You people know absolutely nothing about physics. Go back to school. How much do you think each floor of that building weighs? With all that pressure coming down, the air in the floors below has to go somewhere. Where's it going to go? Out the windows... very quickly...
These conspiracy theorists would have you believe the air just disappears into an oblivion, because, no, exploding windows HAVE to mean planted bombs!
Sorry, I like using my brain too much to give in to this inside job crap.
@TheEgonTowst What's funnier is that when buildings are demolished, you can't get each one of those explosives perfectly timed right. If this was a controlled demolition, there is NO WAY the people behind it would have been able to stage it so carefully so as to even hope to make it look like it was natural! You would have seen the flashes all up and down the building well before it actually collapsed. Go watch an actual demolition. It looks nothing like this at all.
@TheJaw1234567 That is highly illogical to believe that pressure could blow out windows and concrete several stories below the actual "crunch" seriously, if I was a citizen in the united states, i would be doing something about this. cause riots and serious shit infront of the white house untill I've gotten some legit answers, come on people do something! don't let the government tred on you like little cockroaches..
I love the people who constantly talk about squibs. Apparently none of them have ever blown up a paper bag and smashed it between their hands. The buildings were 95% air, and 5% building materials. All we watched here was 24,000 windows being popped. Some windows were weaker than others, hence why some popped before the air pressure maxed out on that floor.
It kills me that "truthers" ignore the simple, boring, rational explanations in favor of convoluted, James Bond, global conspiracy.
"Apparently none of them have ever blown up a paper bag and smashed it between their hands"
maybe cause they are SMARTER than YOU!!!
what is in the bag?
you have AIR trapped and contained, where does this occur on a floor with ALL the windows gone and a HUGE fuck n hole?
maybe that is why INVESTIGATION didn't claim that.
The sources for the 'pressure pulses' that created the wide spread smoke and/or 'dust puffs' observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 is unknown" [NCSTAR1-5a]
@hgfbob the windows are not gone yet on the floors below where the pancaking bellows-action is happening, THAT is why they are blowing out to relieve the rising pressure. Hello? And why don't you read the whole sentence instead of revising it to support your claims, "The sources for these pressure pulses are unknown," [in other words they can't confirm which collapsing floor section caused which puff] "but it seems likely that they resulted from significant structural changes within the tower".
... the report then goes on to give 9 further examples for why these puffs are completely consistent with a progressive collapse. I swear, it's like truthers ignore everything in these reports that contradicts their beliefs and only repeat fragments that they revise and present out of context... but they'll still call that "truth". lol
tell me, HOW does one OFFICIALLY CLAIM, YEARS AFTER investigation that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist", when INVESTIGATION NEVER TESTED to determine.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment or testing to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
If it was a demolition then explain to me why the collapse started at the impact zones on both towers? Controlled demolitions start from the bottom, whereas the towers started at the impact zone. Explain that one to me?
@rudemood2011 There's more than one method of executing a controlled demo. It's not unheard of to start high up & then blow out floors ahead of the collapse wave. Notice the squibs? It's not a coincidence that the largest squib at WTC 1 (north tower) can be seen where the skylobby was.
continued from below. No conspiracy, no squibs. Its extremely apparent when watching the video that this wasnt from internal explosions. Just from using the other clip in the video of the smaller building being demolished, you can see along with the squib marks, the building walls rupture outward, following the internal explosive force. In the WTC collapse, you can clearly see that everything below the chaos retains its shape and this would not have happened if the explosion came from withi
Those "squibs" as you call them, were created from the eternal pressure of 30+ floors coming down together at the same time. LIke anything that folows the path of physics (everything in the known universe) it looks for the path of least resistance. The air pressure alone from all those collapsing floors would've been more than enough to flatten person, much less blow out plate glass windows, and thats what you're seeing in this video. Pressure release.
@damienomen669 Exactly. What I can't figure out is how all of these self appointed demolition experts can believe that a squib every 15 or 20 floors is enough to collapse a 110 story building.
I have watched the entire 911 Blueprint for truth and heard the official story of why the buildings collapsed and I personally can't believe how the official story still survives. I recommend to anyone to watch the entire video and see what you believe.Thousands of people died that day, if there is even a 1% chance that the story we heard was false, it is our duty as American citizens to look into it.
i explain the squibs in my video "loose change answer number 138"
they were not from explosives but dust and smoke being forced out thu the vents, there is no fire and they are not on every floor like they would be if they were from explosives.
i explain how the towers were destroyed by the planes and that explosives were not possible in my video "how the towers fell"
you have been lied to by the conspiracy theory movement they are making money and my videos prove that.
Richard Gage's group A&E truth encompasses about 1/10th of 1 percent of the country's licensed architects and degreed civil engineers. Giving benefit of doubt this still leaves 99% of the industry professionals accepting the NIST report findings. It is unscientific and irrational to reject such a consensus and grasp fringe theory- which since nobody in AE 911 truth has published peer reviewed research papers detailing alternative collapse theories, doesn't even exist. Summary: CT's are nuts.
@hgfbob "99% don't know what the "OFFICIAL" findings are...
why...because they TRUST the right thing was done.
till they start to LOOK and realize what the facts actually are...."
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have heard you say yet! How the hell would you know what they know or don't know??! Or what they 'realize' or what they 'trust'??!! Damn you're getting desperate!!
@hgfbob LOL so those 99% are just so callous and disinterested they haven't bothered to look at the report themselves? Why would they even need to, if it is so preposterous for this to have happened as the NIST report concludes, wouldn't they have spotted that right off? Why haven't they all come forward to speak out? 3,000 killed, our country changed forever and only a couple of hundred join AE911 truth with questions? 249,000 others just don't care? SILLY.
WTC 7 DID fall in on itself in classic v shape. It was largely emptied by the time it was "pulled", as Larry said...so much loss today..let's just pull WTC 7...oops did I say that..then it does the do. And of course guiliani and his crew fled WTC 7 just before WTC 2 collapsed. Hey he and the feds in there at command centralTOLD BLDG 2 GONNA Collapse!!-mayor left 2 FALLS.FEMA equipPUT in WTC7 4 bioterrGAME9/12 moved OUT DAY B4! G. SEZ goodPLANmoreROOM! TESTIM NEVER RELEASED 2 US! LOL SAD!
Hey boy,inControlledDemo,bldg is empty of people,explosives set uniformly 4 the bldg toFAll IN AT CENTER IN WELL KNOWN V SHAPE..FALLS ONTO ITS CENTER. 911..2 110 BLDGS got legs amputated below knees, @ time of plane strike..were u there..was.janitor(s), rescue,empees, lying? Physics no apply if squibsSHOWpopflashRANDOM X PLODES NOT PERFECT rolf.powderedOFFICES MELTEDfiretrucks speed of sound v lite? WhoU WORK4. Beyond reason.DOUBTBurden oF proof std is only 4 prosec CRIMINALlaw.SOuKNOWtruth!LOL
Could someone please explain to me how the pilots managed to hit their targets on the correct floor level when they were coming in fast and on an angle .
"towers looks NOTHING at all like the controlled demo"
Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
Frank Greening has a 32 page paper where he supposedly calculated the Potential Energy of the building.
Frank has a little problem on page 3 where he divides the TOTAL MASS of the building by 110. That means he is assuming the same mass on every level. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. he should have divided by 116 because there were 6 basement levels. Don't you think the foundation of a skyscraper is going to have more steel and concrete than the top 6 levels?
Collapse was steered straight down through the path of most resistance. Chaos means a collapse that is not controlled, and once again how do you get a symmetrical collapse with no resistance from chaos? That only happens in 'controlled' demolitions. I offer all you shilly fools the chance to prove me wrong, show me another building that contradicts what I'm saying.
@hgfbob Show me any physical proof that explosives were used.
Controlled demolition doesn't mean the building looks like a giant sparkler.
