how can citizens just doubt what engineers,architects and construction workers and foreman say about the way these buildings fell? these people have dedicated their lifes to the construction and demolition of buildings,and now when they speak up about 9/11 they and their "theories" are just thrown aside as looney and idiotic??? STOP BEING BRAINWASHED BY YOUR T.V. PEOPLE,DO SOME RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF,JUST USE SIMPLE LOGIC AND PHYSICS
This testimony together with a whole mountain of hard evidence and analysis from demolition experts around the world makes Larry Silverstein suspect for insurance fraud. If the legal system and the US government wasn't so corrupt, Silverstein would be arrested and charged with enough crimes to put him and his partners in prison for life.
Kevin mcpadden first said he heard something that was rythmic on a radio......he admitts he didnt know what it was saying......he also said the red cross person gave him A LOOK WHICH I TOOK TO MEAN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. He never heard anyone SAY run for your life........And it was obvious to the trained firefighters that the building could collapse.....After the building was burning all day....And Silverstein says...."THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PULL THE BUILDING...to get them outa the area..duhhh,
The families of the victims tried to remove Phil Zelikow as they knew he was crooked and was there to whitewash the report. Zelikow is a crazy Zionist - he is there to coverup the crime. A huge crime. Can there ever be an investigation that is honest. Not as it now stands. Not until we prosecute the traitors for their treason. And HANG THEM
Nice suit the Red Cross representative had there.
This is the first time I've seen footage of the fires inside WTC-7. As much as I want the truth it's shattering my heart, all those innocent lives taken for greed. Fuck the gov't.
so the firefighters think it was ok to be pulled off the "pile" after the gold was recovered? They think it was ok to ship the steal to china? Your telling me that they believe it was ok to take the remains of there falling to the dump; and use material for roads? They believe mayor G., who was a federal attorney, to remove evidence and that it was all his decision. BRING ON A NEW 911 COMMISSION THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS.
I agree with you on McPadden! Bring on a REAL 911 Commission to answer the questions. Those that lie and those that REFUSE to TESTIFY should receive= 40yrs min to a Maximum of death.
Perjury does not carry a death sentance and anyone can refuse to testify on the grounds they will incrimidate themselves - you do not want to rewrite our constitution do you?
Why not, it has been good enough for the last two presidents. I am sure that when you refuse to testify on something like the events of 911, there could be some new HR's. Interesting point though, incriminate self- wonder if that's why Bush and Cheney refused to testify.
also no record; don't forget. Your right, I would have been last without your incite into why the president and vice president refused to TESTIFY in a commission. I think Bush used the word "CONVERSATION" . Its a good thing people such as yourself are here to correct the ignorant............................................... NEW INDEPENDENT 911 COMMISSION would be great. Maybe you could be a part.
continued--but, I don't mind making posts that someone will read, think about or look at some other things. Its interesting to me that suddenly I have someone who cant think, questioning the obvious. Bush Cheney did not testify, and for that simple reason the 911 commission report will always be in question. All it has done is feed the "truthers" movement which creates dissension among the population. Goes directly to the wars built on lies and war crimes; hence the tribunal.
"They" just want us all divided. Question everything the government says. You cannot deny they have lied consistently. In fact its the only constant. Keep voting for one of two parties, keep believing they have a good reason for the wars; like terror. Maybe when they take the rest of you rights you will have wish you had done something different. How can you watch the firefighters and civilians from the first 1.5 hours of 911 and not have more questions for the 911 commission-moooo!
Lambert985 and you other people who didn't research the obvious demolitions, the hole in the pentagon(e) and the hole in the ground at shanksville both of which had NO plane or body parts debris should consider this: If the gov told you that you had nuts under your chin and they told you those are "chin-nuts" would you believe them? I believe you'd have a dick cheney in your mouth. Wake up!
There are other witness testimony validating this clip. Some from the NYPD and others from the NYFD. Huge holes in the official story. 9/11 was an inside job. It`s almost too obvious. If you`re not pissed off, you`re not paying attention!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Kevin Mcpadden is just a BIG LIAR ! He's just one of these "thruthers". There were no countdown (red cross involved in controlled demolitions?) and no BOOM BOOM BOOM. His testimonies changed so many times.
Lambert985: The explosions can be CLEARLY heard on this vid clip. Watch the end of the clip. Start believing your eyes and ears and the "official" story won't add up anymore.
It's hilarious that all these "debunkodroid" YouTubers think they know exactly what happened on 9/11 (most of whom were in elementary school at the time) and claim eyewitnesses were "wrong".
What a bunch of sad, pathetic wackos. Why don't you guys GO TO NEW YORK and ask some people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE what they think happened, instead of wasting time here.
"GO TO NEW YORK and ask some people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE what they think happened"
Already done. Hardly any agree with you. Why don't you go up to a NY firefighter and tell him what you think happened? You'll be lucky to escape with your head on.
That's ironic too. My experience in New York was quite the paradox of yours'. The guys at ladder 10 were quite friendly to me for asking honest questions.
Anecdotal experiences aside, there is no denying a cover-up of some kind. What is being covered-up is the question, isn't it?
I just do not believe you talked to "people who were there", and they did not AT LEAST express concern about the way this government and the media handled that terrible day.
I have yet to see evidence of a cover-up "of some kind."
I don't really care if you believe I haven't spoken to people who were there. Not only have I spoken to them, one of them who lost their spouse that day is a friend. Most people who were there, including FDNY and NYPD and first responders, think people like you are nuts.
Funny how many users work full time on trying to discredit the obvious, i counted at least 3 on this topic only. Come on, core columns magically disappearing (or failing simultaneously because of fire)? Office fires melting steel? A "new phenomenon" like NIST recently claimed? What the kind of wacko believe in such crap?!? Is obvious that wtc7 was controlled demolition, i don't even need to quote Danny Jowenko, the image is obvious.
Did McPadden ever try looking at the fire company team photos to find the fireman that he spoke to that day? That fireman should be identified and questioned.
plaguepuppy, Why did you delete my comment proving that the $16M NIST investigation was already budgeted and underway in 2002 long before you made your claim(in 2004) that only $600k was spent investigating the WTC?
This is a well documented fact ("a 9/11 Truth") aren't you a proponent of 9/11 truth?
For the same reason I'll delete the next 5 re-postings of the same talking point: because you've already said it several times.
Furthermore it is not even my claim, and is not something I even mentioned in my 2004 talk (watch?v=U4iJT4_RRRI). If you go back and look at the video you will see that the price comparison with the Clinton bj investigation was a video insert with a pause in the audio.
The video editing was done long after 9/11/04, and I had no input at all after the talk itself.
From Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero:
"Sue Keane, a police officer who was in the North Tower, said that an explosion "sent me and...two firefighters down the stairs...I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me...There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."
She was on the mezzanine in the WTC when the plane hit the building, shattered the glass around her and threw her down. This is from the same book Women of Ground Zero. So why are you trying to suggest it was demolitions?? do you think Sue Keane thinks it was demolitions?
It's quite impossible for the explosion she describes in the mezzanine to be caused by a plane hitting the building she was in. She was in WTC-1 at the time, which was the first building hit, and she obviously arrived well after the airplane hit.
She also describes several other explosions, each strong enough to throw people around. She doesn't try to explain anything, but describes explosions not consistent with a gravity collapse.
Call it what you want to, I'd call it messin' with the kid.
Battalion Chief John Sudnik said that while he and others were working at the command post, "We heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down."
Firefighter Timothy Julian said:
"First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train..."
My comment refers to the fact that a large number of eyewitnesses are on record as describing what they believed to be real explosions, with some quite detailed descriptions of such.
Some accounts are at a distance and may be explained away, but there are many from seasoned observers familiar with high explosives who were convinced that this is what they were hearing, and in some cases seeing.
Google "griffin explosive evidence" for some good examples.
Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "It sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened...It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: "There was another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs"
Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation... from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: "I looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor... One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces."
Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that [he saw] what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward"
"Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. . These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
Having said that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," Isaac added that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."
plaguepuppy..."Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation... from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: "I looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor"...
Key words here.. what "seemed like" perfectly synchronized explosions.
1. in Demolitions there are explosions then the collapse of the building, not explosions as the building is falling.
2. What sound do you think it made when the building was falling and all the air that was in between the floors was suddenly being forced out of the buildings at a high velocity? i am sure to an untrained eye it could look like a demolition, but actually it did not look or sound much like a real demolition at all. Here is a REAL demolition: /watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
I'm pointing out that your witnesses all say sounded like or believed to be or thought it was..etc.
Not that they actually saw or witnessed Bombs or even have ANY Evidencec at all."
marksman500
Noting but misunderstood noises in the distance? More from Sue Keane:
"It started to get dark, then all of the sudden there was this massive explosion. We were on the mezzanine, which is all encased in glass. The windows blew in, everything went black, and we all got thrown."
Anything that throws you through the air qualifies as an explosion to me. You have a problem with that definition?
Do you really think there are things normally found near the ground floor of a building that can explode like that? There were no raging fires nearby or the rescuers wouldn't have been there, so the "exploding boilers and transformers" explanation doesn't work.
Or do you think she was just confused and only believes she was thrown through the air?
6. The fracturing of the columns and supports all around the WTC before the collapse.
All these thing were reported as loud sound or thing that made sounds "like" something exploding. You choose to ASSUME they are talking about demolitions, when in fact you have nothing to base that on. You cant Prove anyone who for a FACT was "in on it", you do not have any physical evidence of demolitions either. So it appears you basing you whole conspiracy on out of context quotes.
Nothing out of context at all - you're invited to read the original transcripts. Read Women of Ground Zero for that matter. The more you read of the original accounts the harder it gets to explain away the inconvenient facts.
Do falling bodies cause explosions inside the towers that can throw people across rooms? Do planes hitting the other building, or the same one 80 floors above, cause explosions in the sub-basement? Does noise from falling debris toss people around and shatter windows?
And again, you are conflating the terms 'explosion' and 'demolition.' An explosion is a well defined event that can be confirmed by an individual observation, while a demolition is a coordinated event involving many localized explosions.
Individual accounts of explosions, if you actually bother to read the original transcripts, are numerous and very detailed. Whether the witnesses themselves concluded that there was a demolition has no bearing on the accuracy of their reports of explosions.
Firefighter Keith Murphy, who is in the lobby of the North Tower: "[T]he first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.... I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions.... At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.... I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar."
Keith Murphy, is talking about when one of the WTC was starting to fall, Boom boom boom from the floors smacking down on each other and the "ROAR" that followed. again look at a real demolition and tell me how the WTC collapse looked or sounded anything like this. /watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
Actually when you read the accounts of explosions people heard in FULL instead of edited by conspiracy theorists then you see they are NOT talking about a bomb. Many are talking about transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard, also What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another. All kinds of things can sound like explosions. Again you are making an Gratuitous Assertion, so it can also but gratuitously denied.
"Actually when you read the accounts of explosions people heard in FULL instead of edited by conspiracy theorists then you see they are NOT talking about a bomb." JLaw012
Funny but I've done exactly that, and in every case the more I read of the original transcripts the more impressed I was by the number and explicitness of descriptions of explosions in these witness testimonies, and not a single mention of transformers in the lot.
Gratuitous Assertion? OK then, I'll start charging...
Every case? HA. Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . before . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes . I . saw a flash flash flash . [at] the lower level of the building. But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions"
"An acre floor", by the way, that is separated by a core floor, which constitutes 24% of it's area. The floors don't just come loose and slap into each other. They are connected to themselves but also the walls and core. They are not going to release globally and even NIST admits the "pancake theory" is not possible here.
So are you saying that Sue Keane thinks there were demolitions in the building??
Planes hitting building makes people get thrown to the ground,elevators falling from 100 story's up to the sub basement cause explosions,fireballs from jet fuel going down the elevator shaft cause explosions, Falling debris from 100+ floors cause loud explosive noises. Maybe instead of cherry picking one liners from the Sues book you should read the whole thing.
I'm saying you obviously haven't bothered to read what she's said or you wouldn't keep offering these lame explanations for what she experienced. A plane was not hitting the building when the mezzanine exploded and threw her across the floor, nor any of the several such explosions that she described. Nor was debris falling 100 floors inside the building, not before the collapses at least.
As to "reading the whole thing," I have done most of that via Amazon preview, and have a copy on order.
@plaguepuppy do you know were i could find a video of audio of first responder? when ever i type in september 11 first responders audio tapes i cant find anything.
Especially the first Video shows that firefighters said after the plain hit (they arrived long after) that they experienced at least 3 Massive Explosions inside the Towers! No more Elevators coming down no Jet fuel at this point in time traveling explosive down the elevator shaft
@JLaw012 The elevators did not run all the way from the bottom to the top floors. I went into the WTC in 1999 and they only go every 30 floors then you have to get out and change elevators. there is no way fuel or elevators could come smashing down like they said.
@JLaw012 I'm saying the shafts didnt go up in a straight line. they cut off at different floors and there was no single shaft from the lobby floor that went all the way up. Also, jet fuel burns instantly and doesnt have the power to blow out windows and blow up the lobby with just flames. Those were explosions with shockwaves not fireballs.
@JLaw012 Also, the firefighters got there when the fire was already burning. they heard explosions in the lobby 15-20 minutes after the first plane hit so the supposed fireball would have already reached the bottom and blown up.
@Redbull357, Cameras were literally right in front of the WTC right up to its collapse and there is not one camera that picked up audio of explosions, demolitions produce decibels over 150 which would be heard over a mile away and it would take hundreds of explosives all over the building.
Not only that if you watch the collapse it obviously starts at the IMPACT hole no where else, whatever they heard at the first floor it was not demolitions.
@JLaw012 There is a video of firefighters talking on the payphone when they hear explosions coming from building 7. It's on Youtube... Search it and tell me if what you heard and what they reacted to was not an explosion. Please look up the vid and get back to me. Thanks for taking the time to respond as well.
Read some of the accounts that Griffin cites - quite a few describe explosions beginning just before the collapses began. In the demolition of something any tall structure the Twin Towers the explosions would continue throughout the collapse almost to ground level, as was witnessed.
The "high velocity air" idea only works if the floors are moving at high speed, but such jets are seen from early on, when the floors were moving at only tens of miles an hour, hardly "explosive" speeds.
plaguepuppy..."Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "It sounded like bombs going off.
You really are trying to use Sue Keane?? there is a book out with her talking about the incident(Women at Ground Zero), She does not think it was explosions from demolitions rather planes that smashed into the building that caused an "explosion" and the debris and bodies that were falling etc... its a shame you take these people quotes out of context, it really is easy to see the dishonesty in way you guys take peoples words and twist them into what suits your agenda.
Yeah right, every single one of these people is just a confused scumbag, or is somehow being taken out of context and you are a paragon of virtue and rationality. Any special reason I should believe that?
Attacking every single person who presents evidence that doesn't fit the official conspiracy theory with Rovian slurs only makes you look desperate and foolish.
plaguepuppy..."My comment refers to the fact that a large number of eyewitnesses are on record as describing what they believed to be real explosions,"..
Key words here..What they "believed" to be real explosions.
Typical, they find ONE first responder that believes in a conspiracy out of a 1000 that do not and we are supposed to believe the 1 guy, so i guess he is really saying that all the firemen and police and other first responders knew about the demolition and did not report it. Wow what a vast collection of evil first responders who happened to have zero morals. amazing how that works out ohhhh the science of a shitty conspiracy.
Once more for the slow ones out there: insults and obscenities, especially directed against yours truly, will earn you immediate deletion and blocking. This is a "one strike" policy that no amount of whining and sniveling will reverse.
The jibbering of the flying monkey brigade grows tiresome - anyone not familiar with the concept of form factor or aspect ratio has nothing to add to a discussion of structural stability.
Here in the "real world" of physics and engineering, what counts is proportion, not absolute size. A "tall skinny" object, e.g. 10:1 proportions will tend to topple over when stood on end, regardless of size.
Failure to understand that is disqualifying from comment on the WTC collapses.
I see you deleted my comment where I pointed out the fact that you have falsely claimed that only $600K was spent investigating the WTC when in fact NIST spent over $16M. Why didn't you just admit you made a mistake?
Budgeting money for future use isn't the same as doing a study. The preliminary NIST report was not issued until 2005, and their final report online is dated 6/8/06.
This is still a screaming example of too little too late,to create the appearance of a forensic investigation without actually doing one.
Beginning more than a year after the crime scene was scrubbed, and with all but ~200 pieces of structural steel sent off for recycling, it was set up to find nothing incriminating to anyone.
And you base your blanket statements on actual discussions with how many real engineers? My best guess is ~0, but perhaps you would like to enlighten us on your claimed background?
Smoke color does relate directly to fire temperature - the opposite has only been claimed as an unsupported "anti-truther" talking point. Dark smoke indicates an oxygen-poor fire, with unburned hydrocarbons contributing to the dark color.
Higher temp fires, with adequate oxygen and good mixing, have little smoke.
""Smoke color does relate directly to fire temperature"
This is not. It relates to the stage of the fire."
The stage and temperature of a building fire are closely related. Such a fire tends to creep through a structure, exhausting fuel in one area as it moves on. Air supply is limited deep in the building and black smoke signifies incomplete combustion.
This does not lead to the high tempaeaturess across the entire cross-section of the structure that could cause a vertical collapse.
Minor is a relative term, but the fact remains that none of the 3 buildings (including the USPO building to the east) suffered significant structural weakening. Two were repaired, the other still stands, mostly because it is so contaminated by toxic dust that it will need very expensive decontamination before it can be demolished.
Given that a 47 story building collapsed just across the street it would be impossible to confine all to the footprint, but this was very nearly accomplished.
I do find it rather strange that a purported CD took down WTC7 as proposed by the conspiracy theorist, although controlled demolition exerts, on the scene, whole heartedly disagree.
It's extremely diffcult to justify the use of explosives, when the very experts trained in controlled demolition, all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
The "demo experts on the scene" were mostly in the employ of CDI, a company in legal trouble with the Feds just before 9-11, subsequently given a very lucrative cleanup contract.
On the other hand a lot of bystanders not connected with this company, including many with military background, reported very definite explosions. Look at the detailed analysis of hundreds of these first-hand reports by Graeme McQueen for a sense of how specific and detailed these many reports of explosions were.
"The "demo experts on the scene" were mostly in the employ of CDI, a company in legal trouble with the Feds just before 9-11, subsequently given a very lucrative cleanup contract."
I notice you said "most." That does not prove they are ALL lying.
"military background"
What does that have to do with anything. I have amilitary background, and actually lived arouns explsoions for many years. I still think a bombs is going off everytime I hear a car backfiring.
plaguepuppy..."what looks, feels and sounds like an explosion is really an explosion."...
Explosions?
Ya, no doubt there were explosions, but can you show / prove that the explosions witnesses report hearing were in fact bombs and not vehicle gas tanks exploding or Falling debris?
Explosions?? i thought the going theory was Thermite? And to the best of my memory thermite does not "Explode". Who is really shocked that people heard explosions on a day when two of the tallest buildings in the world were hit by planes going 500mph and full of jet fuel?? lol
Self preservation maybe? Avoiding personal attacks from anti-truthers?
Activism isn't the issue - these people have given detailed written statements, now part of the public record. None of them have sought attention (chanting and pushing?), and without a Freedom of Information suit none of these witness statements would be in the public record.
Read Graeme McQueens detailed analysis of these witness statements before casually dismissing them. Not all these people were fools as you imply.
I have never dismissed anything. I am sure people did hear explosions. However explosions do not equal explosives. I think demolition experts are motre trained to recognize the difference between common building content explosions and actual demolition explosions.
"Not all these people were fools as you imply. "
I never anywhere implied this. I simply asked a question if they believe in what they actually heard as much as you and others do.
Dertygian takes the prize for pure unadulterated ignorance, capped with obscenities.
"Tall buildings CANNOT topple."
...Burrppp. OK, great physics there pinkie - Einstein would be awestruck. Yeah, it's something about tensile strength and stuff. That's why tall skinny objects always fall into themselves, except when they're trees, which don't obey the laws of physics.
Dertygian: BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND BUILD SOLELY FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? CONCRETE HAS ALMOST NO TENSILE STRENGTH. THE MASSIVE WEIGHT PROHIBITS TOWERS FROM ever 'TOPPPLING OVER' watch?v=fEZvaSWkdME
Do you have any idea what an idiot you are? The ALL-CAPS only makes it clearer.
Tensile strength is the amount of force a material can withstand when being stretched to the point of failure. But you knew that right?
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the failure of a weight-bearing structure under compressive loads, so you'll have to help me understand how it explains a building collapsing along its own axis, the exact path of *greatest* resistance.
"BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND BUILD SOLELY FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
Thanks, the ALL-CAPS makes it all so much clearer. But isn't compressive strength exactly what would keep a structure from collapsing into itself?
What does tensile strength have to do with an object's ability to topple over? Especially when, as with WTC-7's ground-level blowout, it is no longer anchored to the ground to prevent rotation?
BTW, this pathetic meme about tall skinny structures being incapable of toppling over is unique to 9-11 debunkers.
No real engineer that I know of claims this, and in fact one of the recurring reasons given by engineers and scientists for questioning the official story is the vertical collapses.
See for example ae911truth(dot)org for opinions from numerous architectural and engineering professionals, as opposed to the anonymous "anti-truthers" holding forth here with such certainty.
No real engineer believes steel retains most of it's structural integrity until it nears its melting point, or that dust clouds from a build collapse are equivalent to a volcanic pyroclastic flow, or that the temperature of a fire can be determinded
It's amazing how often you fools refer to straight down as the path of "greatest resistance". Are you all completely brain dead? Are you aware of the force necessary to shift a massive, collapsing load laterally?
This is basic, basic stuff. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Insult much? More of the pathetic "tall buildings can't topple over" meme, based on no science at all. Quote a source?
A building is designed precisely to resist gravitational loads, which act straight down. Thus straight-down collapse along its own axis is precisely the path of greatest resistance.
Toppling is actually quite easy, especially when there is structural failure at ground level, allowing it to hinge. The more it tips, the greater the lateral force tending to topple it over.
"Thus straight-down collapse along its own axis is precisely the path of greatest resistance."
Actually the path of greatest resistance is against gravity, which is up.
Since there were no lateral loads greater than the the force of gravity, which is down obviously, there was no reason for the building to topple over. It actually fell into the path of least resistance, which was the 20 story hole on the south side and the whole left by the collapse of the Penthouse on the east side.
Bad science, too many errors to deal with in 500 characters.
You still parrot the "toppling is impossible" meme with no support from real science, and make the deeply silly claim that "up" is the path of greatest resistance. Tall structures are designed to resist gravity loads, and tall skinny structures tend to topple over. Show me one real source that denies this.
All you prove is your own complete lack of engineering knowledge and reliance on poorly digested debunker talking points.
Nothing personal, but "up" is just wrong to the point of silliness. Try not to be so sensitive...
Unless you postulate a huge explosion throwing debris upward (or the close flyby of a celestial object), "up" is not one of the directions included in the design of a building to resist collapse.
"Down" is the direction of gravity and the direction of greatest structural strength. The structure was designed to resist gravity loads, with a large factor of excess capacity.
So you admit you're ignorant of the most basic engineering concepts - sorry but there's no point arguing with a trained monkey.
For anyone who might actually be interested in the answer to that question, skim any basic text in structural engineering. Resisting gravity loads is what much of the subject consists of, and oddly enough these almost never are applied in an upward direction, apart from close flybys by planetary sized objects.
"You still parrot the "toppling is impossible" meme with no support from real science" JK
I never claimed this." KIP
May I quote you?
"Since there were no lateral loads greater than the the force of gravity, which is down obviously, there was no reason for the building to topple over. It actually fell into the path of least resistance, which was the 20 story hole on the south side and the whole left by the collapse of the Penthouses..."
I see you keep claiming that the wtc towers were "tall and skinny". Huh? Are you completely out of it? Each floor covered an acre! Anything that tall will naturally appear "skinny", but that's relative to the height of the structure only. Still, it's the absolute terms that matter.
And while I don't know what things are like on your planet, here on earth, in absolute terms, a 208' square building is not considered "skinny" by any architectural or engineering standards.
For the same reason any collapse that starts near the top of a tall building will tend to slide off to one side rather than progress straight down through the structure. Any slight asymmetry will cause the collapse process to "walk off" to the side and end before full collapse.
Without a force pulling the collapse back to the midline, e.g. by removing the supports with explosives just ahead of the collapse, can the collapse avoid slipping off and ending early, well short of complete collapse.
It's amazing how often you fools refer to straight down as the path of "greatest resistance". Are you all completely brain dead? Are you aware of the force necessary to shift a massive, collapsing load laterally?
This is basic, basic stuff. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Now for the collapse. As you know the Penthouse fell first meaning it essentially created a "hole" in the building on the east side. Now there was also, as reported by numerous firefighters, but obscured by smoke, roughly a 20 story hole in the middle of the building.
That would make the east and middle the path of least resistance during the collapse.
If you look at the debris pile you can see couple things that are telling about the collapse:
1. The North face is on top of the debris pile indicating the South side fell before the North.
2. The West side of the north face is pointing toward the East side.
Both of the above facts provide insight ito the building following the path fo least resistance, the middle of the back side (20 foot hole) and the "hole" left by the penthouse collapse.
For some perspective on what it means for a building to come "straight down" consider that WTC-7 was >600' tall, yet shed so little debris laterally that buildings on 3 sides (Verison to west, US P.O. to east, Fitterman to north) were still standing with surface damage.
Both the P.O. and Verizon building were repaired and are still in use. Fitterman Hall has been sitting empty and contaminated, but structurally sound with some damage to the south facade.
"Oops, my fault. 30 West Broadway IS fitterman Hall. Got them confused briefly. Not ahsamed to admit my error." Well good on you...
So your point is??? Fitterman Hall is still very much intact, not in danger of spontaneous collapse, and has damage to the south facade that has not compromised its structural integrity - otherwise it would have been torn down by now as a public health hazard.
That's pretty superficial damage if WTC-7 "fell on it" as you claim.
Short of an invisible force field down the middle of the street, even the neatest controlled demolition of a 600' building is bound to cause some damage to surrounding buildings. Does this change the fact that the collapse was substantially straight down, within real world accuracy?
The fact that the Verizon and USPO building have been repaired, and that only the south facade of Fitterman was damaged, speaks more to the vertical accuracy of the collapse than to any "toppling."
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed it toppled over. However, it did not fall down into a "tidy pile" as CTers suggest either.
Again, there was a 20 foot gauge, as reported by numerous firefighters, down the middle of the south face. The east penthouse collapse first creating a virtual hole on the east side of the building.
Judging be the way the debris piled up, it folowed the path of least resistance.
It really is pretty simple if you just put a little research into it.
Lots of problems here: the satellite and ground pictures show a pile of debris centered on the footprint, and barely extending across the surrounding streets. That's a pretty neat pile for a 600' structure.
The disappearance of the east mechanical penthouse is actually a big problem for those claiming that it was not a CD.
What possible kind of internal damage could allow a section of the roof to fall straight down through the building? Did the whole building fall through this hole?
"That's pretty superficial damage if WTC-7 "fell on it" as you claim."
Actually plaguepuppy, I never claimed this. I only talked about the damage. I realize multiple people are commenting on this thread, but please try to refrain from making false accusations as to what I said and lets just stick to the facts.
So we have a self-styled debunker who gets the location of Fitterman Hall exactly wrong but still claims that massive damage to the south wall caused WTC-7 to topple to the north. And when questioned about any of this, said SSD refuses to admit any error and launches into a new talking point (about something not even in this video).
Better let the lumberjacks know this new physical law ASAP: tall skinny objects fall away from the damaged side. It could save lives!
Many photos of the wreckage from WTC-7 exist, and all show the great majority of the debris (well over 95%) stacked neatly in the building's footprint. Videos taken from numerous angles show it falling straight down with no visible tipping.
The relatively minor damage to the buildings around it only confirms that it fell straight down. Even a few degrees of tilt in a 600' tower would have led to a very different collapse and much more damage nearby.
Starting out a comment with demeaning rehtoric renders your main point meaningless.
However, I will give you the benfit of the doubt since you align yourelf with a group of individuals who seem to prefer to express their "truth" in a series of demoralizing rants rather then engage in a constructive debate.
Huh? Care to quote one of my "demoralizing rants"? I've tried to stick as close as possible to the bare facts, but I can't help it if some find those demoralizing.
So, moving right along to your next talking point - and forgetting that you were dead wrong about Fitterman Hall:
"So what you are saying is that it'd both had to have toppled south (It did, as it fell onto Fitterman Hall) and extended across four streets?" ClunkyKlunk
From Klunky's YouTube page:
"Whenever Truthers are painted into a corner, they resort to one of three tactics:
1) Quickly drop the subject and bring up another one
2) Quickly drop the subject and bring out the scattergun..
Squirm all you want, you still haven't shown even the most basic honesty in admitting your errors, but you're ready to move on to another bogus talking point.
No sense moving on to another topic when you can't defend your claims about this one.
Sounds a lot like
"1) Quickly drop the subject and bring up another one
2) Quickly drop the subject and bring out the scattergun."
So you still claim Fitterman Hall was north of WTC-7? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Changing the subject again? So you have shown just how little you care about truth and accuracy...
Any thoughts yet about which side of WTC-7 F.H. was on, north or south? So, damage to the south side makes a building fall north?
For someone who holds others to a standard of perfect accuracy you are remarkably unwilling to admit a major error of fact. And the more you dance around an honest admission of error, the more you look basically dishonest.
how can citizens just doubt what engineers,architects and construction workers and foreman say about the way these buildings fell? these people have dedicated their lifes to the construction and demolition of buildings,and now when they speak up about 9/11 they and their "theories" are just thrown aside as looney and idiotic??? STOP BEING BRAINWASHED BY YOUR T.V. PEOPLE,DO SOME RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF,JUST USE SIMPLE LOGIC AND PHYSICS
newyorkyanks22 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Gage (AE911Truth) Talk @ Cambridge University
UK 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)
See the featured video on my channel for full details.
cappucinokid100 8 months ago
truth: al kida did it, fuck you, it wasnt bush, bin ladens dead, so suck my cock.
greenweenie1775 9 months ago
@greenweenie1775 truth: you're about as sharp as a fresh pile of pig shit.
lumiakin 9 months ago
This testimony together with a whole mountain of hard evidence and analysis from demolition experts around the world makes Larry Silverstein suspect for insurance fraud. If the legal system and the US government wasn't so corrupt, Silverstein would be arrested and charged with enough crimes to put him and his partners in prison for life.
4ezMoney 1 year ago
Why the hell was Amy Goodman there?
bhunterjoyner 1 year ago
McPadden doens know the first tihng about buildin 7 and Danil Nigro. Would not trust Gage you build a dog house
Obelisk2290 1 year ago
Kevin mcpadden first said he heard something that was rythmic on a radio......he admitts he didnt know what it was saying......he also said the red cross person gave him A LOOK WHICH I TOOK TO MEAN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. He never heard anyone SAY run for your life........And it was obvious to the trained firefighters that the building could collapse.....After the building was burning all day....And Silverstein says...."THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PULL THE BUILDING...to get them outa the area..duhhh,
JPPolachek 2 years ago
Google "Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC"
WTCnucleardemolition 2 years ago
5 stars.
i hadn't seen some of that footage.
I think we're gonna get a break soon.
The top is gonna blow on the horrendous traitorous act that our own gov did to its people.
teshnic 2 years ago
The families of the victims tried to remove Phil Zelikow as they knew he was crooked and was there to whitewash the report. Zelikow is a crazy Zionist - he is there to coverup the crime. A huge crime. Can there ever be an investigation that is honest. Not as it now stands. Not until we prosecute the traitors for their treason. And HANG THEM
2ndstartathaRt 2 years ago
It sounds pretty clear that the the NYFD was in on it. Should they be arrested and tried?
EtonSmegma 2 years ago
Nice suit the Red Cross representative had there.
This is the first time I've seen footage of the fires inside WTC-7. As much as I want the truth it's shattering my heart, all those innocent lives taken for greed. Fuck the gov't.
JessPk212 2 years ago
Yep. Thanks for this.
WTCdemolitions 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was an inside job!!
log140 2 years ago
so the firefighters think it was ok to be pulled off the "pile" after the gold was recovered? They think it was ok to ship the steal to china? Your telling me that they believe it was ok to take the remains of there falling to the dump; and use material for roads? They believe mayor G., who was a federal attorney, to remove evidence and that it was all his decision. BRING ON A NEW 911 COMMISSION THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS.
bigc028282 2 years ago
"BRING ON A NEW 911 COMMISSION THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS. "
McPadden is a liar, I doubt he was even there.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I agree with you on McPadden! Bring on a REAL 911 Commission to answer the questions. Those that lie and those that REFUSE to TESTIFY should receive= 40yrs min to a Maximum of death.
bigc028282 2 years ago
Perjury does not carry a death sentance and anyone can refuse to testify on the grounds they will incrimidate themselves - you do not want to rewrite our constitution do you?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Why not, it has been good enough for the last two presidents. I am sure that when you refuse to testify on something like the events of 911, there could be some new HR's. Interesting point though, incriminate self- wonder if that's why Bush and Cheney refused to testify.
bigc028282 2 years ago
"Bush and Cheney refused to testify."
I thought they testified, but it was not under oath and behind closed doors.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
also no record; don't forget. Your right, I would have been last without your incite into why the president and vice president refused to TESTIFY in a commission. I think Bush used the word "CONVERSATION" . Its a good thing people such as yourself are here to correct the ignorant............................................... NEW INDEPENDENT 911 COMMISSION would be great. Maybe you could be a part.
bigc028282 2 years ago
bigc
If the last commission was not independent, how will the next be? Who is going to lead it?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
continued--but, I don't mind making posts that someone will read, think about or look at some other things. Its interesting to me that suddenly I have someone who cant think, questioning the obvious. Bush Cheney did not testify, and for that simple reason the 911 commission report will always be in question. All it has done is feed the "truthers" movement which creates dissension among the population. Goes directly to the wars built on lies and war crimes; hence the tribunal.
bigc028282 2 years ago
I have no idea what your point was
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"They" just want us all divided. Question everything the government says. You cannot deny they have lied consistently. In fact its the only constant. Keep voting for one of two parties, keep believing they have a good reason for the wars; like terror. Maybe when they take the rest of you rights you will have wish you had done something different. How can you watch the firefighters and civilians from the first 1.5 hours of 911 and not have more questions for the 911 commission-moooo!
bigc028282 2 years ago
Lambert985 and you other people who didn't research the obvious demolitions, the hole in the pentagon(e) and the hole in the ground at shanksville both of which had NO plane or body parts debris should consider this: If the gov told you that you had nuts under your chin and they told you those are "chin-nuts" would you believe them? I believe you'd have a dick cheney in your mouth. Wake up!
geo8270 3 years ago
Thats the best!!!! lolx2 keep up the good work!
bigc028282 2 years ago
There are other witness testimony validating this clip. Some from the NYPD and others from the NYFD. Huge holes in the official story. 9/11 was an inside job. It`s almost too obvious. If you`re not pissed off, you`re not paying attention!!!
alexjones4president 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Kevin Mcpadden is just a BIG LIAR ! He's just one of these "thruthers". There were no countdown (red cross involved in controlled demolitions?) and no BOOM BOOM BOOM. His testimonies changed so many times.
Lambert985 3 years ago
Facts or stfu.
Charlietheleet 3 years ago
Lambert985: The explosions can be CLEARLY heard on this vid clip. Watch the end of the clip. Start believing your eyes and ears and the "official" story won't add up anymore.
watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
katyu16 3 years ago
It's hilarious that all these "debunkodroid" YouTubers think they know exactly what happened on 9/11 (most of whom were in elementary school at the time) and claim eyewitnesses were "wrong".
What a bunch of sad, pathetic wackos. Why don't you guys GO TO NEW YORK and ask some people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE what they think happened, instead of wasting time here.
DarthKazi 3 years ago
"GO TO NEW YORK and ask some people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE what they think happened"
Already done. Hardly any agree with you. Why don't you go up to a NY firefighter and tell him what you think happened? You'll be lucky to escape with your head on.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
That's ironic too. My experience in New York was quite the paradox of yours'. The guys at ladder 10 were quite friendly to me for asking honest questions.
Anecdotal experiences aside, there is no denying a cover-up of some kind. What is being covered-up is the question, isn't it?
I just do not believe you talked to "people who were there", and they did not AT LEAST express concern about the way this government and the media handled that terrible day.
DarthKazi 3 years ago
I have yet to see evidence of a cover-up "of some kind."
I don't really care if you believe I haven't spoken to people who were there. Not only have I spoken to them, one of them who lost their spouse that day is a friend. Most people who were there, including FDNY and NYPD and first responders, think people like you are nuts.
PoetryHound 3 years ago
sadly your right, most FDNY and NYPD think we are crazy. but where not, you can tell by the videos of barry jennings
Charlietheleet 3 years ago
Watch this and try explaining away the obvious explosions that the firemen heard. Watch the clip til the very end.
watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
katyu16 3 years ago
Funny how many users work full time on trying to discredit the obvious, i counted at least 3 on this topic only. Come on, core columns magically disappearing (or failing simultaneously because of fire)? Office fires melting steel? A "new phenomenon" like NIST recently claimed? What the kind of wacko believe in such crap?!? Is obvious that wtc7 was controlled demolition, i don't even need to quote Danny Jowenko, the image is obvious.
RealityBrasil 3 years ago
I don't care what they say, I'm trusting my instincts on this, there was three Demolitions that day.
royalecraig 3 years ago 8
@royalecraig 100% correct. Watch the Dimitri Khalezov documentary interview on my channel to learn how the WTC buildings were destroyed.
anthonyc31 5 months ago
Did McPadden ever try looking at the fire company team photos to find the fireman that he spoke to that day? That fireman should be identified and questioned.
KingOfClay 3 years ago
plaguepuppy, Why did you delete my comment proving that the $16M NIST investigation was already budgeted and underway in 2002 long before you made your claim(in 2004) that only $600k was spent investigating the WTC?
This is a well documented fact ("a 9/11 Truth") aren't you a proponent of 9/11 truth?
NWOisBS 3 years ago
For the same reason I'll delete the next 5 re-postings of the same talking point: because you've already said it several times.
Furthermore it is not even my claim, and is not something I even mentioned in my 2004 talk (watch?v=U4iJT4_RRRI). If you go back and look at the video you will see that the price comparison with the Clinton bj investigation was a video insert with a pause in the audio.
The video editing was done long after 9/11/04, and I had no input at all after the talk itself.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy - Do you believe that A/A 77 crashed at the Pentagon??
JLaw012 3 years ago
Sure, why not?
Do you believe that Oswald was a lone nut assassin?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Providing more context:
From Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero:
"Sue Keane, a police officer who was in the North Tower, said that an explosion "sent me and...two firefighters down the stairs...I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me...There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."
Sill "easy to see the dishonesty" there JLaw?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
She was on the mezzanine in the WTC when the plane hit the building, shattered the glass around her and threw her down. This is from the same book Women of Ground Zero. So why are you trying to suggest it was demolitions?? do you think Sue Keane thinks it was demolitions?
JLaw012 3 years ago
It's quite impossible for the explosion she describes in the mezzanine to be caused by a plane hitting the building she was in. She was in WTC-1 at the time, which was the first building hit, and she obviously arrived well after the airplane hit.
She also describes several other explosions, each strong enough to throw people around. She doesn't try to explain anything, but describes explosions not consistent with a gravity collapse.
Call it what you want to, I'd call it messin' with the kid.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
The following quotes are from "Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories" by David Ray Griffin.
If you Google the name of the article, the second one (on mindfully(dot)org) is the best formatted for reading, and has a link to an audio version.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Hey Plauge do you believe that A/A 77 crashed at the Pentagon??
JLaw012 3 years ago
Battalion Chief John Sudnik said that while he and others were working at the command post, "We heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down."
Firefighter Timothy Julian said:
"First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train..."
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy..."Firefighter Timothy Julian said: ".
Key words here.."First I thought" it was an explosion.
marksman500 3 years ago
In response to marksman500:
My comment refers to the fact that a large number of eyewitnesses are on record as describing what they believed to be real explosions, with some quite detailed descriptions of such.
Some accounts are at a distance and may be explained away, but there are many from seasoned observers familiar with high explosives who were convinced that this is what they were hearing, and in some cases seeing.
Google "griffin explosive evidence" for some good examples.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "It sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened...It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: "There was another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs"
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation... from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: "I looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor... One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces."
Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that [he saw] what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward"
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
NYFD Captain Karin Deshore:
"Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. . These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac:
Having said that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," Isaac added that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy..."Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation... from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: "I looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor"...
Key words here.. what "seemed like" perfectly synchronized explosions.
marksman500 3 years ago
1. in Demolitions there are explosions then the collapse of the building, not explosions as the building is falling.
2. What sound do you think it made when the building was falling and all the air that was in between the floors was suddenly being forced out of the buildings at a high velocity? i am sure to an untrained eye it could look like a demolition, but actually it did not look or sound much like a real demolition at all. Here is a REAL demolition: /watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
JLaw012 3 years ago
"Plauge,
I'm pointing out that your witnesses all say sounded like or believed to be or thought it was..etc.
Not that they actually saw or witnessed Bombs or even have ANY Evidencec at all."
marksman500
Noting but misunderstood noises in the distance? More from Sue Keane:
"It started to get dark, then all of the sudden there was this massive explosion. We were on the mezzanine, which is all encased in glass. The windows blew in, everything went black, and we all got thrown."
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Plauge,..."It started to get dark, then all of the sudden there was this massive explosion."...
And what doe's she say this "massive explosion" was?
marksman500 3 years ago
Anything that throws you through the air qualifies as an explosion to me. You have a problem with that definition?
Do you really think there are things normally found near the ground floor of a building that can explode like that? There were no raging fires nearby or the rescuers wouldn't have been there, so the "exploding boilers and transformers" explanation doesn't work.
Or do you think she was just confused and only believes she was thrown through the air?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
1. People said "the bodies were falling all around and crashing to the ground and onto object sounded like things exploding all around"
2. "Debris from the WTC were crashing around us, the sound was deafening"
3. Planes hitting the towers would also count as explosions
4. Some of the elevators were reported crashing to the basement.
5. A fire ball from the Jet fuel streaming down the elevator shaft that blew up in the lobby was also reported.
JLaw012 3 years ago 2
Cond..
6. The fracturing of the columns and supports all around the WTC before the collapse.
All these thing were reported as loud sound or thing that made sounds "like" something exploding. You choose to ASSUME they are talking about demolitions, when in fact you have nothing to base that on. You cant Prove anyone who for a FACT was "in on it", you do not have any physical evidence of demolitions either. So it appears you basing you whole conspiracy on out of context quotes.
JLaw012 3 years ago
Nothing out of context at all - you're invited to read the original transcripts. Read Women of Ground Zero for that matter. The more you read of the original accounts the harder it gets to explain away the inconvenient facts.
Do falling bodies cause explosions inside the towers that can throw people across rooms? Do planes hitting the other building, or the same one 80 floors above, cause explosions in the sub-basement? Does noise from falling debris toss people around and shatter windows?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
And again, you are conflating the terms 'explosion' and 'demolition.' An explosion is a well defined event that can be confirmed by an individual observation, while a demolition is a coordinated event involving many localized explosions.
Individual accounts of explosions, if you actually bother to read the original transcripts, are numerous and very detailed. Whether the witnesses themselves concluded that there was a demolition has no bearing on the accuracy of their reports of explosions.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Firefighter Keith Murphy, who is in the lobby of the North Tower: "[T]he first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.... I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions.... At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.... I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar."
[City of New York, 12/5/2001]
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Keith Murphy, is talking about when one of the WTC was starting to fall, Boom boom boom from the floors smacking down on each other and the "ROAR" that followed. again look at a real demolition and tell me how the WTC collapse looked or sounded anything like this. /watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
JLaw012 3 years ago
Actually when you read the accounts of explosions people heard in FULL instead of edited by conspiracy theorists then you see they are NOT talking about a bomb. Many are talking about transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard, also What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another. All kinds of things can sound like explosions. Again you are making an Gratuitous Assertion, so it can also but gratuitously denied.
JLaw012 3 years ago 2
"Actually when you read the accounts of explosions people heard in FULL instead of edited by conspiracy theorists then you see they are NOT talking about a bomb." JLaw012
Funny but I've done exactly that, and in every case the more I read of the original transcripts the more impressed I was by the number and explicitness of descriptions of explosions in these witness testimonies, and not a single mention of transformers in the lot.
Gratuitous Assertion? OK then, I'll start charging...
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Every case? HA. Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . before . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes . I . saw a flash flash flash . [at] the lower level of the building. But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions"
JLaw012 3 years ago
"An acre floor", by the way, that is separated by a core floor, which constitutes 24% of it's area. The floors don't just come loose and slap into each other. They are connected to themselves but also the walls and core. They are not going to release globally and even NIST admits the "pancake theory" is not possible here.
DarthKazi 3 years ago 2
"The floors don't just come loose and slap into each other"
really, so when the WTC collapsed what did the floors do?
JLaw012 3 years ago
@JLaw012 Cool story, bro...
Travmapunk 8 months ago
So are you saying that Sue Keane thinks there were demolitions in the building??
Planes hitting building makes people get thrown to the ground,elevators falling from 100 story's up to the sub basement cause explosions,fireballs from jet fuel going down the elevator shaft cause explosions, Falling debris from 100+ floors cause loud explosive noises. Maybe instead of cherry picking one liners from the Sues book you should read the whole thing.
JLaw012 3 years ago 2
I'm saying you obviously haven't bothered to read what she's said or you wouldn't keep offering these lame explanations for what she experienced. A plane was not hitting the building when the mezzanine exploded and threw her across the floor, nor any of the several such explosions that she described. Nor was debris falling 100 floors inside the building, not before the collapses at least.
As to "reading the whole thing," I have done most of that via Amazon preview, and have a copy on order.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"A plane was not hitting the building when the mezzanine exploded and threw her across the floor"
Ok since you read the whole thing what did this?
JLaw012 3 years ago
From reading the Whole thing are you saying that Sue Keane thinks there were demolitions planted in the WTC's or not?
JLaw012 3 years ago
@plaguepuppy do you know were i could find a video of audio of first responder? when ever i type in september 11 first responders audio tapes i cant find anything.
piketyl000 1 year ago
@JLaw012 Watch this completely and Carefully
watch?v=Q8DRVqSSyb8&feature=related
Then watch This
watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
AND PLEAS PAY INTENSION TO WHATS SAID
Then come back here with what you trying to sell!
Especially the first Video shows that firefighters said after the plain hit (they arrived long after) that they experienced at least 3 Massive Explosions inside the Towers! No more Elevators coming down no Jet fuel at this point in time traveling explosive down the elevator shaft
Icast4you 1 year ago
@JLaw012 The elevators did not run all the way from the bottom to the top floors. I went into the WTC in 1999 and they only go every 30 floors then you have to get out and change elevators. there is no way fuel or elevators could come smashing down like they said.
Redbull357 1 year ago
@Redbull357, so if a plane smashed into the building going 500mph what is stopping the fuel from going down the elevator shaft??
JLaw012 1 year ago
@JLaw012 I'm saying the shafts didnt go up in a straight line. they cut off at different floors and there was no single shaft from the lobby floor that went all the way up. Also, jet fuel burns instantly and doesnt have the power to blow out windows and blow up the lobby with just flames. Those were explosions with shockwaves not fireballs.
Redbull357 1 year ago
@JLaw012 Also, the firefighters got there when the fire was already burning. they heard explosions in the lobby 15-20 minutes after the first plane hit so the supposed fireball would have already reached the bottom and blown up.
Redbull357 1 year ago
@Redbull357, Cameras were literally right in front of the WTC right up to its collapse and there is not one camera that picked up audio of explosions, demolitions produce decibels over 150 which would be heard over a mile away and it would take hundreds of explosives all over the building.
Not only that if you watch the collapse it obviously starts at the IMPACT hole no where else, whatever they heard at the first floor it was not demolitions.
JLaw012 1 year ago
@JLaw012 There is a video of firefighters talking on the payphone when they hear explosions coming from building 7. It's on Youtube... Search it and tell me if what you heard and what they reacted to was not an explosion. Please look up the vid and get back to me. Thanks for taking the time to respond as well.
Redbull357 1 year ago
@Redbull357, and?? what does that mean? hearing explosions does not = demolitions. it = loud noises.
JLaw012 1 year ago
@JLaw012 Ok.
Redbull357 1 year ago
Read some of the accounts that Griffin cites - quite a few describe explosions beginning just before the collapses began. In the demolition of something any tall structure the Twin Towers the explosions would continue throughout the collapse almost to ground level, as was witnessed.
The "high velocity air" idea only works if the floors are moving at high speed, but such jets are seen from early on, when the floors were moving at only tens of miles an hour, hardly "explosive" speeds.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy..."Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "It sounded like bombs going off.
Key word here..It "sounded" like bombs going off.
marksman500 3 years ago
You really are trying to use Sue Keane?? there is a book out with her talking about the incident(Women at Ground Zero), She does not think it was explosions from demolitions rather planes that smashed into the building that caused an "explosion" and the debris and bodies that were falling etc... its a shame you take these people quotes out of context, it really is easy to see the dishonesty in way you guys take peoples words and twist them into what suits your agenda.
JLaw012 3 years ago
Yeah right, every single one of these people is just a confused scumbag, or is somehow being taken out of context and you are a paragon of virtue and rationality. Any special reason I should believe that?
Attacking every single person who presents evidence that doesn't fit the official conspiracy theory with Rovian slurs only makes you look desperate and foolish.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Plauge,
I'm pointing out that your witnesses all say sounded like or believed to be or thought it was..etc.
Not that they actually saw or witnessed Bombs or even have ANY Evidencec at all.
marksman500 3 years ago
plaguepuppy..."My comment refers to the fact that a large number of eyewitnesses are on record as describing what they believed to be real explosions,"..
Key words here..What they "believed" to be real explosions.
marksman500 3 years ago
Typical, they find ONE first responder that believes in a conspiracy out of a 1000 that do not and we are supposed to believe the 1 guy, so i guess he is really saying that all the firemen and police and other first responders knew about the demolition and did not report it. Wow what a vast collection of evil first responders who happened to have zero morals. amazing how that works out ohhhh the science of a shitty conspiracy.
JLaw012 3 years ago
plaguepuppy,
Was wondering if you believe that A/A 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
marksman500 3 years ago
Once more for the slow ones out there: insults and obscenities, especially directed against yours truly, will earn you immediate deletion and blocking. This is a "one strike" policy that no amount of whining and sniveling will reverse.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
The jibbering of the flying monkey brigade grows tiresome - anyone not familiar with the concept of form factor or aspect ratio has nothing to add to a discussion of structural stability.
Here in the "real world" of physics and engineering, what counts is proportion, not absolute size. A "tall skinny" object, e.g. 10:1 proportions will tend to topple over when stood on end, regardless of size.
Failure to understand that is disqualifying from comment on the WTC collapses.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
I see you deleted my comment where I pointed out the fact that you have falsely claimed that only $600K was spent investigating the WTC when in fact NIST spent over $16M. Why didn't you just admit you made a mistake?
arkgunslinger 3 years ago
Because my talk was given in 2004, before NIST had issued a report. At that time only the FEMA/ASCE report had been issued:
FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
Get a life, and get used to provable lies salted with obscenities being deleted.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Try again
The $16M for NIST was budgeted and public knowledge in Sept 2002.
NWOisBS 3 years ago
Budgeting money for future use isn't the same as doing a study. The preliminary NIST report was not issued until 2005, and their final report online is dated 6/8/06.
This is still a screaming example of too little too late,to create the appearance of a forensic investigation without actually doing one.
Beginning more than a year after the crime scene was scrubbed, and with all but ~200 pieces of structural steel sent off for recycling, it was set up to find nothing incriminating to anyone.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
And you base your blanket statements on actual discussions with how many real engineers? My best guess is ~0, but perhaps you would like to enlighten us on your claimed background?
Smoke color does relate directly to fire temperature - the opposite has only been claimed as an unsupported "anti-truther" talking point. Dark smoke indicates an oxygen-poor fire, with unburned hydrocarbons contributing to the dark color.
Higher temp fires, with adequate oxygen and good mixing, have little smoke.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"Dark smoke indicates an oxygen-poor fire, with unburned hydrocarbons contributing to the dark color."
This is true, however
"Smoke color does relate directly to fire temperature"
This is not. It relates to the stage of the fire.
"White is cooler, black is hotter."
blacklakefire. net/readingsmoke. aspx
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
""Smoke color does relate directly to fire temperature"
This is not. It relates to the stage of the fire."
The stage and temperature of a building fire are closely related. Such a fire tends to creep through a structure, exhausting fuel in one area as it moves on. Air supply is limited deep in the building and black smoke signifies incomplete combustion.
This does not lead to the high tempaeaturess across the entire cross-section of the structure that could cause a vertical collapse.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Plaguepuppy, I know you have talked about the relatively minor damage casued by WTC 7 to the Verizon Building and Fittermen Hall.
While we know the damage to Fitterman Hall was pretty extensive, as seen in pictures, how about the damage to the Verizon building.
Restoration of the Verizon building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion.
That's some restoration. Doesn't seem very minor to me, nor does the damage look minor based on the construction of the building.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Minor is a relative term, but the fact remains that none of the 3 buildings (including the USPO building to the east) suffered significant structural weakening. Two were repaired, the other still stands, mostly because it is so contaminated by toxic dust that it will need very expensive decontamination before it can be demolished.
Given that a 47 story building collapsed just across the street it would be impossible to confine all to the footprint, but this was very nearly accomplished.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
I do find it rather strange that a purported CD took down WTC7 as proposed by the conspiracy theorist, although controlled demolition exerts, on the scene, whole heartedly disagree.
It's extremely diffcult to justify the use of explosives, when the very experts trained in controlled demolition, all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
The "demo experts on the scene" were mostly in the employ of CDI, a company in legal trouble with the Feds just before 9-11, subsequently given a very lucrative cleanup contract.
On the other hand a lot of bystanders not connected with this company, including many with military background, reported very definite explosions. Look at the detailed analysis of hundreds of these first-hand reports by Graeme McQueen for a sense of how specific and detailed these many reports of explosions were.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"The "demo experts on the scene" were mostly in the employ of CDI, a company in legal trouble with the Feds just before 9-11, subsequently given a very lucrative cleanup contract."
I notice you said "most." That does not prove they are ALL lying.
"military background"
What does that have to do with anything. I have amilitary background, and actually lived arouns explsoions for many years. I still think a bombs is going off everytime I hear a car backfiring.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Sorry about the PTSD, but sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar, and what looks, feels and sounds like an explosion is really an explosion.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy..."what looks, feels and sounds like an explosion is really an explosion."...
Explosions?
Ya, no doubt there were explosions, but can you show / prove that the explosions witnesses report hearing were in fact bombs and not vehicle gas tanks exploding or Falling debris?
marksman500 3 years ago
Explosions?? i thought the going theory was Thermite? And to the best of my memory thermite does not "Explode". Who is really shocked that people heard explosions on a day when two of the tallest buildings in the world were hit by planes going 500mph and full of jet fuel?? lol
JLaw012 3 years ago
"On the other hand a lot of bystanders not connected with this company, including many with military background, reported very definite explosions."
So are any of these "not connected" with CDI ptotesting along with the "truth" movement or chanting inside job and pushing for a new investigation?
If not, then why do you supose that is?
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Self preservation maybe? Avoiding personal attacks from anti-truthers?
Activism isn't the issue - these people have given detailed written statements, now part of the public record. None of them have sought attention (chanting and pushing?), and without a Freedom of Information suit none of these witness statements would be in the public record.
Read Graeme McQueens detailed analysis of these witness statements before casually dismissing them. Not all these people were fools as you imply.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"before casually dismissing them."
I have never dismissed anything. I am sure people did hear explosions. However explosions do not equal explosives. I think demolition experts are motre trained to recognize the difference between common building content explosions and actual demolition explosions.
"Not all these people were fools as you imply. "
I never anywhere implied this. I simply asked a question if they believe in what they actually heard as much as you and others do.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Is it common practice among the "truth" movement to constantly accuse a person of false implications and rhetoric.
You have, several times now, falsely accused me of implying and/or saying something which I never did.
I would imagine if you had the up most confidence in your stance, this would not be necessary as your "evidence" would speak for itself.
Makes one wonder exactly how confident you are in your claims.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Idiots of the world unite!
Dertygian takes the prize for pure unadulterated ignorance, capped with obscenities.
"Tall buildings CANNOT topple."
...Burrppp. OK, great physics there pinkie - Einstein would be awestruck. Yeah, it's something about tensile strength and stuff. That's why tall skinny objects always fall into themselves, except when they're trees, which don't obey the laws of physics.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
BTW, original post deleted for obscenity...
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
plaguepuppy: HI-RISE BUILDINGS CANNOT TOPPLE OVER DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE CONTRUCTION MATERIALS. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT TENSILE STRENGTH IS?
Dertygian 3 years ago
Dertygian: BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND BUILD SOLELY FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? CONCRETE HAS ALMOST NO TENSILE STRENGTH. THE MASSIVE WEIGHT PROHIBITS TOWERS FROM ever 'TOPPPLING OVER' watch?v=fEZvaSWkdME
Dertygian 3 years ago
Do you have any idea what an idiot you are? The ALL-CAPS only makes it clearer.
Tensile strength is the amount of force a material can withstand when being stretched to the point of failure. But you knew that right?
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the failure of a weight-bearing structure under compressive loads, so you'll have to help me understand how it explains a building collapsing along its own axis, the exact path of *greatest* resistance.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND BUILD SOLELY FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
Thanks, the ALL-CAPS makes it all so much clearer. But isn't compressive strength exactly what would keep a structure from collapsing into itself?
What does tensile strength have to do with an object's ability to topple over? Especially when, as with WTC-7's ground-level blowout, it is no longer anchored to the ground to prevent rotation?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
BTW, this pathetic meme about tall skinny structures being incapable of toppling over is unique to 9-11 debunkers.
No real engineer that I know of claims this, and in fact one of the recurring reasons given by engineers and scientists for questioning the official story is the vertical collapses.
See for example ae911truth(dot)org for opinions from numerous architectural and engineering professionals, as opposed to the anonymous "anti-truthers" holding forth here with such certainty.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
No real engineer believes steel retains most of it's structural integrity until it nears its melting point, or that dust clouds from a build collapse are equivalent to a volcanic pyroclastic flow, or that the temperature of a fire can be determinded
arkgunslinger 3 years ago
It's amazing how often you fools refer to straight down as the path of "greatest resistance". Are you all completely brain dead? Are you aware of the force necessary to shift a massive, collapsing load laterally?
This is basic, basic stuff. Stop embarrassing yourself.
drzhivagho 3 years ago
Insult much? More of the pathetic "tall buildings can't topple over" meme, based on no science at all. Quote a source?
A building is designed precisely to resist gravitational loads, which act straight down. Thus straight-down collapse along its own axis is precisely the path of greatest resistance.
Toppling is actually quite easy, especially when there is structural failure at ground level, allowing it to hinge. The more it tips, the greater the lateral force tending to topple it over.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"Thus straight-down collapse along its own axis is precisely the path of greatest resistance."
Actually the path of greatest resistance is against gravity, which is up.
Since there were no lateral loads greater than the the force of gravity, which is down obviously, there was no reason for the building to topple over. It actually fell into the path of least resistance, which was the 20 story hole on the south side and the whole left by the collapse of the Penthouse on the east side.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Bad science, too many errors to deal with in 500 characters.
You still parrot the "toppling is impossible" meme with no support from real science, and make the deeply silly claim that "up" is the path of greatest resistance. Tall structures are designed to resist gravity loads, and tall skinny structures tend to topple over. Show me one real source that denies this.
All you prove is your own complete lack of engineering knowledge and reliance on poorly digested debunker talking points.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"You still parrot the "toppling is impossible" meme with no support from real science"
I never claimed this.
"the deeply silly claim that "up" is the path of greatest resistance."
Well isn't it?
"All you prove is your own complete lack of engineering knowledge and reliance on poorly digested debunker talking points."
Actually you have not disproved one thing I have stated. Are you back to resorting to personal attacks and unsubtantiated claims?
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Nothing personal, but "up" is just wrong to the point of silliness. Try not to be so sensitive...
Unless you postulate a huge explosion throwing debris upward (or the close flyby of a celestial object), "up" is not one of the directions included in the design of a building to resist collapse.
"Down" is the direction of gravity and the direction of greatest structural strength. The structure was designed to resist gravity loads, with a large factor of excess capacity.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"up" is not one of the directions included in the design of a building to resist collapse. "
actually contradicts:
"The structure was designed to resist gravity loads"
And exactly how does it resist a force in the down direction?
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
So you admit you're ignorant of the most basic engineering concepts - sorry but there's no point arguing with a trained monkey.
For anyone who might actually be interested in the answer to that question, skim any basic text in structural engineering. Resisting gravity loads is what much of the subject consists of, and oddly enough these almost never are applied in an upward direction, apart from close flybys by planetary sized objects.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"You still parrot the "toppling is impossible" meme with no support from real science" JK
I never claimed this." KIP
May I quote you?
"Since there were no lateral loads greater than the the force of gravity, which is down obviously, there was no reason for the building to topple over. It actually fell into the path of least resistance, which was the 20 story hole on the south side and the whole left by the collapse of the Penthouses..."
Nothing personal but this is just lousy science.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
I see you keep claiming that the wtc towers were "tall and skinny". Huh? Are you completely out of it? Each floor covered an acre! Anything that tall will naturally appear "skinny", but that's relative to the height of the structure only. Still, it's the absolute terms that matter.
And while I don't know what things are like on your planet, here on earth, in absolute terms, a 208' square building is not considered "skinny" by any architectural or engineering standards.
drzhivagho 3 years ago
For the same reason any collapse that starts near the top of a tall building will tend to slide off to one side rather than progress straight down through the structure. Any slight asymmetry will cause the collapse process to "walk off" to the side and end before full collapse.
Without a force pulling the collapse back to the midline, e.g. by removing the supports with explosives just ahead of the collapse, can the collapse avoid slipping off and ending early, well short of complete collapse.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
It's amazing how often you fools refer to straight down as the path of "greatest resistance". Are you all completely brain dead? Are you aware of the force necessary to shift a massive, collapsing load laterally?
This is basic, basic stuff. Stop embarrassing yourself.
drzhivagho 3 years ago
drv, I don't think they are aware of a concept called inertia.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Now for the collapse. As you know the Penthouse fell first meaning it essentially created a "hole" in the building on the east side. Now there was also, as reported by numerous firefighters, but obscured by smoke, roughly a 20 story hole in the middle of the building.
That would make the east and middle the path of least resistance during the collapse.
contd.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
If you look at the debris pile you can see couple things that are telling about the collapse:
1. The North face is on top of the debris pile indicating the South side fell before the North.
2. The West side of the north face is pointing toward the East side.
Both of the above facts provide insight ito the building following the path fo least resistance, the middle of the back side (20 foot hole) and the "hole" left by the penthouse collapse.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
I misplaced Fitterman Hall, but your pyroclastic cloud theory of damage holds absolutely no water.
Now, will you admit you lied when you said Larry's words were not edited in this clip?
/watch?v=mA9KqFfclbY
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
For some perspective on what it means for a building to come "straight down" consider that WTC-7 was >600' tall, yet shed so little debris laterally that buildings on 3 sides (Verison to west, US P.O. to east, Fitterman to north) were still standing with surface damage.
Both the P.O. and Verizon building were repaired and are still in use. Fitterman Hall has been sitting empty and contaminated, but structurally sound with some damage to the south facade.
So which way did WTC-7 topple?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"(Verison to west, US P.O. to east, Fitterman to north) were still standing with surface damage."
Actually you did not include 30 West Broadway. It sustained such severe damage that it had to be torn down
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Oops, my fault. 30 West Broadway IS fitterman Hall. Got them confused briefly. Not ahsamed to admit my error.
However, the damage sutained by Fitterman Hall was much more than "surface damage."
And it has not been demolished. Apparantly it was supposed to be, but never was.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
"Oops, my fault. 30 West Broadway IS fitterman Hall. Got them confused briefly. Not ahsamed to admit my error." Well good on you...
So your point is??? Fitterman Hall is still very much intact, not in danger of spontaneous collapse, and has damage to the south facade that has not compromised its structural integrity - otherwise it would have been torn down by now as a public health hazard.
That's pretty superficial damage if WTC-7 "fell on it" as you claim.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Short of an invisible force field down the middle of the street, even the neatest controlled demolition of a 600' building is bound to cause some damage to surrounding buildings. Does this change the fact that the collapse was substantially straight down, within real world accuracy?
The fact that the Verizon and USPO building have been repaired, and that only the south facade of Fitterman was damaged, speaks more to the vertical accuracy of the collapse than to any "toppling."
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed it toppled over. However, it did not fall down into a "tidy pile" as CTers suggest either.
Again, there was a 20 foot gauge, as reported by numerous firefighters, down the middle of the south face. The east penthouse collapse first creating a virtual hole on the east side of the building.
Judging be the way the debris piled up, it folowed the path of least resistance.
It really is pretty simple if you just put a little research into it.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Lots of problems here: the satellite and ground pictures show a pile of debris centered on the footprint, and barely extending across the surrounding streets. That's a pretty neat pile for a 600' structure.
The disappearance of the east mechanical penthouse is actually a big problem for those claiming that it was not a CD.
What possible kind of internal damage could allow a section of the roof to fall straight down through the building? Did the whole building fall through this hole?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
"That's pretty superficial damage if WTC-7 "fell on it" as you claim."
Actually plaguepuppy, I never claimed this. I only talked about the damage. I realize multiple people are commenting on this thread, but please try to refrain from making false accusations as to what I said and lets just stick to the facts.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
So we have a self-styled debunker who gets the location of Fitterman Hall exactly wrong but still claims that massive damage to the south wall caused WTC-7 to topple to the north. And when questioned about any of this, said SSD refuses to admit any error and launches into a new talking point (about something not even in this video).
Better let the lumberjacks know this new physical law ASAP: tall skinny objects fall away from the damaged side. It could save lives!
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Once more, for the willfully obtuse:
Many photos of the wreckage from WTC-7 exist, and all show the great majority of the debris (well over 95%) stacked neatly in the building's footprint. Videos taken from numerous angles show it falling straight down with no visible tipping.
The relatively minor damage to the buildings around it only confirms that it fell straight down. Even a few degrees of tilt in a 600' tower would have led to a very different collapse and much more damage nearby.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Starting out a comment with demeaning rehtoric renders your main point meaningless.
However, I will give you the benfit of the doubt since you align yourelf with a group of individuals who seem to prefer to express their "truth" in a series of demoralizing rants rather then engage in a constructive debate.
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
Huh? Care to quote one of my "demoralizing rants"? I've tried to stick as close as possible to the bare facts, but I can't help it if some find those demoralizing.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
So now we have tag-team distractors trying to change the subject - to Alex Jones of all things. Sorry bullshitters, no sale...
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Well plague, how about I start a new convo with you?
Now how about your LIE that Alex Jones did not censor Larry's words?
/watch?v=o-IThuAtOsY
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago 2
Plague, will you comment on your LIE that Alex Jones did not censor Larry's words?
/watch?v=o-IThuAtOsY
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago 2
So, moving right along to your next talking point - and forgetting that you were dead wrong about Fitterman Hall:
"So what you are saying is that it'd both had to have toppled south (It did, as it fell onto Fitterman Hall) and extended across four streets?" ClunkyKlunk
From Klunky's YouTube page:
"Whenever Truthers are painted into a corner, they resort to one of three tactics:
1) Quickly drop the subject and bring up another one
2) Quickly drop the subject and bring out the scattergun..
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
No, let's stay with this talking point - you wouldn't want to resort to those "truther" techniques, would you?
So, Fitterman Hall was south of WTC-7 - care to correct yourself there? Or do you just let all your errors stand?
So do you claim WTC-7 toppled south, to it's damaged side? If not, why not? If so, how did it land on Fitterman Hall, to the north?
And if all that damage was really hiding behind the smoke, why did it still fall straight down as seen in all videos photos?
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
I had brought up Alex Jones' censorship of Larry's words before we discussed Fitterman Hall.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago 3
Squirm all you want, you still haven't shown even the most basic honesty in admitting your errors, but you're ready to move on to another bogus talking point.
No sense moving on to another topic when you can't defend your claims about this one.
Sounds a lot like
"1) Quickly drop the subject and bring up another one
2) Quickly drop the subject and bring out the scattergun."
So you still claim Fitterman Hall was north of WTC-7? A simple yes or no will suffice.
plaguepuppy 3 years ago
Squirm? What're you talking about? My observation on my page is based off the opponent using those tactics when backed into a corner.
You have yet to do that.
And if you want to talk about honesty, how about you retract your LIE that Alex Jones did not edit Larry's comment?
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago 3
"Squirm? What're you talking about?"
Changing the subject again? So you have shown just how little you care about truth and accuracy...
Any thoughts yet about which side of WTC-7 F.H. was on, north or south? So, damage to the south side makes a building fall north?
For someone who holds others to a standard of perfect accuracy you are remarkably unwilling to admit a major error of fact. And the more you dance around an honest admission of error, the more you look basically dishonest.
plaguepuppy