That's bullshit. I didn't see any debris at all on bulding 7. The collapses were so goddamn obvious... It just ain't sane if you deny it being a terrorist attack....
You ever think you may be banned for good reason? Possible your just an idiot? But for the fact the theory you push as fact, well is lame brain at best. I know and can show you proof, yes bombs brought the towers down, but you would not accept the reality of what is. Or are you paid to be a propagandist?
911 for this dummy. Bombs, in buildings, bombs blow up buildings, mass murder results when buildings blown to hell by person with button. Button pushed. Boom. Dead Americans. Killed by traitors to America. Solution, arrest traitors, put on trial. If guilty, bring out old sparky, the one that smoked the Rosenbergs. Cook them too. End of story.
911 happened by bin laden. He took credit for it... bragged about it on video after video and mentioned the name of the pilots on videos praising their actions.... Now anyone that says the american govt is capable of domestic terroism on this scale gives govt beaurocrats way to much credit.
19 Arabs with blades took a plane, killed the crew, no brave American stopped them. They flew them PERFECTLY to their targets at 540mph at sea-level, without the biggest military complex being able to stop them OR film them. Then (for the 1st time in engineering history!) 3 steel-framed scrapers turn to dust and fall to the ground PERFECTLY ALL on the same day, in the same place. Your govt. LOVES you, works ONLY 4 you and everything is just like the TV says it is!
No, it DIDNCollapse in it's own footprint, If you think it didn't, it's because you DIDN'T look at it from all angles. And yes, it DIDn't fall at an angle. WTC was another control explosion. This was an inside job to invade other countries. I simply don't understand how the mst powerful country iun the world with most sophisticated equipemnt was NOT able to stop the hijackers of that day. REALLY I DON'T !
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
@11kungfu11 Do some research dude. Youtube is full of steel buildings that collapsed due to fire. 0.04% of architects and engineers signed-up to say that what we see with our own eyes was false. They say the towers fell at "free fall" speed when your own damn eyes can see that the dust and debris fell faster.
Put down the pipe and stop repeating what you hear, and do 2 minutes of research into the subject.
(Then pick up the pipe. Just do a little research first!)
@JPDisme Ok, would you provide the links to steel structures falling a fraction slower then free fall straight down? I cant to seem to find any all I can find is before 9/11 there was none, after 9/11 none. So ofcause I am interested and I smoke joints brother;P just dont zombie myself, Its for back pains from an accident I had in motoX
:)
Also if you could do the same for building 7? If you can Ill be sure to share it with others too.
@11kungfu11 The link is every single video of the towers collapsing. The plume of debris is like an upside-down mushroom cloud. The debris falling is LESS than free-fall, while The building collapse lags behind.
There are no good videos of Bldg 7 collapse. But by all accounts the bldg had central columns for support, and a generator and oil tank that caught fire at the the center of the supports and the bldg collapsed inwards when the center columns weakened.
@JPDisme I know of these buildings the explanation for the catastrophic collapse LESS then a second from free fall, does not explain the madrid windsor tower witch burnt for 17 hours "uncontrolled" and only sufferd what would be expected with a partial collapse of the area that was engulfed in the fires.
Nor the CCTV HQ in beijing that engulfed the whole building but there was no collapse at all.
I did find this though, watch?v=gYXrCimpQSc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
@11kungfu11 I watched (skimmed) the video looking for relevance. I guess your point is that they claim "no high-rise steel structure ever collapsed due to fire before." Am I correct in the point you were making? Because I'm seeing lo-rise steel frame buildings that melted, sagged, and then collapsed during ordinary fires. The point of the Madrid fire is that structure partially collapsed during an ordinary fire. That is something Truthers claim has NEVER happened, ever.
@11kungfu11 Google "TU Delft bouwkunde brand fire collapse" I cannot find the citation but I recall hearing that it was a fire started by a coffee-pot- not CD, not aviation fuel either. It was an office paper fire.
@11kungfu11 - Here is a "reasonable" explanation of Bldg 7. This also fits the profile of the coffee-pot fire in Europe and the office fire in Madrid. Steel sags in ordinary fires. 0.04% of architects and engineers stick their fingers in their ears.
@JPDisme I dont know where you get your "0.04% of architects and engineers stick their fingers in their ears." In the states there is 1,600+ A/E's and a further 14,000 researchers that found explosive materials in the dust. just watch that link I sent you and THEN show me irrefutable proof because I am more likely to believe scientists showing there results and the A/E's that show exactly how and why with all the proof backing them, aswell as the firemen that were there.
@JPDisme Then Google "Torre Windsor - collapse and molten metal" Yet another steel frame building that collapsed without CD or aviation fuel or super hi-grade nano-thermites.
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
I believe the motive behind conspiracy theories is not wanting to believe that america could be vulnerable. I've got no doubt that islamic extremists were behind these attacks.
Not me. I know Islamic extremists were behind the attacks just like you, but I say they just want to believe America's evil, and delude themselves into thinking they're stopping war... or at least some of them do.
@byen8 I'm pretty sure that it was more about the 7 billion dollars that the lease owner got for his 15 million dollar investment and the lose of the thousands of documents linked to major bank and insurance fraud cases such as enron and worldcom among others.
The fact that there has not been another investagtion into what happened should be enough for people to question. governments rely on ignorance. this is well known. all you need to do is look back in history. everyone thinks that their generation is the smartest one "this cant ha[[en to us, why would they". if you go in with no preconceptions about the event. go in with an open mind. you will come out with questions.
@ representativepress: you said that there was significant damage to the south side of bldg 7. I'm no expert but, if that was the case wouldn't the bldg collapsing to that side instead of str8 down? If I'm stand erect and my right leg gives out wouldn't the natural thing for my body to do is fall to the side where the support has been weakened? I'm just using common sense here.
@DTD110865 No it collapsed into its footprint there are several angles you can watch on youtube maybe some minor debris damaged it but it didn't fall on its side
No, it DIDN'T Collapse in it's own footprint, nimrod!, If you think it did, it's because you DIDN'T look at it from all angles. And yes, it DID fall at an angle. BMCC wasn'r the only building that WTC 7 hit.
Hi Representative Press I have one question for you.
If the official story is correct about 9/11 then why is the government being so secretive about it and why do they dodge questions about it? Also if they really wanted to put the conspiracy theories to bed they would release at least one video of a plane hitting the side of the pentagon and that surely would shut alot of conspiracies up. But the fact is they won't and my main question is why? If you tell the truth you have nothing to hide!
@BannedByTheTube Maybe the official story is so public and obvious that only a lunatic would believe otherwise? Why do Truthers deny the evidence of bodies and airplane parts at the Pentagon and also Shanksville? Any moron can watch the plane hit the Pentagon, so why are you so anally obsessed to deny it? 103 people gave testimony that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Some described it as a 757, others said it was United Airlines colors. NONE said it was a missile.
@JPDisme Then why dont they release ALL of the videos they HAVE from the pentagon? Most secure building in the world and all they can release is ONE losey video?!? WTF.............there is more video footage at a fucking 7-11 if that is the case.............something stinks and the AMERICAN public knows it..........and what about building 7? How did that fall?.........earthquake at that exact time? bunch of fucking hog wash
@BannedByTheTube Oh that's right! It's a grand conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of government workers to plant the bombs, redirect air-traffic and provide false witness.
Watergate was only 3 people, and that conspiracy crumbled in a matter of days. I guess we are so good covering up now that 250,000 people can take part in your lunatic delusion in broad daylight. You have such supreme confidence in Washington. So much so that it makes me ill.
@JPDisme yea I hear where your coming from and I have nothing against the official story but as a lust for detah and destruction I would like to see the plane clearly slamming into the pentagin as that would give me great pleasure to watch thats all!
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F-15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
If WTC 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, how do you explain firefighters predicting the building's collapse 3 hours before the actual collapse?
this little shrub of awkwardly narrated pictures, vs. the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise. Your a joke playing to your own refusal of info that challenges your cognition watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
all those photos are from where the plane hit....... so its gunna show some bent girders. watch the architects for truth thing man goes into hard facts about physics of the situation, pretty basic physics which show something strange. its really sick if its true like. the pilots for truth is also pretty revealin. some guy also does one that shows how thermite can cut through steel, intense like
@FatABigCat "guy also does one that shows how thermite can cut through steel, intense like"
- The truther leaders don't even talk about thermite anymore ... they have jumped on to the absurd idea that magic government technology nanothermite was painted on the columns.... yet one also thinks 100 tons was used...yet none can even demonstrate if its possible...
