I just spent a few minutes in reading the posts. I cant believe that there are still people who really believe, that the wtc collapsed due to the hit of the plane...and no one is talking about the 3rd building which also broke down, without any hit (and a misterious fire in it a few hours before....
The WTC casualy imploded from top to bottom.. The plane hit like 25 floors before the top floor... The plane broke the concrete like fire retardant from the ibeams when it hit .. The fire melted the metal .. The floors collapsed on top of each other and gravity did the rest.
Looks just like WTC 1 2 & 7. When WTC 1 2 & 7 came down the dust cloud was identical. But The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention the collapse of WTC 7 so I guess it never officially happened so I guess there's no point in questioning it right? Right, so lets just blindly accept everything the media and government tells as the truth and be good Americans and just keep our mouths shut.
@davidmonroy86 They didn't use thermite in this... normal commercial implosions have to use cheaper matterials, in this case remote detonation charges.
Either way, many explosions were heard by the people around WTC.
@rog944 "quieter detonations" ??? thanks, I just mil-sprayed my monitor laughing that that one. What, exactly would be a "quiter detonation" ?? I would guess here, but I am fairly certain that bomb mufflers don't exist. Sheeple, get a life. Is the truth so hard to swallow that you immediately subscribe to a conspiracy ?? Muslim extremists exploited the USA's lack of proper screening and flew planes into our buildings. Is it that hard to understand that they want to kill us all.
@ProfessorIgor Yes. You spend less time calling people stupid and spitting on your computer, and more time doing your homework. Nano-thermite creates quieter detonations. (no loud popping). This is a fact. Look it up. And stop acting like a 13 years old. Unless you are. Then I forgive you.
@rog944 nano thermite... there wasn't enough free space in thet towers for the amount of thermite you would need to bring down a building of that size. i.e. Where would the "conspirators" hid the stuff ?? you just can't hide hundreds if tons of thermite in broomclosets and sgtorage rooms, people would see it. You know there were about 40,000 people that worked in those buildings.. 80,000 eyes. "nano thermite" ? thermite is Al, Mg & FeO2. What's "nano" about it ?
@ProfessorIgor "What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly."
@ProfessorIgor The previous description is from Wikipedia. Nano-thermite is also known as "super-thermite." Professor Niels Harrit, retired professor of chemistry at the U. of Copenhagen, has claimed in a published paper to have found evidence of nano-thermite in the rubble of the collapsed wtc buildings.
@rog944 again, where did they keep it ?? and in a pile of burned rubble from nearly half a mile of building, you're going to have ferric oxide and aluminum. Would you please accept the reality that the building fell down because a 326,000lb aircraft hit it at 527mph and doused the buldings in 20000 gallons of Jet-A kerosene ?? 1800 deg F Kerosene ?? Gravity is a VERY powerful force, you realize that, right ? it's unyielding.
@ProfessorIgor "Would you please accept the reality that the building fell down because a 326,000lb aircraft hit it at 527mph..?" For the sake of argument, I will not disagree with you. Now, is it possible that you can explain to me how a 47 story skyscraper, which was not hit by an airplane and was not doused with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel, collapsed?
@Anto0044 /watch?v=6BXPXfNZgW8&feature=channel_video_title ... and a lot of other videos... even a witness says why there are not heard explosions on some videos... bcouse on that day it was very noisy there
@zelenko2 Early eyewitnesses talking about explosions mostly refer to the plane crashes, but since they didn't see the planes, they thought it was explosions. Those sounds in the video you are linking to are nothing compared to the loud booms that controlled demolitions make (like in this video above.) Also, that is building seven in your video. That could be snapping beams, or floors pancaking inside the building.
@Anto0044 snaping beams....hahahahaahahahah... clearly eplosions... as for the twin towers... the noisy demolition charges began after the tower's tips began falling (thermite work)...
@zelenko2 The beams were just a wild guess of mine. Nothing I really believe. Well, as for the twin towers. If the charges began after the tower's tip began to fall. Why do you think it began to fall in the first place?
@zelenko2 It's not noisy? I can't simply take your word for it. Do you have a video to show me? I cant find any building demolition with thermite here on youtube. Further, you didn't answere my question about what you think started the collapse. Please do that, or I can't take you seriously.
@Anto0044 and just before the beggining of falling of tips of the towers... there was a big ground shaking... then beggin colapsing... and than in a video u can see clasical CD flashes al over the building... /watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQ
@Anto0044 and if it was an terorrist attack... rudy giuliani, paul bremer, larry silverstein, (and some others) should be dead... just think about this...
But, but, but! But the government did this! It was to gain money by having an excuse to invade Iraq, even though they lost more money by bombing the WTC's, but whatever! CONSPIRACY! C-O-N...SPIRACY!!!
PLANE AND SIMPLE those of you who still think the WTC towers came down through coordinated demolition by "secret installations" and that 9/11 was an inside job are something else.. it's funny how everyone who believes this has there own experts or explanation on when, where, why, and how these towers were brought down by something other than the airlines crashing into the building .man ya'll still continue to crack me up, it's very funny watching you guys try so effortlessly to convince others
Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't resemble 9/11 at all? I didn't hear any of those deafening blows. The cameras were even closer that day. I also didn't see any white flashes in the windows... Hmm.
@austinmoore97 No flashes on WTC? Youtube search WTC shockwave, no loud sounds of explosives? Watch 2011 WTC demolition evidence. Not only that, the WTC was turned to smaller pieces than even regular demolitions do, not only that, thousands of gallons of molten steel was found beneath all 3 towers from the thermite reactions, not even regular demolitions melt steel that way.
@austinmoore97 Again no facts, only assumtions, you assume that bombs have "BOMBS" written on it, explosives can be stored inside everything, and no wires are required, remote control detonations work just as good, but are not economical for ordinary DC corps.
2: Molten iron and molten steel was found, steel being the word many firefighters used, aswell president of CDI, you IDIOT. You think I'm stupid?
3: Residue of therMATE was found in ALL WTC dust samples and it was peer revied aswell.
@Xendrius You can't just throw some TNT into a 110 story building and expect it to fall. Demolition crews interviewed said it would take 4-6 months with 100 men working around the clock taking out drywall, wiring, etc to plant explosives to collapse the tower the way it fell. Saying that not 1 of the 100k people who cycled in and out of the WTC every day didn't see this is a joke
Steel was never found in the final findings. Ever. The word steel was used, but the chemical compound was NEVER found
@austinmoore97 Once again you assume, there are hundreds of different explosives, they are simply reagents and powders mixed together, they can be stored in anything, and set off easily by remote detonators.
You also assume the WTC demolitions were "ordinary" demolitions, ordinary demolitions are economical, they use wires because they are cheape than remote control, something much more effective and powerful was used on the WTC, namely nano thermite, which was found in all dust samples.
@Xendrius Assume? Listen to a demolition expert dipshit. You can't bring down a 110 story building with some firecrackers laying on the floor. Hundreds of explosives MUST be set on hundreds of columns in order to bring a building of that size down. Nothing less.
Lol nano thermite was never found in any dust samples. The bi products were never found anywhere on or near the WTC site. If there are no bi products, there is no reaction, thus proving the thermite claim wrong.
@austinmoore97 HAhahhahahahaha, I can't believe what I'm hearing, I LISTEN to CD experts, one being Tom Sullivan who says the official collapse story is impossible, you just said you can only bring down a building with hundreds of explosives but at the same time you believe weakened columns on the upper floors can bring it down as a controlled demolition, you god damn idiot. You get all your information from CLAIMS by debunker sites, not from footage. You are wasting my time you brainless moron.
@Xendrius Tom Sullivan is also biased and will reject anything logical that disproves his theory. Great source...lol. Skyscrapers are built to withstand the weight they bare. They are not built to withstand a partial collapse due to the fact it's happend 3 times before in history. Once the 300 ton section of the building started to fall, there was no stopping it. The amount of energy was 10,000x too much for each individual floor to withstand.
@austinmoore97 Hahahahah Tom Sullivan is biased, hahahaha, he uses facts and theories that are established and tested, he talks from experience, a skycraper has never, can never, and will never collapse into its own footprint nomatter how many columns you take out in the upper half section, if it were possible, demolition companies would start using that technique you idiot. There is a reason why they never even tried it. The upper section would have slowly locked itself on to the rest, not fall
@Xendrius The WTC didn't collapse into it's own footprint. If it did, it wouldn't have severely damaged over 30 surrounding buildings. The buildings also did not fall at free fall speed. WTC 1 came down in 22.79 seconds and WTC 2 came down in 15.75 seconds. If a demolition occurred, each should have come down in 9.22 seconds. But they didn't.