To understand "least resistance" you have to factor in building frame,outside skeleton of the buildings,damage to internal support structure.Holding your hands up and declaring the building fell thru most resistance doesn't mean it fell thru most resistance,it just means you think it fell thru most resistance.
@stayinstock The proof is in the video. The conspiracy theorists said it was nano-thermite. Thermite was seen as "pools of lava" (as described in the 9/11 commission report). It was confirmed by independent labs there were thousands of pounds of thermite. Bottom line, we still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11. You can scream and demand all the "proof" you want, but if (I say IF) you're in denial, there is no proof you could possibly accept.
It was confirmed by a lab that a sample of dust had thermite in it.
The problem is that there is no chain of custody on the sample.That's why Jones sample can't be used,he can't show proof of where it came from.It's against the law to use it.
If what theorist say is true,it shouldn't be so hard to prove.You're talking about 4 buildings. 4!! that's a researchers dream.
tell ya what bunkie...how does one OFFICIALLY claim YEARS AFTER investigation that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist, when INVESTIGATION NEVER tested to determine that claim?
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment OR testing to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
you don't even have WTC steel/EVIDENCE to give a DIRECTION for a HYPOTHESIS that the remaining 240 intact vertical support on each towers impact floor failed from the FIRES PRESENT, as the HYPOTHESIZED OFFICIAL STORY claims they did.
nor a peer review from the structural community to back the ASSERTED HYPOTHESIZED claims.
"The NIST reports were peer reviewed by "5" individual subject matter experts CONTRACTED by NIST" NCSTR1A xxxi
symmetry denotes control...Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
@hgfbob WTC Chaotic? that's your proof? more "looks like"?
1 and 2 were chaotic.Ask any demo engineer.There is a reason none of them have said 1 and 2 were demoed. It's not some government agency telling them not to say it.
Find a demolition engineer.A real demo engineer and put him on a video.Not with trick questions and editing to make it seem he's talking about 1 and 2. An honest video with no cuts.
lol...sorry puts, contradiction does you no good.
n man this is where your common sense should come in. You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical, it's ridiculous to argue they weren't, and it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance. Using this common knowledge it's not hard to conclude that a symmetrical collapse is not possible unless controlled.
@hgfbob First you have to determine "path of least resistance" there is an outer skeleton the top would tend to follow. Falling down a tube.I can see it in the video.
I can explain many reasons why your path of least resistance is just another scramble to prove conspiracy.
"least resistance is just another scramble to prove conspiracy.'
oh please DO!!
It is because they are complex structure that they DO NOT collapse into the path of most resistance, not in spite of it. The bigger a building is the more redundancy is built into the system, the scale of the load it can bear is raised along with the buildings size.
Show me another case where a steel framed building collapsed into itself symmetrically and globally without being controlled.
@hgfbob Maybe in your world it is changing.But in the world the public lives in it's gotten worse for the conspiracies.You make a new video,get a few people interested,make some money, and nothing.Everyone just goes back to normal grind.
Most people believe the government is corrupt and so do I.I don't believe the government could get civilians,companies,pilots,contractors..ect to agree to be involved in what took place on 911. Even if they could plan it,no one would go along.
"That's like me asking you to show me another 110 story building'
no...that is just what YOU are going to use as an EXCUSE!
ANY building for any reason throughout history.......there are plenty with an initial damage MORE than what the towers had weith associated fires....how about the Oklahoma City bombing?
lol.....Bunkie, when they DEMO a building they GUT about 35 -40 % of the load bearing capacity SYMMETRICALLY from it's vertical support.
@hgfbob the non "symmetric" portions of the event are masked by the huge clouds of dust and debris. honestly who or what defines symmetry in such an event? gravity deems there is only one direction the debris will travel in, there were sections of the core 40 stories high that stood almost a minute. There were sections of the outer walls hundreds of feet high that toppled outward, peeling away. That's the kind of random destruction CT's say didn't happen BUT IT DID.
Gravity, which is the ONLY energy force allowed in the official story, CANNOT pull/push material sideways...it can arc out as it falls, but it CANNOT project with force. gravity is simply not that robust a source. Neither Tower shows any of the expected actions of a collapse, and ALL of the actions of vast energy being expended, not only to shred the Towers, but to cause dustification as well. Gravity cannot act like this.
The key is the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!
"that makes no sense at all. as the collapse initiates with the failure of the outer columns, momentum begins. "
and NOW you switch topics, since that post of mine was in reference to WTC7 FOOL!!!
there is NO MOMENTUM till the vertical support LET IT happen...and with 240 intact FIREPROOFED support on EACH towers impact floor, and YOU have NO EVIDENCE it was from the FIRES PRESENT as officially claimed...the REASON we are all here.
@hgfbob if you're talking about the towers it's preposterous to claim the fireproofing was intact. It was insufficient before the planes even hit, numerous inspections done before 2000 attest to that. Areas where it was far too thin, the sprayers couldn't reach, areas where it had peeled off columns in pieces 3 stories high to to improper prep work. Th'en there's the impact of the planes. Claiming 240 columns on each floor had intact FPing is, flat out, a lie, you should know better. WHY LIE?
"that makes no sense at all.....momentum begins' that is because YOU have NO IDEA what you are talking about...
how about you provide a link to some engineering report of this supposed gravitational collapse that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?
then show HOW localized minimal asymmetrical damage can lead to total global unified collapse.
"as for building 7 here's your fires: watch?v=8ACqEDx1Al0"
the SAME pathetic SPOT FIRE that other video SHOWS, went OUT.
"are you saying there are no videos depicting extensive fires in building 7?'
uhmm....yes!
Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall, since it DID fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.
the OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS...how else is a "top crushing block" going to COMPLETELY crush what is below as ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point thus creating asymmetry in the collapse wave either stopping the collapse or sending it off to the side...so.....why don't YOU show me HOW there can be symmetry through a complete collapse if there is resistance in the system.
it is YOU who supports a claim, it is up to YOU to prove it. you know debris falling outside the footprint is not available to crush the building. Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance until it was ejected. Debris from the collapse was ejected in all directions, this is called symmetry which is also not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse.
'Get the tape measure out?" then get to it Bunkie!!!
ever sit inb the cheap seats at a ball game, SEE the batter hit the ball abd a couple seconds LATER, hear it......
how does the OPPOSITE occur ONLY on 9-11???
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"
'Did the sound travel different and that's why it's explosives?'
no IDIOT!!!...lol
the SOUND occurs BEFORE the actual collapse.....as THEY ALL CLAIM..
so, where else ON EARTH, does this occur, where SOUND travels FASTER than light.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."
lol...like your basement noises......this is a SCIENTIFIC investigation bestowed to NIST by Congress....use big boy terminology to present your FACTS.
which INVESTIGATION found caused MINIMAL localized asymmetrical damage to EACH tower...less than 15% leaving 240 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support on each towers impact floor....and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT failed ANY of them.
'because the physical evidence is not explosives."
you have NO physical evidence...only HYPOTHESIZED evidence they REFUSE to release.
"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16·story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."
@hgfbob And that's why you conspiracy people are forever doomed to make your case on youtube. Where looks like and sounds like is all some people need.
I did NOT OFFICIALLY claim in a SCIENTIFIC investigation that NONE were used, but YOU support it, so it's UP TO YOU to prove that SCIENTIFIC claim into the investigation of the mass murder of 3000 innocents.
so...POST your PROOF that NONE were used as OFFICIALLY claimed.
In debate and law --the dictum is: THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE.
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
show me another steel framed building that collapsed the way WTC1, 2 and 7 fell without being controlled demolitions.
@hgfbob You're just making a general statement of steel frame and hope I have no understanding of the design."Steel frame" doesn't say anything.
If the core columns were weakened from heat,What percentage is that?Don't give me that weak argument about melting steel.Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened.
