Buildings rarely have the structural rigidity to fall sideways like a tree....ones as big as the WTC towers never have. You can see this in the the way the top sections of the WTC 1 and 2 towers came apart.
@kitbots But the explaination given about building 7 was very convincing I thought. The building burned for a long time, gas pipes and fuel pipes under the building caught fire, i think it was reasonable.
The funniest part about it, proving how goofy the truthers are, is the fact that Building 7 collapsing was barely noticed at the time, as would be expected with everything that happened that day.
So, with all the trouble of organizing this massive conspiracy and keeping it secret (actually, the impossibility), why would anyone in charge of such a venture make their impossible job even more impossible by bringing down a building that few would notice (apart from conspiracy theorist nutjobs!)??
The whack job conspiracy theories are pure conjecture!
Nut job conspiracy theorists cannot even give a logical reason why any conspiracy would want to add the complication of demolishing building 7 to what would have been a already overly complicated plot, let alone offer hard evidence!!
All you whack jobs have is silly nitpicking and wild claims. The gov is too incompetent to carry out such a conspiracy in perfect security, let alone keep it secret!
@allahBurpsCum More conjecture.I'm not a nut job and I am just one of millions who are not nut jobs either.Do you think the whole gov. are in on this?Don't be silly.Defence contractors and associated services have made billions of the back of 2 wars just as they did with Vietnam.Take Dick Chaney, do you think he was incompetent??I don't thinks so.I don't think you understand how any form of government does business - and you should study your own before calling -out others who do.
@allahBurpsCum Nice rebuttal, I'll have to remember to use excessive name calling and no real argument in my next reply to debunkers.
Since you think the government is too incompetent to commit huge treason, find out which "terrorists" infiltrated the Federal Reserve and gave out $16 trillion in 0-interest loans from 2007-10. It's strange, our "official debt" is only $15 trillion, less than said amount.
Google "GAO audit fed 16 trillion" if you don't believe me, and stop drinking the koolaid.
I have had plenty of experience with the gov. They ARE incompetant, and breaucracy is in general.
Now, can you address the point or not? Why would anyone in charge of this supposed conspiracy make it more complicated by blowing up building 7?
How could they know they would keep perfect security and only whack jobs would see through it? What would anyone have to gain in the gov that would make it worth the risk?
Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate; Clinton couldn't even cover up a blow job. But the
Bush administration, in a time when everyone has a camera and internet connection, where able to pull off mass murder and controlled demolition with millions watching.
Steel has 'elasticity'.This elasticity is retained up to around 780c, Then it has 'plasticity'.Plasticity is maintained up until around 1400C after which it will show signs of melting.An 'inevitable' destruction of steel this way would require constant heat, in the same area,way above 1400C. It would be impossible for carbon based fire to exceed 600C,It would be moving around often not touching steel. Any heat conducted in the steel would be quickly conducted away.Inevitability factor? zero.
What complete and utter nonsense.These building where built specifically to overcome the fire problems.There is no better way.I am ashamed at you Edward, especially now that the National Geographic is government agency owned, that you would show such a misleading video as part of your case.What about the peer reviewed A+E scientific studies? You have sold out as far as I'm concerned.
"These building where built specifically to overcome the fire problems"
Do you have a source for this claim? Does it mention no sprinklers or firefighter intervention?
I have a real question, why WTC7? Why demolish an empty building when 2 non-empty buildings had already collapsed killing thousands? What did anyone gain?
@Blacktoe If you are ignorant of such a basic construction fact get of your arse and do your own homework.Why do you think tall buildings are built this way?Why aren't other construction methods used?Do some homework, stop asking me daft questions - this is not a 'claim' as you trolls like to call it - it's a 'fact', one of many that you conveniently like to avoid or cannot be bothered to research for yourself.
@Blacktoe "So you're answer is, "My knowledge requires no sources, shut up you're ignorant." Very informative, thank you". Touch'e troll.
You have simply confirmed my original point. Why do you come to me to do all of your homework for you?If you want answers do you your own bloody homework!
@Blacktoe Why do you think? Oh, have a look through this little lot, my daughter recommended it, it is the industry guide from TATAN formerly Chorus steel about 5 miles from where I live in the heart of Welsh steel production.
w w w .tatasteelconstruction . com/en/design_guidance/structural_design/fire/
From your source - "All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400º. By 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel."
And as you said, carbon based fires don't exceed 600ºC, but they don't need to.
Another, "The innovative design solutions for beams and columns, shown below, can be combined so that whole buildings with fire ratings up to 1 hour can be realised without recourse to site applied protection."
And as is commonly known, the fires burned for far longer than 1 hour (almost 7), uncontrolled.
From reading the source YOU provided, it doesn't paint the picture that this had to be demolition, its suggests that fire is more than capable to destroy the steel structure.
@Blacktoe" And you never answered why they would demolish an empty building?" I tell you what -you be the detective - then when you understand, you tell me why.
Well I don't think there is any reason to blow up a building that is quite obviously on fire; unless the sensitive items being destroyed can only be destroyed via explosions. I know most paper and computers don't stand up well to fire. Did the government not think that people would accept that fire destroys paper and or PCs?
And I'm asking you, because I think it's ludicrous.
@Blacktoe You're still off base here. The question at hand is not whether or not the building was demolished with a purpose, but whether or not NIST's assertion that fire caused the collapse stands through critique and scrutiny.
You, Edward, and NIST have done EVERYTHING you could to ignore that there has not been enough evidence provided in order for us to reasonably conclude that fire has caused the sky scrapper to fall almost straight down while somehow exhibiting visible free fall speeds.
There is far more and far better evidence for a collapse by fire than a collapse by explosives (inaudible and invisible explosives, that is).
And it is not off base to ask "why". The "why" is very important. Truthers claim the building was demolished, but there is not a single sensible reason why it needed to be. I don't see why this is a question to be ignored. If there is no reason to demolish it, then it probably wasn't demolished.
@Blacktoe Saying that there is no reason for something (your opinion) has nothing to do with the fact that it happened. What has been established to those who care to look into it deeply enough is that NIST's report is unscientific, and faulty as hell. They didn't, can't, and won't address the nanothermite found in all the dust samples, they didn't can't, and won't explain why the roofline at the building went from standing still.. to falling straight down at free fall in a matter of seconds.
That's not an opinion, its the logical conclusion. There was no reason to demolish an empty building. It was severely damaged/burned and would have been taken down anyway. The fire alone was enough to destroy any documents or secrets, demolition was not needed.
@Blacktoe If there was some documents, files, etc in the building that the government wanted to hide, then they probably didn't want to chance just having fires destroy them. Isolated fires don't guarantee that everything in the building is destroyed.
Again, I'm not going to sit here and tell you exactly why they wanted that building gone. The big problem the A&E, and even former NIST employees, have is that the official report is faulty and unscientific.
@Blacktoe Logical fallacy.Like the towers, all evidence had to be destroyed to the point that anything tangible could remain.Fire enough would not seriously damage the building which would allow detection and collection of incriminating evidence, all of which was blasted to dust and removed rapidly.
@Blacktoe BTW there are plenty of videos on youtube of what you think are "inaudible" explosives. Of course, it is up to you to determine whether or not all those people who said they were explosives "were mistaken," but again.. this is only your opinion.
And again.. nanothermite was found in the dust. There's no reason it should have ever been there if NIST was right.
Oh, and the nanothermite, quite conveniently Dr. James Millette completed a study of the WTC dust and his paper was posted on JREF just yesterday (forums. randi. org/showthread. php?t=231314). "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
@Blacktoe There are peer reviewed papers covering this on A+E. Perhaps the good dr Millette should have reviewed them properly as is standard scientific protocol?
OH and I can't seem to figure out why people would hear explosions if the demolition was done with thermite charges, anyway. I've seen some truther homemade thermite charges and there is no explosion; its a violent but relatively slow reaction. Hearing explosions doesn't fit with thermite demolition. And since there wasn't traces of any other charges... truthers have once again contradicted their own theories.
@Blacktoe Good point, and now you have the opportunity to learn a little something.. What was found in the dust wasn't thermite, but nanothermite, which is 1) powerful enough to be used as an explosive and 2) much harder to make than regular thermite. In fact, it's so hard to make, that for it to randomly appear in all the dust samples from the WTC area is MORE than enough reason to start investigating whether or not other explosives were used.
First, read the study I posted, there is no nanothermite. Second, nanothermite may be faster, but its not fast enough. (jamesfetzer.blogspot. com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must. html) That link will do a rundown of the studies on nanothermite, and why it doesn't "fit".
THIRD, do you really think that a building falling down will destroy documents better than fire? Have you played rock - paper - scissors?
Remains of which were never found, and the best evidence is people who heard a falling building and said it sounded like explosions. That its some strong ass evidence. Especially when audio from inside or outside the tower doesn't pick up the same noise.. because... you know... the cameras are in on it. And so are the first responders and clean up crews who never found any remnants of charges.