And if thermite could bring down a 110 story tower, I'm pretty sure demolition companies would use that too. But they don't because IT DOESN'T WORK.
@austinmoore97 Are you stupid? Are you really that stupid? WTC 1 and 2 were progressily triggerbased demolitions, which are common on demolition on bridges, from one side to another, it can be programmed to be 1 minute between each detonation, or 0.5 seconds, in this case, they figured blowing it up at near freefall speed would look least suspicious if if it were too slow, it would look unnatural as falling steel would have hit the ground many seconds earlier, same if they did it faster.
@Xendrius Are you stupid? Are you really that stupid? First off, YOU CAN'T PLACE EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILDING WHERE OVER 100,000 PEOPLE CYCLE THROUGH IT EVERYDAY! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE EXPLOSIVES STRONG ENOUGH TO CUT THROUGH STEEL WITHOUT CUTTING WIRES, DRYWALL, MARBLE, FLOORING, ETC TO GET TO THE STEEL COLUMNS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you really think that office workers wouldn't notice their fucking wall missing, you REALLY need some type of medical attention...
@austinmoore97 Wrong, wrong, wrong, and once again wrong, the very fact that people believe it would be impossible to place bombs, is the reason why they succesfully did it, noone expected nor looked for anything suspicious and even if reports came in, it went to security, luckely Bush's brother was one of the main guys of WTC security. Bombs can be placed and attached and covered in a million ways and no civilians had acces to the core columns where the nano thermite charges were placed.
@austinmoore97 On to your next point, you assume that ordinary economical demolition explosives were used, are you that dumb? As Tom Sullivan from CDI said, a better and more effective way yet more expensive, is to use remote detonators, and you can program the explosives to go off at any time you want them to, if you know anything about computer scripts, you'll know how easy it is, some demolition companies even use it to make cool fireworks shoot out in sequence before demolition.
@Xendrius Did you even read the last comment? If not:
YOU CAN'T PLACE EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILDING WHERE OVER 100,000 PEOPLE CYCLE THROUGH IT EVERYDAY! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE EXPLOSIVES STRONG ENOUGH TO CUT THROUGH STEEL WITHOUT CUTTING WIRES, DRYWALL, MARBLE, FLOORING, ETC TO GET TO THE STEEL COLUMNS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you really think that office workers wouldn't notice their fucking wall missing, you REALLY need some type of medical attention...
@austinmoore97 If the GUARDS and SECURITY are paid off, then you CAN. Do you have no imagination?
Air does NOT pulverize concrete. I am a CIVIL ENGINEER and I do know a lot about CONCRETE. You do not,, if you think some air pressure pulverizes concrete when there is a WINDOW that will break out first and relieve all of that pressure.
@mormonanswerman Lol what about the 100,000+ people who cycled out of the WTC complex EVERYDAY? You think they didn't see anything? If so, LMFAO.
And umm you're wrong, Mr. Civil Engineer (for some reason, every truther I run into has an job as a structural or civil engineer...strange) Since I can't link it, Google "pulverize concrete 9/11" and click the second result.
Debunks the living shit out of the theory using only math and physics.
Wow, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but coincidentally, I saw this clip right after watching the surviving 9/11 Firefighters on the ground talking about when the buildings were coming down. One was lying on a hospital bed saying "Sounded like gun fire, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, followed by 4 huge explosions."
It's too weird that I saw this clip right after and it is the exact same thing. Not too mention both towers following exactly the same into their own footprint. HOW?!
Well no ones has imploded 110 stories buildings before, and they didn't use it as a motive to go to war, The American Government made people actually believe fire would make the buildings totally collapse... Im sorry but the buckling theory or even the lazy pancake theory DOES NOT tell you why there was molten steel at the bottom. ( steel doesn't melt in open fires or because of a plane, only by thermite or a controlled furness )
@TheRickyCaldwell Fire does make buildings collapse. (Kader Toy factory, Windsor Building, etc, those didn't even need a plane) There was no molten steel, but molted aluminum and copper. Steel is easily weakened, but not melted by jet fuel. That is why the building collapsed. This is physics (and btw I hate the government so dont accuse me of believing them). Why were there no by-products of thermite such as aluminum oxide and barium nitrate found in the wreckage?
@MazJax Alright, well then explain "The Meteorite" the famous ball of cement, molted steel, and glass. Also my cousin a New York City first responder witnessing the molten steel. and its almost impossible to look for those by products because apparently most if not all were shipped away to be recycled. Destroying evidence of a crime scene is illegal.
@TheRickyCaldwell I call bullshit on your cousin reporting "molten steel" as no molten steel was to be found. There was, however, molten aluminum and copper.
And wtf is the meteorite? I've never heard that term before, not even from conspiracy sites :S
Obviously, there was no molten steel as there was no temperature in the building capable of melting steel, so what are you trying to prove?
@MazJax FOCUS on the WT7 coming down in a demolition. Just focus on that if you doubt the conspiracy. There is no doubt when you watch it come down in 10 seconds in a pile of dust, from a very small fire... and it was not even hit by a plane, had no "jet fuel" EXCUSE, and so, why was this building not occupied. Why was it evacuated? It had the CONTROL CENTER in there for all things emergency, and they "evacuate" it??
The building entire collapse lasts for about 16 seconds. Not 7seconds, as some believe. The mechanical penthouse (on the roof) collapsed for 10 seconds, destroying the most important support, and the building crumbled after that.
It wasn't hit by a plane, but by a large chunk of steel from WTC1. Buildings do not need jet fuel to start an inferno. Look at the Windsor Tower.
Why did they evacuate it? Maybe because it was showing signs of instability 7 hours before collapse?
@MazJax It was hit by a large chunk of steel and collapsed? Nice one. Look at photo's of the Oklahoma bombing. You can google them. Half the building is gone but it didn't collapse. They had to pull down the rest two months later. Why? Because building don't just fall down that easily. Come on, building 7 does not make sense.
@Trybe007 If a 20 tonne chunk of steel hit the base of a building at terminal velocity, it will cause SERIOUS damage. That one block of steel tore a 10 story chunk, almost 25% of the base, out
Building 7 and the oklahoma bombings are totally different. The building in the O.K. bombing had MANY vertical CONCRETE supports, unlike WTC7, which only had 3 STEEL ones. That's why it collapsed so easily.
Those 2 buildings are incredibly different. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.
@MazJax I'm also very suspicious of the pentagon crash. Why is it we can't see any marks where the wings hit the pentagon? It's just a hole. On the towers you can clearly see where the wins went in. Don't tell me, different types of buildings? 911 has too many strange things for me mate.
@Trybe007 Do you want me to send you pictures of marks made by the wings? Because I will.
Yeah, because a jet plane crashing at hundreds of miles per hour into a REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING is going to leave a cartoon-like outline of itself.
So yes, you can't stress the importance of the building materials and structure.
@MazJax The marks made by the wings are clear to see on both the towers. Yes a jet plane crashing at hundreds of miles per hour into a REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING is going to leave marks. Those metal wings hitting the wall would have definitely marked it. But there's nothing. Just a hole.
@MazJax PS: the gravity loads in WTC 7 were supported roughly equally by the 58 exterior columns and 24 interior columns. That's the official line so your 3 steel columns failing and resulting in the collapse sounds like pure fantasy. Believe what you want.
@Trybe007 Remember that WTC 4,5 and 6 stood up as well. (although WTC3 was pretty much flattened) This is because of the supporting system was designed much differently, and because they were much smaller buildings.
@MazJax@MazJax I knew you were going to say they are very different. Definitely they were but I saw building 7 before it collapsed and 25% of the building was not damaged. It was barely damaged at all before it collapsed. Look at images of it before it went down, it's hardly been touched. I don't buy it. Sorry.
@MazJax The penthouse collapse (which lasted 10 seconds) broke every remaining vertical support in the WTC7. The rest of the building crumbled easily since it was unsupported. This lasted 7 seconds. Therfore total collapse = 17 seconds long.
Buildings don't need jet fuel to burn...WTC7 was hit by a 50 tonne piece of debris at terminal velocity.
They evacuated it hours ahead of collapse because it was showing signs of extreme instability and there was a lot of smoke.
@MazJax So how come none of that was mentioned in the official report - The 9/11 Commission Report failed to mention the collapse of WTC 7? Are you kidding me? Also 70% of Victim's Family Members' questions went unasnwered by the 9/11 Commission. Thomas Keene the co-chairman of the commission said in his book Without Precedent that the 9/11 Commission was "Set up to fail" That is an outrage and an obvious cover up of the facts and a new independent investigation is needed.