How many columns were compromised when the top fell onto the next floor?
The buildings weren't designed to be a railroad spike.
"It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong,it's your responsibility to prove you right.
You claim explosives...prove it."
I said "controlled"
as far as evidence of explosive residue, that is YOUR responsibility, since you support an official claim made years after investigation, that none were used, so bunkie.....show the testing that shows this from the scientific investigation.....
Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
If there was ANY resistance from the vertical support the collapses would not have been symmetrical.
It would be interesting to know how many conspiracy people who use Danny Jowenkos statement as proof of WTC7 demolition. Also use his statements as proof that 1 and 2 were not demolition.They didn't show that in the video,but i'm sure everyone notices what was said.
@stayinstock It's not just Danny Jowenkos's statement that proves WTC7 was a controlled demolition. There is TONNES of evidence. Take THIS detailed analysis for example: /watch?v=WiwEGPMxBDI
@momotaro2001 except the actual collapse started before his video shows.
/watch?v=mb7M0CxOsyI&feature=related
The inside started collapsing first.
That's why I have a problem with conspiracy videos.You see what they want you to see.I watch the videos with the sound turned off.The narration is biased on both sides.
Right off I notice that WTC7 doesn't have the explosions seen in normal demolition.
You normally see a few charges go off at different levels to get the fall started.
@momotaro2001 I'm not saying they are wrong,they just skew their videos to extreme,they edit interviews to sway opinions.It makes it look suspicious and it pisses me off that they think no one notices.I noticed in the interview with the Loader in the AE911 video that the loader wouldn't comment on WTC 1 or 2 but they tried to make it sound like he was. That's cheap to me and it damages everyone's effort in the cause. I believe in truth also.The whole truth,not just parts.
How many times do we need to go over this children. Imagine how much weight is falling and think for a moment, is that explosives going of OR IS IT THE PRESSURE FROM MILLIONS OF TONS ON MATERIAL FALLING STRAIGHT DOWN! Go suck my conspiracy laden left nut you morons.
@tomopie50 You said: "Either way there was a mass loss of life". Dude, with all due respect, if I had lost relatives in 9/11 I would want more than anything in the world to know the truth of what happened. Period. Emotional sensitivity is no excuse for ignorance.
Besides we covered the topic of "prove it wrong" many times you retard. It is not up to us to prove the towers were not hermeticalyl sealed. We never made that claim. It is your claim so it is up to you to prove it true not anyone else to prove it wrong. Just because you make a statement does not mean it is a truth that someone has to prove incorrect. You need to prove it correct. Shit you are a fucking moron.
The thermite worshipers are forgetting one small (but very important) fact.How did you make the concrete and beams blow out the windows?
The concrete would require a considerable amount of energy to pulverize,and explosives placed in many holes drilled in the concrete.if indeed that is how you intend to explain all the debris blowing out.
Putting explosives on beams hardly takes care of the concrete.
@momotaro2001 I'm saying that if you want to say explosives did it,and that's why beams were thrown hundreds of yards,and concrete was ejected from windows.There is more problem with that than you think.You're going on what things "look like" without any regard to what it would actually involve.
Claim explosives opens up a whole new problem.
Once the mass started falling,why would you need explosives?There is nothing in the building solid enough to stop the fall.
@stayinstock You say "there is nothing in the building to stop the fall". That simply is not true. The 47-beams of the internal core would have easily prevented, at least the core itself, from a pancake collapse. If there was a naturally occurring pancake collapse it would have only occurred on the outer floor sections, and not the core. And yet the core, a whopping 47-vertical columns that spanned the 110 storeys, is missing. How do you account for the missing core?
Look at the photos of the debris.Do you see any signs of demolition.Exploded beams?beams cut with explosives? You see beams cut with torches during search and rescue.
What you see is a big pile of twisted and bent beams.Beams that look like tubes that have reached their distortion limits and gave up all their strength.
The 47 beams of the internal core weren't made to withstand the top 35 floors crashing down on top of it.
@stayinstock A beam that reaches it's distortion limit implies ⓡⓔⓢⓘⓢⓣⓐⓝⓒⓔ, but the speed at which the towers fell has no margin for ANY resistance! It's lunacy to believe that a pancake collapse could bring the ENTIRE building down in just 11 seconds (the same length of time it would take to drop a bowling ball from the same height) when the whole concept of a pancake collapse is defined by resistance. What about Building 7? How do you explain that?
@momotaro2001 Before they proved the towers collapsed in 11 seconds,the theory was 9 seconds and that was the speed of gravity.Which is it?
A tube beam that has lost it's strength can barely hold itself up.You expect me to believe that this magical resistance is supposed to be noticeable against millions of tons of building crashing down?911truth comes out with some resistance claim and doesn't even know the momentum or mass of the falling top.That's real research.
@momotaro2001 Building 7 I haven't even tried to research.It doesn't prove anything about 1 and 2.Only in a theorist mind would the two be looked at together.As far as finding out why they collapsed,7 is irrelevant to 1 and 2.
@stayinstock Well you seem like an intelligent person, and I would recommend you research Building 7 - it IS related to WTCs 1 and 2. It can pretty much be proven that WTC 7 came down with explosives. Like a sudoku puzzle, it follows that if that is true, the explosives would have had to have been set sometime BEFORE the 11th September. So if is TRUE that WTC7 had explosives in it prior to the attacks, by definition, a conspiracy is in play and could also include WTC Buildings 1 and 2.
@momotaro2001 ""It can pretty much be proven that WTC 7 came down with explosives"" - Really? You would be the first one EVER to prove it if it's true. So, what proof do you have??
@xxBIGKING2xx wake the fuck up... 5 hours after both towers, some random building a football field away litterally falls on itself. Notice tht the building bends in the middle before collapsing, just like in a controlled demolition. Come on...
@MrStoner46 "Some random building??" - There was nothing random about it. It was damaged by the collapsing towers just like several other buildings in the complex. Then there was the uncontrolled fires that burned for hours.
It collapsed 'in the middle' because one of 3 main trusses failed causing an interior collapse that happened before you see the building collapse.
And 'looking like' a controlled demo is not proof of anything. My grandmother 'looks like' Margret Thatcher.
@xxBIGKING2xx Dude... If you're not too stupid, it's all abvious and also, building 7 was only touched by a couple of little fires inside... it had no reason to colapse so brutally ( and also it was reduced to dust by the explosives, the gravity couldn't have done that), while other buildings closer to the towers didn't suffer too much. If find it suspective that this building (7) was a federal complex. Just a funny thought. Anyway, we are living under conspiracy everyday, criminals are leaders.
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.
too bad there is NO EVIDENCE of this.....you would think in the 7 hours, SOMEONE would have taken a pic of this ..."INFERNO"....video.......SOMETHING!!!
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
gee!... NO FIRE directly below where they measured the global unified descent EQUAL to a bowling ball falling through 'AIR'
[NCSTAR1A 3.4.3]"9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."
@hgfbob "......I quoted from the found evidence of the NIST WTC 7 report....."
You can use a quote but that is not license to twist "much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows", into "no fires". That's just your way to ignore reality.
'You can use a quote but that is not license to twist "much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows", into "no fires"."
well shilly putz......then WHAT affected the PERIMETER vertical support the FACADE is attached to where they MEASURED the GLOBAL unified descent when the kink forms at 1.75 seconds INTO the collapse EQUAL to a bowling ball falling through 'AIR'?
since there is NO FIRE to SYMMETRICAL SIMULTANEOUSLY affect them....what did?
@hgfbob Hi, the user known as xxBIGKING2xx is a known shill. He has "flown fucking planes for a living" been a "crash site investigator", "steelworker" & has claimed his dad is in "the FBI".
I know....thanks....so is.....'loosechangeexposed'
forever attacking the person posting RATHER than TRYING to correct the information contained in the post....that is all they can do, they can not change FACTS.
