraphrasing" does absolve you of either.
cristoballs 2 years ago
*does not absolve you of either.
cristoballs 2 years ago
"So you believe that the building stood firm (visually from the exterior pre-collapse) while these support columns were all tumbling down, and then the remainder of the columns suddenly all gave way, allowing the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds?"
no. i never said that. the building was obviously damaged from the falling debris from the main towers. the fires within building also added to the loss of it's structural integrity. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
this is why you can see a slow descension in the building's roofline just before the period when the building is falling at near free-fall speed.
cristoballs 2 years ago
NIST & FEMA both agree that the damage prior to collapse had litle or no effect. Plus, the columns which supposedly gave way first are on the opposite side to the towers.
How do office fires create a loss of structural integrity? If fire damages steel, it BENDS, it doesn't suddenly just give way.
Steel simply does not behave like that. Neither do columns.
Only in the mind of hopeless 'debunkees'.
marcoddy 2 years ago
"NIST & FEMA both agree that the damage prior to collapse had litle or no effect."
really? show the exact portion of the nist report that says that.
cristoballs 2 years ago
i'll even send you a link to the final copy, so that way you don't have to search for the report. i imagine, if such a statement exists within the report you should be able to point it out in a matter of minutes. and no paraphrasing. i want the exact text. we both know how you like to take creative license when it comes to paraphrasing.
cristoballs 2 years ago
whenever you get a chance... there's no rush, really. i know you're probably busy with all sorts of other conspiracies, and that taking the time to actually look for facts probably just gets in the way of that.
cristoballs 2 years ago
nist. gov public_affairs releases wtc082108
Scroll down.
Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.
I doubt i'll get any kind of apology. But if you're gonna be a good 'debunkee' you should know your topic.
marcoddy 2 years ago
as i stated earlier, it wasn't just the structural damage that was caused by the falling debris that caused building to collapse, but the fires that followed that caused the structure to weaken to point of collapse. of course, idiots such as yourself ignore the fact that the building was on fire, and would rather believe that explosives were used when there is no evidence of them.
cristoballs 2 years ago
it's really funny that you're using a report titled "NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse" to try and prove that the collapse was caused explosive devices, especially when in that very report it explains why explosives couldn't have been used.
cristoballs 2 years ago
NIST say themselves that 'damage' had little effect.
So can you please explain how fire managed to knock out support columns & make the building fall at freefall for the first 2.25 seconds of collapse.
No evidence of explosives? Except for the numerous witnesses who heard them, including firefighters, maintainence workers.
No evidence other tha the massive sulphidation of the steel?
No evidence including the Open peer reviewed scientific paper on nanothermite.
Yeah, no evidence.
marcoddy 2 years ago
how about you actually read the report, rather than the summary of the report? think you can swing it?
cristoballs 2 years ago
This is a summary of the report... on the NIST website.
Are you SO laughable that you will not accept a summary of the NIST report from the NIST website?
marcoddy 2 years ago
the reason i ask that you read the full report is that it is obvious you are unable to comprehend how a fire could weaken the structure of wtc 7 simply by reading the summary. and it's with good that you can't. it's because there is no explanation of that in the summary. you have to actually read the report. but if you're too lazy to read, then it's no wonder that you latch on to these incredibly stupid conspiracy theories.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Correction,
you asked me to find where it said that the initial damage had little effect on the collapse of the building.
I found you the summary that NIST have done on its own report... stating the very thing that you asked me to provide you evidence of.
What part of this do you not understand?
But since you have flipped to the 'fire caused it' thing. Can you explain exactly how fire caused it? If you have read it that is.
marcoddy 2 years ago
there you go again, lying. here's what was actually said.
you: NIST & FEMA both agree that the damage prior to collapse had litle or no effect.
me: really? show the exact portion of the nist report that says that.
prior to the collapse, takes into consideration both the damage that was caused by the falling debris from the main towers, as well as the weakening of the support columns caused by the fires. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
now, you're trying to change the story, saying that you meant "initial damage", when before you stated "damage prior to the collapse". keep trying to re-write history.
cristoballs 2 years ago
it's actually kinda funny. you spout off so much b.s., that not even you pay attention to yourself.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Excuse yourself, where was the lie exactly?
NIST admit that prior damage had little effect on the building's 'collapse'.