@Greg509 Little do you know the only buildings mentioned in the commission were the ones directly attacked. It wasn't an engineering report. WTC4,5,6, the Deutsche Bank Building, and the Fiterman Hall were destroyed beyond repair on 911. WTC3, and the St. Nicholas Church (as well as WTC7) collapsed. NONE of these buildings were directly attacked and NONE OF THEM were in the commission. It's no surprise WTC7 was not in it.
@MazJax The penthouse collapse (which lasted 10 seconds) broke every remaining vertical support in the WTC7. The rest of the building crumbled easily since it was unsupported. This lasted 7 seconds. Therfore total collapse = 17 seconds long.
Buildings don't need jet fuel to burn...WTC7 was hit by a 50 tonne piece of debris at terminal velocity.
They evacuated it hours ahead of collapse because it was showing signs of extreme instability and there was a lot of smoke
@mormonanswerman The pentouse collapse destoryed all the supports in the building, (wtc7) and so after it fell through, the rest crumbled like nothing, because there wasn't anything supporting the walls.
Buildings do not need jet fuel to burn... But WTC7 had a huge 50 tonne block of steel hit it at terminal velocity
They evacuated it hours before it collapsed because there was too much smoke and the walls were showing signs of instability. Everybody was expecting it to fall.
@TheRickyCaldwell Okay well first off, molten aluminum and copper does not give off the same glow as molted steel, just because you think its bullshit means nothing and look it up, its one of the most famous artifacts preserved from the rubble.
All of u trolls who troll these videos and comments 24/7 to Defend nist conspiracy report , Prove your a engineer or architect or DONT SPEAK. U say we are wrong and experts are wrong yet u feel the need to waste your life every day arguing over this, If we are all dumb u would not waste your life so that gives 0% credibility to u all and shows your uneducated losers with no life
what about you trolls who troll net makeing claims with out a shread of proof. are you an engineer? being an architect does not mean anything in this discusion. what state are you registered in ans what is your #?
i got involved in dubunking untruthers because i find it fun to research your outlandish claims and and prove that you dont understand even basic science or engineering. cartoon phsyics dont work in the real world
Your a engineer or architect ? No ? So DONT SPEAK !! FACT is over a Thousand engineers and architects and over a thousand firemen all agree with physics. These thousand experts are just that, Experts*physicsandreason Channel is a engineers who shows proof !! your proof ? NIST report has NO proof and Many things left out ,goes against physics. Its common sense & no argument !! Get a Job, U troll with no proof wasting your life, says allot about u intelligence
the FACT is that only a VEARY small hand full of those people are civil or structual engineers. hate to break it to you but a mechanical or electrical engineer knows even less then an architect.
that 'proof' you love so much is nothing more then claims with ZERO to support it. for evey untruther engineer there are dozens of practiceing CE's and SE's who have published papers AGAINST the untruthers.
Ae 911 has Proof !! U cant downplay experts !! Building never fell from fire and Worse fires for longer !! Smoke/explosions seen 20-40 stories below !! That is enough Proof cause Nothing is there yet, see explosions in videos and witnesses seen an heard them in lower floors all day. #7 was not hit and all 3 fell the same like a demo which is imposable. No jolts means no gravitational collapse. *physicsandreason* channel shows the science. Your NO expert, Now i ignore U :) Physics is physics
see, that right there is a perfect example of a untruthers 'fact'. plenty of 'low rise' steel framed buildings have collapsed completly from fire alone. in almost every major hi-rise fire large sections of the building collapsed from fire alone (IOW the office fires made the steel fail). that fact that no other 'hi rise' building had a global collapse had more to do with the structure of the towers and 7. they are unlike any other structres.
1) anyone who had enough knowledge and experiance to set the 'charges' whould know enough to make it impossible to see or hear any 'charges'. not to mention the could have made it fall in a more 'belivable' way, or at least slower.
2) show me ONE CD in which the demmolition started at the top and then progressed down? every single one i have ever seen the WHOLE building collapse at onse
9/11 was 100% a professional demolition. Only brainwashed fools/dupes are still fooled by the criminals who did 9/11. In 6 years of research I can confidently say that Israel and Zionist Traitors within America conducted 9/11. Furthermore, if one investigates past Historical Lies one soon discovers the Holocaust is entirely Communist Jew war propaganda used to create the State of Israel. The State of Israel is an International Crime Syndicate. The World is awakening to this sickness.
if you have some evidence then it is you duty as a human to submit it to a grand jurry to charge those who are responsible. as no untruther has EVER presented a single shread of evidence that could be presented to a jurry.... i guess all you did was convince yourself of what you already decided happened.
except for the massive explosions, and the timeing, and the pattern of the dust plumes, and the months of work preping the building, and how the debires looked.... excpet for those little things it was exactly like a building collapseing....
what did you expect? movie style explosions? the towers pivoting at the base and falling over like a cartoon tellphone pole?
Yes...you do send a very confusing message. Im so confused the only thing I can think of this 90's rap song that kept repeating "911 Is A Joke In Your Town".
"are u a architect or engineer ? Cause they happen to dis agree with u. Um i think i will trust the experts loll moron"
There's no disagreement about 911 in the community of possessional physicists, architects, & engineers.
They all agree that none of the evidence supports the possibility of controlled demolition. They also agree that not only is the official story possible, but that all of the evidence supports it.
I believe that overwhelming majority of professionals.
Well i would say your very uneducated on this subject. It is a FACT that expert Architects and Engineers dont believe NIST , the professionals you speak of. They left evidence out and are proven wrong in to many was for me to write. Type architects&engineers for 911 truth and listen to them speak. They ARE EXPERTS and that is a FACT that u cant manipulate at all. That shows u have allot to learn. I believe the professionals !!
"It is a FACT that expert Architects and Engineers dont believe NIST"
A TINY number of them might. But science works on the basis of consensus. There were more EXPERTS behind the creation of the NIST report than all the 'expert' Truthers combined
"I believe the professionals !"
You ONLY believe the MINORITY who support your conspiracy theory. You REFUSE to acknowledge that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY support the NIST report.
@herbzilla11 Haha so first you say none say it and now agree some do loll First of all NIST is a government involved report,The ones who were involved with it !! I trust independent exerts , FACT !!!! And others dont agree or disagree with NIST they have no opinion and did NO investigation FACT !!!! Point is there are thousands of them who agree, with facts, no conspiracy. And more sign on every day. Gain knowledge before speaking.
btw, 'architects' are complete idiots when it comes to engineering. they make buildings look 'pretty'. i work with both structual engineers and architects. how many licensed practing structual enineers are in the AE911 group? out of the hundred of thousands in the us alone?
@spcantwell Well thousands of expert architects and engineers are involved and more join everyday. Even 10 is a alarming amount cause there experts. What is your profession ? How many of those hundred thousand U speak of say its a gravitational collapse ? NONE said they agree OR disagee so the amount of them in world means Nothing !! So Please show the reports from those hundred thousand U speak of ? Proof please ?
thats just it. 99.999% of the people involed with AE911 ARE NOT any how related to the feilds of SE or CE. hell, all they do is ask for you to say who you are, you can claim to be anything when you sign up.
if 1,000 are signing up every day, and its been 10 years shouldnt there be 3,650,000 signed up by now? oh theres only a handfull? i work with SE's every single day and talk to them. many normal SE's have writen papers debunking untruthers. do i need to show you them?
@spcantwell So prove that Every expert believes in a gravitational collapse ? U can give #'s on people who have not agreed or disagreed, There are over 1000 architects and engineers who HAVE signed,FACT, NIST left out MANY things FACT. Also u dont believe and say experts are wrong so why troll these videos looking to argue over something thats false ? That shows your uneducated and gives u 0% credibility. Get a job, Your now ignored uneducated kid.
the fact is that not more then a dozen (and thats being gernerous) of the people inovled in the AE911 group are structual or civil engineers or have ANY experiance with building construction. a ME or EE does not know anything about structual failure dynamics. that is why we have differnt certifications.
here is a simple proof of what most engineers know... most profesional organisations (as well as states licensing boards) have a rule that if you come acorss anything that could put the public in danger they MUST say something. they also state that if you see an factual error in an offical report they must say something. as NONE of he people have... that means that they dont see any error (even though untruthers claim that its so basic, anyone can see the error)
@herbzilla11 Also NIST left out many facts about this and that is a FACT, very poor work by the ones who did it, I believe real experts with nothing to gain or lose. You can not manipulate FACTS, Nice try but FAIL
Why do buildings these demolition demonstrations have smoke billow out from the bottom up...where as the WTC's demo went from the top down? (assuming that it was demo in the first place)
@auroral i explained above. wtc had redundant structure design, means that every floor is structured the same so when one column fails, the column on the floor below accepts the load. when wtc fell, floors above the crash point stayed in tact for some moments while the structures underneath them were forced to carry them and they fail one after another. its called pancaking. the floors above crash point fall and pick up speed and caused all other floors below to buckle and fail.