@markh1011 watch the video. a guy shows how its possible with thermate. ill try find the video now. im not saying that this is what happened. but it deffintitly, without a doubt, shows that termite can cut through steel. i agree that alot of the theories are crap. and have no basis. but alot also show how it can be explained by basic scientific facts. realy just check it. youve gotta look at the history also man. flase flags arent a recent thing. think of vietnam. pearl harbour etc.
this video does not prove 911 wasnt a controlled demolition... FAIL. plus it was already admitted. why dont you stupid sheeple understand simple math.
the military industrial complex OWNS the main stream media,also see project mockingbird ,the cnn gop debates were sponsored by AEI,a zionist isralei think tank ,with a zionist agenda,and all zionist jews were asking the questions,most which had something to do with an attack on iran, this all right out in front of your face ,is it really that hard for you to see?aipac is also the largest or second larget lobby in the US,alec is the other
that is bullshit the media is owned and beholden to the military industrial complex, please dont foret that over 50% of our tax money goes to "defense"more like offense,and that dont even include black projects and other departments, its actually more like 75% or higher,that is an incredible unfathomable amount of $,which hold a similar incredible conflict of interest to the media beholden to it,THEY LIE,this is not about you,they dont give a fuck about protecting YOU,like carlin said
the 2 cases line up and are similar, you had norriga as the public enemy #1 in the 80's the cia boogey man,really cia asset, and then it was bin laden, public enemy #1 cia asset ,norriega was the bin laden of the 80's,watch panama deception ,narrated by elizabeth montgomery of bewitched,now we see the jew run,illuminati/elite controlled media doing the same thing it did in the run up to iraq 93,with the yellow cake,what i didnt find in africa,wmd bullshit ,saying iran has the bomb,goin to get it
it the vatican and the jesuits?or is it a cabal of all of the above? i lean toward the latter,, and al queda is a cia created term that directly translates into "the base" it s list they created of usefull people in the muslim world that they use to foment revolutions and fight proxy wars,bin laden was a cia asset ,as was manuel norriega, this all ties into the iran contra affair,again drugs are involved too last time coke ,this time opiates,please watch the panama deception on here see how
funded the mujahadin and taliban&al queda against the russians, there cia trained ,and created,and funded to bring down the russians by zbignew brezinski ,this rep press gut is moussad cointelpro,trying to point attention away from israel,its so obvious ,now the us is using al queda again ,they used it to bring down libya,then flew then to syria,which they need as a staging area when they strike iran,the real question is,i israel at the top of the pyramid? or is it anglo wasp elites?or is
everything else that cinches it and really makes the case that this was moussad, and the #1 question is who bennefits? did the muslims bennefit from 9-11? or did larry silverstein, big oil ,military industrial complex, and israel?come on these people are not stupid(muslims)they are much more political and involved then americans are,there not sitting aroung watching dancing with the stars,there involved in whats going on ,you really think they would invite the retaliation?you know the US fu
@markh1011 and if you watch fabled enemies and war by deception you will see they make it anything but simple ,there is just so much information and connections it get hard to follow at times,it the people who oversimplify it that usually the ones trying to hide something,there are some 9-11 conspiracy docs that do do that a bit, but in the interest of time, but you can research these thing on your own,hiw the building fell&what hit the pentagon is the most trivial of all the evidence its reall
@markh1011 yae well there was a HUGE presentation in euorpe i forget the country but it was a 72 hour presentation where they laid out all the evidence, and alot of the people who make these have other movies and dvd extras and supplemental material ,it is really the offical story that tries to simplify more then the so called conspiricy theorists do,and believe me i have watched more on this than anyone as far as official stuff,everything from pbs,natgeo,history,tlc,discovery,ch,ive seen it all
@markh1011 just watch fabled enemies and war by deception ,there is so many points and so much information trying to be squeezed in 2 and a half film that it moves really fast, you really have to pause it and take your time to read each point and connection ,and write down the ones you want to fact check and research
@bulletproof2353 ",there is so many points and so much information trying to be squeezed in 2 and a half " - That's what creationists and conspiracy theorists do. They line up as many distortions and half truths as possible to try and make their case seem credible.. and it almost does at first glance, which is why so many believe. As you said it takes a bit of work to address each point one by one.
@markh1011 no i dont,to be honest i have always been agnostic about the collapse stuff,and if that were the only evidence i would have believed the official story too, but its all the other evidence that has nothing to do with the collapse or science that is the most damning,and the madrid tower only partially collapsed after burning for over a week, not in 5 hours ,& here is the key,not perfectly symetricaly with the tell tale crimp in the middle of the top that shows the center colum blown 1st
@bulletproof2353 ",and the madrid tower only partially collapsed" - Research a little deeper. The steel supports collapsed in a couple of hours leaving the concrete core. This actually supports what is described by NIST and all the other organisations that agree on the cause of the collapse.
"& here is the key,not perfectly symetricaly ' - Not one of the collapses on 9/11 was perfectly symmetrical.
we can sit here all day and argue symantics and how the building collapsed and what really hit the pentagon , but none of that matters because of all the other evidence and connections that have been made ,we know it was the moussad and the cia,and other zionists and zionist jews and elites and government officials war by deception and fabled enemies paints the most damning picture and most credible account if you put all the pieces together you can see this has moussad all over it
@represenativepress than it is to predict when a controlled demolition is going to happen , especially when no building with a steel frame has even collapsed due to fire before,except the other 2 buildings that had jets fully fuled crash into them,and its suspected that unconventional military grade super thermite or thermate was used ,watch war by deception and fabled enemies then tell me what you think.the non scientific evidence is much more damning that any of this building collapse stuff
@bulletproof2353 "especially when no building with a steel frame has even collapsed due to fire before"
- Except for the ones that have. Don't just believe what conspiracy theorists tell you. Verify their claims. Buildings have partially collapsed from fire before such as the Madrid Tower (not totally steel framed but still relevant to my point) and the McCormick Place and there have even been total collapses such as the Kader Toy factory.
@represenativepress "they didnt do cause the terrorists hate our freedom" no fucking shit , like you just thought of that one on your own? oh yeah you are a smart one, everyone fucking knows that, and the conspiracy theorists have a much better argument and and much more damning case against Israel and Israeli policies, your argumet that " you dont know when a controlled demoliton is going to happen is the most retarded thing i have heard yet,that its easier to predict a collapse from fire
@HurburBurbur "Let's make it real easy and explicit."
- Oh you mean, lets change the subject to WTC7. It's standard truther procedure after failing to prove that the towers were brought down by magic explosives...
"Why doesn't the west side of WTC 7 go down before northwest side when the NIST model predicts it?"
- Don't know. Maybe the model isn't totally accurate.... .. and?
Perhaps you can tell me why the firefighters thought the building would collapse long before it did?
YES, WE JUST LOVE WASTING OUR TIME TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS. IF YOU THINK 911 WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB THEN YOUR PROBABLY WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT. ENOUGH SAID...
At last someone speaking sense! The world is not full of conspiracy, stuff just happens, some of it bad some of it good but to think there is a master plan by controlling governments and powerful folk it is just tosh! Respect the poor families of the victims and accept the science, the reports by unbiased parties.. The US couldnt hide a president getting it on with an intern, how the hell are they going to cover up masterminding 9/11??
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing directed energy technology. ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Society'
This is just a coincidence (honest). And directed energy technology doesn't exist anyway, even though Rumsfeld talked about it once in a Pentagon press conference (on YT).
Whether the US should support Israel or not (and if so, to what extent) should not be discussed in relation to the terrorist threat, but only in relation to the ethics (or lack thereof) of the policies themselves. To change ones policy BECAUSE of a terrorist threat would be wrong. By all means object to US support for Israel But do not invoke the terrorist threat in support of a change of policy. You didn't change your policy to accommodate the whims of the Symbionese Liberation Army did you?
@HurburBurbur This video appears to be implying that American policy towards Israel SHOULD change because of the terrorist threat. I am arguing that whatever changes in policy OUGHT to be made, they should not be made out of fear.
Yeah because the US government would never lie would they and they have such good foregn policies!! Like when the CIA created a coup in Chile, tried the same in Cuba but got caught, like when Nixon sent thieves in to gather intel on his rivals for the presidency, when Bush invaded iraq for non existent WMD and killed 1m civilians, they are assasinating iranian scientists now! The United States government are the biggest terrorists this world has ever seen. End of.
Special interest groups? Do you believe those of us with questions are pro islam? hardly. I am not saying that "they" are not trying to get us, the 1993 WTC attack and the U.S.S. Cole attack prove that. We are questioning those that rule, and whether we should trust them. If it was an inside job it was the greatest treason our country has ever known. We simply want to know the truth.
one more moron trying to make a non-scientific argument. STOP PERPETUATING STUPIDITY, and you dumb mother fuckers who think he is right, just kill yourself, you are too dumb. "when it is a controlled demolition, you don't know a building is going to collapse" WHAT???? Duh, they set explosives to make it come down, hence the name, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. JESUS CHRIST, YOU PEOPLE ARE "FUCKING STUPID". IF YOU BELIEVE THE GOV. STORY FOR 1 SEC. 'get educated' for you are STUPID, REALLY MISINFORMED
Why do they even bother putting these dumb videos, they aren't able to lie to someone who does their own reasearch and don't just listen to others. I tell you, I wouldn't like to try and go against the truthers as lies don't beat the truth ever.
they flew a drone into them it was Canadian militry acting as an exercise creating the best time for the attack.Them planes was not what we was told we saw,they were smaller, they where militry,.canadian militry.look closer.
It is more important to investigate the criminals responsible for 9/11 rather than the science of how the buildings fell. 9/11 was done by CIA/Mossad.
