ABSURD and FALSE VIDEO: when the upper floors of the tower fall OUT of the tower: What is the weigth to puss down the bottom floors?: NO-THING: collapses STOPS, but... obiously the begin of the collapse is TO-TA-LLY IM-PO-SI-BLE, here and another planets.
Do conspiracy theorists actually believe they uncovered the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, simply by investi-googling and trolling, I mean watching youtube videos? Hahahahahaha! Some people are so fucking stupid, I am literally in physical pain when I think about how pathetically embarrassing it must be for them to go around telling people 9/11 was an inside job and then using youtube as their source of information. "You should watch Loose Change man! It was an inside job!" LMAO!
With the pancake story, each floor under the one that just collapsed would have increased resistance and slowed the fall. The collapse speed was constant which could only happen if something weekened the floors undernieth as it fell. The buildings fell at near free fall speed!
@Inigo37 The gutted cars are strong evidence of a small nuke. Why would cars be gutted from a plane hitting the upper floors before the towers fell? Cause all the electronics in the car went up in smoke from the detonation! The only people that believe the government are afraid to look un-patriotic or have a low I.Q. which prevents them from processing the mountains of damning evidence.
@theoriginalmungaman The TOTALLY REAL scheme of the WTC demolition was: the towers was full plaenty of bombs or explosives (like you want to tell) and three underground 150kt nuclear bombs as a main force and pulverize the towers.
@Inigo37 bullshit that would have blown out foundations for miles. A 3 kt bomb underground causes much more damage than was seen on 9/11... This is youtube, look up underground nuclear tests... Not to mention, the radioactive signature would be there for decades.
@carnage4907 Hellow man, I have three years of INTENSE investigation on 9/11, I have seen ALL videos of 9/11, all articles, and ALL books. And now think only a bit: What happen to WTC if a 150kt underground nuckear bomb explodes at 30km below? and whay happen if the same bomb explodes at 77m, and 3km? is the same damage on the surface in the three cases? think a bit man, think a bit!!!!
@theoriginalmungaman Each floor could support 1300 tones static weight above their own weight. Now what do you think will happen when 15 floors around 45000 tones falls on them. Also remember as more falls are hit they add weight to the massive falling mass
The Structural engineers that built the towers stated the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time they were built. "I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
I wish I could do my own rendering of the actual physics of what should have happened. The angle at which the tower started to collapse should have dictated the rest of the sequence. Though the weight and pressure of the initiation of collapse could have crushed numerous floors below, however, the angle of the fall should have made the top of the tower slide off in the direction of the angular descent! Toppling the top floors off to the side and leaving the majority of the lower floors intact.
This sequence is wrong and obviously a poor attempt by some de-bunker to show a theorized pattern of collapse. The South Tower was struck by a commercial jet liner second yet was the first one to "fall". Then the North Tower went down. @ 4 min into this the top of N Tower collapses on itself but still has enough pressure and weight to pulverize the entire structure to the ground? This is so incredibly false
I want to know how the WTC top 23 stories can tilt over 20 degrees and disintegrate in mid air in some 3 seconds. There gone before floor 70 is gone +/-. All the office contents and all the concrete is pulverized in mid air. And not even floor one is different from floor 20 or 110! All gone
I have asked my self why the towers came down vertically? Wasn't there winds on that day? It is supposed to be such that the column on which the highest load is applied to be the first to collaps but here we see that it is allways the upper level and then the one below and so on. I am a stractural engineer and I can not see that this collaps was not carefully done. If it was because of the fire then each tower should bend to the direction which ther plaine hit and ther feoe fall to the sides
it was impossible to get an accurate damage report so everything about that fateful day will always be a theory, a supposition an, estimate, guesswork etc etc
"Molten aluminum"?? Thanks for the giggles professor! ...Just a little note: Molten steel is reddish-orangey and molten aluminum extremely 'white-ish'! But please don't let facts get in the way. Cheers!~
@xmasterfunk Okay, tell me how a copper plated lead bullet can penetrate a steel object? Don't think this is possible? Load a 7.62x39mm round into an AK47 and fire it at a concrete wall or a steel door. Then explain how that round managed to make it through if copper and lead is not as hard as steel. The best part: The bullet is traveling at about the same speed as the 767's were on September the 11th 2001. Oh and the jet fuel simply ignited the fires, office debris is what burned. Dipshit.
so how were the steel support beams melted if it were just office debris fire? and also are you really telling me you believe a round from an ak-47 which travels at 1588 mph is how fast A COMMERCIAL JET LINNER WAS GOING? lmfao flight 11 was travelling at 490 mph and flight 175 was determined traveling at around 590 mph NOT 1590, speed of impact duration of time of fire burning at what degree these are all facts that need to be analyzed not just thrown away. and by the way im not blaming either
@xmasterfunk No one in NIST ever said the steel in the WTC "melted". That is just something Truthers make up. Steel loses half of it's strength at 1100 degrees F, while the fires in the WTC on 9/11 reached 1800 degrees. The WTC's steel structure only needed to lose 50% of its structural integrity in order to initiate a collapse. You add the damage already done from the 767's and you have the inevitability of structural failure, which is exactly what we saw on 9/11..
@NowKillYourself Finally someone with an IQ over 50 other than myself trying to explain physics and structural design to these theorist believers.
Not sure why the upper stories of the towers just magically fall apart and poof from a solid portion of building to a loose group of falling separated building members in this video? (like @ 4:06) This did not happen in real life nor is there any reason why it would.
@ctcole77 LMAO. You are amazingly uneducated. Have you ever seen copper melting? I have, it does not have red sparky visualization, not even close to the dripping sparks from tower. Yet again some (teenager minded) wants attention. Debunk your claims first!.
It was a combination of metals Mr. Science. You can't tell what kind of metal it is by the color! ROLF! You don't even know you conspiracy theories. They are talking about the melted metal that was present at ground zero AFTER the collapse. And your "sparks" were easily explained. Transformers and electrical panels can explode and emit sparks in building fires. Nice try LIAR!
@ctcole77 said:"They are talking about the melted metal that was present at ground zero AFTER the collapse. And your "sparks" were easily explained. Transformers and electrical panels can explode and emit sparks in building fires. Nice try "
So you are saying that the sparks were caused by that and ONLY that? No other possible? Is that what you are suggesting?
@ctcole77 Oh you got that right, the temps were hot enough to melt some metals in some areas but there was nothing to excite the fires to that temp much less sustain the oxygen feed and material needed for the kind of fire temps you say were high enough to melt copper. FEMA tested the metal at Ground Zero.
@ctcole77 Moletn Aluminum?? Mmmm Do you know how fast aluminum cools over steel? If that was aluminum, what ever melted it must have really been something to keep it molten that long. You'd been better off saying it was steel.
@xmasterfunk First of all, tell me what this supposed "molten steel" in the rubble weeks after the attack PROVES? If you say it proves nano-thermite then you should just end your life, because you're so damn stupid there is no hope for your future. N-Thermite has an extremely short combustion period, it burns out quickly. There is NO way thermite could have left molten steel WEEKS after the collapse of the WTC. It's impossible. Oh and how do you know the molten metal was steel anyway?
@NowKillYourself said:" N-Thermite has an extremely short combustion period, it burns out quickly. There is NO way thermite could have left molten steel WEEKS after the collapse of the WTC. It's impossible. "
So you think it was the Jet Fuel that left the molten metal for weeks afterward yes?
@xmasterfunk Were you there? Did you test t his molten substance to be sure it was steel and not some other metal that melts at a much lower temp? Or let me guess, all your information came from google? It's hilarious how you idiots think you've cracked what would be the biggest most intellectually comprehensive "inside job, conspiracy" in human history, and you did this simply by using google and youtube! LOL! Get a life.
@NowKillYourself Were you there? Did you test t his molten substance to be sure it was steel and not some other metal that melts at a much lower temp? Or let me guess, all your information came from the government? It's hilarious how idiots cracked what is the biggest most intellectually comprehensive "inside job, conspiracy" in human history, and they did this simply by using science and physics! LOL! Get a life.
@NowKillYourself Those fires were no where near that hot and if you recall there was a fireman on the 75 that requested a hose be brought up that the fires could be knocked down and that most were out. The NIST report glossed over everything, ignored many and in some cases plane lied for the Government. I've seen it before. The Warren Commission, White Water, The USS Liberty. Government lies, Hoss. A LOT
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
@ctcole77 im never said who or why anyone did anything im saying there is more to the collapse of this building than it looks. and to say that im going to accept one truth without looking in to it would be stupid so i have looked into it and its pretty obvious that there is more to the equation
@ctcole77 you must have your numbers incorrect because there is a huge community of engineers that would disagree, ever heard of engineers for 9/11 truth they have some pretty interesting ideas you can see if you havent at least look at them first and decide im not trying to sound like a dick either im a real person i just believe there is more to it than what the majority thinks im not saying who or why or what but im saying not just planes took down the first 3 steel building to fall from fire
There are 1.7 million engineers in America. Only 1600 of them believe in your magical theories. You call that "a huge community"?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1600+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
The Delft Tower, Kadar Toy Factory, and Windsor Tower ALL failed due to fire. And they weren't hit by a 300,000 lbs plane.
@ctcole77 #1 delft tower was built in 1246 and was not a steel structure was also nickednamed the old church before it fell, lol, #2 a toy factory in thailand haha a poorly built poorly designed fire savvy failure "the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames." #3 the windsor tower did not fall it was demolished by the city plus the fires inside raged for more than 24 hours,
@NowKillYourself said:"The bullet is traveling at about the same speed as the 767's were on September the 11th 2001. Oh and the jet fuel simply ignited the fires, office debris is what burned. Dipshit."
a 767 flying faster than the sound barrier? Nope, don't think so. A Bullet, yes but not that 767. So you're telling me, that the architects that built the twin towers, built them so unsafe, that a mere office fire would be enough to soften the steel the building was made ?