@auroral this is why in the wtc falling, smoke billows out from the middle, first where the crash point disintegrates and then on each floor below. the top floors in tact fall and slam on top of each floor one by one, causing them to buckle and fail. smoke comes from where impact takes place. in controlled demos, all building floors fall uniformly, thus smoke on ground level. in wtc, smoke comes from where the top floors hit the each floor below.
@asimovpunch Thank you for the informative reply! I have a feeling that the conspiracy theory about 9-11 being demo-ed on purpose had always been false. When people kept comparing this kind of wtc to a controlled demo...I always noticed that where the smoke/dust billows were way too different to a controlled demo. Now I know why, thanks.
@auroral hey, no problem. sorry for the awful wording. i usually write at length and have to go back and snip out words/punctuation due to character limits on these posts.
one last thing to everyone about controlled demos - i think people are forgetting that controlled demos, especially one powerful enough to take down the WTC, make noise...BIG noise...noise that can be heard miles away. From all that footage from above and street level, there was no indication of a sound that strong.
@auroral This was a controlled demolition you moron. When buildings just collapse by themselves due to uncontrolled events, you never know what it will do. These demolitions are set up so that very little, if any, damage is done to any surrounding buildings. The same can't be said for buildings that burn down :)
It kind of looked as though a hole suddenly appeared in the earth which the building was sucked into! Which in a way kind of is what generally happens-as I understand it the supports are blown out in the basement and the first few floors and the rest is history.
"The building was falling so loudly we couldn't even hear those boom bam bam bam......well, witnesses did, but it was at verious times...not all at once"
This not only makes not sense, its also impossible
The BOOM has to come BEFORE the building starts to fall & 'make noise' so its LITERALLY impossible not to be able to hear it
ALSO, Human ears do not hear 'differently' then audio recording devices, meaning that if people REALLY heard it, it'd ALSO be on the recordings from 911
@RocketRodder - You guys aren't understanding me. This exact same video has been posted in several places. I'm not saying it's WTC because it isn't, and I'm not getting involved in that again. I'm saying this identical video has been posted elsewhere on Youtube and this is a copy of that video.
@Yaellie94 - The fact he didn't give credit to the original person posting this. I've seen it used in a "greatest demos" compilation, but I think that guy at least gave credit to the original posters even if he didn't name them all (kinda difficult), but this guy took a video from somewhere on Youtube and reposted it with no indication of where he got it from. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
The building was falling so loudly we couldn't even hear those boom bam bam bam......well, witnesses did, but it was at verious times...not all at once.
@somejoker91 no, it doesn't. in controlled demos, the outer exterior facade stays in tact as the interior skeleton is destroyed, that's why when it falls, the facade stays whole as this "malleable" entity as everything inside crumbles.
@asimovpunch look at 9/11 again - WTC has what is called redundant structure, meaning every floor is structured the same and when 1 floor fails, the floors beneath shoulder the load...which is why only the floors above the crash point stay in tact for some moments and as it falls, all the floors beneath it fail one by one when they cant support the new load. its called pancaking. not to mention the falling load picks up speed increasing failure. its very different. check old WTC vids again.
@asimovpunch Like WTC7, then. That would also explain the short white flash in the middle on the west side at 0:02 of watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk then again 0:06 has a flash in mid air caused by office paper reflecting sunlight.
@somejoker91 Pancaking acre-sized floors louder than explosions? Those must have been awfully loud booms to cover up the awfully loud bangs of any explosives.
How surprising, then, that all untampered videos have only low frequency bolt pops and rumbling concrete impacts.
@somejoker91 no witness claimed to hear anything remotely like the EXPLOSIONS you just hear you POS. Give it up. This guy is almost a mile away and its still incredibly loud there are videos from a quarter mile away from 911 where you cant hear shit.
@somejoker91 oh here we go again another dumbass 9/11 inside job retard. Until someone with a professional scinetiffic background tells me that it is even possible or needed to bring down the WTC with explosives you can suck my balls.
@mrvendetor oh here we go again, another pussy who thinks their intelligent. Ha when you grow some balls, then you have the right to talk. Otherwise keep your cocksucker shut!
@TravisOHern Well, you clearly know nothing about explosive demolition, so why don't you stop being vulgar to people who are sick and tired of paranoid conspiracy nonsense.
4 People were in that building.
StubbyEE 3 months ago
I just spent a few minutes in reading the posts. I cant believe that there are still people who really believe, that the wtc collapsed due to the hit of the plane...and no one is talking about the 3rd building which also broke down, without any hit (and a misterious fire in it a few hours before....
fallhalla 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You lot are funny lol. Just accept it is a good video and move on!
MrJavs69 4 months ago
The WTC casualy imploded from top to bottom.. The plane hit like 25 floors before the top floor... The plane broke the concrete like fire retardant from the ibeams when it hit .. The fire melted the metal .. The floors collapsed on top of each other and gravity did the rest.
legoJmaster 5 months ago
Looks just like WTC 1 2 & 7. When WTC 1 2 & 7 came down the dust cloud was identical. But The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention the collapse of WTC 7 so I guess it never officially happened so I guess there's no point in questioning it right? Right, so lets just blindly accept everything the media and government tells as the truth and be good Americans and just keep our mouths shut.
Greg509 5 months ago
this clearly proof WTC bullshit conspiracy wrong...this HUGE HUGE explosions and the delay were not heard in WTC!
davidmonroy86 5 months ago 10
@davidmonroy86 ummmm yes they are. the fire-fighters say"we heard loud explosions before it came down
TheRubyShoesMusic 5 months ago
@davidmonroy86 They didn't use thermite in this... normal commercial implosions have to use cheaper matterials, in this case remote detonation charges.
Either way, many explosions were heard by the people around WTC.
nos6677 5 months ago
@davidmonroy86 Unless different kinds of charges were used of course.
hablerz 5 months ago
@davidmonroy86 this building collapse just like the WTC tower number 7 !!
tarzan2017 5 months ago
@davidmonroy86 They used different, quieter, type of detonations for the wtc demolitions.
rog944 5 months ago
@rog944 "quieter detonations" ??? thanks, I just mil-sprayed my monitor laughing that that one. What, exactly would be a "quiter detonation" ?? I would guess here, but I am fairly certain that bomb mufflers don't exist. Sheeple, get a life. Is the truth so hard to swallow that you immediately subscribe to a conspiracy ?? Muslim extremists exploited the USA's lack of proper screening and flew planes into our buildings. Is it that hard to understand that they want to kill us all.
ProfessorIgor 4 months ago
@ProfessorIgor You are obviously uneducated about thermate, my friend. These work very quietly.
rog944 4 months ago
@ProfessorIgor Oh, and I'm sorry you mil-sprayed your monitor. Maybe you shouldn't drink while reading.
rog944 4 months ago
@rog944 do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound ?? "quieter detonations" truthers crack me up.
ProfessorIgor 4 months ago
@ProfessorIgor Yes. You spend less time calling people stupid and spitting on your computer, and more time doing your homework. Nano-thermite creates quieter detonations. (no loud popping). This is a fact. Look it up. And stop acting like a 13 years old. Unless you are. Then I forgive you.
rog944 4 months ago
@rog944 nano thermite... there wasn't enough free space in thet towers for the amount of thermite you would need to bring down a building of that size. i.e. Where would the "conspirators" hid the stuff ?? you just can't hide hundreds if tons of thermite in broomclosets and sgtorage rooms, people would see it. You know there were about 40,000 people that worked in those buildings.. 80,000 eyes. "nano thermite" ? thermite is Al, Mg & FeO2. What's "nano" about it ?
ProfessorIgor 4 months ago
@ProfessorIgor "What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly."
rog944 4 months ago
@ProfessorIgor The previous description is from Wikipedia. Nano-thermite is also known as "super-thermite." Professor Niels Harrit, retired professor of chemistry at the U. of Copenhagen, has claimed in a published paper to have found evidence of nano-thermite in the rubble of the collapsed wtc buildings.
rog944 4 months ago
@rog944 again, where did they keep it ?? and in a pile of burned rubble from nearly half a mile of building, you're going to have ferric oxide and aluminum. Would you please accept the reality that the building fell down because a 326,000lb aircraft hit it at 527mph and doused the buldings in 20000 gallons of Jet-A kerosene ?? 1800 deg F Kerosene ?? Gravity is a VERY powerful force, you realize that, right ? it's unyielding.
