Ohhh...it burned for 7 hours. Well that explains it. Interesting how every other historical towering inferno burned 2 and even 3 times longer than that and yet remained standing. So far, after 11 years, no one has been able to provide an example from history or by way of experiment to show that fire can cause buildings to collapse in this way. But NIST has their computer models. Also interesting is that the computer models do not look like any of the video footage :) Nice try NIST!
95% of what's left of the "truth movement" for 9/11 are retards, and they take away any creditable information the remaining 5% has.
Take a look at the last page of comments on this video alone, every "truther"rant is utter BS. Watching any video will show the towers fell fast but NOT free fall speed,not into their own footprints (peeled like bananas) ,WTC7 was built over Consolidated Edison, Transfer trusses were used on the 5–7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation.
This is dumbest Vedio I have ever seen this people are very professional terrorist see how they cover there in professional way fucking cunts. Already fucked many life's and now coming up with this collapsing shit .
@malikshah2004 Just because fires have never collapsed a building before, does not mean that it cannot happen! How many jumbo jets have slammed into buildings? How many small planes? How man office fires? Comparing them together is rather stupid. If a jumbo jet slams into another building by any means, and the building does not collapse, then you have a story! But again, the jets were flying over 500 miles an hour, and force is multiplied by the velocity ya know!
This video is the biggest conspiracy theory! Who thinks this stuff up?
A 47 story, steel framed building falls at free fall speed into it's own footprint and it was due to fire? How do they say this and hold a straight face? Worse yet, how do the American people believe it?
@ksr622002 If you actually watch the videos debris is falling faster than the building... not exactly "freefall" now is it? And into it's own footprint? My friend you are sorely mistaken, many buildings had to be demolished or heavily repaired due to parts of this building hitting them, not exactly what I'd call, "landing in the footprint"
And let's not forget that Larry Silverstein said that they pulled building 7. They wired Tower 1 and 2 at the same time they wired building 7 to be pulled.
@ksr622002 Yep. A very convenient 6 month long, top to bottom 'elevator maintenance' was performed in WTC towers 1 & 2. Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center right up 'til Sept. 11th.
@ksr622002 Let not forget, a. if you watch that interview he says "they made the decision" I doubt he's going to let an agency that has no authority to demolish buildings destroy his. Not to mention, you should do some research they were pulling the firefighters out due to safety... Pulling is only a demolition term if the building is pulled over on its side with cables... Read a book sometime, go outside... Get good
Yeah and they all fell at free fall speed. They all met no resistance on the way down and they fell perfectly symmetrical. In addition, the only buildings in history to have ever fallen from fire or from an airline collision, all took place on the same day and were all owned by the same person. What is the mathematical probability of that?
@ksr622002 Yep, you busted it wide open, thats why one of the towers actually started falling at a 20 degree angle, you know, for symmetry, look at the videos, they did not go free fall, debris and dust are actually falling faster and since they have less mass, volume, and weight, in a free fall they should be passed by massive falling building. In addition how many buildings can you think of that have been hit by commercial passenger jets and allowed to burn for so long after?
There's nothing in the world, ever, to compare it to... And one guy yes owned all the buildings... They were all right next to each other, odds were pretty high that once events started rolling there would be much much more damage
so what a coincidence...three flawed building designs, re: WTC1/2 and WTC7, three came crashing down on 911....the only three buildings EVER to collapse from FIRES.
At what point do these wankers initiate Occam's Razor that suggests the obvious answer is best?
ALL buildings OBVIOUSLY looked like DEMOLITIONS, the trinity of buildings all landed essentially in their own footprints.
NIST helped cover the tracks of the real criminals who had motive and access to the buildings prior to 911.
Point is this - HUGE PIROPLASTIC EXPLOSION OF DUST AT WTC7 IDENTICAL WITH WTC1&2 = If WTC7 was wired to be 'pulled'( As stated openly by SILVERSTEIN) then they all were wire to be pulled - by the SAME man
FIRE MY ASS FAGGOT YOUR A LIER AND IT WAS A INSIDE JOB GAY BITCH YOUR WITNESSES ARE THE TERRORIST MEDIA AND THERE WHERE BOMBS THAT WENT OFF I HEARD THEM
Say you wanted WTC7 brought down symmetrically, vertically, at free fall (for over 2 secs) and into its own footprint, hardly even spilling out onto the surrounding sidewalks.
You talk to a CD company who suggest causing random damage to building, starting random fires, then standing about for 7 hours waiting for the magic to happen ;)
Any sane person would say "You're crazy, that'd never work!"
TOTAL BULL SHIT. THE BUILDING ARE SAFE .BUT THEY FALL DOWN IF THEY ARE ON FIRE FOR FEW HOURS.. BULLSHIT I KNOW A BLOCK OF FLATS WHERE I LIVE THAT BURNED FOR ABOUT 10 HOURS AND DID NOT FALL DOWN THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 60'S
hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa this killlllllls me!!!!! Fires and pancakes again hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what a bunch of retards!! " .....is a very rare event" hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa They think we are stupid stupid stupid!!!
NIST hire two contractors to help investigation: ARA and SAIC. Both involved in directed energy technology. ARA co founded the 'Directed Energy Professionals Society'.
If you want to cover up evidence of DEW's you might want to use people who know about it, so they know what evidence NOT to talk about.
Fire vs CD
You think 9/11 planners forgot to plan a controlled opposition theory to official story?! :)
"new", "first of this kind of collapse", yeah of course it is becuase your analysis is TOTAL BULL SH%T. There use to be a day when integrity & honor ment something.
Dr. Shyam Sunder and the people who peddle his disinfo are TRAITORS b/c these NIST "findings" are based on omission of critical evidence, such as thermite found in the surrounding debris.
TRAITOR Sunder does not rule out demolition despite the fact more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard just before and during each tower’s collapse.
Enactment of FALSE FLAG PROHIBITION ACT, making it a high felony for any US official, citizen, agent, operative or ally, to: plan, conspire, orchestrate, commit, counsel, conceal, exploit or knowingly place wrongful blame on any event or occurrence, intended to generate fear over the general population, or as a pretext to engage in: (1) hostile conflict, in or with foreign countries, and/or (2), loss of civil rights to the US population.
There have been buildings in the past, made less with less quality, tht have burned for more than 7 hours, some for almost a day, and haven't collapsed...and most didn't have inside sprinklers...
@95sasquatch The most commonly overlooked thing though isn't that it was fire in itself, but there was structural damage as well combined with it. Designs of buildings so that even with thermal weakening, they should still support it's weight. (is why there was no real collapse in other buildings, low height, not much mass to chain). However, with the damage to sw corner, the sw side had to hold more weight+heat=collapse. Mythbusters duct-tape holding car shows speed which failure can chain.
I really like this video. It's an avantgarde comedy form that makes Borat look like Monty Python. It was really expensive to make though, even if you include the series of books and cartoons that came with the package.
Much like a form of McCarthyism Alex Jones type conspirators, Anonymous and Osama Bin Ladin have benefited from playing into the hands of those fostering "Strategies of stress" and "false flag" operations by spreading extreme hysteria and deceive people when they don't mention factors such as massive fires raging for 7 hours. From one theorist to another Shame Alex you should apologize read "Operation Anonymous A Strategy of Tension"
Eye witness accounts yeah threaten barry jennings with firing him from his job then get him to change his story completely then kill him two days before you release it. Sick.
There are testimonies from firefighters that WTC7 was on fire. There are videos like the same scenario in flames. And these clowns A&E are liars. The anti-fire system was destroyed with the collapse of WTC 1 on WTC5, 6 and 7.It measured more than the distance to the WTC7. This is A&E stupid. He didn´t fall straight.Otherwise the 5 and 6 would be achieved, are worse than the Nazis.They lie a lot.
An underground nuclear demolition explosion patented by Demolitions Inc caused 3/4ths off the building to pulverize. If you watch 911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khalesov and see hyow he explains how it works and then go to patriots question 911 and go to the responders section when they mention the circle around the building it matcches Dimitri's explanation.
@Clarrisani Oh you mean there were brushfires underneath the WTC? Dammit in New York City in that. Maybe some of that New Jersey picante sauce. Wow they must of had some atrium or secret forest or maybe a volcano to have caused such an intense heat that melted steel toe boots. wow Brush fires underground like 15 to 20 feet?
Ri de Janeiro.I´m an engineer. The video only says the result and not the cause. The WTC7 was the wtc1 of 400ft and was hit by the collapse of WTC1, media 1300ft. serious damage to the building structurally. Destroying the fire system. explosives?only ignorant of engineering and communists. NY Firefighters remained there until 3:00 pm. inappropriate to 17:00 pm. There is no demolition jet.
ABSOLUTE PROOF OF 911 INSIDE JOB. IT DEBUNKS EVERYTHING 911TRUTHINATOR SAYS:
/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
HERE'S MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE:
/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0&ob=av3e
THIS NEXT VIDEO IS PROBABLY SOON GOING TO BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT CONTAINS EVERY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THEORY US TRUTHERS HAVE FOUND OUT. INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!
think about it damage was only to SOUTH side, the (weak)fires WHER MOSTLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE, and maybe a few on the side, so logic (if the fires are what took it down along with damage) would have wtc7 fall towards the south side! but it did not, it might have leaned a bit after the CD because of the damage but it fell within its own footprint.
@sh9683 The damage was on the south side, the fires were floor wide as visible in various pieces of footage showing the flames coming out of the windows on the North Side. WTC 7 did tilt as it collapsed, but it did NOT fall within its own footprint. In fact, it caused significant damage to the surrounding buildings, and over the surrounding streets.
@Clarrisani thats what i said! the damage was o the south side, (btw cd's on buildings that are already damaged do tilt sideways as they fall and cause damage) but for the most part remain in own footprint, wtc7 did not have significant fires compare it to wtc 5. you will see wtc 7=smoke barely fires. wtc 5 all flames no smoke, but which one collapsed? by you idiots logic wtc 5 should have collapsed within seconds! yet it did not collapse, then again it had no importance either. unlike wtc7
@sh9683 "by you idiots logic wtc 5 should have collapsed within seconds".
No, it wouldn't. It is very simple physics. The more weight you add to a weakened structure, the more likely it is to collapse. Try it out on Jenga blocks. Remove from the top and it stays stable. Remove from lower down, and the tower will sway and collapse. It applies here. WTC 7 was weakened lower down and had 40 stories of weight bearing down. WTC 5 was fully damaged, 9 story building that had upper floor collapse.
@sh9683 And just so you are aware, floors 5-9 of WTC 5 suffered internal collapse due to a combination of debris damage and fire. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. But as pointed out, there is a big difference between a 9 story structure, and a 47 story structure.
@sh9683 As I said - it comes down to the weight bearing down on the weakened structure. Did you know you could walk into the Borders store in WTC 5 and pick up any book, undamaged? The store was still intact. There was some internal collapse on WTC 5, but it didn't have the weight bearing down on it like WTC 7 did. WTC 7 was 47 stories, had a 20 story gouge in the south side, and fires in the lower floors. The weight of the upper floors on the weakened ones cause internal collapse then the rest.
@Clarrisani what you don't seem to get is wtc 7 did not have fires even close to wtc5, wtc 7's fires where small and smouldering south side view of the smoke is proof to that! @ 2:00 the damage is only to parts of 7 not the entire building! 7 did fall straight down, they had the back to start first but it went straight down! at the same time, small fires do not do that! heck big fires do not do that!
@sh9683 You are still missing the point here. WTC 7 had fires that burned unchecked for several hours that guttered entire floors, weakening the structure. The building was damaged on the South side with a gouge that extended 20 floors, and took out columns. This, combined with the weakened frame from the fires and the weight of 40+ stories caused an interior collapse, and with the interior gone the exterior followed it down. Those be the facts. Fabricated CD conspiracies need not apply.
@Clarrisani but those fires where not even close to the temperatures you believe they where at! the way it collapsed was that as if all structures where taken out AT THE SAME TIME! the way it fell does not match the damage! you can't seem to figure that out!
if there would have been any collapse it would have been like wtc5 some pieces falling after a while then later a few more and then later some more, NOT at the same time!
when it all comes down at the same time it proves its a CD
@sh9683 The temperatures were the temperatures they were recorded at. The way it fell did a heck of a lot of damage. You can see it. All the structures were NOT "taken out" at the same time. Did they intend to fly two planes into the buildings at roughly the same time? Yes, I'll give you that. WTC7 came down in parts. First the section that was gouged out. Several hours later the interior started collapsing. Later the East Penthouse and the rest of the interior came down. Seconds later the rest.
@sh9683 You are still yet to prove any evidence of CD. All the evidence points toward an interior collapse followed by an exterior collapse caused by damage and fire. The fact there was fire, the short time frame, the lack of explosions, all prove there was NOT CD. Setting up a CD takes months, the complete clearing out and stripping of the interior of the building, and a chain of explosions starting at the base. All that was absent. Also, the fires prove further NO CD is possible.
@Clarrisani lol! obviously you have no brain to think with, once again i will say the damage and the way wtc7 collapsed don't match! the damage was on the south side it would have fallen to the south side, (not just lean a bit as it fell upon itself) but completely fall sideways, once again the fires where smouldering! no way on earth where those fires even close enough to cause any damage to the structure! there where witnesses who said there WAS explosions.
@sh9683 Quite the typical Denier insults. The damage and the way WTC7 collapsed are exactly correct. The interior collapsed, the exterior followed. Where will the exterior go with the inside gone? Down. The fires were raging, as was indicated in various videos and photos, not to mention the witness accounts. And again, "explosion" does not equal "explosives". There are a lot of things that can explode in a building fire. The fire at my workplace had explosions, but there were no explosives.
@sh9683 Also, CD explosions would go as follows: A large explosion in the basement, then a series of explosions and flashes that move up each floor of the building. Then a very large explosion at the foot followed immediately by the collapse of the building. The explosions would be audible by everyone within Manhattan, and would have been picked by the seismic readings. None of these explosions or sounds were present, nor on the seismic graphs.
@sh9683 I strongly recommend the article "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN. EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT" that's published on Implosion World. It addresses many of your questions and provides expert answers from people who are highly respected in the field. Just Google the title of the article and it should be at the top in .pdf , published on Implosion World's website.
@Clarrisani i strongly suggest you go back on vids that show wtc7 and see for yourself that those fires where not nearly as hot as you still seem to believe! look up newtonian laws, you will see that its fall is against newtons laws. i do not have questions i know what it is! its a CD maybe a failed one and thats why debris flew all over the place but a CD none the less
@sh9683 Newton's Law supports collapse, and video's do not show how hot a fire is. Seriously - go read that article written by the experts. It raises every point you make, and explains in great detail whether or not it applies in the case of 9/11, why and how the towers and wtc7 collapsed, and whether or not there is anything to say CD was used.
@sh9683 Where the heck are you getting this "it would have fallen sideways" from? The path of least resistance combined with the laws of physics equals DOWN. Given how the building was damaged and the way the collapse went about, it was never going to go sideways. There is no evidence whatsoever of CD, and all evidence points to progressive collapse.
Also, WTC5 had the top six floors burn out, with the bottom 3 fine. There was collapse, but it was never going to be like WTC7.
@Clarrisani lol it could only have fallen down had all structure been taken out at the SAME time! but as even you will agree only the south side had damage, only the south and some one the sides had some mild fires. so any one with a logical mind would conclude it would have fallen to the south side (if at all). anyone who believes crap believes the fires where hot! believes that the fires took 7 down! and think a building can go straight down without all structures taken out at the same time!
@sh9683@clarrisani you can't prove the fires where hot, and because it was all smoke for the most part you have to turn to your official story to be told that it was hot, lol but vids clearly show otherwise. but because they go againts what YOU believe in (official story) you feel you must say you can't use those vids as proof! but look at other building fires you can tell EASILY wether the fire is hot or not
@sh9683 You haven't even looked into the damage on the South Side, I take it, given it would have had no impact in which way the building fell. The fact is that the ENTIRE middle section of the building gave way, starting on the East side and moving across. The exterior worked as a tube, forcing the interior to drop down. With the interior gone, the exterior crumbled down. That's how physics works.
So, if you think CD is the only way, explain how they did it.
@Clarrisani yes i have! i have looked at vids debunkers showed me, but the damage was not visible (i believe there was damage) but the fires had ZERO effect on the tower! because they where not like you think they where! no ive seen towers with more damage (similar to 7) but just as bad if not worse and they did not collapse!
only a complete take down of all structures could have taken down a tower! and that only happens through CD,
@sh9683 Evidence doesn't mean make a claim like "only a complete take down of all structures could have taken down a tower!" It means show some actual evidence or provide a link to a study that actually shows the presence of explosives in the tower - instead of using 'God of the gaps' arguments.
@TheHungrySnail videos don't show that all structures failed at the same time, thats just using your brain and knowledge, if one don't have that, they just turn to there lying government for answers! and quite frankly they could say anything no matter how stupid and you will believe it! i could give you links but would you even bother to look? look up jones he picked up samples and thermite was found. just look at the collapse and how straight it went down
@sh9683 Saying that I wouldn't look is a painfully obvious way of rewording "I don't actually have any proof". Show me evidence that anyone found termite (links to equally stupid unsupported claims on websites is not evidence). Your English is appalling.
@TheHungrySnail what proof do you have other then your filthy government lies? the videos show clearly the fires where weak! but you don't want to believe that! though its clear! but whatever, ignorance is bliss right? if the government put a human body in front of you and created some "facts" and said it was an alien would you believe it?
@sh9683 There are some photos of the damage glimpsed through the heavy smoke from the fires. The Deutsche Bank Building had damage similar too, but not as bad as, WTC7 but no fires. It was considered at risk of collapse, and was eventually demolished due to its damage. Many experts agree that only the fact there were no fires kept it standing.
@Clarrisani You had sent me a comment oct 30th I just found. You mentioned fires smoldering for weeks after...These fires were melting steel toe boots weeks after. temperatures were well over 800 degrees. Only underground nuclear explosions are capable of that and volcanos.
911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khalezov explains everything pretty much.
I wonder why they didn't talk to any of the witnesses who were close enough to hear the explosions. Also, lets see some live footage of the building collapse at close range. Thermite (which was found in the dust samples) might have been used to destroy the building. It doesn't have the loud noise NIST was looking for.
Its highly unlikely that someone would destroy one of his economic centers to get a reason to start a costly war.This is a secret service Psyop against the US to divide the people from the government to paralyse the US.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half years by the german BND.He was assassinated on 11.7.09 because of our homepage. Examples of torture and steering in Germany are found on my channel in the videos on Anneliese Michel and the RAF members.
HAHAHA!!!! Just think about the people that had to make up the simulation to run the way they wanted it!!! The guy pointing at the computer represents the authority of technology. "our computer simulated this, therefore, it is right, and you cannot question the computer because it is far more powerful than your puny pea brain!"
@muttkat Incorrect. The fire was put out almost immediately, but some spot fires sparked and were also put out. Most of the damage was isolated to the 11th floor, with the other floors sustaining primarily water and smoke damage.
@Clarrisani It had started on the 11th floor and spread to 6 floors in limited areas and it burned for 3 hours. I over estimated the floors and hours by a little bit huh? Thanks for letting me know. 911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khakezov tells how the towers fell down. Then if you go to patriots question 911 site and go to WTC survivors testimony about the explosion going around the building it'll match the info from the video.
@muttkat The fire was restricted to the electrical wiring and cores, and the fires were put out as they were spotted. You have read the articles right? This fire was tiny compared to what happened on 9/11 with so many instantaneous fires over a large area, sparked by a plane crashing into the building.
@Clarrisani The WTC research site said it burned for 3 hours and it said flames were shooting out the windows out the east side and I've seen pictures and it looked more than a spot fire. But yes the fires burned more on 911 but not enough to cause the collapse of all 3 buildings because I know what did.
@muttkat Which one do you think is more believable? A Denier/conspiracy website with bias, or the New York Time articles from 1975 when the fire occurred?
Also, fire didn't collapse the buildings on 9/11. Fire combined with two plane crashes, and in the case of WTC 7 a building falling on it, caused the collapse.
@Clarrisani The NYTimes Sprinklers Urged for Trade Center by Mary Brested sat sept 15, 1975 p 45 said it was 3 hours. It also stated it was a 3 alarm fire . A 3 alarm fire consists of 4 engines companies 2 ladder companies, 3 battalion chiefs, 1 deputy chief 1 mask service and a working fire consist of one each fromabovetherefore it wasn't a little fire. The fire and plane did not cause the collapse, the built in demolition scheme thatwasplaced when built did.ControlledDemolitionsholdspatent
@muttkat Shame there is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition outside of the delusions of the deniers. It was a combination of the fires, the planes, the collapsing building, and gravity. And yes, they did push for sprinklers after the 1975 fire, but the sprinklers were disabled on 9/11 because the plane crash cut the pipes, and the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 took out the water pipes to the surrounding buildings.
And it was a little fire compared to some office fires.
@Clarrisani why were eye witnesses who reported explosions going off prior to the plane hitting wtc never included in the fraudulent NIST report? Also, you would think that a thorough investigation would include testing for explosive residue. This never happened??? Why? Also Osama was never charged for the 911 attacks. Apparently not enough evidence....sounds shonky to me
@drewsiboberinski There were no eye witnesses that reported explosions before the plane hit the tower aside from someone who was deep underground and didn't know when the plane hit the tower and is now making money off his story. Testing for explosives was done on WTC 7 during the NIST investigation. Osama received the death penalty for his crime, and there was evidence that he was behind it. Just as there is evidence that it was funded by people in Saudi Arabia.
@Clarrisani LOL You need to do more research dumbo! Everything you've said are lies. who are you covering up for? BTW:
Re eye witnesses, youtube you idiot. Why were they not included in the NIST report? There were many too.
wt7 wasn't even included in the original fraudulent NIST report. Why? (and don't lie again)
Osama was not charged for 911. Not enough evidence. This is FACT. Also, he didn't receive the death penalty. Apparently he was shot in self defence then buried at sea (lol)
@drewsiboberinski I've done the research - clearly you haven't looked further than the websites of the Deniers. I've looked at YouTube, and as I said, outside of that one guy who makes money there are no other "ear witnesses". NIST looked at all footage and did not include it because it was fake, they report only the facts, so YOU can stop lying.
There is plenty of evidence that Osama is behind it. Maybe you should do your research. Same for Osama's death.
@Clarrisani obviosuly you haven't been able to get your out of the official report and research your self, what you call research is opening up the commission report! lol its full of crap, osama did not do anything. haha funny how all evidence that points against the government is "fake" lol gotta love that ignorance!
@sh9683 Real research constitutes looking at EVERYTHING, on all sides of the matter. I've done that. I still do that. Have you? Because if you have you'd realise just how many of the Deniers are talking out of their arse and are in it solely to get rich. Heck, even the Loose Change people started out as a joke and convinced themselves of their own lies. Osama did it - he confirmed it. The hijackers were funded by the Saudi's. Those are the facts.
@Clarrisani if osama did it wtc7 would not have fallen! obviously you refuse to look at wtc7 because it fell with no jet fuel or plane crash but merely damage by the twins, and fires that where barely going! let us not forget the other wtc buildings that got just as much or more damage then wtc7 but did not collapse or catch fire.
@sh9683 Firstly, you need to use full stops more. Makes it easier to understand your messages. Secondly, Osama DIDN'T do WTC 7. That was the result of damage of the collapsing towers. Did you know that there was a second building that they were worried about collapsing? Only it didn't because it didn't have fires? WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all destroyed by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. They were smaller, but nevertheless were destroyed. Most of them flattened.
@Clarrisani 5 didn't collapse nor did 6 or 3 (can't seem to find anything on 4). wtc5 was raging with fires. (did not even come to the ground), they where demolished after because it was beyond salvageable, and they needed to get rid of evidence. only the 1 and 2 and 7 came down, they others remained standing till after and crews took em down.
3 and 4 apart from the initial plane impact and first 15min there was no fires really.
@sh9683 "they needed to get rid of evidence" Evidence of what? Also, 3 and 4 were never hit by planes. They were crushed in the collapse of 1 & 2, just like 5 & 6 were. 7 was NOT a cd - that is only in the minds of the Deniers. It is clear from the footage and witness statements that the building collapsed internally due to the damage from 1, and the fires. Heck, a fireman even remarked on how quite the collapse of 7 was. If it were a CD, they would have heard the explosions from Brooklyn.
@Clarrisani see you only look at official reports which left out the witnesses that said there was explosions they left out the fact those fires where weak, they only put in what they wanted! on your Cd is loud, lol i have heard some quiet ones where you can barely hear (if at all) the explosions. and there have been witnesses to explosions, but you refuse to see that!
5 remained standing and its fires where a lot hotter the 7 so why did 5 not come down? demo crews removed the building after!
@sh9683 I've done the research and it's quite clear that you haven't. CD IS loud, and not silent at all. The fact that there were NO explosives at Ground Zero proves that it wasn't CD. Sure a few witnesses said they heard sounds explosions, but that doesn't mean explosives. Also, saying something was like an explosion does not mean it was. The problem is so many Deniers fail basic English in identifying metaphor and similes.
Also, did you count the difference in floor height between 7 & 5?
@Clarrisani never mind no other wtc buildings caught fire, wtc 5 was in raging flames (lots hotter then 7) but it did not collapse until after and the crews had no choice but to take it down.
why did wtc 5 not come down? it was damaged and it was the ENTIRE building on fire not a select few
@sh9683 WTC5 was also a lot smaller and i f you see the photographs the interior DID collapse and the supports were buckled. Most of WTC 5 was flattened by the collapse of the towers. WTC7 was burning in the lower floors and was gouged out. It had the weight of a couple of dozen floors bearing down on the weakened structure, which caused the interior to collapse, and the exterior of the building to follow it down a couple of seconds later.
@drewsiboberinski 370 Deniers told to come to this site and hit dislike. They're the only ones who really look into this sort of thing these days. Aside from those of us curious to see what piece of fiction the Deniers are spinning this week, of course.
@Clarrisani Control Demolitions Inc had a patent for small nuclear demolitions for skyscrapers such as wtc 1,2,7,Sears building and perhaps the UN building and 2 skyscrapers in Japan. USSR used small nuclear bombs for civil purposes. if you go to 911 The Third truth Dimitri Khalezov you might learn something. I had read something about wtc pipes ran vertical with the stairwells and that people going down encountered alot of water.
@muttkat Would you happen to know what keeps bushfires burning underground for weeks after they're "put out"? It's all the same. If you have a dense amount of material, the fires will continue to smoulder for an extended period. In the case of 9/11 the debris was several stories deep.
Two planes caused three steel framed buildings to collapse (none of which had ever collapsed before) and re-wrote the laws of physics.
Come on, people!! Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes PLEASE.
Listen to the thousands of professors, doctors and physicists etc of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, with more letters after their name than most people's vocabulary - not the thick politicians and the paid-off handful of so-called 'experts'.
@lighthouse500 Actually, MY government isn't friendly with them. America's government is, however, which is why they are protecting them and trying to hide the fact that the Saudi's are the money behind 9/11.
Nist admits free fall. This is in there report and is a fact. They say free fall lasted 8 stories 32.0 m or (105ft). This is in there words, its over. Type nist admits free fall on you tube and a physicist will explain while showing the report. He shows a clip when nist denied free fall "how the structure would need be removed so its impossable ! Then the final report they admit it !! cause physicist chandler proved it.
Its still incredible and worrisome how well these buildings all came down. It's hard to debunk the debunkers. Hell, even I'm not sure who to believe. However, that is research for another day.
These conspiracies, true or false, are irrelevant. We've been lied to countless times for decades. We are still being lied to. Democrat, Republican, even Ron Paul, a man I once idolized, has proven to be nothing but a liar.
Focus on the obvious conspiracy at hand; the 1%. Stand with OWS to make change.
@SpadesNeil The point is that the physics of 9/11 are completely irrelevant when politics is the issue.
You can have all sorts of conspiracies (except the most blatant and idiotic versions) without any of this crackpot bullshit the "truthers" are trying to make legit by screaming about them.
But it takes some fucking brains to figure that out. Not many people can do that, and "fire doesn't melt steelz"-people are certainly way to retarted to do it.
@endimion17 (I'm SpadesNeil on a second account) Basically, yea.
Being a former conspiracy theorist myself, you'd be surprised however how complex these theories get. Now when I say former, that doesn't mean I reject *all* conspiracies, but I don't call myself a theorist. I call myself a conspiracy *researcher*. If one piques my interest, I research it properly. :)
@17589 I am well aware of the bullshit. "Nuclear bombs in basement","energy beams","invsible rockets","missiles strapped on planes","missiles with 'holographic projectors' which project an image of a plane","strong laser beams cutting the towers"...
I know it all.Those things are a product of a demented mind.Nutcases exist,and when things like 9/11 happen they engage in a spree.It has always been like that,and it will never stop.You can't have an argument with those people, because they're MAD.
Nist admits free fall. Yet the idiots who believe the nist people now disagree ! They still say no, not my nist :( This shows these trolls have not even looked at the nist report. Maybe they should read it if there going to swear by it. It says in there " This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m(105FT): NIST ". Type nist admits free fall' a physicist explains while showing nist report.
@endimion17 You start a building collapse clock when it starts to collapse. The roof line starts to drop and thats when clock starts. Nist started the clock too early, anyone can clock this and a physicist has already proving nist fraud. A structural engineer wrote nist under the freedom of info act for caculations&Analysis of the walk of failures of the horizontal girders from there seats at columns 79-81 Was Denied !! Nist response : Releasing this data might jeopardize public safety.
@1stdarknightslayer The building started collapsing when its first penthouse vanished.If you actually read the report like I did,you could see that they explained that the rest,which fell down pretty easy (although slowed down near the end,something they ignored,I don't know why) is pretty much a shell.
It took a lot more for it to fall as a whole building.You nutters disregard the collapse of the east penthouse like it's nothing important.
Please stop making clones and engaging in a clone war.
@endimion17 , You almost had it. If we are going to debate please dont insult me in a childish manner or i will just ignore u. I will speak if we keep it adult and show me your actually mature and have half a brain. I will do the same like i alsways do. Now the fact is nist admitted free fall !! The collapse time starts when the WHOLE building collapses not when a peice breaks off or box caves in. The building did not move for seconds after that box caved in at all. This is not science
When they time a collapse for a demolition they dont start the clock when the first explosion breaks the first connection ! They start the clock when the building starts its drop. Now this is a fact, it dont start when the first connection breaks so you must do the same with any timing of a building collapse. Nist said free fall did not happen and explained how structure below would not be there for that to occur, THEN, There next report they admit free fall !!
@1stdarknightslayer They've never admitted "free fall". Free fall can not exist in atmospheric conditions. They've might have admitted "near free fall of the remnant of the building" after the inner part bulldozed down through it.
@endimion. You ignored the video i said to watch of a physicist explaining.You ignore physics and stay in denile. You just proved you have not even read the nist report. In there final report they say ' This free fall drop continued for 8 stories 32.0 m or (105ft) ' stage 2 of collapse they called it. This is a fact and exact words in there theory report !! Sorry i must move on to the next theorist. Physicists proved it and made nist admit it. Anyone can read it so lieing dont work.
Shyam Sunder ?? Fkn traitor.. The count down went out on the police radio you retards.. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.. boom! Late night Larry is not the only one pulling it..
His job for the last four years (!) has been to copy-paste bogus "questions" on any video he can get his hands on. Actually answering the questions, bringing up actual facts, or even engaging in polite discussion results in either derision and insults, or yet more mindless spam. In fact, the "questions" are so weak even a cursory search on Google will be able to answer most of them.
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA !! This is just a joke SNL skit, right ??
Frigid519 2 days ago
Ohhh...it burned for 7 hours. Well that explains it. Interesting how every other historical towering inferno burned 2 and even 3 times longer than that and yet remained standing. So far, after 11 years, no one has been able to provide an example from history or by way of experiment to show that fire can cause buildings to collapse in this way. But NIST has their computer models. Also interesting is that the computer models do not look like any of the video footage :) Nice try NIST!
dwheel39 2 days ago
95% of what's left of the "truth movement" for 9/11 are retards, and they take away any creditable information the remaining 5% has.
Take a look at the last page of comments on this video alone, every "truther"rant is utter BS. Watching any video will show the towers fell fast but NOT free fall speed,not into their own footprints (peeled like bananas) ,WTC7 was built over Consolidated Edison, Transfer trusses were used on the 5–7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation.
Connected2U2 2 days ago
@Connected2U2 Structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures (It doesn't NEED to melt).
Connected2U2 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Connected2U2 RE:Take a look at the last page of comments on this video alone, every "truther"rant is utter BS. "
And how is your statement of "95% of what's left of the "truth movement" for 9/11 are retards" not some kind of "rant"?
The claim is VIRTUAL free fall speed. Free fall would be impossible, even for CD's. So that's a straw man.
dwheel39 2 days ago
This is dumbest Vedio I have ever seen this people are very professional terrorist see how they cover there in professional way fucking cunts. Already fucked many life's and now coming up with this collapsing shit .
malikshah2004 2 days ago
@malikshah2004 Just because fires have never collapsed a building before, does not mean that it cannot happen! How many jumbo jets have slammed into buildings? How many small planes? How man office fires? Comparing them together is rather stupid. If a jumbo jet slams into another building by any means, and the building does not collapse, then you have a story! But again, the jets were flying over 500 miles an hour, and force is multiplied by the velocity ya know!
BaldurdashWoW 16 hours ago
@malikshah2004 Maybe you're the terrorist since you can't spell and seem to have a very limited grasp on grammar
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@malikshah2004 Maybe you're the terrorist since you can't spell and seem to have a very limited grasp on grammar
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
This video is the biggest conspiracy theory! Who thinks this stuff up?
A 47 story, steel framed building falls at free fall speed into it's own footprint and it was due to fire? How do they say this and hold a straight face? Worse yet, how do the American people believe it?
ksr622002 3 days ago
@ksr622002 If you actually watch the videos debris is falling faster than the building... not exactly "freefall" now is it? And into it's own footprint? My friend you are sorely mistaken, many buildings had to be demolished or heavily repaired due to parts of this building hitting them, not exactly what I'd call, "landing in the footprint"
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
And let's not forget that Larry Silverstein said that they pulled building 7. They wired Tower 1 and 2 at the same time they wired building 7 to be pulled.
ksr622002 3 days ago
@ksr622002 Yep. A very convenient 6 month long, top to bottom 'elevator maintenance' was performed in WTC towers 1 & 2. Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center right up 'til Sept. 11th.
Frigid519 2 days ago
@Frigid519 Wrong... he wasn't a shareholder in securacom since early 2000
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
@ksr622002 Let not forget, a. if you watch that interview he says "they made the decision" I doubt he's going to let an agency that has no authority to demolish buildings destroy his. Not to mention, you should do some research they were pulling the firefighters out due to safety... Pulling is only a demolition term if the building is pulled over on its side with cables... Read a book sometime, go outside... Get good
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
Yeah and they all fell at free fall speed. They all met no resistance on the way down and they fell perfectly symmetrical. In addition, the only buildings in history to have ever fallen from fire or from an airline collision, all took place on the same day and were all owned by the same person. What is the mathematical probability of that?
ksr622002 3 days ago
@ksr622002 Yep, you busted it wide open, thats why one of the towers actually started falling at a 20 degree angle, you know, for symmetry, look at the videos, they did not go free fall, debris and dust are actually falling faster and since they have less mass, volume, and weight, in a free fall they should be passed by massive falling building. In addition how many buildings can you think of that have been hit by commercial passenger jets and allowed to burn for so long after?
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
There's nothing in the world, ever, to compare it to... And one guy yes owned all the buildings... They were all right next to each other, odds were pretty high that once events started rolling there would be much much more damage
ToddFucxer 16 hours ago
so what a coincidence...three flawed building designs, re: WTC1/2 and WTC7, three came crashing down on 911....the only three buildings EVER to collapse from FIRES.
At what point do these wankers initiate Occam's Razor that suggests the obvious answer is best?
ALL buildings OBVIOUSLY looked like DEMOLITIONS, the trinity of buildings all landed essentially in their own footprints.
NIST helped cover the tracks of the real criminals who had motive and access to the buildings prior to 911.
islandbuoy4 6 days ago
@islandbuoy4
from fires alone? i think not, did u happen to forget the massive planes that crashed into the buildings? lol
partisan49 5 days ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 5 days ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@partisan49
another seegullible
did you happento forget that the FFighters said the fires in WTC 1 and 2 were under control and NIST admitted the airplane fuel was gone in minutes?
do stupid people breed faster than smart ones?
I think so...I have wandered into a nest of stupid.
islandbuoy4 5 days ago
so.. so you suppose that they took all that 'radiated' metal - shipped it somewhere and made spoons out of it al to sell back to us (?)
sankhyasutra 1 week ago
OMG this video is the most retarded piece of bullshit apologist propaganda I have EVER witnessed... NOAH'S arc story has less holes in it.
batfly 1 week ago
false dichotomy
batfly 1 week ago
Point is this - HUGE PIROPLASTIC EXPLOSION OF DUST AT WTC7 IDENTICAL WITH WTC1&2 = If WTC7 was wired to be 'pulled'( As stated openly by SILVERSTEIN) then they all were wire to be pulled - by the SAME man
sankhyasutra 1 week ago
@sankhyasutra SPOT ON !
OutlawMCC 1 week ago
FIRE MY ASS FAGGOT YOUR A LIER AND IT WAS A INSIDE JOB GAY BITCH YOUR WITNESSES ARE THE TERRORIST MEDIA AND THERE WHERE BOMBS THAT WENT OFF I HEARD THEM
bushbasher46 1 week ago
@bushbasher46 no plan at the pentagon no plane at shanksville A INSIDE JOB TERRORIST PIG
bushbasher46 1 week ago
Say you wanted WTC7 brought down symmetrically, vertically, at free fall (for over 2 secs) and into its own footprint, hardly even spilling out onto the surrounding sidewalks.
You talk to a CD company who suggest causing random damage to building, starting random fires, then standing about for 7 hours waiting for the magic to happen ;)
Any sane person would say "You're crazy, that'd never work!"
Yet evidence suggests not CD either.
Must be something else then. Obviously!
ggl: Dr Judy Wood
theawecabinet 1 week ago
first time in history that fire brought down a modern building. fake science.
lfis492a 1 week ago 2
nist liars
2pacster1 2 weeks ago
They pulled the damn building!!
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
BLOODY DAMN LIARS AND MORE COVER UPS!!!
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
NIST = National Institution Shit Talkers
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
TOTAL BULL SHIT. THE BUILDING ARE SAFE .BUT THEY FALL DOWN IF THEY ARE ON FIRE FOR FEW HOURS.. BULLSHIT I KNOW A BLOCK OF FLATS WHERE I LIVE THAT BURNED FOR ABOUT 10 HOURS AND DID NOT FALL DOWN THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 60'S
damalisomething 2 weeks ago
hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa this killlllllls me!!!!! Fires and pancakes again hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what a bunch of retards!! " .....is a very rare event" hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa They think we are stupid stupid stupid!!!
aburgheim 2 weeks ago 2
The building fell just like a controlled demolition because it had a few fires in some apartments!
LOL!
Noble lies were never supposed to be so fucking dumb. You obviously thought Plato ruled over a population of 20 IQ Chimps.
Silly cunts.
DiggityMcD 2 weeks ago
nist is full of shit
timeman786 2 weeks ago
@timeman786
NIST not full of shit. NIST very clever.
NIST hire two contractors to help investigation: ARA and SAIC. Both involved in directed energy technology. ARA co founded the 'Directed Energy Professionals Society'.
If you want to cover up evidence of DEW's you might want to use people who know about it, so they know what evidence NOT to talk about.
Fire vs CD
You think 9/11 planners forgot to plan a controlled opposition theory to official story?! :)
Wake up :)
watch?v=ZWjktDuIhR8
theawecabinet 1 week ago
"new", "first of this kind of collapse", yeah of course it is becuase your analysis is TOTAL BULL SH%T. There use to be a day when integrity & honor ment something.
hoss7727 3 weeks ago
Dr. Shyam Sunder and the people who peddle his disinfo are TRAITORS b/c these NIST "findings" are based on omission of critical evidence, such as thermite found in the surrounding debris.
TRAITOR Sunder does not rule out demolition despite the fact more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard just before and during each tower’s collapse.
David F. Petrano, Esq (FL)
dpetrano 3 weeks ago
The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws:
The evidence of fires on the critical 12th floor is clearly falsified (video and photos
document that the fires had burned out at least an hour before collapse – at the
theorized area of collapse initiation).
dpetrano 3 weeks ago
Inside Job / Outside Job. Here's a plan:
Enactment of FALSE FLAG PROHIBITION ACT, making it a high felony for any US official, citizen, agent, operative or ally, to: plan, conspire, orchestrate, commit, counsel, conceal, exploit or knowingly place wrongful blame on any event or occurrence, intended to generate fear over the general population, or as a pretext to engage in: (1) hostile conflict, in or with foreign countries, and/or (2), loss of civil rights to the US population.
dpetrano 3 weeks ago
There have been buildings in the past, made less with less quality, tht have burned for more than 7 hours, some for almost a day, and haven't collapsed...and most didn't have inside sprinklers...
95sasquatch 3 weeks ago
@95sasquatch The most commonly overlooked thing though isn't that it was fire in itself, but there was structural damage as well combined with it. Designs of buildings so that even with thermal weakening, they should still support it's weight. (is why there was no real collapse in other buildings, low height, not much mass to chain). However, with the damage to sw corner, the sw side had to hold more weight+heat=collapse. Mythbusters duct-tape holding car shows speed which failure can chain.
MarkusReese 3 weeks ago
I really like this video. It's an avantgarde comedy form that makes Borat look like Monty Python. It was really expensive to make though, even if you include the series of books and cartoons that came with the package.
HurburBurbur 3 weeks ago
FLAG This, for promotes terrorism.
liljuve13 4 weeks ago
Much like a form of McCarthyism Alex Jones type conspirators, Anonymous and Osama Bin Ladin have benefited from playing into the hands of those fostering "Strategies of stress" and "false flag" operations by spreading extreme hysteria and deceive people when they don't mention factors such as massive fires raging for 7 hours. From one theorist to another Shame Alex you should apologize read "Operation Anonymous A Strategy of Tension"
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
well i guess that is "case closed" then...haha
mytubedude532 1 month ago
Eye witness accounts yeah threaten barry jennings with firing him from his job then get him to change his story completely then kill him two days before you release it. Sick.
RickAstley56 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are testimonies from firefighters that WTC7 was on fire. There are videos like the same scenario in flames. And these clowns A&E are liars. The anti-fire system was destroyed with the collapse of WTC 1 on WTC5, 6 and 7.It measured more than the distance to the WTC7. This is A&E stupid. He didn´t fall straight.Otherwise the 5 and 6 would be achieved, are worse than the Nazis.They lie a lot.
aczjbr 1 month ago
bullshit fuck you nist 911 is a lie it was a demo there was expositions
bushbasher46 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Either a 19 hijacker Spork yielding Mooslem cave man conspiracy, or a five dancing israeli MooseOdd conspiracy.
ChilesGreen 1 month ago
nova: OMG CONSPIRACY!
rambo7149 1 month ago
Comment removed
ChilesGreen 1 month ago
The pankcake theory.. lmao who believes stuff like this haha.
SUNNYRAINWIND 1 month ago
@SUNNYRAINWIND
Those controlling the media created it for our consumption. They serve it as chocolate.
ChilesGreen 1 month ago
@ChilesGreen I never did like chocolate.
SUNNYRAINWIND 1 month ago
There was a man Barry Jennings who was trapped in there before the collapse of the 2 towers f
muttkat 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new kind? think the guy dont want to be deported
2020starman 1 month ago
who are the bleating sheep that's giving this video thumbs down?
JamesIsViolet 1 month ago
@JamesIsViolet
YouTube tampers with the views and ratings of any video deemed politically Incorrect.
ChilesGreen 1 month ago
An underground nuclear demolition explosion patented by Demolitions Inc caused 3/4ths off the building to pulverize. If you watch 911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khalesov and see hyow he explains how it works and then go to patriots question 911 and go to the responders section when they mention the circle around the building it matcches Dimitri's explanation.
muttkat 2 months ago
911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khalezov will tell you why the fires were so hot weeks after.
muttkat 2 months ago
@muttkat For the exact same reason why the bushfire areas in my state were burning underground for weeks, no doubt. Because that's what happens!
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani Oh you mean there were brushfires underneath the WTC? Dammit in New York City in that. Maybe some of that New Jersey picante sauce. Wow they must of had some atrium or secret forest or maybe a volcano to have caused such an intense heat that melted steel toe boots. wow Brush fires underground like 15 to 20 feet?
muttkat 2 months ago
Ri de Janeiro.I´m an engineer. The video only says the result and not the cause. The WTC7 was the wtc1 of 400ft and was hit by the collapse of WTC1, media 1300ft. serious damage to the building structurally. Destroying the fire system. explosives?only ignorant of engineering and communists. NY Firefighters remained there until 3:00 pm. inappropriate to 17:00 pm. There is no demolition jet.
aczjbr 2 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 2 months ago
ABSOLUTE PROOF OF 911 INSIDE JOB. IT DEBUNKS EVERYTHING 911TRUTHINATOR SAYS:
/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
HERE'S MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE:
/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0&ob=av3e
THIS NEXT VIDEO IS PROBABLY SOON GOING TO BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT CONTAINS EVERY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THEORY US TRUTHERS HAVE FOUND OUT. INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!
/watch?v=8tPnX7OPo0Q
HURR HURR YA LIKE ARE THEORIES?
ALL HAIL ALEX JONES! ALL HAIL ALEX JONES!
MazJax 2 months ago
and i have also seen CD's where explosions are barely audible, as i have also seen CD's where they start from the TOP!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Oh really? Because that is really against practice to start at the top for a high rise building. It's dangerous, hence why the don't do it.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
think about it damage was only to SOUTH side, the (weak)fires WHER MOSTLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE, and maybe a few on the side, so logic (if the fires are what took it down along with damage) would have wtc7 fall towards the south side! but it did not, it might have leaned a bit after the CD because of the damage but it fell within its own footprint.
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 The damage was on the south side, the fires were floor wide as visible in various pieces of footage showing the flames coming out of the windows on the North Side. WTC 7 did tilt as it collapsed, but it did NOT fall within its own footprint. In fact, it caused significant damage to the surrounding buildings, and over the surrounding streets.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani thats what i said! the damage was o the south side, (btw cd's on buildings that are already damaged do tilt sideways as they fall and cause damage) but for the most part remain in own footprint, wtc7 did not have significant fires compare it to wtc 5. you will see wtc 7=smoke barely fires. wtc 5 all flames no smoke, but which one collapsed? by you idiots logic wtc 5 should have collapsed within seconds! yet it did not collapse, then again it had no importance either. unlike wtc7
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 "by you idiots logic wtc 5 should have collapsed within seconds".
No, it wouldn't. It is very simple physics. The more weight you add to a weakened structure, the more likely it is to collapse. Try it out on Jenga blocks. Remove from the top and it stays stable. Remove from lower down, and the tower will sway and collapse. It applies here. WTC 7 was weakened lower down and had 40 stories of weight bearing down. WTC 5 was fully damaged, 9 story building that had upper floor collapse.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani Barry Jennings was stuck in WTC 7 for hours because there had been explosions in there before the collapses.
muttkat 2 months ago
@sh9683 And yes, I know WTC 7 was 47 stories. I am referring to the fire location and the floors above it.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 And just so you are aware, floors 5-9 of WTC 5 suffered internal collapse due to a combination of debris damage and fire. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. But as pointed out, there is a big difference between a 9 story structure, and a 47 story structure.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani yes maybe but it didn;t collapse parts might have but not all!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 As I said - it comes down to the weight bearing down on the weakened structure. Did you know you could walk into the Borders store in WTC 5 and pick up any book, undamaged? The store was still intact. There was some internal collapse on WTC 5, but it didn't have the weight bearing down on it like WTC 7 did. WTC 7 was 47 stories, had a 20 story gouge in the south side, and fires in the lower floors. The weight of the upper floors on the weakened ones cause internal collapse then the rest.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani what you don't seem to get is wtc 7 did not have fires even close to wtc5, wtc 7's fires where small and smouldering south side view of the smoke is proof to that! @ 2:00 the damage is only to parts of 7 not the entire building! 7 did fall straight down, they had the back to start first but it went straight down! at the same time, small fires do not do that! heck big fires do not do that!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 You are still missing the point here. WTC 7 had fires that burned unchecked for several hours that guttered entire floors, weakening the structure. The building was damaged on the South side with a gouge that extended 20 floors, and took out columns. This, combined with the weakened frame from the fires and the weight of 40+ stories caused an interior collapse, and with the interior gone the exterior followed it down. Those be the facts. Fabricated CD conspiracies need not apply.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani but those fires where not even close to the temperatures you believe they where at! the way it collapsed was that as if all structures where taken out AT THE SAME TIME! the way it fell does not match the damage! you can't seem to figure that out!
if there would have been any collapse it would have been like wtc5 some pieces falling after a while then later a few more and then later some more, NOT at the same time!
when it all comes down at the same time it proves its a CD
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 The temperatures were the temperatures they were recorded at. The way it fell did a heck of a lot of damage. You can see it. All the structures were NOT "taken out" at the same time. Did they intend to fly two planes into the buildings at roughly the same time? Yes, I'll give you that. WTC7 came down in parts. First the section that was gouged out. Several hours later the interior started collapsing. Later the East Penthouse and the rest of the interior came down. Seconds later the rest.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani Have you watched 911 The Third Truth yet?
muttkat 2 months ago
@muttkat Which one is that one? I've watched that many videos on both sides of the debate now I can't keep track of them anymore.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 You are still yet to prove any evidence of CD. All the evidence points toward an interior collapse followed by an exterior collapse caused by damage and fire. The fact there was fire, the short time frame, the lack of explosions, all prove there was NOT CD. Setting up a CD takes months, the complete clearing out and stripping of the interior of the building, and a chain of explosions starting at the base. All that was absent. Also, the fires prove further NO CD is possible.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani lol! obviously you have no brain to think with, once again i will say the damage and the way wtc7 collapsed don't match! the damage was on the south side it would have fallen to the south side, (not just lean a bit as it fell upon itself) but completely fall sideways, once again the fires where smouldering! no way on earth where those fires even close enough to cause any damage to the structure! there where witnesses who said there WAS explosions.
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Quite the typical Denier insults. The damage and the way WTC7 collapsed are exactly correct. The interior collapsed, the exterior followed. Where will the exterior go with the inside gone? Down. The fires were raging, as was indicated in various videos and photos, not to mention the witness accounts. And again, "explosion" does not equal "explosives". There are a lot of things that can explode in a building fire. The fire at my workplace had explosions, but there were no explosives.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 Also, CD explosions would go as follows: A large explosion in the basement, then a series of explosions and flashes that move up each floor of the building. Then a very large explosion at the foot followed immediately by the collapse of the building. The explosions would be audible by everyone within Manhattan, and would have been picked by the seismic readings. None of these explosions or sounds were present, nor on the seismic graphs.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 I strongly recommend the article "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN. EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT" that's published on Implosion World. It addresses many of your questions and provides expert answers from people who are highly respected in the field. Just Google the title of the article and it should be at the top in .pdf , published on Implosion World's website.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani i strongly suggest you go back on vids that show wtc7 and see for yourself that those fires where not nearly as hot as you still seem to believe! look up newtonian laws, you will see that its fall is against newtons laws. i do not have questions i know what it is! its a CD maybe a failed one and thats why debris flew all over the place but a CD none the less
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Show us the calculations you made using those laws that lead you to that conclusion.
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail Good question. I'd be interesting in sh9683's answer myself.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 Newton's Law supports collapse, and video's do not show how hot a fire is. Seriously - go read that article written by the experts. It raises every point you make, and explains in great detail whether or not it applies in the case of 9/11, why and how the towers and wtc7 collapsed, and whether or not there is anything to say CD was used.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani only supports the collapse if it was a CD!
resistence would have made the tower fall to the side completely!
so what your saying is wtc 7 had blazing hot fires,( and vids can't be used because it disproves you)
but wtc5 had small firs not hot enough to collapse the building? lol i've read your stupid attempts at explaining wtc7 they all stink!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Where the heck are you getting this "it would have fallen sideways" from? The path of least resistance combined with the laws of physics equals DOWN. Given how the building was damaged and the way the collapse went about, it was never going to go sideways. There is no evidence whatsoever of CD, and all evidence points to progressive collapse.
Also, WTC5 had the top six floors burn out, with the bottom 3 fine. There was collapse, but it was never going to be like WTC7.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani lol it could only have fallen down had all structure been taken out at the SAME time! but as even you will agree only the south side had damage, only the south and some one the sides had some mild fires. so any one with a logical mind would conclude it would have fallen to the south side (if at all). anyone who believes crap believes the fires where hot! believes that the fires took 7 down! and think a building can go straight down without all structures taken out at the same time!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 @clarrisani you can't prove the fires where hot, and because it was all smoke for the most part you have to turn to your official story to be told that it was hot, lol but vids clearly show otherwise. but because they go againts what YOU believe in (official story) you feel you must say you can't use those vids as proof! but look at other building fires you can tell EASILY wether the fire is hot or not
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 You haven't even looked into the damage on the South Side, I take it, given it would have had no impact in which way the building fell. The fact is that the ENTIRE middle section of the building gave way, starting on the East side and moving across. The exterior worked as a tube, forcing the interior to drop down. With the interior gone, the exterior crumbled down. That's how physics works.
So, if you think CD is the only way, explain how they did it.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani yes i have! i have looked at vids debunkers showed me, but the damage was not visible (i believe there was damage) but the fires had ZERO effect on the tower! because they where not like you think they where! no ive seen towers with more damage (similar to 7) but just as bad if not worse and they did not collapse!
only a complete take down of all structures could have taken down a tower! and that only happens through CD,
there is evidence of a CD like thermite
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Evidence doesn't mean make a claim like "only a complete take down of all structures could have taken down a tower!" It means show some actual evidence or provide a link to a study that actually shows the presence of explosives in the tower - instead of using 'God of the gaps' arguments.
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail videos don't show that all structures failed at the same time, thats just using your brain and knowledge, if one don't have that, they just turn to there lying government for answers! and quite frankly they could say anything no matter how stupid and you will believe it! i could give you links but would you even bother to look? look up jones he picked up samples and thermite was found. just look at the collapse and how straight it went down
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Saying that I wouldn't look is a painfully obvious way of rewording "I don't actually have any proof". Show me evidence that anyone found termite (links to equally stupid unsupported claims on websites is not evidence). Your English is appalling.
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail what proof do you have other then your filthy government lies? the videos show clearly the fires where weak! but you don't want to believe that! though its clear! but whatever, ignorance is bliss right? if the government put a human body in front of you and created some "facts" and said it was an alien would you believe it?
sh9683 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sh9683 Show me evidence that anyone found thermite.
TheHungrySnail 2 months ago
@sh9683 There are some photos of the damage glimpsed through the heavy smoke from the fires. The Deutsche Bank Building had damage similar too, but not as bad as, WTC7 but no fires. It was considered at risk of collapse, and was eventually demolished due to its damage. Many experts agree that only the fact there were no fires kept it standing.
There is no evidence of thermite. Only theories.
Now, how did they do the CD. In detail please.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@sh9683 btw, if you're going to take the "thermite" track, explain the lack of barium.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani You had sent me a comment oct 30th I just found. You mentioned fires smoldering for weeks after...These fires were melting steel toe boots weeks after. temperatures were well over 800 degrees. Only underground nuclear explosions are capable of that and volcanos.
911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khalezov explains everything pretty much.
muttkat 2 months ago
@muttkat Yes they were melting the boots - the RUBBER on the boots. -_-
Clarrisani 2 months ago
I wonder why they didn't talk to any of the witnesses who were close enough to hear the explosions. Also, lets see some live footage of the building collapse at close range. Thermite (which was found in the dust samples) might have been used to destroy the building. It doesn't have the loud noise NIST was looking for.
inquisitivemindset 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its highly unlikely that someone would destroy one of his economic centers to get a reason to start a costly war.This is a secret service Psyop against the US to divide the people from the government to paralyse the US.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half years by the german BND.He was assassinated on 11.7.09 because of our homepage. Examples of torture and steering in Germany are found on my channel in the videos on Anneliese Michel and the RAF members.
Martin Bott
wwwtotalitaerde 2 months ago
HAHAHA!!!! Just think about the people that had to make up the simulation to run the way they wanted it!!! The guy pointing at the computer represents the authority of technology. "our computer simulated this, therefore, it is right, and you cannot question the computer because it is far more powerful than your puny pea brain!"
xpez 2 months ago
@NO truthinator Alex Jones didn't say that unless he' was being really sarcastic.
muttkat 3 months ago
Watch 911 The Third truth with Dimitri Khalesov and it will tell you how the towers collapsed.
muttkat 3 months ago
WTC 1 had a fire in 1975 in which burned for 8 hours and burned like 10 to 15 floors and it didn't collapse.
muttkat 3 months ago
@muttkat Incorrect. The fire was put out almost immediately, but some spot fires sparked and were also put out. Most of the damage was isolated to the 11th floor, with the other floors sustaining primarily water and smoke damage.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani It had started on the 11th floor and spread to 6 floors in limited areas and it burned for 3 hours. I over estimated the floors and hours by a little bit huh? Thanks for letting me know. 911 The Third Truth Dimitri Khakezov tells how the towers fell down. Then if you go to patriots question 911 site and go to WTC survivors testimony about the explosion going around the building it'll match the info from the video.
muttkat 3 months ago
@muttkat The fire was restricted to the electrical wiring and cores, and the fires were put out as they were spotted. You have read the articles right? This fire was tiny compared to what happened on 9/11 with so many instantaneous fires over a large area, sparked by a plane crashing into the building.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani The WTC research site said it burned for 3 hours and it said flames were shooting out the windows out the east side and I've seen pictures and it looked more than a spot fire. But yes the fires burned more on 911 but not enough to cause the collapse of all 3 buildings because I know what did.
muttkat 3 months ago
@muttkat Which one do you think is more believable? A Denier/conspiracy website with bias, or the New York Time articles from 1975 when the fire occurred?
Also, fire didn't collapse the buildings on 9/11. Fire combined with two plane crashes, and in the case of WTC 7 a building falling on it, caused the collapse.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani The NYTimes Sprinklers Urged for Trade Center by Mary Brested sat sept 15, 1975 p 45 said it was 3 hours. It also stated it was a 3 alarm fire . A 3 alarm fire consists of 4 engines companies 2 ladder companies, 3 battalion chiefs, 1 deputy chief 1 mask service and a working fire consist of one each fromabovetherefore it wasn't a little fire. The fire and plane did not cause the collapse, the built in demolition scheme thatwasplaced when built did.ControlledDemolitionsholdspatent
muttkat 3 months ago
@muttkat Shame there is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition outside of the delusions of the deniers. It was a combination of the fires, the planes, the collapsing building, and gravity. And yes, they did push for sprinklers after the 1975 fire, but the sprinklers were disabled on 9/11 because the plane crash cut the pipes, and the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 took out the water pipes to the surrounding buildings.
And it was a little fire compared to some office fires.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani LOL. what a delusional comment
drewsiboberinski 3 months ago
@Clarrisani why were eye witnesses who reported explosions going off prior to the plane hitting wtc never included in the fraudulent NIST report? Also, you would think that a thorough investigation would include testing for explosive residue. This never happened??? Why? Also Osama was never charged for the 911 attacks. Apparently not enough evidence....sounds shonky to me
drewsiboberinski 3 months ago
@drewsiboberinski There were no eye witnesses that reported explosions before the plane hit the tower aside from someone who was deep underground and didn't know when the plane hit the tower and is now making money off his story. Testing for explosives was done on WTC 7 during the NIST investigation. Osama received the death penalty for his crime, and there was evidence that he was behind it. Just as there is evidence that it was funded by people in Saudi Arabia.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani LOL You need to do more research dumbo! Everything you've said are lies. who are you covering up for? BTW:
Re eye witnesses, youtube you idiot. Why were they not included in the NIST report? There were many too.
wt7 wasn't even included in the original fraudulent NIST report. Why? (and don't lie again)
Osama was not charged for 911. Not enough evidence. This is FACT. Also, he didn't receive the death penalty. Apparently he was shot in self defence then buried at sea (lol)
drewsiboberinski 3 months ago
@drewsiboberinski I've done the research - clearly you haven't looked further than the websites of the Deniers. I've looked at YouTube, and as I said, outside of that one guy who makes money there are no other "ear witnesses". NIST looked at all footage and did not include it because it was fake, they report only the facts, so YOU can stop lying.
There is plenty of evidence that Osama is behind it. Maybe you should do your research. Same for Osama's death.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani obviosuly you haven't been able to get your out of the official report and research your self, what you call research is opening up the commission report! lol its full of crap, osama did not do anything. haha funny how all evidence that points against the government is "fake" lol gotta love that ignorance!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Real research constitutes looking at EVERYTHING, on all sides of the matter. I've done that. I still do that. Have you? Because if you have you'd realise just how many of the Deniers are talking out of their arse and are in it solely to get rich. Heck, even the Loose Change people started out as a joke and convinced themselves of their own lies. Osama did it - he confirmed it. The hijackers were funded by the Saudi's. Those are the facts.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani if osama did it wtc7 would not have fallen! obviously you refuse to look at wtc7 because it fell with no jet fuel or plane crash but merely damage by the twins, and fires that where barely going! let us not forget the other wtc buildings that got just as much or more damage then wtc7 but did not collapse or catch fire.
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 Firstly, you need to use full stops more. Makes it easier to understand your messages. Secondly, Osama DIDN'T do WTC 7. That was the result of damage of the collapsing towers. Did you know that there was a second building that they were worried about collapsing? Only it didn't because it didn't have fires? WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all destroyed by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. They were smaller, but nevertheless were destroyed. Most of them flattened.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani 5 didn't collapse nor did 6 or 3 (can't seem to find anything on 4). wtc5 was raging with fires. (did not even come to the ground), they where demolished after because it was beyond salvageable, and they needed to get rid of evidence. only the 1 and 2 and 7 came down, they others remained standing till after and crews took em down.
3 and 4 apart from the initial plane impact and first 15min there was no fires really.
wtc 7 was a CD.
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 "they needed to get rid of evidence" Evidence of what? Also, 3 and 4 were never hit by planes. They were crushed in the collapse of 1 & 2, just like 5 & 6 were. 7 was NOT a cd - that is only in the minds of the Deniers. It is clear from the footage and witness statements that the building collapsed internally due to the damage from 1, and the fires. Heck, a fireman even remarked on how quite the collapse of 7 was. If it were a CD, they would have heard the explosions from Brooklyn.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani see you only look at official reports which left out the witnesses that said there was explosions they left out the fact those fires where weak, they only put in what they wanted! on your Cd is loud, lol i have heard some quiet ones where you can barely hear (if at all) the explosions. and there have been witnesses to explosions, but you refuse to see that!
5 remained standing and its fires where a lot hotter the 7 so why did 5 not come down? demo crews removed the building after!
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 I've done the research and it's quite clear that you haven't. CD IS loud, and not silent at all. The fact that there were NO explosives at Ground Zero proves that it wasn't CD. Sure a few witnesses said they heard sounds explosions, but that doesn't mean explosives. Also, saying something was like an explosion does not mean it was. The problem is so many Deniers fail basic English in identifying metaphor and similes.
Also, did you count the difference in floor height between 7 & 5?
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani never mind no other wtc buildings caught fire, wtc 5 was in raging flames (lots hotter then 7) but it did not collapse until after and the crews had no choice but to take it down.
why did wtc 5 not come down? it was damaged and it was the ENTIRE building on fire not a select few
sh9683 2 months ago
@sh9683 WTC5 was also a lot smaller and i f you see the photographs the interior DID collapse and the supports were buckled. Most of WTC 5 was flattened by the collapse of the towers. WTC7 was burning in the lower floors and was gouged out. It had the weight of a couple of dozen floors bearing down on the weakened structure, which caused the interior to collapse, and the exterior of the building to follow it down a couple of seconds later.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
@Clarrisani 191 likes, 370 dislikes
drewsiboberinski 3 months ago
@drewsiboberinski 370 Deniers told to come to this site and hit dislike. They're the only ones who really look into this sort of thing these days. Aside from those of us curious to see what piece of fiction the Deniers are spinning this week, of course.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani Control Demolitions Inc had a patent for small nuclear demolitions for skyscrapers such as wtc 1,2,7,Sears building and perhaps the UN building and 2 skyscrapers in Japan. USSR used small nuclear bombs for civil purposes. if you go to 911 The Third truth Dimitri Khalezov you might learn something. I had read something about wtc pipes ran vertical with the stairwells and that people going down encountered alot of water.
muttkat 3 months ago
@Clarrisani Would you happen to know what caused fires to continue burning underground weeks months after the collapses?
muttkat 3 months ago
@muttkat Would you happen to know what keeps bushfires burning underground for weeks after they're "put out"? It's all the same. If you have a dense amount of material, the fires will continue to smoulder for an extended period. In the case of 9/11 the debris was several stories deep.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani bullshit. pull your head out of the sand
drewsiboberinski 3 months ago
What ? You mean you guys never read Aya Matwit's "Seamlessly Symmetrical Structural Failures And The Freefall Paradox" ?
JJTheJunkMan1 3 months ago
Two planes caused three steel framed buildings to collapse (none of which had ever collapsed before) and re-wrote the laws of physics.
Come on, people!! Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes PLEASE.
Listen to the thousands of professors, doctors and physicists etc of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, with more letters after their name than most people's vocabulary - not the thick politicians and the paid-off handful of so-called 'experts'.
GuyMagicFingers 3 months ago
even tho to me the events and explantions are full of bullshit and holes !!
lighthouse500 3 months ago
Even if everything happend on 911 like the offical story says, it still dont prove who funded and planed it,
lighthouse500 3 months ago
@lighthouse500 The paperwork shows who funded and planned it. The Saudis funded it, Al-Qaeda planned it.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani haha paperwork by whom its not hard to make up paperwork, and if saudis did found it why is your goverment so freindly with them
lighthouse500 3 months ago
@lighthouse500 Actually, MY government isn't friendly with them. America's government is, however, which is why they are protecting them and trying to hide the fact that the Saudi's are the money behind 9/11.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
Nist admits free fall. This is in there report and is a fact. They say free fall lasted 8 stories 32.0 m or (105ft). This is in there words, its over. Type nist admits free fall on you tube and a physicist will explain while showing the report. He shows a clip when nist denied free fall "how the structure would need be removed so its impossable ! Then the final report they admit it !! cause physicist chandler proved it.
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
Its still incredible and worrisome how well these buildings all came down. It's hard to debunk the debunkers. Hell, even I'm not sure who to believe. However, that is research for another day.
These conspiracies, true or false, are irrelevant. We've been lied to countless times for decades. We are still being lied to. Democrat, Republican, even Ron Paul, a man I once idolized, has proven to be nothing but a liar.
Focus on the obvious conspiracy at hand; the 1%. Stand with OWS to make change.
SpadesNeil 3 months ago
@SpadesNeil The point is that the physics of 9/11 are completely irrelevant when politics is the issue.
You can have all sorts of conspiracies (except the most blatant and idiotic versions) without any of this crackpot bullshit the "truthers" are trying to make legit by screaming about them.
But it takes some fucking brains to figure that out. Not many people can do that, and "fire doesn't melt steelz"-people are certainly way to retarted to do it.
endimion17 3 months ago
@endimion17 (I'm SpadesNeil on a second account) Basically, yea.
Being a former conspiracy theorist myself, you'd be surprised however how complex these theories get. Now when I say former, that doesn't mean I reject *all* conspiracies, but I don't call myself a theorist. I call myself a conspiracy *researcher*. If one piques my interest, I research it properly. :)
17589 3 months ago
@17589 I am well aware of the bullshit. "Nuclear bombs in basement","energy beams","invsible rockets","missiles strapped on planes","missiles with 'holographic projectors' which project an image of a plane","strong laser beams cutting the towers"...
I know it all.Those things are a product of a demented mind.Nutcases exist,and when things like 9/11 happen they engage in a spree.It has always been like that,and it will never stop.You can't have an argument with those people, because they're MAD.
endimion17 3 months ago
@endimion17 Is it sad that I've heard all of those save for the energy weapons and nukes? ^^;
17589 3 months ago
Comment removed
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
Nist admits free fall. Yet the idiots who believe the nist people now disagree ! They still say no, not my nist :( This shows these trolls have not even looked at the nist report. Maybe they should read it if there going to swear by it. It says in there " This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m(105FT): NIST ". Type nist admits free fall' a physicist explains while showing nist report.
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
@endimion17 You start a building collapse clock when it starts to collapse. The roof line starts to drop and thats when clock starts. Nist started the clock too early, anyone can clock this and a physicist has already proving nist fraud. A structural engineer wrote nist under the freedom of info act for caculations&Analysis of the walk of failures of the horizontal girders from there seats at columns 79-81 Was Denied !! Nist response : Releasing this data might jeopardize public safety.
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
@1stdarknightslayer The building started collapsing when its first penthouse vanished.If you actually read the report like I did,you could see that they explained that the rest,which fell down pretty easy (although slowed down near the end,something they ignored,I don't know why) is pretty much a shell.
It took a lot more for it to fall as a whole building.You nutters disregard the collapse of the east penthouse like it's nothing important.
Please stop making clones and engaging in a clone war.
endimion17 3 months ago
@endimion17 , You almost had it. If we are going to debate please dont insult me in a childish manner or i will just ignore u. I will speak if we keep it adult and show me your actually mature and have half a brain. I will do the same like i alsways do. Now the fact is nist admitted free fall !! The collapse time starts when the WHOLE building collapses not when a peice breaks off or box caves in. The building did not move for seconds after that box caved in at all. This is not science
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
When they time a collapse for a demolition they dont start the clock when the first explosion breaks the first connection ! They start the clock when the building starts its drop. Now this is a fact, it dont start when the first connection breaks so you must do the same with any timing of a building collapse. Nist said free fall did not happen and explained how structure below would not be there for that to occur, THEN, There next report they admit free fall !!
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
@1stdarknightslayer They've never admitted "free fall". Free fall can not exist in atmospheric conditions. They've might have admitted "near free fall of the remnant of the building" after the inner part bulldozed down through it.
endimion17 3 months ago
@endimion. You ignored the video i said to watch of a physicist explaining.You ignore physics and stay in denile. You just proved you have not even read the nist report. In there final report they say ' This free fall drop continued for 8 stories 32.0 m or (105ft) ' stage 2 of collapse they called it. This is a fact and exact words in there theory report !! Sorry i must move on to the next theorist. Physicists proved it and made nist admit it. Anyone can read it so lieing dont work.
1stdarknightslayer 3 months ago
Shyam Sunder ?? Fkn traitor.. The count down went out on the police radio you retards.. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.. boom! Late night Larry is not the only one pulling it..
WebMediaTV 3 months ago
ctcole is a troll and a spammer.
His job for the last four years (!) has been to copy-paste bogus "questions" on any video he can get his hands on. Actually answering the questions, bringing up actual facts, or even engaging in polite discussion results in either derision and insults, or yet more mindless spam. In fact, the "questions" are so weak even a cursory search on Google will be able to answer most of them.
Don't feed the troll. Thanks.
SexyMelon 3 months ago