Always remember that both towers were destroyed, in a way that the towers turned to dust, had more than 80 elevators in the towers, no trace or piece of one never appeared in the images, non any turbine from the planes, etc. But Your government was able to find a driver's license of one of the "terrorists", just a little burned in the corner. Now that is just really good luck !!
@Portabledexter I did... I noticed something that aparently you didn't. They are loud as hell... yet the towers fell quietly. You should go watch some accidental collapses. The main reason why people jump to the controlled demo conclusion is that we have not seen verticle collapses like these much before but if you look you will also notice we have never seen collapses where the collapse originated from such a high point on the building either. Most structural failures occure on the ground floor
@MrAwsome514 Good observation, but the reason why we have never seen a steel framed building collapse like this before is because even after a fire has burnt out the entire building, the frame remains intact. It is highly suspicious, just like the "fact" that America apparently cannot scramble an interceptor in over an hour and a half! I remember from before 911 that a light aircraft strayed onto the Bush farm and was intercepted in under 10 mins!
@Portabledexter That is not actually true. Steel structures using the floor trusses like what the WTC had have failures in their tuss system during fires all the time. Infact firefighters have a saying reguarding trusses. It is "don't trust the truss". Steel trusses are very light weight with a very large surface area. They heat and cool rapidly which makes them lose strength quickly in a fire, and often causes them to be the first part of the building to fail.
@Portabledexter The thing is we knew these where passenger jets. We also were not entirely sure what was going on at the time. We did not send interceptors right away because of the confusion about how to handle the situation.
@MrAwsome514 Do you not think that when a plane diverts off course and turns off its transponder -that would be a good time to scramble an interceptor. They really aren't much use sitting in the hangar, they need to be on the scene so that as many options are open as possible. This is standard practice with all airforces across the world. It is what they do - it's their job! There is no point in going "well, we don't know whats going on. Lets just see what happens" - it's too late!
@Portabledexter They where commercial planes. We had never before seen commercial planes used as weapons in a terror attack and we did not yet know who was behind the highjacking. All indications where that it would be some sort of ransom. In a situation like that the presence of interceptors would just put the highjackers on edge and put the passengers at a greater risk. The primary goal was to get communications with the highjackers to try and talk them down. This is standard practice.
@MrAwsome514 This is taken directly from the 911 Commission Report, page 344...
"In August of the same year [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the WTC". Please check this out. IT IS IMPORTANT!
""In August of the same year [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the WTC". Please check this out. IT IS IMPORTANT!"
.
It is only important when you are ignorant of two things:
a) There are many scenarios of many possible terrorists attacks reported almost daily. Something easy to judge in hindsight.
b) This is not(!) new. See: Air France Flight 8969, 1994. Target: Eiffel tower.
@wimahlers Someone marked your post as spam! (I unmarked it). I appreciate what you are saying about hindsight, but my point is that the argument "they hadn't thought of it" just doesn't hold.
Even if they hadn't thought of it on the day (plausible), it was protocol to scramble interceptors if contact is lost or a plane goes off course. This is fairly normal and happened 129 times in 2000.
If you don't have an interceptor in the area, you have no options.
I am used to it. And banns, accusations, insults, etc. I rarely, if ever respond to such laughable actions. Without exception these are people who never present their claims to any accredited scientific peeer review. It always ends with the claim that not a single accredited scientific institution in the world is to be trusted. A very easy and cheap cop out excuse. Very conformting for those who do accuse without evidence.
@Portabledexter Had we knowen what their intentions really where we certainly would have scrambled interceptors but we where going under an asumption that it was a hostage situation and not a terror attack. With the transponder off they where attempting to use the passenger's cell phones as a means of communication.
@MrAwsome514 And they don't scramble interceptors if its a hijacking? I think that you will find that they most certainly do!
But that is irrelevant after the first impact happened. WE ALL KNEW WHAT THE OTHER MISSING PLANES WERE GOING TO DO! - I should know, I watched it on telly, and so did you (probably).
...and they still didn't scramble interceptors for the other planes. The US at that time (and since) spent more on defense THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER!
@Portabledexter They do now... Remember major events like this cause certain policies to change. Previously the notion that a highjacked plane would be used as a weapon for a suicide attack was simply inconceivable. As such our primary objective for dealing with the situation was negotiation. Back then the idea of sending fighters out to deal with this would have been considered unspeakable as the only action those fighters can take is to shoot the plane down.
@Portabledexter What exactly would those interceptors do after the first impact? By the time they would have been up in the air it would have been too late to catch up and deal with the problem. Even if that was not the case who would have had the balls to take the political backlash of ordering fighters to shoot down planes loaded with civillians? Even still what pilot would willingly accept that task?
Firstly, you cannot hide behind the "it was inconceivable" argument. It is worth reading the 911 Commission Report, page 344 as I have previously posted, as there are many other similar examples in it.
Secondly, "By the time they would have been up in the air it would have been too late to catch up and deal with the problem" - that is exactly why the protocol is to scramble interceptors as early as possible. This leaves the options open.
2. Not shooting the plane down: kills 200 + kills 3000
I know it isn't as simple as this for the initial attack, but it was after the first tower was hit. If a second plane was heading for it too, would you not shoot it down. I think that the public would have understood this.
Fourthly, If you order a pilot to shoot down a civilian airliner, then that is what he would do -period!
@Portabledexter Again you are not seeing the bigger picture here. First of all even though you keep asserting that launching interceptors was standard procedure for the time you have posted NO EVIDENCE to support this claim. It is procedure now but that is because it was changed in response to 9/11. Who would have made the order? You forgot the other bit of info there. Take option 1 and you are held accountable for all 200 deaths... Take option 2 and you aren't held accountable for shit.
@MrAwsome514 Agreed, there are political implications with the 2 options, that is why I said it wasn't as simple as that, and you have summed it up perfectly.
As for evidence, it is hard to find info that is not directly related to 911 as I am sure you know. I am also drawing on past knowledge of air defense, such as the interception of the light plane that flew into the Bush ranches no-fly zone.
The 911 commission report should detail the protocol and failings but is a joke!
@Portabledexter It was allwas protocol to send interceptors after planes that breech the no fly zones around anyplace where the president may be located or any major government facility. Does it not stand to reason that they would be a little more on edge when it is flying right over their heads? Over civillian areas though it was a different story. The assumption was any sort of attack would target the government or millitary and not civillians.
@MrAwsome514 The 911 Commission report page 20 states "Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command".
However, it does not state how or why.
The failings of the official report is just another part of the reason why I do not believe any of the story. It is a joke, and if you read it you will be left with far more questions than answers. This is not acceptable.
@Portabledexter Put simply kid there is a cover up involving 9/11. The cover up is not about who did it but rather about who fucked up. The only thing the government is covering up is their own fucking incompetance. We allready know how absurdly incompetant these morons are and that is exactly how we know they could not have pulled off such a conspiracy as this. They have a hard enough time keeping their sexual exploits out of the head lines for fucks sake...
@Portabledexter Apparently I am much more thorough in investigating speakers then the poster of this video... Do you know what Mr. Jeff King's credentials actually are? He is an ELECTRICAL engineer. The very thought that anything he would have to say should carry weight is laughable. Certainly the poster had to have knowen this so why be so misleading by leaving out what kind of engineer he is? He did it so people would assume the credentials where relevant. This is what is not acceptable.
@muzicmaker2001 Why do I need to post my cerdentials? My only statement is that Jeff King's credentials are not relevant to this subject. There are no credentials required to make this statement. It is information that anyone can see by simply researching the man's history... Now maybe you would like to expalin why this is something you failed to do?
And who or what gives you this power to make this assessment about his credentials? Most of his statements are not exactly brain surgery. But, if you doubt his expertise, refute his statements. Its that simple..good luck
@muzicmaker2001 Doubt his expertise? It is a bit late for that... I used to doubt his expertise, but then I looked into his credentials and learned he has no expertise on this subject. Frankly you might aswell have a janitor or a homless person doing the talking here. But still you did not answer my question. Why did you not investigate his credentials? Or if you did why did you intentionally leave them out?
@muzicmaker2001 I mean you clearly knew he was an engineer so you must have knowen what type... And obviously you would have knowen his expertise as an electrical engineer was meaningless so why would you bother to even post that he is an engineer? Unless ofcourse you where trying to manipulate people into believeing as you do by allowing them to assume he was a structural engineer... But that would be willful deception to suit your agenda now wouldn't it?
To summarize your three posts; your assessment on his lack of credentials to give this evaluation is nothing but your opinion also. Without your credentials posted, this is just more ranting from some random plant on YT dedicated to defending 911. Using similar logic, if it is your only goal here is to protect n' serve the sanctity of 911 at all costs, why should anyone listen to your biased opinion?
@muzicmaker2001 My comment was that he does not have the credentials to speak on this subject with authority. I have allready demonstrated that his own site lists his credentials and that these credentials have nothing to do with the subject matter. Now you claim that I need to tell my credentials to back this up? If this is the case doesn't that mean you would need to post your credentials as well to support your assessment of his claims?
@muzicmaker2001 Put an end to this childish behavior. We both know the man does not have the proper credentials to give his words merit, and that his credentials were intentionally left out so that people would assume he was a structural engineer rather then an electrical one. This blatant attempt at deception does nothing but harm the truther movement and I believe people on either side of the argument would agree with that.
@muzicmaker2001 By the way... Do you know what the definition of the word "opinion" is? If you did you would know what I am stating is not an opinion. It is fact. The man does not have a degree which has any relevance to this subject and he himself is the one that posted this information on his own personal site.
You posted this link, jod911(dot)com as supposed experts that support the OV, remmeber? But..Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.
And Mark Roberts is listed as an investigative journalist???..and you shills attack Jeff King. So yes. I agree. Please stop the one-sided childish rants that seem to only benefit your agenda, ok?