I have stated my source (the NIST summary of its own report)
What's complicated here?
marcoddy 2 years ago
actually, this is what the summary says:
"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7"
meaning, the initial damage caused by the debris had little effect. however, the report also says:
"a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems..."
cristoballs 2 years ago
This is what I said, initial damage had little effect on the 'collapse' of building 7!
Can you explain why thermal expansion has never caused the freefall of a steel framed skyscraper before?
marcoddy 2 years ago
yes, then you changed "initial damage" to "damage prior to collapse". these are not the same things.
and no i can't explain why other building have never collapsed due to thermal expansion. i haven't had the time to go through and analyze the structure of every building that's ever caught fire. however, it might have something to do with the fact that the water mains were damaged to wtc7, thus cutting off the sprinkler system, but i can't say for certain.
cristoballs 2 years ago
marcoddy 2 years ago
Please don't make a further foolof yourself by mentioning Physics.
The building fell VERTICALLY, for the first 2.5 seconds of downward motion, at freefall acceleration.
So for the first 2.5 seconds of DOWNWARD motion, there was ZERO resistance to fall.
ZERO resistance to fall. How did that happen? The readers know this, they aint as stupid as you hope they are.
ZERO resistance to collapse for 2.5 seconds, allowing the building to ACCELERATE.
It's really not too difficult.
marcoddy 2 years ago
i think what's really hilarious about you conspiracy theory idiots, is the fact that as soon as anyone comes along and exposes you for the dumbasses you are, you immediately resort to claiming that we're either "shills" or that we're in on the conspiracy as well. yes, everyone who disagrees people like alex jones must be part of the nwo... oh no!!! you've figured us out!!!
cristoballs 2 years ago
Your tactics are the same... you've been studied. The phrases you use are exactly the same, the same structure of your replies. The same insults, the same profiles.
People are waking up, daily more & more people are understanding what cointel actually is.
As I said, it's a good job you guys exist, because it makes understanding how it all fits together a lot easier.
You only fool the weakest of minds, because in truth, you're not atcually that clever.
marcoddy 2 years ago
"You only fool the weakest of minds, because in truth, you're not atcually that clever."
right... because people like hal sparks, rosie o'donnell, and charlie sheen are clearly icons of intellectual superiority... oh and let's forget you either.
cristoballs 2 years ago
testing...
cristoballs 2 years ago
google:cinfosouce
theoperationfreedom 2 years ago
I support a new independent investigation of the events leading up to the events of 911, with a grand jury investigation into the fraudulent report submitted by N.I.S.T. to the 911 Commission.
What we are talking about here is murder/treason by elements within our government.
As hard as it is to comprehend, and the implications and ramifications that it will present, the questions must be asked and answered.
All the polls show that the people do not believe the official 911 Story/Lie!
MajorBuckSnort 2 years ago
You should also know on the day of the event the FDNY observed that building 7 was leaning! Well it had just been hit by parts of WTC1 after all, and was on fire. There were so concerned they got a surveyors transit to measure the increasing lean, as it got worst they took steps to clear the area because of the real danger of collapse. All the firemen there knew the building was messed up and in danger. Unless you think the FDNY were in on it?
motorartist 2 years ago
i think what i really love about this video, is the two and a half minute build-up before sparks actually starts giving his expert opinion of 9/11. this should be proof enough that the people who 5 starred and favorited this video are complete idiots. "ooohhhh!!! he was in spider-man 2. he must know what he's talking about!!!! screw listening to scientists. we have hal sparks. he makes funny comments on vh1."
cristoballs 2 years ago
Building 7 - freefall.
Understand the laws of physics... or else be like every other debunkee/shill & claim that the laws of physics don't apply to building 7..
Or disprove the freefall of building 7 by providing a link to a debunking website that disproves freefall at completely different buildings.
Typical shill tactics. It's wearing thin now guys, people know your game.
marcoddy 2 years ago
ok, so that i'm clear on what you're saying. you're saying that building 7, an 18 story building, fell completely at free fall speed and that it only took 2.5 seconds for the entire building to collapse? is that correct?
cristoballs 2 years ago
let's do a little math, shall we? an 18 story building is a roughly about 180ft tall, give or take. acceration due to gravity is 32ft/sec^2. going back to physics we know that d, which would be the height of the building would have to equal, 0.5gt^2. you're claiming that the entire building fell in 2.25 seconds. so t=2.25, and g=32. now, if we plug in the numbers would should get approx. 180ft, right?