You people know absolutely nothing about physics. Go back to school. How much do you think each floor of that building weighs? With all that pressure coming down, the air in the floors below has to go somewhere. Where's it going to go? Out the windows... very quickly...
These conspiracy theorists would have you believe the air just disappears into an oblivion, because, no, exploding windows HAVE to mean planted bombs!
Sorry, I like using my brain too much to give in to this inside job crap.
TheEgonTowst 4 hours ago
@TheEgonTowst What's funnier is that when buildings are demolished, you can't get each one of those explosives perfectly timed right. If this was a controlled demolition, there is NO WAY the people behind it would have been able to stage it so carefully so as to even hope to make it look like it was natural! You would have seen the flashes all up and down the building well before it actually collapsed. Go watch an actual demolition. It looks nothing like this at all.
TheEgonTowst 4 hours ago
i sorta believe this, but it could be pressure smashing the windows
TheJaw1234567 14 hours ago 2
@TheJaw1234567 That is highly illogical to believe that pressure could blow out windows and concrete several stories below the actual "crunch" seriously, if I was a citizen in the united states, i would be doing something about this. cause riots and serious shit infront of the white house untill I've gotten some legit answers, come on people do something! don't let the government tred on you like little cockroaches..
nubcakelol 8 hours ago
well there are gas pipes that COULD HAVE BURST DUMBSHIT!
MISTAhartnett23 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MISTAhartnett23
"well there are gas pipes that COULD HAVE BURST DUMBSHIT!"
there were NO gas pipes!
hgfbob 23 hours ago
I love the people who constantly talk about squibs. Apparently none of them have ever blown up a paper bag and smashed it between their hands. The buildings were 95% air, and 5% building materials. All we watched here was 24,000 windows being popped. Some windows were weaker than others, hence why some popped before the air pressure maxed out on that floor.
It kills me that "truthers" ignore the simple, boring, rational explanations in favor of convoluted, James Bond, global conspiracy.
gobo760 1 day ago
@gobo760
"Apparently none of them have ever blown up a paper bag and smashed it between their hands"
maybe cause they are SMARTER than YOU!!!
what is in the bag?
you have AIR trapped and contained, where does this occur on a floor with ALL the windows gone and a HUGE fuck n hole?
maybe that is why INVESTIGATION didn't claim that.
The sources for the 'pressure pulses' that created the wide spread smoke and/or 'dust puffs' observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 is unknown" [NCSTAR1-5a]
hgfbob 23 hours ago
@hgfbob the windows are not gone yet on the floors below where the pancaking bellows-action is happening, THAT is why they are blowing out to relieve the rising pressure. Hello? And why don't you read the whole sentence instead of revising it to support your claims, "The sources for these pressure pulses are unknown," [in other words they can't confirm which collapsing floor section caused which puff] "but it seems likely that they resulted from significant structural changes within the tower".
gobo760 19 hours ago
... the report then goes on to give 9 further examples for why these puffs are completely consistent with a progressive collapse. I swear, it's like truthers ignore everything in these reports that contradicts their beliefs and only repeat fragments that they revise and present out of context... but they'll still call that "truth". lol
gobo760 19 hours ago
@gobo760
"I swear, it's like truthers ignore everything"
tell me, HOW does one OFFICIALLY CLAIM, YEARS AFTER investigation that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist", when INVESTIGATION NEVER TESTED to determine.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment or testing to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
hgfbob 16 hours ago
@gobo760
"the windows are not gone yet on the floors below where the pancaking bellows-action is happening'
So tell me Sherlock, if INVESTIGATION did NOT think that was the cause...
WHY DO YOU???
"in other words they can't confirm which collapsing floor section caused which puff"
lol...which "FLOOR"...ROTFLMAO!!!!!
if it was the floors, they would have said so IDIOT....talk about FITTING a quote......lol!
hgfbob 16 hours ago
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB....!
Christopher41791 1 day ago 6
Stupid bitch, whore
marksj43 1 day ago
Or or or the floors came down before the walls
RealGamerSquad 1 day ago
@rudemood2011 idk im not a demolition expert but the 3 buildings that fell that day not one fell in a natrual way. yu cant say say thats normal
007Dirtysouth 1 day ago
was there really a rouge building that no one questions that sat near the world trade center
iamthetruth22 1 day ago
If it was a demolition then explain to me why the collapse started at the impact zones on both towers? Controlled demolitions start from the bottom, whereas the towers started at the impact zone. Explain that one to me?
rudemood2011 2 days ago
@rudemood2011 TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD!!!
MrJACKS0N2010 2 days ago
@rudemood2011 There's more than one method of executing a controlled demo. It's not unheard of to start high up & then blow out floors ahead of the collapse wave. Notice the squibs? It's not a coincidence that the largest squib at WTC 1 (north tower) can be seen where the skylobby was.
mrh785 1 day ago
continued from below. No conspiracy, no squibs. Its extremely apparent when watching the video that this wasnt from internal explosions. Just from using the other clip in the video of the smaller building being demolished, you can see along with the squib marks, the building walls rupture outward, following the internal explosive force. In the WTC collapse, you can clearly see that everything below the chaos retains its shape and this would not have happened if the explosion came from withi
damienomen669 2 days ago
@damienomen669 nano thermite
callumkeohane 1 day ago
Those "squibs" as you call them, were created from the eternal pressure of 30+ floors coming down together at the same time. LIke anything that folows the path of physics (everything in the known universe) it looks for the path of least resistance. The air pressure alone from all those collapsing floors would've been more than enough to flatten person, much less blow out plate glass windows, and thats what you're seeing in this video. Pressure release.
damienomen669 2 days ago
@damienomen669 Exactly. What I can't figure out is how all of these self appointed demolition experts can believe that a squib every 15 or 20 floors is enough to collapse a 110 story building.
xxBIGKING2xx 2 days ago
I have watched the entire 911 Blueprint for truth and heard the official story of why the buildings collapsed and I personally can't believe how the official story still survives. I recommend to anyone to watch the entire video and see what you believe.Thousands of people died that day, if there is even a 1% chance that the story we heard was false, it is our duty as American citizens to look into it.
peinrealm7 2 days ago 4
i explain the squibs in my video "loose change answer number 138"
they were not from explosives but dust and smoke being forced out thu the vents, there is no fire and they are not on every floor like they would be if they were from explosives.
i explain how the towers were destroyed by the planes and that explosives were not possible in my video "how the towers fell"
you have been lied to by the conspiracy theory movement they are making money and my videos prove that.
loosechangeexposed 2 days ago
/watch?v=LgOfYatreqM
hofman011 2 days ago
why is ctcole77 such an ass?
Answer because hes a debunker.
Hey never let the truth stand in the way of debunking eh?
zenoist2 3 days ago
@zenoist2 Is "debunker" code for 100% full of shit?
mrh785 2 days ago
Richard Gage's group A&E truth encompasses about 1/10th of 1 percent of the country's licensed architects and degreed civil engineers. Giving benefit of doubt this still leaves 99% of the industry professionals accepting the NIST report findings. It is unscientific and irrational to reject such a consensus and grasp fringe theory- which since nobody in AE 911 truth has published peer reviewed research papers detailing alternative collapse theories, doesn't even exist. Summary: CT's are nuts.
batvette 3 days ago
@batvette
"99% of the industry professionals accepting the NIST report findings."
99% don't know what the "OFFICIAL" findings are...
why...because they TRUST the right thing was done.
till they start to LOOK and realize what the facts actually are....
hgfbob 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob "99% don't know what the "OFFICIAL" findings are...
why...because they TRUST the right thing was done.
till they start to LOOK and realize what the facts actually are...."
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have heard you say yet! How the hell would you know what they know or don't know??! Or what they 'realize' or what they 'trust'??!! Damn you're getting desperate!!
xxBIGKING2xx 3 days ago
@hgfbob LOL so those 99% are just so callous and disinterested they haven't bothered to look at the report themselves? Why would they even need to, if it is so preposterous for this to have happened as the NIST report concludes, wouldn't they have spotted that right off? Why haven't they all come forward to speak out? 3,000 killed, our country changed forever and only a couple of hundred join AE911 truth with questions? 249,000 others just don't care? SILLY.
batvette 1 day ago
Ya really wanna discuss Oklahoma city?????
skitsy17 4 days ago
WTC 7 DID fall in on itself in classic v shape. It was largely emptied by the time it was "pulled", as Larry said...so much loss today..let's just pull WTC 7...oops did I say that..then it does the do. And of course guiliani and his crew fled WTC 7 just before WTC 2 collapsed. Hey he and the feds in there at command centralTOLD BLDG 2 GONNA Collapse!!-mayor left 2 FALLS.FEMA equipPUT in WTC7 4 bioterrGAME9/12 moved OUT DAY B4! G. SEZ goodPLANmoreROOM! TESTIM NEVER RELEASED 2 US! LOL SAD!
skitsy17 4 days ago
Hey boy,inControlledDemo,bldg is empty of people,explosives set uniformly 4 the bldg toFAll IN AT CENTER IN WELL KNOWN V SHAPE..FALLS ONTO ITS CENTER. 911..2 110 BLDGS got legs amputated below knees, @ time of plane strike..were u there..was.janitor(s), rescue,empees, lying? Physics no apply if squibsSHOWpopflashRANDOM X PLODES NOT PERFECT rolf.powderedOFFICES MELTEDfiretrucks speed of sound v lite? WhoU WORK4. Beyond reason.DOUBTBurden oF proof std is only 4 prosec CRIMINALlaw.SOuKNOWtruth!LOL
skitsy17 4 days ago
Or you know it could just be desks and other stuff being hit and smashing against the side by the floor above it.
Spore0001 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Spore0001
'Or you know it could just be desks and other stuff being hit and smashing against the side by the floor above it.'
stop smoking crack!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@Spore0001 I hope that was sarcasm, and you really don't actually believe that....lol.
AverageJoeNewsBlogg 4 days ago
Could someone please explain to me how the pilots managed to hit their targets on the correct floor level when they were coming in fast and on an angle .
delsaki 4 days ago
too bad the collapse of the towers looks NOTHING at all like the controlled demo at :27.
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette
"towers looks NOTHING at all like the controlled demo"
Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
SYMMETRY denotes CONTROL
hgfbob 4 days ago
where is the Like button??????? anyone????
LikaPyramid 5 days ago
implosionworlddotcom
stayinstock 5 days ago
Frank Greening has a 32 page paper where he supposedly calculated the Potential Energy of the building.
Frank has a little problem on page 3 where he divides the TOTAL MASS of the building by 110. That means he is assuming the same mass on every level. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. he should have divided by 116 because there were 6 basement levels. Don't you think the foundation of a skyscraper is going to have more steel and concrete than the top 6 levels?
don't need a PHD to figure that
hgfbob 5 days ago
Collapse was steered straight down through the path of most resistance. Chaos means a collapse that is not controlled, and once again how do you get a symmetrical collapse with no resistance from chaos? That only happens in 'controlled' demolitions. I offer all you shilly fools the chance to prove me wrong, show me another building that contradicts what I'm saying.
hgfbob 5 days ago
@hgfbob Show me any physical proof that explosives were used.
Controlled demolition doesn't mean the building looks like a giant sparkler.
To understand "least resistance" you have to factor in building frame,outside skeleton of the buildings,damage to internal support structure.Holding your hands up and declaring the building fell thru most resistance doesn't mean it fell thru most resistance,it just means you think it fell thru most resistance.
There was no physical evidence of demo.
stayinstock 5 days ago
@stayinstock The proof is in the video. The conspiracy theorists said it was nano-thermite. Thermite was seen as "pools of lava" (as described in the 9/11 commission report). It was confirmed by independent labs there were thousands of pounds of thermite. Bottom line, we still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11. You can scream and demand all the "proof" you want, but if (I say IF) you're in denial, there is no proof you could possibly accept.
AverageJoeNewsBlogg 5 days ago
@AverageJoeNewsBlogg No.You need physical proof.
The theorist said so? That's your proof?
It was confirmed by a lab that a sample of dust had thermite in it.
The problem is that there is no chain of custody on the sample.That's why Jones sample can't be used,he can't show proof of where it came from.It's against the law to use it.
If what theorist say is true,it shouldn't be so hard to prove.You're talking about 4 buildings. 4!! that's a researchers dream.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'against the law"
ROTFLMAO!!!!
tell ya what bunkie...how does one OFFICIALLY claim YEARS AFTER investigation that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist, when INVESTIGATION NEVER tested to determine that claim?
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment OR testing to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'theorist said so? That's your proof'
you don't even have WTC steel/EVIDENCE to give a DIRECTION for a HYPOTHESIS that the remaining 240 intact vertical support on each towers impact floor failed from the FIRES PRESENT, as the HYPOTHESIZED OFFICIAL STORY claims they did.
nor a peer review from the structural community to back the ASSERTED HYPOTHESIZED claims.
"The NIST reports were peer reviewed by "5" individual subject matter experts CONTRACTED by NIST" NCSTR1A xxxi
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'There was no physical evidence of demo.'
uhm,...it's called symmetry.
symmetry denotes control...Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob WTC Chaotic? that's your proof? more "looks like"?
1 and 2 were chaotic.Ask any demo engineer.There is a reason none of them have said 1 and 2 were demoed. It's not some government agency telling them not to say it.
Find a demolition engineer.A real demo engineer and put him on a video.Not with trick questions and editing to make it seem he's talking about 1 and 2. An honest video with no cuts.
Lets see what it really looks like.
Not armchair investigator looks like.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
"1 and 2 were chaotic"
lol...sorry puts, contradiction does you no good.
n man this is where your common sense should come in. You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical, it's ridiculous to argue they weren't, and it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance. Using this common knowledge it's not hard to conclude that a symmetrical collapse is not possible unless controlled.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob First you have to determine "path of least resistance" there is an outer skeleton the top would tend to follow. Falling down a tube.I can see it in the video.
I can explain many reasons why your path of least resistance is just another scramble to prove conspiracy.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
"least resistance is just another scramble to prove conspiracy.'
oh please DO!!
It is because they are complex structure that they DO NOT collapse into the path of most resistance, not in spite of it. The bigger a building is the more redundancy is built into the system, the scale of the load it can bear is raised along with the buildings size.
Show me another case where a steel framed building collapsed into itself symmetrically and globally without being controlled.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Again "steel frame" is many designs.There is not one all encompassing steel frame.
stayinstock 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
'
Again "steel frame" is many designs"
no a steel frame is the SAME.....load bearing vertical support with non load bearing long span trusses, the STANDARD of steel framed buildings.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
yer just jumping all over aren't ya....lol
hooping to find a glimpse of light......too fuck n bad bunkie!!!
you have NOTHING but the INTIMIDATION of Gov.....but that is slowly changing.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Maybe in your world it is changing.But in the world the public lives in it's gotten worse for the conspiracies.You make a new video,get a few people interested,make some money, and nothing.Everyone just goes back to normal grind.
Most people believe the government is corrupt and so do I.I don't believe the government could get civilians,companies,pilots,contractors..ect to agree to be involved in what took place on 911. Even if they could plan it,no one would go along.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@hgfbob That's like me asking you to show me another 110 story building that collapsed with demo.There aren't any.
Show me another skyscraper with the same structural design as the towers being demoed.
There aren't any.
Why even make that connection?
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
"That's like me asking you to show me another 110 story building'
no...that is just what YOU are going to use as an EXCUSE!
ANY building for any reason throughout history.......there are plenty with an initial damage MORE than what the towers had weith associated fires....how about the Oklahoma City bombing?
lol.....Bunkie, when they DEMO a building they GUT about 35 -40 % of the load bearing capacity SYMMETRICALLY from it's vertical support.
your just not trying
hgfbob 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob "that is just what YOU are going to use as an EXCUSE!'
No.That's how you provide proof of theory.
You don't use a VW in a crash test for a Limousine.
People will and do laugh.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@hgfbob the non "symmetric" portions of the event are masked by the huge clouds of dust and debris. honestly who or what defines symmetry in such an event? gravity deems there is only one direction the debris will travel in, there were sections of the core 40 stories high that stood almost a minute. There were sections of the outer walls hundreds of feet high that toppled outward, peeling away. That's the kind of random destruction CT's say didn't happen BUT IT DID.
batvette 3 days ago
@batvette
"gravity deems "
Gravity, which is the ONLY energy force allowed in the official story, CANNOT pull/push material sideways...it can arc out as it falls, but it CANNOT project with force. gravity is simply not that robust a source. Neither Tower shows any of the expected actions of a collapse, and ALL of the actions of vast energy being expended, not only to shred the Towers, but to cause dustification as well. Gravity cannot act like this.
hgfbob 3 days ago
@hgfbob one word: momentum.
as for building 7 here's your fires: watch?v=8ACqEDx1Al0 see 1:40 on.
batvette 1 day ago
@batvette
'one word: momentum."
The key is the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, since it was ALL converted to MOTION!
a simple fundamental YOU can not change!
hgfbob 23 hours ago
@hgfbob that makes no sense at all. as the collapse initiates with the failure of the outer columns, momentum begins.
batvette 20 hours ago
@batvette
"that makes no sense at all. as the collapse initiates with the failure of the outer columns, momentum begins. "
and NOW you switch topics, since that post of mine was in reference to WTC7 FOOL!!!
there is NO MOMENTUM till the vertical support LET IT happen...and with 240 intact FIREPROOFED support on EACH towers impact floor, and YOU have NO EVIDENCE it was from the FIRES PRESENT as officially claimed...the REASON we are all here.
hgfbob 16 hours ago
@hgfbob if you're talking about the towers it's preposterous to claim the fireproofing was intact. It was insufficient before the planes even hit, numerous inspections done before 2000 attest to that. Areas where it was far too thin, the sprayers couldn't reach, areas where it had peeled off columns in pieces 3 stories high to to improper prep work. Th'en there's the impact of the planes. Claiming 240 columns on each floor had intact FPing is, flat out, a lie, you should know better. WHY LIE?
batvette 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette
"that makes no sense at all.....momentum begins' that is because YOU have NO IDEA what you are talking about...
how about you provide a link to some engineering report of this supposed gravitational collapse that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?
then show HOW localized minimal asymmetrical damage can lead to total global unified collapse.
be the FIRST on your block!
hgfbob 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette
"as for building 7 here's your fires: watch?v=8ACqEDx1Al0"
the SAME pathetic SPOT FIRE that other video SHOWS, went OUT.
"are you saying there are no videos depicting extensive fires in building 7?'
uhmm....yes!
Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall, since it DID fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.
hgfbob 23 hours ago
@batvette
"who or what defines symmetry'
the OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS...how else is a "top crushing block" going to COMPLETELY crush what is below as ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point thus creating asymmetry in the collapse wave either stopping the collapse or sending it off to the side...so.....why don't YOU show me HOW there can be symmetry through a complete collapse if there is resistance in the system.
hgfbob 3 days ago
@stayinstock
'.Find a demolition engineer"
I don't have to "find" anything Bunkie!!!
it is YOU who supports a claim, it is up to YOU to prove it. you know debris falling outside the footprint is not available to crush the building. Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance until it was ejected. Debris from the collapse was ejected in all directions, this is called symmetry which is also not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob See right there is why you conspiracy people can't make it any farther than youtube.
You think everyone has to prove you wrong.
You are making the claim of demolition,it's your burden to prove it.
You do know how the justice system works don't you?
Bunkie!
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'You think everyone has to prove you wrong.'
not me IDIOT...BASIC physics fundamentals!
like the physics anomaly of SOUND traveling FASTER than light ONLY on 9-11,
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob physic Fundamentals?
Faster than light sound?
You got this stuff on notes in your pocket or something?
Do you have any clue what you are saying?
No.It's up to you to prove your claim and as of yet you haven't or you conspiracy people would be arguing in court,not on youtube.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
''Do you have any clue what you are saying?"
lol...more than YOU because YOU are the one stumbling around like a deer in headlights!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob yeah OK.you just go with that.It makes you feel better.
stayinstock 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
"yeah OK.you just go with that.It makes you feel better."
and your doing what EVERY shill asshole does......stall because YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
when are you going to post something that helps your cause instead of personally attacking me????
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
thank you for being my shill bitch today....hope you like it
look over the posts.....see what you actually think is EVIDENCE!!!!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob typical conspiracy theorist.You think you're winning on youtube.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'.You think you're winning on youtube.'
you are the one stumbling around........FOCUS!!!
when are YOU going to PROVIDE EVIDENCE to PROVE ANY one of my posts WRONG?
pathetically contradicting does you no good, except PROVE you have NOTHING!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
"You think everyone has to prove"
In debate and law --the dictum is: THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE.
claims are ALREADY asserted, now PROVE THEM.
investigation found LOW steel temps--where is the EVIDENCE to HYPOTHESIZE HIGH steel temps?
No scientific testing or investigation to back the OFFICIAL ASSERTION that "NO explosives or accelerants were used.
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Prove how high up those bomb sounds were.Did he point a finger?
Get the tape measure out?
Where's your proof?
My proof doesn't include "it came from up there"
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'Get the tape measure out?" then get to it Bunkie!!!
ever sit inb the cheap seats at a ball game, SEE the batter hit the ball abd a couple seconds LATER, hear it......
how does the OPPOSITE occur ONLY on 9-11???
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob It's just more of the same old "looks like" "sounds like"
So if it weren't explosives the sound would be different?
Did the sound travel different and that's why it's explosives?
I'm trying to see the point.
He heard and explosion and saw flames.What about that proves demo?
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'Did the sound travel different and that's why it's explosives?'
no IDIOT!!!...lol
the SOUND occurs BEFORE the actual collapse.....as THEY ALL CLAIM..
so, where else ON EARTH, does this occur, where SOUND travels FASTER than light.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob I'm sure the building was making lots of sounds.
That's not unreasonable for anyone.
The fireman heard all kinds of booming popping and groaning.
It a building under stress.
Why is that hard to believe?
It doesn't take much thought to explain everything with explosives if that's all you can think of.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
"popping and groaning."
lol...like your basement noises......this is a SCIENTIFIC investigation bestowed to NIST by Congress....use big boy terminology to present your FACTS.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Ok it 'sounds like" popping and groaning.
that up to your scientific standards?
stayinstock 4 days ago
@hgfbob You're asserting demo.prove it.
you're asserting sounds heard.Prove where they came from and what they were.
By your own words.
prove it.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'You're asserting demo.prove it"
no asshole shill Bunkie, I am posting WITNESSED events.....deal with it...there are HUNDREDS of these SAME quotes.....
and again, I am asking for the EVIDENCE/PROOF, of a natural unassisted gravitational collapse that is OFFICIALLY ASSERTED.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'you're asserting sounds heard.Prove where they came from and what they were.'
that is what INVESTIGATION should have done with the WITNESSES, but they were IGNORED......why?
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob because the physical evidence is not explosives.
Everyone saw the planes.The building started collapsing at the point of attack.
To everyone but conspiracy people,it was a terrorist act.
You want to investigate? Go ahead.You will never prove your claim and he reason is.It didn't happen.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'Everyone saw the planes."
which INVESTIGATION found caused MINIMAL localized asymmetrical damage to EACH tower...less than 15% leaving 240 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support on each towers impact floor....and NO EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT failed ANY of them.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob And no explosives......
stayinstock 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
'And no explosives......'
something that YOU can not prove...
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
Presenting a CLAIM in a scientific context by using no actual experiment or INVESTIGATION to validate the CLAIM, is called BULLSHIT!
....next..
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'because the physical evidence is not explosives."
you have NO physical evidence...only HYPOTHESIZED evidence they REFUSE to release.
"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16·story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."
secret evidence.....ooooooh!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob you have no physical evidence.
period.
only what ever halfbaked ideas comes from paranoid minds.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'you have no physical evidence.'
;lol..I don't need ANY....but YOU DO!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob And that's why you conspiracy people are forever doomed to make your case on youtube. Where looks like and sounds like is all some people need.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'you conspiracy people are forever doomed"
asking questions do not "doom" anyone.......except the ones who have NO ANSWERS.
and it is YOU that must supply the answers if YOU support OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIZED claims.
why do you ignore this FACT Bunkie?
FIRST came the OFFICIAL CLAIMS
SECOND.....PROVE THEM!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Still waiting on that proof of explosives.
where's it at?
stayinstock 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
'Still waiting on that proof of explosives.'
I did NOT OFFICIALLY claim in a SCIENTIFIC investigation that NONE were used, but YOU support it, so it's UP TO YOU to prove that SCIENTIFIC claim into the investigation of the mass murder of 3000 innocents.
so...POST your PROOF that NONE were used as OFFICIALLY claimed.
In debate and law --the dictum is: THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE.
hgfbob 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
'You are making the claim of demolition,it's your burden to prove it.
You do know how the justice system works don't you?'
yup..that those who assert MUSTY PROVE!
so ALL the OFFICIAL CLAIMS MUST be proved beyond a reasonable doubt......oh....BTW.... ASKING for the PROOF does NOT REQUIRE proof........Bunkie!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@stayinstock Or an armchair apologist like yourself.
AverageJoeNewsBlogg 4 days ago
@stayinstock
,damage to internal support structure"
which investigation found to be MINIMAL!
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
show me another steel framed building that collapsed the way WTC1, 2 and 7 fell without being controlled demolitions.
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob You're just making a general statement of steel frame and hope I have no understanding of the design."Steel frame" doesn't say anything.
If the core columns were weakened from heat,What percentage is that?Don't give me that weak argument about melting steel.Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened.
How many columns were compromised when the top fell onto the next floor?
The buildings weren't designed to be a railroad spike.
stayinstock 4 days ago
@stayinstock
'and hope I have no understanding of the design"
lol...I have done both steel and stick for the past 30 years.....you have NO UNDERSTANDING moron!!!
"If the core columns were weakened from heat'
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
far from failure Bunkie!!!
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong,it's your responsibility to prove you right.
You claim explosives...prove it.
stayinstock 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@stayinstock
"It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong,it's your responsibility to prove you right.
You claim explosives...prove it."
I said "controlled"
as far as evidence of explosive residue, that is YOUR responsibility, since you support an official claim made years after investigation, that none were used, so bunkie.....show the testing that shows this from the scientific investigation.....
hgfbob 5 days ago
Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.
If there was ANY resistance from the vertical support the collapses would not have been symmetrical.
hgfbob 5 days ago
That would be the building buckling and the floor collapsing and the pressure blowing all the debris out the side....
Samsteria 6 days ago
It would be interesting to know how many conspiracy people who use Danny Jowenkos statement as proof of WTC7 demolition. Also use his statements as proof that 1 and 2 were not demolition.They didn't show that in the video,but i'm sure everyone notices what was said.
Curious how that works.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@stayinstock It's not just Danny Jowenkos's statement that proves WTC7 was a controlled demolition. There is TONNES of evidence. Take THIS detailed analysis for example: /watch?v=WiwEGPMxBDI
momotaro2001 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 except the actual collapse started before his video shows.
/watch?v=mb7M0CxOsyI&feature=related
The inside started collapsing first.
That's why I have a problem with conspiracy videos.You see what they want you to see.I watch the videos with the sound turned off.The narration is biased on both sides.
Right off I notice that WTC7 doesn't have the explosions seen in normal demolition.
You normally see a few charges go off at different levels to get the fall started.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 I'm not saying they are wrong,they just skew their videos to extreme,they edit interviews to sway opinions.It makes it look suspicious and it pisses me off that they think no one notices.I noticed in the interview with the Loader in the AE911 video that the loader wouldn't comment on WTC 1 or 2 but they tried to make it sound like he was. That's cheap to me and it damages everyone's effort in the cause. I believe in truth also.The whole truth,not just parts.
stayinstock 6 days ago
How many times do we need to go over this children. Imagine how much weight is falling and think for a moment, is that explosives going of OR IS IT THE PRESSURE FROM MILLIONS OF TONS ON MATERIAL FALLING STRAIGHT DOWN! Go suck my conspiracy laden left nut you morons.
25freakboy 6 days ago
u r right tomo
GARY3471 6 days ago
Because there families have been through a lot.
tomopie50 6 days ago
Stop this conspiracy rubbish. Either way there was a mass loss of life. So just remember who those people were.
tomopie50 6 days ago
@tomopie50 You said: "Either way there was a mass loss of life". Dude, with all due respect, if I had lost relatives in 9/11 I would want more than anything in the world to know the truth of what happened. Period. Emotional sensitivity is no excuse for ignorance.
momotaro2001 6 days ago
Besides we covered the topic of "prove it wrong" many times you retard. It is not up to us to prove the towers were not hermeticalyl sealed. We never made that claim. It is your claim so it is up to you to prove it true not anyone else to prove it wrong. Just because you make a statement does not mean it is a truth that someone has to prove incorrect. You need to prove it correct. Shit you are a fucking moron.
12weasel100 6 days ago
I haven't even met one demolition engineer that say's it's controlled.
They all say "what? No way in hell that's controlled.That is nothing but chaos"
That's not demolition.That's two buildings falling completely apart and being ground up in it's own destruction.
Dust...even explosives don't do that.Only chance physics can guarantee what happened.
No demolition engineer can plan to turn a 110 story building into dust.Or where a plane will hit.
stayinstock 6 days ago
How did the second building collapse? the first one didn't.
13rgn13 6 days ago
/watch?v=9BzUph9HvZk&feature=related
700 tonnes
stayinstock 1 week ago
Ever watch a mining company pulverize rock?
The thermite worshipers are forgetting one small (but very important) fact.How did you make the concrete and beams blow out the windows?
The concrete would require a considerable amount of energy to pulverize,and explosives placed in many holes drilled in the concrete.if indeed that is how you intend to explain all the debris blowing out.
Putting explosives on beams hardly takes care of the concrete.
stayinstock 1 week ago
@stayinstock So what are you saying then? That the pulverised concrete is proof that the buildings fell naturally?
momotaro2001 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 I'm saying that if you want to say explosives did it,and that's why beams were thrown hundreds of yards,and concrete was ejected from windows.There is more problem with that than you think.You're going on what things "look like" without any regard to what it would actually involve.
Claim explosives opens up a whole new problem.
Once the mass started falling,why would you need explosives?There is nothing in the building solid enough to stop the fall.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@stayinstock You say "there is nothing in the building to stop the fall". That simply is not true. The 47-beams of the internal core would have easily prevented, at least the core itself, from a pancake collapse. If there was a naturally occurring pancake collapse it would have only occurred on the outer floor sections, and not the core. And yet the core, a whopping 47-vertical columns that spanned the 110 storeys, is missing. How do you account for the missing core?
momotaro2001 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 There was no missing core.
Look at the photos of the debris.Do you see any signs of demolition.Exploded beams?beams cut with explosives? You see beams cut with torches during search and rescue.
What you see is a big pile of twisted and bent beams.Beams that look like tubes that have reached their distortion limits and gave up all their strength.
The 47 beams of the internal core weren't made to withstand the top 35 floors crashing down on top of it.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@stayinstock A beam that reaches it's distortion limit implies ⓡⓔⓢⓘⓢⓣⓐⓝⓒⓔ, but the speed at which the towers fell has no margin for ANY resistance! It's lunacy to believe that a pancake collapse could bring the ENTIRE building down in just 11 seconds (the same length of time it would take to drop a bowling ball from the same height) when the whole concept of a pancake collapse is defined by resistance. What about Building 7? How do you explain that?
momotaro2001 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 Before they proved the towers collapsed in 11 seconds,the theory was 9 seconds and that was the speed of gravity.Which is it?
A tube beam that has lost it's strength can barely hold itself up.You expect me to believe that this magical resistance is supposed to be noticeable against millions of tons of building crashing down?911truth comes out with some resistance claim and doesn't even know the momentum or mass of the falling top.That's real research.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 Building 7 I haven't even tried to research.It doesn't prove anything about 1 and 2.Only in a theorist mind would the two be looked at together.As far as finding out why they collapsed,7 is irrelevant to 1 and 2.
stayinstock 6 days ago
@stayinstock Well you seem like an intelligent person, and I would recommend you research Building 7 - it IS related to WTCs 1 and 2. It can pretty much be proven that WTC 7 came down with explosives. Like a sudoku puzzle, it follows that if that is true, the explosives would have had to have been set sometime BEFORE the 11th September. So if is TRUE that WTC7 had explosives in it prior to the attacks, by definition, a conspiracy is in play and could also include WTC Buildings 1 and 2.
momotaro2001 6 days ago
@momotaro2001 ""It can pretty much be proven that WTC 7 came down with explosives"" - Really? You would be the first one EVER to prove it if it's true. So, what proof do you have??
xxBIGKING2xx 6 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx wake the fuck up... 5 hours after both towers, some random building a football field away litterally falls on itself. Notice tht the building bends in the middle before collapsing, just like in a controlled demolition. Come on...
MrStoner46 6 days ago
@MrStoner46 "Some random building??" - There was nothing random about it. It was damaged by the collapsing towers just like several other buildings in the complex. Then there was the uncontrolled fires that burned for hours.
It collapsed 'in the middle' because one of 3 main trusses failed causing an interior collapse that happened before you see the building collapse.
And 'looking like' a controlled demo is not proof of anything. My grandmother 'looks like' Margret Thatcher.
xxBIGKING2xx 5 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx Dude... If you're not too stupid, it's all abvious and also, building 7 was only touched by a couple of little fires inside... it had no reason to colapse so brutally ( and also it was reduced to dust by the explosives, the gravity couldn't have done that), while other buildings closer to the towers didn't suffer too much. If find it suspective that this building (7) was a federal complex. Just a funny thought. Anyway, we are living under conspiracy everyday, criminals are leaders.
MrStoner46 5 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx Watch this little video my friend : This 10 minute video will change your life.
MrStoner46 5 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx
"damaged by the collapsing towers"
not according to INVESTIGATION!!! shilly ass
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
"there was the uncontrolled fires"
lol...that WE CAN'T SEE!!!
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
"grandmother 'looks like' Margret Thatcher'
is that why you stay home?
hgfbob 4 days ago
@hgfbob Show me where I used the phrase 'damage caused by the collapse of the towers initiated the collapse of building 7'.. good luck.
You couldn't see them so they couldn't possibly exist? Get over yourself!
Oooo, a snarky comment.. what are you? 7?
xxBIGKING2xx 4 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx
"Show me where I used the phrase 'damage caused by the collapse of the towers initiated the collapse of building 7'.. good luck."
xxBIGKING2xx 1 day ago--"It was damaged by the collapsing towers"
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
you were saying shilly fool....
hgfbob 4 days ago
"What caused the fires in WTC 7?"
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.
ctcole77 3 days ago
@ctcole77
'spread and grew'
too bad there is NO EVIDENCE of this.....you would think in the 7 hours, SOMEONE would have taken a pic of this ..."INFERNO"....video.......SOMETHING!!!
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
gee!... NO FIRE directly below where they measured the global unified descent EQUAL to a bowling ball falling through 'AIR'
[NCSTAR1A 3.4.3]"9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."
hgfbob 3 days ago
@hgfbob
LMAO! I'M RIGHT! YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ NIST'S WTC 7 REPORT
I copied that straight from NIST's WTC 7 website moron!
911 TRUTH = REFUSING TO READ NIST'S WTC 7 REPORT
ctcole77 3 days ago
@ctcole77
"I copied that straight from NIST's WTC 7 website moron'
oh really......I quoted from the found evidence of the NIST WTC 7 report.....
so again....where are the pics of FIRE!!!
hgfbob 3 days ago
@hgfbob
STEP ONE: Google search "WTC 7 NIST"
STEP TWO: Go to NIST Q & A WTC 7
STEP THREE: Get a life and move out of your parents' basement
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob "......I quoted from the found evidence of the NIST WTC 7 report....."
You can use a quote but that is not license to twist "much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows", into "no fires". That's just your way to ignore reality.
xxBIGKING2xx 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxBIGKING2xx
'You can use a quote but that is not license to twist "much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows", into "no fires"."
well shilly putz......then WHAT affected the PERIMETER vertical support the FACADE is attached to where they MEASURED the GLOBAL unified descent when the kink forms at 1.75 seconds INTO the collapse EQUAL to a bowling ball falling through 'AIR'?
since there is NO FIRE to SYMMETRICAL SIMULTANEOUSLY affect them....what did?
hgfbob 1 day ago
@hgfbob Hi, the user known as xxBIGKING2xx is a known shill. He has "flown fucking planes for a living" been a "crash site investigator", "steelworker" & has claimed his dad is in "the FBI".
mrh785 2 days ago
@mrh785 Don't you ever get sick of telling lies? I mean.. if that's all you've got, why bother? You can't win with lies.
xxBIGKING2xx 2 days ago
@mrh785
"the user known as xxBIGKING2xx is a known shill'
I know....thanks....so is.....'loosechangeexposed'
forever attacking the person posting RATHER than TRYING to correct the information contained in the post....that is all they can do, they can not change FACTS.
hgfbob 1 day ago
@hgfbob If only they all made it so easy to spot them as 'loosechangeexposed', 'exposethetwoofercult' & 'thealexjonescult'.
Oh wait, they do.
mrh785 1 day ago
@hgfbob are you saying there are no videos depicting extensive fires in building 7?
batvette 1 day ago
@hgfbob
Have you actually read NIST's report of WTC 7 of do you just copy and paste what Loose Change edition one says?
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 3 days ago
@hgfbob AGAIN... Show me the words "initiated the collapse of building 7" in this statement: "It was damaged by the collapsing towers"
Simple grade school reading comprehension and you failed to get it.
you were saying twooftard whore...
xxBIGKING2xx 3 days ago
@xxBIGKING2xx Hey, tell us all why they're not explosions based on what we see.
I just want to hear you say ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES one more time.
mrh785 2 days ago
@mrh785 Again with the twisting of comments. It's just another lie and that's all you've got.
Go back and read.. oh nevermind.. I forgot.
*'EXPLOSIONS' DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN PLANTED EXPLOSIVES.
*THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT CAN SOUND LIKE A 'BOMB' WITHOUT BEING EXPLOSIVES. or more simply:
*A 'BOOM' DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN 'BOMB'.
Now, can you comprehend any of that? If not, have one of the Nurses explain it to you.
xxBIGKING2xx 2 days ago