@Ultramediacorp "a mere office fire would be enough..." It's sad how low you have to stoop to try and push your bullshit theory. You know damn well those were not just "office fires" and it's funny how you leave out the fact that the buildings obsorbed direct hits from 767's filled with nearly full tanks of aviation fuel. Just give it up. If this were an inside job, I doubt they would be so careless to allow it to be uncovered by a bunch of trolls investi-googling. Get real man..
I just don't understand why the top half begins to lean off to one side @3:42 onwards and yet it doesn't sheer off or completely break off in the direction its falling - instead the whole building collapses underneath. And what about the end result - where are all the squashed floors at street level, piled up on top of each other? Why the two gaping holes, through to the basement? It just doesn't make sense.
that is why i will not get into a debate over the whole BS of takeing a side, but i will gladly debate physics. because the moment anyone starts to claim oneside or another, they jump off subject, like this person, comeing up with all the off the wall BS as they can anytime facts are used, and more to the point they change the subject! as well as turning to trolling. meaning its not a debate it "I'm right, you're wrong and you"re an idiot if you dont believe me even with out proof" i wont do it
OK please explain building 7 not even hit by a plane yet 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapse for the first time in history due to fire all on the same day lol If you believe the official story your one dumb numb-nuts
even steven jones, one of the leading conspiracy theorists, admitted that they were wrong about the controlled demolition. he even admitted that they carried on spreading their BS "truth" message even after they realized they were wrong, so as not to disappoint their idiot fan clubs. LOL. why can he admit he's wrong but these other idiot conspiracy theorists cant?
ItWasTyped. com under 'conspiracy theories' for more
Funny at position 03:45 he simply removes all of the structural columns to make the simulation work - how would this be made to coincide with the real world? Jet fuel? I see everybody here is way before Dimitri Kalezov and the third truth he points out!
Boy, somebody spent alot of time trying to convince us that the Twin
Towers came down all by themselves. Where's the planes hitting the towers? It's amazing to think you are proving something in this video. Try to prove that you can shoot an aluminum bottle out of a canon and not just penetrate, but go all the way into a concrete and steel wall. When you can prove that, we'll let you hang out with us. Until then stay in your little fantasy world nerd.
even though it was "possible" for the towers to collapse as they did, it would have been impossible to do so in less than 40 seconds without damaging the lower, intact and stronger structure
Killer game. Letters, numbers, and lifetimes. Devil? court tv censored. World War 1War 2War 3 Armageddon. Nuclear holocaust. Two New York towers. A tower of Milan. Two Roman towers two donkeys. Iasi, T1 T2 T3. T= baptism. Who stole the two letter T Audi to die crushed.04.04.2009 online journal. 06.04.2009 genocidio Aquila 2: 32. 307 dead. The Eagle was sent to steal two T? Mutilation of roller. RomaN,Romania,Roma,SeveN,SromaN,The little Boy Anton Cristian h t t p genocidio.altervista. org
No, it would tip over leaning like that, and the top can only destroy the lower building/ same size as the top, because the top and impact zone will suffer the same damage= DEMOLITION.. But the US geological with US pentagon found rare earth minerals in afgahnistan for minimun one thousand billion ( 1 trillion) so the trade was fair. People die vs money.... money win.. Fuck Bush/MOSSAD..
Unfortunately, this animation is not correct. first, NIST specifically rejects the pancake theory. 2nd, both cores from the two towers stood for a small period of time after the towers had fallen from around them. Towers did not pancake, they were more or less ripped apart by the falling sections from above.
"It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes."
I'm not going to get into the debate. simply no matter what side you are on, when shown proof, it gets ignored. but this statement was just way off. when quoting Newton's 3rd law. if 15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect.
anyone that uses that kind of logic is pretty nescient on the 3rd law
@1crazyfocker Nah, once again, you're referring to the pancake theory produced by FEMA, which was given up in 2004 after NIST was not able to reproduce this theory in any experiments or models. It's hilarious that none of you know this. Give them a call and they'll tell you themselves, along with the fact that they admit the buildings fell at near free fall speed.
@corruptedsilence like i said i am not going to get into the debate over that at all. my comment is only on the 15 floors, can only distroy the 15 floors below them. useing Newton's 3rd law. and that is a totaly closed mind way of looking at it. the wieght of the floors that it hits add to the total energy of the falling object thos floors and mass dont just disapear. the same holds true with avalanches, or any other situation dealing with a mass falling into more mass.
@1crazyfocker so then... before the building collapsed, 15 floors were being supported by 1 floor? Then I guess that also means that 104 floors were supported by the tower's ground floor. That's some kind of strong material on that there floor! Or maybe there is such a thing as "load distribution".
Tell me something -- why does your model count the top section's floors together as one big mass, but the tower's entire bottom section as only one floor at a time?
@canadianbootz once again, I am not going to debate 9/11 because plain a simple, with facts or not no one will change their minds on what they think is truth. and i am going to change subjects. this is not my model. but if you want to miss quoke physics, then that is what i will debate. as the object falls on to the next object it gains that mass and adds to the over all energy. the "floors" dont just disapear. thats why CD from the bottom is so hard. and fails, the mass gets less as it falls.
@1crazyfocker Don't forget that the VAST majority of the debris did not STAY on the buildings as they collapsed. Most of it blew out sideways, so at it progressed, it lost a lot of mass, and as such, the whole "15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect." is completely incorrect. That would be assuming ALL of the mass piled up on the lower floors as it collapsed and did not fall outward as it all clearly did.
@1crazyfocker As each floor was destroyed below, so should have the same above been. In fact, the lower you go on the building, the STRONGER it gets,and with so much mass falling AWAY, the lighter top portion would have been destroyed LONG before the buildings collapsed entirely. But they fell straight down the path of MOST resistance at free fall speed. You are looking at this with only ONE variable. You didn't take into account the loss of mass outward.
@GeneralKenobiSIYE i do take that into acount. if only 20% fell straight down it would still do it. everyone seem to forget a few basic things, this was not a box girder building. every flor was supported from the center and the outside thats it. and those connections cant hold even the mass of one other floor falling on it from just 10 ft. thus the floors fell onto each other ripping them away from the center and outside, peeling the out side for the "AWAY" bits. -cont-
and leaving the center unsupported to fall in on it self as well. plus building are strongs at the base yes. but even the 1st floor can not handle the impact of 1 floor fall just 10 ft onto it. this is simple physics, if started from just below the top its has 99% more of a chance of being whiped out then if started from the bottom like in a controled demo. but like i said in my other comments i will not debate the towers but will debate the physics. which is correct
@1crazyfocker Have you considered the mass of the debris that fell over the edge and did not hit the building below? In this video, all the debris remained in a big pile of top.
@Skeptic121 i have, like i said in other comments, the outside peeled away because the floors are what held the outside "up" but also like i said before, just the weight of one floor (just the floor) falling 8ft on to another floor will start it off, and even with everything that peeled away/fell outside of it, there was still plenty too completely collapse it. thats why controled demo will sometimes fail, starting from the bottom it loses mass and energy, where this gains mass and energy.
@Skeptic121 this is based off of the way the building was built, an innercore, and an outside frame, that supported the large trussed floors, the floors weak point is where they attached to the inside and outside frame, those are what would fail with the impact of the weight of one floor falling on them, once the floors failed, the outside frame had no support and peeled away, the innercore suffered the same fate. but being stronger more floors had to giveway b4 it failed.
@1crazyfocker "the innercore suffered the same fate" This is the weak part of the "pancake" theory. The inner core was a building in itself, very strong. We can see how solid it was in the photos taken during construction. The undamaged core, below the plane impact, should have survived a pancake collapse that stripped away the floors. The Bazant paper was supposed to provide an explanation for the core collapse but was really an exercise in gratuitous math to obfuscate and scare us away.
@Skeptic121 i ran out of room, but that is why you could still see the core standing during the collapse. and yes it was very strong, but it still needed the rest of the building to stand, the floors are what held the core straight. but now remove all the side supports (the floors) and add in all the debris falling and hitting everything, (pushing on the sides of the core) then it will suffer the same fate. in the videos of the collapse you see the core still standing for a short time.
@1crazyfocker "if 15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect."
If 15 floors fall onto 1 floor of a number of floors, then NO extra floors are falling ANYWHERE. Those subsequent floors are ALL part of and against, a continuous structure. They are getting smashed, and absorbing the initial energy of the falling top sections as they are DRIVEN downwards.
There is no extra force from "falling" WHATSOEVER. Only the initial drop, which should deplete as it damages.
@CodeTwo2 and that would be true if we were dealing with a solid small scale model. but this is a large scale collapse, this is the same as an avalanche, gaining mass and energy with the more floors it impacts and adds to the total mass. and that is why you, me, anyone can not make/model an avalanche in small scale, but when dealing with large scale(life size) it works. if anything is an example of the Newton's 1st law. once started the building didn't have enough resistance to stop the fall
@1crazyfocker The support structure of the towers was by continuous vertical columns. They behave exactly as a solid structure, as they are effectively one unit to the ground. The mass of debris gains NO energy at all as it is forced downwards from above... for it is always abutted against the structure below itself.
No extra force/energy is added to what was originally there from the fall of the upper sections. Damaging SAPS that energy. This is what betrays a deliberate weakening.
@1crazyfocker idk dnt get mad at me for this but if what your saying is correct, 15 floors destroyed 15 floors, which destroyed 15 other floors, e.t.c.?
@RevolvoDoOr i dont get mad. but i also said i will not get in to a dabate of the WTC but i will debate over newtons laws and physics, and this still falls under it. I can understand where you are coming from, but it seems that you forget that the floors are not that strong, and even the weight of 1 floor falling just 8 ft has more then enough energy to collapse the next floor. now its 2 floors falling 8 ft. thats how it keeps gaining mass and energy, bc you have to add G into it. -cont-
that even tho it may seem like a solid mass it is not, and it does gain energy, yes it losses some from the fall, but the extra mass has too be added into it, and the force = Mass x Speed and since M keeps getting bigger the force (energy) keeps getting bigger as it goes down. even the very bottom floor could not take the force of the weight of just one floor falling 1 floor or 8 to 15 ft. like i said basicly it was an avalanche,
@1crazyfocker There is no force strong enough to enable 10% of material go go straight through 90% of the same material, it will fall to the side, even if severed cymetrically, steel bends slowly, it does not suddely vanish allowing the upper section to fall down at freefall on the undamaged section.
Lets use our brain, and this is the least reason to believe it was done using explosives.
Nano thermite residue found in all WTC dust samples, and pyroclastic clouds were formed aswell.
@Xendrius i said i will not get into a debate over this but only over the physics of it. and since you desided to go with that made up "nano thermite" a word coined by a truther as a possiblity, even tho there is no such thing, or if there is such a thing it is under wraps, which then lead to the question then if its so secret how do they now what the residue looks like? you talk about useing your brain, then read my comments and post facts not BS, I will reply to BS anymore. blocked, goodbye
@1crazyfocker There is no such thing as nano thermite? You obviously do not even know what it is, it is a mixture of extra small sized materials designed to melt through steel/metal within seconds, adding sulfur and berium in addition small particles is what makes normal thermite "nano thermite".
And every chemical engineer, including Mark Basile, who analyzyed the dust found signs of nano thermite in the dust.
@ConstructionCentral yes they did weigh a lot, whats your point? mine is that trying to use physic to say it would not collapse will not work, when physics state that it was basicly an avalanche, that once started there was no stopping it. that the weight of even one floor falling just 8ft would be enough to start it, and once started it will just keep building up more energy even tho G is less, but the mass keeps building thus adding too the energy which most seem to forget.
(if i can't see it, it must not be happening). Wake up sheeple! Men are evil and will stop at nothing to own your liberty. shit if i were hanging out with them and had their status id do the same thing to you. ur just a puppy and i can throw you over a cliff with no consequences.
people are the same level with the same authority as the govt!? if prisoners who have no authority and no power can escape a high security prison with just their nut sacks, imagine what a govt can do. with area 51 like technology. with authority to say when and where to be and when these ordered can be lifted. with the authority to not be dragged into court with the authority to do whatever they want. only bcuz your ignorant lazy ass thinks...out of sight out of mind.
regardless of what you believe...or whose "side" your on...it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall as the official report states due to "fire damage". People need to focus on the physics and not worry about each other's explanations (be objective)....it's enough evidence, in that what the official story said is impossible, to require a new investigation
Seeing this video was an epiphany!! I saw something exactly like it the other day. A 40' long city bus had it's back end parked perpendicular to, and up against, an impenetrable concrete wall. Another identical city bus, parked 40 feet away from, and aligned with, the first bus suddenly accelerated hard and collided head on with the one parked against the wall, wheels spinning like crazy. They both exploded and pancaked into the wall leaving a smoking pile of metal only 6' thick. Amazing!!!
I love how truthers pretend they're the awoken ones when they have a bias. Yes, a bias, I used to be a truther, I know how truthers think. They take the slightest misunderstanding and go all out to make it fit a conspiracy that doesn't have a coherent plot. Controlled demolition is all they can talk about.
And for god's sake, stop going around commenting with "SHEEPLE!" "MORON!" "WHY DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU'RE TOLD BY THE MEDIA?!" It makes you sound like a pretentious asshole.
@wollclark I was going to teach that corruptedsilence moron something, but I'm too tired and I'm going to sleep. I wish your previous comment was permantly posted on every retarded conspiracy video out there. Good night
@wollclark You sound exactly like a "pretentious asshole" yourself. Personally, I don't mind being called an asshole. That just means I don't let pathetic fools like yourself walk over me or impose their half-witted opinions on me. Sometimes you have to be an asshole to get through to hard headed chumps. Too bad most of the world is the latter.
Secondly, just because you acted as you described, that doesn't mean we all do. Sounds like you're just a natural follower.
That's ironic, coming from a truther. Just because you believe something *real* hard doesn't mean it's true. Keep on calling people sheep and telling them they're asleep.
@wollclark You should heed your own words, kiddo. You just keep calling people "truthers" like it offends them. LOL. Once again, lot's of babble from you, but zero science or facts.
@wollclark Nahhhh. That's just your opinion because they disagree with your silly statements. And you missed my point, which you seem to do often... I'm starting to wonder if you have a learning disability or are just that stupid. You can call us truthers all day and it will never bother us because we only seek the truth. You only wish to follow what you're told by the powers that be. Which is why you probably still live with mommy and daddy and will never make more than 40,000 a year. Loser.
No, that's your idiotic opinion bc you couldn't understand the information I provided in my first 3 comments. And you're the imbecile who doesn't know that depth and thickness are synonyms. But what else can you expect from a bum who thinks 80s hair metal is good music?
Anyways, the real smoking gun is in the physics. It was impossible for the 3 buildings to fall the way they did. It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes. Everyone learns this when they're a child. Every action has an equal reaction force. For the building to be as destroyed as it was and to fall at the speed it fell, resistance had to be cut out from below.
@corruptedsilence "It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them" - A simplistic understanding of the collapse...15 floors didn't destroy 95... as the collapse progressed more floors were added to the falling block.. halfway through the collapse there isn't 15 floors falling through the remaining 40 with 55 in mid air somewhere... there were 55 falling down on 55... Each floor cannot stop that so the structural integrity is gone and that debris joins.
The floors multiplied as they fell. 15 floors would become 30, 60 and so on, strengthening the loaded stress and speeding up the process of the collapse. If the buildings had a concrete core and concrete-encased outer columns I'd agree that the collapse was weird, but they didn't.
Defies the laws of physics? If fifteen floors drop in a building without concrete encased columns, not much is going to save them, especially when the steel in weakened. And they're not assumptions, there's actual science behind it, unlike the assumptions of "common sense" truthers.
No matter what evidence you see you'll always believe in the conspiracy. You hold on to it because you want to believe it. Anything to the contrary you scoff off and ignore.
Speaking of which, how's that new investigation coming along, again? You know, from Richard Gage, who has NO experience with controlled demolitions?
@wollclark Still waiting for this "evidence" you speak of. You have yet to provide any, so I'm confused to what you're talking about. You're argument thus far has been nothing more than, "Nuh uh!"
You don't need experience in CD to know the buildings couldn't have fallen the way the Gov. claims. It's all basic physics and 1000s of experts agree.
It's you Gov. cock riders that scoff at evidence. Even when NIST comes out and agrees to free fall and debunks their own pancake theory...
@corruptedsilence look you only know half the physics there, did you also include that a higher an object is the more gravitational force it has ... also that there was more 'mass' in the top of the building where the AC and other units vent systems were stored? also inclued that the main structural support for holding the exterior and interior wall is located at the top of the building? I am an engineer, I know the physics involved in building desgin, so get an P.Eng degree and say this.
@thatcanadianperson LOL. Kid, if you're an engineer then I hope you're out of work. But my gut tell mes you're no more an engineer than I am an astronaut. The higher the altitude the LESS the gravitational pull. Not more, you imbecile. Not to mention that the change is so minimal at 1500 ft that it has almost no effect. At an altitude of 250 miles gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface. Trust a Canadian to say something this moronic, EH? Go back to school, stupid.
@corruptedsilence Your misapplication of Newton's law is hilarious. 15 floors didn't fall on 95 all at once. 15 floors fell on one floor that was supporting all of the weight above the impact point. Then those 16 floors fell on another floor. Then those 17 floors fell on another floor. Then those 18 floors fell on another floor. Then those 19 floors fell on another floor. Then those 20 floors fell on another floor. Then those 21 floors fell on another floor. Its called pancaking.
@YellowBlackbird12 Aww, how cute... There's still a kid that subscribes to the pancake theory. Even NIST gave that silly idea up, dufus. If it were possible, which it's not, but if it were, the buildings still would have fallen much, much slower due to the resistance of each floor smacking down into each other. You would have seen visible jolts with each floor. Now go back to school, brush up on your physics and lick your wounds from your epic FAIL.
@corruptedsilence LOL! FEMA concluded there was pancaking. NIST concluded that the sagging floors (which is backed up by undeniable evidence of the outer walls of the building sagging in at the impact floors) pulled the outer columns in until they broke. Then the floors collapsed down one on top of the other. Try to insult me all you want. You are the one who believes the government put tons of explosives in a busy tower with nobody noticing haha. Or do you believed Jews used magic to do it?
@YellowBlackbird12 I will forever insult you when you subscribe to theories given up on 7 years ago! Time to join us in 2011, kiddo. FEMA presented the theory of pancaking to NIST, they didn't "conclude" anything. NIST disproved the theory after not being able to recreate this theory in any experiments or models. I wouldn't take "tons" of explosives to have brought those towers down, silly. How many times do you want to fail?
@corruptedsilence In 2011 the NIST report is still the official and accepted report that is unchallenged expect by lunatics like yourself. I used the wrong terminology when I said pancaking but the collapse mechanism is still basically the same. What is your alternate theory oh great petulant one?
@YellowBlackbird12 LOL, you're only weapons against us are to call us "lunatics." Well, that's just you're opinion, which so far has been questionable at best. No, you used the correct term with the "pancake theory." That's exactly what you described. How about proving your silly theory with science and physics?
@corruptedsilence Because you ARE a lunatic. The NIST report drew fairly good conclusions about what happened. The video evidence supports it. Why don't you disprove it using science and physics? You can't because your above gross misapplication of Newton's Law is laughable and shows that you are a moron. Also freefall speed for the towers was 9 seconds. Tower 2 fell in 15 seconds. Tower 1 fell in 22 seconds. Suck it Trebek!
@corruptedsilence Have you ever heard of gravitational potential energy? If a load is supported in the air, it gains potential energy. The energy stored in the top floors was immense. Once the columns gave way, the energy stored in these floors was released onto the bottom floors. This energy was easily enough to destroy the rest of the tower. Absolutely nothing could have stopped those floors falling. There was nowhere near enough resistance.
@MazJax I love this argument. I hear it everywhere and it's incredibly misleading every time. It doesn't matter how much energy is stored in the top floors because the floors below it, even the single floor immediately below it, was able to support the weight. In the north tower the falling section uniformly accelerates at a rate equal to 60% of gravitational free fall. That means only 40% of it's kinetic energy is being put into the building.
"the floor below it was able to support the weight"
Please try this experiment: Obtain 10-20 steel and concrete building floors, and drop them from 9 feet up on one more floor built in exactly the same way. See if one floor can survive the force of 12 floors falling on it.
Your science is so flawed. If an object accelerates, the force it can put on the object below it INCREASES, it doesn't decrease. That force that was built up was more than the entire tower was built to withstand.
@MazJax What is in that 9 feet of space? Is that one floor able to support the mass of those 10-20 floors at rest? What percentage of it's max capacity is that single floor at with those 10-20 floors at rest? And at what point has anyone said the the first floor beneath the falling section wouldn't be crushed?
@Ahlywog Each floor was approx 9 ft tall, when the top floors snapped away from the rest of the building, the only way they could go is down.The top floors floors fell this 9 ft distance, gaining enough velocity to crush any floor below it.
Every floor would be easily crushed, the force was too high and resistance was too low due to the tube design of the wtc.
@MazJax You need to check your facts. They were 12 foot floors and it most certainly was not a "tube" design. And you didn't answer my questions. You should check out the verinage demolitions.
@MazJax Honestly I just need to stop responding to people who can't get basic information right. The second you start quoting incorrect numbers when the information is publicly available I'm just going to ignore you. It's like the idiots that argue on behalf of the official story using arguments even the official story doesn't support or has even flatly rejected.
@MazJax Buildings fail to collapse all the time in demolitions. All it takes is a SINGLE floor to hold up the entire building above for the demolition to fail. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EACH FLOOR IS DESIGNED TO DO!
@MazJax So if only 40% of the falling section of buildings kinetic energy is being transferred into the rest of the building beneath it, for more than a second of that fall you're kinetic energy being transferred is less than the falling sections potential energy at rest. So the north tower, for the first 40-50 feet, is being crushed by significantly less energy than it's able to support. That just doesn't jive.
@MazJax That is assuming ALL the mass of the top portion, and all of the accumulated mass of the lower portion as it collapsed stayed ON the building. MOST of the mass was thrown outward, and as such, the top of the building got lighter and lighter as it fell. The top would have been crushed LONG before it ever made it that far. But you expect us to believe the top portion remained intact long enough to destroy the strongest part of the building without itself being destroyed?
@MazJax That just does NOT follow Newton's third law. Remember, MOST of the mass was thrown away and did not contribute to mass acting against the lower building. The way the buildings completely collapsed was simply impossible when you add that variable in, which is a proven fact in EVERY collapse video out there.
@MazJax Says who? You? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Show mathematical proof to back that nonsense up. The fact is that the building fell with ZERO resistance. This only happens if the resistance is removed from below.
@corruptedsilence If the building fell with zero resistance then why did all that debris fall so much faster than the rest of the structure? Were there rockets attached to the debris? Idiot.
Freefall speed would have taken 9.22 seconds, as many of you twoofers think. But neither tower fell this quickly. WTC1 fell for appprox 17 seconds and WTC2 fell for approx 11 seconds.
@MazJax LOL. This is bc much of the debris you're referring to was shot out by an outside force, it wasn't simply falling. Pay attention to how it exits the building, dunce.
Secondly, NIST admits there were around 3 seconds of free fall,
w w w . nist. gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108 . cfm
watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
Third, they claim the collapse times are 11 secs for WTC1 and 9 secs for WTC2. Get your facts, straight.
w w w . nist . gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006 . cfm
No bomb could send 100,000 tonne chunks of steel like that falling out a hundred feel away.
The debris had already started falling. How could it be blasted by an outside source while it was falling in the air? Invisible rocket bombs attached to the debris in mid-air?
Time the collapses yourself if you want the actual times! From the start until it hits the base. It's Not "9 and 11" seconds. Every video says otherwise.
what a bullshit animation. Whats destroying the core so perfectly?
carnage4907 4 days ago
ABSURD and FALSE VIDEO: when the upper floors of the tower fall OUT of the tower: What is the weigth to puss down the bottom floors?: NO-THING: collapses STOPS, but... obiously the begin of the collapse is TO-TA-LLY IM-PO-SI-BLE, here and another planets.
Inigo37 6 days ago
Do conspiracy theorists actually believe they uncovered the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, simply by investi-googling and trolling, I mean watching youtube videos? Hahahahahaha! Some people are so fucking stupid, I am literally in physical pain when I think about how pathetically embarrassing it must be for them to go around telling people 9/11 was an inside job and then using youtube as their source of information. "You should watch Loose Change man! It was an inside job!" LMAO!
NowKillYourself 1 week ago
With the pancake story, each floor under the one that just collapsed would have increased resistance and slowed the fall. The collapse speed was constant which could only happen if something weekened the floors undernieth as it fell. The buildings fell at near free fall speed!
theoriginalmungaman 1 week ago
@theoriginalmungaman Yes, something weekened the floors underneath: three undergrond 150kt NUCLEAR bombs: was a nuclear demolition.
Inigo37 6 days ago
@Inigo37 The gutted cars are strong evidence of a small nuke. Why would cars be gutted from a plane hitting the upper floors before the towers fell? Cause all the electronics in the car went up in smoke from the detonation! The only people that believe the government are afraid to look un-patriotic or have a low I.Q. which prevents them from processing the mountains of damning evidence.
theoriginalmungaman 6 days ago
@theoriginalmungaman The TOTALLY REAL scheme of the WTC demolition was: the towers was full plaenty of bombs or explosives (like you want to tell) and three underground 150kt nuclear bombs as a main force and pulverize the towers.
Inigo37 6 days ago
@Inigo37 bullshit that would have blown out foundations for miles. A 3 kt bomb underground causes much more damage than was seen on 9/11... This is youtube, look up underground nuclear tests... Not to mention, the radioactive signature would be there for decades.
carnage4907 4 days ago
@carnage4907 Hellow man, I have three years of INTENSE investigation on 9/11, I have seen ALL videos of 9/11, all articles, and ALL books. And now think only a bit: What happen to WTC if a 150kt underground nuckear bomb explodes at 30km below? and whay happen if the same bomb explodes at 77m, and 3km? is the same damage on the surface in the three cases? think a bit man, think a bit!!!!
Inigo37 4 days ago
@theoriginalmungaman Each floor could support 1300 tones static weight above their own weight. Now what do you think will happen when 15 floors around 45000 tones falls on them. Also remember as more falls are hit they add weight to the massive falling mass
Spindry96 5 days ago
I am a structural engineer and this is totally false.
TheLiberator25 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Structural engineers that built the towers stated the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time they were built. "I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
TheLiberator25 1 week ago
cute cartoon,but let's be serious
MrPhattdirty 2 weeks ago
I wish I could do my own rendering of the actual physics of what should have happened. The angle at which the tower started to collapse should have dictated the rest of the sequence. Though the weight and pressure of the initiation of collapse could have crushed numerous floors below, however, the angle of the fall should have made the top of the tower slide off in the direction of the angular descent! Toppling the top floors off to the side and leaving the majority of the lower floors intact.
RCPCTermite 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
RCPCTermite 2 weeks ago
This sequence is wrong and obviously a poor attempt by some de-bunker to show a theorized pattern of collapse. The South Tower was struck by a commercial jet liner second yet was the first one to "fall". Then the North Tower went down. @ 4 min into this the top of N Tower collapses on itself but still has enough pressure and weight to pulverize the entire structure to the ground? This is so incredibly false
RCPCTermite 2 weeks ago
4:07 ...come on now... that's just WTF. it leaned over, began to fall, but instead it just crumbled into nothing.
ClubBangerTV 2 weeks ago
I want to know how the WTC top 23 stories can tilt over 20 degrees and disintegrate in mid air in some 3 seconds. There gone before floor 70 is gone +/-. All the office contents and all the concrete is pulverized in mid air. And not even floor one is different from floor 20 or 110! All gone
IExposeMormonism 3 weeks ago
@IExposeMormonism De-Bunks any pancake theory huh?
RCPCTermite 2 weeks ago
@RCPCTermite All I see is pancake batter, no water, and metal pretzels
IExposeMormonism 2 weeks ago
@IExposeMormonism are you sure that's all you see, or want to see......?
stampede122 2 weeks ago
I have asked my self why the towers came down vertically? Wasn't there winds on that day? It is supposed to be such that the column on which the highest load is applied to be the first to collaps but here we see that it is allways the upper level and then the one below and so on. I am a stractural engineer and I can not see that this collaps was not carefully done. If it was because of the fire then each tower should bend to the direction which ther plaine hit and ther feoe fall to the sides
Urarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it was impossible to get an accurate damage report so everything about that fateful day will always be a theory, a supposition an, estimate, guesswork etc etc
KecksMcGuinness 1 month ago
What a program is that/What program you used ??? THX
hutersum 1 month ago
"Molten aluminum"?? Thanks for the giggles professor! ...Just a little note: Molten steel is reddish-orangey and molten aluminum extremely 'white-ish'! But please don't let facts get in the way. Cheers!~
transientdreams 1 month ago
talking about playing unfitting music.
protomanhasballs 1 month ago
the planes were remote control flown with no one actually in them.
Ac1DGoD 1 month ago
the music totally did no justice.
smeganrocks87 2 months ago
Comment removed
xmasterfunk 2 months ago
@xmasterfunk Okay, tell me how a copper plated lead bullet can penetrate a steel object? Don't think this is possible? Load a 7.62x39mm round into an AK47 and fire it at a concrete wall or a steel door. Then explain how that round managed to make it through if copper and lead is not as hard as steel. The best part: The bullet is traveling at about the same speed as the 767's were on September the 11th 2001. Oh and the jet fuel simply ignited the fires, office debris is what burned. Dipshit.
NowKillYourself 1 month ago
so how were the steel support beams melted if it were just office debris fire? and also are you really telling me you believe a round from an ak-47 which travels at 1588 mph is how fast A COMMERCIAL JET LINNER WAS GOING? lmfao flight 11 was travelling at 490 mph and flight 175 was determined traveling at around 590 mph NOT 1590, speed of impact duration of time of fire burning at what degree these are all facts that need to be analyzed not just thrown away. and by the way im not blaming either
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk No one in NIST ever said the steel in the WTC "melted". That is just something Truthers make up. Steel loses half of it's strength at 1100 degrees F, while the fires in the WTC on 9/11 reached 1800 degrees. The WTC's steel structure only needed to lose 50% of its structural integrity in order to initiate a collapse. You add the damage already done from the 767's and you have the inevitability of structural failure, which is exactly what we saw on 9/11..
NowKillYourself 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NowKillYourself Finally someone with an IQ over 50 other than myself trying to explain physics and structural design to these theorist believers.
Not sure why the upper stories of the towers just magically fall apart and poof from a solid portion of building to a loose group of falling separated building members in this video? (like @ 4:06) This did not happen in real life nor is there any reason why it would.
This is not a good simulation.
bubbasteve8 1 month ago
@NowKillYourself did you miss the pools of liquid molten steel that remained in the buildings rubble for weeks afterwords.
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
"did you miss the pools of liquid molten steel that remained in the buildings rubble for weeks afterwords"
No I didn't miss it because it was MOLTEN ALUMINUM!
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Lmao @ molten aluminum..., okay okay i see what im dealing with here im going to say good bye, and good luck in life
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk Lmao= LAUGH MY ASS OFF
MrJackonRocks 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
Just show one one test where truthers ACTUALLY tested the metal at ground zero. LMAO! Look hard because it doesn't exist!
Also, copper is all over buildings in wiring and piping. Copper, like aluminum, has a melting point below the fire temperatures at ground zero.
So, MOLTEN ALUMINUM AND COPPER.
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED (yet again)!
ctcole77 1 month ago
/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw please watch the whole thing
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@ctcole77 LMAO. You are amazingly uneducated. Have you ever seen copper melting? I have, it does not have red sparky visualization, not even close to the dripping sparks from tower. Yet again some (teenager minded) wants attention. Debunk your claims first!.
RolandsSmoked 1 month ago
@RolandsSmoked
LMAO!
It was a combination of metals Mr. Science. You can't tell what kind of metal it is by the color! ROLF! You don't even know you conspiracy theories. They are talking about the melted metal that was present at ground zero AFTER the collapse. And your "sparks" were easily explained. Transformers and electrical panels can explode and emit sparks in building fires. Nice try LIAR!
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 said:"They are talking about the melted metal that was present at ground zero AFTER the collapse. And your "sparks" were easily explained. Transformers and electrical panels can explode and emit sparks in building fires. Nice try "
So you are saying that the sparks were caused by that and ONLY that? No other possible? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Oh you got that right, the temps were hot enough to melt some metals in some areas but there was nothing to excite the fires to that temp much less sustain the oxygen feed and material needed for the kind of fire temps you say were high enough to melt copper. FEMA tested the metal at Ground Zero.
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Moletn Aluminum?? Mmmm Do you know how fast aluminum cools over steel? If that was aluminum, what ever melted it must have really been something to keep it molten that long. You'd been better off saying it was steel.
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk First of all, tell me what this supposed "molten steel" in the rubble weeks after the attack PROVES? If you say it proves nano-thermite then you should just end your life, because you're so damn stupid there is no hope for your future. N-Thermite has an extremely short combustion period, it burns out quickly. There is NO way thermite could have left molten steel WEEKS after the collapse of the WTC. It's impossible. Oh and how do you know the molten metal was steel anyway?
NowKillYourself 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NowKillYourself said:" N-Thermite has an extremely short combustion period, it burns out quickly. There is NO way thermite could have left molten steel WEEKS after the collapse of the WTC. It's impossible. "
So you think it was the Jet Fuel that left the molten metal for weeks afterward yes?
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk Were you there? Did you test t his molten substance to be sure it was steel and not some other metal that melts at a much lower temp? Or let me guess, all your information came from google? It's hilarious how you idiots think you've cracked what would be the biggest most intellectually comprehensive "inside job, conspiracy" in human history, and you did this simply by using google and youtube! LOL! Get a life.
NowKillYourself 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NowKillYourself Were you there? Did you test t his molten substance to be sure it was steel and not some other metal that melts at a much lower temp? Or let me guess, all your information came from the government? It's hilarious how idiots cracked what is the biggest most intellectually comprehensive "inside job, conspiracy" in human history, and they did this simply by using science and physics! LOL! Get a life.
xmasterfunk 1 week ago
@NowKillYourself Those fires were no where near that hot and if you recall there was a fireman on the 75 that requested a hose be brought up that the fires could be knocked down and that most were out. The NIST report glossed over everything, ignored many and in some cases plane lied for the Government. I've seen it before. The Warren Commission, White Water, The USS Liberty. Government lies, Hoss. A LOT
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 im never said who or why anyone did anything im saying there is more to the collapse of this building than it looks. and to say that im going to accept one truth without looking in to it would be stupid so i have looked into it and its pretty obvious that there is more to the equation
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
I accept the analysis of 99.7% of the engineering community.
It's pretty obvious you have no clue how the WTC was constructed.
Prove me wrong, describe the floor plan of the WTC and answer the questions.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 you must have your numbers incorrect because there is a huge community of engineers that would disagree, ever heard of engineers for 9/11 truth they have some pretty interesting ideas you can see if you havent at least look at them first and decide im not trying to sound like a dick either im a real person i just believe there is more to it than what the majority thinks im not saying who or why or what but im saying not just planes took down the first 3 steel building to fall from fire
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
There are 1.7 million engineers in America. Only 1600 of them believe in your magical theories. You call that "a huge community"?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1600+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
The Delft Tower, Kadar Toy Factory, and Windsor Tower ALL failed due to fire. And they weren't hit by a 300,000 lbs plane.
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 #1 delft tower was built in 1246 and was not a steel structure was also nickednamed the old church before it fell, lol, #2 a toy factory in thailand haha a poorly built poorly designed fire savvy failure "the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames." #3 the windsor tower did not fall it was demolished by the city plus the fires inside raged for more than 24 hours,
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
LMAO! I'm not talking about that Delft Tower moron!
In all three of those buildings STEEL FAILED DUE TO FIRE.
I an engineer and I have worked in construction for 15 years and I have NEVER heard of "un-insulated steel girders".
What EXACTLY is an "un-insulated steel girder"?
Why do steel members need to be "insulated"?
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 well lets hope to god you never help build a steel structure
xmasterfunk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xmasterfunk
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
NO 911 TWOOFER QUESTION DODGING ALLOWED!
What EXACTLY is an "un-insulated steel girder"?
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
@xmasterfunk
LMAO! I get it now. You just copied that term from wikipedia!
So according to Wikipedia the Kadar Toy factory is the ONLY building in the history of the world to use "un-insulated steel girders"
Great job at research!
LMAO!
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 month ago
@ctcole77 Steel is insulated because it conducts Heat and Cold. That's why smart guy
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@NowKillYourself said:"The bullet is traveling at about the same speed as the 767's were on September the 11th 2001. Oh and the jet fuel simply ignited the fires, office debris is what burned. Dipshit."
a 767 flying faster than the sound barrier? Nope, don't think so. A Bullet, yes but not that 767. So you're telling me, that the architects that built the twin towers, built them so unsafe, that a mere office fire would be enough to soften the steel the building was made ?
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
@Ultramediacorp
it was not a mere office fire, and those planes did a lot of structural damage
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Ultramediacorp "a mere office fire would be enough..." It's sad how low you have to stoop to try and push your bullshit theory. You know damn well those were not just "office fires" and it's funny how you leave out the fact that the buildings obsorbed direct hits from 767's filled with nearly full tanks of aviation fuel. Just give it up. If this were an inside job, I doubt they would be so careless to allow it to be uncovered by a bunch of trolls investi-googling. Get real man..
NowKillYourself 1 week ago
@xmasterfunk you are a fucking idiot.
12weasel100 1 month ago
I just don't understand why the top half begins to lean off to one side @3:42 onwards and yet it doesn't sheer off or completely break off in the direction its falling - instead the whole building collapses underneath. And what about the end result - where are all the squashed floors at street level, piled up on top of each other? Why the two gaping holes, through to the basement? It just doesn't make sense.
stillwater027 2 months ago
that is why i will not get into a debate over the whole BS of takeing a side, but i will gladly debate physics. because the moment anyone starts to claim oneside or another, they jump off subject, like this person, comeing up with all the off the wall BS as they can anytime facts are used, and more to the point they change the subject! as well as turning to trolling. meaning its not a debate it "I'm right, you're wrong and you"re an idiot if you dont believe me even with out proof" i wont do it
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
it's magique !!! 4,07 --> 4,09 it's disney world !!
I speak French, sorry.
28cuicui 2 months ago
OK please explain building 7 not even hit by a plane yet 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapse for the first time in history due to fire all on the same day lol If you believe the official story your one dumb numb-nuts
giptonsilly 2 months ago
3:45... lol
EasyEbookMan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
even steven jones, one of the leading conspiracy theorists, admitted that they were wrong about the controlled demolition. he even admitted that they carried on spreading their BS "truth" message even after they realized they were wrong, so as not to disappoint their idiot fan clubs. LOL. why can he admit he's wrong but these other idiot conspiracy theorists cant?
ItWasTyped. com under 'conspiracy theories' for more
culturebully3 2 months ago
Funny at position 03:45 he simply removes all of the structural columns to make the simulation work - how would this be made to coincide with the real world? Jet fuel? I see everybody here is way before Dimitri Kalezov and the third truth he points out!
usertogo 2 months ago
Boy, somebody spent alot of time trying to convince us that the Twin
Towers came down all by themselves. Where's the planes hitting the towers? It's amazing to think you are proving something in this video. Try to prove that you can shoot an aluminum bottle out of a canon and not just penetrate, but go all the way into a concrete and steel wall. When you can prove that, we'll let you hang out with us. Until then stay in your little fantasy world nerd.
LanesLab 3 months ago
@LanesLab
The Space Shuttle was brought down by a piece of FOAM.
Please explain. In your fantasy World
AlQaedaIsReal 3 months ago
when the weakest link fails (the floors collapse) the whole chain will fail (walls collapse)
hukatus 3 months ago
even though it was "possible" for the towers to collapse as they did, it would have been impossible to do so in less than 40 seconds without damaging the lower, intact and stronger structure
capitanaguamala 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Killer game. Letters, numbers, and lifetimes. Devil? court tv censored. World War 1War 2War 3 Armageddon. Nuclear holocaust. Two New York towers. A tower of Milan. Two Roman towers two donkeys. Iasi, T1 T2 T3. T= baptism. Who stole the two letter T Audi to die crushed.04.04.2009 online journal. 06.04.2009 genocidio Aquila 2: 32. 307 dead. The Eagle was sent to steal two T? Mutilation of roller. RomaN,Romania,Roma,SeveN,SromaN,The little Boy Anton Cristian h t t p genocidio.altervista. org
Genocidioaquila 3 months ago
No, it would tip over leaning like that, and the top can only destroy the lower building/ same size as the top, because the top and impact zone will suffer the same damage= DEMOLITION.. But the US geological with US pentagon found rare earth minerals in afgahnistan for minimun one thousand billion ( 1 trillion) so the trade was fair. People die vs money.... money win.. Fuck Bush/MOSSAD..
candon1972 3 months ago
did you know that hitler was catholic and was elected in a country which was 90% christian?
did you know that nazis were behind the killing of JFK and their first order of business after he was dead was to escalate the war in vietnam?
did you know that george bush's grandpappy was a nazi?
along with henry ford too?
not to mention quite a few big businesses on wallstreet.
did you know that 9/11 was an inside job and george bush destroyed all the evidence?
vengencefrom1979 3 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 Shoot your fact-checker.
captainbueno 3 months ago
It's too bad the top sections didn't stay intact all the way down, like they did in real life. =/
TheCrazyFinn 3 months ago
Unfortunately, this animation is not correct. first, NIST specifically rejects the pancake theory. 2nd, both cores from the two towers stood for a small period of time after the towers had fallen from around them. Towers did not pancake, they were more or less ripped apart by the falling sections from above.
cjnewson88 3 months ago
"It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes."
I'm not going to get into the debate. simply no matter what side you are on, when shown proof, it gets ignored. but this statement was just way off. when quoting Newton's 3rd law. if 15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect.
anyone that uses that kind of logic is pretty nescient on the 3rd law
1crazyfocker 3 months ago 17
@1crazyfocker Nah, once again, you're referring to the pancake theory produced by FEMA, which was given up in 2004 after NIST was not able to reproduce this theory in any experiments or models. It's hilarious that none of you know this. Give them a call and they'll tell you themselves, along with the fact that they admit the buildings fell at near free fall speed.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence like i said i am not going to get into the debate over that at all. my comment is only on the 15 floors, can only distroy the 15 floors below them. useing Newton's 3rd law. and that is a totaly closed mind way of looking at it. the wieght of the floors that it hits add to the total energy of the falling object thos floors and mass dont just disapear. the same holds true with avalanches, or any other situation dealing with a mass falling into more mass.
1crazyfocker 3 months ago
@1crazyfocker so then... before the building collapsed, 15 floors were being supported by 1 floor? Then I guess that also means that 104 floors were supported by the tower's ground floor. That's some kind of strong material on that there floor! Or maybe there is such a thing as "load distribution".
Tell me something -- why does your model count the top section's floors together as one big mass, but the tower's entire bottom section as only one floor at a time?
canadianbootz 3 months ago
@canadianbootz Maybe read the NIST report? That could help answer your question.
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@YellowBlackbird12 Which of the _10,000_ pages should I read? That could help me see that you know what you're talking about with your suggestion.
canadianbootz 3 months ago
@canadianbootz Well odds are pretty good the reports have a fancy new thing called a "table of contents." Try checking there.
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@canadianbootz once again, I am not going to debate 9/11 because plain a simple, with facts or not no one will change their minds on what they think is truth. and i am going to change subjects. this is not my model. but if you want to miss quoke physics, then that is what i will debate. as the object falls on to the next object it gains that mass and adds to the over all energy. the "floors" dont just disapear. thats why CD from the bottom is so hard. and fails, the mass gets less as it falls.
1crazyfocker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canadianbootz said:"Then I guess that also means that 104 floors were supported by the tower's ground floor."
Well they sure as hell weren't supported by the top floor, Hoss.
Ultramediacorp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1crazyfocker Don't forget that the VAST majority of the debris did not STAY on the buildings as they collapsed. Most of it blew out sideways, so at it progressed, it lost a lot of mass, and as such, the whole "15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect." is completely incorrect. That would be assuming ALL of the mass piled up on the lower floors as it collapsed and did not fall outward as it all clearly did.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 3 months ago
@1crazyfocker As each floor was destroyed below, so should have the same above been. In fact, the lower you go on the building, the STRONGER it gets,and with so much mass falling AWAY, the lighter top portion would have been destroyed LONG before the buildings collapsed entirely. But they fell straight down the path of MOST resistance at free fall speed. You are looking at this with only ONE variable. You didn't take into account the loss of mass outward.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 3 months ago
@GeneralKenobiSIYE i do take that into acount. if only 20% fell straight down it would still do it. everyone seem to forget a few basic things, this was not a box girder building. every flor was supported from the center and the outside thats it. and those connections cant hold even the mass of one other floor falling on it from just 10 ft. thus the floors fell onto each other ripping them away from the center and outside, peeling the out side for the "AWAY" bits. -cont-
1crazyfocker 3 months ago
@GeneralKenobiSIYE cont2
and leaving the center unsupported to fall in on it self as well. plus building are strongs at the base yes. but even the 1st floor can not handle the impact of 1 floor fall just 10 ft onto it. this is simple physics, if started from just below the top its has 99% more of a chance of being whiped out then if started from the bottom like in a controled demo. but like i said in my other comments i will not debate the towers but will debate the physics. which is correct
1crazyfocker 3 months ago
@1crazyfocker thats because the wtc had a big hole in thee middle
5150Zombieslayer 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker Have you considered the mass of the debris that fell over the edge and did not hit the building below? In this video, all the debris remained in a big pile of top.
Skeptic121 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 i have, like i said in other comments, the outside peeled away because the floors are what held the outside "up" but also like i said before, just the weight of one floor (just the floor) falling 8ft on to another floor will start it off, and even with everything that peeled away/fell outside of it, there was still plenty too completely collapse it. thats why controled demo will sometimes fail, starting from the bottom it loses mass and energy, where this gains mass and energy.
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker In your simulation did one floor falling onto the floor below collapse the core or just rip the floor away from the core?
Skeptic121 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 this is based off of the way the building was built, an innercore, and an outside frame, that supported the large trussed floors, the floors weak point is where they attached to the inside and outside frame, those are what would fail with the impact of the weight of one floor falling on them, once the floors failed, the outside frame had no support and peeled away, the innercore suffered the same fate. but being stronger more floors had to giveway b4 it failed.
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker "the innercore suffered the same fate" This is the weak part of the "pancake" theory. The inner core was a building in itself, very strong. We can see how solid it was in the photos taken during construction. The undamaged core, below the plane impact, should have survived a pancake collapse that stripped away the floors. The Bazant paper was supposed to provide an explanation for the core collapse but was really an exercise in gratuitous math to obfuscate and scare us away.
Skeptic121 2 months ago
@Skeptic121 i ran out of room, but that is why you could still see the core standing during the collapse. and yes it was very strong, but it still needed the rest of the building to stand, the floors are what held the core straight. but now remove all the side supports (the floors) and add in all the debris falling and hitting everything, (pushing on the sides of the core) then it will suffer the same fate. in the videos of the collapse you see the core still standing for a short time.
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker "if 15 floors fall on 1 floor, it is then 16 floors falling, then 17,18 ect."
If 15 floors fall onto 1 floor of a number of floors, then NO extra floors are falling ANYWHERE. Those subsequent floors are ALL part of and against, a continuous structure. They are getting smashed, and absorbing the initial energy of the falling top sections as they are DRIVEN downwards.
There is no extra force from "falling" WHATSOEVER. Only the initial drop, which should deplete as it damages.
CodeTwo2 2 months ago
@CodeTwo2 and that would be true if we were dealing with a solid small scale model. but this is a large scale collapse, this is the same as an avalanche, gaining mass and energy with the more floors it impacts and adds to the total mass. and that is why you, me, anyone can not make/model an avalanche in small scale, but when dealing with large scale(life size) it works. if anything is an example of the Newton's 1st law. once started the building didn't have enough resistance to stop the fall
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker The support structure of the towers was by continuous vertical columns. They behave exactly as a solid structure, as they are effectively one unit to the ground. The mass of debris gains NO energy at all as it is forced downwards from above... for it is always abutted against the structure below itself.
No extra force/energy is added to what was originally there from the fall of the upper sections. Damaging SAPS that energy. This is what betrays a deliberate weakening.
CodeTwo2 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker idk dnt get mad at me for this but if what your saying is correct, 15 floors destroyed 15 floors, which destroyed 15 other floors, e.t.c.?
RevolvoDoOr 2 months ago
@RevolvoDoOr i dont get mad. but i also said i will not get in to a dabate of the WTC but i will debate over newtons laws and physics, and this still falls under it. I can understand where you are coming from, but it seems that you forget that the floors are not that strong, and even the weight of 1 floor falling just 8 ft has more then enough energy to collapse the next floor. now its 2 floors falling 8 ft. thats how it keeps gaining mass and energy, bc you have to add G into it. -cont-
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@RevolvoDoOr -cont2-
that even tho it may seem like a solid mass it is not, and it does gain energy, yes it losses some from the fall, but the extra mass has too be added into it, and the force = Mass x Speed and since M keeps getting bigger the force (energy) keeps getting bigger as it goes down. even the very bottom floor could not take the force of the weight of just one floor falling 1 floor or 8 to 15 ft. like i said basicly it was an avalanche,
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker There is no force strong enough to enable 10% of material go go straight through 90% of the same material, it will fall to the side, even if severed cymetrically, steel bends slowly, it does not suddely vanish allowing the upper section to fall down at freefall on the undamaged section.
Lets use our brain, and this is the least reason to believe it was done using explosives.
Nano thermite residue found in all WTC dust samples, and pyroclastic clouds were formed aswell.
Xendrius 2 months ago
@Xendrius i said i will not get into a debate over this but only over the physics of it. and since you desided to go with that made up "nano thermite" a word coined by a truther as a possiblity, even tho there is no such thing, or if there is such a thing it is under wraps, which then lead to the question then if its so secret how do they now what the residue looks like? you talk about useing your brain, then read my comments and post facts not BS, I will reply to BS anymore. blocked, goodbye
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker There is no such thing as nano thermite? You obviously do not even know what it is, it is a mixture of extra small sized materials designed to melt through steel/metal within seconds, adding sulfur and berium in addition small particles is what makes normal thermite "nano thermite".
And every chemical engineer, including Mark Basile, who analyzyed the dust found signs of nano thermite in the dust.
Your ignorance won't help you.
Xendrius 2 months ago
@1crazyfocker do you know how much each floor weighed? ALOT
ConstructionCentral 2 months ago
@ConstructionCentral yes they did weigh a lot, whats your point? mine is that trying to use physic to say it would not collapse will not work, when physics state that it was basicly an avalanche, that once started there was no stopping it. that the weight of even one floor falling just 8ft would be enough to start it, and once started it will just keep building up more energy even tho G is less, but the mass keeps building thus adding too the energy which most seem to forget.
1crazyfocker 2 months ago
(if i can't see it, it must not be happening). Wake up sheeple! Men are evil and will stop at nothing to own your liberty. shit if i were hanging out with them and had their status id do the same thing to you. ur just a puppy and i can throw you over a cliff with no consequences.
gregsees 3 months ago
people are the same level with the same authority as the govt!? if prisoners who have no authority and no power can escape a high security prison with just their nut sacks, imagine what a govt can do. with area 51 like technology. with authority to say when and where to be and when these ordered can be lifted. with the authority to not be dragged into court with the authority to do whatever they want. only bcuz your ignorant lazy ass thinks...out of sight out of mind.
gregsees 3 months ago
regardless of what you believe...or whose "side" your on...it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall as the official report states due to "fire damage". People need to focus on the physics and not worry about each other's explanations (be objective)....it's enough evidence, in that what the official story said is impossible, to require a new investigation
TheKmagz 3 months ago
Seeing this video was an epiphany!! I saw something exactly like it the other day. A 40' long city bus had it's back end parked perpendicular to, and up against, an impenetrable concrete wall. Another identical city bus, parked 40 feet away from, and aligned with, the first bus suddenly accelerated hard and collided head on with the one parked against the wall, wheels spinning like crazy. They both exploded and pancaked into the wall leaving a smoking pile of metal only 6' thick. Amazing!!!
sea8bass 3 months ago
I love how truthers pretend they're the awoken ones when they have a bias. Yes, a bias, I used to be a truther, I know how truthers think. They take the slightest misunderstanding and go all out to make it fit a conspiracy that doesn't have a coherent plot. Controlled demolition is all they can talk about.
And for god's sake, stop going around commenting with "SHEEPLE!" "MORON!" "WHY DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU'RE TOLD BY THE MEDIA?!" It makes you sound like a pretentious asshole.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark I was going to teach that corruptedsilence moron something, but I'm too tired and I'm going to sleep. I wish your previous comment was permantly posted on every retarded conspiracy video out there. Good night
MDalfig 3 months ago
@MDalfig
Thanks.
wollclark 3 months ago
@MDalfig LOL. You weren't going to teach anyone, anything. You're probably another moron that thinks the fires in the WTC were fed by jet fuel...
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
They were fed by jet fuel, as planes impacted the buildings. I'm sure you've seen videos of such planes.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark You sound exactly like a "pretentious asshole" yourself. Personally, I don't mind being called an asshole. That just means I don't let pathetic fools like yourself walk over me or impose their half-witted opinions on me. Sometimes you have to be an asshole to get through to hard headed chumps. Too bad most of the world is the latter.
Secondly, just because you acted as you described, that doesn't mean we all do. Sounds like you're just a natural follower.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
"half-witted opinions"
That's ironic, coming from a truther. Just because you believe something *real* hard doesn't mean it's true. Keep on calling people sheep and telling them they're asleep.
By the way, how's that new investigation going?
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark You should heed your own words, kiddo. You just keep calling people "truthers" like it offends them. LOL. Once again, lot's of babble from you, but zero science or facts.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
"Truther" was coined by truthers. If you're offended by what you are, I'm sorry. Truthers ironically lie, a lot.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Nahhhh. That's just your opinion because they disagree with your silly statements. And you missed my point, which you seem to do often... I'm starting to wonder if you have a learning disability or are just that stupid. You can call us truthers all day and it will never bother us because we only seek the truth. You only wish to follow what you're told by the powers that be. Which is why you probably still live with mommy and daddy and will never make more than 40,000 a year. Loser.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
No, that's your idiotic opinion bc you couldn't understand the information I provided in my first 3 comments. And you're the imbecile who doesn't know that depth and thickness are synonyms. But what else can you expect from a bum who thinks 80s hair metal is good music?
Say something intelligent.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
Anyways, the real smoking gun is in the physics. It was impossible for the 3 buildings to fall the way they did. It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes. Everyone learns this when they're a child. Every action has an equal reaction force. For the building to be as destroyed as it was and to fall at the speed it fell, resistance had to be cut out from below.
corruptedsilence 4 months ago 10
@corruptedsilence I agree.
Eminemflocka 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@corruptedsilence "It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them" - A simplistic understanding of the collapse...15 floors didn't destroy 95... as the collapse progressed more floors were added to the falling block.. halfway through the collapse there isn't 15 floors falling through the remaining 40 with 55 in mid air somewhere... there were 55 falling down on 55... Each floor cannot stop that so the structural integrity is gone and that debris joins.
markh1011 3 months ago
@markh1011
Somebody flagged you because you spoke against their dogmatic beliefs, how sad. Very good comment.
wollclark 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
The floors multiplied as they fell. 15 floors would become 30, 60 and so on, strengthening the loaded stress and speeding up the process of the collapse. If the buildings had a concrete core and concrete-encased outer columns I'd agree that the collapse was weird, but they didn't.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Too bad that defies the laws of physics. If you don't understand basic physics, I'm sorry, but your assumptions are absurd.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
Defies the laws of physics? If fifteen floors drop in a building without concrete encased columns, not much is going to save them, especially when the steel in weakened. And they're not assumptions, there's actual science behind it, unlike the assumptions of "common sense" truthers.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark LOL. And you base this off of what examples or experiments?
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
No matter what evidence you see you'll always believe in the conspiracy. You hold on to it because you want to believe it. Anything to the contrary you scoff off and ignore.
Speaking of which, how's that new investigation coming along, again? You know, from Richard Gage, who has NO experience with controlled demolitions?
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Still waiting for this "evidence" you speak of. You have yet to provide any, so I'm confused to what you're talking about. You're argument thus far has been nothing more than, "Nuh uh!"
You don't need experience in CD to know the buildings couldn't have fallen the way the Gov. claims. It's all basic physics and 1000s of experts agree.
It's you Gov. cock riders that scoff at evidence. Even when NIST comes out and agrees to free fall and debunks their own pancake theory...
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
Also, the buildings collapsed from the top down, not from the base columns.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Who said anything about the base columns? When I said "resistance had to be cut out from below," this just means below the top block.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
How would the conspirators know exactly where the planes would impact?
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Umm, bc they're the ones controlling them? Wow.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence
So they somehow got the planes to hit *exactly* where the cuts were? How lucky they didn't blow their cover.
wollclark 3 months ago
@wollclark Well, is it my fault that you not only have zero knowledge in physics, but also in today's technology? :P
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence look you only know half the physics there, did you also include that a higher an object is the more gravitational force it has ... also that there was more 'mass' in the top of the building where the AC and other units vent systems were stored? also inclued that the main structural support for holding the exterior and interior wall is located at the top of the building? I am an engineer, I know the physics involved in building desgin, so get an P.Eng degree and say this.
thatcanadianperson 3 months ago
@thatcanadianperson LOL. Kid, if you're an engineer then I hope you're out of work. But my gut tell mes you're no more an engineer than I am an astronaut. The higher the altitude the LESS the gravitational pull. Not more, you imbecile. Not to mention that the change is so minimal at 1500 ft that it has almost no effect. At an altitude of 250 miles gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface. Trust a Canadian to say something this moronic, EH? Go back to school, stupid.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence Your misapplication of Newton's law is hilarious. 15 floors didn't fall on 95 all at once. 15 floors fell on one floor that was supporting all of the weight above the impact point. Then those 16 floors fell on another floor. Then those 17 floors fell on another floor. Then those 18 floors fell on another floor. Then those 19 floors fell on another floor. Then those 20 floors fell on another floor. Then those 21 floors fell on another floor. Its called pancaking.
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@YellowBlackbird12 Aww, how cute... There's still a kid that subscribes to the pancake theory. Even NIST gave that silly idea up, dufus. If it were possible, which it's not, but if it were, the buildings still would have fallen much, much slower due to the resistance of each floor smacking down into each other. You would have seen visible jolts with each floor. Now go back to school, brush up on your physics and lick your wounds from your epic FAIL.
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence LOL! FEMA concluded there was pancaking. NIST concluded that the sagging floors (which is backed up by undeniable evidence of the outer walls of the building sagging in at the impact floors) pulled the outer columns in until they broke. Then the floors collapsed down one on top of the other. Try to insult me all you want. You are the one who believes the government put tons of explosives in a busy tower with nobody noticing haha. Or do you believed Jews used magic to do it?
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@YellowBlackbird12 I will forever insult you when you subscribe to theories given up on 7 years ago! Time to join us in 2011, kiddo. FEMA presented the theory of pancaking to NIST, they didn't "conclude" anything. NIST disproved the theory after not being able to recreate this theory in any experiments or models. I wouldn't take "tons" of explosives to have brought those towers down, silly. How many times do you want to fail?
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence In 2011 the NIST report is still the official and accepted report that is unchallenged expect by lunatics like yourself. I used the wrong terminology when I said pancaking but the collapse mechanism is still basically the same. What is your alternate theory oh great petulant one?
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@YellowBlackbird12 LOL, you're only weapons against us are to call us "lunatics." Well, that's just you're opinion, which so far has been questionable at best. No, you used the correct term with the "pancake theory." That's exactly what you described. How about proving your silly theory with science and physics?
corruptedsilence 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence Because you ARE a lunatic. The NIST report drew fairly good conclusions about what happened. The video evidence supports it. Why don't you disprove it using science and physics? You can't because your above gross misapplication of Newton's Law is laughable and shows that you are a moron. Also freefall speed for the towers was 9 seconds. Tower 2 fell in 15 seconds. Tower 1 fell in 22 seconds. Suck it Trebek!
YellowBlackbird12 3 months ago
@corruptedsilence Have you ever heard of gravitational potential energy? If a load is supported in the air, it gains potential energy. The energy stored in the top floors was immense. Once the columns gave way, the energy stored in these floors was released onto the bottom floors. This energy was easily enough to destroy the rest of the tower. Absolutely nothing could have stopped those floors falling. There was nowhere near enough resistance.
MazJax 3 months ago
@MazJax I love this argument. I hear it everywhere and it's incredibly misleading every time. It doesn't matter how much energy is stored in the top floors because the floors below it, even the single floor immediately below it, was able to support the weight. In the north tower the falling section uniformly accelerates at a rate equal to 60% of gravitational free fall. That means only 40% of it's kinetic energy is being put into the building.
Ahlywog 3 months ago
@Ahlywog
"the floor below it was able to support the weight"
Please try this experiment: Obtain 10-20 steel and concrete building floors, and drop them from 9 feet up on one more floor built in exactly the same way. See if one floor can survive the force of 12 floors falling on it.
Your science is so flawed. If an object accelerates, the force it can put on the object below it INCREASES, it doesn't decrease. That force that was built up was more than the entire tower was built to withstand.
MazJax 3 months ago
@MazJax What is in that 9 feet of space? Is that one floor able to support the mass of those 10-20 floors at rest? What percentage of it's max capacity is that single floor at with those 10-20 floors at rest? And at what point has anyone said the the first floor beneath the falling section wouldn't be crushed?
Ahlywog 3 months ago
@Ahlywog Each floor was approx 9 ft tall, when the top floors snapped away from the rest of the building, the only way they could go is down.The top floors floors fell this 9 ft distance, gaining enough velocity to crush any floor below it.
Every floor would be easily crushed, the force was too high and resistance was too low due to the tube design of the wtc.
MazJax 3 months ago
@MazJax You need to check your facts. They were 12 foot floors and it most certainly was not a "tube" design. And you didn't answer my questions. You should check out the verinage demolitions.
Ahlywog 3 months ago
@MazJax Honestly I just need to stop responding to people who can't get basic information right. The second you start quoting incorrect numbers when the information is publicly available I'm just going to ignore you. It's like the idiots that argue on behalf of the official story using arguments even the official story doesn't support or has even flatly rejected.
Ahlywog 3 months ago
@MazJax Buildings fail to collapse all the time in demolitions. All it takes is a SINGLE floor to hold up the entire building above for the demolition to fail. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EACH FLOOR IS DESIGNED TO DO!
GeneralKenobiSIYE 3 months ago
@MazJax So if only 40% of the falling section of buildings kinetic energy is being transferred into the rest of the building beneath it, for more than a second of that fall you're kinetic energy being transferred is less than the falling sections potential energy at rest. So the north tower, for the first 40-50 feet, is being crushed by significantly less energy than it's able to support. That just doesn't jive.
Ahlywog 3 months ago
@MazJax That is assuming ALL the mass of the top portion, and all of the accumulated mass of the lower portion as it collapsed stayed ON the building. MOST of the mass was thrown outward, and as such, the top of the building got lighter and lighter as it fell. The top would have been crushed LONG before it ever made it that far. But you expect us to believe the top portion remained intact long enough to destroy the strongest part of the building without itself being destroyed?
GeneralKenobiSIYE 3 months ago
@MazJax That just does NOT follow Newton's third law. Remember, MOST of the mass was thrown away and did not contribute to mass acting against the lower building. The way the buildings completely collapsed was simply impossible when you add that variable in, which is a proven fact in EVERY collapse video out there.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 3 months ago
@MazJax Says who? You? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Show mathematical proof to back that nonsense up. The fact is that the building fell with ZERO resistance. This only happens if the resistance is removed from below.
corruptedsilence 2 months ago
@corruptedsilence If the building fell with zero resistance then why did all that debris fall so much faster than the rest of the structure? Were there rockets attached to the debris? Idiot.
Freefall speed would have taken 9.22 seconds, as many of you twoofers think. But neither tower fell this quickly. WTC1 fell for appprox 17 seconds and WTC2 fell for approx 11 seconds.
MazJax 2 months ago
@MazJax LOL. This is bc much of the debris you're referring to was shot out by an outside force, it wasn't simply falling. Pay attention to how it exits the building, dunce.
Secondly, NIST admits there were around 3 seconds of free fall,
w w w . nist. gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108 . cfm
watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
Third, they claim the collapse times are 11 secs for WTC1 and 9 secs for WTC2. Get your facts, straight.
w w w . nist . gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006 . cfm
corruptedsilence 2 months ago
@corruptedsilence That was funny to read.
"How it exits"
No bomb could send 100,000 tonne chunks of steel like that falling out a hundred feel away.
The debris had already started falling. How could it be blasted by an outside source while it was falling in the air? Invisible rocket bombs attached to the debris in mid-air?
Time the collapses yourself if you want the actual times! From the start until it hits the base. It's Not "9 and 11" seconds. Every video says otherwise.