And every scientist, architect, and engineer not among the 1500 at A&E truth. Who obviously are ignoring the more obvious fact that if a building is hit by a plane and burns for hours the only possible way for it to collapse is if the government planted 1000s of explosives inside it; which they did because the planes hitting the building is not enough of a message of terror.
@Blacktoe You moved the goalposts there.Look, I have been having this kind of conversation for over 5 years now so I will leave you with this, if you do not have an agenda (Gravy and his suspicious one man ravings)Then read the professionally accumulated studies and peer reviewed experimental data that is online.
Ask the 'organ grinder' not the 'Monkey'. Ask the relevant experts and not youtube commenters - that's like Ray Comfort asking third graders about evolution.
My goal post remains at inaudible explosions. A persons personal perception of a noise is not evidence of explosions. Cameras inside and outside didn't pick up any audio of a controlled demolition.
Oh, and I am asking the experts, since I am not one. And the experts agree, NIST's science is correct. (911-engineers.blogspot . com/)
And that's over 750,000 engineers. A little more than the 1500 at A&E. I think there are more creationist in the field of biology.
@Blacktoe "There is far more and far better evidence for a collapse by fire than a collapse by explosives (inaudible and invisible explosives, that is)".Based on what exactly? this is the first time such a building has collapsed by fire, so what evidence are you basing your conclusions on? opinion?Cutter charges, which are the first stage of steel demolition are very audible - the conclusion from multiple and varied independent witnesses confirms rapid 'gunfire' explosions before/during collapse
@Blacktoe You, Edward Current, and NIST are doing EVERYTHING YOU CAN to ignore that NIST's models WERE NOT released with the complete sets of data used to calculate WTC7's sequence of collapse. As Edward says in his description, the burden of proof is on the accuser. NIST provided was a neat looking video that mysteriously STOPS before demonstrating the entire collapse from top to bottom. I honestly would love to hear FROM YOU why you think they did this.
@Blacktoe Would you like us to do everything for you? You can't google "what was in wtc 7"?
Let's be honest, you're not even really worried about what was in the building. If you were, you would have done a simple google search before coming after us truth seekers with your weak debunking material. Please, stop being lazy, and start looking at the evidence on both sides, and try not to be biased about it.
Another thing most debunkers can't seem to wrap their mind around.. Just because there is "only" 1600 architects and engineers publicly speaking out against NIST's report, doesn't mean there aren't many many more that silently disagree.
When you go against what the all mighty government says, especially in a country as arrogant as the USA, it can look very bad against you, and puts your reputation and career at considerable risk.
All NIST would have to do to get the questions answered is to open up all their research for peer review. In the scientific community, no scientific studies are taken serious unless the research is open for peer review. Why won't NIST agree to this? What do they have to hide?
Even James Quintiere, Ph.D, former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division says that NIST's "building collapsed from fires" explanation is trash. He also calls for NIST's report to be open peer review.
@NeilCrouse-Well, why should I listen to you? YOU are someone who've I've never met before, and you get all of your information from unqualified conspiracy theorists. Plus, the number of architects and engineers who support the truth movement is nowhere near 1600, it's around 1500, and all of them are unqualified. BTW, I have 413 subs. Unlike you, people actualy like what I do, idiot.
@zapproowsdower-If you actually watch the video, you would see that the building doesn't just collapse, it gradually falls apart. This is what you conspiracy theorists don't show people. You just proclaim that something is "impossible" and go around spreading these facts that even a fifth grader could debunk.
@Optimusprimemc1 That in no way addresses the point I made. Whether it collapsed fully or partially, doesn't change the fact that it fell at 2.5 seconds of free-fall in the beginning of the collapse. This is *very simply* impossible from your proposed mechanism.
@bluerap04-No, you're the one who can't handle simple concepts. You don't provide any evidence for what you believe, you only deny the evidence that contradicts what you believe.
@bluerap04-No, idiot, it didn't fall into it's footprint. I've explained this several times, yet you fail to acknowldge what I say. Don't worry, that's typical of conspiracy theorists.
@Optimusprimemc1 Are you saying it tipped over? Based on what visual evidence? You do know what "collapse" means, right? Make yourself clear here, it's starting to sound like you can't comprehend simple concepts..
@bluerap04 there is proof of world trade center 7 tipping at an angle in fact the collapse of the world trade center 7 damaged the Verizon building. The video evidence /watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o plus the damage of the Verizon building disproves the fall into its footprint claim. If the collapse onto its footprint was real it would have not damaged the Verizon building, but thats not the case now is it?
@warlord2080 that's a non-argument. the demolition theory does not hinge upon it falling perfectly into its own footprint, or being 100% demolished. it's almost entirely about the uniformity of the four corners, and the 2.5 seconds of free-fall.
@zapproowsdower Well he basically claims that building 7 collapse into its footprint meaning there was nothing that would have damaged it and what you doing is undermining his cause of what he think is just straight down collapse which is disproven by the video provided. Thus being said why don't you refute the point that the building wasn't straight down or that the WTC 7 did hit verizon building instead of trying to divert the attention away from what bluerap04 said?
@warlord2080 This is laughably simple. In normal planned demolitions, the contractors obviously intend for a building to fall in a way that would prevent damaging other buildings. But this wouldn't be the normal case here would it. In fact, destruction on a large scale is a GOOD thing for the insiders.
That said.. come on man, look at the video. At 2:24, it clearly goes straight down with a small tilt... just like almost every other demolition of large buildings.
@warlord2080 Also, If you read zapproowsdower comment, he already made it clear that if the building toppled over, it would have fallen at the speed of gravity the whole way, not for just 2.5 seconds.
@warlord2080 The explosion that occurred in the lobby was not just powerful enough to blast out windows but it actually burned people to death. So the official theory states that a fireball from the impact area traveled 80 floors down to incinerate people on the ground floor. If what you are saying is true then why were the firefighters themselves questioning what had happened in the lobby. Are you telling me you know more then veteran firefighters.
@warlord2080 Thermite and Nano-thermite create extreme heat and therefore create distinct clouds or `flows`, these flows are called pyroclastic flows or clouds, they occur in volcanic eruptions and at space shuttle launches, when extreme heat and energy is released. Black smoke is black because it is starved of oxygen. White smoke is white because it has oxygen. Thermite produces its own oxygen.
@warlord2080 Check out Xendrius channel. Fast forward his featured video to 2:06. You see an explosion with enough force to blow a man out of the building. Pre-weakening of the structure is standard in most demolitions. So it is expected to see flashes and detonations before the demolition. A glass in an oven is not what happened on 911. On 911 a building was hit by a plane but that one plane reduced a building to dust. It did not reduce it into large sections. Most melted.
@Optimusprimemc1 Outer walls of the building represent significant structural resistance. 2.5 seconds of free-fall, as measured from the falling roof-line, should have been impossible even if the entire core was gutted, which is just as wildly speculative as judy wood's theories. And it couldn't have been falling off to the side, otherwise the roofline would have been in free-fall collapse the whole way down, and not just for the first few seconds.
@bluerap04-Thys exactly what this video disproved. Conspiracy theorists want you to think that the building collapsed into it's footprint, but it doesn't. This prove that you didn't watch the video.
@Optimusprimemc1 Darn, you're right.. at 2:24 we can see it only fell in into its footprint for almost half of the stories, then swayed back a little bit. Never mind that this feature is also common in controlled demolitions.
Come on bro. You can do better than that. Get back to me when you can explain how fires can remove virtually all resistance for nearly 3 seconds of the descent.
@rockyraccoon086-Um, so everything that you find offensive is proof of brainwashing? Tha terrible logic. If you are using this as proof of brainwashing, then all of you conspiracy theorists must be brainwashed, because I've noticed that conspiracy theorists resort to swearing and namecalling whenever they are proven wrong. Swearing is human nature, NOT a result of brainwashing...dumbass.
@bluerap04-Merely stating that it's impossible doesn't mean a damn thing. Building 7 was the first building in the world to burn for 7 hours straight. Plus, we have numerous examples of steel buildings collapsing from fires. But the fact is, YOU fail to do any research.
@Optimusprimemc1 Crumbling down doesn't equal free fall, yet NIST admits that there was free fall for a period of the collapse. Instead of explaining why, all they did was exert assumptions, without mathematical figures that would allow us to test their computer models which demonstrate (only part of) the collapse. No "peer review" allowed..
Hell, the computer model doesn't even attempt to demonstrate the free fall part! How could they leave that out?
@Optimusprimemc1 And no, I've never seen an entire steel building collapse straight down into its own footprint.. with some free fall... from fires. Feel free to show me one.
"All lies and jests,Still a man hears what he wants to hear,And disregards the rest".
Paul Simon.
All the scientifically illiterate dummies that claim WTC1,2,7 were brought down by "planted explosives" need to sign up for some high school science/physics classes.
It's people like you assholes that take away credibility from real issues about the hijackings,what was known about them before 9/11, etc.