@muzicmaker2001 Look Your video lists the man only as an MIT engineer. The man is an ELECTRICAL engineer talking about STRUCTURAL engineering. You are leading people to the assumption that he is a structural engineer which is very deceptive of you. I should hope even other truthers would find this deceptive method of yours to be appauling. I should also hope that you would correct the problem by either adding in the additional information about his credentials or removing the video.
A reply from Jeff King concerning the MIT engineer title..
"In any case, my engineering experience is substantive and the points I make in my talk are based on simple principles of physics. I stand by the soundness of the evidence and conclusions presented, and I would be happy to respond to anything you believe is incorrect"-Jeff King
Again, most of his comments don't require a calculator, computer models and vector analysis to figure out. Its simple physics.
@muzicmaker2001 Yea that is really nice except the details about physics he threw out are not ones taught in an electrical engineering course. This is not "simple" physics... This is the single largest structural collapse in human history. To understand the collapse well enough to speak with any authority on the subject requires a much more advanced knowledge of physics then this.
@muzicmaker2001 For example... This whole thing could easily be setteled by simply calculating the amount of resistance to the collapse being given by the intact regions of the building and their effect on the rate of the collapse... Logically if you could get those figures and compare then against others that would certainly shed some light on things... Oh but thats right... this guy's knowledge of physics is limited to a highschool level understanding of newton's principals.
@muzicmaker2001 There is a little more to physics then what they told you in highschool. By the way even if you had a full fledged physicist working on it you would still need a metallurgist helping him to come up with how the temperatures would change the steel's physical properties. None of this expertise can be found in an electrical engineer.
And here we are full circle. If you are going comment on his analysis, using your same logic, we will need your credentials, correct? Can you post them? Otherwise, you are just a random guy on YT commenting on a graduate from MIT's comments. Do you see how logic is a two-way street now? But the majority of engineers outside of the official investigation that have taken a stand on this agree with him so its not like this is some new idea, right?
@muzicmaker2001 You sir are a complete moron. What I am saying is that your "Expert" is not an "Expert" on this subject. You don't need to see my credentials to confirm this because this information comes directly from HIS OWN SITE. What would you need my credentials for exactly? To veryfiy that my information is accurate? Information which came from the man's own personal website? You are not even trying to use logic here at all are you?
And what I'm saying is if other experts in related fields agree with him, this is called confirmation of his assessment. Therefore, he is correct. if you didn't know, this is called using logic. So, all of your rants mean nothing. But, it was only your opinion anyway so...But interesting again how you posted your so-called experts where one was only a reporter/journalist but you attack King? And this is called an agenda to defend 911.
@muzicmaker2001 Oh I see... so then you believe anyone who argues for the other side has an agenda.
"other experts in related fields agree with him"..."Therefore, he is correct."
Are these fields as "related" as his was? It does not matter. There is allways a dissenting opinion amung experts. The simple truth is even within the scientific community there are lunatics and idiots. According to your logic we should also believe the earth is spontaniously growing by magically producing matter.
No, when someone tours miltiple pages on YT related to 911 defending it as if he's a mother lion defending her cub, he might have an agenda. My logic is NOT to discard the assessment from an MIT graquate (and over 1000 engineers) only to believe this nut on YT who is obviously put here to protect the sanctity of the official version. Even Stevie Wonder can see that...that's what you don't see
@muzicmaker2001 "put here to protect the sanctity of the official version."
That needs protecting? Only 16% of people are even open to the idea that the offical report may not be accurate and even less are open to the idea the government are intentionally trying to cover something up. The truth movement is allready as dead as it will ever get. From now on it's fate is to sit in the shadows along side the JFK assasination conspiracy theorists before it.
'The truth movement is allready as dead as it will ever get."
This HAS to be the reason why you (and the horde of other shills) are here on every page related to 911 defending it? And HAS to be the reason why Rkowen's shut down his comment section on all of his videos? Makes perfect sense to me.
@muzicmaker2001 You know what You are right I do have an agenda. Wanna know what it is? To speak up against a bunch of ass holes who keep practically spitting on the graves of those who died that day. Did you ever consider maybe... just maybe that might piss a few people off? Oh no but it just has to be because the government paid them to carry out character assasination against people who are allready characterized as nut jobs by society. Obviously that is the only logical course of action...
@muzicmaker2001 You disrespect them yourself when you post such crap as this trying to trick people into believing as you do. Trying to fool people into believing this man's credentials have any bearing on the subject as you did is no less insulting to me then if you were to go straight to my grandfather's grave and piss on it.
Asking questions about events that don't make sense does not disrespect anyone, but nice try. Why not admit it? You are here to sway the people away from the truth. But, here's what I don't understand about that. If noone believes you on YT, what are you really accomplishing here? Actually, the presence of you shills only opens the door further to a cover-up, but you don't know that..I'm sorry
@muzicmaker2001 "Actually, the presence of you shills only opens the door further to a cover-up, but you don't know that..I'm sorry"
Congratulations... You just figured out the reason why there are no shills. If a dumb ass such as yourself can figure that much out don't you think any organization capable of pulling off such a complex fraud as what you suggest would have knowen it since before 9/11? Use your head boy...
I'd really like to know where you came up with the 16% number? I wasn't involved in any door to door interview. This is a good example of the BS lies you shill's spew and why noone believes you. Do you not see that?
@muzicmaker2001 By the way actually the vast majority of people on youtube think truthers are morons. Let me guess... you just look at your like and dislike bar and assume that 90% of the planet agrees with you right. Are you really THAT naive? Have you not considered maybe the reason why your approval rate looks so high is because the majority of your audiance is other truthers?
Please help. How did you determine that the majority agrees with you on YT? Was it the same method used for the 16%? Or the 90% Good ol' fashioned BS? Or was it how there are more dislikes on the majority of the shill saviour Rkowen's pages? I'd really like to know. And there's no need to mention the like to dislike ratio on most pro-conspiracy pages, right?
@muzicmaker2001 The 16% figure came from a survey done last year I think. By the way since you are clearly too stupid to understand this the 90% figure was thrown out to mock you... You know when I was saying you probably just looked at your own like bar up above and assumed 90% of the world agreed with you... Suggesting you thought your like bar represented the opinion of the entire lanet. Are you really too stupid to understand this or do you play dumb to drag out the conversation?
I'm smart enough to know that your BS made up numbers mean nothing except for the entertainment value. Sometimes, I don't know if this is real or not. Is this my cousin playing games again? LOL. Ok, family guy is on. as you were.
@muzicmaker2001 If my figures are bs then were are yours? I mean if truthers really are the majority rather then just the outcasts of society then there must be some sort of a servey showing it... More importantly if that was the case were is the government overthrowing revolution at? Just saying... you guys believe the government was behind the attacks which means you also believe the millitary action in the middle east is nothing but mass murder so why are you all content to sit on your ass?
@MrAwsome514 Because it takes a nation to overthrow a government. Half only creates civil war. We will all have to come together if we want to put America and our freedom back where it was. This is a video of very intelligent man explaining all of the impossible events that could not have taken place without there being explosives planted in the building and you choose not to even consider the possibility?? Research false flag attacks, this is not a first by a long shot.
@muzicmaker2001 What you forget is that conspiracy theorists are allmost allways obsessive. They are allways active within their subculture's community. The reason why RKowen's pages are flooded with dislikes and have theircomments turned off is because they where constantly flooded by truthers who like you assume everyone who disagrees with them is a "shill". By the way... do you really believe it is just completely impossible that some one could simply disagree with you? Sounds paranoid...
This sounds like the same sort of paranoia of thinking anyone that even questions the official version is a truther? We all know what shills are, but is this the only definition of a truther? Someone who questions the OV?
@muzicmaker2001 Ofcourse I have been over this with you before... Non truthers believe the offical report to be mostly accurate and thus believe the case to be closed. They don't really have much reason to come here aside from any resentment they might feel for the truther movement in general (you would be surprized how pissed off you can get after recieving hate mail and even death threats from truthers just for being related to one of the victims.).
@muzicmaker2001 And by the way yes there actually are idiots out there who believe the earth's core is pumping out billions of kilograms of new matter by the millinea too. I am not making that up. Each one with a phd of some sort. What you seem to forget is that the vast majority of experts agree with the official story for the most part. It's not like they don't have access to the same information that you do...
@muzicmaker2001 By your own logic we should all believe the official report because it has the most expert backing. Or would you like to rephrase your logic into something less idiotic then your original explaination?
Great. Can you post a website, petition or even a note in a bottle where expert's names (outside of the official investigation) are given showing support of the official version?
@muzicmaker2001 Frankly I don't care wheather or not you believe the official story. Your beliefs are your problem not mine... But I do care about the deceptive manner by which you try to spred your beliefs. Nomatter what the truth is no one finds it though such childish trickery as this.
@MrAwsome514 Good work , that is atrocious! What is worse is that Mr Jeff King feels that he is qulified to speak in public on an expert subject. He is a total c**t! I think that is worthy of a post, if you would like to do the honours?
Another example of why I believe the 911 Commission Report is a complete joke:
Have you ever investigated Benedict Sliney?
Unbelievably his name only appears in the Appendix of the 911 Commission Report.
The argument of universal incompetence that you are holding just seems impossible to me. I have a low opinion of the US Government, but in every single area of the 911 attacks, there it is again - from issuing Visas to The official Report and everything inbetween.
@Portabledexter Soldiers aren't the emotionless robots you just painted them as. When they get orders they choose weather to execute them or not. Generally speaking they don't see any problem with the orders they get, but if you gave them the order to shoot down a fucking civillian aircraft at that point in time they would not have knowen what to do. The notion of a civillian craft being used as a weapon was unthinkable... It would have felt to them like an act of treason to shoot it down.
@MrAwsome514 Really, the pilot chooses whether to obey an ORDER? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages! This is not how the military operates, and it is fundamental that the chain of command is followed without question. WITHOUT QUESTION.
It is fair to say that the person making the decision may not have had to balls to call it, but without a fighter in the area - there is no decision to be made.
@Portabledexter It is actually quite true... The soldier allways has the choice. Why do you think they get court marshalled from time to time? Soldiers sell their lives to the state... not their souls.
How long do you think that they should try to contact the aircraft for before scrambling interceptosr?
If a plane loses contact or deviates off course, an interceptor will be scrambled to gain visual communication with the plane. They can then guide the aircraft down (or shoot it down if necessary).
In 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.
Without interceptors in the air there are no options open, other than to spectate.
"How long do you think that they should try to contact the aircraft for before scrambling interceptosr?"
.
I don't know. Do you?
Another question ... if you think a plane is hijacked, a KNOWN(!)| scenario, was it, back in 2001, ALSO customary to send interceptors?
I don't know!
However, listening to the NORAD tapes I consider the response times pretty quick! Everybody did his job. But in the confusion, and following protocol, the planes were at the wrong spot.
"Remember that this is against the backdrop of what happened before and after:"
.
Confusing cause and effect. A correlation is not a causation.
And no! I do not think that anything following was a coincidence! It was a reaction(!) to 9/11.
Except, of course, for the election. That was laughable and probably (in Florida) manipulated. But the election has nothing to do with 9/11 (except, maybe, for the voting choices by the people).
For me however, the election has everything to do with 911. I do understand where you are coming from in a good investigative practice, but when the election was decided by lawyers in Jed Bush's state, coupled with the complete and utter idiot that G W Bush is, set of alarm bells with me. I was very much of the opinion "what have they got planned if they have rigged an election with the most dimwitted man on the planet".
@wimahlers The following comments may be in reverse order (this is the last). I hate Youtube!
I know it isn't a very scientific approach, but it is a holistic one. None of the official story makes any sense unless it is viewed from the NWO point of view.
I must say that it is refreshing to have a conversation with someone intelligent with opposing views for a change.
Anyway, I must do some work now (until you interrupt me once more - lol)
@Portabledexter Don't you think having the collapse start from the top and work it's way down would change the entire dynamic of the collapse as compared to one where the collapse started from the bottom allowing the upper floors to fall into the void it leaves?
So millions and millions of tons of falling building is not a "large amount of material", to create a dust cloud?? Jesus Christ. It's pretty obvious that it IS.
I thought this guy was going to present evidence. At least that other dude has what looks like thermite samples, but saying "What looks like" or "which suggest" after or before every sentence doesn't prove anything, it only makes the mystery bigger. Evidence is key, but according to this guy, there is no evidence, only appearances.
You truth guys researching stuff . what a bunch of nutters. wow ..everyone, including FOX news knows a single column collapsed causing the building to fall into its own footprint at near free fall speed .
Not necessarily. Concrete bursting/splitting is used where crunching is not possible. It is a versatile and effective method of cracking concrete into sections or lumps for removal. It is a quiet and controlled form of demolition, which is used to remove both large and small sections and can be used in confined environments.
@merJewel You have clearly never been in New York and with everything going on, the noise level from first responders, the public and traffic would make even more noise than normal.
And no, a controlled demolition of a building in a area like manhattan wouldn't be that noisy.
I didn't believe in this either, untill I saw building 7 collapse.
@MrFredricksen -The same way the twin towers fell. Thermate/(nano)thermite. Please watch: '9/11: Explosive Evidence-Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.' It tells everything! Note: 1,000's of tons of Concrete, in a single collapse, turning nearly, completely to dust is impossible without very high-tech explosives. Not to mention the pyroclastic cloud, & the extreme lateral movement of massive exterior steel pieces weighing many tons each. My best to you!~
So for the entire building to collapse, some of the steel material at the lower floors (We're taking floors <15 ) would need to have lost stability as well (otherwise it may topple or half the building twist/warp and/or not fall in a near uniform collapse). I fail to see how the entire steel throughout the building can effectively conduct 1000F worth of energy from kinetic energy and a poorly oxidised fire 50+ floors above... I'm not brush up on my physics, but logically, it doesn't make sense.
So for the entire building to collapse, some of the steel material at the lower floors (We're taking floors <15 ) would need to have lost stability as well (otherwise it may topple or half the building twist/warp and/or not fall in a near uniform collapse). I fail to see how the entire steel throughout the building can effectively conduct 1000F worth of energy from kinetic energy and a poorly oxidised fire 50+ floors above... I'm not brush up on my physics, but logically, it doesn't make sense.
Even if you think the fired melted or weakened the steel, that's only in the impact area. When you have 70-80 floors of perfectly intact steel & concrete how does the impacted area completely obliterate the rest of the building in 10 seconds? It doesn't it's impossible. How can anyone even debate this? It should of tipped over or just burned out, even if it burned for 20 hrs there would still be no collapse let alone 1 hour. Seems like they waited for firemen/police to enter and blew it up.
Near the end he talks about the base of the tower being damaged like an explosion occurred there. It is possible the plane impact did this. Air compression could have pushed down the in various spot in the core of columns from the impact, and YES you might ask, well if the explosion blew out the bottom of the tower, how about the top?? Why not?? Watch the videos of the north tower impact (here is one watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk) watch both sides of the tower in view at the top floor!!
@ 4:10 This MIT states "load bearing can be shifted to other members if some of them fail".. (Yes, this means now other columns are taking extra load) Then he says "but, absent further weakening of the structural members, that distribution is, is limited it, it happens, the, the structures re-stabilizes..." Re-stabilizes? Please explain how a building can re-stabilize itself? Did it stand on one leg? Is it a transformer now, it can take columns out in places and put them in it's weak spots?
steven jones admitted he was wrong bout the wtc7 collapse time. he admitted that he IGNORED THE EVIDENCE. lol, so what other BS have you guys been swallowing from this guy and others like him?
ItWasTyped. com for the story and MORE on conspiracy theories
I have seen many theories about 9/11 and all i can say is i don't know what to believe. With all the credible evidence for a demolision i still struggle to come to terms with the idea that the U.S. goverment would do this. If the y did then all i can say is that The United States is the most Evil nation on the face of the planet and the whole world should unite to destroy America.
@Quovardis83 thats not really fair in the sense that if the government did do this it would have had to have been an impressively small number of people tricking the others into allowing it to happen and immediately after Bush as he did went on the tv and convinced all the heartbroken ppl that they are against america if they disagree with the oficial story an the following war on the mideast. i had nothing to do with 911 do you think the ppl of applachia did either or the bible thumpers
The only thing i think is how can 10% building completly destroy 90% of the building WHEN the collumns BELOW inpact were disigned for that weight if NOT even more? + Where does the white smoke at the base exsist from? And final, how can a 100 stories tall building fall in 20seconds when ~85floors were intact? Thats 85/20 = 4.25 floors/second.
4.25 x 2.3meters (typical hight of a floor) = 9.775meter / second
Gravity = ~9.82meters per second. WHERE IS THE RECISTANCE OF THE CORE AND CONCREATE?
Follow the dollars. Movies, books, talk show hosts making millions of dollars by making the implausible seem plausible and even dangerous. Two planes hit the towers and they fell. When you are interested in a topic, look up the counter points or type debunked in your browser along with search terms, you may see things differently.
It's up to YOU America to push for the REAL truth. We (the rest of the world) can't believe its been so long to get things moving on this subject. These towers and all their contents weren't turned to dust from fire and the govt needs to deliver the truth! Use your votes as your voice
So, is falling debris only damaging one side of a building somehow equivalent to the "100000kg 580mph missile" when it comes to WTC7? Just curious. The "plane impacts caused the collapse" theory doesn't seem to work with WTC7, right?
Just as in Part 1, King lists already debunked points, accompanied by some illustrations & clips. He starts by claiming the dust clouds after the collapses were mostly from concrete. He should have done some research! R.J. Lee had released its study of the dust in 2003, so the real composition was known. The dust was mostly gypsum (from drywall), chrysotile asbestos (from fireproofing & flooring), mineral wool fibers (from insulation), pulverized vermiculite (from plaster), and ash.
@NonnyMus1 King claims the clouds were pyroclastic, which is simply absurd. Pyroclastic clouds are hot - over 1500°F. Persistent dust clouds exist in more than the two situations he mentioned. Dust storms are one. Large fires are another.
King's claim that carpets protected the concrete is absurd. Carpet has little structural strength which is why we don't use it to frame buildings! Despite his cute little cartoon, concrete decking is hammered downward in a building collapse.
@NonnyMus1 Much concrete rubble was in the debris pile at Ground Zero as shown here - /watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
Explosives were not the "only possible" explanation for the dust clouds. The energy in the buildings' collapses were ~equivalant to a small nuclear bomb.
The small particle size he mentions are indicative of burning. Unburned materials and larger particles were also found in the dust cloud.
Once again, King repeats the old canard that steel columns "telescoped" into themselves. Nope.
@NonnyMus1 There were plenty of bent and broken columns observed. And any look at video, including his clip of WTC 7 collapsing to the left, shows the building did NOT fall straight down. The debris covered ~16 acres, while the buildings combined footprint was ~3 acres. There was no universal "falling straight down",. no "telescoping" and no "falling into footprint". If there had been, many fewer people would have been killed.
@NonnyMus1 King claims that steel keeps a lot' of its strength up to melting point of ~2500° F (depending on alloy). On this planet, steel loses 80-90% of its strength at 1000°F. Heated steel deforms under load. This fact had been stated many times in the 5-6 years between the building collapses and King's talk, yet he ignored it.
King gets really muddled about the oscillation and 'restabilization' of the Towers after they were hit.
@NonnyMus1 The energy from the jet impacts far outweighed any energy from hurricane level winds. Since King doesn't show his calculations, we don't know where he got that absurdity from. He also fails to distinguish lateral loads (to the side as that from winds) and compressive or gravitational loads (weight pressing down). The exterior columns were designed to bear lateral loads. As the each building bent in response to the crashes, core columns experienced lateral loads.
@NonnyMus1 King was correct in saying that the building's restabilized, with intact structure taking loads from the severed and damaged columns. He's even right when he claims that, "absent further weakening...that doesn't progress to a total collapse". He neglects to mention that the fires provided "further weakening".
King then skips backwards to reports of explosions heard at time of impacts. He shows damage to the ground floor lobby and claims 'high explosives caused the damage'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NonnyMus1 If high explosives caused the damage, where are all the dead bodies? In reality, shockwaves from the impact cracked brittle materials such as windows & stone sheathing but weren't strong enough to hurt people in the lobby. Reports of explosions at various points during the tragedy were likely due to crashing elevators & exploding pockets of jet fuel (also, exploding elevator motors, HVAC equipment, cleaning supplies, transformers, CRT's, UPS units & hydraulic pistons in chairs).
@NonnyMus1 King repeats the already debunked "unusual Power down and evac drills in the week before 9/11" In reality, the fire drills were scheduled and only 1 person claimed there was no power for floors 50+. He also admits the outage was only 26 hours long.
King claims the power down gave demolitions experts time to plant explosives. That's absurd. Demolition jobs on large buildings take months. Plus, other evidence & testimony contradicts that 1 person's recollections.
@NonnyMus1 From the words "power down", King makes another absurd conclusion from that it meant that "at least some people knew what was going to happen" or that huge, super fast ninja demolition teams swooped into the buildings undetected by the people working over the weekend and the tourists waiting in the lobbies for elevators to the observation deck and planted thousands of charges in 26 hours. It's an absurd conclusion from very limited evidence!
@NonnyMus1 But no surprise. King's talk almost entirely consists of absurd conclusions drawn from limited evidence, neglecting all other alternatives. Since it appears the talk was given after the NIST report on the WTC Towers collapses came out, there is no excuse for his ignorance of reality.
In addition, reputable engineers (and even doctors) avoid making overreaching conclusions from their data. King has no such scruples.
There! I'm glad I won't ever have to watch that video again.
@muzicmaker2001 Really? That's all you can find to criticize?! Wow. That's lame even for you! :P
I'll answer anyway. Nope. Replying to myself was a choice for convenience. You'll notice the first comment was to you. That gave you the notification you needed for the whole series.
WOW !!! excellent video !! just wish he could explain the "turned to powder" of everything !! ...but seems most are struggling with that one... TOTALLY appreciate him NOT leading to the " thermite theory"... only said, explosions were heard !! had to giggle a little at "concrete jumped into mid-air" he is soooo right on...
and in part 1 the picture of the walk-way that was connected to the tower looks higher then the debris pile .....excellent video thanks for posting it !!
@914light giggled, "had to giggle a little at "concrete jumped into mid-air" he is soooo right on..."
No, he's not. Not all the concrete was pulverized as any close-up photo of the debris pile shows. Concrete breaks into smaller pieces than structural steel in building collapses. Those smaller pieces are under the steel in the debris pile.
You can see a photo at 3:51 here /watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo. Actually, watch the whole video. It contains real information. The series is good, too!
@NonnyMus1..Thank -you 4 the link ...as I have watched all the videos of Mr. Mohr and Mr. Mohr is a lovely man with many great points and questions...but I can NEVER buy into it being a natural collapse from fire..I watched the buildings on 911 disintegrate...I do NOT buy into the thermite bombs in the buildings either...In 1945 a plane hit the Empire state building..In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned for hours and spread to several floors..and in 1993 WTC basement was bombed..none collapsed
The Empire State Bldg is a reinforced concrete, steel & masonry bldg. It's much stronger than the WTC bldgs. The plane that hit it was a B-25D (~10% of the weight of a 767) traveling at ~200 mph. The 767's were moving at 465 & 585 mph, respectively.
The 1975 WTC fire was almost all on one floor - the 11th. Structural steel was protected by fireproofing. On 9-11, the jet impacts blew off that fireproofing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@914light I realize that no facts and figures are going to change your mind - probably because your beliefs are based on your emotions from that day. I can only hope that you can find a better story which satisfies those emotional needs than the ones which most 'truthers' provide!
@NonnyMus1 ..and you are correct this time !! NONE of your hype and incorrect info / smoke and mirrors also known as Bull and Shyt will work on me !! and frankly dude ...My emotions go out to the millions of innocent people around the world the US has slaughtered FOR NOTHING !!!!! have a nice day ..
P.S...... STOP getting all your information from wikipedia !!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@914light I also feel for all the people our government has killed. I's more than possible to protest that without making up impossible stories about controlled demolitions, drones, missiles & energy weapons!
It's more than adequate to see that the Bush Admin *exploited* the trauma of that horrible day to rush our Nation into war. Let's just stay in touch with reality when we protest that.
I don't get all my information from Wikipedia, so that 's another misunderstanding on your part.
@NonnyMus1 it is the official story, or rather, stories that are impossible. The subsequent theories given by "truthers" are an attempt at making sense of the whole thing when the theories of those in charge make no sense. Sure, there are some drastic assumptions made, but when evidence is clearly being covered up, drastic assumptions are inevitable.
@mcshair21 Since King is talking specifically about the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7, what about the NIST investigations of those collapses is 'impossible'? Please be specific and cite your sources.
The NIST reports are here: tinyurl . com /3jkn6fh & tinyurl . com /3epzmba
Also, it would be great if you could give me an idea of your education level. Did you take high school Physics? Any college? Any science/engineering coursework in college? Thanks!
@mcshair21 That's an extraordinary claim! What's your extraordinary evidence? Specifically, what 'official' stories are impossible? What evidence do you have that '...evidence is clearly being covered up', exactly?
In my opinion, anyone who still believes the WTC's collapses were caused by the impact of two simple airplanes and the resulting utter pulverization of the same and all within them are believing in a miraculous suspension of the laws of physics that by far surpasses evey miracle recorded in The Holy Bible and Qur'an.
This has been flagged as spam show
Always remember that both towers were destroyed, in a way that the towers turned to dust, had more than 80 elevators in the towers, no trace or piece of one never appeared in the images, non any turbine from the planes, etc. But Your government was able to find a driver's license of one of the "terrorists", just a little burned in the corner. Now that is just really good luck !!
argjmg 1 day ago
To all doubters - watch some controlled demolitions!
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter I did... I noticed something that aparently you didn't. They are loud as hell... yet the towers fell quietly. You should go watch some accidental collapses. The main reason why people jump to the controlled demo conclusion is that we have not seen verticle collapses like these much before but if you look you will also notice we have never seen collapses where the collapse originated from such a high point on the building either. Most structural failures occure on the ground floor
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 Good observation, but the reason why we have never seen a steel framed building collapse like this before is because even after a fire has burnt out the entire building, the frame remains intact. It is highly suspicious, just like the "fact" that America apparently cannot scramble an interceptor in over an hour and a half! I remember from before 911 that a light aircraft strayed onto the Bush farm and was intercepted in under 10 mins!
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter That is not actually true. Steel structures using the floor trusses like what the WTC had have failures in their tuss system during fires all the time. Infact firefighters have a saying reguarding trusses. It is "don't trust the truss". Steel trusses are very light weight with a very large surface area. They heat and cool rapidly which makes them lose strength quickly in a fire, and often causes them to be the first part of the building to fail.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAwsome514 "Steel structures using the floor trusses like what the WTC had have failures in their tuss system during fires all the time."
Underwriters Laboratories tested the floor system, It would have survived the fire.
/watch?v=pkwqWxS-bUA&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD1AF2951C99FB6D3
jimhemstreet 1 week ago
@Portabledexter The thing is we knew these where passenger jets. We also were not entirely sure what was going on at the time. We did not send interceptors right away because of the confusion about how to handle the situation.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 Do you not think that when a plane diverts off course and turns off its transponder -that would be a good time to scramble an interceptor. They really aren't much use sitting in the hangar, they need to be on the scene so that as many options are open as possible. This is standard practice with all airforces across the world. It is what they do - it's their job! There is no point in going "well, we don't know whats going on. Lets just see what happens" - it's too late!
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter They where commercial planes. We had never before seen commercial planes used as weapons in a terror attack and we did not yet know who was behind the highjacking. All indications where that it would be some sort of ransom. In a situation like that the presence of interceptors would just put the highjackers on edge and put the passengers at a greater risk. The primary goal was to get communications with the highjackers to try and talk them down. This is standard practice.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 This is taken directly from the 911 Commission Report, page 344...
"In August of the same year [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the WTC". Please check this out. IT IS IMPORTANT!
Portabledexter 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Portabledexter,
.
""In August of the same year [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the WTC". Please check this out. IT IS IMPORTANT!"
.
It is only important when you are ignorant of two things:
a) There are many scenarios of many possible terrorists attacks reported almost daily. Something easy to judge in hindsight.
b) This is not(!) new. See: Air France Flight 8969, 1994. Target: Eiffel tower.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers Someone marked your post as spam! (I unmarked it). I appreciate what you are saying about hindsight, but my point is that the argument "they hadn't thought of it" just doesn't hold.
Even if they hadn't thought of it on the day (plausible), it was protocol to scramble interceptors if contact is lost or a plane goes off course. This is fairly normal and happened 129 times in 2000.
If you don't have an interceptor in the area, you have no options.
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter,
.
"Someone marked your post as spam"
.
I am used to it. And banns, accusations, insults, etc. I rarely, if ever respond to such laughable actions. Without exception these are people who never present their claims to any accredited scientific peeer review. It always ends with the claim that not a single accredited scientific institution in the world is to be trusted. A very easy and cheap cop out excuse. Very conformting for those who do accuse without evidence.
wimahlers 6 days ago
@Portabledexter,
.
"it was protocol to scramble interceptors if contact is lost or a plane goes off course. This is fairly normal and happened 129 times in 2000."
.
Verifiable reference(s) please. With(!) context and(!) response times.
But I honestly hope that you do not reference David Ray Griffin. He is an embarrassment for ... everybody actually.
wimahlers 6 days ago
@Portabledexter Had we knowen what their intentions really where we certainly would have scrambled interceptors but we where going under an asumption that it was a hostage situation and not a terror attack. With the transponder off they where attempting to use the passenger's cell phones as a means of communication.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 And they don't scramble interceptors if its a hijacking? I think that you will find that they most certainly do!
But that is irrelevant after the first impact happened. WE ALL KNEW WHAT THE OTHER MISSING PLANES WERE GOING TO DO! - I should know, I watched it on telly, and so did you (probably).
...and they still didn't scramble interceptors for the other planes. The US at that time (and since) spent more on defense THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER!
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter They do now... Remember major events like this cause certain policies to change. Previously the notion that a highjacked plane would be used as a weapon for a suicide attack was simply inconceivable. As such our primary objective for dealing with the situation was negotiation. Back then the idea of sending fighters out to deal with this would have been considered unspeakable as the only action those fighters can take is to shoot the plane down.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@Portabledexter What exactly would those interceptors do after the first impact? By the time they would have been up in the air it would have been too late to catch up and deal with the problem. Even if that was not the case who would have had the balls to take the political backlash of ordering fighters to shoot down planes loaded with civillians? Even still what pilot would willingly accept that task?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
Firstly, you cannot hide behind the "it was inconceivable" argument. It is worth reading the 911 Commission Report, page 344 as I have previously posted, as there are many other similar examples in it.
Secondly, "By the time they would have been up in the air it would have been too late to catch up and deal with the problem" - that is exactly why the protocol is to scramble interceptors as early as possible. This leaves the options open.
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Thirdly, you have two options:
1. Shooting the plane down: kills 200, saves 3000
2. Not shooting the plane down: kills 200 + kills 3000
I know it isn't as simple as this for the initial attack, but it was after the first tower was hit. If a second plane was heading for it too, would you not shoot it down. I think that the public would have understood this.
Fourthly, If you order a pilot to shoot down a civilian airliner, then that is what he would do -period!
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter,
.
... and, of course, there was a shoot down order for flight 93.
But in a strange twist of logic truthers vehemently claim it was a stand down order.
wimahlers 6 days ago
@Portabledexter Again you are not seeing the bigger picture here. First of all even though you keep asserting that launching interceptors was standard procedure for the time you have posted NO EVIDENCE to support this claim. It is procedure now but that is because it was changed in response to 9/11. Who would have made the order? You forgot the other bit of info there. Take option 1 and you are held accountable for all 200 deaths... Take option 2 and you aren't held accountable for shit.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514 Agreed, there are political implications with the 2 options, that is why I said it wasn't as simple as that, and you have summed it up perfectly.
As for evidence, it is hard to find info that is not directly related to 911 as I am sure you know. I am also drawing on past knowledge of air defense, such as the interception of the light plane that flew into the Bush ranches no-fly zone.
The 911 commission report should detail the protocol and failings but is a joke!
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter It was allwas protocol to send interceptors after planes that breech the no fly zones around anyplace where the president may be located or any major government facility. Does it not stand to reason that they would be a little more on edge when it is flying right over their heads? Over civillian areas though it was a different story. The assumption was any sort of attack would target the government or millitary and not civillians.
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514 The 911 Commission report page 20 states "Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command".
However, it does not state how or why.
The failings of the official report is just another part of the reason why I do not believe any of the story. It is a joke, and if you read it you will be left with far more questions than answers. This is not acceptable.
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter Put simply kid there is a cover up involving 9/11. The cover up is not about who did it but rather about who fucked up. The only thing the government is covering up is their own fucking incompetance. We allready know how absurdly incompetant these morons are and that is exactly how we know they could not have pulled off such a conspiracy as this. They have a hard enough time keeping their sexual exploits out of the head lines for fucks sake...
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514 The US is much more thorough in investigating sexual exploits, however
!
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter Apparently I am much more thorough in investigating speakers then the poster of this video... Do you know what Mr. Jeff King's credentials actually are? He is an ELECTRICAL engineer. The very thought that anything he would have to say should carry weight is laughable. Certainly the poster had to have knowen this so why be so misleading by leaving out what kind of engineer he is? He did it so people would assume the credentials where relevant. This is what is not acceptable.
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Great. Post your credentials against Jeff King's?
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Why do I need to post my cerdentials? My only statement is that Jeff King's credentials are not relevant to this subject. There are no credentials required to make this statement. It is information that anyone can see by simply researching the man's history... Now maybe you would like to expalin why this is something you failed to do?
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
And who or what gives you this power to make this assessment about his credentials? Most of his statements are not exactly brain surgery. But, if you doubt his expertise, refute his statements. Its that simple..good luck
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Doubt his expertise? It is a bit late for that... I used to doubt his expertise, but then I looked into his credentials and learned he has no expertise on this subject. Frankly you might aswell have a janitor or a homless person doing the talking here. But still you did not answer my question. Why did you not investigate his credentials? Or if you did why did you intentionally leave them out?
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I mean you clearly knew he was an engineer so you must have knowen what type... And obviously you would have knowen his expertise as an electrical engineer was meaningless so why would you bother to even post that he is an engineer? Unless ofcourse you where trying to manipulate people into believeing as you do by allowing them to assume he was a structural engineer... But that would be willful deception to suit your agenda now wouldn't it?
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 You want me to refute what he says? That is easy...
"This could not have been the sort of collapse that we were told it was."
This is not even a fact... It is an opinion, and the opinion of some one who lacks the education to make such a determination at that.
Infact... just point out to me one statement that he makes which is not his own uneducated opinion. I dare you. Good luck.
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
To summarize your three posts; your assessment on his lack of credentials to give this evaluation is nothing but your opinion also. Without your credentials posted, this is just more ranting from some random plant on YT dedicated to defending 911. Using similar logic, if it is your only goal here is to protect n' serve the sanctity of 911 at all costs, why should anyone listen to your biased opinion?
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 My comment was that he does not have the credentials to speak on this subject with authority. I have allready demonstrated that his own site lists his credentials and that these credentials have nothing to do with the subject matter. Now you claim that I need to tell my credentials to back this up? If this is the case doesn't that mean you would need to post your credentials as well to support your assessment of his claims?
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Put an end to this childish behavior. We both know the man does not have the proper credentials to give his words merit, and that his credentials were intentionally left out so that people would assume he was a structural engineer rather then an electrical one. This blatant attempt at deception does nothing but harm the truther movement and I believe people on either side of the argument would agree with that.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 By the way... Do you know what the definition of the word "opinion" is? If you did you would know what I am stating is not an opinion. It is fact. The man does not have a degree which has any relevance to this subject and he himself is the one that posted this information on his own personal site.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@MrAwsome514
You posted this link, jod911(dot)com as supposed experts that support the OV, remmeber? But..Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.
And Mark Roberts is listed as an investigative journalist???..and you shills attack Jeff King. So yes. I agree. Please stop the one-sided childish rants that seem to only benefit your agenda, ok?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Look Your video lists the man only as an MIT engineer. The man is an ELECTRICAL engineer talking about STRUCTURAL engineering. You are leading people to the assumption that he is a structural engineer which is very deceptive of you. I should hope even other truthers would find this deceptive method of yours to be appauling. I should also hope that you would correct the problem by either adding in the additional information about his credentials or removing the video.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@MrAwsome514
A reply from Jeff King concerning the MIT engineer title..
"In any case, my engineering experience is substantive and the points I make in my talk are based on simple principles of physics. I stand by the soundness of the evidence and conclusions presented, and I would be happy to respond to anything you believe is incorrect"-Jeff King
Again, most of his comments don't require a calculator, computer models and vector analysis to figure out. Its simple physics.
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yea that is really nice except the details about physics he threw out are not ones taught in an electrical engineering course. This is not "simple" physics... This is the single largest structural collapse in human history. To understand the collapse well enough to speak with any authority on the subject requires a much more advanced knowledge of physics then this.
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 For example... This whole thing could easily be setteled by simply calculating the amount of resistance to the collapse being given by the intact regions of the building and their effect on the rate of the collapse... Logically if you could get those figures and compare then against others that would certainly shed some light on things... Oh but thats right... this guy's knowledge of physics is limited to a highschool level understanding of newton's principals.
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 There is a little more to physics then what they told you in highschool. By the way even if you had a full fledged physicist working on it you would still need a metallurgist helping him to come up with how the temperatures would change the steel's physical properties. None of this expertise can be found in an electrical engineer.
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@MrAwsome514
And here we are full circle. If you are going comment on his analysis, using your same logic, we will need your credentials, correct? Can you post them? Otherwise, you are just a random guy on YT commenting on a graduate from MIT's comments. Do you see how logic is a two-way street now? But the majority of engineers outside of the official investigation that have taken a stand on this agree with him so its not like this is some new idea, right?
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 You sir are a complete moron. What I am saying is that your "Expert" is not an "Expert" on this subject. You don't need to see my credentials to confirm this because this information comes directly from HIS OWN SITE. What would you need my credentials for exactly? To veryfiy that my information is accurate? Information which came from the man's own personal website? You are not even trying to use logic here at all are you?
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
And what I'm saying is if other experts in related fields agree with him, this is called confirmation of his assessment. Therefore, he is correct. if you didn't know, this is called using logic. So, all of your rants mean nothing. But, it was only your opinion anyway so...But interesting again how you posted your so-called experts where one was only a reporter/journalist but you attack King? And this is called an agenda to defend 911.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Oh I see... so then you believe anyone who argues for the other side has an agenda.
"other experts in related fields agree with him"..."Therefore, he is correct."
Are these fields as "related" as his was? It does not matter. There is allways a dissenting opinion amung experts. The simple truth is even within the scientific community there are lunatics and idiots. According to your logic we should also believe the earth is spontaniously growing by magically producing matter.
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
No, when someone tours miltiple pages on YT related to 911 defending it as if he's a mother lion defending her cub, he might have an agenda. My logic is NOT to discard the assessment from an MIT graquate (and over 1000 engineers) only to believe this nut on YT who is obviously put here to protect the sanctity of the official version. Even Stevie Wonder can see that...that's what you don't see
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 "put here to protect the sanctity of the official version."
That needs protecting? Only 16% of people are even open to the idea that the offical report may not be accurate and even less are open to the idea the government are intentionally trying to cover something up. The truth movement is allready as dead as it will ever get. From now on it's fate is to sit in the shadows along side the JFK assasination conspiracy theorists before it.
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
"Only 16% of people are even open.."
Can you post the evidence of a poll, petition or door to door interviews that you used to come up with this number? Thanx..
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
'The truth movement is allready as dead as it will ever get."
This HAS to be the reason why you (and the horde of other shills) are here on every page related to 911 defending it? And HAS to be the reason why Rkowen's shut down his comment section on all of his videos? Makes perfect sense to me.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 You know what You are right I do have an agenda. Wanna know what it is? To speak up against a bunch of ass holes who keep practically spitting on the graves of those who died that day. Did you ever consider maybe... just maybe that might piss a few people off? Oh no but it just has to be because the government paid them to carry out character assasination against people who are allready characterized as nut jobs by society. Obviously that is the only logical course of action...
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
"To speak up against a bunch of ass holes who keep practically spitting on the graves of those who died that day"
More BS lies. Noone on any of my pages has ever disrespected any of the victims. I wouldn't allow it. 100% pure uncut BS, but keep trying..
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 You disrespect them yourself when you post such crap as this trying to trick people into believing as you do. Trying to fool people into believing this man's credentials have any bearing on the subject as you did is no less insulting to me then if you were to go straight to my grandfather's grave and piss on it.
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
Asking questions about events that don't make sense does not disrespect anyone, but nice try. Why not admit it? You are here to sway the people away from the truth. But, here's what I don't understand about that. If noone believes you on YT, what are you really accomplishing here? Actually, the presence of you shills only opens the door further to a cover-up, but you don't know that..I'm sorry
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 "Actually, the presence of you shills only opens the door further to a cover-up, but you don't know that..I'm sorry"
Congratulations... You just figured out the reason why there are no shills. If a dumb ass such as yourself can figure that much out don't you think any organization capable of pulling off such a complex fraud as what you suggest would have knowen it since before 9/11? Use your head boy...
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
I'd really like to know where you came up with the 16% number? I wasn't involved in any door to door interview. This is a good example of the BS lies you shill's spew and why noone believes you. Do you not see that?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 By the way actually the vast majority of people on youtube think truthers are morons. Let me guess... you just look at your like and dislike bar and assume that 90% of the planet agrees with you right. Are you really THAT naive? Have you not considered maybe the reason why your approval rate looks so high is because the majority of your audiance is other truthers?
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
Please help. How did you determine that the majority agrees with you on YT? Was it the same method used for the 16%? Or the 90% Good ol' fashioned BS? Or was it how there are more dislikes on the majority of the shill saviour Rkowen's pages? I'd really like to know. And there's no need to mention the like to dislike ratio on most pro-conspiracy pages, right?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 The 16% figure came from a survey done last year I think. By the way since you are clearly too stupid to understand this the 90% figure was thrown out to mock you... You know when I was saying you probably just looked at your own like bar up above and assumed 90% of the world agreed with you... Suggesting you thought your like bar represented the opinion of the entire lanet. Are you really too stupid to understand this or do you play dumb to drag out the conversation?
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
I'm smart enough to know that your BS made up numbers mean nothing except for the entertainment value. Sometimes, I don't know if this is real or not. Is this my cousin playing games again? LOL. Ok, family guy is on. as you were.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 If my figures are bs then were are yours? I mean if truthers really are the majority rather then just the outcasts of society then there must be some sort of a servey showing it... More importantly if that was the case were is the government overthrowing revolution at? Just saying... you guys believe the government was behind the attacks which means you also believe the millitary action in the middle east is nothing but mass murder so why are you all content to sit on your ass?
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514 Because it takes a nation to overthrow a government. Half only creates civil war. We will all have to come together if we want to put America and our freedom back where it was. This is a video of very intelligent man explaining all of the impossible events that could not have taken place without there being explosives planted in the building and you choose not to even consider the possibility?? Research false flag attacks, this is not a first by a long shot.
chaseco28 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 What you forget is that conspiracy theorists are allmost allways obsessive. They are allways active within their subculture's community. The reason why RKowen's pages are flooded with dislikes and have theircomments turned off is because they where constantly flooded by truthers who like you assume everyone who disagrees with them is a "shill". By the way... do you really believe it is just completely impossible that some one could simply disagree with you? Sounds paranoid...
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
This sounds like the same sort of paranoia of thinking anyone that even questions the official version is a truther? We all know what shills are, but is this the only definition of a truther? Someone who questions the OV?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ofcourse I have been over this with you before... Non truthers believe the offical report to be mostly accurate and thus believe the case to be closed. They don't really have much reason to come here aside from any resentment they might feel for the truther movement in general (you would be surprized how pissed off you can get after recieving hate mail and even death threats from truthers just for being related to one of the victims.).
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
"They don't really have much reason to come here aside "
LMAO. That's why you are here?? Ok, I've had enough laughs for the night. Good luck with your agenda the rest of the night. You'll need it
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 And by the way yes there actually are idiots out there who believe the earth's core is pumping out billions of kilograms of new matter by the millinea too. I am not making that up. Each one with a phd of some sort. What you seem to forget is that the vast majority of experts agree with the official story for the most part. It's not like they don't have access to the same information that you do...
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 By your own logic we should all believe the official report because it has the most expert backing. Or would you like to rephrase your logic into something less idiotic then your original explaination?
MrAwsome514 1 day ago
@MrAwsome514
Great. Can you post a website, petition or even a note in a bottle where expert's names (outside of the official investigation) are given showing support of the official version?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Frankly I don't care wheather or not you believe the official story. Your beliefs are your problem not mine... But I do care about the deceptive manner by which you try to spred your beliefs. Nomatter what the truth is no one finds it though such childish trickery as this.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@MrAwsome514 Good work , that is atrocious! What is worse is that Mr Jeff King feels that he is qulified to speak in public on an expert subject. He is a total c**t! I think that is worthy of a post, if you would like to do the honours?
Portabledexter 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Another example of why I believe the 911 Commission Report is a complete joke:
Have you ever investigated Benedict Sliney?
Unbelievably his name only appears in the Appendix of the 911 Commission Report.
The argument of universal incompetence that you are holding just seems impossible to me. I have a low opinion of the US Government, but in every single area of the 911 attacks, there it is again - from issuing Visas to The official Report and everything inbetween.
Portabledexter 5 days ago 2
@Portabledexter Soldiers aren't the emotionless robots you just painted them as. When they get orders they choose weather to execute them or not. Generally speaking they don't see any problem with the orders they get, but if you gave them the order to shoot down a fucking civillian aircraft at that point in time they would not have knowen what to do. The notion of a civillian craft being used as a weapon was unthinkable... It would have felt to them like an act of treason to shoot it down.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514 Really, the pilot chooses whether to obey an ORDER? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages! This is not how the military operates, and it is fundamental that the chain of command is followed without question. WITHOUT QUESTION.
It is fair to say that the person making the decision may not have had to balls to call it, but without a fighter in the area - there is no decision to be made.
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter It is actually quite true... The soldier allways has the choice. Why do you think they get court marshalled from time to time? Soldiers sell their lives to the state... not their souls.
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@Portabledexter,
.
"This is standard practice with all airforces across the world. It is what they do - it's their job!"
.
No. It wasn't. The first priority before September 2001 was to (try to) contact the airplane. And ATC did (try).
Scrambling fighters is the next step. And ATC, in collaboration with NORAD, did take the next step.
By the way, the NORAD tapes are available. It contains 30 hours of tape, about 6.5 hours real time. Listen to it! See: tinyurl*com/tkrtr + 3ktq4d7
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers
How long do you think that they should try to contact the aircraft for before scrambling interceptosr?
If a plane loses contact or deviates off course, an interceptor will be scrambled to gain visual communication with the plane. They can then guide the aircraft down (or shoot it down if necessary).
In 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.
Without interceptors in the air there are no options open, other than to spectate.
Your faith in US incompetence is impressive.
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter,
.
"How long do you think that they should try to contact the aircraft for before scrambling interceptosr?"
.
I don't know. Do you?
Another question ... if you think a plane is hijacked, a KNOWN(!)| scenario, was it, back in 2001, ALSO customary to send interceptors?
I don't know!
However, listening to the NORAD tapes I consider the response times pretty quick! Everybody did his job. But in the confusion, and following protocol, the planes were at the wrong spot.
wimahlers 6 days ago
@wimahlers Remember that this is against the backdrop of what happened before and after:
1. Bush "elected" by the most dodgy election ever.
2. 911 attacks, where are the military?
3. Buildings 7 is the first steel framed building to collapse due to fire ever, taking with it the Enron and WorldCom evidence.
4. Afghanistan invaded.
5. Iraq invaded under false pretenses (lies).
You either believe that this is all coincidence, or you believe it is all bullshit. I believe the latter.
Portabledexter 1 week ago
@Portabledexter.
.
"Remember that this is against the backdrop of what happened before and after:"
.
Confusing cause and effect. A correlation is not a causation.
And no! I do not think that anything following was a coincidence! It was a reaction(!) to 9/11.
Except, of course, for the election. That was laughable and probably (in Florida) manipulated. But the election has nothing to do with 9/11 (except, maybe, for the voting choices by the people).
wimahlers 6 days ago
@wimahlers I must say that it is refreshing to have a conversation with someone intelligent with an opposing view.
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@wimahlers
For me however, the election has everything to do with 911. I do understand where you are coming from in a good investigative practice, but when the election was decided by lawyers in Jed Bush's state, coupled with the complete and utter idiot that G W Bush is, set of alarm bells with me. I was very much of the opinion "what have they got planned if they have rigged an election with the most dimwitted man on the planet".
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@wimahlers
And what did we get?
911, WTC7 first ever collapsed steel framed building (taking WorldCom and Enron evidence with it), Afghanistan, Iraq.
The funny thing is that the American people actually voted Bush back in comfortably (and legitimately) for a second term - lol
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@wimahlers The following comments may be in reverse order (this is the last). I hate Youtube!
I know it isn't a very scientific approach, but it is a holistic one. None of the official story makes any sense unless it is viewed from the NWO point of view.
I must say that it is refreshing to have a conversation with someone intelligent with opposing views for a change.
Anyway, I must do some work now (until you interrupt me once more - lol)
Portabledexter 6 days ago
@Portabledexter Don't you think having the collapse start from the top and work it's way down would change the entire dynamic of the collapse as compared to one where the collapse started from the bottom allowing the upper floors to fall into the void it leaves?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 Have a look at 9/11 Eyewitness, Last Man out of WTC (part 1) for some interesting views.
Portabledexter 1 week ago
So millions and millions of tons of falling building is not a "large amount of material", to create a dust cloud?? Jesus Christ. It's pretty obvious that it IS.
Holymakinaw 1 week ago
I thought this guy was going to present evidence. At least that other dude has what looks like thermite samples, but saying "What looks like" or "which suggest" after or before every sentence doesn't prove anything, it only makes the mystery bigger. Evidence is key, but according to this guy, there is no evidence, only appearances.
xXGoDxiSxdEaDx666Xx 1 week ago
Great upload. The "massive dust" is thoroughly explained by Dimitri Khalezov. See his documentary interview on my channel and elsewhere on youtube.
anthonyc31 2 weeks ago
Thank you for your GREAT channel!!! Peace!
lisafiddler01 2 weeks ago
You truth guys researching stuff . what a bunch of nutters. wow ..everyone, including FOX news knows a single column collapsed causing the building to fall into its own footprint at near free fall speed .
" Pull it "
joecanukk 3 weeks ago
Science!
detached 1 month ago
i think that most people forget that a controlled demolition..........MAKES A SHITLOAD OF NOISE
merJewel 2 months ago
@merJewel
Not necessarily. Concrete bursting/splitting is used where crunching is not possible. It is a versatile and effective method of cracking concrete into sections or lumps for removal. It is a quiet and controlled form of demolition, which is used to remove both large and small sections and can be used in confined environments.
happyuk06 1 month ago
@merJewel You have clearly never been in New York and with everything going on, the noise level from first responders, the public and traffic would make even more noise than normal.
And no, a controlled demolition of a building in a area like manhattan wouldn't be that noisy.
I didn't believe in this either, untill I saw building 7 collapse.
Jeff74FL 1 month ago
how did building 7 fall?
MrFredricksen 2 months ago
@MrFredricksen -The same way the twin towers fell. Thermate/(nano)thermite. Please watch: '9/11: Explosive Evidence-Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.' It tells everything! Note: 1,000's of tons of Concrete, in a single collapse, turning nearly, completely to dust is impossible without very high-tech explosives. Not to mention the pyroclastic cloud, & the extreme lateral movement of massive exterior steel pieces weighing many tons each. My best to you!~
transientdreams 2 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
So for the entire building to collapse, some of the steel material at the lower floors (We're taking floors <15 ) would need to have lost stability as well (otherwise it may topple or half the building twist/warp and/or not fall in a near uniform collapse). I fail to see how the entire steel throughout the building can effectively conduct 1000F worth of energy from kinetic energy and a poorly oxidised fire 50+ floors above... I'm not brush up on my physics, but logically, it doesn't make sense.
TheRandomBassist 2 months ago
So for the entire building to collapse, some of the steel material at the lower floors (We're taking floors <15 ) would need to have lost stability as well (otherwise it may topple or half the building twist/warp and/or not fall in a near uniform collapse). I fail to see how the entire steel throughout the building can effectively conduct 1000F worth of energy from kinetic energy and a poorly oxidised fire 50+ floors above... I'm not brush up on my physics, but logically, it doesn't make sense.
TheRandomBassist 2 months ago
Even if you think the fired melted or weakened the steel, that's only in the impact area. When you have 70-80 floors of perfectly intact steel & concrete how does the impacted area completely obliterate the rest of the building in 10 seconds? It doesn't it's impossible. How can anyone even debate this? It should of tipped over or just burned out, even if it burned for 20 hrs there would still be no collapse let alone 1 hour. Seems like they waited for firemen/police to enter and blew it up.
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 2 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
Near the end he talks about the base of the tower being damaged like an explosion occurred there. It is possible the plane impact did this. Air compression could have pushed down the in various spot in the core of columns from the impact, and YES you might ask, well if the explosion blew out the bottom of the tower, how about the top?? Why not?? Watch the videos of the north tower impact (here is one watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk) watch both sides of the tower in view at the top floor!!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ 4:10 This MIT states "load bearing can be shifted to other members if some of them fail".. (Yes, this means now other columns are taking extra load) Then he says "but, absent further weakening of the structural members, that distribution is, is limited it, it happens, the, the structures re-stabilizes..." Re-stabilizes? Please explain how a building can re-stabilize itself? Did it stand on one leg? Is it a transformer now, it can take columns out in places and put them in it's weak spots?
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
steven jones admitted he was wrong bout the wtc7 collapse time. he admitted that he IGNORED THE EVIDENCE. lol, so what other BS have you guys been swallowing from this guy and others like him?
ItWasTyped. com for the story and MORE on conspiracy theories
culturebully3 3 months ago
I have seen many theories about 9/11 and all i can say is i don't know what to believe. With all the credible evidence for a demolision i still struggle to come to terms with the idea that the U.S. goverment would do this. If the y did then all i can say is that The United States is the most Evil nation on the face of the planet and the whole world should unite to destroy America.
Quovardis83 3 months ago 2
@Quovardis83 not America but if so the govrment.
67tr876 2 months ago
@Quovardis83 All You have to do is Discover how Kerosene can melt Steel.
Not Bend, Not Weaken, Melt, To make Molten.
Then Discover How Kerosene Heater work. Are they Magic?
Where did the Molten Metal in Building 7 Come from?
Kerosene IS Jet fuel.
Carbon fires of any kind burn at their hottest @ 1200 degrees, Kerosene in a blast furnace.
Steel Melts at 2700+ Degrees.
So, either the building was an engulfed inferno or there were fire fighters in the building up to the 79th floor.
americanbandwidth 2 months ago
@Quovardis83 It doesn't have to be the entire government. All that is needed is a relatively small criminal element within the government.
KSengage86 1 week ago
@Quovardis83 thats not really fair in the sense that if the government did do this it would have had to have been an impressively small number of people tricking the others into allowing it to happen and immediately after Bush as he did went on the tv and convinced all the heartbroken ppl that they are against america if they disagree with the oficial story an the following war on the mideast. i had nothing to do with 911 do you think the ppl of applachia did either or the bible thumpers
TheHONKYLIPS 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a moron believes the NWO Story.
TheShockmister 3 months ago
@TheShockmister
Only a moron believes debunkers (with an agenda) over experts...
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago 18
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 3 months ago
@islandbuoy4
I think you might have the wrong person. You do know that I don't believe in 911, right? Did you watch the video?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
yes you are correct mm man
my apologies ;)
islandbuoy4 3 months ago
@TheShockmister
Sorry dude. I wasn't attacking you with that comment. Just making a statement. Peace..
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
The only thing i think is how can 10% building completly destroy 90% of the building WHEN the collumns BELOW inpact were disigned for that weight if NOT even more? + Where does the white smoke at the base exsist from? And final, how can a 100 stories tall building fall in 20seconds when ~85floors were intact? Thats 85/20 = 4.25 floors/second.
4.25 x 2.3meters (typical hight of a floor) = 9.775meter / second
Gravity = ~9.82meters per second. WHERE IS THE RECISTANCE OF THE CORE AND CONCREATE?
Ironfan100 2 months ago 4
@Ironfan100
It fell in 11 seconds.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@Ironfan100 Thank you for displaying some intelligence. Everyone else just seems to argue with no evidence and insult each other like children.
XmadmanREBornX 1 month ago
@TheShockmister
The NWO isn't something secret made up by conspiracy nutters. It is something that has been openly announced by George Bush Senior amongst others.
Watch "The New World Order Presidents in their OWN words".
You may not think is is sinister, but I do, and so do many others.
Portabledexter 6 days ago
Follow the dollars. Movies, books, talk show hosts making millions of dollars by making the implausible seem plausible and even dangerous. Two planes hit the towers and they fell. When you are interested in a topic, look up the counter points or type debunked in your browser along with search terms, you may see things differently.
emanemos1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's up to YOU America to push for the REAL truth. We (the rest of the world) can't believe its been so long to get things moving on this subject. These towers and all their contents weren't turned to dust from fire and the govt needs to deliver the truth! Use your votes as your voice
stelley08 4 months ago
@TheHungrySnail
So, is falling debris only damaging one side of a building somehow equivalent to the "100000kg 580mph missile" when it comes to WTC7? Just curious. The "plane impacts caused the collapse" theory doesn't seem to work with WTC7, right?
muzicmaker2001 4 months ago
So when do the arrests begin?