0.5*32*(2.25)^2=81. hmmm... 81 doesn't equal 180. guess you're wrong, idiot.
cristoballs 2 years ago
note: wtc is actually a 47 story building. the 18 stories that i mentioned is actually part of the "observed descent" mentioned in the report. so for a 47-story building to fall in 2.25 seconds, acceleration due to gravity would have to be almost 6 times greater than it actually is.
cristoballs 2 years ago
*correction, wtc was actually a 47-story building. this makes the claim that it fell collapsed within 2.25 seconds all the more ridiculous.
cristoballs 2 years ago
The whole collapse took 6.5 seconds.
NIST have agreed that there was 2.25 seconds of FREEfall before collapse.
Seriously, please can you explain how there can be 2.25 seconds (8 storeys) of pure freefall acceleration? Freefall acceleration means 100% of the energy is being used to fall, there is zero energy left over to crush the columns that are STOPPING it from committing suicide.
How could 8 storeys worth of steel suddenly jump out of the way? What made it lose 100% of it's strength?
marcoddy 2 years ago
"Seriously, please can you explain how there can be 2.25 seconds (8 storeys) of pure freefall acceleration?"
it's simple once enough support columns give way, the remainder are essentially useless. they may provide a momentary buffer, but they will break within a fraction of a second. this is all accounted for in the initial descention phase. after the support columns are gone, there's really not much holding the remainder of the top portion of the building in place. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
that much mass moving through a few floors of unsupported concrete will move right through them like they were nothing.
cristoballs 2 years ago
oh please come back with more proof, and tell me how i'm a shill because i don't buy in to these moronic theories... pretty please!
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs ALL columns are 'SUPPORT' columns. That's what columns do, they have no other purpose.
Please go to a basic construction class before making a fool of yourself.
marcoddy 2 years ago
dude, i understand more about physics than you ever will. i don't know what's funnier. the fact that you still buy into all this b.s., even after it's been explained to you, or the fact that you think people who disagree with you are somehow either uneducated or shills. you're a joke.
cristoballs 2 years ago
you know more about physics than I ever will?
And you're telling us there's 'support columns' and 'non support columns'.
You're a comedian.
marcoddy 2 years ago
yes, there is a such thing as columns that are not meant support, dumb ass.
cristoballs 2 years ago
but if you're going to parse like an idiot, because i stated that the columns that gave way were support, then it's clear that you've conceded that you've lost the argument and are looking to salvage what little respect you can in this debate.
cristoballs 2 years ago
*parse words...
cristoballs 2 years ago
Cristoballs....Stop wasting your time. Trying to debate a 9/11 twoofer is like trying to debate an eight year old on whether Santa exists or not. Its a fruitless debate. You can throw all the information you want at them that only takes 5 mins to look up and they'll come back at you with a strawman argument...
JoshMcRay 2 years ago
true... true...
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs 'Simple when enough support columns give way'
ALL columns are SUPPORT columns, that's what columns are... they SUPPORT what's above it.
Do you understand how funny it is 'debating' with someone who doesn't understand this.
I'm glad people like you exist, because people reading our exchange laugh at you.
(bring on the 'no, people laugh at you moronic truthers & your crazy theories')
Yeah, like the laws of physics that we often quote.
Keep it coming man! Funny stuff!
marcoddy 2 years ago
@cristoballs Hilarious... the image you're trying to project to anyone reading this... is that in a skyscraper... there are two different types of column...
Column A - Support columns
Column B - Essentially useless columns.
ALL columns are support columns, this is what columns do, this is their job.There's not two types, there's not 'Support columns' and 'Other columns, the ones that are useless when the support columns have gone'
You've REALLY made me laugh with that one.
marcoddy 2 years ago
this is the statement i made, idiot.
"it's simple once enough support columns give way"
did i say anything about there being two types of support? no. all i was saying is that once enough of the load bearing elements give way, the remainder are useless. think of it like this. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago
let's say you have a structure made up of match sticks. they're made to support a load of let's say a hundred pounds, and you have an 80 load on it. clearly, you have some match sticks that provide redundant support. now, let's say you start to remove the match sticks one by one. eventually, you'll notice some bending as the load becomes too great for the match sticks to support the load, not all of the match sticks will break simultaneously. (cont.)
cristoballs 2 years ago