You people discredit real questions with your BS.
lol the people that actually think this is how the building collapsed are the same people who think Iran has nukes and use those nukes to nuke the entire world, and are the same people who believe they are living in a free country, and that terrorists want to kill us. Mind controlled people more like it. Remember, to make sure you pay your taxes, keep on voting and accept the micro chip as a beneficial technology. lol
@rockyraccoon086 psychologists sometimes refer to it as 'the treacherous trio' - confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and motivated reasoning. It's how intelligent people can allow preconceived beliefs to influence conclusions, juggle contradictory beliefs, and allow emotions to influence decisions or behavior, respectively.
@zapproowsdower yea its sad really how mind control manipulates the masses. People will draw the first conclusion that "terrorists" did this, meanwhile they continue doing this same act constantly in poorer countries than the U.S. such as iraq, afghanistan....the list goes on...
....Now that's absolutely not true, there are many historical examples of it happening in my own little city.
My dad is a retired Fire Chief (44yrs on the job) in Edmonton, Alberta. While we obviously don't have the size of the buildings they have in New York, he has told me flat out that office fires CANNOT cause structural steel to melt like was found in the basement of WTC7.
He also mentioned that the bridge example is misleading as the two have nothing in common.
@NeilCrouse-"He also mentioned that the bridge example is misleading as the two have nothing in common."
That's a lie and you know it. That part of the video proves that you don't need a plane to bring down a building, all you need is fire and time. Go read a book.
@Optimusprimemc1 don't be mind controlled dude, fight it, don;t believe terrorists brought these buildings down,there's more than enough evidence out there to prove it
@rockyraccoon086-Really? You're resorting to this stupid "Mind-control" BS? That's a typical, and weak, conspiracy theorist tactic that they use when they realize that they can't stand up for themselves in a debate. Calling someone "brainwashed" is a tactic used by conspiracy theorists to distract people from the actual argument.
@Optimusprimemc1 exactly my point. You are being mind controlled, just look at you. You've gotten upset, and are resorting to unnecessary language. Don't you think if you wern't mind controlled, you would be looking at the evidence in plain sight?? And there is no debate. You must really believe in your government the way they believe in you! basically what i get from u is, your a good law abiding citizen who pays their taxes and does exactly what big brother tells u to do
@Optimusprimemc1 Ahh yes, fire and time is all that is needed to bring down a 47 story skyscraper, built to withstand 5x it's own weight, from top to bottom in 7 seconds! Fire can even cause steel buildings to fall in free fall speeds for almost half of its descent!
So I should listen to you, someone I have never met,
someone who is actually proud of "Lego Machete from Far Cry 2"--(LOL, LOL- and YOU are telling ME to "read a book", LOL, LOL),
someone who has received his major life experience, from either a TV or video game viewer, (I'm guessing by your girly arms, your between 15-18, CERTAINLY NOT adult man arms),
AND, I should ignore 1600+ Architects & Engineer professionals
@NeilCrouse you should ignore those ignore 1600+ Architects & Engineer professionals.
tell them to give you answers, not questions. when they give you answers then listen to them. A&E for truth are refusing to do their own independent investigation
@helicopterraids You don't realize that the models and figures in the NIST report was not released with all the actual data they used to come to many of their conclusions, such as the computer model. There can't be any independent refutations when the NIST won't release all of their material for peer review. You misunderstand what those architects and engineers are asking for.
Again I ask, what in the world do they have to hide if their research is solid? Come on NIST, give us your data.
@bluerap04 A&E for truth are professionals they can solve it. they should not rely on the sham report by NIST which has been PROVEN to be a sham report
@helicopterraids And indeed they don't. The problem is, it's a government issue, and the government's Official conclusion is NIST's report. As far as the gov. is concerned, and therefore most of the people of this country, this investigation is "closed."
Of course, that doesn't stop the A&Es from pointing out flaws and publishing lots of reports, all of which are open for peer review. Problem is, since these reports goes against what our gov. says, the A&Es are made to look evil/unpatriotic.
I will fully admit Edward, (if I may), that you really do have some valid points. For me, without having any special training like an engineer would, and from an average knowledge of some basic physical laws, you do a great job of pointing out plausible explanations of the collapse.
Right at the end however, somewhere around 3:23, I found this statement:
"It's the only one in history to burn uncontrolled, for seven hours".
"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." - Dr. Thomas Eagar, MIT
I would add to the above, "and, dismiss logical explanations that use computer simulations."
Whoever thinks this is proof..is retarded...next they will be saying that if a steel walled building ran into a plane at 500mph..the building would disintegrate..wait a minute......!?
What if you made a Building 7 Explained video and somehow forgot to include Barry Jennings' eyewitness testimony on what really happened while he was inside Building 7?
Ok just LOOK the the way the building falls. I dont care if people were saying that that the steel in WTC7 was bending and bulging out under the pressure of the building - that still doesnt explain how the building falls with SURGICAL precision. Its also funny that the closest thing you could find was a highway overpass because he couldnt find a video with a building falling apart like that due to some uncontrolled fires. It was obviously imploded. All that was missing was the countdown.
yaaaaa. the building didn't fall because of fire itself... the architecture of the building had THREE tiers. The first was significantly damaged during the collapse of building 2. around 3PM they reported that building 7 WOULD COLLAPSE soon. so they evacuated and rumors of the collapse spread. THIS IS FEAR MONGERING RHETORIC!!!
Yep....All those steal beams collapsed all at once from the fires. Thats why every building that catches fire falls down. Happens all the time. No Demo Ninjas needed.
"We have never, ever heard the term pull it being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, & neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building & maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers) to pull the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."
Edward's next video should debunk the U.S. Government Accountability Office's claim that the Federal Reserve gave out over $16 Trillion dollars in secret bailouts to failing local and foreign banks in between 2007-2010.
Who would have thought that even one our own government agencies would put out such conspiracy theories! They must be working with deluded 9/11 Conspiracy Nutjobs who think our lovely government could be corrupt enough to do such a thing!
What this video is about, to me, is to show there are still lots of people that are too afraid to consider that there are own government is corrupt enough to do something like this to us.
If we dismiss this, why not dismiss that the fed gave away $16+ trillion to failing banks in 2008-10? Why not dismiss the fact that the big corporations pick who we get to "decide" is our dem/rep president through campaign funding? Or that Prescott Bush helped fund Hitler? Our gov. wouldn't do any of that!
So you think it's probable that a skyscraper could fall into its own footprint, in which some of the fall is visibly indistinguishable from free fall speeds... from fires? To you, it's probable that the fires could have removed ALL resistance almost half of its descent?
Here's another: Tell me the "probable" reason why our not-so-corrupt government won't release 1 out of over 80 videos confiscated, that clearly shows an airplane being flown into the pentagon?
@bluerap04 "fall into its own footprint" It didn't, both leaned in different directions when falling. Micheal Shermer explains this: large objects follow the "easiest" path of gravity; for something the size and structure of a Twin Tower, that path is more or less straight down.
"some of the fall is visibly indistinguishable from free fall speeds" This has never been shown or proven, and even if it was, that would not account for the periods that weren't.
@bluerap04 You obviously have no idea how the Towers actually collapsed; the force of a floor hitting another, then those hitting another floor, and so on, caused a horizontal domino effect that any idiot can understand.
No proof has ever come of this claim; its all hearsay. And even if it is true, it still doesn't prove anything about the actual event.
I've never claimed to know exactly how the buildings collapsed. You are. NIST claims outrageous things, like isolated office fires can cause 50 floor buildings to collapse on itself in less than 10 seconds. The official investigation is a disgrace.
We ask NIST for a better explanation, and people like you who are too scared to consider that our government is incredibly corrupt are helping the powers that be keep this country asleep.
All you give me is baseless rhetoric and argument from...well, argument from "I don't think it would happen like that so it didn't". You see, you have a religious hatred of reality: it's just not that interesting is it? I mean, why be a mere consumerist citizen, when you can pretend you're Jason Bourne, fighting against government corruption by trolling YouTube vids!
Now, give me individual points that I can debunk one by one.
@niriop You don't understand. The burden of proof is on you. You go along with the official story, ignoring the lack of evidence to back the claims of the official investigation. So that makes you the religious one here, eh, believing in fairy tales.
Interesting choice of words, "consumerist citizen." As that's what makes an American. Go with the status quo, don't question authority, buy buy buy.
You can start with my first point. Why doesn't the NIST model demonstrate the entire collapse?
@niriop Ahh, name calling already, and yet another evasion of the question. Let's continue shall we?
2. The FBI confiscated over 80 videos on 9/11, that contained evidence for the pentagon scene. They've released two videos, neither of which shows an airplane. Lots of Americans are having a hard time believing that a plane hit that building. Why won't they release even just 1 photo of the plane?
@bluerap04 Evasion? All you've done is claim I'm not answering anything and ramble on aimlessly; what a disengenuous turd you truly are.
Complete myth: no proof has been shown of this vast quantity of footage existing or having been confiscated. Also, footage readily available shows a plane flying towards the building.
Even if footage is being held, it means nothing as evidence of a plane is shown in the aforementioned footage, the physical evidence and eye witness reports.
@niriop I'm talking about the computer model, which Edward features in this video. It only models the insides crumbling, yet for some reason leaves out the part where the fires magically remove any and all resistance that would prevent free fall speeds into it's own footprint.
@niriop One last evasion to go along with your walk off shot, eh?
I hope that people read my comments and LOOK INTO THESE THINGS, there's a whole lot more going on then just what the Main Stream Media tells us. Look into the Fed's secret $16 trillion bailout of the world's biggest banks. Look into the formation of the Federal Reserve itself, and learn of how President Wilson deeply regretted allowing this credit system into power in almost 100 years ago. It's time to wake up.
Kyles45Angel is a Cass Sunstein-paid troll it seems. Is this the best government contractor we can afford? C'mon, we deserve a better class of criminals please.
@niriop COINTELPRO. Easily spotted. But you guys forget what Mr. Sunstein's objective is and you are doing your job very poorly. It is to be persuasive and argue for the official theory. Develop some convincing strawmans, show the video where pancaking collapsed buildings look very similar to the Towers. Name calling just makes us wonder why we're using you guys.
@BUGBOY10000 No, of Kyles45Angel or me being a "Cass Sunstein-paid troll".
COINTELPRO is an open, proven secret; it has no immediate bearing on Sunstein's SUGGESTION that was only ever WRITTEN in some random paper and that has no proof of actually being adopted or implemented.
@niriop A real poster would not speak for someone else like you just did for Kyles45Angel. Seriously, please do your job better - a lot of us are counting on you. And tell Cass that the animal rights issue makes him appear really whacky.
@DTD110865 We'll believe the firemen who heard and saw explosions. I hope you're getting paid a lot of money to propagate these lies and keep the Zelikow narrative alive. There's not enough money in the world for me to do what you're doing to our country. For the sake of humanity, please don't reproduce.
But you assume those explosions are bombs, and they're not. I'm not the one who's propagaint lies here. That's what you're doing, and therefore you're the one who's harming the country in the process.
@DTD110865 You're not doing your job well - at least develop a strawman. Tell Cass and his people to call me so you can return to your other hourly job at Walmart.
@DTD110865 Another mistake - no real poster would claim they would definitely know what the explosions were. Admit it - you're either new at this or extremely incompetent. The best contractors don't work on the weekends.
@DTD110865 Again, you're not doing your job well at all. Now you're begging that the very close connection that the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family enjoyed be discussed. The goal is to diffuse the suspicion - not keep it going. Have Cass' people call me. I can do your job better in my sleep.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat & stress loads 18 min after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
@ctcole77 You've been spamming myself and several people tonight and attacking our personal YouTube accounts.
You wrote eight lengthy replies across ten videos in less than 15 minutes - all this 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm on a Sunday night. You're behind in your work and had to get a second job and do this contracting work at night and on weekends. You have been outed sir - change your YouTube account name to be more effective at disinformation.
1. I don't care what Silverstein said. Of course the insurance company isn't going to admit that there's evidence of fraud, that would be terrible for their reputation if they didn't go along with the official story. They would much rather take the loss, and continue business as usual.
2. How do you explain the rate that the building fell in all of the areas that the building WASN'T on fire? Oh that's right. "Pancake theory."
@bluerap04 (cont.) 3. I don't care if Marvin Bush was in charge of WTC when 9/11 happened. Obviously, if this event was an inside job, it was a much more elaborate plan than just having Bush's brother in a suspicious place. Us truth seekers admit that. The bottom line is, there are ton's of questions the NIST and our government refuses to answer, and this is a problem.
So this is the first time in the history of the world that an insurance company ignored evidence of fraud and refused to try and get back billions?
Easy, absolutely no building collapsed at freefall on 911. WTC 7 had massive fires in it. You just don't like hearing firefighters testifying to the fires. It doesn't fit your magical theories.
You questions have been answered years ago. It's not our fault you refuse to listen to the answers.
@ctcole77 Oh that's right. They fell 1 or 2 seconds slower then free fall speeds. Skyscrapers. In uniform. From isolated fires. Makes a great deal of sense.
Just because an insurance company agrees that there's no fraud doesn't mean that there isn't any.
(cont.) And no, my questions are not being answered. Let's start with this video: Why doesn't the computer model demonstrate the entire collapse? It stops abruptly.. Edward smoothly defers attention from this with his transition to the actual video, letting us "fill in the blank." The building shouldn't have experience free fall speed during any part of the collapse, no matter how furious the fires, but we see that it did.
"and a fireball DID travel 80 floors from the point of impacet down toward the lobby, because one man who was in an elevator shaft when it happend was on fire" -DTD110865
Give me peer reviewed research of where such a thing could possibly happen because that is physically impossible. Anyone who believes that a fireball can travel 80 floors down from an aircraft is simply an idiot. This is why I don't bother talking to you. You sure I'm wearing the tin foil hat? People also had skin hanging off.
How about ACTUAL FOOTAGE of somebody who was burned coming out of the elevator shaft, and the fact that the only source of the fire was from where the planes hit the towers.
@DTD110865 Type in visible explosions on Youtube its the first video that comes up. Shows a man being ejected out of the building after the towers were hit by the planes by some type of explosive.
Sheesh, I can type in a video of my own sexual encounters on YouTube, it wouldn't mean you'd see a video of me doing the nasty with the girl of my dreams. You're going to have to do better than that.
@Kyles45Angel Advance the discourse or get out of the way.
Your Community College attempts at evading eye witness testimony of explosions in Building 7 prior to the Towers' collapse are revealing.
Intelligence agents, U.S. Senators, Congressmen, a former Vice President of the United States, Architects, Structural Engineers are demanding a real investigation and are deep-sixing anything Zelikow did.
Are you being paid an hourly rate? Have General Alexander's people call me.
EXCELLENT!
deah99 15 hours ago
God was there for new York that day. he buildings fell perfectly straight down. Could you imagine If there to have fallen on its sides?
1cayote777 23 hours ago
@1cayote777 I heard Allah was there to.
libbotoppo 23 hours ago
@libbotoppo Yea man, I know what you mean.
1cayote777 10 hours ago
@1cayote777
Buildings rarely have the structural rigidity to fall sideways like a tree....ones as big as the WTC towers never have. You can see this in the the way the top sections of the WTC 1 and 2 towers came apart.
kitbots 11 hours ago
@kitbots But the explaination given about building 7 was very convincing I thought. The building burned for a long time, gas pipes and fuel pipes under the building caught fire, i think it was reasonable.
1cayote777 10 hours ago
The funniest part about it, proving how goofy the truthers are, is the fact that Building 7 collapsing was barely noticed at the time, as would be expected with everything that happened that day.
So, with all the trouble of organizing this massive conspiracy and keeping it secret (actually, the impossibility), why would anyone in charge of such a venture make their impossible job even more impossible by bringing down a building that few would notice (apart from conspiracy theorist nutjobs!)??
allahBurpsCum 2 days ago
@allahBurpsCum pure conjecture.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@stratocaster539
The whack job conspiracy theories are pure conjecture!
Nut job conspiracy theorists cannot even give a logical reason why any conspiracy would want to add the complication of demolishing building 7 to what would have been a already overly complicated plot, let alone offer hard evidence!!
All you whack jobs have is silly nitpicking and wild claims. The gov is too incompetent to carry out such a conspiracy in perfect security, let alone keep it secret!
allahBurpsCum 1 day ago
@allahBurpsCum More conjecture.I'm not a nut job and I am just one of millions who are not nut jobs either.Do you think the whole gov. are in on this?Don't be silly.Defence contractors and associated services have made billions of the back of 2 wars just as they did with Vietnam.Take Dick Chaney, do you think he was incompetent??I don't thinks so.I don't think you understand how any form of government does business - and you should study your own before calling -out others who do.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@stratocaster539
LOL Typical! First of all, the world is full of BILLIONS of idiots and Cheney a total goofball!
Secondly, just because gov lie does NOT offer ANY evidence to prove your whack job conspiracy theorists!
Just answer the points directly.
1. why would they make the already impossible job of keeping such a massive project secret by demolishing another building that few would notice?
2.how could they know they would keep perfect security and only the nutcases would see
allahBurpsCum 1 day ago
@allahBurpsCum Nice rebuttal, I'll have to remember to use excessive name calling and no real argument in my next reply to debunkers.
Since you think the government is too incompetent to commit huge treason, find out which "terrorists" infiltrated the Federal Reserve and gave out $16 trillion in 0-interest loans from 2007-10. It's strange, our "official debt" is only $15 trillion, less than said amount.
Google "GAO audit fed 16 trillion" if you don't believe me, and stop drinking the koolaid.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04
You are WHACK JOBS!
I have had plenty of experience with the gov. They ARE incompetant, and breaucracy is in general.
Now, can you address the point or not? Why would anyone in charge of this supposed conspiracy make it more complicated by blowing up building 7?
How could they know they would keep perfect security and only whack jobs would see through it? What would anyone have to gain in the gov that would make it worth the risk?
allahBurpsCum 1 day ago
@bluerap04
Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate; Clinton couldn't even cover up a blow job. But the
Bush administration, in a time when everyone has a camera and internet connection, where able to pull off mass murder and controlled demolition with millions watching.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
Steel has 'elasticity'.This elasticity is retained up to around 780c, Then it has 'plasticity'.Plasticity is maintained up until around 1400C after which it will show signs of melting.An 'inevitable' destruction of steel this way would require constant heat, in the same area,way above 1400C. It would be impossible for carbon based fire to exceed 600C,It would be moving around often not touching steel. Any heat conducted in the steel would be quickly conducted away.Inevitability factor? zero.
stratocaster539 2 days ago
What complete and utter nonsense.These building where built specifically to overcome the fire problems.There is no better way.I am ashamed at you Edward, especially now that the National Geographic is government agency owned, that you would show such a misleading video as part of your case.What about the peer reviewed A+E scientific studies? You have sold out as far as I'm concerned.
stratocaster539 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
"These building where built specifically to overcome the fire problems"
Do you have a source for this claim? Does it mention no sprinklers or firefighter intervention?
I have a real question, why WTC7? Why demolish an empty building when 2 non-empty buildings had already collapsed killing thousands? What did anyone gain?
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@Blacktoe If you are ignorant of such a basic construction fact get of your arse and do your own homework.Why do you think tall buildings are built this way?Why aren't other construction methods used?Do some homework, stop asking me daft questions - this is not a 'claim' as you trolls like to call it - it's a 'fact', one of many that you conveniently like to avoid or cannot be bothered to research for yourself.
stratocaster539 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
So you're answer is, "My knowledge requires no sources, shut up you're ignorant." Very informative, thank you.
And you never answered why they would demolish an empty building?
Blacktoe 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blacktoe "So you're answer is, "My knowledge requires no sources, shut up you're ignorant." Very informative, thank you". Touch'e troll.
You have simply confirmed my original point. Why do you come to me to do all of your homework for you?If you want answers do you your own bloody homework!
stratocaster539 2 days ago
@Blacktoe Why do you think? Oh, have a look through this little lot, my daughter recommended it, it is the industry guide from TATAN formerly Chorus steel about 5 miles from where I live in the heart of Welsh steel production.
w w w .tatasteelconstruction . com/en/design_guidance/structural_design/fire/
Some homework for you.
stratocaster539 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
From your source - "All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400º. By 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel."
And as you said, carbon based fires don't exceed 600ºC, but they don't need to.
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
Another, "The innovative design solutions for beams and columns, shown below, can be combined so that whole buildings with fire ratings up to 1 hour can be realised without recourse to site applied protection."
And as is commonly known, the fires burned for far longer than 1 hour (almost 7), uncontrolled.
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
From reading the source YOU provided, it doesn't paint the picture that this had to be demolition, its suggests that fire is more than capable to destroy the steel structure.
Tell your daughter thanks for the link.
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@Blacktoe" And you never answered why they would demolish an empty building?" I tell you what -you be the detective - then when you understand, you tell me why.
stratocaster539 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
Well I don't think there is any reason to blow up a building that is quite obviously on fire; unless the sensitive items being destroyed can only be destroyed via explosions. I know most paper and computers don't stand up well to fire. Did the government not think that people would accept that fire destroys paper and or PCs?
And I'm asking you, because I think it's ludicrous.
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@Blacktoe You're still off base here. The question at hand is not whether or not the building was demolished with a purpose, but whether or not NIST's assertion that fire caused the collapse stands through critique and scrutiny.
You, Edward, and NIST have done EVERYTHING you could to ignore that there has not been enough evidence provided in order for us to reasonably conclude that fire has caused the sky scrapper to fall almost straight down while somehow exhibiting visible free fall speeds.
bluerap04 2 days ago
@bluerap04
There is far more and far better evidence for a collapse by fire than a collapse by explosives (inaudible and invisible explosives, that is).
And it is not off base to ask "why". The "why" is very important. Truthers claim the building was demolished, but there is not a single sensible reason why it needed to be. I don't see why this is a question to be ignored. If there is no reason to demolish it, then it probably wasn't demolished.
Blacktoe 2 days ago
@Blacktoe Saying that there is no reason for something (your opinion) has nothing to do with the fact that it happened. What has been established to those who care to look into it deeply enough is that NIST's report is unscientific, and faulty as hell. They didn't, can't, and won't address the nanothermite found in all the dust samples, they didn't can't, and won't explain why the roofline at the building went from standing still.. to falling straight down at free fall in a matter of seconds.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04
That's not an opinion, its the logical conclusion. There was no reason to demolish an empty building. It was severely damaged/burned and would have been taken down anyway. The fire alone was enough to destroy any documents or secrets, demolition was not needed.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe If there was some documents, files, etc in the building that the government wanted to hide, then they probably didn't want to chance just having fires destroy them. Isolated fires don't guarantee that everything in the building is destroyed.
Again, I'm not going to sit here and tell you exactly why they wanted that building gone. The big problem the A&E, and even former NIST employees, have is that the official report is faulty and unscientific.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@Blacktoe Logical fallacy.Like the towers, all evidence had to be destroyed to the point that anything tangible could remain.Fire enough would not seriously damage the building which would allow detection and collection of incriminating evidence, all of which was blasted to dust and removed rapidly.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@Blacktoe BTW there are plenty of videos on youtube of what you think are "inaudible" explosives. Of course, it is up to you to determine whether or not all those people who said they were explosives "were mistaken," but again.. this is only your opinion.
And again.. nanothermite was found in the dust. There's no reason it should have ever been there if NIST was right.
bluerap04 1 day ago
@bluerap04
Oh, and the nanothermite, quite conveniently Dr. James Millette completed a study of the WTC dust and his paper was posted on JREF just yesterday (forums. randi. org/showthread. php?t=231314). "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe No peer review. simply an opinion.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@Blacktoe There are peer reviewed papers covering this on A+E. Perhaps the good dr Millette should have reviewed them properly as is standard scientific protocol?
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@bluerap04
OH and I can't seem to figure out why people would hear explosions if the demolition was done with thermite charges, anyway. I've seen some truther homemade thermite charges and there is no explosion; its a violent but relatively slow reaction. Hearing explosions doesn't fit with thermite demolition. And since there wasn't traces of any other charges... truthers have once again contradicted their own theories.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe Good point, and now you have the opportunity to learn a little something.. What was found in the dust wasn't thermite, but nanothermite, which is 1) powerful enough to be used as an explosive and 2) much harder to make than regular thermite. In fact, it's so hard to make, that for it to randomly appear in all the dust samples from the WTC area is MORE than enough reason to start investigating whether or not other explosives were used.
Guess who refuses to reopen their investigation?
bluerap04 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluerap04
First, read the study I posted, there is no nanothermite. Second, nanothermite may be faster, but its not fast enough. (jamesfetzer.blogspot. com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must. html) That link will do a rundown of the studies on nanothermite, and why it doesn't "fit".
THIRD, do you really think that a building falling down will destroy documents better than fire? Have you played rock - paper - scissors?
Conspiracy brain is strong in this one.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe Cutter charges. It's normal to use different combinations of explosives.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@stratocaster539
Remains of which were never found, and the best evidence is people who heard a falling building and said it sounded like explosions. That its some strong ass evidence. Especially when audio from inside or outside the tower doesn't pick up the same noise.. because... you know... the cameras are in on it. And so are the first responders and clean up crews who never found any remnants of charges.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@stratocaster539
And every scientist, architect, and engineer not among the 1500 at A&E truth. Who obviously are ignoring the more obvious fact that if a building is hit by a plane and burns for hours the only possible way for it to collapse is if the government planted 1000s of explosives inside it; which they did because the planes hitting the building is not enough of a message of terror.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe You moved the goalposts there.Look, I have been having this kind of conversation for over 5 years now so I will leave you with this, if you do not have an agenda (Gravy and his suspicious one man ravings)Then read the professionally accumulated studies and peer reviewed experimental data that is online.
Ask the 'organ grinder' not the 'Monkey'. Ask the relevant experts and not youtube commenters - that's like Ray Comfort asking third graders about evolution.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stratocaster539
My goal post remains at inaudible explosions. A persons personal perception of a noise is not evidence of explosions. Cameras inside and outside didn't pick up any audio of a controlled demolition.
Oh, and I am asking the experts, since I am not one. And the experts agree, NIST's science is correct. (911-engineers.blogspot . com/)
And that's over 750,000 engineers. A little more than the 1500 at A&E. I think there are more creationist in the field of biology.
Blacktoe 1 day ago
@Blacktoe "There is far more and far better evidence for a collapse by fire than a collapse by explosives (inaudible and invisible explosives, that is)".Based on what exactly? this is the first time such a building has collapsed by fire, so what evidence are you basing your conclusions on? opinion?Cutter charges, which are the first stage of steel demolition are very audible - the conclusion from multiple and varied independent witnesses confirms rapid 'gunfire' explosions before/during collapse
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@Blacktoe You, Edward Current, and NIST are doing EVERYTHING YOU CAN to ignore that NIST's models WERE NOT released with the complete sets of data used to calculate WTC7's sequence of collapse. As Edward says in his description, the burden of proof is on the accuser. NIST provided was a neat looking video that mysteriously STOPS before demonstrating the entire collapse from top to bottom. I honestly would love to hear FROM YOU why you think they did this.
bluerap04 2 days ago
@Blacktoe Would you like us to do everything for you? You can't google "what was in wtc 7"?
Let's be honest, you're not even really worried about what was in the building. If you were, you would have done a simple google search before coming after us truth seekers with your weak debunking material. Please, stop being lazy, and start looking at the evidence on both sides, and try not to be biased about it.
bluerap04 2 days ago
Another thing most debunkers can't seem to wrap their mind around.. Just because there is "only" 1600 architects and engineers publicly speaking out against NIST's report, doesn't mean there aren't many many more that silently disagree.
When you go against what the all mighty government says, especially in a country as arrogant as the USA, it can look very bad against you, and puts your reputation and career at considerable risk.
Remember Galileo? Socrates?
bluerap04 2 days ago
All NIST would have to do to get the questions answered is to open up all their research for peer review. In the scientific community, no scientific studies are taken serious unless the research is open for peer review. Why won't NIST agree to this? What do they have to hide?
Even James Quintiere, Ph.D, former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division says that NIST's "building collapsed from fires" explanation is trash. He also calls for NIST's report to be open peer review.
bluerap04 3 days ago
@NeilCrouse-Well, why should I listen to you? YOU are someone who've I've never met before, and you get all of your information from unqualified conspiracy theorists. Plus, the number of architects and engineers who support the truth movement is nowhere near 1600, it's around 1500, and all of them are unqualified. BTW, I have 413 subs. Unlike you, people actualy like what I do, idiot.
Optimusprimemc1 3 days ago
604 people are conspiracy theorists?
Ryosuke1208 3 days ago
@zapproowsdower-If you actually watch the video, you would see that the building doesn't just collapse, it gradually falls apart. This is what you conspiracy theorists don't show people. You just proclaim that something is "impossible" and go around spreading these facts that even a fifth grader could debunk.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 That in no way addresses the point I made. Whether it collapsed fully or partially, doesn't change the fact that it fell at 2.5 seconds of free-fall in the beginning of the collapse. This is *very simply* impossible from your proposed mechanism.
zapproowsdower 4 days ago
it really is that simple.
zapproowsdower 4 days ago
@bluerap04-No, you're the one who can't handle simple concepts. You don't provide any evidence for what you believe, you only deny the evidence that contradicts what you believe.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@bluerap04-No, idiot, it didn't fall into it's footprint. I've explained this several times, yet you fail to acknowldge what I say. Don't worry, that's typical of conspiracy theorists.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Are you saying it tipped over? Based on what visual evidence? You do know what "collapse" means, right? Make yourself clear here, it's starting to sound like you can't comprehend simple concepts..
bluerap04 4 days ago
@bluerap04 there is proof of world trade center 7 tipping at an angle in fact the collapse of the world trade center 7 damaged the Verizon building. The video evidence /watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o plus the damage of the Verizon building disproves the fall into its footprint claim. If the collapse onto its footprint was real it would have not damaged the Verizon building, but thats not the case now is it?
warlord2080 4 days ago
@warlord2080 that's a non-argument. the demolition theory does not hinge upon it falling perfectly into its own footprint, or being 100% demolished. it's almost entirely about the uniformity of the four corners, and the 2.5 seconds of free-fall.
zapproowsdower 4 days ago
@zapproowsdower Well he basically claims that building 7 collapse into its footprint meaning there was nothing that would have damaged it and what you doing is undermining his cause of what he think is just straight down collapse which is disproven by the video provided. Thus being said why don't you refute the point that the building wasn't straight down or that the WTC 7 did hit verizon building instead of trying to divert the attention away from what bluerap04 said?
warlord2080 4 days ago
@warlord2080 This is laughably simple. In normal planned demolitions, the contractors obviously intend for a building to fall in a way that would prevent damaging other buildings. But this wouldn't be the normal case here would it. In fact, destruction on a large scale is a GOOD thing for the insiders.
That said.. come on man, look at the video. At 2:24, it clearly goes straight down with a small tilt... just like almost every other demolition of large buildings.
bluerap04 3 days ago
@warlord2080 Also, If you read zapproowsdower comment, he already made it clear that if the building toppled over, it would have fallen at the speed of gravity the whole way, not for just 2.5 seconds.
bluerap04 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warlord2080 The explosion that occurred in the lobby was not just powerful enough to blast out windows but it actually burned people to death. So the official theory states that a fireball from the impact area traveled 80 floors down to incinerate people on the ground floor. If what you are saying is true then why were the firefighters themselves questioning what had happened in the lobby. Are you telling me you know more then veteran firefighters.
RideoutJames 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warlord2080 Thermite and Nano-thermite create extreme heat and therefore create distinct clouds or `flows`, these flows are called pyroclastic flows or clouds, they occur in volcanic eruptions and at space shuttle launches, when extreme heat and energy is released. Black smoke is black because it is starved of oxygen. White smoke is white because it has oxygen. Thermite produces its own oxygen.
RideoutJames 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warlord2080 Check out Xendrius channel. Fast forward his featured video to 2:06. You see an explosion with enough force to blow a man out of the building. Pre-weakening of the structure is standard in most demolitions. So it is expected to see flashes and detonations before the demolition. A glass in an oven is not what happened on 911. On 911 a building was hit by a plane but that one plane reduced a building to dust. It did not reduce it into large sections. Most melted.
RideoutJames 3 days ago
@RideoutJames Thanks for the channel link, very cool :)
NeilCrouse 3 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Outer walls of the building represent significant structural resistance. 2.5 seconds of free-fall, as measured from the falling roof-line, should have been impossible even if the entire core was gutted, which is just as wildly speculative as judy wood's theories. And it couldn't have been falling off to the side, otherwise the roofline would have been in free-fall collapse the whole way down, and not just for the first few seconds.
zapproowsdower 4 days ago
@bluerap04-Thys exactly what this video disproved. Conspiracy theorists want you to think that the building collapsed into it's footprint, but it doesn't. This prove that you didn't watch the video.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Darn, you're right.. at 2:24 we can see it only fell in into its footprint for almost half of the stories, then swayed back a little bit. Never mind that this feature is also common in controlled demolitions.
Come on bro. You can do better than that. Get back to me when you can explain how fires can remove virtually all resistance for nearly 3 seconds of the descent.
bluerap04 4 days ago
@rockyraccoon086-Um, so everything that you find offensive is proof of brainwashing? Tha terrible logic. If you are using this as proof of brainwashing, then all of you conspiracy theorists must be brainwashed, because I've noticed that conspiracy theorists resort to swearing and namecalling whenever they are proven wrong. Swearing is human nature, NOT a result of brainwashing...dumbass.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@bluerap04-Merely stating that it's impossible doesn't mean a damn thing. Building 7 was the first building in the world to burn for 7 hours straight. Plus, we have numerous examples of steel buildings collapsing from fires. But the fact is, YOU fail to do any research.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Crumbling down doesn't equal free fall, yet NIST admits that there was free fall for a period of the collapse. Instead of explaining why, all they did was exert assumptions, without mathematical figures that would allow us to test their computer models which demonstrate (only part of) the collapse. No "peer review" allowed..
Hell, the computer model doesn't even attempt to demonstrate the free fall part! How could they leave that out?
bluerap04 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 And no, I've never seen an entire steel building collapse straight down into its own footprint.. with some free fall... from fires. Feel free to show me one.
bluerap04 4 days ago
"All lies and jests,Still a man hears what he wants to hear,And disregards the rest".
Paul Simon.
All the scientifically illiterate dummies that claim WTC1,2,7 were brought down by "planted explosives" need to sign up for some high school science/physics classes.
It's people like you assholes that take away credibility from real issues about the hijackings,what was known about them before 9/11, etc.
You people discredit real questions with your BS.
Connected2U2 5 days ago
@Connected2U2 If we need high school physics, how do you explain this guy, high school physics teacher David Chandler?
/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Please watch the whole video before responding :)
bluerap04 4 days ago
lol the people that actually think this is how the building collapsed are the same people who think Iran has nukes and use those nukes to nuke the entire world, and are the same people who believe they are living in a free country, and that terrorists want to kill us. Mind controlled people more like it. Remember, to make sure you pay your taxes, keep on voting and accept the micro chip as a beneficial technology. lol
rockyraccoon086 5 days ago
@rockyraccoon086 psychologists sometimes refer to it as 'the treacherous trio' - confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and motivated reasoning. It's how intelligent people can allow preconceived beliefs to influence conclusions, juggle contradictory beliefs, and allow emotions to influence decisions or behavior, respectively.
zapproowsdower 5 days ago
@zapproowsdower yea its sad really how mind control manipulates the masses. People will draw the first conclusion that "terrorists" did this, meanwhile they continue doing this same act constantly in poorer countries than the U.S. such as iraq, afghanistan....the list goes on...
rockyraccoon086 5 days ago
@zapproowsdower "and allow emotions to influence decisions or behavior, respectively."
Also knows as "911 truthers."
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
Hey there :), part 2
....Now that's absolutely not true, there are many historical examples of it happening in my own little city.
My dad is a retired Fire Chief (44yrs on the job) in Edmonton, Alberta. While we obviously don't have the size of the buildings they have in New York, he has told me flat out that office fires CANNOT cause structural steel to melt like was found in the basement of WTC7.
He also mentioned that the bridge example is misleading as the two have nothing in common.
NeilCrouse 6 days ago
@NeilCrouse-"He also mentioned that the bridge example is misleading as the two have nothing in common."
That's a lie and you know it. That part of the video proves that you don't need a plane to bring down a building, all you need is fire and time. Go read a book.
Optimusprimemc1 6 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 don't be mind controlled dude, fight it, don;t believe terrorists brought these buildings down,there's more than enough evidence out there to prove it
rockyraccoon086 5 days ago
@rockyraccoon086-Really? You're resorting to this stupid "Mind-control" BS? That's a typical, and weak, conspiracy theorist tactic that they use when they realize that they can't stand up for themselves in a debate. Calling someone "brainwashed" is a tactic used by conspiracy theorists to distract people from the actual argument.
Optimusprimemc1 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 exactly my point. You are being mind controlled, just look at you. You've gotten upset, and are resorting to unnecessary language. Don't you think if you wern't mind controlled, you would be looking at the evidence in plain sight?? And there is no debate. You must really believe in your government the way they believe in you! basically what i get from u is, your a good law abiding citizen who pays their taxes and does exactly what big brother tells u to do
rockyraccoon086 4 days ago
@rockyraccoon086 see here you are saying "mind controlled" again in fact you parrot is twice in this comment alone...rggggh poly needs an IQ
alltiedup217 4 days ago
@rockyraccoon086 Well said :)
NeilCrouse 3 days ago
@NeilCrouse Thanks!
rockyraccoon086 3 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Ahh yes, fire and time is all that is needed to bring down a 47 story skyscraper, built to withstand 5x it's own weight, from top to bottom in 7 seconds! Fire can even cause steel buildings to fall in free fall speeds for almost half of its descent!
It's so obvious!
bluerap04 4 days ago
@bluerap04 Just because youre too fuxing stupid to understand what happened isnt proof it didnt happen.
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@Optimusprimemc1 Ok, Let's think about this.
So I should listen to you, someone I have never met,
someone who is actually proud of "Lego Machete from Far Cry 2"--(LOL, LOL- and YOU are telling ME to "read a book", LOL, LOL),
someone who has received his major life experience, from either a TV or video game viewer, (I'm guessing by your girly arms, your between 15-18, CERTAINLY NOT adult man arms),
AND, I should ignore 1600+ Architects & Engineer professionals
ya,..O-K
Have a nice day
NeilCrouse 3 days ago
@NeilCrouse you should ignore those ignore 1600+ Architects & Engineer professionals.
tell them to give you answers, not questions. when they give you answers then listen to them. A&E for truth are refusing to do their own independent investigation
helicopterraids 3 days ago
@helicopterraids You don't realize that the models and figures in the NIST report was not released with all the actual data they used to come to many of their conclusions, such as the computer model. There can't be any independent refutations when the NIST won't release all of their material for peer review. You misunderstand what those architects and engineers are asking for.
Again I ask, what in the world do they have to hide if their research is solid? Come on NIST, give us your data.
bluerap04 2 days ago
@bluerap04 A&E for truth are professionals they can solve it. they should not rely on the sham report by NIST which has been PROVEN to be a sham report
helicopterraids 2 days ago
@helicopterraids And indeed they don't. The problem is, it's a government issue, and the government's Official conclusion is NIST's report. As far as the gov. is concerned, and therefore most of the people of this country, this investigation is "closed."
Of course, that doesn't stop the A&Es from pointing out flaws and publishing lots of reports, all of which are open for peer review. Problem is, since these reports goes against what our gov. says, the A&Es are made to look evil/unpatriotic.
bluerap04 2 days ago
Hey there :), part 1
I will fully admit Edward, (if I may), that you really do have some valid points. For me, without having any special training like an engineer would, and from an average knowledge of some basic physical laws, you do a great job of pointing out plausible explanations of the collapse.
Right at the end however, somewhere around 3:23, I found this statement:
"It's the only one in history to burn uncontrolled, for seven hours".
cont.... so I have to ask
NeilCrouse 6 days ago
idk man.. what about the assasinated policeoffciers for instance... id just go to the default.. god did it
Schoening91 6 days ago
"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." - Dr. Thomas Eagar, MIT
I would add to the above, "and, dismiss logical explanations that use computer simulations."
RipTheSystem33 1 week ago
Whoever thinks this is proof..is retarded...next they will be saying that if a steel walled building ran into a plane at 500mph..the building would disintegrate..wait a minute......!?
DecassyJake 1 week ago
Bullshit computer modelling..Toy story makes more sense!!
DecassyJake 1 week ago
@DecassyJake Doesn't change the fact that you don't understand physics.
ZDanielRogers 1 week ago
@ZDanielRogers YOU don't understand computer modelling, they can set the parameters on a model any way they want....!
DecassyJake 1 week ago
What if you made a Building 7 Explained video and somehow forgot to include Barry Jennings' eyewitness testimony on what really happened while he was inside Building 7?
BUGBOY10000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok just LOOK the the way the building falls. I dont care if people were saying that that the steel in WTC7 was bending and bulging out under the pressure of the building - that still doesnt explain how the building falls with SURGICAL precision. Its also funny that the closest thing you could find was a highway overpass because he couldnt find a video with a building falling apart like that due to some uncontrolled fires. It was obviously imploded. All that was missing was the countdown.
MyMrBoots 1 week ago
yaaaaa. the building didn't fall because of fire itself... the architecture of the building had THREE tiers. The first was significantly damaged during the collapse of building 2. around 3PM they reported that building 7 WOULD COLLAPSE soon. so they evacuated and rumors of the collapse spread. THIS IS FEAR MONGERING RHETORIC!!!
juddman2010 1 week ago
i did not mean the video... sorry I've been reading the comments
juddman2010 1 week ago
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmBULLSHIT
wigumz 2 weeks ago
Yep....All those steal beams collapsed all at once from the fires. Thats why every building that catches fire falls down. Happens all the time. No Demo Ninjas needed.
best333WillC 2 weeks ago
@best333WillC Yes, because every building that catches fire burns uncontrolled for 7 hours.
IlGreven 2 weeks ago
yes, because every building rigged with explosives and burnt for 7 hours can still set off a "PERFECT DEMOLITION"
juddman2010 1 week ago
@juddman2010 So you didn't watch the video, I take it?
IlGreven 1 week ago
@best333WillC "Demo Ninjas" XD
MrButerfinger 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:13 False!
Laoch111 2 weeks ago
3:13 False!
Laoch111 2 weeks ago
@WarCrime911
ImplosionWorldDOTcom
"We have never, ever heard the term pull it being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, & neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building & maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers) to pull the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 2 weeks ago
Edward, UR THE MAN. Period.
focusontheargument 2 weeks ago
Edward's next video should debunk the U.S. Government Accountability Office's claim that the Federal Reserve gave out over $16 Trillion dollars in secret bailouts to failing local and foreign banks in between 2007-2010.
Who would have thought that even one our own government agencies would put out such conspiracy theories! They must be working with deluded 9/11 Conspiracy Nutjobs who think our lovely government could be corrupt enough to do such a thing!
[/sarcasm]
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 *sighs*
niriop 2 weeks ago
Windows, Eddie, windows. They contradict your final claim.
pocoapoco2 2 weeks ago
typo grammar fail lol... I meant "that our own"
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
What this video is about, to me, is to show there are still lots of people that are too afraid to consider that there are own government is corrupt enough to do something like this to us.
If we dismiss this, why not dismiss that the fed gave away $16+ trillion to failing banks in 2008-10? Why not dismiss the fact that the big corporations pick who we get to "decide" is our dem/rep president through campaign funding? Or that Prescott Bush helped fund Hitler? Our gov. wouldn't do any of that!
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 Corrupt enough? Probably.
Did they? No evidence.
You see, you keep confusing the possible with the probable, and the probable with facts.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop Thanks for not answering.
So you think it's probable that a skyscraper could fall into its own footprint, in which some of the fall is visibly indistinguishable from free fall speeds... from fires? To you, it's probable that the fires could have removed ALL resistance almost half of its descent?
Here's another: Tell me the "probable" reason why our not-so-corrupt government won't release 1 out of over 80 videos confiscated, that clearly shows an airplane being flown into the pentagon?
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluerap04 "fall into its own footprint" It didn't, both leaned in different directions when falling. Micheal Shermer explains this: large objects follow the "easiest" path of gravity; for something the size and structure of a Twin Tower, that path is more or less straight down.
"some of the fall is visibly indistinguishable from free fall speeds" This has never been shown or proven, and even if it was, that would not account for the periods that weren't.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 You obviously have no idea how the Towers actually collapsed; the force of a floor hitting another, then those hitting another floor, and so on, caused a horizontal domino effect that any idiot can understand.
No proof has ever come of this claim; its all hearsay. And even if it is true, it still doesn't prove anything about the actual event.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop Thanks for not answering. Again.
I've never claimed to know exactly how the buildings collapsed. You are. NIST claims outrageous things, like isolated office fires can cause 50 floor buildings to collapse on itself in less than 10 seconds. The official investigation is a disgrace.
We ask NIST for a better explanation, and people like you who are too scared to consider that our government is incredibly corrupt are helping the powers that be keep this country asleep.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 Ha, blind assertion.
All you give me is baseless rhetoric and argument from...well, argument from "I don't think it would happen like that so it didn't". You see, you have a religious hatred of reality: it's just not that interesting is it? I mean, why be a mere consumerist citizen, when you can pretend you're Jason Bourne, fighting against government corruption by trolling YouTube vids!
Now, give me individual points that I can debunk one by one.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop You don't understand. The burden of proof is on you. You go along with the official story, ignoring the lack of evidence to back the claims of the official investigation. So that makes you the religious one here, eh, believing in fairy tales.
Interesting choice of words, "consumerist citizen." As that's what makes an American. Go with the status quo, don't question authority, buy buy buy.
You can start with my first point. Why doesn't the NIST model demonstrate the entire collapse?
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 No it isn't you dumb fucking piece of shit. As far as I'm concerned, all the evidence has been made necessary.
My response: it does. Actually read the fucking thing. Next please.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop Ahh, name calling already, and yet another evasion of the question. Let's continue shall we?
2. The FBI confiscated over 80 videos on 9/11, that contained evidence for the pentagon scene. They've released two videos, neither of which shows an airplane. Lots of Americans are having a hard time believing that a plane hit that building. Why won't they release even just 1 photo of the plane?
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 Evasion? All you've done is claim I'm not answering anything and ramble on aimlessly; what a disengenuous turd you truly are.
Complete myth: no proof has been shown of this vast quantity of footage existing or having been confiscated. Also, footage readily available shows a plane flying towards the building.
Even if footage is being held, it means nothing as evidence of a plane is shown in the aforementioned footage, the physical evidence and eye witness reports.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop I'm talking about the computer model, which Edward features in this video. It only models the insides crumbling, yet for some reason leaves out the part where the fires magically remove any and all resistance that would prevent free fall speeds into it's own footprint.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 Ah, so you're embedding something in your head into reality...
There's no hope for you...
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop One last evasion to go along with your walk off shot, eh?
I hope that people read my comments and LOOK INTO THESE THINGS, there's a whole lot more going on then just what the Main Stream Media tells us. Look into the Fed's secret $16 trillion bailout of the world's biggest banks. Look into the formation of the Federal Reserve itself, and learn of how President Wilson deeply regretted allowing this credit system into power in almost 100 years ago. It's time to wake up.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
Kyles45Angel is a Cass Sunstein-paid troll it seems. Is this the best government contractor we can afford? C'mon, we deserve a better class of criminals please.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000 Any proof of this?
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop COINTELPRO. Easily spotted. But you guys forget what Mr. Sunstein's objective is and you are doing your job very poorly. It is to be persuasive and argue for the official theory. Develop some convincing strawmans, show the video where pancaking collapsed buildings look very similar to the Towers. Name calling just makes us wonder why we're using you guys.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000 No, of Kyles45Angel or me being a "Cass Sunstein-paid troll".
COINTELPRO is an open, proven secret; it has no immediate bearing on Sunstein's SUGGESTION that was only ever WRITTEN in some random paper and that has no proof of actually being adopted or implemented.
As to the name calling, look who's talking.
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop A real poster would not speak for someone else like you just did for Kyles45Angel. Seriously, please do your job better - a lot of us are counting on you. And tell Cass that the animal rights issue makes him appear really whacky.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
People with money did this. The government doesn't have any money. A little intelligence please.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000 More rumours....no facts. Look up the words: Assumption,opinion and specualtion and you got your 9-11 myth.
Kyles45Angel 2 weeks ago
@Kyles45Angel There is no way you are an authentic poster here. Please go away - maybe the JFK people need some help with the Lone Nut myth.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000
Sorry, but more evidence is proving that it's not a myth.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 We'll believe the firemen who heard and saw explosions. I hope you're getting paid a lot of money to propagate these lies and keep the Zelikow narrative alive. There's not enough money in the world for me to do what you're doing to our country. For the sake of humanity, please don't reproduce.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000
But you assume those explosions are bombs, and they're not. I'm not the one who's propagaint lies here. That's what you're doing, and therefore you're the one who's harming the country in the process.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 You're not doing your job well - at least develop a strawman. Tell Cass and his people to call me so you can return to your other hourly job at Walmart.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 Another mistake - no real poster would claim they would definitely know what the explosions were. Admit it - you're either new at this or extremely incompetent. The best contractors don't work on the weekends.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@BUGBOY10000
You're right. Osama Bin Laden had tons of money, much of which was inherited from his father. This was pocket change to him.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 Again, you're not doing your job well at all. Now you're begging that the very close connection that the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family enjoyed be discussed. The goal is to diffuse the suspicion - not keep it going. Have Cass' people call me. I can do your job better in my sleep.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat & stress loads 18 min after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 2 weeks ago
@ctcole77 You've been spamming myself and several people tonight and attacking our personal YouTube accounts.
You wrote eight lengthy replies across ten videos in less than 15 minutes - all this 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm on a Sunday night. You're behind in your work and had to get a second job and do this contracting work at night and on weekends. You have been outed sir - change your YouTube account name to be more effective at disinformation.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago
@ctcole77
1. I don't care what Silverstein said. Of course the insurance company isn't going to admit that there's evidence of fraud, that would be terrible for their reputation if they didn't go along with the official story. They would much rather take the loss, and continue business as usual.
2. How do you explain the rate that the building fell in all of the areas that the building WASN'T on fire? Oh that's right. "Pancake theory."
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04 (cont.) 3. I don't care if Marvin Bush was in charge of WTC when 9/11 happened. Obviously, if this event was an inside job, it was a much more elaborate plan than just having Bush's brother in a suspicious place. Us truth seekers admit that. The bottom line is, there are ton's of questions the NIST and our government refuses to answer, and this is a problem.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04
So this is the first time in the history of the world that an insurance company ignored evidence of fraud and refused to try and get back billions?
Easy, absolutely no building collapsed at freefall on 911. WTC 7 had massive fires in it. You just don't like hearing firefighters testifying to the fires. It doesn't fit your magical theories.
You questions have been answered years ago. It's not our fault you refuse to listen to the answers.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 weeks ago
@ctcole77 Oh that's right. They fell 1 or 2 seconds slower then free fall speeds. Skyscrapers. In uniform. From isolated fires. Makes a great deal of sense.
Just because an insurance company agrees that there's no fraud doesn't mean that there isn't any.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
@bluerap04
(cont.) And no, my questions are not being answered. Let's start with this video: Why doesn't the computer model demonstrate the entire collapse? It stops abruptly.. Edward smoothly defers attention from this with his transition to the actual video, letting us "fill in the blank." The building shouldn't have experience free fall speed during any part of the collapse, no matter how furious the fires, but we see that it did.
bluerap04 2 weeks ago
"and a fireball DID travel 80 floors from the point of impacet down toward the lobby, because one man who was in an elevator shaft when it happend was on fire" -DTD110865
Give me peer reviewed research of where such a thing could possibly happen because that is physically impossible. Anyone who believes that a fireball can travel 80 floors down from an aircraft is simply an idiot. This is why I don't bother talking to you. You sure I'm wearing the tin foil hat? People also had skin hanging off.
JamesRideout123 2 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 Burning fuel went everywhere. Including down the liftwells.
dangerouslytalented 2 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123
How about ACTUAL FOOTAGE of somebody who was burned coming out of the elevator shaft, and the fact that the only source of the fire was from where the planes hit the towers.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@DTD110865 Type in visible explosions on Youtube its the first video that comes up. Shows a man being ejected out of the building after the towers were hit by the planes by some type of explosive.
JamesRideout123 2 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123
Sheesh, I can type in a video of my own sexual encounters on YouTube, it wouldn't mean you'd see a video of me doing the nasty with the girl of my dreams. You're going to have to do better than that.
DTD110865 2 weeks ago
@Kyles45Angel Advance the discourse or get out of the way.
Your Community College attempts at evading eye witness testimony of explosions in Building 7 prior to the Towers' collapse are revealing.
Intelligence agents, U.S. Senators, Congressmen, a former Vice President of the United States, Architects, Structural Engineers are demanding a real investigation and are deep-sixing anything Zelikow did.
Are you being paid an hourly rate? Have General Alexander's people call me.
BUGBOY10000 2 weeks ago