Godtaughtmehow 4 months ago
Again, exactly how can two planes pulverize three steel-structured buildings
sandman2425 4 months ago
this may be the best video(s) regarding 911 i have ever seen, and in just about 10 minutes. fuck loose change
mcshair21 4 months ago 4
@mcshair21 You're saying that this collection of lies is better than another collection of lies?
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 Very clever. By calling them lies out front you can avoid any pesty facts and disregard my comment at the same time.
mcshair21 4 months ago
@mcshair21 Thanks! I am clever! Although I hardly disregarded your comment -- I replied to it and everything!
=P
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 I didn't realize we were talking about the 9/11 commission report.
Ya know it's miscatagorized, yeah it's catagorized as fiction, but the scientific magic described in it is science fiction.
LanesLab 3 months ago
@LanesLab
You don't know science very well.
WhyAskQuestions 3 months ago
Just as in Part 1, King lists already debunked points, accompanied by some illustrations & clips. He starts by claiming the dust clouds after the collapses were mostly from concrete. He should have done some research! R.J. Lee had released its study of the dust in 2003, so the real composition was known. The dust was mostly gypsum (from drywall), chrysotile asbestos (from fireproofing & flooring), mineral wool fibers (from insulation), pulverized vermiculite (from plaster), and ash.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 King claims the clouds were pyroclastic, which is simply absurd. Pyroclastic clouds are hot - over 1500°F. Persistent dust clouds exist in more than the two situations he mentioned. Dust storms are one. Large fires are another.
King's claim that carpets protected the concrete is absurd. Carpet has little structural strength which is why we don't use it to frame buildings! Despite his cute little cartoon, concrete decking is hammered downward in a building collapse.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 Much concrete rubble was in the debris pile at Ground Zero as shown here - /watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
Explosives were not the "only possible" explanation for the dust clouds. The energy in the buildings' collapses were ~equivalant to a small nuclear bomb.
The small particle size he mentions are indicative of burning. Unburned materials and larger particles were also found in the dust cloud.
Once again, King repeats the old canard that steel columns "telescoped" into themselves. Nope.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 There were plenty of bent and broken columns observed. And any look at video, including his clip of WTC 7 collapsing to the left, shows the building did NOT fall straight down. The debris covered ~16 acres, while the buildings combined footprint was ~3 acres. There was no universal "falling straight down",. no "telescoping" and no "falling into footprint". If there had been, many fewer people would have been killed.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 King claims that steel keeps a lot' of its strength up to melting point of ~2500° F (depending on alloy). On this planet, steel loses 80-90% of its strength at 1000°F. Heated steel deforms under load. This fact had been stated many times in the 5-6 years between the building collapses and King's talk, yet he ignored it.
King gets really muddled about the oscillation and 'restabilization' of the Towers after they were hit.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 The energy from the jet impacts far outweighed any energy from hurricane level winds. Since King doesn't show his calculations, we don't know where he got that absurdity from. He also fails to distinguish lateral loads (to the side as that from winds) and compressive or gravitational loads (weight pressing down). The exterior columns were designed to bear lateral loads. As the each building bent in response to the crashes, core columns experienced lateral loads.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 King was correct in saying that the building's restabilized, with intact structure taking loads from the severed and damaged columns. He's even right when he claims that, "absent further weakening...that doesn't progress to a total collapse". He neglects to mention that the fires provided "further weakening".
King then skips backwards to reports of explosions heard at time of impacts. He shows damage to the ground floor lobby and claims 'high explosives caused the damage'.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NonnyMus1 If high explosives caused the damage, where are all the dead bodies? In reality, shockwaves from the impact cracked brittle materials such as windows & stone sheathing but weren't strong enough to hurt people in the lobby. Reports of explosions at various points during the tragedy were likely due to crashing elevators & exploding pockets of jet fuel (also, exploding elevator motors, HVAC equipment, cleaning supplies, transformers, CRT's, UPS units & hydraulic pistons in chairs).
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 King repeats the already debunked "unusual Power down and evac drills in the week before 9/11" In reality, the fire drills were scheduled and only 1 person claimed there was no power for floors 50+. He also admits the outage was only 26 hours long.
King claims the power down gave demolitions experts time to plant explosives. That's absurd. Demolition jobs on large buildings take months. Plus, other evidence & testimony contradicts that 1 person's recollections.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 From the words "power down", King makes another absurd conclusion from that it meant that "at least some people knew what was going to happen" or that huge, super fast ninja demolition teams swooped into the buildings undetected by the people working over the weekend and the tourists waiting in the lobbies for elevators to the observation deck and planted thousands of charges in 26 hours. It's an absurd conclusion from very limited evidence!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 But no surprise. King's talk almost entirely consists of absurd conclusions drawn from limited evidence, neglecting all other alternatives. Since it appears the talk was given after the NIST report on the WTC Towers collapses came out, there is no excuse for his ignorance of reality.
In addition, reputable engineers (and even doctors) avoid making overreaching conclusions from their data. King has no such scruples.
There! I'm glad I won't ever have to watch that video again.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
NonnyMus1@NonnyMus1
Dude, you're talking to yourself. Could it be because noone else is listening to your BS?
muzicmaker2001 4 months ago 8
@muzicmaker2001 Really? That's all you can find to criticize?! Wow. That's lame even for you! :P
I'll answer anyway. Nope. Replying to myself was a choice for convenience. You'll notice the first comment was to you. That gave you the notification you needed for the whole series.
Thanks for the laughs! :D
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
WOW !!! excellent video !! just wish he could explain the "turned to powder" of everything !! ...but seems most are struggling with that one... TOTALLY appreciate him NOT leading to the " thermite theory"... only said, explosions were heard !! had to giggle a little at "concrete jumped into mid-air" he is soooo right on...
and in part 1 the picture of the walk-way that was connected to the tower looks higher then the debris pile .....excellent video thanks for posting it !!
914light 4 months ago 6
@914light giggled, "had to giggle a little at "concrete jumped into mid-air" he is soooo right on..."
No, he's not. Not all the concrete was pulverized as any close-up photo of the debris pile shows. Concrete breaks into smaller pieces than structural steel in building collapses. Those smaller pieces are under the steel in the debris pile.
You can see a photo at 3:51 here /watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo. Actually, watch the whole video. It contains real information. The series is good, too!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1..Thank -you 4 the link ...as I have watched all the videos of Mr. Mohr and Mr. Mohr is a lovely man with many great points and questions...but I can NEVER buy into it being a natural collapse from fire..I watched the buildings on 911 disintegrate...I do NOT buy into the thermite bombs in the buildings either...In 1945 a plane hit the Empire state building..In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned for hours and spread to several floors..and in 1993 WTC basement was bombed..none collapsed
914light 4 months ago 5
@914light Sigh. Watch the *whole* series, please.
The Empire State Bldg is a reinforced concrete, steel & masonry bldg. It's much stronger than the WTC bldgs. The plane that hit it was a B-25D (~10% of the weight of a 767) traveling at ~200 mph. The 767's were moving at 465 & 585 mph, respectively.
The 1975 WTC fire was almost all on one floor - the 11th. Structural steel was protected by fireproofing. On 9-11, the jet impacts blew off that fireproofing.
Do you see the differences?
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 ..OK ...glad to see you still believe in Santa Claus {{ eye Roll }}
914light 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@914light I realize that no facts and figures are going to change your mind - probably because your beliefs are based on your emotions from that day. I can only hope that you can find a better story which satisfies those emotional needs than the ones which most 'truthers' provide!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 ..and you are correct this time !! NONE of your hype and incorrect info / smoke and mirrors also known as Bull and Shyt will work on me !! and frankly dude ...My emotions go out to the millions of innocent people around the world the US has slaughtered FOR NOTHING !!!!! have a nice day ..
P.S...... STOP getting all your information from wikipedia !!
914light 4 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@914light I also feel for all the people our government has killed. I's more than possible to protest that without making up impossible stories about controlled demolitions, drones, missiles & energy weapons!
It's more than adequate to see that the Bush Admin *exploited* the trauma of that horrible day to rush our Nation into war. Let's just stay in touch with reality when we protest that.
I don't get all my information from Wikipedia, so that 's another misunderstanding on your part.
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@NonnyMus1 it is the official story, or rather, stories that are impossible. The subsequent theories given by "truthers" are an attempt at making sense of the whole thing when the theories of those in charge make no sense. Sure, there are some drastic assumptions made, but when evidence is clearly being covered up, drastic assumptions are inevitable.
mcshair21 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcshair21 Since King is talking specifically about the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7, what about the NIST investigations of those collapses is 'impossible'? Please be specific and cite your sources.
The NIST reports are here: tinyurl . com /3jkn6fh & tinyurl . com /3epzmba
Also, it would be great if you could give me an idea of your education level. Did you take high school Physics? Any college? Any science/engineering coursework in college? Thanks!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@mcshair21 That's an extraordinary claim! What's your extraordinary evidence? Specifically, what 'official' stories are impossible? What evidence do you have that '...evidence is clearly being covered up', exactly?
Please be specific and cite your sources. Thanks!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
In my opinion, anyone who still believes the WTC's collapses were caused by the impact of two simple airplanes and the resulting utter pulverization of the same and all within them are believing in a miraculous suspension of the laws of physics that by far surpasses evey miracle recorded in The Holy Bible and Qur'an.
frankbateau1 4 months ago 48
@frankbateau1 Could you get specific? What laws of physics were 'pulverized'? Thanks!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago