back before pearl harbor was bombed by the japanese then president roosevelt was facing a political dilemma of confronting a country that was one third pro german and pro nazi. these nazi's didnt go away when the u.s. entered WWII, first they enlisted, 'volunteering' for the pacific theatre and after the war? used their medals to further their political aims. hmmmm, that was george bush senior that joined the navy, son of prescott bush, a known nazi. hmmmmmm.
@lumpheadthump if you were going to judge whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or not based on the amount of lies told regarding 9/11 bush would of been hung years ago.
@vengencefrom1979 Non sequitur. Bush's lack of credibility doesn't make your beliefs credible. They have to gain credibility on their own merits. All the truth movement has are fake experts, and outright lies.You shouldn't try to sound intelligent.
@lumpheadthump get off your high horse, everything about 9/11 was an outright lie and most likely 'operation northwoods' put into action. bush is a liar and a traitor and should hang for treason.
@vengencefrom1979 Being rational isn't being on a "high horse". That kind of anti-intellectual drivel is why people like you exist and think your voice should be heard no matter how ridiculous your ideas. There are unanswered questions related to 9/11, but idiots espousing nutty ideas make any discussion impossible. You're not a skeptic, your a lunatic.
By packing kerosene the jet fuel, which is also known as paraffin into a car, then we would have more jet fuel per square meter then in twin towers. Set the car on fire & you will see everything had burned except steel. For twin tower to collapse on it's self, all 90,000 ton of steel had to collapse within 0.1 second. Like knife into butter. click Justice party UK.
..and theorists say I'M manipulated, can't anyone else tell that this is a fake adio footage?? Only a dumb fuck would believe this, i saw the REAL footage LIVE and it sounds way different, you also hear the people speak and yell "run". In this you do not.
@SoundtrackGirl69 Yup, go on my page, and look at where the comments are, i posted a comment with the link.
Also, in this video is from Dicovery, as you can see in the bottom right hand of the camera, the real one has '5' ontop of the screen, since FOX5 DID record it live.
Look at this video, it's the same as this one, but with original audio. I suggest you also watch other videos of the south towers collapse, to confirm the fact no explosions were heard...
If you copy and paste this link, remove the hyphen before the 'k' at the end.
This is not the actual footage. The real footage is in the link I posted. If the link doesn't work, sorry, the name of the video is 9/11 WTC South Tower Collapses, West Street
In the REAL footage, there are no popping sounds. The sound is actually completely different. The footage you see in this video was edited.
To all the conspiracy nuts, do you realize that to rig two skyscrapers for implosion they would gut all the office interiors over a period of weeks/months, then literally hundreds of demolition experts would have to rig the support columns with explosives that are timed to detonate in a sequential pattern?
I wonder how they pulled that off without anyone noticing...
Also, watch any controlled demolition video, before the building comes down there are a series of VERY loud "pops".
@MeanMachine67 ok, can you explain why at least 4 of the so called hijackers are still aliive? and why isnt this fact on foxnews, or any american news agency, yet reported in european media? western journalists even interviewed these alleged hijackers...they werent dead?
if you would wake up out of your drone state, you would see there is way too many fishy stuff going on that makes the official story laughable at best.
That their is clear evidence of demolition being used and its not the floors falling on each other, because that would sound more of a machine gun going off. Thermite was used to melt the remainder of the damaged steel, the top collapsed, but it never stopped at the top or rolled off, which it should have done, the demolition was controlled, so when the top was coming down, the demo went off, weakened each floor, spewed steel yards away and came down in free fall speed. Facts.
@Suletyper You're free to believe whatever the nutty conspiranoid cult feeds you, but whatever you do, don't ask them any critical questions! THEY HATE THAT!!
I think you have it backwards.. The debunkers or shills run when they get asked questions.... Come on how does a building not hit by a plane crumble due to small spot fires at the free fall acceleration for 1/3 of the collapse which is equal to 1/3 of the floors and I am being generous that equals 16 floors?
Only one answer fits that description I will let you search for words as to what it is!!!
@ctrackmonger I think the words you're looking for are:
collapse due to structural failure.
BTW you're absolutely right, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, much worse in fact, it was hit by a collapsing building! As for the speed of collapse, I believe they call it gravity!
But, like I said, believe what you will, I personally just find the credibility of your presumptions weak at best.
Yup just the same as the DB building was hit with that falling building. Just the same as WTC 4,5, and 6 huh... Problem is all of those buildings were later demolished... Another problem is when something falls within free fall acceleration which is GRAVITY as you put it or 9.8 Meters per second that means there is no resistance.... Too bad my presumptions are not as you think they are!!!
@ctrackmonger I don't know if you have even seen the arial photos, but they will show you that WTC 4 and 6 were largely destroyed by the collapses. As for the DB building, it had a much denser structure than WTC 7 and was therefore better able to sustain a beating. BTW, I don't know at what speed you've been watching the collapse videos, but WTC 7 came nowhere near free fall speed!
Conclusion: Yep, your presumptions are still weak!!
Wow LARGELY DESTROYED of course I saw them but funny part is even with the damages sustained they were still standing... WTC 7 was far from LARGELY DESTROYED... As for DB it had a lot more damage... Well if it failed to hit free fall speed why did NIST publish that it hit free fall speed in NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-9??? I am not watching videos I am reading the reports...
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
NIST did indeed never adhere to even a single bullet point of scientific method, so claiming to be scientific in any way does indeed make the report pseudo-science...
0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... 0% steel recovered from WTC 7... NIST metallurgy tests state nothing above 250oC was found... But yet they ESTIMATE 600oC... No EVIDENCE of FIREPROOFING being blown off... No EVIDENCE of CORE supports being severed..
That is PSEUDO SCIENCE... No questions asked hands down!!!
@ctrackmonger "WTC 7 was far from LARGELY DESTROYED' ???
Weren't we just discussing its collapse!?
BTW when you first use the NIST-report to underline your point and then, one comment later, dismiss it as pseudo science, that's called cherry picking!
Are you serious I quote it not because I believe in it!!! But because I point out the lack here of in NIST's words and point out what pseudo science is.... It matches perfectly together as they did not follow the NFPA and they lack hard evidence of things. I can quote them for you word for word from NIST!!!
@Some1fromYurp WTC7 (or WTC1/2 for that matter) did not collapse at free-fall, that's rather impossible by any means. Parts of it did, however.
/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
The most generous estimates place the collapse time at 140% of free-fall, which is not only extremely close to it, it's actually much quicker than even a controlled demolition of the building would allow.
@SexyMelon The only point I am making is that the entire truther theorie is based on presumption, fantasy and cherry picking. Are there a lot of unanswered questions? Yes, there are! Does that proof the existence of a huge government conspiracy? No, it does not! An unknown does not necessarily mean a conspiracy!
"Truther" theories, to the best of my knowledge, are based on examination of evidence and proposal of hypotheses.
No, just unanswered questions by themselves means the investigation wasn't proper, the official theory is without due support, and should be re-investigated. Knowingly ignored questions are incriminating, however, in the same lieu as arbitrarily excluding evidence during a court case is criminal.
@Some1fromYurp I believe my actual post referred to clarifications on what free-fall means in relation to WTC7, WTC1,2 and controlled demolition in general.
Unless you're a fan of ignoring evidence, I don't see how it's worth dismissing, regardless of which side of argument you're on.
@SexyMelon There was no insult in my argument, as cherry picking internet videos and taking statements out of their context is not 'examiniation of evidence' just as using terms such as 'total proof that' and chanting '9/11 was an inside job' is no longer a hypothosis.
As for the link you sent me, it is not evidence as it fails to mention the earlier collapse of the eastern penthouse and therefore fails to describe the entire collapse!
@Some1fromYurp It's an insult to imply any of these things. Just like it would be insult to you if I said you just swallow whatever TV tells you instead of doing your own research.
The link I sent you describes the collapse in more detail than anyone ever cared to. It's a frame-by-frame analysis that records the fact that not only are NIST's estimates for fall times grossly exaggerated, by that for full 2,5 seconds the building fell at *exact* free-fall as suggested earlier.
@Some1fromYu Free-fall can never be achieved in path of any resistance, even thin air. To achieve free-fall for any amount of time would require there being NO structure in the way of collapse at all. This is only possible in one scenario: if the supporting structure is artificially removed in the wake of collapsing floors.
This is the research that no official examination, nor yourself, have ever bothered with. This is actual work. This is evidence.
@SexyMelon The video you sent me does not show the entire collapse of WTC7. A few seconds earlier in the same video from which your video fragment was taken you can clearly see on the left side of the roof that a (portion of a) roofstructure (penthouse) falls away behind the building. This can only mean that the building has already begun to collapse. All your video is basically showing is the collapse of the northern facade. It therefore fails to explain the sequence of the entire collapse
@Some1fromYurp Yes it does... It does show the penthouse sagging down, and points out that it's dishonest to start measurement from that point... What?
The central point to the video is not this nagging detail, however - it is a red herring, as what it indicates is the need for *complex* model of the collapse, which is what NIST *should* have done - it is the fact that outside of the building is recorded to have been in exact freefall for a good deal of collapse.
@SexyMelon I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the sagging of the central penthouse. Maybe if you watch the collapse on the video below you will see waht I mean.
watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
My point is that there are too many unknowns These unkowns make it impossible to either prove or disprove that the speed of collapse was caused by free fall collapse or by the north side being pulled down by the south side
@Some1fromYurp Pardon, that video doesn't show facade's collapse or anything like that?..
Also, never, ever use RKOWens as your source. He's about as close as you can get to what YouTube's worth: bullshit. Check out his video about molten metal, he actually selected a *truther* who thinks the towers were brought down by *laser beams* as his source for it... (Needless to say it's bogus data. Disproved by the sane part of truther movement.)
@Some1fromYurp Once again, I only meant to make one and one correction only: that the claims about WTC7's free-fall refer to it's recorded and measured acceleration for 2,5 seconds of the 10-14 second collapse.
It doesn't matter how long full collapse takes. It doesn't matter if it collapses internally. It doesn't matter because these 2,5 seconds of free-fall take place in the wake of load-bearing outer - visible - columns, or tons and tons of reinforced steel and concrete.
@Some1fromYurp So... The guy said free-fall collapse for 3 seconds. Not free-fall collapse of the full structure. There's a video to show it.
Free-fall pretty much never occurs during a controlled demolition either, most take at least twice the free-fall time to complete. That it occurred at all is exceptionally extraordinary, very unambiguous in its implications, and should not be confused with red herrings of free-fall of the whole structure, and whether or not it's met.
@SexyMelon Again, you misunderstand my point. I am talking about the roughly 3 sec of free fall the guy was talking about. I'm just saying it proves nothing! You can't simply proclaim (as the guy does) that this speed is caused by unhindered gravity (and therefore controlled demolition) without disproving it's the building pulling down on itself.
@Some1fromYurp I had the impression you weren't, sorry...
And um... Free-fall is the velocity only achievable in absence of any resistance in object's path, I.e. virtual vacuum. In relation to WTC7, this means that for good 2,5 seconds the whole building was falling *through thin air*. One way or another, for a good chunk of time, and fore abut 13 floors, *there was nothing there*.
@Some1fromYurp We can imagine, like NIST, the building collapsed internally prior, and that's a whole different story... But the collapse in question is that of visible parts of the building, so obviously those still in-tact. In fact it's collapse of load-bearing outer walls, so one of the most hardened parts of the structure.
There is one and only one way you can reconcile the two facts, and that is the artificial destruction of the structure before the collapse.
@Some1fromYurp ...And, in case that sounds a bit blunt, that's because it is.
But, my original point was clarifying what "free-fall" referred to since it's such a popular misconception among both truthers and everyone else, and since that's cleared up, consider that over and out on that.
@SexyMelon Grew arms!? Seriously? So we've stooped to that level now, have we? Well, if sensible conversation has left this place I think I'm done here!! If you want to regard a single facade as a stand-alone structure, that's just fine, but maybe you should look up pseudo science again!
@Some1fromYurp Well, you said the building "pulled down on itself"... Implying building has the capacity to somehow push itself down. Or pull itself down, rather. This, of course, nonsense.
What did you mean?..
Yes, facade is a structure, in case of WTC7, load-bearing structure... You haven't shown anything else happening to the building, nor is there rationale for that, so it's fair to approximate facade collapse as collapse of building in general.
@Some1fromYurp "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology." - Wiki
For example, the NIST reports. :p
But, okay, I'm not holding you. Sorry if I insulted you, I don't mean to be mean...
@SexyMelon Nonsense eh? Do you realise that you hereby procliam controlled demolition to be nonsense, as it relies on the sequence and dynamics of a collpase?
But I'll meet you halfway! Controlled demo of WTC7 is indeed nonsense! There was no time to prep the building and no pre-installed rig would have survived the fires. But, then again, I'm sure you'll find another creative solution for this problem!
@Some1fromYurp Neither collapse nor controlled demolition are done by crushing or pulling the building...
No time? There wasn't any time of peace before 9/11? You can't fire-proof charges, or set them inside the columns you're about to blow up?
It's a problem to you, not to me. I don't see how it could be anything other than controlled demolition going by the knowledge I have. We have different viewpoints on the subject, so... Well, that's called an "argument", isn't it?
@Some1fromYurp I think you're confusing the gravitational pull with external force. When a building is falling, it is true that the gravity pulls it down, of course... But gravity is constant. It only has so much force to spare. The maximum velocity that this force can lend an object is what we call "freefall"...
@Some1fromYurp ...When something is falling at free-fall, all of the gravitational force is expended on accelerating it. No force can be spent on resisting drag of any kind, such as air, and certainly not on such energy-demanding process as pulverizing concrete and crushing steel.
If something is falling at free-fall, there are no two ways about it: it's falling through thin air.
Indeed if something is falling anywhere near free-fall at all, it's falling through next to no resistance.
@Some1fromYurp Once again, no controlled demolition occurs at free-fall: even though supports are removed and the floors have nothing to stand on but thin air, the combined inertia, air drag and resistance from floors and debris themselves slows the fall down considerably compared to free-fall.
That it occurred at all in this case is extraordinary.
Once again, most controlled demolitions take considerably longer than this "natural" collapse. Intuitively, this is impossible.
@SexyMelon Yes, I find your story very confusing! You keep saying that cotrolled demolition can not achieve free-fall velocity, yet you keep insisting that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition! And the only explanation you can give for the disappearence of the roughly 13 floors of supporting structure is that it is 'extraordinary' !? Your theorie still needs a lot of work!
@Some1fromYurp I can only see how that'd be confusing if you took what I said about freefall as applying to total time of the collapse as opposed to part of it.
WTC7 was brought down quicker than most demolitions even allow for. This puts the idea of natural collapse into territory of ludicrous purely by association.
What disappearance... When did I call it extraordinary?..
@SexyMelon No, magic is the totally invisible 'explosive removal' of roughly 13 floors of exterior supporting structure, mind you, without leaving any trace!
I could go on about the magic of a covert and invisible installment of explosives powerfull enough to blow down a steel structure without leaving any trace, but I'm sure you already have a science fictional explanation for that!
Let's face it, your theorie is low on plausibility!
@Some1fromYurp I wouldn't call a massive cloud of dust and debris "invisible" myself. But care to explain why this is magic and their outright disappearance isn't it?..
Yeah, because obviously you can't put a bomb somewhere without people noticing... ?
Who's talking about not leaving any trace? How about molten metal collected in the basement? If there were no traces, there would be no need to restrict access to the debris and refuse to test it for explosives...
Recorded period of free-fall is completely unambiguous: one way or another, building was falling through 13 floors of concrete and steel as if they were thin air.
Can you acknowledge this at least? Do you have an explanation for it going by the official story?
@SexyMelon I believe I've already given you the 2,5 sec of free-fall (all be it for lack of evidence to the contrary). And no I do not have an explanation for it, because, as I have said before, there are too many unknowns to make any firm conclusion on this matter.
As for failed hypotheses, I simply can not agree with you on your controlled demolition theorie, because it is completely lacking in evidence as well as plausibility.
@Some1fromYurp Thank you, and especially thank you for considering and thinking for yourself, that's all I ask for. I don't want this to descend into pushing my opinion on someone anyway, I just wanted that little fact to be clear.
I'll have to disagree with you on plausibility of controlled demolition, of course.
The lack of evidence is from NIST. In their report they clearly stated they have no physical evidence from WTC7. They also state that there is no evidence of the things inside the building ie. fireproofing and core column failures. They also go on to state in 1-3 Metallurgy tests that they failed to find temperatures exceeding 250oC. But yet FEMA conducted Crystalography tests on there metal and concluded 1000oC. NIST was given 41 pieces from FEMA.
They had a total of 236 pieces of steel. 5 were from WTC5. All together they had 0.25% of the steel from WTC 1 and 2. all 41 pieces from FEMA had metallurgy tests conducted. in total 110 pieces from 236 had metallurgy tests conducted. How do you conduct a full report on WTC7 ( NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-9) when you fail to have any physical evidence? No proof of fire induced collapse at all. No tests for explosives either. That is pretty shady... If you want the references just ask!!!
@ctrackmonger So basically you're saying there's no proof for controlled demolition? I would have to agree with you on that one! If there is a lack of evidence produced by NIST, then the only conclusion you can make (at best) is that their research was crappy. Any conclusion beyond that is pure speculation!
I guess you can't comprehend the last statement so I will avoid a lengthy argument... NIST fails to have any proof that it was fire induced... I would just quote NIST and FEMA and make them look like terrible people, with a terrible sense of science, and ZERO integrity just as you... But it is okay continue on....
"If there is a lack of evidence produced by NIST, then the only conclusion you can come make (at best)is that their research was crappy"
Well considering they were given $20,000,000 from the U.S. Congress and was given the task of Congressional Investigation into the attacks of 09-11-2001. That should be enough said, but I will continue. They need to be held accountable not only in Criminal Court, but the Scientific Community should be outraged!!!
@ctrackmonger not to mention the shuttle disaster only had a 40million dollar research fund... v.s. 20mill wtc... and it took 400+ days to assign a chairman to investigate!! Previous highest was shuttle incident which took 7!
Notice I did say debunkers and shills in the same sentence... Not saying debunkers are shills and shills are debunkers. I know not everyone is a shill.. The only people I actually call shills are the people who bug me there is a list of about 10 right now... Btu thank you for the friendly advice.
It makes sense to me that anytime a building collapses and it is 110 stories high, that the pancaking of the floors would sound like an explosion. Simple science.
Let me help you guys out here. It's fake. That should have been evident in the first place once you realize there is a severe mismatch between the ambient sounds one would expect from the pictures vis-a-vis the strange silence filled up with bullshit special defects. You've been had. So sorry.
Components:
(1) xrl. us/bgri3m
(2) xrl. us/bgri3o
Now please, truthers and debunkers, stop embarrassing yourselves and rethink your confirmation biases. Moving on..
Mind you that I don't know where the "thuds" come from, but anybody with a little audio experience can hear the repetitive nature, suggesting somebody cueing a sample into a mixdown.
Really...no joke. Actually order the documentary mentioned in this clip's description and find out for yourself. This is an old, old matter.
By the way, I've found another slightly different version:
watch?v=JsoWbX6hCYk
For example, there is more surround effect in there. You hear additional talk there which is not in here. I would say it's a slightly better forgery.
Also notice that the cameraman (who, iirc, died) turns around and sees a huge chunk of exterior facade just about to reach the ground. Yet this isn't audible as any sort of 'bang'. How ridiculous that we are supposed to fall for that.
Notice also, that at least three people posting this crap, namely "delaney4475", "Barbel1th" and "lonelantern" first joined Youtube in 2006, when the truth movement was allegedly peaking. Two of those ("delaney4475" and "Barbel1th") have very few uploads except this disinformation video. Notice that "lonelantern" has multiple disinformation videos posted, including one where Bush is quoted out of context saying "explosives were placed in the WTC" and one about "black helicopters". Too obvious.
how is it that the first building to fall was the one that was hit second, as the one that was hit first burned longer and managed to stay up longer verses the one that wasnt burning as long,,, and is it really hard to believe that the government would not do this, the government is fucked up enough in my opinion to pull something like this off, but nobody wants to think that there own country would do this, america is all about controlling the world
You don't need to be a structural engineer to tell this was NOT a blown up building, rather a pancake effect. To demolish a building there would be obvious flashing patterns and loud explosions. Not 1 video shows this, the noise you hear while the building collapses is the upper floors ripping through floors below it, NOT explosions. Watch a video of what a real controlled demolition looks like and then compare the 2. The online similarity between them is that they are both coming down not up.
the diesel fuel fire severed all 81 supprt columns at exactly the same time causing it to fall at free fall speed into its own footprint? wake up dude.
All failed at exactly the same split second?!!! LOL!!!see there is this little thing called common sense, i'd love to hear your explanation for the nano thermite found in the dust. go on amaze me.
You have been fooled by the truthers. Go watch the full video of the collapse and you will see the left side of the building that was hit by all the debris fall before anything else. Then a few secs later the rest fell. And did you know 4 other building were also destroyed the same way WTC 7 was destroyed but NOBODY talks about those. Plus why would they collapse it if no one was in it!!!!
As for the termite crap: How do you know they didn't belong to the terrorists. And Jones found elements that make up termite, such as aluminum and Magnesium. A lot of the building and the planes were made out of aluminum, and magnesium is found in PAPER!!! You should read Jone's book, very interesting.
ive seen all the videos,controlled demolitition.You might also want to look at what agencies were in the building and also the wall street investigations that were destroyed. 4 other were not destroyed like wtc7!! you"re starting to sound less and less like a genius my friend, why do you trust goverment? they lie and lie and lie
What explosions!? All I hear is the tower crumbling! Anyway, how stupid would you be to blow down a building from top to bottom!! Like nobody would notice the HUGE demolition crew you would need to rig the building? Nobody would notice the MASSIVE amounts of wiring you would need? Why go through all the hassle if you could simply blow the tower from the bottom out and just say the terrorists drove in a bus with a huge bomb! FACE IT, your theorie is piss-weak!!
"how stupid would you be to blow down a bldg from top to bottom"
Covert demolition
"Like nobody would notice the HUGE crew and wiring"
Elevator modernization. They noticed, but didn't care. As for wiring...its covert (aka hi-tech) demo. Wireless.
"...just say terrorists drove in a bus with a huge bomb"
That idea failed in 1993. The bldgs needed to collapse. Anything short of that and we would have never gotten enough support to invade the middle east.
Extensive elevator modernizations by ACE Elevator 9 months prior to the attacks
Not every demo expert says demo was impossible. I know at least two examples of people who said it was demo....Danny Jawenko a European Demo expert, and Van Romero an explosives expert.
Sure. NO sounds of explosives going off, but it was explosives, right? DUH! Thousans of people working in that building but no one notices workers cutting out support beams, cutting out concrete. No1 noticed the thousands of wires running through their offices. The fires didn't damage any of those wires or explosives or set them off early, the firemen didn't notice any of this either, right? Your theory is better known as a brain fart!
I'm not concentrating on theories regarding the twin towers.Stay away from debate on the twin towers. Avoid it. Focus on WTC 7 and ONLY WTC 7. WTC 7 DAMNS those who would try to hide the truth. WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Thats not a belief. Thats not a theory. thats a fact.
Demolition experts are gonna be out of a job soon. Seems like all you have to do from now on when you have a building you want demolished is to set fire to some office furniture,wait a few hours,and voila!!! It collapses neatly into its own footprint.
you're so full of crap. It was not neatly into it's own footprint and this looked and sounded NOTHING like any building demolition video on youtube. It's pathetic at how you people ignore facts and common sense so that your crazy X-Files type views can live on. SInce most of you are younger than 25, I hope that you grow up one day and use that brain in your heads for good and not stupidity.
WHat smoking gun? THere si no smoking gun. There is not even a gun to find. THe building fell because of the damage it sustained from the towers falling next to it and because of the fire burning inside of it for hours.
How do you get that "this building looked...NOTHING like any building demolition on youtube"
Key characteristics of building demolition
1) Complete and total collapse. Check
2) Verticality. Check
3) Ease of collapse. Check. Global collapse lasted only 6.5 seconds max. Free fall (in a vacuum) would have been about 6 seconds and would be closer to 6.5 seconds in air. Hence, no time or energy to destroy building materials unless by another source.
Um, I get that because it did look nothing like a controlled demolition. You wack jobs want to believe it was a government planned and covered up controlled demolition then nothing anyone says is going to change your twisted mind. Only medication and therapy can begin to solve the problems you people have. You don't know what you're talking about and I predict that you never will.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Once again fooled by the thruthers. Go watch the FULL clip and the total collapse takes at least 14 seconds!!! It wouldn't matter anyway since you crazies are so on the left that you wouldn't use your head for just a minute. BTW I am a democrat.
the sound you hear im sure is the floors smashing on top of each other i mean honestly if u think about it they weighed over 120 tons each so the interior of the building was damaged causing this correct? then why would the outside well how could the outside fall as fast as the inside did the floors buckled from the heat explosion etc the outside of the building was obviously more stable
are yall fuckin serious all the thermite they found and yall still talkin bout that wasnt a controlled demolition if you look close you can see the fuckin squibs that only happens during a controlled dimolition
Read Jone's book, he didn't find TERMITE rather elements that make it up. Such as Magnesium... do you know what else is made up of Magnesium? Paper... idiot.
They didn't just make up super-chemical elements unkown to man to make thermite. Its going to have common elements with all sorts of things. What you should do is look up the concentration of magnesium in paper vs that in thermite. Same with you aluminum argument
He found SULFUR OXIDE and ALUMINUM OXIDE. Which both happen to be nano-particles from the metal oxide family and are used in various applications. Thermite and Thermate use them. Themate uses Sulfur Oxide. And Thermite uses Aluminum Oxide. But it also gives explosives that us these same nano-particles. HBX and H6 that are in use in warheads. These particles are also used in ROCKET FUELS. They are self oxidizing meaning they produce oxygen to burn. Hence underwater explosives and rocket fuel.
H6 I do believe it is is the main ingredient in the MOAB project. (Mother Of All Bombs). So when you think of this they are made through the Sol/Gel Process and happens to be that Jones paper also found chemical traces of the SOL/GEL process as well. They think it was NANO THERMITE but I am sure it is HBX and H6. Which are both a whole lot more stable then regular C4 due to the less RDX and more metal oxide.
I never said NANO THERMITE was created by SOL/GEL. I stated that NANO RDX was made through the SOL/GEL process. HMX,HBX and H6 all are types of NANO RDX. NANO RDX is cretaed through the SOL/GEL process where NANO SIZED PARTICLES are combined with RDX explosives. Thus creating such things as H6 which is used by the U.S. Navy in underwater detonations of mines among other things. Because it has it's own source of oxygen through Aluminum Oxide and or Sulfer Oxide. That was what I stated
"HBX is a family of binary explosives that are composed of RDX, TNT, powdered aluminium, and D-2 wax with calcium chloride. It is used in missile warheads and underwater ordnance. To acuire this you must contact the government."
"H-6 is a binary explosive that is a mixture of RDX, TNT, powered aluminum, and D-2 wax with calcium chloride added. H-6 is an Australian produced explosive composition used by the military for general purpose bombs."
"TORPEX is an explosive based on trinitrotoluene (TNT) that gave a greater blast than TNT, but was more sensitive. It was replaced by HBX or HBX-1 later in WWII. Torpex is RDX/TNT/Aluminum/Wax desensitizer. It was used in several types of torpedoes and mines. Due to it sensitivity to bullet impact, the first weapons loaded were ones for which there would be the least possibility of rifle bullet and fragment attack, namely, submarine delivered mines and torpedoes.
"The loading stations were advised that they must take adequate care in mixing and loading and in the handling of the loaded items. It was declared that the British had been able to handle it without incident for 2 years and that the risk was worth the advantage gained in its underwater power. "
Again as I just wrote to you in a PM. The government does not always come clean on its tests. For example STEALTH TECHNOLOGY. It started in 1958 but the documents were not released to the public until the early 90's . That is a good deal of time. Really NANOTECH has been around in civilian use since the 80's so really 20 years prior to 9/11 they had the tests going.
"The first use of the concepts found in 'nano-technology' (but pre-dating use of that name) was in "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom," a talk given by physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical Society meeting at Caltech on December 29, 1959. Feynman described a process by which the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules might be developed, using one set of precise tools to build and operate another proportionally smaller set",
"In the course of this, he noted, scaling issues would arise from the changing magnitude of various physical phenomena: gravity would become less important, surface tension and van der Waals attraction would become increasingly more significant, etc."
"This basic idea appeared plausible, and exponential assembly enhances it with parallelism to produce a useful quantity of end products. The term "nanotechnology" was defined by Tokyo Science University Professor Norio Taniguchi in a 1974 paper[2] as follows: "'Nano-technology' mainly consists of the processing of, separation, consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or by one molecule."
"In the 1980s the basic idea of this definition was explored in much more depth by Dr. K. Eric Drexler, who promoted the technological significance of nano-scale phenomena and devices through speeches and the books Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (1986) and Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation,"
Now when you say Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. You fail to add this from their site.
"Government Owned, Contractor Operated. The Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOEs National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). "
The same as NIST,FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission are all ran by the federal government.
I would also like to add they have the PATENT on a Nuclear Warhead among others stuff such as lasers and supposed mapping of the human genome to combat bio-warfare. This is a high profile company. Who as part of the Military Industrial Complex since the 1950's has more to gain by these attacks then any person can think of. The same as Raytheon,Haliburton, and others.
Yup, that's lawrence livermore, and they are all smarter than you.
Every single one.
Get used to that, it won't change.
As for their desire to profit from an unwarranted attack on their own country, well, don't you profit from an attack on this country to have your conspiracy fantasies?
The fact is, Professional Traitor is practically your job description, and it's certainly been your political bent since you started as a child of the 1960s.
You have to understand, I LIKE the United States, and I still think it's the best contributer to the world, and the future, and I think your generation is a bunch of faggot morons who desperately need an ass kicking.
My suggestion is, if you want a better world, go somewhere and make it, so you can fail like everybody else did, and come back to the US with your tail between your legs like the 1960s hippies.
FAKE.
SpaceHelicopter78 1 week ago
back before pearl harbor was bombed by the japanese then president roosevelt was facing a political dilemma of confronting a country that was one third pro german and pro nazi. these nazi's didnt go away when the u.s. entered WWII, first they enlisted, 'volunteering' for the pacific theatre and after the war? used their medals to further their political aims. hmmmm, that was george bush senior that joined the navy, son of prescott bush, a known nazi. hmmmmmm.
vengencefrom1979 2 months ago
If you have to distort the truth to support your theories, your theories are flawed at best. The truth movement isn't about truth it's about bullshit
lumpheadthump 4 months ago
@lumpheadthump if you were going to judge whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or not based on the amount of lies told regarding 9/11 bush would of been hung years ago.
vengencefrom1979 2 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 Non sequitur. Bush's lack of credibility doesn't make your beliefs credible. They have to gain credibility on their own merits. All the truth movement has are fake experts, and outright lies.You shouldn't try to sound intelligent.
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
@lumpheadthump get off your high horse, everything about 9/11 was an outright lie and most likely 'operation northwoods' put into action. bush is a liar and a traitor and should hang for treason.
vengencefrom1979 2 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 Being rational isn't being on a "high horse". That kind of anti-intellectual drivel is why people like you exist and think your voice should be heard no matter how ridiculous your ideas. There are unanswered questions related to 9/11, but idiots espousing nutty ideas make any discussion impossible. You're not a skeptic, your a lunatic.
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 you're
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By packing kerosene the jet fuel, which is also known as paraffin into a car, then we would have more jet fuel per square meter then in twin towers. Set the car on fire & you will see everything had burned except steel. For twin tower to collapse on it's self, all 90,000 ton of steel had to collapse within 0.1 second. Like knife into butter. click Justice party UK.
justicepartyuk 1 year ago
That is audio from a fireworks show.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
..and theorists say I'M manipulated, can't anyone else tell that this is a fake adio footage?? Only a dumb fuck would believe this, i saw the REAL footage LIVE and it sounds way different, you also hear the people speak and yell "run". In this you do not.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago 8
@2Trueforyouu can you show me the real footage please ? a link... site something?
SoundtrackGirl69 1 year ago
@SoundtrackGirl69 Yup, go on my page, and look at where the comments are, i posted a comment with the link.
Also, in this video is from Dicovery, as you can see in the bottom right hand of the camera, the real one has '5' ontop of the screen, since FOX5 DID record it live.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@SoundtrackGirl69
/watch?v=0V8RT0C9Enk
Look at this video, it's the same as this one, but with original audio. I suggest you also watch other videos of the south towers collapse, to confirm the fact no explosions were heard...
MaxwellEindhoven 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=0V8RT0C9Enk
If you copy and paste this link, remove the hyphen before the 'k' at the end.
This is not the actual footage. The real footage is in the link I posted. If the link doesn't work, sorry, the name of the video is 9/11 WTC South Tower Collapses, West Street
In the REAL footage, there are no popping sounds. The sound is actually completely different. The footage you see in this video was edited.
Kisebara 1 year ago
Google "9/11 Nukes - Radiation-induced cancers"
WTCnucleardemolition 1 year ago
Controlled Demolition !!!
Makaveli175 1 year ago
Also, if any "truthers" haven't seen one, this is what a controlled demolition looks/sounds like: youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
jhiller21 1 year ago
To all the conspiracy nuts, do you realize that to rig two skyscrapers for implosion they would gut all the office interiors over a period of weeks/months, then literally hundreds of demolition experts would have to rig the support columns with explosives that are timed to detonate in a sequential pattern?
I wonder how they pulled that off without anyone noticing...
Also, watch any controlled demolition video, before the building comes down there are a series of VERY loud "pops".
jhiller21 1 year ago
@jhiller21 same thing I said. What did they tell the workers to take the month off while we setup these explosives?
Airbornebull 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jhiller21 answer: the elevator system of the twin towers was being 'modernized' months before 911 and it lasted up until the last week before 911.
look it up if you dont believe it. also look up who was in charge of that....hint, its someone from the bush family, shock horror ;)
problem is, if the truth about this comes out (which people like you are very scared of rightfully), ir would mean the end of the usa.
Crimee 1 year ago
What a bunch of sad losers that believe this conspiracy nonsense, thank God for YouTube so you all have a place to display your ignorance.
MeanMachine67 1 year ago
@MeanMachine67 ok, can you explain why at least 4 of the so called hijackers are still aliive? and why isnt this fact on foxnews, or any american news agency, yet reported in european media? western journalists even interviewed these alleged hijackers...they werent dead?
if you would wake up out of your drone state, you would see there is way too many fishy stuff going on that makes the official story laughable at best.
Crimee 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
GOB28 1 year ago
That their is clear evidence of demolition being used and its not the floors falling on each other, because that would sound more of a machine gun going off. Thermite was used to melt the remainder of the damaged steel, the top collapsed, but it never stopped at the top or rolled off, which it should have done, the demolition was controlled, so when the top was coming down, the demo went off, weakened each floor, spewed steel yards away and came down in free fall speed. Facts.
campbell4show 1 year ago
@campbell4show Not facts.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@campbell4show Smashing concrete sounds the same way. And demolitions are much much louder.
tlages 7 months ago
The sounds of... dead.... thanks bush and the american liers for this massmurdering..
Rene09091971 1 year ago
One could easily hear planted explosives going off right after the tower started collapsing.
Suletyper 1 year ago
@Suletyper That's becuase the audio has been re-edited!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp You just keep telling yourself that.
Suletyper 1 year ago
@Suletyper You're free to believe whatever the nutty conspiranoid cult feeds you, but whatever you do, don't ask them any critical questions! THEY HATE THAT!!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
I think you have it backwards.. The debunkers or shills run when they get asked questions.... Come on how does a building not hit by a plane crumble due to small spot fires at the free fall acceleration for 1/3 of the collapse which is equal to 1/3 of the floors and I am being generous that equals 16 floors?
Only one answer fits that description I will let you search for words as to what it is!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger I think the words you're looking for are:
collapse due to structural failure.
BTW you're absolutely right, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, much worse in fact, it was hit by a collapsing building! As for the speed of collapse, I believe they call it gravity!
But, like I said, believe what you will, I personally just find the credibility of your presumptions weak at best.
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
Yup just the same as the DB building was hit with that falling building. Just the same as WTC 4,5, and 6 huh... Problem is all of those buildings were later demolished... Another problem is when something falls within free fall acceleration which is GRAVITY as you put it or 9.8 Meters per second that means there is no resistance.... Too bad my presumptions are not as you think they are!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger I don't know if you have even seen the arial photos, but they will show you that WTC 4 and 6 were largely destroyed by the collapses. As for the DB building, it had a much denser structure than WTC 7 and was therefore better able to sustain a beating. BTW, I don't know at what speed you've been watching the collapse videos, but WTC 7 came nowhere near free fall speed!
Conclusion: Yep, your presumptions are still weak!!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
Wow LARGELY DESTROYED of course I saw them but funny part is even with the damages sustained they were still standing... WTC 7 was far from LARGELY DESTROYED... As for DB it had a lot more damage... Well if it failed to hit free fall speed why did NIST publish that it hit free fall speed in NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-9??? I am not watching videos I am reading the reports...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
NIST "lacks supporting evidence or plausibility" Making it Pseudo Science!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Hah, that works.
NIST did indeed never adhere to even a single bullet point of scientific method, so claiming to be scientific in any way does indeed make the report pseudo-science...
Sigh. Well-done.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
0.25% steel recovered from WTC 1 and 2 combined... 0% steel recovered from WTC 7... NIST metallurgy tests state nothing above 250oC was found... But yet they ESTIMATE 600oC... No EVIDENCE of FIREPROOFING being blown off... No EVIDENCE of CORE supports being severed..
That is PSEUDO SCIENCE... No questions asked hands down!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger "WTC 7 was far from LARGELY DESTROYED' ???
Weren't we just discussing its collapse!?
BTW when you first use the NIST-report to underline your point and then, one comment later, dismiss it as pseudo science, that's called cherry picking!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
Are you serious I quote it not because I believe in it!!! But because I point out the lack here of in NIST's words and point out what pseudo science is.... It matches perfectly together as they did not follow the NFPA and they lack hard evidence of things. I can quote them for you word for word from NIST!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp WTC7 (or WTC1/2 for that matter) did not collapse at free-fall, that's rather impossible by any means. Parts of it did, however.
/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
The most generous estimates place the collapse time at 140% of free-fall, which is not only extremely close to it, it's actually much quicker than even a controlled demolition of the building would allow.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon The only point I am making is that the entire truther theorie is based on presumption, fantasy and cherry picking. Are there a lot of unanswered questions? Yes, there are! Does that proof the existence of a huge government conspiracy? No, it does not! An unknown does not necessarily mean a conspiracy!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Insult is not a form of argument.
"Truther" theories, to the best of my knowledge, are based on examination of evidence and proposal of hypotheses.
No, just unanswered questions by themselves means the investigation wasn't proper, the official theory is without due support, and should be re-investigated. Knowingly ignored questions are incriminating, however, in the same lieu as arbitrarily excluding evidence during a court case is criminal.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I believe my actual post referred to clarifications on what free-fall means in relation to WTC7, WTC1,2 and controlled demolition in general.
Unless you're a fan of ignoring evidence, I don't see how it's worth dismissing, regardless of which side of argument you're on.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon There was no insult in my argument, as cherry picking internet videos and taking statements out of their context is not 'examiniation of evidence' just as using terms such as 'total proof that' and chanting '9/11 was an inside job' is no longer a hypothosis.
As for the link you sent me, it is not evidence as it fails to mention the earlier collapse of the eastern penthouse and therefore fails to describe the entire collapse!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp It's an insult to imply any of these things. Just like it would be insult to you if I said you just swallow whatever TV tells you instead of doing your own research.
The link I sent you describes the collapse in more detail than anyone ever cared to. It's a frame-by-frame analysis that records the fact that not only are NIST's estimates for fall times grossly exaggerated, by that for full 2,5 seconds the building fell at *exact* free-fall as suggested earlier.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYu Free-fall can never be achieved in path of any resistance, even thin air. To achieve free-fall for any amount of time would require there being NO structure in the way of collapse at all. This is only possible in one scenario: if the supporting structure is artificially removed in the wake of collapsing floors.
This is the research that no official examination, nor yourself, have ever bothered with. This is actual work. This is evidence.
And this why you accusations are an insult.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp ...In hindsight, the second part of your post makes no sense at all.
Please re-phrase.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon The video you sent me does not show the entire collapse of WTC7. A few seconds earlier in the same video from which your video fragment was taken you can clearly see on the left side of the roof that a (portion of a) roofstructure (penthouse) falls away behind the building. This can only mean that the building has already begun to collapse. All your video is basically showing is the collapse of the northern facade. It therefore fails to explain the sequence of the entire collapse
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Yes it does... It does show the penthouse sagging down, and points out that it's dishonest to start measurement from that point... What?
The central point to the video is not this nagging detail, however - it is a red herring, as what it indicates is the need for *complex* model of the collapse, which is what NIST *should* have done - it is the fact that outside of the building is recorded to have been in exact freefall for a good deal of collapse.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the sagging of the central penthouse. Maybe if you watch the collapse on the video below you will see waht I mean.
watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
My point is that there are too many unknowns These unkowns make it impossible to either prove or disprove that the speed of collapse was caused by free fall collapse or by the north side being pulled down by the south side
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Pardon, that video doesn't show facade's collapse or anything like that?..
Also, never, ever use RKOWens as your source. He's about as close as you can get to what YouTube's worth: bullshit. Check out his video about molten metal, he actually selected a *truther* who thinks the towers were brought down by *laser beams* as his source for it... (Needless to say it's bogus data. Disproved by the sane part of truther movement.)
Try 911myths or something like that.
Sidenote.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Once again, I only meant to make one and one correction only: that the claims about WTC7's free-fall refer to it's recorded and measured acceleration for 2,5 seconds of the 10-14 second collapse.
It doesn't matter how long full collapse takes. It doesn't matter if it collapses internally. It doesn't matter because these 2,5 seconds of free-fall take place in the wake of load-bearing outer - visible - columns, or tons and tons of reinforced steel and concrete.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp So... The guy said free-fall collapse for 3 seconds. Not free-fall collapse of the full structure. There's a video to show it.
Free-fall pretty much never occurs during a controlled demolition either, most take at least twice the free-fall time to complete. That it occurred at all is exceptionally extraordinary, very unambiguous in its implications, and should not be confused with red herrings of free-fall of the whole structure, and whether or not it's met.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Again, you misunderstand my point. I am talking about the roughly 3 sec of free fall the guy was talking about. I'm just saying it proves nothing! You can't simply proclaim (as the guy does) that this speed is caused by unhindered gravity (and therefore controlled demolition) without disproving it's the building pulling down on itself.
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I had the impression you weren't, sorry...
And um... Free-fall is the velocity only achievable in absence of any resistance in object's path, I.e. virtual vacuum. In relation to WTC7, this means that for good 2,5 seconds the whole building was falling *through thin air*. One way or another, for a good chunk of time, and fore abut 13 floors, *there was nothing there*.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp We can imagine, like NIST, the building collapsed internally prior, and that's a whole different story... But the collapse in question is that of visible parts of the building, so obviously those still in-tact. In fact it's collapse of load-bearing outer walls, so one of the most hardened parts of the structure.
There is one and only one way you can reconcile the two facts, and that is the artificial destruction of the structure before the collapse.
Controlled demolition.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp ...And, in case that sounds a bit blunt, that's because it is.
But, my original point was clarifying what "free-fall" referred to since it's such a popular misconception among both truthers and everyone else, and since that's cleared up, consider that over and out on that.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp ...Wait, building "pulling down on itself"? That's... That's not physically possible, unless it grew arms while I wasn't looking...
What do you mean? And what does it have to do with collapse velocities?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Grew arms!? Seriously? So we've stooped to that level now, have we? Well, if sensible conversation has left this place I think I'm done here!! If you want to regard a single facade as a stand-alone structure, that's just fine, but maybe you should look up pseudo science again!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Well, you said the building "pulled down on itself"... Implying building has the capacity to somehow push itself down. Or pull itself down, rather. This, of course, nonsense.
What did you mean?..
Yes, facade is a structure, in case of WTC7, load-bearing structure... You haven't shown anything else happening to the building, nor is there rationale for that, so it's fair to approximate facade collapse as collapse of building in general.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology." - Wiki
For example, the NIST reports. :p
But, okay, I'm not holding you. Sorry if I insulted you, I don't mean to be mean...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Nonsense eh? Do you realise that you hereby procliam controlled demolition to be nonsense, as it relies on the sequence and dynamics of a collpase?
But I'll meet you halfway! Controlled demo of WTC7 is indeed nonsense! There was no time to prep the building and no pre-installed rig would have survived the fires. But, then again, I'm sure you'll find another creative solution for this problem!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Neither collapse nor controlled demolition are done by crushing or pulling the building...
No time? There wasn't any time of peace before 9/11? You can't fire-proof charges, or set them inside the columns you're about to blow up?
It's a problem to you, not to me. I don't see how it could be anything other than controlled demolition going by the knowledge I have. We have different viewpoints on the subject, so... Well, that's called an "argument", isn't it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I think you're confusing the gravitational pull with external force. When a building is falling, it is true that the gravity pulls it down, of course... But gravity is constant. It only has so much force to spare. The maximum velocity that this force can lend an object is what we call "freefall"...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp ...When something is falling at free-fall, all of the gravitational force is expended on accelerating it. No force can be spent on resisting drag of any kind, such as air, and certainly not on such energy-demanding process as pulverizing concrete and crushing steel.
If something is falling at free-fall, there are no two ways about it: it's falling through thin air.
Indeed if something is falling anywhere near free-fall at all, it's falling through next to no resistance.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Once again, no controlled demolition occurs at free-fall: even though supports are removed and the floors have nothing to stand on but thin air, the combined inertia, air drag and resistance from floors and debris themselves slows the fall down considerably compared to free-fall.
That it occurred at all in this case is extraordinary.
Once again, most controlled demolitions take considerably longer than this "natural" collapse. Intuitively, this is impossible.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Yes, I find your story very confusing! You keep saying that cotrolled demolition can not achieve free-fall velocity, yet you keep insisting that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition! And the only explanation you can give for the disappearence of the roughly 13 floors of supporting structure is that it is 'extraordinary' !? Your theorie still needs a lot of work!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I can only see how that'd be confusing if you took what I said about freefall as applying to total time of the collapse as opposed to part of it.
WTC7 was brought down quicker than most demolitions even allow for. This puts the idea of natural collapse into territory of ludicrous purely by association.
What disappearance... When did I call it extraordinary?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Oh, you're talking about the 2,5 seconds of free-fall spanning 13 floors...
Well, it's not "disappearance", obviously. It's explosive removal, incredibly clean and thorough to allow for such acceleration.
If we assume natural collapse it would have to be magic, however, so you're right on that part...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon No, magic is the totally invisible 'explosive removal' of roughly 13 floors of exterior supporting structure, mind you, without leaving any trace!
I could go on about the magic of a covert and invisible installment of explosives powerfull enough to blow down a steel structure without leaving any trace, but I'm sure you already have a science fictional explanation for that!
Let's face it, your theorie is low on plausibility!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I wouldn't call a massive cloud of dust and debris "invisible" myself. But care to explain why this is magic and their outright disappearance isn't it?..
Yeah, because obviously you can't put a bomb somewhere without people noticing... ?
Who's talking about not leaving any trace? How about molten metal collected in the basement? If there were no traces, there would be no need to restrict access to the debris and refuse to test it for explosives...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp All I see from my end is you making more and more excuses to support a failed hypothesis.
But let's save our insults until one of us has actually made a point, shall we?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp I guess I'll have to repeat myself.
Recorded period of free-fall is completely unambiguous: one way or another, building was falling through 13 floors of concrete and steel as if they were thin air.
Can you acknowledge this at least? Do you have an explanation for it going by the official story?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I believe I've already given you the 2,5 sec of free-fall (all be it for lack of evidence to the contrary). And no I do not have an explanation for it, because, as I have said before, there are too many unknowns to make any firm conclusion on this matter.
As for failed hypotheses, I simply can not agree with you on your controlled demolition theorie, because it is completely lacking in evidence as well as plausibility.
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp Thank you, and especially thank you for considering and thinking for yourself, that's all I ask for. I don't want this to descend into pushing my opinion on someone anyway, I just wanted that little fact to be clear.
I'll have to disagree with you on plausibility of controlled demolition, of course.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
The lack of evidence is from NIST. In their report they clearly stated they have no physical evidence from WTC7. They also state that there is no evidence of the things inside the building ie. fireproofing and core column failures. They also go on to state in 1-3 Metallurgy tests that they failed to find temperatures exceeding 250oC. But yet FEMA conducted Crystalography tests on there metal and concluded 1000oC. NIST was given 41 pieces from FEMA.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
They had a total of 236 pieces of steel. 5 were from WTC5. All together they had 0.25% of the steel from WTC 1 and 2. all 41 pieces from FEMA had metallurgy tests conducted. in total 110 pieces from 236 had metallurgy tests conducted. How do you conduct a full report on WTC7 ( NIST NCSTAR WTC 1-9) when you fail to have any physical evidence? No proof of fire induced collapse at all. No tests for explosives either. That is pretty shady... If you want the references just ask!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger So basically you're saying there's no proof for controlled demolition? I would have to agree with you on that one! If there is a lack of evidence produced by NIST, then the only conclusion you can make (at best) is that their research was crappy. Any conclusion beyond that is pure speculation!
Some1fromYurp 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
I guess you can't comprehend the last statement so I will avoid a lengthy argument... NIST fails to have any proof that it was fire induced... I would just quote NIST and FEMA and make them look like terrible people, with a terrible sense of science, and ZERO integrity just as you... But it is okay continue on....
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Some1fromYurp
"If there is a lack of evidence produced by NIST, then the only conclusion you can come make (at best)is that their research was crappy"
Well considering they were given $20,000,000 from the U.S. Congress and was given the task of Congressional Investigation into the attacks of 09-11-2001. That should be enough said, but I will continue. They need to be held accountable not only in Criminal Court, but the Scientific Community should be outraged!!!
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger not to mention the shuttle disaster only had a 40million dollar research fund... v.s. 20mill wtc... and it took 400+ days to assign a chairman to investigate!! Previous highest was shuttle incident which took 7!
NaturalGroundation 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Careful with calling people shills. Makes you look like a nut if they aren't.
Just friendly advice.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Notice I did say debunkers and shills in the same sentence... Not saying debunkers are shills and shills are debunkers. I know not everyone is a shill.. The only people I actually call shills are the people who bug me there is a list of about 10 right now... Btu thank you for the friendly advice.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger Fair enough, take care.
(Also those can be ordinary trolls. That happens too.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Of course you have a point...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
look at the frame 6-8 a small puff of smoke is seen, no it is just dust coming out the window, 9-11 is not a HOAX!!!
jeb31 1 year ago
fake and gay
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 years ago
you are gay asshole i was fucking there and i heard everything and saw everything ok and can no one and i mean no one tell me otherwise.
theOmEn207 1 year ago
It makes sense to me that anytime a building collapses and it is 110 stories high, that the pancaking of the floors would sound like an explosion. Simple science.
lateintheday2007 2 years ago
Simple, yes. Science?
sgabriel 1 year ago
sounds like a demon in 0:14-0:18
krazycar1114 2 years ago
Let me help you guys out here. It's fake. That should have been evident in the first place once you realize there is a severe mismatch between the ambient sounds one would expect from the pictures vis-a-vis the strange silence filled up with bullshit special defects. You've been had. So sorry.
Components:
(1) xrl. us/bgri3m
(2) xrl. us/bgri3o
Now please, truthers and debunkers, stop embarrassing yourselves and rethink your confirmation biases. Moving on..
loccysmif 2 years ago
Mind you that I don't know where the "thuds" come from, but anybody with a little audio experience can hear the repetitive nature, suggesting somebody cueing a sample into a mixdown.
Really...no joke. Actually order the documentary mentioned in this clip's description and find out for yourself. This is an old, old matter.
loccysmif 2 years ago
By the way, I've found another slightly different version:
watch?v=JsoWbX6hCYk
For example, there is more surround effect in there. You hear additional talk there which is not in here. I would say it's a slightly better forgery.
Also notice that the cameraman (who, iirc, died) turns around and sees a huge chunk of exterior facade just about to reach the ground. Yet this isn't audible as any sort of 'bang'. How ridiculous that we are supposed to fall for that.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Notice also, that at least three people posting this crap, namely "delaney4475", "Barbel1th" and "lonelantern" first joined Youtube in 2006, when the truth movement was allegedly peaking. Two of those ("delaney4475" and "Barbel1th") have very few uploads except this disinformation video. Notice that "lonelantern" has multiple disinformation videos posted, including one where Bush is quoted out of context saying "explosives were placed in the WTC" and one about "black helicopters". Too obvious.
loccysmif 2 years ago
how is it that the first building to fall was the one that was hit second, as the one that was hit first burned longer and managed to stay up longer verses the one that wasnt burning as long,,, and is it really hard to believe that the government would not do this, the government is fucked up enough in my opinion to pull something like this off, but nobody wants to think that there own country would do this, america is all about controlling the world
jointguardian 2 years ago
You don't need to be a structural engineer to tell this was NOT a blown up building, rather a pancake effect. To demolish a building there would be obvious flashing patterns and loud explosions. Not 1 video shows this, the noise you hear while the building collapses is the upper floors ripping through floors below it, NOT explosions. Watch a video of what a real controlled demolition looks like and then compare the 2. The online similarity between them is that they are both coming down not up.
allthings123 2 years ago
@allthings123 I meant 'only' not 'online'
allthings123 2 years ago
a real demolition you mean like wtc building # 7?
viperpulse 2 years ago
WTC 7 collapsed because of a deisel fueled fire and large debris falling off of WTC 1 and 2 and landing on WTC 7. That is why the structure failed.
And even if the government DID blow up WTC 7 to get people angry at Iraq, why did everyone evacuate WTC 7 before it came down!?!
You divert all logic when it comes to WTC 7!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
the diesel fuel fire severed all 81 supprt columns at exactly the same time causing it to fall at free fall speed into its own footprint? wake up dude.
AlienProbe73 2 years ago
Hahaha that's not what happened. It amazes me that you kids come here and make a big deal about some stupid conspiracy.
1) After a few supports and trusses became weakened, they failed and the other supports couldn't hold all that weight so they failed too.
2) Why would the government collapse another building, which had NO ONE IN IT!!!! Government officials evacuated everyone from the WTC 7 building!!!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
All failed at exactly the same split second?!!! LOL!!!see there is this little thing called common sense, i'd love to hear your explanation for the nano thermite found in the dust. go on amaze me.
AlienProbe73 2 years ago
You have been fooled by the truthers. Go watch the full video of the collapse and you will see the left side of the building that was hit by all the debris fall before anything else. Then a few secs later the rest fell. And did you know 4 other building were also destroyed the same way WTC 7 was destroyed but NOBODY talks about those. Plus why would they collapse it if no one was in it!!!!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
As for the termite crap: How do you know they didn't belong to the terrorists. And Jones found elements that make up termite, such as aluminum and Magnesium. A lot of the building and the planes were made out of aluminum, and magnesium is found in PAPER!!! You should read Jone's book, very interesting.
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
ive seen all the videos,controlled demolitition.You might also want to look at what agencies were in the building and also the wall street investigations that were destroyed. 4 other were not destroyed like wtc7!! you"re starting to sound less and less like a genius my friend, why do you trust goverment? they lie and lie and lie
AlienProbe73 2 years ago
Again,I'm not disputing the official explanation of the collapsing twin towers. On the other hand,building 7 was taken down by controlled demolition.
jaker2880 2 years ago
Why? To prove a point the govenrment wou;ld have killed ppl right? Then why did they evacuate WTC 7 before it collapsed!!!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
And even if the government DID blow up WTC 7 to get people angry at Iraq, why did everyone evacuate WTC 7 before it came down!?!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And even if the government DID blow up WTC 7 to get people angry at Iraq, why did everyone evacuate WTC 7 before it came down!?!
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
What explosions!? All I hear is the tower crumbling! Anyway, how stupid would you be to blow down a building from top to bottom!! Like nobody would notice the HUGE demolition crew you would need to rig the building? Nobody would notice the MASSIVE amounts of wiring you would need? Why go through all the hassle if you could simply blow the tower from the bottom out and just say the terrorists drove in a bus with a huge bomb! FACE IT, your theorie is piss-weak!!
Some1fromYurp 2 years ago 2
@Some1fromYurp
"how stupid would you be to blow down a bldg from top to bottom"
Covert demolition
"Like nobody would notice the HUGE crew and wiring"
Elevator modernization. They noticed, but didn't care. As for wiring...its covert (aka hi-tech) demo. Wireless.
"...just say terrorists drove in a bus with a huge bomb"
That idea failed in 1993. The bldgs needed to collapse. Anything short of that and we would have never gotten enough support to invade the middle east.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
@JSSTyger
Covert demolition!?
You need to lay off them science fiction/action movies, they're rotting your brain!
Elevator modernization!?
The elevators were housed in the core, the main supporting structure was in the outside walls!
If every controlled demolition expert says it's impossible to do, i'd rather believe them, than a bunch of halfwit truther theories!
Some1fromYurp 2 years ago
@Some1fromYurp
Extensive elevator modernizations by ACE Elevator 9 months prior to the attacks
Not every demo expert says demo was impossible. I know at least two examples of people who said it was demo....Danny Jawenko a European Demo expert, and Van Romero an explosives expert.
btw I said it was covert demo...not standard.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
@JSSTyger
The only thing covert about 'covert demolition' is that it only exists in your little fantasy world!
BTW Danny Jowenko, the Dutch demo expert, never disputed the collapse of WTC 1 en 2! He also said it was highly unlikely that they were blown down!
Some1fromYurp 2 years ago
See my comments below. Concentrate on building 7- the smoking gun.
jaker2880 2 years ago
jaker2880
Sure. NO sounds of explosives going off, but it was explosives, right? DUH! Thousans of people working in that building but no one notices workers cutting out support beams, cutting out concrete. No1 noticed the thousands of wires running through their offices. The fires didn't damage any of those wires or explosives or set them off early, the firemen didn't notice any of this either, right? Your theory is better known as a brain fart!
jboritzki 2 years ago
could be the floors pancaking?
CockpumpVideo 2 years ago
the audio on this clip is the best i have ever heard,cleary explosive
AlienProbe73 2 years ago
I'm not concentrating on theories regarding the twin towers.Stay away from debate on the twin towers. Avoid it. Focus on WTC 7 and ONLY WTC 7. WTC 7 DAMNS those who would try to hide the truth. WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Thats not a belief. Thats not a theory. thats a fact.
jaker2880 2 years ago
jaker2880
Um, no, it's not a fact. It fell because it burned.
jboritzki 2 years ago
Demolition experts are gonna be out of a job soon. Seems like all you have to do from now on when you have a building you want demolished is to set fire to some office furniture,wait a few hours,and voila!!! It collapses neatly into its own footprint.
jaker2880 2 years ago
jaker2880
you're so full of crap. It was not neatly into it's own footprint and this looked and sounded NOTHING like any building demolition video on youtube. It's pathetic at how you people ignore facts and common sense so that your crazy X-Files type views can live on. SInce most of you are younger than 25, I hope that you grow up one day and use that brain in your heads for good and not stupidity.
jboritzki 2 years ago
I'm talking about building #7.
jaker2880 2 years ago
jaker2880
WHat smoking gun? THere si no smoking gun. There is not even a gun to find. THe building fell because of the damage it sustained from the towers falling next to it and because of the fire burning inside of it for hours.
jboritzki 2 years ago
@jboritzki
How do you get that "this building looked...NOTHING like any building demolition on youtube"
Key characteristics of building demolition
1) Complete and total collapse. Check
2) Verticality. Check
3) Ease of collapse. Check. Global collapse lasted only 6.5 seconds max. Free fall (in a vacuum) would have been about 6 seconds and would be closer to 6.5 seconds in air. Hence, no time or energy to destroy building materials unless by another source.
Sounds like demo
JSSTyger 2 years ago
@JSSTyger
Um, I get that because it did look nothing like a controlled demolition. You wack jobs want to believe it was a government planned and covered up controlled demolition then nothing anyone says is going to change your twisted mind. Only medication and therapy can begin to solve the problems you people have. You don't know what you're talking about and I predict that you never will.
jboritzki 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Once again fooled by the thruthers. Go watch the FULL clip and the total collapse takes at least 14 seconds!!! It wouldn't matter anyway since you crazies are so on the left that you wouldn't use your head for just a minute. BTW I am a democrat.
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
RUN FFS!
nuno69gozo 2 years ago
the sound you hear im sure is the floors smashing on top of each other i mean honestly if u think about it they weighed over 120 tons each so the interior of the building was damaged causing this correct? then why would the outside well how could the outside fall as fast as the inside did the floors buckled from the heat explosion etc the outside of the building was obviously more stable
wearahelmet12 2 years ago
hey rifter engineer or not its still and inside job you can believe what you want or what the gov tells you
capeverdoswa 2 years ago
inside job.
qtgonewild 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Take the red pill.
LeonVerhulst 2 years ago
are yall fuckin serious all the thermite they found and yall still talkin bout that wasnt a controlled demolition if you look close you can see the fuckin squibs that only happens during a controlled dimolition
killacamm985 2 years ago
Read Jone's book, he didn't find TERMITE rather elements that make it up. Such as Magnesium... do you know what else is made up of Magnesium? Paper... idiot.
MrComputergenius 2 years ago
They didn't just make up super-chemical elements unkown to man to make thermite. Its going to have common elements with all sorts of things. What you should do is look up the concentration of magnesium in paper vs that in thermite. Same with you aluminum argument
JSSTyger 2 years ago
He found SULFUR OXIDE and ALUMINUM OXIDE. Which both happen to be nano-particles from the metal oxide family and are used in various applications. Thermite and Thermate use them. Themate uses Sulfur Oxide. And Thermite uses Aluminum Oxide. But it also gives explosives that us these same nano-particles. HBX and H6 that are in use in warheads. These particles are also used in ROCKET FUELS. They are self oxidizing meaning they produce oxygen to burn. Hence underwater explosives and rocket fuel.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
H6 I do believe it is is the main ingredient in the MOAB project. (Mother Of All Bombs). So when you think of this they are made through the Sol/Gel Process and happens to be that Jones paper also found chemical traces of the SOL/GEL process as well. They think it was NANO THERMITE but I am sure it is HBX and H6. Which are both a whole lot more stable then regular C4 due to the less RDX and more metal oxide.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
No, actually, nano thermite is NOT made thru the sol gel process.
It's made by sputtering commercial thermite. the gas is cooled, and the dust is hand collected.
Nano thermite has never been made in amounts greater than 80 grams a week.
The pilot plant doesn't even run the process that often, and they have to replace crucibles constantly.
ammtiac. alionscience. com / pdf / AMPQ6_1. pdf
I don't know where you get YOUR nonsense, but it's not OUR planet.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
I never said NANO THERMITE was created by SOL/GEL. I stated that NANO RDX was made through the SOL/GEL process. HMX,HBX and H6 all are types of NANO RDX. NANO RDX is cretaed through the SOL/GEL process where NANO SIZED PARTICLES are combined with RDX explosives. Thus creating such things as H6 which is used by the U.S. Navy in underwater detonations of mines among other things. Because it has it's own source of oxygen through Aluminum Oxide and or Sulfer Oxide. That was what I stated
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Seriously, really, you should NOT be this stupid.
Nano RDX explosives are NOT used by the US Navy, Nor any dry powder explosive in an underwater application. RDX is mostly Nitric acid and some amine.
Have you EVER mixed nitric acid and water? Don't.
It would end very badly.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
WIKI search of HBX
"HBX is a family of binary explosives that are composed of RDX, TNT, powdered aluminium, and D-2 wax with calcium chloride. It is used in missile warheads and underwater ordnance. To acuire this you must contact the government."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Funny how I am not allowed to comment on this page anymore Mr. ATF
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
H6
"H-6 is a binary explosive that is a mixture of RDX, TNT, powered aluminum, and D-2 wax with calcium chloride added. H-6 is an Australian produced explosive composition used by the military for general purpose bombs."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
TORPEX
"TORPEX is an explosive based on trinitrotoluene (TNT) that gave a greater blast than TNT, but was more sensitive. It was replaced by HBX or HBX-1 later in WWII. Torpex is RDX/TNT/Aluminum/Wax desensitizer. It was used in several types of torpedoes and mines. Due to it sensitivity to bullet impact, the first weapons loaded were ones for which there would be the least possibility of rifle bullet and fragment attack, namely, submarine delivered mines and torpedoes.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"The loading stations were advised that they must take adequate care in mixing and loading and in the handling of the loaded items. It was declared that the British had been able to handle it without incident for 2 years and that the risk was worth the advantage gained in its underwater power. "
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
For someone to state on your page that you are "ATF" and can handle "HIGH EXPLOSIVES" you sure don't know your EXPLOSIVES VERY WELL...
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
dtic(dot)mil/ndia/2007im_em/ABriefs/7Patel(dot)pdf
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
globalsecurity(dot)org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions(dot)htm
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
globalsecurity(dot)org/military/systems/munitions/novel-energetic-materials(dot)htm
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Did you notice that AAMTIAC's article on the FIRST production facility at N.C for Nano Thermite was in 2002, AFTER 9/11 2001?
That's because it wasn't active before 2002.
SO, seriously, you can't google todays references for what was present in 2001, idiot.
Freaking amazing.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Again as I just wrote to you in a PM. The government does not always come clean on its tests. For example STEALTH TECHNOLOGY. It started in 1958 but the documents were not released to the public until the early 90's . That is a good deal of time. Really NANOTECH has been around in civilian use since the 80's so really 20 years prior to 9/11 they had the tests going.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Have you Ever even read the HISTORY of nano sized production technology?
The concept was developed at Lawrence Livermore back around 2000.
A production methodology wasn't even dreamed up until a year later.
nano concepts may have existed, but I defy you to produce ANYTHING sub micron before 1998, OF ANY substance.
It's actually quite common in nature.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"The first use of the concepts found in 'nano-technology' (but pre-dating use of that name) was in "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom," a talk given by physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical Society meeting at Caltech on December 29, 1959. Feynman described a process by which the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules might be developed, using one set of precise tools to build and operate another proportionally smaller set",
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"and so on down to the needed scale."
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"In the course of this, he noted, scaling issues would arise from the changing magnitude of various physical phenomena: gravity would become less important, surface tension and van der Waals attraction would become increasingly more significant, etc."
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"This basic idea appeared plausible, and exponential assembly enhances it with parallelism to produce a useful quantity of end products. The term "nanotechnology" was defined by Tokyo Science University Professor Norio Taniguchi in a 1974 paper[2] as follows: "'Nano-technology' mainly consists of the processing of, separation, consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or by one molecule."
Cont.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"In the 1980s the basic idea of this definition was explored in much more depth by Dr. K. Eric Drexler, who promoted the technological significance of nano-scale phenomena and devices through speeches and the books Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (1986) and Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation,"
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Are you sure it was 2000's or was it more like the mid 80's?
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Nope, the founding Patents for Nano thermite are on the Lawrence livermore Patents page for 1998, go check it yourslef.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
"Fischer, S.H.; Grubelich, M.C. (July 13, 1996). "A Survey of Combustible Metals, Thermites, and Intermetallics for Pyrotechnic Applications"
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Now when you say Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. You fail to add this from their site.
"Government Owned, Contractor Operated. The Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOEs National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). "
The same as NIST,FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission are all ran by the federal government.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctrackmonger
I would also like to add they have the PATENT on a Nuclear Warhead among others stuff such as lasers and supposed mapping of the human genome to combat bio-warfare. This is a high profile company. Who as part of the Military Industrial Complex since the 1950's has more to gain by these attacks then any person can think of. The same as Raytheon,Haliburton, and others.
ctrackmonger 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
Yup, that's lawrence livermore, and they are all smarter than you.
Every single one.
Get used to that, it won't change.
As for their desire to profit from an unwarranted attack on their own country, well, don't you profit from an attack on this country to have your conspiracy fantasies?
The fact is, Professional Traitor is practically your job description, and it's certainly been your political bent since you started as a child of the 1960s.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@ctrackmonger
You have to understand, I LIKE the United States, and I still think it's the best contributer to the world, and the future, and I think your generation is a bunch of faggot morons who desperately need an ass kicking.
My suggestion is, if you want a better world, go somewhere and make it, so you can fail like everybody else did, and come back to the US with your tail between your legs like the 1960s hippies.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago