So basically the non-noplaner truthers think that the planes WERE flown into the buildings by the terrorists... but it wasn't a terrorist attack..... Does that make sense to anyone?
during communism there was not enough apartments ... and some one had this idea... its late and i wrote what i think in two different posts all the way up :)any way i checked this just now and official sources say that those buildings are build to last only 60-70y( when build correctly)and because there was big shortage in department and in general no one cared...some of the houses were a history just after 35y..
Building on the video is i believe block of flats( they build a lot of them in Poland in 70s 80s)…. those buildings are a mess,even an explosion from a SMALL propane container could demolish half of the block.There is a reason why high rise buildings have a structural frame. Tractors on this video pulled Carrier wall( im not sure if this is correct name for that part of structure- English is not my first language.)
@krzysg1982 Thats why building collapsed like that, in high rise buildings steel frame is an carrier element. To have the same effect in wtc1 and 2 and 7 steel frame had to be destroyed.
@ctcole77 i see you got nothing constructive to say... and soon you might be out questions( first two make no sense). Yesterday i answered your TOP 5 FIVE QUESTIONS TRUTHERS DONT WANT TO ASK... and i see you are not coming back to them again.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
@ctcole77 3. Why is there not any clear footage of the plane that entered the Pentagon? There should be without doubt many, many angles from different cameras that caught the plane approaching and entering the building. Maybe there was a plane, I wasn't there, but the dimensions of the entrance hole(footage is smoky and unclear here too) and the fact that there is a punchout hole 3 rings in seems strange.
@yearginclarke Simple - security cameras operate at a slow frame rate, way too slow to take good pics of an object going 500mph. They just aren't designed to do that, plain and simple.
So you're looking for a kind of evidence which is not expected in this case. Nor is it needed - there is literally a mountain of empirical forensic evidence which proves, without a doubt, exactly what airplane hit the pentagon and who was onboard.
@yearginclarke I think you're also making other assumptions which are not correct - such as that there 'should be' a bunch of cameras randomly pointing outward into the sky.
Also not only were the blackboxes recovered, but the data from the FDR was retrieved. It is definitive proof of the kind of aircraft, indeed the specific aircraft which crashed.
You don't get footage of most airplane crashes while they're happening - it's very rare for that to happen. Think about it.
@AlienEntity1 I do have an open mind about things, and all the witnesses of 77 have always intrigued me, but the whole event still seems fishy to me. Just my opinion.
@yearginclarke Fishy? The plane crashed there, there's no question about it for serious people. There are a lot of flakes out there who are barking at the moon, but you don't want to give them credence, trust me on that one.
Sure, it doesn't look much like a plane crash, but then neither did this, and it happened in 1987 or so.
watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4
I've seen truthers argue that there were no planes in NYC as well - they claim it was either realtime CGI or holograms.... yup.
@yearginclarke To be honest, anybody who is a no-planer (either WTC, Pentagon or Shanksville) is not worth talking to. They're either
a) Delusional
b) Don't care about facts and truth
Either way, it's a waste of time. Until I came across 9/11 Truthers I didn't know that people could hold such stunningly stupid convictions, nor that they could be so resistant to the truth. But truthers have taught me that no matter how foolish the idea, they will believe it..
@ctcole77 RE:If a postcard could survive the Hindenburg inferno isn't it possible for a passport to survive the WTC collapse?"
Almost anything is possible but do you really believe that the passport could survive direct collision with a building, the fiery inferno and the subsequent collapse resulting in the pulverization of most of the building materials? Maybe the passport fell out of his pocket before his body was incinerated?
@dwheel39 The most likely explanation is that the passport was ejected during the initial plane crash, just like all kinds of other paper materials from passengers, including drivers licenses, wallets, suitcases and clothing, and airline boarding passes.
All those kinds of objects were observed immediately following the plane impacts, but before the collapses.
So your question is really a strawman since it assumes everything was released upon collapse. That is just not true.
@AlienEntity1 RE:The most likely explanation is that the passport was ejected during the initial plane crash"
I'm sorry but i have to disagree. The most likely explanation in light of ALL the evidence and myriads of problems with the official story is that the passport claim is B.S.
@dwheel39 That's unfortunate because, as I mentioned, a lot of personal fx of passengers, and also hijackers, was found.
I hope you're not suggesting it was planted, because that's really implausible - for a hijacker and a passenger to board a plane, take off, then have their personal stuff who up at a crash site where the plane crashed is not implausible, it's just plain LOGICAL.
Nothing sinister or strange about it, but it is sad that it happened.
@AlienEntity1 RE:I hope you're not suggesting it was planted, because that's really implausible "
Why would that be implausible? Consider who found it...ex NY chief of police Bernard Kerik who was just sentenced to 4 years in prison on 8 counts of felonies!
This of course does not PROVE my case..but like in any court of law, his character should be taken into account. Planted evidence is not implausible..in this case or even local criminal cases.
@dwheel39 Ah, a quick exercise in character assassination without offering any evidence.
Nice try, but that fails completely. You truthers seem to think that whatever you imagine must be true, with no proof. Reality just doesn't work that way. Neither does science.
You made the claim, the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. And you evade it, as truthers always do.
@AlienEntity1 RE:You truthers seem to think that whatever you imagine must be true, with no proof."
I gave you a rational reason why i distrust Kerik. For YOU to believe him, you have greater faith than i do...he's in prison for CORRUPTION and you think I'M running wild with my imagination for distrusting his hijacker passport claim?
You can believe what you want but the passport story to me, is ridiculous.
@dwheel39 NO, it isn't rational to throw out all the evidence based on your mistrust of Kerik. He wasn't the arresting officer, he didn't file the police report either.
You're making huge leaps and assumptions, dismissing everything on account of your suspicion.
@AlienEntity1 RE: NO, it isn't rational to throw out all the evidence based on your mistrust of Kerik."
I'm throwing out absurdities, NOT evidence. The passport claim is just as ridiculous as the claim (discussed by a Pop Mechanics research editor) that the hijackers DNA was found and they were identified! Yes, in all the rubble and pulverized building materials, they found DNA of the Arab hijackers! Do you believe that one too?
@dwheel39 Plus the fact that you refuse to accept basic facts, such as the passports and other artifacts of passengers and, yes, hijackers which were recovered.
You simply do not know how to assess evidence rationally, that's the problem. You are thus left in a state of perpetual mistrust and confusion - you see, we all must rely on others to verify things, we can't know everything first hand.
@AlienEntity1 RE:You simply do not know how to assess evidence rationally, that's the problem. "
No, i have a problem with the government hiding and destroying the evidence, suppressing the testimonies of those who contradict their fable and the silencing of all whistleblowers.
To defend such known, documented liars such as Bush, Rice, Cheney and believe the someone like Zelikow led an impartial investigation is naive, i'm sorry. Why you defend them all is beyond me.
@dwheel39 May I remind you we're talking about the discovery of personal artifacts found in various locations by various teams of people. These include: FDNY, NYPD, FBI etc...
And somehow you link this all to the red herring of Kerik???? WTF Kerik had nothing to do with any of that stuff, you are introducing something which is irrelevant to those facts.
You probably don't even know who arrested the people in the van with the alleged explosives (again, nothing to do with the passports
@dwheel39 It's exactly your kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off scott free. His sleazy lawyers insinuated that LAPD had 'planted' the bloody glove found on his property, so they successfully poisoned the well.
You do exactly the same thing. Not nice, not honest, but very typical of truther debating tactics.
CeeCee Lyles DL was found at the Shanksville crash site. I suppose that was planted as well??????
@AlienEntity1 RE:It's exactly your kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off scott free."
I think that case suits you better. Believing what is spoon fed to you, you are like a jury member at the OJ trial without any critical thinking skills. You believe the rhetoric and politically correct jargon hashed out by the equivalent of the "sleazy lawyers" you mentioned, namely politicians.
Do you also believe the "evil doers are jealous of our freedom"?
@dwheel39 Facts: 'wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. They sit in an El Segundo, Calif., mortuary and will be returned to victims' families in February.
"We have some property for most passengers," said Craig Hendrix, a funeral coordinator and a personal effects administrator with Douglass Air Disaster Funeral Coordinators,
@dwheel39 'Michael Sheehan, a broker... he could smell the fumes of fuel that had begun to filter through the ventilation systems of the two buildings.
On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.
"I realized then that it was a commercial flight. '
Ahh...so now you're quoting eyewitnesses. How about you include the testimonies of the hundreds that conflict with the official myth? Oh they are probably mistaken or idiots too right?
Ahh...so now you're quoting eyewitnesses. How about you include the testimonies of the hundreds that conflict with the official myth? Oh they are probably mistaken or idiots too right?
@dwheel39 'Mr. RICHARD MARX (FBI Special Agent): It's been good. I've met some of the finest people that New York City has to offer that have worked alongside of us tirelessly, recovering small bits and pieces of people' s lives. And we were finding basically the small fragments, whether it's pieces of jewelry, their personal identification, things that were recovered from on top of their desks. Just recently we found a wallet of one of the passengers aboard Flight 11,..'
@dwheel39 So by your insinuation all those people who picked up bits of passengers lives, photos, passports, wallets, WERE ALL LYING AND CONNECTED TO KERIK???
There is something seriously wrong with people like you. You disrespect basic forensics, basic decency and facts. All becuase you NEED to believe in your malicious conspiracy theories, in spite of the facts.
@AlienEntity1 RE:There is something seriously wrong with people like you. You disrespect basic forensics, basic decency and facts"
So even though there have been a few peer reviewed papers about chemical signature for thermite found in the dust and verified by at least 9 independent and international scientists with tangible evidence, you don't accept that.