ProfessorIgor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfessorIgor "Would you please accept the reality that the building fell down because a 326,000lb aircraft hit it at 527mph..?" For the sake of argument, I will not disagree with you. Now, is it possible that you can explain to me how a 47 story skyscraper, which was not hit by an airplane and was not doused with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel, collapsed?
rog944 4 months ago
@davidmonroy86 Actually they were. See Willaim Rodriguez's testimony. He was the last human being who made it out of the towers that day.
firesong888 5 months ago
@davidmonroy86 on the day of 911 were heard explosions like these indeed
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 No we didn't. I guess you don't have a video of it do you? Cause I can't find any.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 /watch?v=6BXPXfNZgW8&feature=channel_video_title ... and a lot of other videos... even a witness says why there are not heard explosions on some videos... bcouse on that day it was very noisy there
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 Early eyewitnesses talking about explosions mostly refer to the plane crashes, but since they didn't see the planes, they thought it was explosions. Those sounds in the video you are linking to are nothing compared to the loud booms that controlled demolitions make (like in this video above.) Also, that is building seven in your video. That could be snapping beams, or floors pancaking inside the building.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 snaping beams....hahahahaahahahah... clearly eplosions... as for the twin towers... the noisy demolition charges began after the tower's tips began falling (thermite work)...
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 The beams were just a wild guess of mine. Nothing I really believe. Well, as for the twin towers. If the charges began after the tower's tip began to fall. Why do you think it began to fall in the first place?
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 thermite did his job (belive me its not noisy)... /watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 It's not noisy? I can't simply take your word for it. Do you have a video to show me? I cant find any building demolition with thermite here on youtube. Further, you didn't answere my question about what you think started the collapse. Please do that, or I can't take you seriously.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 tehrnite can fuck up steel... /watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q&feature=channel_video_title...
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 I know it can. That fact doesn't prove anything though.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 very interesting... /watch?v=ffs7PkOREEY&feature=channel_video_title
zelenko2 4 months ago
@Anto0044 911 was more like this i guess... /watch?v=a8iO4TQsp9Y&feature=related
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 That video was shot indoor behind closed windows. Makes it less noisy then this video.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 and just before the beggining of falling of tips of the towers... there was a big ground shaking... then beggin colapsing... and than in a video u can see clasical CD flashes al over the building... /watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQ
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 Those are way too few flashes for a building that big, and they are not visible on the close up videos of the collapse. Strange... huh?
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 they are visible... just numerous flashes... clasical CD flashes...
zelenko2 4 months ago
@Anto0044 and if it was an terorrist attack... rudy giuliani, paul bremer, larry silverstein, (and some others) should be dead... just think about this...
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2 Why would they be dead if it was a terrorist attack? Educate me in your reasoning.
Anto0044 4 months ago
@Anto0044 becouse they worked there every single day... and look what he says when he was asked: "where were u on 911?"... /watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM...
zelenko2 3 months ago
@zelenko2 So you think he knew about it beforehand? And all those other people you mentioned also?
Anto0044 3 months ago
@Anto0044 :)))))... its sad i know
zelenko2 3 months ago
@davidmonroy86
But, but, but! But the government did this! It was to gain money by having an excuse to invade Iraq, even though they lost more money by bombing the WTC's, but whatever! CONSPIRACY! C-O-N...SPIRACY!!!
/End Sarcasm.
SiloNova25 3 months ago
PLANE AND SIMPLE those of you who still think the WTC towers came down through coordinated demolition by "secret installations" and that 9/11 was an inside job are something else.. it's funny how everyone who believes this has there own experts or explanation on when, where, why, and how these towers were brought down by something other than the airlines crashing into the building .man ya'll still continue to crack me up, it's very funny watching you guys try so effortlessly to convince others
JReyna02 5 months ago
that your theory or "facts" are proof that the towers were brought down through demolition.. hahaha keep make me laugh it's so entertaining :)
JReyna02 5 months ago 3
@JReyna02 are u sure about what u said... becouse everything is pointing to an inside job buddy... they've been lieing... and i mean it
zelenko2 3 months ago
@zelenko2 lol, everything points to a plane crash and fires, not demolitions...
NickWaterfall 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NickWaterfall everything points to a plane crash and fires AAAAAAAAAAND demoliton...
zelenko2 3 months ago
This was a inside job!
AccessDenied55 5 months ago
it was just like frekin awesome collpse!
coolglock19 7 months ago
Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't resemble 9/11 at all? I didn't hear any of those deafening blows. The cameras were even closer that day. I also didn't see any white flashes in the windows... Hmm.
austinmoore97 7 months ago
@austinmoore97 No flashes on WTC? Youtube search WTC shockwave, no loud sounds of explosives? Watch 2011 WTC demolition evidence. Not only that, the WTC was turned to smaller pieces than even regular demolitions do, not only that, thousands of gallons of molten steel was found beneath all 3 towers from the thermite reactions, not even regular demolitions melt steel that way.
Xendrius 6 months ago
Comment removed
oOSnivellusOo 6 months ago
@Xendrius Lol.
1) You can't rig a building of that size with explosives without one person inside not noticing anything suspicious.
2) Molten steel was never found at the WTC site. Molten METAL was found, but not STEEL.
3) Thermite biproducts were NEVER found at the WTC site.
4) The air inbetween each floor pulverized the concrete as the building collapsed.
Those are facts. Piss off truther.
austinmoore97 6 months ago
@austinmoore97 Again no facts, only assumtions, you assume that bombs have "BOMBS" written on it, explosives can be stored inside everything, and no wires are required, remote control detonations work just as good, but are not economical for ordinary DC corps.
2: Molten iron and molten steel was found, steel being the word many firefighters used, aswell president of CDI, you IDIOT. You think I'm stupid?
3: Residue of therMATE was found in ALL WTC dust samples and it was peer revied aswell.
Xendrius 6 months ago
@Xendrius You can't just throw some TNT into a 110 story building and expect it to fall. Demolition crews interviewed said it would take 4-6 months with 100 men working around the clock taking out drywall, wiring, etc to plant explosives to collapse the tower the way it fell. Saying that not 1 of the 100k people who cycled in and out of the WTC every day didn't see this is a joke
Steel was never found in the final findings. Ever. The word steel was used, but the chemical compound was NEVER found
austinmoore97 6 months ago
@austinmoore97 Once again you assume, there are hundreds of different explosives, they are simply reagents and powders mixed together, they can be stored in anything, and set off easily by remote detonators.
You also assume the WTC demolitions were "ordinary" demolitions, ordinary demolitions are economical, they use wires because they are cheape than remote control, something much more effective and powerful was used on the WTC, namely nano thermite, which was found in all dust samples.
Xendrius 6 months ago
@Xendrius Assume? Listen to a demolition expert dipshit. You can't bring down a 110 story building with some firecrackers laying on the floor. Hundreds of explosives MUST be set on hundreds of columns in order to bring a building of that size down. Nothing less.
Lol nano thermite was never found in any dust samples. The bi products were never found anywhere on or near the WTC site. If there are no bi products, there is no reaction, thus proving the thermite claim wrong.
austinmoore97 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 HAhahhahahahaha, I can't believe what I'm hearing, I LISTEN to CD experts, one being Tom Sullivan who says the official collapse story is impossible, you just said you can only bring down a building with hundreds of explosives but at the same time you believe weakened columns on the upper floors can bring it down as a controlled demolition, you god damn idiot. You get all your information from CLAIMS by debunker sites, not from footage. You are wasting my time you brainless moron.
Xendrius 5 months ago
@Xendrius Tom Sullivan is also biased and will reject anything logical that disproves his theory. Great source...lol. Skyscrapers are built to withstand the weight they bare. They are not built to withstand a partial collapse due to the fact it's happend 3 times before in history. Once the 300 ton section of the building started to fall, there was no stopping it. The amount of energy was 10,000x too much for each individual floor to withstand.
austinmoore97 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 Hahahahah Tom Sullivan is biased, hahahaha, he uses facts and theories that are established and tested, he talks from experience, a skycraper has never, can never, and will never collapse into its own footprint nomatter how many columns you take out in the upper half section, if it were possible, demolition companies would start using that technique you idiot. There is a reason why they never even tried it. The upper section would have slowly locked itself on to the rest, not fall
Xendrius 5 months ago
@Xendrius The WTC didn't collapse into it's own footprint. If it did, it wouldn't have severely damaged over 30 surrounding buildings. The buildings also did not fall at free fall speed. WTC 1 came down in 22.79 seconds and WTC 2 came down in 15.75 seconds. If a demolition occurred, each should have come down in 9.22 seconds. But they didn't.
And if thermite could bring down a 110 story tower, I'm pretty sure demolition companies would use that too. But they don't because IT DOESN'T WORK.
austinmoore97 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 Are you stupid? Are you really that stupid? WTC 1 and 2 were progressily triggerbased demolitions, which are common on demolition on bridges, from one side to another, it can be programmed to be 1 minute between each detonation, or 0.5 seconds, in this case, they figured blowing it up at near freefall speed would look least suspicious if if it were too slow, it would look unnatural as falling steel would have hit the ground many seconds earlier, same if they did it faster.
Xendrius 5 months ago
@Xendrius Are you stupid? Are you really that stupid? First off, YOU CAN'T PLACE EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILDING WHERE OVER 100,000 PEOPLE CYCLE THROUGH IT EVERYDAY! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE EXPLOSIVES STRONG ENOUGH TO CUT THROUGH STEEL WITHOUT CUTTING WIRES, DRYWALL, MARBLE, FLOORING, ETC TO GET TO THE STEEL COLUMNS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you really think that office workers wouldn't notice their fucking wall missing, you REALLY need some type of medical attention...
austinmoore97 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 Wrong, wrong, wrong, and once again wrong, the very fact that people believe it would be impossible to place bombs, is the reason why they succesfully did it, noone expected nor looked for anything suspicious and even if reports came in, it went to security, luckely Bush's brother was one of the main guys of WTC security. Bombs can be placed and attached and covered in a million ways and no civilians had acces to the core columns where the nano thermite charges were placed.
Xendrius 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 On to your next point, you assume that ordinary economical demolition explosives were used, are you that dumb? As Tom Sullivan from CDI said, a better and more effective way yet more expensive, is to use remote detonators, and you can program the explosives to go off at any time you want them to, if you know anything about computer scripts, you'll know how easy it is, some demolition companies even use it to make cool fireworks shoot out in sequence before demolition.
Xendrius 5 months ago
@Xendrius Did you even read the last comment? If not:
YOU CAN'T PLACE EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILDING WHERE OVER 100,000 PEOPLE CYCLE THROUGH IT EVERYDAY! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACE EXPLOSIVES STRONG ENOUGH TO CUT THROUGH STEEL WITHOUT CUTTING WIRES, DRYWALL, MARBLE, FLOORING, ETC TO GET TO THE STEEL COLUMNS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you really think that office workers wouldn't notice their fucking wall missing, you REALLY need some type of medical attention...
austinmoore97 5 months ago
@austinmoore97 If the GUARDS and SECURITY are paid off, then you CAN. Do you have no imagination?
Air does NOT pulverize concrete. I am a CIVIL ENGINEER and I do know a lot about CONCRETE. You do not,, if you think some air pressure pulverizes concrete when there is a WINDOW that will break out first and relieve all of that pressure.
THINK!!
mormonanswerman 5 months ago
@mormonanswerman Lol what about the 100,000+ people who cycled out of the WTC complex EVERYDAY? You think they didn't see anything? If so, LMFAO.
And umm you're wrong, Mr. Civil Engineer (for some reason, every truther I run into has an job as a structural or civil engineer...strange) Since I can't link it, Google "pulverize concrete 9/11" and click the second result.
Debunks the living shit out of the theory using only math and physics.
Sorry bud, but 9/11 was an outside job.
austinmoore97 5 months ago
0:27 sounds like david schwimmer
burchmore5000132 8 months ago
This is the same implosion that in the tower 7 in sept/11.
Joguecas 8 months ago
Wouldn't like to be around for the cleanup.
Devvy996 8 months ago
Wow, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but coincidentally, I saw this clip right after watching the surviving 9/11 Firefighters on the ground talking about when the buildings were coming down. One was lying on a hospital bed saying "Sounded like gun fire, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, followed by 4 huge explosions."
It's too weird that I saw this clip right after and it is the exact same thing. Not too mention both towers following exactly the same into their own footprint. HOW?!
Now
InterstellarApple 8 months ago
There's Justin Bieber's home gone then..
demp123gig 8 months ago
Well no ones has imploded 110 stories buildings before, and they didn't use it as a motive to go to war, The American Government made people actually believe fire would make the buildings totally collapse... Im sorry but the buckling theory or even the lazy pancake theory DOES NOT tell you why there was molten steel at the bottom. ( steel doesn't melt in open fires or because of a plane, only by thermite or a controlled furness )
TheRickyCaldwell 9 months ago
@TheRickyCaldwell Fire does make buildings collapse. (Kader Toy factory, Windsor Building, etc, those didn't even need a plane) There was no molten steel, but molted aluminum and copper. Steel is easily weakened, but not melted by jet fuel. That is why the building collapsed. This is physics (and btw I hate the government so dont accuse me of believing them). Why were there no by-products of thermite such as aluminum oxide and barium nitrate found in the wreckage?
MazJax 9 months ago
@MazJax Alright, well then explain "The Meteorite" the famous ball of cement, molted steel, and glass. Also my cousin a New York City first responder witnessing the molten steel. and its almost impossible to look for those by products because apparently most if not all were shipped away to be recycled. Destroying evidence of a crime scene is illegal.
TheRickyCaldwell 9 months ago
@TheRickyCaldwell I call bullshit on your cousin reporting "molten steel" as no molten steel was to be found. There was, however, molten aluminum and copper.
And wtf is the meteorite? I've never heard that term before, not even from conspiracy sites :S
Obviously, there was no molten steel as there was no temperature in the building capable of melting steel, so what are you trying to prove?
MazJax 9 months ago
@MazJax FOCUS on the WT7 coming down in a demolition. Just focus on that if you doubt the conspiracy. There is no doubt when you watch it come down in 10 seconds in a pile of dust, from a very small fire... and it was not even hit by a plane, had no "jet fuel" EXCUSE, and so, why was this building not occupied. Why was it evacuated? It had the CONTROL CENTER in there for all things emergency, and they "evacuate" it??
Makes no sense. Hence, the conspiracy.
THINK!!
mormonanswerman 5 months ago
@mormonanswerman
The building entire collapse lasts for about 16 seconds. Not 7seconds, as some believe. The mechanical penthouse (on the roof) collapsed for 10 seconds, destroying the most important support, and the building crumbled after that.
It wasn't hit by a plane, but by a large chunk of steel from WTC1. Buildings do not need jet fuel to start an inferno. Look at the Windsor Tower.
Why did they evacuate it? Maybe because it was showing signs of instability 7 hours before collapse?
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax It was hit by a large chunk of steel and collapsed? Nice one. Look at photo's of the Oklahoma bombing. You can google them. Half the building is gone but it didn't collapse. They had to pull down the rest two months later. Why? Because building don't just fall down that easily. Come on, building 7 does not make sense.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@Trybe007 If a 20 tonne chunk of steel hit the base of a building at terminal velocity, it will cause SERIOUS damage. That one block of steel tore a 10 story chunk, almost 25% of the base, out
Building 7 and the oklahoma bombings are totally different. The building in the O.K. bombing had MANY vertical CONCRETE supports, unlike WTC7, which only had 3 STEEL ones. That's why it collapsed so easily.
Those 2 buildings are incredibly different. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax I'm also very suspicious of the pentagon crash. Why is it we can't see any marks where the wings hit the pentagon? It's just a hole. On the towers you can clearly see where the wins went in. Don't tell me, different types of buildings? 911 has too many strange things for me mate.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@Trybe007 Do you want me to send you pictures of marks made by the wings? Because I will.
Yeah, because a jet plane crashing at hundreds of miles per hour into a REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING is going to leave a cartoon-like outline of itself.
So yes, you can't stress the importance of the building materials and structure.
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax The marks made by the wings are clear to see on both the towers. Yes a jet plane crashing at hundreds of miles per hour into a REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING is going to leave marks. Those metal wings hitting the wall would have definitely marked it. But there's nothing. Just a hole.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@MazJax PS: the gravity loads in WTC 7 were supported roughly equally by the 58 exterior columns and 24 interior columns. That's the official line so your 3 steel columns failing and resulting in the collapse sounds like pure fantasy. Believe what you want.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@Trybe007 But these were connected in three different sections.
MazJax 5 months ago
@Trybe007 These (core) columns were connected to form 3 main supports. The facade can't stand without these core supports.
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax OK.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@Trybe007 Remember that WTC 4,5 and 6 stood up as well. (although WTC3 was pretty much flattened) This is because of the supporting system was designed much differently, and because they were much smaller buildings.
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax @MazJax I knew you were going to say they are very different. Definitely they were but I saw building 7 before it collapsed and 25% of the building was not damaged. It was barely damaged at all before it collapsed. Look at images of it before it went down, it's hardly been touched. I don't buy it. Sorry.
Trybe007 5 months ago
@MazJax The penthouse collapse (which lasted 10 seconds) broke every remaining vertical support in the WTC7. The rest of the building crumbled easily since it was unsupported. This lasted 7 seconds. Therfore total collapse = 17 seconds long.
Buildings don't need jet fuel to burn...WTC7 was hit by a 50 tonne piece of debris at terminal velocity.
They evacuated it hours ahead of collapse because it was showing signs of extreme instability and there was a lot of smoke.
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax So how come none of that was mentioned in the official report - The 9/11 Commission Report failed to mention the collapse of WTC 7? Are you kidding me? Also 70% of Victim's Family Members' questions went unasnwered by the 9/11 Commission. Thomas Keene the co-chairman of the commission said in his book Without Precedent that the 9/11 Commission was "Set up to fail" That is an outrage and an obvious cover up of the facts and a new independent investigation is needed.
Greg509 5 months ago
@Greg509 Little do you know the only buildings mentioned in the commission were the ones directly attacked. It wasn't an engineering report. WTC4,5,6, the Deutsche Bank Building, and the Fiterman Hall were destroyed beyond repair on 911. WTC3, and the St. Nicholas Church (as well as WTC7) collapsed. NONE of these buildings were directly attacked and NONE OF THEM were in the commission. It's no surprise WTC7 was not in it.
MazJax 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MazJax The penthouse collapse (which lasted 10 seconds) broke every remaining vertical support in the WTC7. The rest of the building crumbled easily since it was unsupported. This lasted 7 seconds. Therfore total collapse = 17 seconds long.
Buildings don't need jet fuel to burn...WTC7 was hit by a 50 tonne piece of debris at terminal velocity.
They evacuated it hours ahead of collapse because it was showing signs of extreme instability and there was a lot of smoke
MazJax 5 months ago
@mormonanswerman The pentouse collapse destoryed all the supports in the building, (wtc7) and so after it fell through, the rest crumbled like nothing, because there wasn't anything supporting the walls.
Buildings do not need jet fuel to burn... But WTC7 had a huge 50 tonne block of steel hit it at terminal velocity
They evacuated it hours before it collapsed because there was too much smoke and the walls were showing signs of instability. Everybody was expecting it to fall.
MazJax 5 months ago
@TheRickyCaldwell Okay well first off, molten aluminum and copper does not give off the same glow as molted steel, just because you think its bullshit means nothing and look it up, its one of the most famous artifacts preserved from the rubble.
TheRickyCaldwell 9 months ago
All of u trolls who troll these videos and comments 24/7 to Defend nist conspiracy report , Prove your a engineer or architect or DONT SPEAK. U say we are wrong and experts are wrong yet u feel the need to waste your life every day arguing over this, If we are all dumb u would not waste your life so that gives 0% credibility to u all and shows your uneducated losers with no life
Headshothorror4488 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
what about you trolls who troll net makeing claims with out a shread of proof. are you an engineer? being an architect does not mean anything in this discusion. what state are you registered in ans what is your #?
i got involved in dubunking untruthers because i find it fun to research your outlandish claims and and prove that you dont understand even basic science or engineering. cartoon phsyics dont work in the real world
spcantwell 10 months ago
Your a engineer or architect ? No ? So DONT SPEAK !! FACT is over a Thousand engineers and architects and over a thousand firemen all agree with physics. These thousand experts are just that, Experts*physicsandreason Channel is a engineers who shows proof !! your proof ? NIST report has NO proof and Many things left out ,goes against physics. Its common sense & no argument !! Get a Job, U troll with no proof wasting your life, says allot about u intelligence
Headshothorror4488 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
are you? no? so "DONT SPEAK !!"
the FACT is that only a VEARY small hand full of those people are civil or structual engineers. hate to break it to you but a mechanical or electrical engineer knows even less then an architect.
that 'proof' you love so much is nothing more then claims with ZERO to support it. for evey untruther engineer there are dozens of practiceing CE's and SE's who have published papers AGAINST the untruthers.
spcantwell 10 months ago
Ae 911 has Proof !! U cant downplay experts !! Building never fell from fire and Worse fires for longer !! Smoke/explosions seen 20-40 stories below !! That is enough Proof cause Nothing is there yet, see explosions in videos and witnesses seen an heard them in lower floors all day. #7 was not hit and all 3 fell the same like a demo which is imposable. No jolts means no gravitational collapse. *physicsandreason* channel shows the science. Your NO expert, Now i ignore U :) Physics is physics
Headshothorror4488 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
see, that right there is a perfect example of a untruthers 'fact'. plenty of 'low rise' steel framed buildings have collapsed completly from fire alone. in almost every major hi-rise fire large sections of the building collapsed from fire alone (IOW the office fires made the steel fail). that fact that no other 'hi rise' building had a global collapse had more to do with the structure of the towers and 7. they are unlike any other structres.
spcantwell 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
two simple questions for you.
1) anyone who had enough knowledge and experiance to set the 'charges' whould know enough to make it impossible to see or hear any 'charges'. not to mention the could have made it fall in a more 'belivable' way, or at least slower.
2) show me ONE CD in which the demmolition started at the top and then progressed down? every single one i have ever seen the WHOLE building collapse at onse
spcantwell 10 months ago
9/11 was 100% a professional demolition. Only brainwashed fools/dupes are still fooled by the criminals who did 9/11. In 6 years of research I can confidently say that Israel and Zionist Traitors within America conducted 9/11. Furthermore, if one investigates past Historical Lies one soon discovers the Holocaust is entirely Communist Jew war propaganda used to create the State of Israel. The State of Israel is an International Crime Syndicate. The World is awakening to this sickness.
MCAGCC1 10 months ago
@MCAGCC1
if you have some evidence then it is you duty as a human to submit it to a grand jurry to charge those who are responsible. as no untruther has EVER presented a single shread of evidence that could be presented to a jurry.... i guess all you did was convince yourself of what you already decided happened.
spcantwell 10 months ago
WOW, look so much the WORLD TRADE CENTER!!!!!
open your eyes America!!
ImaHusalah 11 months ago
@ImaHusalah I know what you mean. The way this building fell looks identical to how the twin towers fell. It's so obvious.
H3cTiiCplaya 11 months ago
@ImaHusalah
except for the massive explosions, and the timeing, and the pattern of the dust plumes, and the months of work preping the building, and how the debires looked.... excpet for those little things it was exactly like a building collapseing....
what did you expect? movie style explosions? the towers pivoting at the base and falling over like a cartoon tellphone pole?
spcantwell 10 months ago
genial
bah27 11 months ago
Yes...you do send a very confusing message. Im so confused the only thing I can think of this 90's rap song that kept repeating "911 Is A Joke In Your Town".
MyFishyWishy 11 months ago
@gatorball are u a architect or engineer ? Cause they happen to dis agree with u. Um i think i will trust the experts loll moron
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
@Headshothorror4488
"are u a architect or engineer ? Cause they happen to dis agree with u. Um i think i will trust the experts loll moron"
There's no disagreement about 911 in the community of possessional physicists, architects, & engineers.
They all agree that none of the evidence supports the possibility of controlled demolition. They also agree that not only is the official story possible, but that all of the evidence supports it.
I believe that overwhelming majority of professionals.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
Well i would say your very uneducated on this subject. It is a FACT that expert Architects and Engineers dont believe NIST , the professionals you speak of. They left evidence out and are proven wrong in to many was for me to write. Type architects&engineers for 911 truth and listen to them speak. They ARE EXPERTS and that is a FACT that u cant manipulate at all. That shows u have allot to learn. I believe the professionals !!
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
@Headshothorror4488
"It is a FACT that expert Architects and Engineers dont believe NIST"
A TINY number of them might. But science works on the basis of consensus. There were more EXPERTS behind the creation of the NIST report than all the 'expert' Truthers combined
"I believe the professionals !"
You ONLY believe the MINORITY who support your conspiracy theory. You REFUSE to acknowledge that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY support the NIST report.
You just believe what you want & IGNORE the rest
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 Haha so first you say none say it and now agree some do loll First of all NIST is a government involved report,The ones who were involved with it !! I trust independent exerts , FACT !!!! And others dont agree or disagree with NIST they have no opinion and did NO investigation FACT !!!! Point is there are thousands of them who agree, with facts, no conspiracy. And more sign on every day. Gain knowledge before speaking.
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
@Headshothorror4488
btw, 'architects' are complete idiots when it comes to engineering. they make buildings look 'pretty'. i work with both structual engineers and architects. how many licensed practing structual enineers are in the AE911 group? out of the hundred of thousands in the us alone?
spcantwell 10 months ago
@spcantwell Well thousands of expert architects and engineers are involved and more join everyday. Even 10 is a alarming amount cause there experts. What is your profession ? How many of those hundred thousand U speak of say its a gravitational collapse ? NONE said they agree OR disagee so the amount of them in world means Nothing !! So Please show the reports from those hundred thousand U speak of ? Proof please ?
Headshothorror4488 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
thats just it. 99.999% of the people involed with AE911 ARE NOT any how related to the feilds of SE or CE. hell, all they do is ask for you to say who you are, you can claim to be anything when you sign up.
if 1,000 are signing up every day, and its been 10 years shouldnt there be 3,650,000 signed up by now? oh theres only a handfull? i work with SE's every single day and talk to them. many normal SE's have writen papers debunking untruthers. do i need to show you them?
spcantwell 10 months ago
@spcantwell So prove that Every expert believes in a gravitational collapse ? U can give #'s on people who have not agreed or disagreed, There are over 1000 architects and engineers who HAVE signed,FACT, NIST left out MANY things FACT. Also u dont believe and say experts are wrong so why troll these videos looking to argue over something thats false ? That shows your uneducated and gives u 0% credibility. Get a job, Your now ignored uneducated kid.
Headshothorror4488 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
the fact is that not more then a dozen (and thats being gernerous) of the people inovled in the AE911 group are structual or civil engineers or have ANY experiance with building construction. a ME or EE does not know anything about structual failure dynamics. that is why we have differnt certifications.
(cont)
spcantwell 10 months ago
@Headshothorror4488 (cont)
here is a simple proof of what most engineers know... most profesional organisations (as well as states licensing boards) have a rule that if you come acorss anything that could put the public in danger they MUST say something. they also state that if you see an factual error in an offical report they must say something. as NONE of he people have... that means that they dont see any error (even though untruthers claim that its so basic, anyone can see the error)
spcantwell 10 months ago
@herbzilla11 Also NIST left out many facts about this and that is a FACT, very poor work by the ones who did it, I believe real experts with nothing to gain or lose. You can not manipulate FACTS, Nice try but FAIL
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
thermite/thermate aren't explosives
JulJul13 1 year ago
Comment removed
JulJul13 1 year ago
too many people took this exact same video!!!!
robotandlegolover 1 year ago
9/11 nuff said.
xBloodXGusherx 1 year ago
thats a good crew! excellent results!
acerb45666555 1 year ago
nice. i love it when buildings fall down
buttsecksist 1 year ago
Looks like that collapse in NYC a few years back, doesn't it?
plenum222 1 year ago
Why do buildings these demolition demonstrations have smoke billow out from the bottom up...where as the WTC's demo went from the top down? (assuming that it was demo in the first place)
auroral 1 year ago
@auroral i explained above. wtc had redundant structure design, means that every floor is structured the same so when one column fails, the column on the floor below accepts the load. when wtc fell, floors above the crash point stayed in tact for some moments while the structures underneath them were forced to carry them and they fail one after another. its called pancaking. the floors above crash point fall and pick up speed and caused all other floors below to buckle and fail.
asimovpunch 1 year ago
@auroral this is why in the wtc falling, smoke billows out from the middle, first where the crash point disintegrates and then on each floor below. the top floors in tact fall and slam on top of each floor one by one, causing them to buckle and fail. smoke comes from where impact takes place. in controlled demos, all building floors fall uniformly, thus smoke on ground level. in wtc, smoke comes from where the top floors hit the each floor below.
asimovpunch 1 year ago
@asimovpunch Thank you for the informative reply! I have a feeling that the conspiracy theory about 9-11 being demo-ed on purpose had always been false. When people kept comparing this kind of wtc to a controlled demo...I always noticed that where the smoke/dust billows were way too different to a controlled demo. Now I know why, thanks.
auroral 1 year ago
@auroral hey, no problem. sorry for the awful wording. i usually write at length and have to go back and snip out words/punctuation due to character limits on these posts.
one last thing to everyone about controlled demos - i think people are forgetting that controlled demos, especially one powerful enough to take down the WTC, make noise...BIG noise...noise that can be heard miles away. From all that footage from above and street level, there was no indication of a sound that strong.
asimovpunch 1 year ago
@auroral This was a controlled demolition you moron. When buildings just collapse by themselves due to uncontrolled events, you never know what it will do. These demolitions are set up so that very little, if any, damage is done to any surrounding buildings. The same can't be said for buildings that burn down :)
dickcheney6 1 year ago
this building went down like the building 7 in NY... :D
sverio12345 1 year ago
Kaboom
TheToxic163 1 year ago
It kind of looked as though a hole suddenly appeared in the earth which the building was sucked into! Which in a way kind of is what generally happens-as I understand it the supports are blown out in the basement and the first few floors and the rest is history.
dickcheney6 1 year ago
that was perfect
OoNik0oO 1 year ago
How tall was this building?
Danebrogen 2 years ago
EPIC laugh at 0:32 XD
p4rk0ur4lif3 2 years ago
You ripped this off of someone else - I saw this exact video more than a year ago.
CycloneGU 2 years ago 23
@CycloneGU
"The building was falling so loudly we couldn't even hear those boom bam bam bam......well, witnesses did, but it was at verious times...not all at once"
This not only makes not sense, its also impossible
The BOOM has to come BEFORE the building starts to fall & 'make noise' so its LITERALLY impossible not to be able to hear it
ALSO, Human ears do not hear 'differently' then audio recording devices, meaning that if people REALLY heard it, it'd ALSO be on the recordings from 911
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@CycloneGU Pooey knickers!!! :) im seeing this a year later!!
stuieeeeee1234 1 year ago
@CycloneGU Except this one was done "On purpose" AND it was empty.
RocketRodder 11 months ago
@RocketRodder - You guys aren't understanding me. This exact same video has been posted in several places. I'm not saying it's WTC because it isn't, and I'm not getting involved in that again. I'm saying this identical video has been posted elsewhere on Youtube and this is a copy of that video.
CycloneGU 11 months ago
@CycloneGU so what?
Yaellie94 8 months ago
@Yaellie94 - The fact he didn't give credit to the original person posting this. I've seen it used in a "greatest demos" compilation, but I think that guy at least gave credit to the original posters even if he didn't name them all (kinda difficult), but this guy took a video from somewhere on Youtube and reposted it with no indication of where he got it from. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
CycloneGU 8 months ago
Looks like 9/11....and vice versa.
The building was falling so loudly we couldn't even hear those boom bam bam bam......well, witnesses did, but it was at verious times...not all at once.
somejoker91 2 years ago 14
youre and idiot
CALICKvideos 1 year ago
@CALICKvideos- BWAAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA
suzbailey23 1 year ago
@somejoker91 good im not the only one thinking this
henx125 1 year ago
@somejoker91 no, it doesn't. in controlled demos, the outer exterior facade stays in tact as the interior skeleton is destroyed, that's why when it falls, the facade stays whole as this "malleable" entity as everything inside crumbles.
asimovpunch 1 year ago
@asimovpunch look at 9/11 again - WTC has what is called redundant structure, meaning every floor is structured the same and when 1 floor fails, the floors beneath shoulder the load...which is why only the floors above the crash point stay in tact for some moments and as it falls, all the floors beneath it fail one by one when they cant support the new load. its called pancaking. not to mention the falling load picks up speed increasing failure. its very different. check old WTC vids again.
asimovpunch 1 year ago
@asimovpunch Like WTC7, then. That would also explain the short white flash in the middle on the west side at 0:02 of watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk then again 0:06 has a flash in mid air caused by office paper reflecting sunlight.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@somejoker91 Pancaking acre-sized floors louder than explosions? Those must have been awfully loud booms to cover up the awfully loud bangs of any explosives.
How surprising, then, that all untampered videos have only low frequency bolt pops and rumbling concrete impacts.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@somejoker91 no witness claimed to hear anything remotely like the EXPLOSIONS you just hear you POS. Give it up. This guy is almost a mile away and its still incredibly loud there are videos from a quarter mile away from 911 where you cant hear shit.
dgillary 1 year ago
@somejoker91 oh here we go again another dumbass 9/11 inside job retard. Until someone with a professional scinetiffic background tells me that it is even possible or needed to bring down the WTC with explosives you can suck my balls.
mrvendetor 1 year ago
@mrvendetor oh here we go again, another pussy who thinks their intelligent. Ha when you grow some balls, then you have the right to talk. Otherwise keep your cocksucker shut!
TravisOHern 1 year ago
@TravisOHern Well, you clearly know nothing about explosive demolition, so why don't you stop being vulgar to people who are sick and tired of paranoid conspiracy nonsense.
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."
NVanWendy 1 year ago
@somejoker91 Your a Derp!
ZONKUF 1 year ago