They're stupid these theflunkers. "Oh, the perimeter columns were buckling, so it couldn't have been a controlled demolition". Where's the fkn logic in that? They couldn't buckle some and then it gets blown up? To even think that a small part of the building can ACCELERATE through the rest of the building is plain stupid. In the North Tower we see half the top disintegrate before moving down. So first the bottom is so hard it destroys the top and then the top takes revenge big time? Fkn idiots.
@HurburBurbur "They couldn't buckle some and then it gets blown up?"
Wait a minute!
You're great theory is that the building was naturally collapsing on its own (buckling) but this is impossible so it had to be explosives that brought it down?
Buckling of steel columns and beams is a buildings response to weakening. It isn't a feature tied to "natural collapse". Stress-strain curves of steel are temperature dependent and buckling is not equivalent to collapse.
@HurburBurbur Actually, buckling columns is EXACTLY a sign of a natural collapse (for the buckling columns themselves) as they become overloaded due to weight shifts from removal of supports. How those supports are removed is a different question.
Natural collapse is a description of a collapse by no mans hand. The term you're seeking is progressive collapse and of course buckling is part of it as are bending, twisting and elongation. That's basic. It's however true that progressive collapses are one of the main features of natural collapses. Significantly we saw very little of it on 9/11.
What bending stretching twisting buckling do we see? In the case of the South Tower we see near the corner of the side that goes first the famous steel like flow, by NIST explained as Aliminium mixed with office furniture, never experimentally duplicated. Then we see no progressive yielding of steel moving down the building but a progressive series of explosions. We even see a part of the building defying gravity by moving in a slightly upward bow above the disappearing top.
"Please come back with something that resembles facts and evidence "
This I urge of you. NIST spends three years investigating the case only attempting to explain the initiation of the collapse based not on physical evidence but on computer modeling. They then leave the most remarkable part of all, the total destruction of the towers, as an inevitable result of a process sketched on half of a page with no calculations or physical evidence what so ever to back it up. Maybe you can?
None of the examined core columns from the fire area were submitted to temperatures over 250 C and no steel were tested for explosives. Bazant's theory rely on an intact top and a growing middle section of chrushed material. It is visually unverifiable, large quantities of mass is ejected upwards and outwards and it is in the case of WTC 1 plainly contradicted by the initial destruction of a large part of the top section and the standing core columns post collapse.
@HurburBurbur "None of the examined core columns from the fire area " - Hardly any of those pieces examined were actually from the fire areas. If you are going to reference those results it is sloppy or dishonest to leave that bit out.
' and no steel were tested for explosives" - Yet the steel was inspected for signs/clues. This would include the very obvious damage from explosives. None was found. Had there been any it would have been noticed long before that inspection anyway.
Your kidding right? The little search that was able to be done targeted at finding pieces from that area. Moreover pieces of evaporated steel was found but were not in focus, just mentioned by an example in Fema Appendix C
@HurburBurbur "Your kidding right? " - Perhaps if you read a little of the NIST report you would see that I am not.
"The little search that was able to be done targeted at finding pieces from that area" - The pieces collected had to have some paint remaining otherwise they could not be used. Unfortunately pieces which received extreme temps have no paint... Also the pieces collected were in such a condition to be able to identify where they came from. So it was those in better condition
So the samples overall were not particularly useful in demonstrating anything. . and hardly any were from the impact areas. NIST explain this in their report.
"Moreover pieces of evaporated steel"- The sentence makes no sense. If it is evaporated then it isn't there... No one found "evaporated steel". Jonathon Barnett was describing eroded steel and if you are going to reference a report you should probably atually read it to see his explanation..
Before starting to seriously discuss steel please read the relevant report NIST NCSTAR 1-3, preferably with subreports 1-3B and 1-3C. The core column were stamped as were the center column of each perimeter panel. They often had written marks as well but as you know the collapse was extremely violent so you can't expect this to be unreadable even if not exposed to fire.
@HurburBurbur "Before starting to seriously discuss steel please read the relevant report " - Irony. You are the one referring to reports but leaving out important facts.
"even unidentifiable pieces concluded to have been subject " - That's great. But of the pieces retained hardly any came from the impact floors. Are you not getting this?
There's in fact no discussion of why pieces couldn't be unidentified and rest assured that even unidentifiable pieces concluded to have been subject to precollapse fires would be of interest to at least get an overall lower bound of the column temperatures.
There is however in the appendix of the detailed steel inventory a brief comment on a severely corrosioned column labeled K-16 which possibly from the nature of its damage couldn't be identified. This is probably the source for the corroded sample of steel from the towers that has been examined by the Worcester Polytechnical Institute (WPI) alongside a further investigation of the steel from WTC7 analyzed in Fema Appendix C.
One attempt they've done on WPI to replicate the sulfuric attack on the WTC7 sample is described in the report "Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7" of 2004. They manage to produce at least a resemblant attack by using Iron Sulfide powder on a heated steel sample of the same type as the original.
There were however no testing done with thermite and sulfur and they also didn't say if they analyzed the orogonal sample/samples for aluminum. Jeff Farrer of Brigham Young University found some traces of it in his analysis.
Furthermore, neither in this paper or in FEMA appendix C are there any valid explanation given for the steel being subject to these attacks on the site of Ground Zero. I do know they've been making public speculations from everything from acid rain to fireprotective (!) wall boards. To note is that NIST has itself totally avoided the subject. It isn't even mentioned in their reports other than in the mentioned brief comment hidden deep in the appendix in question.
@HurburBurbur "Furthermore, neither in th" - Six posts in and waiting for a relevant point....
"To note is that NIST has itself totally avoided the subject." - Explaining irrelevant things wasn't within the scope of the report sorry.
"It isn't even mentioned in their reports "- The steel is discussed in NCSTAR1-3C and they determine the piece from the towers most likely experienced any erosion after collapse and that it wasn't a factor.
As for the part of the steel columns recovered from fire areas note their crucial placements. Even though the poor visual reproduction of the fire simulations in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 seem to agree with the below 250 C of C-80 and HH the real problem concerns the C-88a and C-88b. These are right in the middle of the action of WTC 2 and C-88a passes through a floor with estimates of great damage of the fire proofment. Indeed they modeled the column to high temperatures.
Yet all they do as to this later specimens is to point out that their wasn't sufficient paint to determine if it had only been subdued to temperatures below 250 C and that the examination of the microstructures of the steel did not indicate that it had reached temperatures above 600 C.
But since C-88a and C-88b steel were welded into the splate that connected them they could also have used the DTA method described in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D section 2.3 to look for temperatures in excess of 400 C or even better the method described in section 2.4 by which temperatures in the intervall of 200 C to 500 C can be detected with an error margin of 50 C.
But none of this were really the point. The central thing is that NIST rely very little on empiric material. They mainly use computer models that combined are stretched far beyond ever used before and thus have a large margin of error. The critical data from the actual crime scenes that they refer to are in several instances of the kind that it doesn't SUPPORT the models, but that it doesn't CONTRADICT them...
@HurburBurbur "But none of this were really the point" - 10 posts and I don't think you have a made a point. Lots of hand waving though.
"combined are stretched far beyond ever used before and thus have a large margin of error. T" - Several other organisations also used modeling in their analysis. All produced results similar to NISTs. Funny huh? Your complaint about "margin of error" is a desperate cry and does noting to support the conspiracy or critique their work.
@HurburBurbur If you think the only evidence for the fire induced collapse is computer models then you are more ignorant than you appear.
"Keep down your high voice " - Actually no. You came into the channel and made some poor statements and you got corrected. DEAL WITH IT. It will happen on the intertube....
I don't care if you get all precious because you got corrected.
... as in the example mentioned or in the case of WTC 7 the supposed but invisible interior destabilizing process and outside column buckling. In some instances they even close their eyes to data that invalidate their models such as no observance of buckling of three sides of either tower before collapse and the west side of WTC 7 not moving down before the northwest. The NIST investigation is no more than a pseudo-scientific fairytale.
Here's a couple of advice to you. Keep down your high voice and self proclaimed expertise. Do some real study of the official reports and more importantly some critical investigation on your own. And by the way, "atually" makes no sense. I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing.
@HurburBurbur "And by the way, "atually" makes no sense. I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing." - Seriously? You're picking on spelling mistakes now? No you don't sound desperate at all...
"I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing." "Here's a couple of advice to you."
- Perhaps you should have looked up how to use the word "advice" ...
So you're actually PAYING to spread this disinfo and distraction as if splitting hairs over what somebody else said somehow proves or disproves something? Focus on what's important and unequivocal: the MOLTEN METAL identified as ferrous (iron and/or steel) and according to the NIST report some of it got so hot it EVAPORATED. That's you're Smoking Gun, see moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot dot com for pics & more detail, don't try to derail about how soft the metal had to get to let go, EXPLAIN IT
@AmericanTrekker "and according to the NIST report some of it got so hot it EVAPORATED" - The NIST report says no such thing. You are trying to quote dishonest conspiracy theorists who are trying to quote mine a report they don't understand.
hey this shows you no nothing like the other guy said and like many will tell you YOU HAVE TO CUT ALL COLUMNS WITHIN LESS THEN A SEC OF EACH OTHER ..IF WHAT YOU SAY IS WHAT HAPPENED IT WOULD HAVE FALLIN ON IT SIDE OR IN A PEICE ON ITS SIDE.... DO YOU RESEARCH AND KNOW YOUR INFO....you have just been ripped a new one pls go put ice on that
@ele2003 I got blocked from one truther's video for stating that his job as an airline caterer didn't qualify him to speak about the structural integrity of the plane as if he was an aeronautical engineer. Infact every time I ask a really good question that a truther cannot answer or make a statement that a truther cannot disprove they block me. You NEVER see a debunker block some one except when the person does nothing but spam profanities or racist remarks. Truthers block all dissenters.
Yes, the steel did weaken and caused a collapse. We see that asymmetrical collapse above the point of impact. However, the rest of the towers collapsed symmetrically straight down at free fall speeds with almost NO resistance. For that to happen ALL of the supporting columns would have to be severed within fractions of a second. If I drop two bricks one with resistance beneath it and one without which will hit the ground first? I'm no engineer so look up engineers for 911 truth if you dare.
@ele2003 They did not fall at free fall speeds and they did noit collapse symaterically. There was debris outside as well as inside the footprint. What you call gthe collapse was actually thde final most visible and dramatic stage of ther collapse. Below the point of impact the momentum from the above collapse imposed upon the columns a force that they were notg designed to withstand.
The only substance that can produce enough heat to melt steel under those conditions is thermite. The jet fuel only burns at around 700 degrees. The structural members that were exposed to the fire, even in the off chance that the fire caused them to fail, were not enough to cause the collapse of the entire buildings. If it happened the way the NIST said it did then only the top sections would have failed. You're a treasonous idiot for perpetuating the ignorance around these events.
@markh1011: LOL!!! How many people r u debating with on these shitty debunking threads?? It's so sad how closed minded u really are!! U & krackpipelord r the only ones that stand out to me trying to keep people from the TRUTH!! & I mean TRYING & FAILING because maybe u don't notice but it seems to more & more people use r calling "twoofers" & "shills" wake the fuck up before it's too late there is more to this world than meets the eye!! But u choose not to c it!!
@TheJJM80 " It's so sad how closed minded u really are!!" - Yes perhaps I should be more open minded to absurd, unsupported conspiracy fantasies...
"to more & more people use r calling "twoofers" & "shills"" - I have never called anyone either of those terms.
"there is more to this world than meets the eye"- Truthers won't research and like to believe in myths therefore I need to see that there is more in this world? Yes that makes sense.
It's so funny how desparate u ppl r to protect ur false perception of reality, so that u can keep telling urself how free u r n how good the government is. The fact is, ppl who say that it's "the terrorists," who r trained and directed by the CIA, btw, is keeping the ppl who r really responsible for 9/11 from justice
It has been PROVEN BY NIST themselves that WTC7 WAS BLOWN UP. They tried to hide it in their preliminary report but were forced by David Chandler to in the final one admit to a 2,25 SECOND PERIOD OF FREE FALL. They then tried to divert attention from that by focusing on an average. Free fall, even for just a period, is possible ONLY through controlled demolition. Spread the links.
@culturebully3 I do not know what happened. I have questions, not conspiracies.
here's a link for you about edna and others standing in this hole.
if it was so hot throughout the wholebuilding, how were ANY people able to climb down?
If jet fuel is so dangerous, why dont demolition crews save money and use that cheap stuff instead of engineering plans that take months? they could just do it in hours, for A LOT less cost? HMMM
so glad theres videos like this to shut these paranoid morons up. check under the 'conspiracy theories' tab at itwastyped. com .. a lot of interesting posts there also
@seeker21truth "nor does it address the obvious and verifiable and self admitted controlled demolition of building 7" - Admitted? Oh I hope you're not trying to use the Silverstien comment....
@seeker21truth "his video doesnt address the thousands of engineer" - 1500... hardly any structural engineers... they don't seem capable of getting their work passed peer review... many haven't done any research on the topic.... Considering how many engineers there are in the US that is a pathetic number....There are probably more at NIST..
@seeker21truth " there is a logical scientific explanation to the bow." -Yes there is. The perimeter columns were being pulled inwards... they were weakening.. the collapse initiated when they failed.
@seeker21truth "if it was so hot that it buckled, why were people leaning on" Stop and think for a second. The people went to the coldest areas not the hottest. This included the large impact hole where the ventilation was the greatest. This was not the hottest area and not where the collapses initiated.
That's bullshit. I didn't see any debris at all on bulding 7. The collapses were so goddamn obvious... It just ain't sane if you deny it being a terrorist attack....
Ruttie2 1 day ago in playlist Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see
You ever think you may be banned for good reason? Possible your just an idiot? But for the fact the theory you push as fact, well is lame brain at best. I know and can show you proof, yes bombs brought the towers down, but you would not accept the reality of what is. Or are you paid to be a propagandist?
Jimbofx911 1 day ago
911 for this dummy. Bombs, in buildings, bombs blow up buildings, mass murder results when buildings blown to hell by person with button. Button pushed. Boom. Dead Americans. Killed by traitors to America. Solution, arrest traitors, put on trial. If guilty, bring out old sparky, the one that smoked the Rosenbergs. Cook them too. End of story.
Jimbofx911 1 day ago
the truth? watch?v=BWZELJA_fSU&feature=related
MuffyThePomeranian 6 days ago in playlist Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see
911 happened by bin laden. He took credit for it... bragged about it on video after video and mentioned the name of the pilots on videos praising their actions.... Now anyone that says the american govt is capable of domestic terroism on this scale gives govt beaurocrats way to much credit.
randomtwit 1 week ago
@randomtwit your name is accurate.
ashdeano 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
19 Arabs with blades took a plane, killed the crew, no brave American stopped them. They flew them PERFECTLY to their targets at 540mph at sea-level, without the biggest military complex being able to stop them OR film them. Then (for the 1st time in engineering history!) 3 steel-framed scrapers turn to dust and fall to the ground PERFECTLY ALL on the same day, in the same place. Your govt. LOVES you, works ONLY 4 you and everything is just like the TV says it is!
whitemanstand72 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, it DIDNCollapse in it's own footprint, If you think it didn't, it's because you DIDN'T look at it from all angles. And yes, it DIDn't fall at an angle. WTC was another control explosion. This was an inside job to invade other countries. I simply don't understand how the mst powerful country iun the world with most sophisticated equipemnt was NOT able to stop the hijackers of that day. REALLY I DON'T !
whitemanstand72 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
Let me guess the world is flat also..("-_-)
11kungfu11 1 week ago
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
Let me guess the world is flat also..(*-_-)
11kungfu11 1 week ago
@11kungfu11 Do some research dude. Youtube is full of steel buildings that collapsed due to fire. 0.04% of architects and engineers signed-up to say that what we see with our own eyes was false. They say the towers fell at "free fall" speed when your own damn eyes can see that the dust and debris fell faster.
Put down the pipe and stop repeating what you hear, and do 2 minutes of research into the subject.
(Then pick up the pipe. Just do a little research first!)
:)
JPDisme 1 day ago
@JPDisme Ok, would you provide the links to steel structures falling a fraction slower then free fall straight down? I cant to seem to find any all I can find is before 9/11 there was none, after 9/11 none. So ofcause I am interested and I smoke joints brother;P just dont zombie myself, Its for back pains from an accident I had in motoX
:)
Also if you could do the same for building 7? If you can Ill be sure to share it with others too.
11kungfu11 1 day ago
@11kungfu11 The link is every single video of the towers collapsing. The plume of debris is like an upside-down mushroom cloud. The debris falling is LESS than free-fall, while The building collapse lags behind.
There are no good videos of Bldg 7 collapse. But by all accounts the bldg had central columns for support, and a generator and oil tank that caught fire at the the center of the supports and the bldg collapsed inwards when the center columns weakened.
JPDisme 1 day ago
@JPDisme I know of these buildings the explanation for the catastrophic collapse LESS then a second from free fall, does not explain the madrid windsor tower witch burnt for 17 hours "uncontrolled" and only sufferd what would be expected with a partial collapse of the area that was engulfed in the fires.
Nor the CCTV HQ in beijing that engulfed the whole building but there was no collapse at all.
I did find this though, watch?v=gYXrCimpQSc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
11kungfu11 21 hours ago
@11kungfu11 The point of mentioning the Madrid fire is that according to Truthers it is impossible for steel to melt in an ordinary fire.
JPDisme 3 hours ago
@11kungfu11 I watched (skimmed) the video looking for relevance. I guess your point is that they claim "no high-rise steel structure ever collapsed due to fire before." Am I correct in the point you were making? Because I'm seeing lo-rise steel frame buildings that melted, sagged, and then collapsed during ordinary fires. The point of the Madrid fire is that structure partially collapsed during an ordinary fire. That is something Truthers claim has NEVER happened, ever.
JPDisme 3 hours ago
@11kungfu11 Google "TU Delft bouwkunde brand fire collapse" I cannot find the citation but I recall hearing that it was a fire started by a coffee-pot- not CD, not aviation fuel either. It was an office paper fire.
JPDisme 1 day ago
@11kungfu11 - Here is a "reasonable" explanation of Bldg 7. This also fits the profile of the coffee-pot fire in Europe and the office fire in Madrid. Steel sags in ordinary fires. 0.04% of architects and engineers stick their fingers in their ears.
watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
JPDisme 1 day ago
@JPDisme I dont know where you get your "0.04% of architects and engineers stick their fingers in their ears." In the states there is 1,600+ A/E's and a further 14,000 researchers that found explosive materials in the dust. just watch that link I sent you and THEN show me irrefutable proof because I am more likely to believe scientists showing there results and the A/E's that show exactly how and why with all the proof backing them, aswell as the firemen that were there.
11kungfu11 20 hours ago
@11kungfu11 - I was mistaken, it's actually 0.06%.
JPDisme 3 hours ago
@11kungfu11
Architects in the US 105,312
Engineers in the US 2,495,000
Total 2,600,312
911 total 1,600
Percent 0.06
I short-changed you 0.02. Sorry.
JPDisme 3 hours ago
@JPDisme Then Google "Torre Windsor - collapse and molten metal" Yet another steel frame building that collapsed without CD or aviation fuel or super hi-grade nano-thermites.
JPDisme 1 day ago
Did you just say "with a controlled demolition you don't know when its going to collapse" ??? BAHAHAHHA
All I can say is this
Before:
watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg&feature=related
After:
wwwflickrcom/photos/1980nic/3271797240/
and we are to believe the towers were brought down by fire... PFFT! good luck convincing people over the only ever steel structure building being taken down by some fire into its base at free fall.
Let me guess the world is flat also..(`-_-)
11kungfu11 1 week ago
What a bunch of bunk...
joecanukk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911studies . com/911photostudies118x.htm
Look at WTC 6 already BLOWN UP B4 the towers even fell.
911 was an inside intelligence mission helped by Pakistan-Israel & US Paid Terrorists-trained at US Military bases.
ed11561 2 weeks ago in playlist WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern On 9/11
I believe the motive behind conspiracy theories is not wanting to believe that america could be vulnerable. I've got no doubt that islamic extremists were behind these attacks.
byen8 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@byen8 911studies . com/911photostudies118x.htm
Look at WTC 6 already BLOWN UP B4 the towers even fell.
911 was an inside intelligence mission helped by Pakistan-Israel & US Paid Terrorists-trained at US Military bases.
ed11561 2 weeks ago in playlist WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern On 9/11
@byen8
Not me. I know Islamic extremists were behind the attacks just like you, but I say they just want to believe America's evil, and delude themselves into thinking they're stopping war... or at least some of them do.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@byen8 I'm pretty sure that it was more about the 7 billion dollars that the lease owner got for his 15 million dollar investment and the lose of the thousands of documents linked to major bank and insurance fraud cases such as enron and worldcom among others.
rezistorXG 2 weeks ago
LIES
BetweenTheSystem 2 weeks ago
The fact that there has not been another investagtion into what happened should be enough for people to question. governments rely on ignorance. this is well known. all you need to do is look back in history. everyone thinks that their generation is the smartest one "this cant ha[[en to us, why would they". if you go in with no preconceptions about the event. go in with an open mind. you will come out with questions.
FatABigCat 2 weeks ago
nuclear bombs were in the basements of twin towers and wtc3
optionsupdate 3 weeks ago
Interesting fantasy life you live in.
usmcoth 3 weeks ago
@ representativepress: you said that there was significant damage to the south side of bldg 7. I'm no expert but, if that was the case wouldn't the bldg collapsing to that side instead of str8 down? If I'm stand erect and my right leg gives out wouldn't the natural thing for my body to do is fall to the side where the support has been weakened? I'm just using common sense here.
robinsonjd1978 3 weeks ago
@robinsonjd1978
It DID collapse to the side. That's how the Borough of Manhattan Community College was damaged.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 No it collapsed into its footprint there are several angles you can watch on youtube maybe some minor debris damaged it but it didn't fall on its side
rezistorXG 2 weeks ago
@rezistorXG
No, it DIDN'T Collapse in it's own footprint, nimrod!, If you think it did, it's because you DIDN'T look at it from all angles. And yes, it DID fall at an angle. BMCC wasn'r the only building that WTC 7 hit.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@rezistorXG I was wading through that horrendous scene working on clean up.. NOTHING collapsed into its own foot print that day.
randomtwit 1 week ago
Hi Representative Press I have one question for you.
If the official story is correct about 9/11 then why is the government being so secretive about it and why do they dodge questions about it? Also if they really wanted to put the conspiracy theories to bed they would release at least one video of a plane hitting the side of the pentagon and that surely would shut alot of conspiracies up. But the fact is they won't and my main question is why? If you tell the truth you have nothing to hide!
BannedByTheTube 3 weeks ago
@BannedByTheTube Maybe the official story is so public and obvious that only a lunatic would believe otherwise? Why do Truthers deny the evidence of bodies and airplane parts at the Pentagon and also Shanksville? Any moron can watch the plane hit the Pentagon, so why are you so anally obsessed to deny it? 103 people gave testimony that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Some described it as a 757, others said it was United Airlines colors. NONE said it was a missile.
JPDisme 3 weeks ago
@JPDisme Then why dont they release ALL of the videos they HAVE from the pentagon? Most secure building in the world and all they can release is ONE losey video?!? WTF.............there is more video footage at a fucking 7-11 if that is the case.............something stinks and the AMERICAN public knows it..........and what about building 7? How did that fall?.........earthquake at that exact time? bunch of fucking hog wash
sturgeonslayer7 3 weeks ago
@JPDisme GOD knows the truth and WILL have his day
sturgeonslayer7 3 weeks ago
@BannedByTheTube Oh that's right! It's a grand conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of government workers to plant the bombs, redirect air-traffic and provide false witness.
Watergate was only 3 people, and that conspiracy crumbled in a matter of days. I guess we are so good covering up now that 250,000 people can take part in your lunatic delusion in broad daylight. You have such supreme confidence in Washington. So much so that it makes me ill.
JPDisme 3 weeks ago
@JPDisme yea I hear where your coming from and I have nothing against the official story but as a lust for detah and destruction I would like to see the plane clearly slamming into the pentagin as that would give me great pleasure to watch thats all!
BannedByTheTube 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F-15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
If WTC 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, how do you explain firefighters predicting the building's collapse 3 hours before the actual collapse?
ctcole77 1 month ago
LMAO this is IT??
this little shrub of awkwardly narrated pictures, vs. the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise. Your a joke playing to your own refusal of info that challenges your cognition watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
BlueDoGGdeMoCrat 1 month ago
all those photos are from where the plane hit....... so its gunna show some bent girders. watch the architects for truth thing man goes into hard facts about physics of the situation, pretty basic physics which show something strange. its really sick if its true like. the pilots for truth is also pretty revealin. some guy also does one that shows how thermite can cut through steel, intense like
FatABigCat 1 month ago
@FatABigCat "guy also does one that shows how thermite can cut through steel, intense like"
- The truther leaders don't even talk about thermite anymore ... they have jumped on to the absurd idea that magic government technology nanothermite was painted on the columns.... yet one also thinks 100 tons was used...yet none can even demonstrate if its possible...
All this time and the theories are still a mess.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011 watch the video. a guy shows how its possible with thermate. ill try find the video now. im not saying that this is what happened. but it deffintitly, without a doubt, shows that termite can cut through steel. i agree that alot of the theories are crap. and have no basis. but alot also show how it can be explained by basic scientific facts. realy just check it. youve gotta look at the history also man. flase flags arent a recent thing. think of vietnam. pearl harbour etc.
FatABigCat 2 weeks ago
this video does not prove 911 wasnt a controlled demolition... FAIL. plus it was already admitted. why dont you stupid sheeple understand simple math.
merlinknows 1 month ago
the military industrial complex OWNS the main stream media,also see project mockingbird ,the cnn gop debates were sponsored by AEI,a zionist isralei think tank ,with a zionist agenda,and all zionist jews were asking the questions,most which had something to do with an attack on iran, this all right out in front of your face ,is it really that hard for you to see?aipac is also the largest or second larget lobby in the US,alec is the other
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
that is bullshit the media is owned and beholden to the military industrial complex, please dont foret that over 50% of our tax money goes to "defense"more like offense,and that dont even include black projects and other departments, its actually more like 75% or higher,that is an incredible unfathomable amount of $,which hold a similar incredible conflict of interest to the media beholden to it,THEY LIE,this is not about you,they dont give a fuck about protecting YOU,like carlin said
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
the 2 cases line up and are similar, you had norriga as the public enemy #1 in the 80's the cia boogey man,really cia asset, and then it was bin laden, public enemy #1 cia asset ,norriega was the bin laden of the 80's,watch panama deception ,narrated by elizabeth montgomery of bewitched,now we see the jew run,illuminati/elite controlled media doing the same thing it did in the run up to iraq 93,with the yellow cake,what i didnt find in africa,wmd bullshit ,saying iran has the bomb,goin to get it
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
it the vatican and the jesuits?or is it a cabal of all of the above? i lean toward the latter,, and al queda is a cia created term that directly translates into "the base" it s list they created of usefull people in the muslim world that they use to foment revolutions and fight proxy wars,bin laden was a cia asset ,as was manuel norriega, this all ties into the iran contra affair,again drugs are involved too last time coke ,this time opiates,please watch the panama deception on here see how
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
funded the mujahadin and taliban&al queda against the russians, there cia trained ,and created,and funded to bring down the russians by zbignew brezinski ,this rep press gut is moussad cointelpro,trying to point attention away from israel,its so obvious ,now the us is using al queda again ,they used it to bring down libya,then flew then to syria,which they need as a staging area when they strike iran,the real question is,i israel at the top of the pyramid? or is it anglo wasp elites?or is
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
everything else that cinches it and really makes the case that this was moussad, and the #1 question is who bennefits? did the muslims bennefit from 9-11? or did larry silverstein, big oil ,military industrial complex, and israel?come on these people are not stupid(muslims)they are much more political and involved then americans are,there not sitting aroung watching dancing with the stars,there involved in whats going on ,you really think they would invite the retaliation?you know the US fu
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@markh1011 and if you watch fabled enemies and war by deception you will see they make it anything but simple ,there is just so much information and connections it get hard to follow at times,it the people who oversimplify it that usually the ones trying to hide something,there are some 9-11 conspiracy docs that do do that a bit, but in the interest of time, but you can research these thing on your own,hiw the building fell&what hit the pentagon is the most trivial of all the evidence its reall
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@markh1011 yae well there was a HUGE presentation in euorpe i forget the country but it was a 72 hour presentation where they laid out all the evidence, and alot of the people who make these have other movies and dvd extras and supplemental material ,it is really the offical story that tries to simplify more then the so called conspiricy theorists do,and believe me i have watched more on this than anyone as far as official stuff,everything from pbs,natgeo,history,tlc,discovery,ch,ive seen it all
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@markh1011 just watch fabled enemies and war by deception ,there is so many points and so much information trying to be squeezed in 2 and a half film that it moves really fast, you really have to pause it and take your time to read each point and connection ,and write down the ones you want to fact check and research
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@bulletproof2353 ",there is so many points and so much information trying to be squeezed in 2 and a half " - That's what creationists and conspiracy theorists do. They line up as many distortions and half truths as possible to try and make their case seem credible.. and it almost does at first glance, which is why so many believe. As you said it takes a bit of work to address each point one by one.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011 no i dont,to be honest i have always been agnostic about the collapse stuff,and if that were the only evidence i would have believed the official story too, but its all the other evidence that has nothing to do with the collapse or science that is the most damning,and the madrid tower only partially collapsed after burning for over a week, not in 5 hours ,& here is the key,not perfectly symetricaly with the tell tale crimp in the middle of the top that shows the center colum blown 1st
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bulletproof2353 ",and the madrid tower only partially collapsed" - Research a little deeper. The steel supports collapsed in a couple of hours leaving the concrete core. This actually supports what is described by NIST and all the other organisations that agree on the cause of the collapse.
"& here is the key,not perfectly symetricaly ' - Not one of the collapses on 9/11 was perfectly symmetrical.
markh1011 1 month ago
we can sit here all day and argue symantics and how the building collapsed and what really hit the pentagon , but none of that matters because of all the other evidence and connections that have been made ,we know it was the moussad and the cia,and other zionists and zionist jews and elites and government officials war by deception and fabled enemies paints the most damning picture and most credible account if you put all the pieces together you can see this has moussad all over it
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@represenativepress than it is to predict when a controlled demolition is going to happen , especially when no building with a steel frame has even collapsed due to fire before,except the other 2 buildings that had jets fully fuled crash into them,and its suspected that unconventional military grade super thermite or thermate was used ,watch war by deception and fabled enemies then tell me what you think.the non scientific evidence is much more damning that any of this building collapse stuff
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
@bulletproof2353 "especially when no building with a steel frame has even collapsed due to fire before"
- Except for the ones that have. Don't just believe what conspiracy theorists tell you. Verify their claims. Buildings have partially collapsed from fire before such as the Madrid Tower (not totally steel framed but still relevant to my point) and the McCormick Place and there have even been total collapses such as the Kader Toy factory.
markh1011 1 month ago
@represenativepress "they didnt do cause the terrorists hate our freedom" no fucking shit , like you just thought of that one on your own? oh yeah you are a smart one, everyone fucking knows that, and the conspiracy theorists have a much better argument and and much more damning case against Israel and Israeli policies, your argumet that " you dont know when a controlled demoliton is going to happen is the most retarded thing i have heard yet,that its easier to predict a collapse from fire
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
look up "The Insanity of Christian Zionism!" Dr David Duke
hobo1975 1 month ago
Well that wasn't the response I expected.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Ah don't beat yourself up for it <3
Let's make it real easy and explicit.
Why doesn't the west side of WTC 7 go down before northwest side when the NIST model predicts it?
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HurburBurbur "Let's make it real easy and explicit."
- Oh you mean, lets change the subject to WTC7. It's standard truther procedure after failing to prove that the towers were brought down by magic explosives...
"Why doesn't the west side of WTC 7 go down before northwest side when the NIST model predicts it?"
- Don't know. Maybe the model isn't totally accurate.... .. and?
Perhaps you can tell me why the firefighters thought the building would collapse long before it did?
markh1011 1 month ago
YES, WE JUST LOVE WASTING OUR TIME TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS. IF YOU THINK 911 WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB THEN YOUR PROBABLY WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT. ENOUGH SAID...
justincredibleguy 1 month ago
Of course its going to buckle if they weaken the steel with thermite.
benjyboba 1 month ago
At last someone speaking sense! The world is not full of conspiracy, stuff just happens, some of it bad some of it good but to think there is a master plan by controlling governments and powerful folk it is just tosh! Respect the poor families of the victims and accept the science, the reports by unbiased parties.. The US couldnt hide a president getting it on with an intern, how the hell are they going to cover up masterminding 9/11??
leightonreggierose 1 month ago
Please ignore the following information
Two of NIST's contractors for 9/11 report (ARA & SAIC) are involved in developing directed energy technology. ARA are co founders of 'Directed Energy Professionals Society'
This is just a coincidence (honest). And directed energy technology doesn't exist anyway, even though Rumsfeld talked about it once in a Pentagon press conference (on YT).
Don't research Dr Judy Wood or watch this video
watch?v=ZWjktDuIhR8
Or this one
watch?v=3m2Oc5OZ9f0
Thank you.
project3ss 1 month ago
TheFlexEffect wants to go on record as saying that representativepress is either a shill or absolute moron, or both...
TheFlexEffect 1 month ago
with control you do know when it will fall that's the point
reyavq777 1 month ago
Whether the US should support Israel or not (and if so, to what extent) should not be discussed in relation to the terrorist threat, but only in relation to the ethics (or lack thereof) of the policies themselves. To change ones policy BECAUSE of a terrorist threat would be wrong. By all means object to US support for Israel But do not invoke the terrorist threat in support of a change of policy. You didn't change your policy to accommodate the whims of the Symbionese Liberation Army did you?
davidkesslerauthor 1 month ago
Comment removed
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur This video appears to be implying that American policy towards Israel SHOULD change because of the terrorist threat. I am arguing that whatever changes in policy OUGHT to be made, they should not be made out of fear.
davidkesslerauthor 1 month ago
Yeah because the US government would never lie would they and they have such good foregn policies!! Like when the CIA created a coup in Chile, tried the same in Cuba but got caught, like when Nixon sent thieves in to gather intel on his rivals for the presidency, when Bush invaded iraq for non existent WMD and killed 1m civilians, they are assasinating iranian scientists now! The United States government are the biggest terrorists this world has ever seen. End of.
mikmarshall80 1 month ago
You cannot see the steel columns from the outside. What you see are minor aluminum supports; tantamount to siding.
liOVERLOADil 1 month ago
maybe your right couse our govt would never try to fool the distracted citizens of america with their evil
chrischris180 1 month ago
Special interest groups? Do you believe those of us with questions are pro islam? hardly. I am not saying that "they" are not trying to get us, the 1993 WTC attack and the U.S.S. Cole attack prove that. We are questioning those that rule, and whether we should trust them. If it was an inside job it was the greatest treason our country has ever known. We simply want to know the truth.
superlativeOFgood 2 months ago
one more moron trying to make a non-scientific argument. STOP PERPETUATING STUPIDITY, and you dumb mother fuckers who think he is right, just kill yourself, you are too dumb. "when it is a controlled demolition, you don't know a building is going to collapse" WHAT???? Duh, they set explosives to make it come down, hence the name, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. JESUS CHRIST, YOU PEOPLE ARE "FUCKING STUPID". IF YOU BELIEVE THE GOV. STORY FOR 1 SEC. 'get educated' for you are STUPID, REALLY MISINFORMED
visionary138 2 months ago
hmz I`m good looking babe
AngelCollendt310 2 months ago
Why do they even bother putting these dumb videos, they aren't able to lie to someone who does their own reasearch and don't just listen to others. I tell you, I wouldn't like to try and go against the truthers as lies don't beat the truth ever.
benjyboba 2 months ago
they flew a drone into them it was Canadian militry acting as an exercise creating the best time for the attack.Them planes was not what we was told we saw,they were smaller, they where militry,.canadian militry.look closer.
specialme2 2 months ago
Comment removed
specialme2 2 months ago
It is more important to investigate the criminals responsible for 9/11 rather than the science of how the buildings fell. 9/11 was done by CIA/Mossad.
boxes9 2 months ago
They're stupid these theflunkers. "Oh, the perimeter columns were buckling, so it couldn't have been a controlled demolition". Where's the fkn logic in that? They couldn't buckle some and then it gets blown up? To even think that a small part of the building can ACCELERATE through the rest of the building is plain stupid. In the North Tower we see half the top disintegrate before moving down. So first the bottom is so hard it destroys the top and then the top takes revenge big time? Fkn idiots.
HurburBurbur 2 months ago
@HurburBurbur "They couldn't buckle some and then it gets blown up?"
Wait a minute!
You're great theory is that the building was naturally collapsing on its own (buckling) but this is impossible so it had to be explosives that brought it down?
Seriously?
cantonear1968 2 months ago
@cantonear1968
Buckling of steel columns and beams is a buildings response to weakening. It isn't a feature tied to "natural collapse". Stress-strain curves of steel are temperature dependent and buckling is not equivalent to collapse.
HurburBurbur 2 months ago
@HurburBurbur Actually, buckling columns is EXACTLY a sign of a natural collapse (for the buckling columns themselves) as they become overloaded due to weight shifts from removal of supports. How those supports are removed is a different question.
cantonear1968 2 months ago
@cantonear1968
Natural collapse is a description of a collapse by no mans hand. The term you're seeking is progressive collapse and of course buckling is part of it as are bending, twisting and elongation. That's basic. It's however true that progressive collapses are one of the main features of natural collapses. Significantly we saw very little of it on 9/11.
HurburBurbur 2 months ago
@HurburBurbur "Significantly we saw very little of it on 9/11."
Really?
You have something to back that up with, right?
cantonear1968 2 months ago
@cantonear1968
Well show me.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "Well show me."
watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w
and
watch?v=3NQY3YRBgSo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL24C523495500276B
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@cantonear1968
What bending stretching twisting buckling do we see? In the case of the South Tower we see near the corner of the side that goes first the famous steel like flow, by NIST explained as Aliminium mixed with office furniture, never experimentally duplicated. Then we see no progressive yielding of steel moving down the building but a progressive series of explosions. We even see a part of the building defying gravity by moving in a slightly upward bow above the disappearing top.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HurburBurbur "but a progressive series of explosions."
[face palm]
Please come back with something that resembles facts and evidence and not your unsupported and unsubstantiated opinions.
cantonear1968 1 month ago
"Please come back with something that resembles facts and evidence "
This I urge of you. NIST spends three years investigating the case only attempting to explain the initiation of the collapse based not on physical evidence but on computer modeling. They then leave the most remarkable part of all, the total destruction of the towers, as an inevitable result of a process sketched on half of a page with no calculations or physical evidence what so ever to back it up. Maybe you can?
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur Are you telling me you have never heard of Zdnek Bazant's papers, answering the very question you are asking?
And please stop! In the case of the WTC Towers, they had over 236 pieces of steel samples from which to work.
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@cantonear1968
None of the examined core columns from the fire area were submitted to temperatures over 250 C and no steel were tested for explosives. Bazant's theory rely on an intact top and a growing middle section of chrushed material. It is visually unverifiable, large quantities of mass is ejected upwards and outwards and it is in the case of WTC 1 plainly contradicted by the initial destruction of a large part of the top section and the standing core columns post collapse.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "None of the examined core columns from the fire area " - Hardly any of those pieces examined were actually from the fire areas. If you are going to reference those results it is sloppy or dishonest to leave that bit out.
' and no steel were tested for explosives" - Yet the steel was inspected for signs/clues. This would include the very obvious damage from explosives. None was found. Had there been any it would have been noticed long before that inspection anyway.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Your kidding right? The little search that was able to be done targeted at finding pieces from that area. Moreover pieces of evaporated steel was found but were not in focus, just mentioned by an example in Fema Appendix C
nytimesDOTcom/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-takenDOThtml?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Section E
twfDOTorg/News/Y2007/0927-NIST.
DOTpdf
nytimesDOTcom/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWEDOThtml?pagewanted=2
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "Your kidding right? " - Perhaps if you read a little of the NIST report you would see that I am not.
"The little search that was able to be done targeted at finding pieces from that area" - The pieces collected had to have some paint remaining otherwise they could not be used. Unfortunately pieces which received extreme temps have no paint... Also the pieces collected were in such a condition to be able to identify where they came from. So it was those in better condition
markh1011 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur cont..
So the samples overall were not particularly useful in demonstrating anything. . and hardly any were from the impact areas. NIST explain this in their report.
"Moreover pieces of evaporated steel"- The sentence makes no sense. If it is evaporated then it isn't there... No one found "evaporated steel". Jonathon Barnett was describing eroded steel and if you are going to reference a report you should probably atually read it to see his explanation..
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 1:
Before starting to seriously discuss steel please read the relevant report NIST NCSTAR 1-3, preferably with subreports 1-3B and 1-3C. The core column were stamped as were the center column of each perimeter panel. They often had written marks as well but as you know the collapse was extremely violent so you can't expect this to be unreadable even if not exposed to fire.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "Before starting to seriously discuss steel please read the relevant report " - Irony. You are the one referring to reports but leaving out important facts.
"even unidentifiable pieces concluded to have been subject " - That's great. But of the pieces retained hardly any came from the impact floors. Are you not getting this?
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 2:
There's in fact no discussion of why pieces couldn't be unidentified and rest assured that even unidentifiable pieces concluded to have been subject to precollapse fires would be of interest to at least get an overall lower bound of the column temperatures.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 3:
There is however in the appendix of the detailed steel inventory a brief comment on a severely corrosioned column labeled K-16 which possibly from the nature of its damage couldn't be identified. This is probably the source for the corroded sample of steel from the towers that has been examined by the Worcester Polytechnical Institute (WPI) alongside a further investigation of the steel from WTC7 analyzed in Fema Appendix C.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 4:
One attempt they've done on WPI to replicate the sulfuric attack on the WTC7 sample is described in the report "Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7" of 2004. They manage to produce at least a resemblant attack by using Iron Sulfide powder on a heated steel sample of the same type as the original.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 5:
There were however no testing done with thermite and sulfur and they also didn't say if they analyzed the orogonal sample/samples for aluminum. Jeff Farrer of Brigham Young University found some traces of it in his analysis.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 6:
Furthermore, neither in this paper or in FEMA appendix C are there any valid explanation given for the steel being subject to these attacks on the site of Ground Zero. I do know they've been making public speculations from everything from acid rain to fireprotective (!) wall boards. To note is that NIST has itself totally avoided the subject. It isn't even mentioned in their reports other than in the mentioned brief comment hidden deep in the appendix in question.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "Furthermore, neither in th" - Six posts in and waiting for a relevant point....
"To note is that NIST has itself totally avoided the subject." - Explaining irrelevant things wasn't within the scope of the report sorry.
"It isn't even mentioned in their reports "- The steel is discussed in NCSTAR1-3C and they determine the piece from the towers most likely experienced any erosion after collapse and that it wasn't a factor.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 7:
As for the part of the steel columns recovered from fire areas note their crucial placements. Even though the poor visual reproduction of the fire simulations in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 seem to agree with the below 250 C of C-80 and HH the real problem concerns the C-88a and C-88b. These are right in the middle of the action of WTC 2 and C-88a passes through a floor with estimates of great damage of the fire proofment. Indeed they modeled the column to high temperatures.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HurburBurbur "As for the part of the steel columns recovered from fire areas note their crucial placements."
- That's great. None of this helps your point or forgives your sloppiness or stupid statements about "vaporised" steel.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 8:
Yet all they do as to this later specimens is to point out that their wasn't sufficient paint to determine if it had only been subdued to temperatures below 250 C and that the examination of the microstructures of the steel did not indicate that it had reached temperatures above 600 C.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 9:
But since C-88a and C-88b steel were welded into the splate that connected them they could also have used the DTA method described in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D section 2.3 to look for temperatures in excess of 400 C or even better the method described in section 2.4 by which temperatures in the intervall of 200 C to 500 C can be detected with an error margin of 50 C.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 10:
But none of this were really the point. The central thing is that NIST rely very little on empiric material. They mainly use computer models that combined are stretched far beyond ever used before and thus have a large margin of error. The critical data from the actual crime scenes that they refer to are in several instances of the kind that it doesn't SUPPORT the models, but that it doesn't CONTRADICT them...
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "But none of this were really the point" - 10 posts and I don't think you have a made a point. Lots of hand waving though.
"combined are stretched far beyond ever used before and thus have a large margin of error. T" - Several other organisations also used modeling in their analysis. All produced results similar to NISTs. Funny huh? Your complaint about "margin of error" is a desperate cry and does noting to support the conspiracy or critique their work.
markh1011 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur If you think the only evidence for the fire induced collapse is computer models then you are more ignorant than you appear.
"Keep down your high voice " - Actually no. You came into the channel and made some poor statements and you got corrected. DEAL WITH IT. It will happen on the intertube....
I don't care if you get all precious because you got corrected.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 11:
... as in the example mentioned or in the case of WTC 7 the supposed but invisible interior destabilizing process and outside column buckling. In some instances they even close their eyes to data that invalidate their models such as no observance of buckling of three sides of either tower before collapse and the west side of WTC 7 not moving down before the northwest. The NIST investigation is no more than a pseudo-scientific fairytale.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@markh1011
PART 12:
Here's a couple of advice to you. Keep down your high voice and self proclaimed expertise. Do some real study of the official reports and more importantly some critical investigation on your own. And by the way, "atually" makes no sense. I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
@HurburBurbur "And by the way, "atually" makes no sense. I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing." - Seriously? You're picking on spelling mistakes now? No you don't sound desperate at all...
"I looked it up in a dictionary but came up with nothing." "Here's a couple of advice to you."
- Perhaps you should have looked up how to use the word "advice" ...
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
lol, I told my girlfriend not to give me a blow job while I'm typing. Maybe you're a better listener than her.
HurburBurbur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
What did the USA give the government of Pakistan concerning Bin Laden and 911 in early October of 2001?
How can Operation Northwoods be an example of "false flag terrorism" if it never happened?
ctcole77 2 months ago
So you're actually PAYING to spread this disinfo and distraction as if splitting hairs over what somebody else said somehow proves or disproves something? Focus on what's important and unequivocal: the MOLTEN METAL identified as ferrous (iron and/or steel) and according to the NIST report some of it got so hot it EVAPORATED. That's you're Smoking Gun, see moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot dot com for pics & more detail, don't try to derail about how soft the metal had to get to let go, EXPLAIN IT
AmericanTrekker 2 months ago
@AmericanTrekker "and according to the NIST report some of it got so hot it EVAPORATED" - The NIST report says no such thing. You are trying to quote dishonest conspiracy theorists who are trying to quote mine a report they don't understand.
markh1011 2 months ago
4 sides to 1 story.
TheErnieLeblanc 2 months ago
hey this shows you no nothing like the other guy said and like many will tell you YOU HAVE TO CUT ALL COLUMNS WITHIN LESS THEN A SEC OF EACH OTHER ..IF WHAT YOU SAY IS WHAT HAPPENED IT WOULD HAVE FALLIN ON IT SIDE OR IN A PEICE ON ITS SIDE.... DO YOU RESEARCH AND KNOW YOUR INFO....you have just been ripped a new one pls go put ice on that
bitethepain101 2 months ago
Looks like your lightsaber is heading to the dark side Luke
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 2 months ago
A whut now?
Im totally unsubscribing.
clitmint 2 months ago
Also, being banned form websites/forums does NOT make whatever argument you support correct.
ele2003 2 months ago 6
@ele2003 I got blocked from one truther's video for stating that his job as an airline caterer didn't qualify him to speak about the structural integrity of the plane as if he was an aeronautical engineer. Infact every time I ask a really good question that a truther cannot answer or make a statement that a truther cannot disprove they block me. You NEVER see a debunker block some one except when the person does nothing but spam profanities or racist remarks. Truthers block all dissenters.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
Yes, the steel did weaken and caused a collapse. We see that asymmetrical collapse above the point of impact. However, the rest of the towers collapsed symmetrically straight down at free fall speeds with almost NO resistance. For that to happen ALL of the supporting columns would have to be severed within fractions of a second. If I drop two bricks one with resistance beneath it and one without which will hit the ground first? I'm no engineer so look up engineers for 911 truth if you dare.
ele2003 2 months ago 3
@ele2003 They did not fall at free fall speeds and they did noit collapse symaterically. There was debris outside as well as inside the footprint. What you call gthe collapse was actually thde final most visible and dramatic stage of ther collapse. Below the point of impact the momentum from the above collapse imposed upon the columns a force that they were notg designed to withstand.
davidkesslerauthor 1 month ago
The only substance that can produce enough heat to melt steel under those conditions is thermite. The jet fuel only burns at around 700 degrees. The structural members that were exposed to the fire, even in the off chance that the fire caused them to fail, were not enough to cause the collapse of the entire buildings. If it happened the way the NIST said it did then only the top sections would have failed. You're a treasonous idiot for perpetuating the ignorance around these events.
ScottyDoes82 2 months ago
hihi sesy girl with a nice personality kiss
LashonSinaus225 2 months ago
@markh1011: LOL!!! How many people r u debating with on these shitty debunking threads?? It's so sad how closed minded u really are!! U & krackpipelord r the only ones that stand out to me trying to keep people from the TRUTH!! & I mean TRYING & FAILING because maybe u don't notice but it seems to more & more people use r calling "twoofers" & "shills" wake the fuck up before it's too late there is more to this world than meets the eye!! But u choose not to c it!!
U're choice at the end of the
TheJJM80 2 months ago
@TheJJM80 "wake the fuck up"
Everybody is awake.
Please find another cliche.
cantonear1968 2 months ago
@TheJJM80 " It's so sad how closed minded u really are!!" - Yes perhaps I should be more open minded to absurd, unsupported conspiracy fantasies...
"to more & more people use r calling "twoofers" & "shills"" - I have never called anyone either of those terms.
"there is more to this world than meets the eye"- Truthers won't research and like to believe in myths therefore I need to see that there is more in this world? Yes that makes sense.
markh1011 2 months ago
how do you explain povarize concreate??????????
darknite888 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darknite888 "how do you explain povarize concreate"
First, please tell me what that is?
cantonear1968 2 months ago
Comment removed
MaLeVoLeNcE13 2 months ago
It's so funny how desparate u ppl r to protect ur false perception of reality, so that u can keep telling urself how free u r n how good the government is. The fact is, ppl who say that it's "the terrorists," who r trained and directed by the CIA, btw, is keeping the ppl who r really responsible for 9/11 from justice
CarbineKingClassic 2 months ago
It has been PROVEN BY NIST themselves that WTC7 WAS BLOWN UP. They tried to hide it in their preliminary report but were forced by David Chandler to in the final one admit to a 2,25 SECOND PERIOD OF FREE FALL. They then tried to divert attention from that by focusing on an average. Free fall, even for just a period, is possible ONLY through controlled demolition. Spread the links.
/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=related
/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related
/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
HurburBurbur 3 months ago
@HurburBurbur "is possible ONLY through controlled demolition"
Did you read the report where they explained the brief period of FFA? I'm wondering what you find scientifically incorrect with their explanation.
cantonear1968 3 months ago
@cantonear1968
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, fig12-62
HurburBurbur 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HurburBurbur "NIST NCSTAR 1-9, fig12-62"
Yes.
And?
cantonear1968 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
ctcole77 2 months ago
NIST report breaks the laws of physics apparently.
GeneralRushHour 3 months ago
INSIDE JOB 75%
pUgeciPe 3 months ago
it's everyone but usamas fault right?
spawnsrevenge 3 months ago
WOW!!.. What's cheaper???
A demolition crew & their expenses, tools Etc.?
Or a 757. Apparently a 757 was cheaper, and... allowed excuse for oil ways & war.
Snowman374th 3 months ago
Comment removed
adam3251 3 months ago
@culturebully3 it wont let me post links, so do a YT search of edna cintron, waving.
rono8582 3 months ago
@culturebully3 I do not know what happened. I have questions, not conspiracies.
here's a link for you about edna and others standing in this hole.
if it was so hot throughout the wholebuilding, how were ANY people able to climb down?
If jet fuel is so dangerous, why dont demolition crews save money and use that cheap stuff instead of engineering plans that take months? they could just do it in hours, for A LOT less cost? HMMM
rono8582 3 months ago
When you look at your government pension just remember we know whose paying your truth.
usmcoth 3 months ago
@seeker21truth i wasnt saying it was hot enough, i was disproving someone else.
rono8582 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so glad theres videos like this to shut these paranoid morons up. check under the 'conspiracy theories' tab at itwastyped. com .. a lot of interesting posts there also
culturebully3 3 months ago
Well, this guy's been put to bed. by alot of experts.
anastasia2657 3 months ago
this video hardly even covers the mountain of evidence
volhead49 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Tuesday Morning in September'. Available on DVD. Runtime 130 minutes.
Pure, unfiltered, authentic, and being released in such a way to keep its integrity.
Project is not affiliated and or connected to, working for any organization,
putting forth propaganda and or slant perspectives of the events on 9/11.
It is the most complete chronicle in real time of the wtc attacks .
tusmorninginsept 3 months ago
@seeker21truth "nor does it address the obvious and verifiable and self admitted controlled demolition of building 7" - Admitted? Oh I hope you're not trying to use the Silverstien comment....
markh1011 3 months ago
@seeker21truth "his video doesnt address the thousands of engineer" - 1500... hardly any structural engineers... they don't seem capable of getting their work passed peer review... many haven't done any research on the topic.... Considering how many engineers there are in the US that is a pathetic number....There are probably more at NIST..
markh1011 3 months ago
@seeker21truth " there is a logical scientific explanation to the bow." -Yes there is. The perimeter columns were being pulled inwards... they were weakening.. the collapse initiated when they failed.
markh1011 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seeker21truth "if it was so hot that it buckled, why were people leaning on" Stop and think for a second. The people went to the coldest areas not the hottest. This included the large impact hole where the ventilation was the greatest. This was not the hottest area and not where the collapses initiated.
markh1011 3 months ago