But...when the government tells you they identified the hijackers with unscathed passports and DNA, you believe it....okay...
@dwheel39 Even in the case of the crash of flight 93 in Shanksville, lots of personal items were discovered all over the place, along with random papers.
For example, flight attendant CeeCee Lyles driver's license was found intact, even though most of the plane disintegrated.
This stuff is fairly normal, even while it is very creepy.
@Tomaji69 Uhmmm, that IS, by definition, steel infrastructure. Reinforced concrete is very strong, but can collapse just as any other structure under certain conditions.
Both steel and reinforced concrete columns have maximum design loads, which must be engineered properly. There's no fail-safe material
btw, fires can cause even concrete to fail. Ex. U of Delft architecture bldg in 2008. One tower completely collapsed from fire.
The building didn't collapse a free fall speed. If anything this can prove how unlikely the 9/11 events happened like they did. If you look closely and compare, the top part of the building meets resistance, stops then starts slowing crushing the floors below, and as it crushes them, you can see it slow down even. The energy output makes sense in this video, unlike their 9/11 counterparts. The WTC collapse couldn't generate enough force to grind the building and fall at free fall speed.
Wow this looks very similar to the WTC collapse and no explosives were used here. Funny how the lower floors panckake straight down, something truthers claim is impossible without advanced thermite technology or somefink.
@Spindry96 This video shows a prepared demolition... the floors that "pancaked" did so because they were prepared to do so.. however the big argument around the WTC's is that the floors(70) below the impact zone were not damaged. and it fell at nearly free fall speed as said in the investigations done and that claim has been proven wrong with many facts and proves for a new investigation.
@TheRickyCaldwell "Prepared" you say. Wow you can tell a lot from a video. All l see is one wall being pulled and the falling weight AND kinetic energy pancakes the lower floors at near free fall speed like the WTC without explosives. Unless there were explosives used and they were the secret silent WTC type :). Anything else you would like to exagerate about?
@Spindry96 I would argue the near free fall speed part, IT slows down after hitting the floor below and then continues to slow down the entire way down. They only did it to half the building, I wonder why that is. I want to see more of these collapses to compare, maybe a bigger building, maybe an ENTIRE building at least. Using this video as any sort of proof is the equivalent of comparing building's that caught on fire but didn't fall like the Twin towers and WT7.
@notSiD It looks pretty close to me. Lets see, floors close to the top structurally fails. Falling kinetic weight of falling falls simply to powerful for each lower floor they meet on the way down. Floors pancake, outer walls eject outwards looking like explosives. All this without explosives. Wow l could have written that about the WTC. Arguing about fall speed really is reaching to defend your bias.
@Spindry96 no way, the fall is the energy that is being generated that crushes the building below. It's the KEY factor. If you total the amount of energy generated by the fall, and the resistance it meets below, it's impossible to reach full free-fall speed, because the resistance would always slow it down to less that that. This video isn't even close to free fall speed. I bet these collapses didn't melt steel either. There are many factor's which are all important, ignoring them is erroneous
@notSiD The only resistance is each floor that the total falling weight and it's falling kinetic energy meets in turn. If a floor is rated to safely support for example 5 floors static wieght what happens when 15 floors kinetic weight falls on it? BTW the WTC did not fall at free fall speed so it's a pointless observation.
@Spindry96 It'll slow down, and then continue to slow down for every consecutive floor that it crushes, not speed up. And yes, all three buildings fell at NEAR (less than half a second off) free fall speed. If you think these videos are NEAR free fall speed, you need to take a closer look. Free fall speed requires constant acceleration. not deceleration like all the top-down collapse videos I've seen. And compared to this building, the WTC towers would have had tons more resistance to them.
@notSiD WTC 2 fell took 2 seconds longer than free fall. More importaintly the falling speed was 200 km per hour as opposed to 300 km per hour which is free fall speed. You are also totally ignoring that each floor is rated to resist 1300 t in excess of ther weight, around 45,000 t fell on them. a massive crushing kinetic weight. Also as more floors colapsed more weight was added to the falling mass and thats discounting everything that was ejected outwards laterally
Willy Rodriguez is a travelling showman. There's no proof of explosions, and they're not even necessary for the towers to have collapsed. Saudi Arabia funded and supported the hijackers, Bush is on record covering up for them, Bush and Rumsfeld deserted their posts when they were the only people who could have done anything about it, and the head of the CIA's Alec Station protected the hijackers. Get over the controlled demolition romance. You're paying for Richard Gage's perpetual vacation.
If you look at the videos of the collapse of the towers, it tilts forward, unlike this video. Does the science still work under those conditions? how about the thousands of eyewitnesses to other explosions besides the towers, many hearing and feeling the blasts in sub-basement levels before the planes even hit!
@notSiD You need to be much more critical and careful in your research if you want to understand things. What you're doing is reciting a bunch of heresay, you're not even quoting correctly, and you haven't done any physics research.
There were NOT thousands of witnesses reporting explosions, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. And the reports of blasts were from people WHO COULDN"T SEE OUTSIDE - so how would they know when the planes hit?? LOL
@notSiD So what? People report both explosions and molten steel at other events such as fires. It happens all the time.
watch?v=dizurbqG50U
There is no empirical evidence of molten steel at the WTC, and even if there were, it still has nothing to do with controlled demolition - molten steel is not seen at controlled demolitions, either.
There was lots of molten metal seen, but it wasn't tested. It was under WTC 6 as well, caused by fires.
@notSiD If you could at least quote the person who claims blasts happened b4 the plane crashes, we could address the point intelligently. Up to you. I'm not going to do your research for you.
@notSiD Quote please, in his words. I know what he said, I just want you to pay attention to the details.
You already know that he couldn't have seen the plane, so it's useless to use him as your sole source of 'evidence' that there were explosions before the plane hit, right?
But your claim fails for a much simpler reason - there were thousands of people in the towers - THEY didn't feel or hear explosions b4 the planes hit. Death to your myth.
@AlienEntity1 And still, those explosive sounds have to be given credibility and fit into the whole picture. Even in the video link you gave me, the explosive sounds origins could be found. Isn't it still import evidence to the events that actually happened on that day?
@notSiD Funny thing is you are so sloppy that you hadn't even considered the thousands of witnesses who DID NOT report any explosion in the building until the plane hit.
So the Rodriguez testimony is pretty much meaningless, as it is outweighed by a wide margin. It's a curiosity, that's all.
You really should move on from this crap before it does brain damage to you.
@AlienEntity1 There are still plenty of people who felt or heard, or even saw other explosions, which could not be related to the planes impact. Many being firefighter's and policemen. 911proof(dot)com/11.html
Don't just look at the evidence gathered by the official reports, and 9/11 commission. you have to research, what investigations they made, how they made them, and why they are credible, looking past their cred The current investigation is unsatisfactory to those affected by the event.
@notSiD So you cannot produce Rodriguez' own words to discuss. I'm not surprised, but I'm not impressed. This is sloppy heresay speculation, nothing more.
As far as other reports of explosions, you've now moved the goalpost. You claimed explosions BEFORE the plane impacts. We all know there were many explosions AFTER the impacts, during the fires and collapses. this is not new, nor is it indication of explosive CD!
Explosions are often reported in large fires. Want some proof?
@notSiD Nevermind you've failed to produce a proper quote, here's a real-world, irrefutable example of a common item exploding. No speculation, just fact. You simply cannot rule out this kind of thing as a source of explosions heard on 9/11 after the plane impacts and fires began. Can't be done.
Awesome, now THAT'S the way a collapse should look like, even the dust from it looks much more normal, it's not rising in the air from heat, it's falling like it should. Huge chunks of material were falling from the building, not being thrown out from the building and the building was destroying it'self un-uniformly, just as Newtons Laws dictate.
THANK YOU big time for the video. I hope you don't mind me mirroring this one as it is a perfect example of what a REAL top-down collapse looks like.
It seems like Verinage is a phenomenon that leans more towards 911 Truth than against it, in that it seems to rely heavily on removal of central supports. The fall of the WTC towers looks like a kind of (extensively) explosively augmented Verinage.
It's interesting that AE relies on dismissing the fact that the entire peer-reviewed system is a system dependent on a larger educational/intellectual system which itself relies on funding from the interconnected Government/corporate network.
In other words, when we cite "peer review", we are citing a system nested within a system nested within a system, and so on. Clearly, everyone recognizes that the peer review system is a system of gatekeeping. Those who assume that it defines reality must assume that no ulterior motives can permeate that system, but the nested organization of dependence ensures that the system IS permeated with ulterior motive.
@MazJax A weak concrete building that was preweakened, and pulled to the side using powerful machines, still fails to drag the entire thing down, the lower parts of the building, who were weakened column by columns still survived.
But hey you can't talk sense into retards like you who believe a 110 story steel skyscraper got imploded 100% by fires.
@Xendrius Hmm, The Chief Structural Engineer of the twin towers, Leslie Robertson, says he carried the calculations far enough to determine that the buildings would completely collapse under those circumstances.
So he's a retard??? He's one of the world's leading designers of the world's tallest buildings, including the recent financial centre in Shanghai.
I think the retard is the person that looks back at you every time you look into a mirror. ;)
@Xendrius Teams of PhD engineers, people who've dedicated their lives and graduated from top institutions, have studied the collapses and shown, in amazing detail, how plane impacts and fires brought the towers down.
I think they know just a little more about the subject than you do. I would not call them retards. It just makes you look like one. Really.
@AlienEntity1 Yes, those paid by the government, the same phd professors who denied the existance of molten pools of metal (NIST), there is not a single "outside of US government" expert supporting the official theory, they do it because they are afraid of their lives, they KNOW it was a demolition based on their knoweldge. I would also keep my mouth shut.
As for real experts, about 1500 architects and engineers from AE911truth, those are hte guys with real science.
@Xendrius No, incorrect. They did not deny molten metal, quite the contrary. You need to get your facts straight before making grandiose claims. Until then, you should keep your mouth shut.
You believe AE911Truth because they tell you a story you want to hear, not because it's true. And lots of those people work for the government too, btw. LOL
@AlienEntity1 They don't explain the molten metal that was burning 2000 degrees hotter than the jet engine fuel. Or the lies the EPA said, that allowed them to work in toxic air in the following months. Even many locals got sick due to the concentrated toxic air the fallen towers. Rather than believe a hired panel of experts, maybe you should do your own research and decide for yourself.
Sorry, the molten lava burned at 2000C, not 2000 degrees more. while the fire at it's maximum could reach 1000C. And that is being generous. doctorfire(dot)com/flametmp.html There are tests that prove this type of heat will not melt steel. Yet there molten steel was found.
The question is why did EPA ignore the obvious warnings? obviously they wanted all the evidence cleaned up as soon as possible, even discarding thousands of bodies.
@AlienEntity1 I don't understand why anyone would want to believe 911 was an inside job. That movement was started by the victims and the people affected by 911, because they have witnessed for themselves, that the official story is nonsense. If you believe the inconsistencies stop at fires collapsing buildings, your the one who is buying fake truth because you don't want to believe, or research, what really happened.
@notSiD Empty words, dude. Conspiracy theorists are obsessed with finding conspiracies in everything they come across - take 9/11: conspiracy theorists claim that there were mini-nukes used in the towers, or that space-beam weapons 'dustified' them, or that no planes hit them (they were fake holograms) or that no planes hit the pentagon, or that there were no hijackers, no victims on the planes, or that the 9/11 victims were faked.
Take your pick. It's all been claimed by truthers....!
@AlienEntity1 Most conspiracy theories can't hold water. pfft, holographic planes and nukes? haha. however no plane probably did hit the pentagon. The official story states the 757 plane vaporized upon impact, and to prove us wrong the government merely has to release one of the 80 videos they confiscated of it hitting the building. compare the difference in damage between what was done to the pentagon compared to the towers.
@AlienEntity1 Some of the people on that Hijacker's list are still alive, and the government hasn't even bothered changing it. Don't believe it all or dismiss it all, until you've done the research yourself.
@notSiD The long list of conspiracy theories spares no aspect of 9/11. Controlled demolition, fake holographic planes, planted landing gear, fake DNA, military stand-downs.
This is nothing to do with the victims, it's just conspiracy theorists grinding out any crazy idea that comes to mind.
Research?? LOL, I don't think you know how to do it.
@AlienEntity1 Yeah and putting all conspiracy theories in the same boat is asking for trouble. 911research(dot)wtc7(dot)net/wtc/analysis/design(dot)html The engineers of the WTC building themselves stated the buildings where designed to survive the impacts of 9/11. There has never been a building collapse due to fire, ever since or before 9/11. And it happened three ties in one day. One of the buildings wasn't even hit by a plane!
@notSiD instead of collapse I should say implode, like in your video or building demolitions. And if you look at video of WTC 7 fall, you'll clearly see a buckle in the middle of the building, standard in demolitions, because they take out the center beam first. That is not seen in this video of this new type of demolition.
The next time the verinage technique is used on a steel frame skyscraper, I would be interested in seeing that. It would also be interesting to see where the "blown" floors would be located in relation to the entire structure. My guess is, it would not be placed in the upper 1/4 of the building.
@chriswgood71 I don't think any building of 80 or 100 stories is going to be demolished with explosives. It would just be too dangerous, hard to control the debris spread and avoid damaging adjacent buildings.
I guarantee you that demo companies have the software tools to figure out how it could be done though. You might want to contact a leading company to find out what the physics would be rather than speculating without mathematics.
@chriswgood71 I should've added - neither explosives or verinage. Ultra tall buildings probably cannot be safely imploded - they'll have to be taken apart bit by bit.
The Japanese have now developed a method whereby 1 floor at a time can be removed from the bottom using hydraulics. No idea what the weight limitations are but I assume there would be a maximum mass restriction.
THIS WAS NOT A STEEL FRAME SKYSCRAPER. THIS BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE THE MASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER HAD WHICH WAS BUILT TO WITHSTAND BEING HIT BY PLANES.
9/11 WAS PROVEN TO BE AN INSIDE JOB, THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT IS HIDING MOST OF THE EVIDENCE BY CLASSIFYING IT FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
WTC7 IS EVIDENCE THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED WITH EXPLOSIVES TO TAKE THEM DOWN.
@AlienEntity1 Well with 7 WTC it was 47 stories this building was about 15 so you would assume 7 WTC would take 3 times longer to collapse but it took around 6.5 seconds this building took 5 seconds. Also this building was probably hollowed out and weakened prior to its destruction 7 WTC was not after all 9/11 was a surprise attack but as you said conspiracy can't be proven but I don't think it can be disproven until some concrete evidence and science is brought to my attention
@searchgoeson Interesting that you talk about 'hollowed out' - in fact the whole idea of this kind of non-explosive demo is that you do not weaken the structure below - it's far too dangerous to do that. You do remove non-structural items.
Yet it collapsed at a leisurely pace - really because the structure was not weakened - you seem to miss that point entirely...
With WTC 7 the structure was severely weakened by fires, then the internal structure collapsing for about 7 seconds! B4 the exterior
@searchgoeson WTC 7 continued - the internal collapse of the fire-damaged structure began on the E side about 7 seconds prior to the exterior collapse.
Talk about 'hollowed out'!! That's exactly what happened in WTC 7, yet you completely miss that fact. But it is precisely what accounts for the rapid descent of the exterior shell - it was pulled inward and down by the collapsing interior.
In fact Femr2 has measured it FASTER than FREEFALL for about 1 sec!!!! Can't do that with explosives.
@AlienEntity1 and you didn't use all caps? lol if your gonna make fun or accuse someone of doing somethinf don't do it in the same manner! there is more evidence towards an inside job then terrorist who lived in caves and have primitive weapons!
@sh9683 Dude, you don't get ironic humor or satire, do you?
btw, nobody but you truthers claims that the 9/11 terrorists lived in caves - look at the actual (factual) whereabouts and educations of the hijackers and you soon find out they were privileged and educated. OBL, the head of Al Qaeda, lived in mobile quarters, just like other guerrilla commanders in history - Fidel Castro lived in the mountains for a period b4 he overthrew Battista. I guess you don't believe in him either. LOL
@AlienEntity1 - "look at the actual (factual) whereabouts and educations of the hijackers and you soon find out they were privileged and educated."
You'll also find out that many of them are still alive. Weird, right? No? Well that's because you ignore facts when they don't align with your general perception. That's called being brainwashed.
@AlienEntity1 - Ahmed al Ghamdi. Apologies have been sent to them and their families by the US government themselves, so don't give me your bullshit. I know how brainwashed Americans can make up facts and replace real facts with them, even when they do not align to what you'd call credible sources like NIST or the Commission report, it still doesn't matter, you literally believe details you simply make up, which align with YOUR skewed general perception, sir.
@sh9683 btw, the Romans used to live in tents while they were on campaigns, yet they conquered most of Europe and held it for hundreds of years.
Your objections are horribly ignorant and based on nothing but some fluff you picked up without comprehending.
No matter where he lives, the strength of the terrorist is in the planning, discipline and commitment, not the type of car he drives or the size of his condo. How stupid that idea is.
The biggest Whore account is SlimeBuser because he's a sick pervert that wraps his perversions in the American flag. LOOK AT SlimeBuster and his hate talk about Jews, Mothers and Children. SlimeBuster is has even gone as far as to pretend (fake) to be a Jew. SEE THE PROOF--->
I applaud u for you in depth knowledge Alienentity... yes, there's alot that's circumstantial, but if I was your wife, and I came home with used condoms in my purse, a hint of male cologne on my clothes, missing panties, working 'late' hours more often... would u believe me if I explained all of those things away? Some ppl do u know... it feels better and for some its the path of least resistance
@Doshu0007 Dude, get a grip. Analogies are meaningless. Stick with the facts, and don't be distracted by speculation about things we have no way of knowing.
@AlienEntity1 As far as analogies, you chose avoidance. Not everyone's first response. In other words, you would have noticed the cologne, condom, etc, but your following thought would be similar to "Well, I cant PROVE anything." but all of the signs your wife is cheating or in that direction are present. Stick with the facts yourself, and use them to draw conclusions. You believe there's not facts that point in the direction that we're being lied to. I feel there's overwhelming evidence.
@Doshu0007 Let me repeat - YOUR analogy is meaningless. It has nothing to do with building physics.
In other words, it is a deflection, an attempt at a strawman argument. We are discussing apples, you insist we must first discuss oranges. And YOU have the temerity to accuse me of avoidance!! LMAO.
If you have real evidence, go ahead and provide it. Hell, take your evidence to court and get a Grand Jury.
But you won't, because you have no real evidence. Case closed.
@AlienEntity1 Real evidence? You wont believe your wife is cheating on you unless she TELLS you "im screwing the neighbor". You ignore all of the signs. Case closed? In your mind. As for your court comment: The public is crying out for another investigation, especially after the commission report came out. And i see you avoided the Sibel Edmonds comment and how it ties into 9/11, or the facts on the 1993 bombing and it's ties to the FBI. Is the audio recording of the handlers not evidence?
@AlienEntity1 But hey, its all good. Do I know all of the facts? NO. Do you? Are you itching to say Yes?
Again, I respect your depth of knowledge of 9/11, at least the things you've mentioned so far. I've seen your photos you have of the Pentagon and such. I AM impartial. And I do investigations for a living as an adjuster and know the mindset. I'm here because I want to know more to make accurate judgements. As we ALL should. Thats our responsibility as human beings with critical thinking.
@Doshu0007 Dude, make up your mind. You claim there's 'overwhelming evidence' of something, no idea what you mean, since you didn't say.
However, IF you mean 'evidence of controlled demolition' then go ahead, get a Grand Jury and make your case against the people you believe are responsible.
You're not going to do that, though. If there really WAS 'overwhelming evidence', then we'd see it by now. But we don't. All we have is self-appointed 'experts' who claim they've found the secret.... sure.
I myself have doubts about the official story given to us. Ans the reason why there are so many ppl that don't believe is because there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence in that direction. The fbi translator that broke her gag order ABSOLUTELY shows we're being lied to... but how much and how far does it go... we don't know. As for found passports, lackof wreckage (DC), no release of tapes, and 3 bldings falling on their footprint.. a human being would b ignorant not to raise an eyebrow
FACT: the WTC towers were the FIRST and only steel frame buildings ever to collapse due to fire, and 3 of them fell. I'm pretty sure this is not a steel framed building.
@tgt305 LOL... you are wrong, of course. Your 'fact' is a myth. There are many examples of steelframe buildings that have collapsed due to fire. As recently as 2008 in Delft, Netherlands, for example.
Why is it that truthers can't even get the basic facts right?
@AlienEntity1 Just watched the Delft collapse video, not a total collapse, not even more than 20% collapse. Doesn't compare. I'm just pointing out that in this video, the building is not a steel frame. Look up the Windsor fire in Madrid. Look up the 525 W. Madison Building fire in Chicago. They burned waaay longer than the WTC, almost 24 hours, and did not fully/partially collapse. Look up failed building demolitions, floors that aren't exploded/imploded stay intact, no pancake.
@tgt305 Well, you are obviously not an expert, nor competent at doing evaluations. at least 80% of the tower that was on fire collapsed. Check the records.
The second tower at Delft was not on fire, so that is irrelevant. The only part left standing was the concrete stairwell.
Windsor tower. You again are completely wrong! The steel portion of the tower completely collapsed, only the reinforced concrete was left. You couldn't be more wrong.
@tgt305 Anyway, both the Windsor and Delft tower collapses are PROOF that steelframe buildings have collapsed, contrary to what you incorrectly wrote...'he WTC towers were the FIRST and only steel frame buildings ever to collapse due to fire'
You're posting complete nonsense. Please stop and get your facts straight. I don't care what you think, since you have no expertise of relevance. Just another internet twit posting garbage, frankly.
@tgt305 Because the childish, deceptive tactics you use are annoying and dishonest. There was a full technical report on Delft (you haven't read it, obviously, otherwise you'd not be making such asinine comments) which states 'On May 13, 2008 a sizeable portion of theFaculty of Architecture Building at Delft University of
Technology (TUD) collapsed following a fire. This is significant in that collapse of reinforced concretebuildings due to fire is rare.'
@tgt305 Now then, my little lying friend, the report is titled 'Collection of Data on Fire and Collapse, Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology'
And the building was REINFORCED CONCRETE, which is generally more resistant to fires than steelframes. Look it up.
If you don't care about honesty, and sincerity, then what f'ing good are you?
Exactly - there are still several floors left standing and it's not even a steel building. This method of demolition does NOT work with steel buildings.
No high-rise building prior to 9/11 had progressively collapsed due to fire or damage nor has one since. Yet on 9/11 it happened to 3 buildings, one of which is an unofficial collapse according to the 9/11 Commission report which omitted to mention WTC7 altogether!
@mrwinkies I agree, dude. Everyone agrees with you that nano robots with itsy-bitsy nano jackhammers were used to bring down the WTC's. That's why they were able to do it without the classic concusion signature of demolitions.
@Mrwinkies ..."No high-rise building prior to 9/11 had progressively collapsed due to fire or damage nor has one since."
Aaaand, how many were built like the WTC's prior to 9/11? Come on, you can do it, Huckleberry.
@Sundogjeep Thousands. Building 7 used standard steel framing, as did WTCs 3,4,5 & 6. WTCs 1 & 2 employed standard steel framing for the inner core too. When trying to explain WTC7, NIST failed to get their models to fit and won't allow anyone else to use the data they used to reach their conclusions. The whole NIST investigation is a joke.
@mrkinnies "The World Trade Center towers included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction. Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept, introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. "
@Sundogjeep As I said, WTC1 & 2 used the traditional type of structure for the core which constituted an enormous part of each building. You can discount that fact if you like but you'll be stupid to do so.
Now, how about WTC7 - can you explain that? Traditional steel structure yet fell straight downward as a single unit (in NIST's words).
Oh look - no steel core - Building collapses!!
stratocaster539 3 days ago
So basically the non-noplaner truthers think that the planes WERE flown into the buildings by the terrorists... but it wasn't a terrorist attack..... Does that make sense to anyone?
MazJax 1 week ago
@MazJax Making sense is not a truther strong point...:/
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
during communism there was not enough apartments ... and some one had this idea... its late and i wrote what i think in two different posts all the way up :)any way i checked this just now and official sources say that those buildings are build to last only 60-70y( when build correctly)and because there was big shortage in department and in general no one cared...some of the houses were a history just after 35y..
krzysg1982 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krzysg1982 last structure build this way was build in Poland aprox 20y ago... and there is a reason for that.
krzysg1982 1 month ago
Building on the video is i believe block of flats( they build a lot of them in Poland in 70s 80s)…. those buildings are a mess,even an explosion from a SMALL propane container could demolish half of the block.There is a reason why high rise buildings have a structural frame. Tractors on this video pulled Carrier wall( im not sure if this is correct name for that part of structure- English is not my first language.)
krzysg1982 1 month ago
Comment removed
krzysg1982 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krzysg1982 Thats why building collapsed like that, in high rise buildings steel frame is an carrier element. To have the same effect in wtc1 and 2 and 7 steel frame had to be destroyed.
krzysg1982 1 month ago
@krzysg1982 Interesting thanks for that.
Spindry96 1 month ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since WTC 7 was constructed over a Con Ed station, how did the structural framing compensate for the station and how did that influence the collapse?
How much nanothermite did Niels Harrit estimate was used in the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7?
If a postcard could survive the Hindenburg inferno isn't it possible for a passport to survive the WTC collapse?
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 fire in wtc melted the steel, and 2 planes black boxes.... but left the paper passports...
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
@ctcole77 i see you got nothing constructive to say... and soon you might be out questions( first two make no sense). Yesterday i answered your TOP 5 FIVE QUESTIONS TRUTHERS DONT WANT TO ASK... and i see you are not coming back to them again.
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
@krzysg1982
I see you like proving my point!
911 twoofers REFUSE to answer questions that debunk their magical theories.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 4 weeks ago
@ctcole77 what?
krzysg1982 4 weeks ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 4 weeks ago
@ctcole77 1. I've thought of that, not many seem to have paid much attention.
2. That's not a shocking prospect, to me anyways. I'm sure they found 95% of whatever really crashed there.
yearginclarke 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77 3. Why is there not any clear footage of the plane that entered the Pentagon? There should be without doubt many, many angles from different cameras that caught the plane approaching and entering the building. Maybe there was a plane, I wasn't there, but the dimensions of the entrance hole(footage is smoky and unclear here too) and the fact that there is a punchout hole 3 rings in seems strange.
yearginclarke 3 weeks ago
@yearginclarke Simple - security cameras operate at a slow frame rate, way too slow to take good pics of an object going 500mph. They just aren't designed to do that, plain and simple.
So you're looking for a kind of evidence which is not expected in this case. Nor is it needed - there is literally a mountain of empirical forensic evidence which proves, without a doubt, exactly what airplane hit the pentagon and who was onboard.
For chrissake the blackboxes were recovered!
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@yearginclarke I think you're also making other assumptions which are not correct - such as that there 'should be' a bunch of cameras randomly pointing outward into the sky.
Also not only were the blackboxes recovered, but the data from the FDR was retrieved. It is definitive proof of the kind of aircraft, indeed the specific aircraft which crashed.
You don't get footage of most airplane crashes while they're happening - it's very rare for that to happen. Think about it.
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago
@AlienEntity1 I do have an open mind about things, and all the witnesses of 77 have always intrigued me, but the whole event still seems fishy to me. Just my opinion.
yearginclarke 3 weeks ago
@yearginclarke Fishy? The plane crashed there, there's no question about it for serious people. There are a lot of flakes out there who are barking at the moon, but you don't want to give them credence, trust me on that one.
Sure, it doesn't look much like a plane crash, but then neither did this, and it happened in 1987 or so.
watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4
I've seen truthers argue that there were no planes in NYC as well - they claim it was either realtime CGI or holograms.... yup.
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago 5
@AlienEntity1 Hmm. Interesting, thanks for the link. I don't believe the no plane theories, that's just ridiculous.
yearginclarke 3 weeks ago
@AlienEntity1 I don't believe the WTC no plane theories, to be more exact.
yearginclarke 3 weeks ago
@yearginclarke To be honest, anybody who is a no-planer (either WTC, Pentagon or Shanksville) is not worth talking to. They're either
a) Delusional
b) Don't care about facts and truth
Either way, it's a waste of time. Until I came across 9/11 Truthers I didn't know that people could hold such stunningly stupid convictions, nor that they could be so resistant to the truth. But truthers have taught me that no matter how foolish the idea, they will believe it..
AlienEntity1 3 weeks ago 6
@AlienEntity1 Amen to that!
showtheevidence90020 2 weeks ago
@ctcole77 RE:If a postcard could survive the Hindenburg inferno isn't it possible for a passport to survive the WTC collapse?"
Almost anything is possible but do you really believe that the passport could survive direct collision with a building, the fiery inferno and the subsequent collapse resulting in the pulverization of most of the building materials? Maybe the passport fell out of his pocket before his body was incinerated?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 The most likely explanation is that the passport was ejected during the initial plane crash, just like all kinds of other paper materials from passengers, including drivers licenses, wallets, suitcases and clothing, and airline boarding passes.
All those kinds of objects were observed immediately following the plane impacts, but before the collapses.
So your question is really a strawman since it assumes everything was released upon collapse. That is just not true.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 RE:The most likely explanation is that the passport was ejected during the initial plane crash"
I'm sorry but i have to disagree. The most likely explanation in light of ALL the evidence and myriads of problems with the official story is that the passport claim is B.S.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@AlienEntity1 RE:So your question is really a strawman since it assumes everything was released upon collapse."
No, i just don't find it plausible that the passport survived at all, released upon, before or after collapse.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 That's unfortunate because, as I mentioned, a lot of personal fx of passengers, and also hijackers, was found.
I hope you're not suggesting it was planted, because that's really implausible - for a hijacker and a passenger to board a plane, take off, then have their personal stuff who up at a crash site where the plane crashed is not implausible, it's just plain LOGICAL.
Nothing sinister or strange about it, but it is sad that it happened.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
@AlienEntity1 RE:I hope you're not suggesting it was planted, because that's really implausible "
Why would that be implausible? Consider who found it...ex NY chief of police Bernard Kerik who was just sentenced to 4 years in prison on 8 counts of felonies!
This of course does not PROVE my case..but like in any court of law, his character should be taken into account. Planted evidence is not implausible..in this case or even local criminal cases.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 Ah, a quick exercise in character assassination without offering any evidence.
Nice try, but that fails completely. You truthers seem to think that whatever you imagine must be true, with no proof. Reality just doesn't work that way. Neither does science.
You made the claim, the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. And you evade it, as truthers always do.
AlienEntity1 4 days ago
@AlienEntity1 RE:You truthers seem to think that whatever you imagine must be true, with no proof."
I gave you a rational reason why i distrust Kerik. For YOU to believe him, you have greater faith than i do...he's in prison for CORRUPTION and you think I'M running wild with my imagination for distrusting his hijacker passport claim?
You can believe what you want but the passport story to me, is ridiculous.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 NO, it isn't rational to throw out all the evidence based on your mistrust of Kerik. He wasn't the arresting officer, he didn't file the police report either.
You're making huge leaps and assumptions, dismissing everything on account of your suspicion.
That's an extreme bias.
AlienEntity1 3 days ago
@AlienEntity1 RE: NO, it isn't rational to throw out all the evidence based on your mistrust of Kerik."
I'm throwing out absurdities, NOT evidence. The passport claim is just as ridiculous as the claim (discussed by a Pop Mechanics research editor) that the hijackers DNA was found and they were identified! Yes, in all the rubble and pulverized building materials, they found DNA of the Arab hijackers! Do you believe that one too?
dwheel39 2 days ago
@dwheel39 Plus the fact that you refuse to accept basic facts, such as the passports and other artifacts of passengers and, yes, hijackers which were recovered.
You simply do not know how to assess evidence rationally, that's the problem. You are thus left in a state of perpetual mistrust and confusion - you see, we all must rely on others to verify things, we can't know everything first hand.
You either accept this or live as a paranoiac.
AlienEntity1 3 days ago
@AlienEntity1 RE:You simply do not know how to assess evidence rationally, that's the problem. "
No, i have a problem with the government hiding and destroying the evidence, suppressing the testimonies of those who contradict their fable and the silencing of all whistleblowers.
To defend such known, documented liars such as Bush, Rice, Cheney and believe the someone like Zelikow led an impartial investigation is naive, i'm sorry. Why you defend them all is beyond me.
dwheel39 2 days ago
@dwheel39 May I remind you we're talking about the discovery of personal artifacts found in various locations by various teams of people. These include: FDNY, NYPD, FBI etc...
And somehow you link this all to the red herring of Kerik???? WTF Kerik had nothing to do with any of that stuff, you are introducing something which is irrelevant to those facts.
You probably don't even know who arrested the people in the van with the alleged explosives (again, nothing to do with the passports
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@dwheel39 It's exactly your kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off scott free. His sleazy lawyers insinuated that LAPD had 'planted' the bloody glove found on his property, so they successfully poisoned the well.
You do exactly the same thing. Not nice, not honest, but very typical of truther debating tactics.
CeeCee Lyles DL was found at the Shanksville crash site. I suppose that was planted as well??????
Why do I bother talking to idiots like you?
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@AlienEntity1 RE:It's exactly your kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off scott free."
I think that case suits you better. Believing what is spoon fed to you, you are like a jury member at the OJ trial without any critical thinking skills. You believe the rhetoric and politically correct jargon hashed out by the equivalent of the "sleazy lawyers" you mentioned, namely politicians.
Do you also believe the "evil doers are jealous of our freedom"?
dwheel39 2 days ago
@AlienEntity1 RE:Why do I bother talking to idiots like you?"
How does not believing the politically correct rhetoric of known liars make me an "idiot"?
dwheel39 2 days ago
@dwheel39 Facts: 'wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. They sit in an El Segundo, Calif., mortuary and will be returned to victims' families in February.
"We have some property for most passengers," said Craig Hendrix, a funeral coordinator and a personal effects administrator with Douglass Air Disaster Funeral Coordinators,
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@dwheel39 'Michael Sheehan, a broker... he could smell the fumes of fuel that had begun to filter through the ventilation systems of the two buildings.
On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.
"I realized then that it was a commercial flight. '
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@AlienEntity1 RE:Michael Sheehan, a broker... "
Ahh...so now you're quoting eyewitnesses. How about you include the testimonies of the hundreds that conflict with the official myth? Oh they are probably mistaken or idiots too right?
dwheel39 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 RE:Michael Sheehan, a broker... "
Ahh...so now you're quoting eyewitnesses. How about you include the testimonies of the hundreds that conflict with the official myth? Oh they are probably mistaken or idiots too right?
dwheel39 2 days ago
@dwheel39 'Mr. RICHARD MARX (FBI Special Agent): It's been good. I've met some of the finest people that New York City has to offer that have worked alongside of us tirelessly, recovering small bits and pieces of people' s lives. And we were finding basically the small fragments, whether it's pieces of jewelry, their personal identification, things that were recovered from on top of their desks. Just recently we found a wallet of one of the passengers aboard Flight 11,..'
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@dwheel39 So by your insinuation all those people who picked up bits of passengers lives, photos, passports, wallets, WERE ALL LYING AND CONNECTED TO KERIK???
There is something seriously wrong with people like you. You disrespect basic forensics, basic decency and facts. All becuase you NEED to believe in your malicious conspiracy theories, in spite of the facts.
AlienEntity1 3 days ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@AlienEntity1 RE:There is something seriously wrong with people like you. You disrespect basic forensics, basic decency and facts"
So even though there have been a few peer reviewed papers about chemical signature for thermite found in the dust and verified by at least 9 independent and international scientists with tangible evidence, you don't accept that.
But...when the government tells you they identified the hijackers with unscathed passports and DNA, you believe it....okay...
dwheel39 2 days ago
@dwheel39 Even in the case of the crash of flight 93 in Shanksville, lots of personal items were discovered all over the place, along with random papers.
For example, flight attendant CeeCee Lyles driver's license was found intact, even though most of the plane disintegrated.
This stuff is fairly normal, even while it is very creepy.
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
There's no steel infrastructure in this building. It's all built with reinforced concrete (re-bar), that's all.
Tomaji69 1 month ago
@Tomaji69 Uhmmm, that IS, by definition, steel infrastructure. Reinforced concrete is very strong, but can collapse just as any other structure under certain conditions.
Both steel and reinforced concrete columns have maximum design loads, which must be engineered properly. There's no fail-safe material
btw, fires can cause even concrete to fail. Ex. U of Delft architecture bldg in 2008. One tower completely collapsed from fire.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
The building didn't collapse a free fall speed. If anything this can prove how unlikely the 9/11 events happened like they did. If you look closely and compare, the top part of the building meets resistance, stops then starts slowing crushing the floors below, and as it crushes them, you can see it slow down even. The energy output makes sense in this video, unlike their 9/11 counterparts. The WTC collapse couldn't generate enough force to grind the building and fall at free fall speed.
notSiD 2 months ago
Wow this looks very similar to the WTC collapse and no explosives were used here. Funny how the lower floors panckake straight down, something truthers claim is impossible without advanced thermite technology or somefink.
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 This video shows a prepared demolition... the floors that "pancaked" did so because they were prepared to do so.. however the big argument around the WTC's is that the floors(70) below the impact zone were not damaged. and it fell at nearly free fall speed as said in the investigations done and that claim has been proven wrong with many facts and proves for a new investigation.
TheRickyCaldwell 2 months ago
@TheRickyCaldwell "Prepared" you say. Wow you can tell a lot from a video. All l see is one wall being pulled and the falling weight AND kinetic energy pancakes the lower floors at near free fall speed like the WTC without explosives. Unless there were explosives used and they were the secret silent WTC type :). Anything else you would like to exagerate about?
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 I would argue the near free fall speed part, IT slows down after hitting the floor below and then continues to slow down the entire way down. They only did it to half the building, I wonder why that is. I want to see more of these collapses to compare, maybe a bigger building, maybe an ENTIRE building at least. Using this video as any sort of proof is the equivalent of comparing building's that caught on fire but didn't fall like the Twin towers and WT7.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD It looks pretty close to me. Lets see, floors close to the top structurally fails. Falling kinetic weight of falling falls simply to powerful for each lower floor they meet on the way down. Floors pancake, outer walls eject outwards looking like explosives. All this without explosives. Wow l could have written that about the WTC. Arguing about fall speed really is reaching to defend your bias.
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 no way, the fall is the energy that is being generated that crushes the building below. It's the KEY factor. If you total the amount of energy generated by the fall, and the resistance it meets below, it's impossible to reach full free-fall speed, because the resistance would always slow it down to less that that. This video isn't even close to free fall speed. I bet these collapses didn't melt steel either. There are many factor's which are all important, ignoring them is erroneous
notSiD 2 months ago in playlist Building Collapses
@notSiD The only resistance is each floor that the total falling weight and it's falling kinetic energy meets in turn. If a floor is rated to safely support for example 5 floors static wieght what happens when 15 floors kinetic weight falls on it? BTW the WTC did not fall at free fall speed so it's a pointless observation.
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 It'll slow down, and then continue to slow down for every consecutive floor that it crushes, not speed up. And yes, all three buildings fell at NEAR (less than half a second off) free fall speed. If you think these videos are NEAR free fall speed, you need to take a closer look. Free fall speed requires constant acceleration. not deceleration like all the top-down collapse videos I've seen. And compared to this building, the WTC towers would have had tons more resistance to them.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD WTC 2 fell took 2 seconds longer than free fall. More importaintly the falling speed was 200 km per hour as opposed to 300 km per hour which is free fall speed. You are also totally ignoring that each floor is rated to resist 1300 t in excess of ther weight, around 45,000 t fell on them. a massive crushing kinetic weight. Also as more floors colapsed more weight was added to the falling mass and thats discounting everything that was ejected outwards laterally
Spindry96 2 months ago
Comment removed
krzysg1982 1 month ago
Comment removed
krzysg1982 1 month ago
Willy Rodriguez is a travelling showman. There's no proof of explosions, and they're not even necessary for the towers to have collapsed. Saudi Arabia funded and supported the hijackers, Bush is on record covering up for them, Bush and Rumsfeld deserted their posts when they were the only people who could have done anything about it, and the head of the CIA's Alec Station protected the hijackers. Get over the controlled demolition romance. You're paying for Richard Gage's perpetual vacation.
brokenstyx 2 months ago
If you look at the videos of the collapse of the towers, it tilts forward, unlike this video. Does the science still work under those conditions? how about the thousands of eyewitnesses to other explosions besides the towers, many hearing and feeling the blasts in sub-basement levels before the planes even hit!
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD You need to be much more critical and careful in your research if you want to understand things. What you're doing is reciting a bunch of heresay, you're not even quoting correctly, and you haven't done any physics research.
There were NOT thousands of witnesses reporting explosions, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. And the reports of blasts were from people WHO COULDN"T SEE OUTSIDE - so how would they know when the planes hit?? LOL
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 okay, thousands was an exaggeration, but there are plenty of witnesses, chiefengineer(dot)org/?p=1029
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD So what? People report both explosions and molten steel at other events such as fires. It happens all the time.
watch?v=dizurbqG50U
There is no empirical evidence of molten steel at the WTC, and even if there were, it still has nothing to do with controlled demolition - molten steel is not seen at controlled demolitions, either.
There was lots of molten metal seen, but it wasn't tested. It was under WTC 6 as well, caused by fires.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@notSiD If you could at least quote the person who claims blasts happened b4 the plane crashes, we could address the point intelligently. Up to you. I'm not going to do your research for you.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 William Rodriguez was specifically the guy who felt and heard explosions from underneath before he heard the one up above.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD Quote please, in his words. I know what he said, I just want you to pay attention to the details.
You already know that he couldn't have seen the plane, so it's useless to use him as your sole source of 'evidence' that there were explosions before the plane hit, right?
But your claim fails for a much simpler reason - there were thousands of people in the towers - THEY didn't feel or hear explosions b4 the planes hit. Death to your myth.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 And still, those explosive sounds have to be given credibility and fit into the whole picture. Even in the video link you gave me, the explosive sounds origins could be found. Isn't it still import evidence to the events that actually happened on that day?
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD Funny thing is you are so sloppy that you hadn't even considered the thousands of witnesses who DID NOT report any explosion in the building until the plane hit.
So the Rodriguez testimony is pretty much meaningless, as it is outweighed by a wide margin. It's a curiosity, that's all.
You really should move on from this crap before it does brain damage to you.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 There are still plenty of people who felt or heard, or even saw other explosions, which could not be related to the planes impact. Many being firefighter's and policemen. 911proof(dot)com/11.html
Don't just look at the evidence gathered by the official reports, and 9/11 commission. you have to research, what investigations they made, how they made them, and why they are credible, looking past their cred The current investigation is unsatisfactory to those affected by the event.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD So you cannot produce Rodriguez' own words to discuss. I'm not surprised, but I'm not impressed. This is sloppy heresay speculation, nothing more.
As far as other reports of explosions, you've now moved the goalpost. You claimed explosions BEFORE the plane impacts. We all know there were many explosions AFTER the impacts, during the fires and collapses. this is not new, nor is it indication of explosive CD!
Explosions are often reported in large fires. Want some proof?
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@notSiD Nevermind you've failed to produce a proper quote, here's a real-world, irrefutable example of a common item exploding. No speculation, just fact. You simply cannot rule out this kind of thing as a source of explosions heard on 9/11 after the plane impacts and fires began. Can't be done.
watch?v=SX8H4d6y4b8
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
Awesome, now THAT'S the way a collapse should look like, even the dust from it looks much more normal, it's not rising in the air from heat, it's falling like it should. Huge chunks of material were falling from the building, not being thrown out from the building and the building was destroying it'self un-uniformly, just as Newtons Laws dictate.
THANK YOU big time for the video. I hope you don't mind me mirroring this one as it is a perfect example of what a REAL top-down collapse looks like.
CallASpadeASpade2U 2 months ago
It seems like Verinage is a phenomenon that leans more towards 911 Truth than against it, in that it seems to rely heavily on removal of central supports. The fall of the WTC towers looks like a kind of (extensively) explosively augmented Verinage.
It's interesting that AE relies on dismissing the fact that the entire peer-reviewed system is a system dependent on a larger educational/intellectual system which itself relies on funding from the interconnected Government/corporate network.
radweed2009 3 months ago
@radweed2009
In other words, when we cite "peer review", we are citing a system nested within a system nested within a system, and so on. Clearly, everyone recognizes that the peer review system is a system of gatekeeping. Those who assume that it defines reality must assume that no ulterior motives can permeate that system, but the nested organization of dependence ensures that the system IS permeated with ulterior motive.
radweed2009 3 months ago
NO WAIII! 3 FLOORS DESTROYED 10 FLOORS! MUSTA BEEN AN INSIDE JOB
MazJax 3 months ago
@MazJax A weak concrete building that was preweakened, and pulled to the side using powerful machines, still fails to drag the entire thing down, the lower parts of the building, who were weakened column by columns still survived.
But hey you can't talk sense into retards like you who believe a 110 story steel skyscraper got imploded 100% by fires.
Xendrius 3 months ago 2
@Xendrius Hmm, The Chief Structural Engineer of the twin towers, Leslie Robertson, says he carried the calculations far enough to determine that the buildings would completely collapse under those circumstances.
So he's a retard??? He's one of the world's leading designers of the world's tallest buildings, including the recent financial centre in Shanghai.
I think the retard is the person that looks back at you every time you look into a mirror. ;)
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 He aint a retard, he is a damn liar who is told what to say.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius No, again you are wrong. You shouldn't call people liars unless you can prove it, which you can't in this case.
Where do you people come from? Good lord.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Xendrius Teams of PhD engineers, people who've dedicated their lives and graduated from top institutions, have studied the collapses and shown, in amazing detail, how plane impacts and fires brought the towers down.
I think they know just a little more about the subject than you do. I would not call them retards. It just makes you look like one. Really.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Yes, those paid by the government, the same phd professors who denied the existance of molten pools of metal (NIST), there is not a single "outside of US government" expert supporting the official theory, they do it because they are afraid of their lives, they KNOW it was a demolition based on their knoweldge. I would also keep my mouth shut.
As for real experts, about 1500 architects and engineers from AE911truth, those are hte guys with real science.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius No, incorrect. They did not deny molten metal, quite the contrary. You need to get your facts straight before making grandiose claims. Until then, you should keep your mouth shut.
You believe AE911Truth because they tell you a story you want to hear, not because it's true. And lots of those people work for the government too, btw. LOL
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 They don't explain the molten metal that was burning 2000 degrees hotter than the jet engine fuel. Or the lies the EPA said, that allowed them to work in toxic air in the following months. Even many locals got sick due to the concentrated toxic air the fallen towers. Rather than believe a hired panel of experts, maybe you should do your own research and decide for yourself.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD There is no empirical evidence of materials 2000 degrees hotter than jet fuel. I defy you to find it and quote it.
Toxic air? It's a fact. Nothing to do with the physics of collapse. Different issue.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
Sorry, the molten lava burned at 2000C, not 2000 degrees more. while the fire at it's maximum could reach 1000C. And that is being generous. doctorfire(dot)com/flametmp.html There are tests that prove this type of heat will not melt steel. Yet there molten steel was found.
The question is why did EPA ignore the obvious warnings? obviously they wanted all the evidence cleaned up as soon as possible, even discarding thousands of bodies.
notSiD 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 I don't understand why anyone would want to believe 911 was an inside job. That movement was started by the victims and the people affected by 911, because they have witnessed for themselves, that the official story is nonsense. If you believe the inconsistencies stop at fires collapsing buildings, your the one who is buying fake truth because you don't want to believe, or research, what really happened.
Pretty hypocritical IMO
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD Empty words, dude. Conspiracy theorists are obsessed with finding conspiracies in everything they come across - take 9/11: conspiracy theorists claim that there were mini-nukes used in the towers, or that space-beam weapons 'dustified' them, or that no planes hit them (they were fake holograms) or that no planes hit the pentagon, or that there were no hijackers, no victims on the planes, or that the 9/11 victims were faked.
Take your pick. It's all been claimed by truthers....!
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Most conspiracy theories can't hold water. pfft, holographic planes and nukes? haha. however no plane probably did hit the pentagon. The official story states the 757 plane vaporized upon impact, and to prove us wrong the government merely has to release one of the 80 videos they confiscated of it hitting the building. compare the difference in damage between what was done to the pentagon compared to the towers.
and experts do agree, watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE
notSiD 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Some of the people on that Hijacker's list are still alive, and the government hasn't even bothered changing it. Don't believe it all or dismiss it all, until you've done the research yourself.
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD The long list of conspiracy theories spares no aspect of 9/11. Controlled demolition, fake holographic planes, planted landing gear, fake DNA, military stand-downs.
This is nothing to do with the victims, it's just conspiracy theorists grinding out any crazy idea that comes to mind.
Research?? LOL, I don't think you know how to do it.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Yeah and putting all conspiracy theories in the same boat is asking for trouble. 911research(dot)wtc7(dot)net/wtc/analysis/design(dot)html The engineers of the WTC building themselves stated the buildings where designed to survive the impacts of 9/11. There has never been a building collapse due to fire, ever since or before 9/11. And it happened three ties in one day. One of the buildings wasn't even hit by a plane!
notSiD 2 months ago
@notSiD instead of collapse I should say implode, like in your video or building demolitions. And if you look at video of WTC 7 fall, you'll clearly see a buckle in the middle of the building, standard in demolitions, because they take out the center beam first. That is not seen in this video of this new type of demolition.
notSiD 2 months ago
The next time the verinage technique is used on a steel frame skyscraper, I would be interested in seeing that. It would also be interesting to see where the "blown" floors would be located in relation to the entire structure. My guess is, it would not be placed in the upper 1/4 of the building.
chriswgood71 3 months ago
@chriswgood71 I don't think any building of 80 or 100 stories is going to be demolished with explosives. It would just be too dangerous, hard to control the debris spread and avoid damaging adjacent buildings.
I guarantee you that demo companies have the software tools to figure out how it could be done though. You might want to contact a leading company to find out what the physics would be rather than speculating without mathematics.
That is if you really want to know the facts.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@chriswgood71 I should've added - neither explosives or verinage. Ultra tall buildings probably cannot be safely imploded - they'll have to be taken apart bit by bit.
The Japanese have now developed a method whereby 1 floor at a time can be removed from the bottom using hydraulics. No idea what the weight limitations are but I assume there would be a maximum mass restriction.
Interesting technique though.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
thats the south tower collapse right there!
ConstructionCentral 3 months ago
@ConstructionCentral It should be North Tower WTC
Andykwong632 3 months ago
See, this is what "pull" means. To pull a building with cables.
MazJax 4 months ago
@beneehall Just because you rattle off a line of
"DISINFO-BULLSHITT"
Does not make it so.
So what are you a 4 yr old Dunce??
SkuIICrusherGhost 4 months ago
THIS WAS NOT A STEEL FRAME SKYSCRAPER. THIS BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE THE MASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER HAD WHICH WAS BUILT TO WITHSTAND BEING HIT BY PLANES.
9/11 WAS PROVEN TO BE AN INSIDE JOB, THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT IS HIDING MOST OF THE EVIDENCE BY CLASSIFYING IT FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
WTC7 IS EVIDENCE THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED WITH EXPLOSIVES TO TAKE THEM DOWN.
lickdacat2 4 months ago
@lickdacat2 AGAIN WITH THE ALL-CAPS???? LOL!!!
ACTUALLY, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A PAGE NUMBER OR DOCUMENT NUMBER OF ANY ENGINEERING STUDY WHICH SAYS THE TOWERS WOULD WITHSTAND A PLANE IMPACT AT 500MPH.
YOU CAN NOT DO IT. IT DOES NOT EXIST, EXCEPT AS A RUMOR.
SO YOU BELIEVE IN RUMORS, AND THINK THEY ARE FACTS. THEY'RE NOT, DUDE.
9/11 IS CERTAINLY NOT PROVEN TO BE AN INSIDE JOB OF ANY KIND. YOU'RE RAVING MAD.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Well with 7 WTC it was 47 stories this building was about 15 so you would assume 7 WTC would take 3 times longer to collapse but it took around 6.5 seconds this building took 5 seconds. Also this building was probably hollowed out and weakened prior to its destruction 7 WTC was not after all 9/11 was a surprise attack but as you said conspiracy can't be proven but I don't think it can be disproven until some concrete evidence and science is brought to my attention
searchgoeson 4 months ago
@searchgoeson Interesting that you talk about 'hollowed out' - in fact the whole idea of this kind of non-explosive demo is that you do not weaken the structure below - it's far too dangerous to do that. You do remove non-structural items.
Yet it collapsed at a leisurely pace - really because the structure was not weakened - you seem to miss that point entirely...
With WTC 7 the structure was severely weakened by fires, then the internal structure collapsing for about 7 seconds! B4 the exterior
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@searchgoeson WTC 7 continued - the internal collapse of the fire-damaged structure began on the E side about 7 seconds prior to the exterior collapse.
Talk about 'hollowed out'!! That's exactly what happened in WTC 7, yet you completely miss that fact. But it is precisely what accounts for the rapid descent of the exterior shell - it was pulled inward and down by the collapsing interior.
In fact Femr2 has measured it FASTER than FREEFALL for about 1 sec!!!! Can't do that with explosives.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@searchgoeson Continued - Femr2's measurements show that it was INTERNAL collapse leading to external collapse which allowed such a rapid fall.
Explosives simply cannot do that. They never have and never will. You will never find a real CD which behaves the way WTC 7 did.
Even David S. Chandler discovered that real CD's fall SLOWER than freefall, yet truthers like you still don't get it.
Nobody can prove a negative, but you can't prove your claim of CD. That's the reality.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 and you didn't use all caps? lol if your gonna make fun or accuse someone of doing somethinf don't do it in the same manner! there is more evidence towards an inside job then terrorist who lived in caves and have primitive weapons!
sh9683 4 months ago
@sh9683 Dude, you don't get ironic humor or satire, do you?
btw, nobody but you truthers claims that the 9/11 terrorists lived in caves - look at the actual (factual) whereabouts and educations of the hijackers and you soon find out they were privileged and educated. OBL, the head of Al Qaeda, lived in mobile quarters, just like other guerrilla commanders in history - Fidel Castro lived in the mountains for a period b4 he overthrew Battista. I guess you don't believe in him either. LOL
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 - "look at the actual (factual) whereabouts and educations of the hijackers and you soon find out they were privileged and educated."
You'll also find out that many of them are still alive. Weird, right? No? Well that's because you ignore facts when they don't align with your general perception. That's called being brainwashed.
ViperXXXXXXX 3 months ago
@ViperXXXXXXX No, the Urban Legends (based on misinformation) say they're still alive. In fact they are not.
You ignore facts that don't align with your general perception, sir.
Name a hijacker who's supposedly alive, and we'll discuss the facts. Go right ahead.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 - Ahmed al Ghamdi. Apologies have been sent to them and their families by the US government themselves, so don't give me your bullshit. I know how brainwashed Americans can make up facts and replace real facts with them, even when they do not align to what you'd call credible sources like NIST or the Commission report, it still doesn't matter, you literally believe details you simply make up, which align with YOUR skewed general perception, sir.
ViperXXXXXXX 3 months ago
@ViperXXXXXXX Whoa boy!! What the hell RU raving about? Please present some coherent evidence. A name does not cut it.
What exactly is your claim about him? What is your source (documentation)?
Spare me rants, please. It's boring and repetitive. Just facts, please.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 "Name a hijacker who's supposedly alive, and we'll discuss the facts."
"Whoa boy!! What the hell RU raving about? Please present some coherent evidence. A name does not cut it."
Consistency fail.
ViperXXXXXXX 3 months ago
@sh9683 btw, the Romans used to live in tents while they were on campaigns, yet they conquered most of Europe and held it for hundreds of years.
Your objections are horribly ignorant and based on nothing but some fluff you picked up without comprehending.
No matter where he lives, the strength of the terrorist is in the planning, discipline and commitment, not the type of car he drives or the size of his condo. How stupid that idea is.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@lickdacat2 IT WAS NOT PROVEN IT'S JUST ANOTHER UNJUSTIFIABLE CONSPIRACY THEORY
tayjacsmith 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lickdacat2 no. there is no proof and world trade center 7 was not brought down with explosives.
breadsped98 4 months ago
@SnappyPenguins what you going to do? bitch and do nothing? lol
nodmessenger 4 months ago
bunch of 9/11 conspiricist will be all over this... annoying pricks.
nodmessenger 4 months ago
@nodmessenger u think it wasnt inside job???
zelenko2 4 months ago
montagem boa .
paulo03victor 5 months ago
Man, that crackerjack box sure was a good comparison.
Fail.
NeverOwned 5 months ago
it looks so cheap
danieladamko 5 months ago
This explains WTC collapse !
Singh778 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 Simple Physics Structural Failure Vs Demolition
/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI
Proves the Official Story of the destruction of all the WTC buildings to be IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS!
TyroneSandalphon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest Whore account is SlimeBuser because he's a sick pervert that wraps his perversions in the American flag. LOOK AT SlimeBuster and his hate talk about Jews, Mothers and Children. SlimeBuster is has even gone as far as to pretend (fake) to be a Jew. SEE THE PROOF--->
watch?v=r7I9AySjoIs
watch?v=lm9mOnuR-ag
watch?v=9w_wMabHUwc
watch?v=Xn_DrwVN--8
TheCartoonMonster 5 months ago
I applaud u for you in depth knowledge Alienentity... yes, there's alot that's circumstantial, but if I was your wife, and I came home with used condoms in my purse, a hint of male cologne on my clothes, missing panties, working 'late' hours more often... would u believe me if I explained all of those things away? Some ppl do u know... it feels better and for some its the path of least resistance
Doshu0007 6 months ago
@Doshu0007 Dude, get a grip. Analogies are meaningless. Stick with the facts, and don't be distracted by speculation about things we have no way of knowing.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 As far as analogies, you chose avoidance. Not everyone's first response. In other words, you would have noticed the cologne, condom, etc, but your following thought would be similar to "Well, I cant PROVE anything." but all of the signs your wife is cheating or in that direction are present. Stick with the facts yourself, and use them to draw conclusions. You believe there's not facts that point in the direction that we're being lied to. I feel there's overwhelming evidence.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
@Doshu0007 Let me repeat - YOUR analogy is meaningless. It has nothing to do with building physics.
In other words, it is a deflection, an attempt at a strawman argument. We are discussing apples, you insist we must first discuss oranges. And YOU have the temerity to accuse me of avoidance!! LMAO.
If you have real evidence, go ahead and provide it. Hell, take your evidence to court and get a Grand Jury.
But you won't, because you have no real evidence. Case closed.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Real evidence? You wont believe your wife is cheating on you unless she TELLS you "im screwing the neighbor". You ignore all of the signs. Case closed? In your mind. As for your court comment: The public is crying out for another investigation, especially after the commission report came out. And i see you avoided the Sibel Edmonds comment and how it ties into 9/11, or the facts on the 1993 bombing and it's ties to the FBI. Is the audio recording of the handlers not evidence?
Doshu0007 6 months ago
@Doshu0007 Show us signs of explosive charges, and you will have evidence. Until then, not so much.
leftysergeant 5 months ago
@AlienEntity1 But hey, its all good. Do I know all of the facts? NO. Do you? Are you itching to say Yes?
Again, I respect your depth of knowledge of 9/11, at least the things you've mentioned so far. I've seen your photos you have of the Pentagon and such. I AM impartial. And I do investigations for a living as an adjuster and know the mindset. I'm here because I want to know more to make accurate judgements. As we ALL should. Thats our responsibility as human beings with critical thinking.
Doshu0007 6 months ago
@Doshu0007 Dude, make up your mind. You claim there's 'overwhelming evidence' of something, no idea what you mean, since you didn't say.
However, IF you mean 'evidence of controlled demolition' then go ahead, get a Grand Jury and make your case against the people you believe are responsible.
You're not going to do that, though. If there really WAS 'overwhelming evidence', then we'd see it by now. But we don't. All we have is self-appointed 'experts' who claim they've found the secret.... sure.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago 2
@Doshu0007
He doesnt get your analogy because his life partner is most likely a man and he never uses condoms.
NeverOwned 5 months ago
I myself have doubts about the official story given to us. Ans the reason why there are so many ppl that don't believe is because there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence in that direction. The fbi translator that broke her gag order ABSOLUTELY shows we're being lied to... but how much and how far does it go... we don't know. As for found passports, lackof wreckage (DC), no release of tapes, and 3 bldings falling on their footprint.. a human being would b ignorant not to raise an eyebrow
Doshu0007 6 months ago
Wow. Great example. First of all, did some one use cables to bring down the side of the towers?
Second you can see the other half of the building still standing! Lol what a joke.
Hold on...wait a minute let me check... Yup, 9/11 is still an inside job.
911ProblemSolver 6 months ago
FACT: the WTC towers were the FIRST and only steel frame buildings ever to collapse due to fire, and 3 of them fell. I'm pretty sure this is not a steel framed building.
tgt305 6 months ago
@tgt305 LOL... you are wrong, of course. Your 'fact' is a myth. There are many examples of steelframe buildings that have collapsed due to fire. As recently as 2008 in Delft, Netherlands, for example.
Why is it that truthers can't even get the basic facts right?
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Just watched the Delft collapse video, not a total collapse, not even more than 20% collapse. Doesn't compare. I'm just pointing out that in this video, the building is not a steel frame. Look up the Windsor fire in Madrid. Look up the 525 W. Madison Building fire in Chicago. They burned waaay longer than the WTC, almost 24 hours, and did not fully/partially collapse. Look up failed building demolitions, floors that aren't exploded/imploded stay intact, no pancake.
tgt305 6 months ago
Comment removed
tgt305 6 months ago
@tgt305 Well, you are obviously not an expert, nor competent at doing evaluations. at least 80% of the tower that was on fire collapsed. Check the records.
The second tower at Delft was not on fire, so that is irrelevant. The only part left standing was the concrete stairwell.
Windsor tower. You again are completely wrong! The steel portion of the tower completely collapsed, only the reinforced concrete was left. You couldn't be more wrong.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@tgt305 Anyway, both the Windsor and Delft tower collapses are PROOF that steelframe buildings have collapsed, contrary to what you incorrectly wrote...'he WTC towers were the FIRST and only steel frame buildings ever to collapse due to fire'
You're posting complete nonsense. Please stop and get your facts straight. I don't care what you think, since you have no expertise of relevance. Just another internet twit posting garbage, frankly.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@tgt305 'They burned waaay longer than the WTC, almost 24 hours, and did not fully/partially collapse' Complete bullshit.
Go away and stop posting this crap. Get knowledge.
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 How do you explain the molten metal at the WTC? Still hot weeks after the collapse.
tgt305 6 months ago
@tgt305 Uhmm, you haven't acknowledged that partial (and extensive) collapses occurred in the Delft and Windsor fires.
You should do that instead of ignoring the truth, and attempting to move onto your next myth.
Do you want to discuss facts like an adult, or like a child?
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Why? Youtube arguments never change someone's point of view. Shouldn't have messed with your unquestioning logic.
tgt305 6 months ago
@tgt305 Because the childish, deceptive tactics you use are annoying and dishonest. There was a full technical report on Delft (you haven't read it, obviously, otherwise you'd not be making such asinine comments) which states 'On May 13, 2008 a sizeable portion of theFaculty of Architecture Building at Delft University of
Technology (TUD) collapsed following a fire. This is significant in that collapse of reinforced concretebuildings due to fire is rare.'
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
@tgt305 Now then, my little lying friend, the report is titled 'Collection of Data on Fire and Collapse, Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology'
And the building was REINFORCED CONCRETE, which is generally more resistant to fires than steelframes. Look it up.
If you don't care about honesty, and sincerity, then what f'ing good are you?
AlienEntity1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look up the Old Gulf Building in Houston, now the Chase Building. Fire, almost a full day, no collapse.
tgt305 6 months ago
That collapse saved 10000 watts of fossil fuels.
Dragonwarrior137 6 months ago
this one is better:
watch?v=2NZtBL1PjMk
bernuga 7 months ago
Exactly - there are still several floors left standing and it's not even a steel building. This method of demolition does NOT work with steel buildings.
No high-rise building prior to 9/11 had progressively collapsed due to fire or damage nor has one since. Yet on 9/11 it happened to 3 buildings, one of which is an unofficial collapse according to the 9/11 Commission report which omitted to mention WTC7 altogether!
mrkinnies 7 months ago
@mrwinkies I agree, dude. Everyone agrees with you that nano robots with itsy-bitsy nano jackhammers were used to bring down the WTC's. That's why they were able to do it without the classic concusion signature of demolitions.
@Mrwinkies ..."No high-rise building prior to 9/11 had progressively collapsed due to fire or damage nor has one since."
Aaaand, how many were built like the WTC's prior to 9/11? Come on, you can do it, Huckleberry.
Sundogjeep 6 months ago 4
@Sundogjeep Thousands. Building 7 used standard steel framing, as did WTCs 3,4,5 & 6. WTCs 1 & 2 employed standard steel framing for the inner core too. When trying to explain WTC7, NIST failed to get their models to fit and won't allow anyone else to use the data they used to reach their conclusions. The whole NIST investigation is a joke.
mrkinnies 6 months ago
@mrkinnies "The World Trade Center towers included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction. Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept, introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. "
Thousands? Okee Dokie
Sundogjeep 6 months ago
@Sundogjeep As I said, WTC1 & 2 used the traditional type of structure for the core which constituted an enormous part of each building. You can discount that fact if you like but you'll be stupid to do so.
Now, how about WTC7 - can you explain that? Traditional steel structure yet fell straight downward as a single unit (in NIST's words).
mrkinnies 6 months ago