There is only so much a person can say when limited to ONE question. Here's some other things Shane wanted to say: youtube.com SLASH playlist?list=PL808F4BA5343736BB
@thedehness love it, You mixed idiot with truther. Shows how smart you really are. Seeking truth make you an idiot, yet accepting lies makes you smart in your eyes. I think you're better off playing Halo kid.
@MsgtSpook Go to rememberbuilding7DOTorg Its a organization made up of family members that lost loved ones on that day along with over 1400 Architects and engineers that say the way building 7 came down was physically imposable.Anyone who knows about this organization or that is just now finding out about it please give this comment a thumbs up to help spread awareness of there existence.
I can't believe people are still arguing over whether or not this is a Controlled Demolition or not. Of fucking course it is! The reason only a few companies in the world are qualified to do CDs is because it takes skill and extensive preparation to do so. Buildings don't just fall that way unless it is planned.
Whoever is responsible for this building collapse has gotten away with it. It hasn't been investigated yet, and it may never be. All they need to do is cover it up until interest fades away. All they need is a cheap computer simulation.
Yea they cut him off because he is fucking stupid. They send in a flower arranger to collect HAZ MAT's? and it was NOT independently verified and if they found this in the dust? where was it so others can go sample it?? what a fucking con job.
This guy, sounds alot like Colin Powell talking to the United Nations saying that Iraq had Anthrax. Shyam Sunder has to know his "analysis" is a load of bunk. But hey, he isn't the first person to be fooled or covering up events in a false flag operation.
I can't wait to see the faces and attitudes of all the nieve assholes out there who try and debunk 911,with no evidence at all,when the truth finally comes to mainstream attention
@KevinMerck A&E are just in this for profit. You should not even be consulting archeticts or engineers any way. Your questions deal with the physics behind what is as far as I can tell the two largest collapses in history. You should be consulting physicists and metallurgists. Engineers can tell you what a steel beam is rated to endure but a metallurgist can tell you far more about what it can actually endure.
@KevinMerck Engineers can tell you what the building's weakest points are but a physicist can tell you not only which ones failed and in what order they failed but where the tattered parts of those areas will likely be sitting in the debris field after the collapse is finnished and every part of the building they made contact with on the way down.
@KevinMerck The real truth is the A&E group knows they are not the people best suited to do what they are doing but they also don't care. Finding the truth is not their goal. Their goal is to make money and they do this by writing books on the subject and using the influence on the truther community they have spent years fostering to get those books sold. They also are hired to attend various conventions in the hopes that their popularity with truthers will envoke a larger turn out.
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon WeekIy
There needs to be a legitimate investigation into this event and that's something even the 911 commission admits we haven't had.
Upon visitation of the site AE9/11 I found out that most of those degrees were from lower performance schools or that they were fabricated. Despite the point however I would like to point out that there is much over a million practicing architects and engineers in the US alone. The ASCE has disproved the conspiracy theory along with various engineering journals, multiple universities, and demolition experts.
I did not attack them in any way. I stated facts that I found when I visited the site. I viewed at least a hundred profiles and many lacked basic engineering or architectural knowledge they will teach at any school. Some of their statement were pure ridiculous. Some didn't even believe planes impacted the twin towers.
My point is that their are millions of practicing architects and engineers in the united states alone and that organizations with more...
... credibility that the AE9/11 Truth have laughed and easily explained the events of the collapse of the three main buildings on September 11th. I would rather trust somebody from Purdue that I would someone from a community college. There is more credibility there. Call me lazy or arrogant or whatever. My main question is where the evidence is? There is none.
Where is the evidence then. It's easy to say there is evidence, but where is it? So your saying the government paid off millions of people? I think ill trust the ASCE over AE9/11Truth...
@phlyegles43 You can trust who you want but in doing so you loose all credibility. See, you are already emotionally invested in the answers and evidence that works for you. You can't be wrong, so you ignore everything that may shatter that image.
You still have not answered my question. Where is the evidence.
I was wrong once, I believed September 11th could have been a controlled demolition. Until I actually looked into and didn't oversimplify the topic. All the truthers simply do is trust a thousand sub-par engineers.
But anyway, wheres the evidence? and dont avoid the question this time...
@phlyegles43 I don't need to answer your question, I'm only reacting to your pompous BS. Lets be real, you don't want Answers to any questions or evidence to anything. You know what you believe and use this tactic to stir something up.
With statements like,
All the truthers simply do is trust a thousand sub-par engineers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your crap coming a mile away. No respect or open mind, just little attacks and a High horse mantality.
If you dont answer my question you are basically saying you don't have an answer. If you believe that September 11th was an inside job shouldnt you have at least a little bit of evidence to secure that belief?
Its the truth those engineers, from what I read on their profiles, lack general architectural and engineering knowledge. On the other hand I have seen scientific journals that clear up every up conspiracy that the truth movement claims.
I dont need help with anything besides how fools like you can believe September 11th was an inside job. You refused to answer my question of evidence because there is none.
Alright, where is the evidences that towers one and two were a controlled demolition. Where is the tons of evidence.
@phlyegles43 fools? now, now, that's the words of an antagonist. Where is your integrity?
I my self wouldn't call you a fool, maybe gullible. I detect a Superiority complex. Fools? Really?
Well you clearly have your mind made up on this subject. So why do you bother going to youtube videos and debating with anyone. Unless you really believe your trying to save people from an opinion that differs from yours. Well I really need to remind you. In America we have a right to different opinions.
@SOSnUSA Sorry, not fools, misinformed... For one, I asked you what evidence or basis you believe the government was behind the attacks. I have asked you multiple times for evidence and you either dismissed the question or failed to mention this evidence. And i'll ask you for a final time before I completely dismiss your credibility and the little respect I have for you?
Where is the evidence the government perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
@phlyegles43 Oh, look who put himself on a high horse, You are soo much better than us aren't you. We've all seen the evidence my friend, I can hardly list it all on youtube. We both know it, WE just believe and have different perspectives, CLEARLY!!!!!!
You have NO credibility what so ever. Your emotionally invested in your view. You call other fools for thinking differently. Your acting like you know 911 inside and out, yet challenge avg people on youtube, lol To show YOU evidence. WHY?!?!
@phlyegles43 Anyone who looks into your activity on youtube can see, you spend a lot of time defending the system. You're clearly too emotionally invested in all this. No one with any credibility or common sense would listen, trust or believe anything you have to say. Some would say you're a quack. I myself just feel sorry for you.
You feel the need to attack other to get your packaged belief expressed. You need to work on your tactic.
In regards to the mention of me saying you believe the attacks were perpetrated by the government. You defended a group who believes that the government were directly involved in the controlled demolition of those buildings. Which could very well mean you yourself believe the government was directly involved.
Call me whatever you want. Emotions do not interfere with in the fields of engineering, aviation, and explosives.
@phlyegles43 Where is the evidence the government perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
See how you put a belief onto me as if it's my own? Asking me for evidence to prove something I'm not claiming?
I simply believe our government is hiding something. Which is already a well known fact, yet you believe everything they tell you and we're the fools for wanting answers.
I post one comment questioning your sources and saying that in general most people are misinformed and somehow you claim im emotionally invested? You're the one who posted three comments in response to mine? Someones a little more invested in this conversation than me. Dont try to make me the victim.
If there are SO MUCH evidence then why have you still failed to mention one piece of evidence.
@phlyegles43 What evidence would you like btw. Clearly you're an Intellectual phenomenon in your own mind. What could you not find on your own. What help DO YOU NEED.
@KevinMerck Yea but that does not actually give it any more merit then it allready had. FBI agents aren't trained to understand this kind of evidence. They are instead trained to gather evidence for more specialized personel to examin. Essentially what they have said is "well it seems like they have a lot here but we don't understand it ourselves so will anyone OK the funding to bring in a team of independant experts to take a look at it?"...
I don't think any sane person *wants* to believe that our government is responsible for orchestrating 9/11, but the fact is that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were controIIed demoIition.
To date there has been no legitimate investigation into the events of 9/11.
This incident has led to the death of miIIions, robbed us of our Constitution, and will determine policy for generations to come.
It seems that my other account is blocked. I tried several days in several ways to respond to your remark. It did not work! Of course, when you are blocked it only looks like I can not answer but of course I can. I will now await the moment this response is removed or my account will be blocked. It is my experience that blocking and removing criticism is a common trademark habit of many truthers. Truthers really don't like criticism.
Oh yes, my true nature to avoid narcissistic know it alls, who share personality traits with klan members, .keep telling yourself, you're the good guy.
That is called an ad hominum. So, back to the facts. Explain the following:
Why is there not a single university in the world - not one! - that confirms that it is utterly impossible to have periods of free fall in a collapsing building? Who confirms that it is impossible that there can be a major structure INTERNAL failure BEFORE, eventually, the outer shell collapses? Why did BYU university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones?
SOSmUSA: Even the Japanese government questions the whole event. But you being a biget I understand why you wouldn't care about that either.
Me: Where is this official statement of the Japanese government? I am indeed unaware of it. References please. So I can read this official statement.
You also claim everyone agrees...
This also is a bold statement. Can you name just one university or engineering bureau that, as you put it so eloquently, agrees 9/11 being a false flag operation.
I am unaware I have misquoted anybody. Tell me were I did so and I will correct myself.
I am unaware I am ignoring any issue. Tell me were I did so and I will answer you.
And I humbly agree that I did not read everything that has been written or claimed about 9/11. I read a lot but not everything. I indeed do not know about any official Japanese governmental statement on the 9/11 issue. Nor can I find it using google. Nor can I find any university or bureau that confirms a false flag operations.
I did find that a Japanese congress member who happen to have such an opinion. Nothing new here. Such individuals do exist in the states too. For instance I am familiar with Jesse Ventura and his outspoken opinion. To equate such individual opinions with official governmental positions is, of course, a misrepresentation. And I really had the feeling that that was suggested here.
"I made myself clear on this issue. I'm not going to play your sad little game"
.
Yes! Indeed you made yourself clear. You made it clear that you accuse without proof. You make it clear that you are unwilling to provide any references for your claims. And that sad little game you are unwilling to play is called backing up your claims with evidence.
And when did I ever misquote anybody? Unless, of course, you consider asking for evidence and references for accusations misquoting.
@BerkeleyBay "Why is there not a single university in the world - not one! - that confirms that it is utterly impossible to have periods of free fall in a collapsing building?"
How about Newton's Laws? Or just the general laws of physics? Do they not have any merit here? It is physically and scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for a collapsing building to undergo freefall acceleration unless there is a deliberate elimination of any structural resistance.
"How about Newton's Laws? Or ... physics? Do they not have any merit here?"
.
Yes they do! But what is your problem? As noticed by some facts just prior to the collapse and as shown by WTC5 it is scientifically convincingly explained that, for a substantial part, the interior had already internally collapsed before the outer walls gave way. As such there was for some period no significant resistance. Hence, the close to freefall acceleration for some time during the collapse.
@rubeeye127 The "East Penthouse" on the top of the building caved in first, you could probably find one by searching those terms. But who says a controlled demolition CAN'T be made to look like a collapse? THIS collapse certainly looked & sounded like a controlled demolition.
@BerkeleyBay Who says what happened to WTC5 is what happened to WTC7? Do you have any evidence for that? It's pretty obvious that WTC5 was destroyed at the time the Twin Towers were destroyed, apparently by falling debris, not by fires.
Look closer at what NIST has done. They have pulled a fast one. Illogical arguments for ruling out evidence. Claiming that it "might jeopardize public safety" to release their simulation data. The reporter was right: they are making bare assertions.
Nothing is concealed. The only thing that is concealed is that the truthers are unable to tell a non-contradictory and consistent story.
Truthers hate to talk about WTC5 because it demolishes their pet theory. They also hate to explain how you synchronize the alleged (nano-)thermite/thermate charges in a damaged burning building. They also hate the fact that not a single clearer has ever reported to have seen any hint of explosives being used. Truthers have no answers.
I have not seen a single question of truthers that has been answered multiple times over.
You claim to live in reality, and I am happy to hear that.
Therefore, can you please give me a realistic scenario why WTC5 was internally collapsed, why no traces of explosives were found by any clearer and give me a realistic model for any kind of explosive that ensures a building collapses at freefall speed.
I mean, realistically, of course. Without generalizations or insults.
The Truth movement should be about Asking questions and demanding answers.
It would be silly of me to think I have the answers, I am not qualified nor arrogant enough to give an answer to your question.
The truth is not for us to provide, But as tax paying Americans, We have the right to ask questions and we should.
False flag attacks are nothing new. In 20 or so years when the truth is declassified, People won't care, Just like the Gulf of Tonkin, We bring it up and we are attacked for it.
First, the Gulf of Tonkin was NOT a false flag attack but an unfortunate mistake that got out of control and had dramatic consequences. For this there are more examples. Like the murder of Franz Ferdinand (Serbia, June, 1914) which led to WWI.
Secondly, the truthers are arrogant enough NOT to listen to reason and logical explanations and scientific proofs. To demand, despite all that, an investigation to satisfy your own paranoia IS arrogant.
The same thing that makes me better than a creationist. Creationists also believe in a global conspiracy, ignore all scientific proof, make unreasonable demands for other proof and only have speculations of their own.
And all of the characteristics as described above is exactly true for truthers. Including the same false argument that evolution is just an opinion as creation,and are of equal value. Creation=truthers, evolution=Islam terror attack.
Well I hate to break it to you, You're not better than anyone. The fact is clear, you have more in common with Racist people than anything else.
You don't show or have respect for people with different beliefs. You are indeed arrogant. Attacking truthers, religious people and anyone else who thinks different than you.
You are a god in your own mind and for that, I feel sorry for you Your perceptive is indeed warped my friend. I feel shame in wasting my time on you. You are misguided.
Questions for all those who are desperately trying to proof or are convinced that WTC7 or any of the other WTC buildings collapsed with freefall speed:
1: How the hell do you synchronize explosives in such a way that a 47 storey building collapses exactly with freefall speed?
2: Why did nobody registrate the characteristic boom-boom-boom demolitian sounds.
3: Why the hell would anybody take the unnecessary trouble to make it fall at freefall speed?
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon WeakIy
Over half the people want a real investigation and why wouIdn't they?
If it wasn't controIIed demoIition, then what's there to conceal???
Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:
"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? If so, take a look at Appendix C of the FEMA report and get back to me. NIST never addressed this, despite attaching it to their report. NIST=FRAUDS.
[part 2]....actually...[part 2 a]...[part 2 b] will follow.
Most of the research was done by various engeneering bureaus contracted by FEMA. All of them arrived at the same conclusion. After which several public sessions were held accepting criticism. Based on this criticism some DETAILS were revised, added, or explained in more detail. These details did not change the general conclusion at all.
Independent of WTC7, the damage of WTC5 is 100% consistent with the findings of WTC7.
That is:
WTC5 was internally collapsed by the subsequent fires as a result of the WTC1 debris hitting WTC5. Mostly only the outer wall of WTC5 remained standing.
In contrast, the outer wall of WTC7 collapsed also of the internal collapse. This, of course, is completely logical and explainable.
You think not? Than explain the destruction by fire alone of WTC5 first!
Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence...
Me:
What do I care what any individual claims or says. It is totally irrelevant for the accusation of foul play. Any accusation demands proof of the accusation. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof must be.
What TANGIBLE proof do you have?...Other than baseless and hearsay insinuations. None!
Please watch David Chandler's videos here on YouTube, especially the exchange between Chandler and Dr. Sunder on free fall acceleration. In that exchange, Dr. Sunder is extremely uncomfortable but refuses to lie. Shortly afterward, NIST acknowledged free fall acceleration.
Once Sunder knows he's been busted by Chandler he stutters and squirms, but REFUSES to lie to a fellow scientist. Dr. Sunder knows his place in the government hierarchy but refuses to lie. An honorable man!
There's now proof beyond a reasonable doubt that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. U.S. Military produced nano-thermite was positively identified in the WTC dust.
This is not an opinion to be debated; this is an undeniable fact to be dealt with.
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns...
WTC7 is the best clue that their was NO inside job and NO explosives were used. Let me explain:
Allegedly explosives were smuggled into WTC1+2 and installed without being seen by any. A great accomplishment indeed! Assuming this was the case then it is peanuts to smuggle out all incriminating evidence, whatever it was, out of WTC7. However, it is claimed that WTC7 was blown up to get rid of some incriminating evidence! Therefore, reductio ad absurdum, WTC7 was not blown up and NIST is correct.
Indeed! But then again it has nothing to tell. Before you start talking about Harrit, I read it all! If you read his analysis carefully you will notice that based on his assumption an estimated 1000 tons of nanothermite was put into WTC1+2. Good job...though totally unrealistic. If you continue reading his findings then you will notice that he assumes nanothermite above any other explanation. His paper is also NOT peer-reviewed.
I am pleased to hear that you, like I, hold science in such a high regard. Therefore I am anxious to hear from you how to place a thousand tons of high explosives in WTC1+2 without anybody noticing anything at all. Mind you, this is not the NIST theory but Harrit's/Jones's theory after Harrit had analyzed the red dust. The NIST report, for that matter, can be totally wrong but you cannot escape Harrit's conclusion.
We need more, REAL research into the findings, Trying to jump ahead and find out how the explosives were put into the building is premature. We need an honest debate over the evidence in order to focus our efforts into further theories and understandings.
The real people looking for truth are stuck between Total shills and total radicals who both believe what they feel comfortable with.
As I said science doesn't lie, But the scientist are human and are known to lie.
I admire your stance, therefore I will predict the following:
Given the conclusive and unrealistic amount of active explosives it seems more than likely that the chemicals found and identified have a different origin than suggested by Harrit.
I too think that his paper was premature and it would, in hindsight, have been wiser and more scientifc had he let his paper being reviewed by his scientific peers.
I don't have the ego needed to predict anything as you have.
I clearly don't share your faith in these "scientific peers" These same people believe in magic bullets and have a history with going along with who ever is in control at the time.
don't have the ego needed to predict anything as you have.
I clearly don't share your faith in these "scientific peers"
My answer:
Judging on your response I fear you did not enjoy an academically scientific education.
And yes! When defending an alledged scientific paper you are morally obliged to show objective integrity by at least providing a realistic hypothesis concerning the assumptions of the paper in question. It has nothing to do with ego or faith.
Sorry this is common sense, Trusting something or someone is faith. The ego I speak of is displayed by your arrogant belief that these scientific peers are 100% honest and would never lie to protect their funding.
I just simply disagree.
btw, you continue to display your ego with you little insults and assumptions. That doesn't impress me.
The ego I speak of is displayed by your arrogant belief that these scientific peers are 100% honest.
Me:
It seems to me that you are unaware of the scientific procedure of peer-review. The idea and purpose of peer-review is to criticize the paper. Admiration is not at all appreciated in a peer-review. Peer-review is done by randomly and dispersed scientists and nobody is excluded exactly because to eradicate and neutralize the natural human bias.
Plenty of scientific theories are ignored. The fact you don't know this is kind of silly. Anyways this conversation is going no where. I really don't want to waste my time with someone trying desperately pick apart my comments to form some argument that doesn't really matter. I understand the procedure of peer review but as I stated before, I don't have much faith in it. This is where we disagree, no need for your petty insults.
A scientific theory is the last stage and the highest form of scientific proof. Before that you have a hypothesis.A hypothesis must be supported by some tentative evidence. The demolition hypothesis was considered. Zero evidence for any demolition damage or demolition wreckage was found. The red dust was considered and tentative explanations were given, among them a common thermic reaction. Just research for it!
You said: I understand the procedure of peer review but as I stated before, I don't have much faith in it. This is where we disagree, no need for your petty insults.
My answer:
Firstly, I am unaware of any intended or unintended insult advocated by me,
Secondly, you say you don't trust the peer review process and yet it has proved to be extremely succesful, Take for instance Steven E Jones's review of cold fusion. The peer review process did triumph here.
wimahlers, you seem to be unaware that NIST's reports are NOT peer-reviewed. They won't let anyone see the computer modeling data, despite numerous FOIAs. I'm sure you will argue 'thousands of scientists and engineers agree with NIST'. Prove it. They can't agree with something they can't peer-review, and that includes the GIGO of the computer modeling.
It's pretty clear that nist's report made a concerted effort not to look into the POSSIBILITY of alternate causes for 3 buildings collapsing from fire on the same day. That shows me that they are not concerned with anything that would deviate from the official story. So, their report, basically, must justify the story in the end.
Shit thermally expands too, and did so quite easily from Dr. Shyam mouth. How did they know precisely which columns failed when there was NO DEBRIS FROM WTC 7 AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO STUDY. There 236 pieces left over from the tons of metal from all 7 buildings yet those left over 3,4,5,6 and 7 were indistinguishable from one another. What a pile of BS.
Thermal expansion is "a new phenomenon", yet the elements that lead to this "new" phenomenon are not. Fire in high rise buildings is not new and neither is their effect on those structures else it would be a recurring phenomenon.
So, to recap, his conclusion implies that this building was then designed to collapse at the onset of normal office fires.
Oh yeah, let me get to reading those 1000 pages right now during the press coference. Let's not forget the molten metal found underneath WTC 7, you can't have molten metal from fire burning office chairs and computers.
By "stupid" people, you mean the hundreds of engineers, architects, physicists that called it a farce and have been calling for a real investigation. Not the BS we were told.
It is not that the structure fell Mr Sundar, but that it was expected to fall, as conclusively shown by videos and witnesses and how it fell. That is to say, 'straight down total collapse'..
Q: Discuss why you did no tests for explosives when its obvious this was a demo
A: Ehhh for this particular question we would rather not answer because it would expose our entire organization as a fraud.We suggest you reread our 10,000 page horrendously long report again and email us your question so we can ignore you and not be exposed on camera.
or
A) Small fires, truss failures, pancaking, piledriving, Thermal expansion, and Godzilla caused the collapse.
The Windsor building in Madrid Spain burned like a giant torch for two days and never fell .yet building 7 had small fires for a few hours and collapsed in on it self my ass . And how come we never hear about building 7 on the news over and over and over again ? .Also the day before 9/11 it was made public that 2.3 trillion dollars of American tax payers money is unaccounted for or lost. coincidence ?
If you don't see all the evidence supporting the conspiracy you HAVE TO BE a total sheep zombie! It's time for people to see what's really going on. They play on our fears to control the population. They divide and conquer (Elections). They have an invisible man in a cave keeping us frightened. They use the media to shove false info down our throats. Time to get mad people!
Fuck this shit...They can lie to me NO MORE!
I hope more peeps get tired of being lied to before it's too late.
911 Truth is a classic question of faith. Trying to turn it into a question of fact is like arguing about religious doctrine. No conceivable facts will persuade a devout Muslim or Jew that it is fine to eat pork. No facts could persuade most of us that the "sport" of dog fighting is clean fun.
Many refuse to believe our government would kill 3000 citizens for political advantage. Others laugh at such faith in a corrupt government.
Remember: hostility STRENGTHENS your opponent's faith!
"They meant to cut his mic." So they hit a LIGHT SWITCH instead?? LMAO. I have to admit, sometimes you guys are pretty entertaining when you take any and every incident and turn it into a conspiracy tactic.
Watch interviews of IRWIN CANTOR about the collapse. Cantor was the engineer of record. His career stems from Silverstein and The Solomans- but he knows he built a great structure that would not have fallen down from fire and debris alone. He talks about weight loads pride of construction and EVEN WENT SO FAR as to send a letter to The History Channel Producers explaining the type beam connections shown in their documantary as non existant in the buildings construction. The man knows the truth
if streaking is really a US infantryman, it wouldn't surprise me unfortunately.
the army is indeed in desperate need of morons that can neither articulate or spell...
unfortunately, he isn't. pretty obvious, frankly. you see, if he was, he wouldn't be so invested into proving it to a bunch of 'little emo bitches'. also, further proof is the use of the term 'little emo bitches' in a sentence.
i think it's a vain attempt to add a shred of legitimacy to an otherwise fictitious argument.
MYSTERY SOLVED!!!!!!!!They accidentally added a "y" to Sham. Notice how Sham looks to the guy on the right when the reporter tells him where he is from. A few moments later same dude starts snapping photos of the infowars reporter. Look out Mr.!!!!You are going to end up like others who have exposed lies, R.I.P.
SOSnUSA, Its clear that you are somekind of shithouse expert on everything, its to bad that you still live in your mothers basement and have no life experience to add to anything here, I bet you prob work in the food court at the mall making popcorn or fries and think of conspiracys all day long, if you had half the ass of your mouth maybe you could get on your little moped and make it all the way to washington, Shanes a dipshit but atleast he tried, all ur good for is a blog!!
I hope you have the common sense to not act like this in public. You will never gain respect from people with such a temper. Relax!, you are judging someone from very, very little information, and you are incorrect on every insult. yet! look how personal YOU are taking all of this. I think it speaks volume about who you are.
Reality is the only word in the english language that should be used in quotes.
The reality of this video is that in the reporters quest to make sure he disrupted what we all know to be a BS explantion of events-the guy in the tan suit in the back of the room leaned against the wall and accidently hit the light switch. That is the reality of the situation. It had NOTHING to do with Alex Jones's reporter-period. I hope that Alex is smart enough to realize this and persue another avenue...
Previous comment directed at you proves how ready,willing and able sheeple are to accept something from an authority figure without even verifying their name!!!and carve it in stone!!The only honest debaters have been brought over to the move
when subpoenas starts to go out on the( reopening into 9-11 hes also going down for scientific fraud
ddragnslyr 2 weeks ago
Truthers are retards
terrymanning1 1 month ago
The whole building collapses at free fall evenly so nobody tests for explosives?
Unbeleivable.
oh a new phenomenona ah it turns out its expansion due to heat.
despite centuries of it being recorded and observed NIST slap a patent on their startling new discovery.
WTC7 collpaed due to heat expansion of course.
Nothing to do with all those explosions everyone heard.
Its so pathetic its untrue but sad people beleive this guff.
zenoist2 3 months ago
i never tested for concrete so there no evidence concrete was used in the buildings
zenoist2 3 months ago
Nist never tested for explosives then came up with no evidence of explosives was found.
then they make a big thing of it on the official report.
hey i never tested for mickey mouse so theres no evidence he was in the buildings.
zenoist2 3 months ago
There is only so much a person can say when limited to ONE question. Here's some other things Shane wanted to say: youtube.com SLASH playlist?list=PL808F4BA5343736BB
SciMethod 7 months ago
Idiot truthers. Conspiracy theories are the refuge of the disempowered.
thedehness 9 months ago
@thedehness love it, You mixed idiot with truther. Shows how smart you really are. Seeking truth make you an idiot, yet accepting lies makes you smart in your eyes. I think you're better off playing Halo kid.
SOSnUSA 9 months ago 9
@thedehness hey moron, people like represent the idiocy of today. You deserve another 911
Seigu007 6 months ago
@thedehness you are going to be disempowwered and out of the whole scene with your stupid comment.
Please vote this idiot down. Just one vote may do it.
we truthers are not idiots. we know we have to fight against an official story with all the formidable resources it can muster.
the plain truth is the official story is wrong though.
there are so many things wrong with its untrue.
Ask a tricky question and not one single debunker replies.
zenoist2 3 months ago
Like explain the free fall acceleration of wtc7?
How does that happen from fire? wheres your previous examples?
there arent any because its impossible.
Where are the previous examples from rubble damage.? there any because its impossible.
We have an apparently impossible thing occurring right before our eyes that no official story can explain. try explosives and itll make sense.
Until then its totally impossible.
zenoist2 3 months ago
Get a life twoofers.
mikeyt34 10 months ago
@mikeyt34
"Get a lift twoofers"
I bet a real moron made up the word "twoofer". It sounds like a word that a moron with no life would use.
JSSTyger 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsgtSpook Go to rememberbuilding7DOTorg Its a organization made up of family members that lost loved ones on that day along with over 1400 Architects and engineers that say the way building 7 came down was physically imposable.Anyone who knows about this organization or that is just now finding out about it please give this comment a thumbs up to help spread awareness of there existence.
Fred7038 11 months ago
I can't believe people are still arguing over whether or not this is a Controlled Demolition or not. Of fucking course it is! The reason only a few companies in the world are qualified to do CDs is because it takes skill and extensive preparation to do so. Buildings don't just fall that way unless it is planned.
niverent 11 months ago
"...it's understandable, it's elegant..."
Because I say so.
smujismuj 1 year ago
watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
S. Shyam Sunder Sc.D ??
Al Qaeda !!!
Galv140577 1 year ago
This guy needs to be jailed for fraud.
He knowingly is lying his head off.
zenoist2 1 year ago
This reporter deserves a lot of credit for standing up to these thugs.
filmerado 1 year ago 2
Whoever is responsible for this building collapse has gotten away with it. It hasn't been investigated yet, and it may never be. All they need to do is cover it up until interest fades away. All they need is a cheap computer simulation.
totoroben 1 year ago
Is it just me or do explosives "thermally expand?"
rubeeye127 1 year ago
Yea they cut him off because he is fucking stupid. They send in a flower arranger to collect HAZ MAT's? and it was NOT independently verified and if they found this in the dust? where was it so others can go sample it?? what a fucking con job.
JLaw012 1 year ago
Heh, I trust NIST. They gave me 'candy'.
s3v3rdl0ck 1 year ago
Simpletons: Why can't you grasp this simple equation:
SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE plus FREE FALL SPEED equals CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. PERIOD.
END OF DISCUSSION.
LazlosPlane 1 year ago
lol at new phenomenom and rare event.
Please remind me not to go in a tall building in a hot country, id hate it to come crashing symmetrically down at free fall speed while I'm in it.
zenoist2 1 year ago
shittemall asunder doesnt answer any awkward questions and sticks to his story like a parrot.
Thre were no explosives! repeat there were no explosives!
the fact we didnt even look for them and independent researchers found explosive residue everywhere is neither here nor there.
zenoist2 1 year ago
Theres another clip with NY fireman pulling people back saying theres a bomb.
Of course NIST didnt look too closely at it.
zenoist2 1 year ago
What makes a building fall at free fall?
Simple question and should be a simple answer.
Its not fire.
zenoist2 1 year ago 2
Sham-I-am ho! ho! Fox News says it was Controlled Demolition - from a first hand witness: jeffrey-scott-shapiro
ynda20 1 year ago
Like he said it's kinda hard to find something your not looking for.
AiresQX4 1 year ago 2
He must be thinking of all the previous examples before and since = zero..
Thermal expansion my arse its ridiculous.
ooh that buildings fell down " its thermal expansion honey"
It has to be any weird thing but explosives
zenoist2 1 year ago 2
The fire idea is sacrosanct and a holy beleif. It had to be that no matter how stupid it sounds.
They are paid by the government.
Explosives are a no no and never even got tested for.
The case was cut and dried before any investigation=.no explosives
zenoist2 1 year ago
This guy, sounds alot like Colin Powell talking to the United Nations saying that Iraq had Anthrax. Shyam Sunder has to know his "analysis" is a load of bunk. But hey, he isn't the first person to be fooled or covering up events in a false flag operation.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
I can't wait to see the faces and attitudes of all the nieve assholes out there who try and debunk 911,with no evidence at all,when the truth finally comes to mainstream attention
alecboi84 2 years ago
Neither FEMA nor NIST performed any tests for explosives!
Any sane person will not have any problem understanding that you can't rule out explosives if you never even tested for them.
Independent investigators had no trouble finding *all kinds* of evidence for explosives and lots of it too.
Check out A&E for 9/11 Truth to get the facts.
KevinMerck 2 years ago 9
@KevinMerck A&E are just in this for profit. You should not even be consulting archeticts or engineers any way. Your questions deal with the physics behind what is as far as I can tell the two largest collapses in history. You should be consulting physicists and metallurgists. Engineers can tell you what a steel beam is rated to endure but a metallurgist can tell you far more about what it can actually endure.
MrAwsome514 2 weeks ago
@KevinMerck Engineers can tell you what the building's weakest points are but a physicist can tell you not only which ones failed and in what order they failed but where the tattered parts of those areas will likely be sitting in the debris field after the collapse is finnished and every part of the building they made contact with on the way down.
MrAwsome514 2 weeks ago
@KevinMerck The real truth is the A&E group knows they are not the people best suited to do what they are doing but they also don't care. Finding the truth is not their goal. Their goal is to make money and they do this by writing books on the subject and using the influence on the truther community they have spent years fostering to get those books sold. They also are hired to attend various conventions in the hopes that their popularity with truthers will envoke a larger turn out.
MrAwsome514 2 weeks ago
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon WeekIy
There needs to be a legitimate investigation into this event and that's something even the 911 commission admits we haven't had.
KevinMerck 2 years ago 18
@KevinMerck
Upon visitation of the site AE9/11 I found out that most of those degrees were from lower performance schools or that they were fabricated. Despite the point however I would like to point out that there is much over a million practicing architects and engineers in the US alone. The ASCE has disproved the conspiracy theory along with various engineering journals, multiple universities, and demolition experts.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 funny how you're not addressing any of the evidence, Just attacking the messengers?
lower performance schools < whats that crap, an opinion, or does everyone have to go to Yale.
Fabricated? did you turn any of them in? Clearly you spent the time researching "each" one.
Most of you debunkers are lazy. Cut, copy, paste so called facts and opinion.
But I'll give you an 7.5 on flare and arrogance.
the 2.5 deduction was only because you started off with. Upon
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
I did not attack them in any way. I stated facts that I found when I visited the site. I viewed at least a hundred profiles and many lacked basic engineering or architectural knowledge they will teach at any school. Some of their statement were pure ridiculous. Some didn't even believe planes impacted the twin towers.
My point is that their are millions of practicing architects and engineers in the united states alone and that organizations with more...
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
... credibility that the AE9/11 Truth have laughed and easily explained the events of the collapse of the three main buildings on September 11th. I would rather trust somebody from Purdue that I would someone from a community college. There is more credibility there. Call me lazy or arrogant or whatever. My main question is where the evidence is? There is none.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 Credibility is bought and paid for these days, you're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
You believe authority is truth, As I believe truth is authority.
If you really think there is no evidence, you're crazy.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
Where is the evidence then. It's easy to say there is evidence, but where is it? So your saying the government paid off millions of people? I think ill trust the ASCE over AE9/11Truth...
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 You can trust who you want but in doing so you loose all credibility. See, you are already emotionally invested in the answers and evidence that works for you. You can't be wrong, so you ignore everything that may shatter that image.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
You still have not answered my question. Where is the evidence.
I was wrong once, I believed September 11th could have been a controlled demolition. Until I actually looked into and didn't oversimplify the topic. All the truthers simply do is trust a thousand sub-par engineers.
But anyway, wheres the evidence? and dont avoid the question this time...
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 I don't need to answer your question, I'm only reacting to your pompous BS. Lets be real, you don't want Answers to any questions or evidence to anything. You know what you believe and use this tactic to stir something up.
With statements like,
All the truthers simply do is trust a thousand sub-par engineers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your crap coming a mile away. No respect or open mind, just little attacks and a High horse mantality.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
If you dont answer my question you are basically saying you don't have an answer. If you believe that September 11th was an inside job shouldnt you have at least a little bit of evidence to secure that belief?
Its the truth those engineers, from what I read on their profiles, lack general architectural and engineering knowledge. On the other hand I have seen scientific journals that clear up every up conspiracy that the truth movement claims.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 There is tons of evidence, what area do you NEED help with?
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
I dont need help with anything besides how fools like you can believe September 11th was an inside job. You refused to answer my question of evidence because there is none.
Alright, where is the evidences that towers one and two were a controlled demolition. Where is the tons of evidence.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 fools? now, now, that's the words of an antagonist. Where is your integrity?
I my self wouldn't call you a fool, maybe gullible. I detect a Superiority complex. Fools? Really?
Well you clearly have your mind made up on this subject. So why do you bother going to youtube videos and debating with anyone. Unless you really believe your trying to save people from an opinion that differs from yours. Well I really need to remind you. In America we have a right to different opinions.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA Sorry, not fools, misinformed... For one, I asked you what evidence or basis you believe the government was behind the attacks. I have asked you multiple times for evidence and you either dismissed the question or failed to mention this evidence. And i'll ask you for a final time before I completely dismiss your credibility and the little respect I have for you?
Where is the evidence the government perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
All else is irrelevant.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 Oh, look who put himself on a high horse, You are soo much better than us aren't you. We've all seen the evidence my friend, I can hardly list it all on youtube. We both know it, WE just believe and have different perspectives, CLEARLY!!!!!!
You have NO credibility what so ever. Your emotionally invested in your view. You call other fools for thinking differently. Your acting like you know 911 inside and out, yet challenge avg people on youtube, lol To show YOU evidence. WHY?!?!
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 Anyone who looks into your activity on youtube can see, you spend a lot of time defending the system. You're clearly too emotionally invested in all this. No one with any credibility or common sense would listen, trust or believe anything you have to say. Some would say you're a quack. I myself just feel sorry for you.
You feel the need to attack other to get your packaged belief expressed. You need to work on your tactic.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
In regards to the mention of me saying you believe the attacks were perpetrated by the government. You defended a group who believes that the government were directly involved in the controlled demolition of those buildings. Which could very well mean you yourself believe the government was directly involved.
Call me whatever you want. Emotions do not interfere with in the fields of engineering, aviation, and explosives.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 Where is the evidence the government perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
See how you put a belief onto me as if it's my own? Asking me for evidence to prove something I'm not claiming?
I simply believe our government is hiding something. Which is already a well known fact, yet you believe everything they tell you and we're the fools for wanting answers.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@SOSnUSA
I post one comment questioning your sources and saying that in general most people are misinformed and somehow you claim im emotionally invested? You're the one who posted three comments in response to mine? Someones a little more invested in this conversation than me. Dont try to make me the victim.
If there are SO MUCH evidence then why have you still failed to mention one piece of evidence.
phlyegles43 1 year ago
@phlyegles43 What evidence would you like btw. Clearly you're an Intellectual phenomenon in your own mind. What could you not find on your own. What help DO YOU NEED.
SOSnUSA 1 year ago
@KevinMerck Yea but that does not actually give it any more merit then it allready had. FBI agents aren't trained to understand this kind of evidence. They are instead trained to gather evidence for more specialized personel to examin. Essentially what they have said is "well it seems like they have a lot here but we don't understand it ourselves so will anyone OK the funding to bring in a team of independant experts to take a look at it?"...
MrAwsome514 2 weeks ago
I don't think any sane person *wants* to believe that our government is responsible for orchestrating 9/11, but the fact is that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were controIIed demoIition.
To date there has been no legitimate investigation into the events of 9/11.
This incident has led to the death of miIIions, robbed us of our Constitution, and will determine policy for generations to come.
We need a real investigation.
Check out A&E for 9/11 truth to learn more.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
KevinMerck: the fact is that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were controIIed demolition.
Me: Since when is this a fact?
What EVIDENCE do you have, that supports this claimed fact?
Facts:
1. WTC1+2 were structurally damaged and on fire.
2. The outer columns bulged inward minutes before WTC1+2 collapsed.
3. WTC1+2 collapsed at the point of impact.
4. No explosives were, heard or measured seconds prior to and during the collapse of WTC1+2.
5. Clearers did NOT find evidence for demolition.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
KevinMerck,
BerkeleyBay is the same account as wimahlers.
It seems that my other account is blocked. I tried several days in several ways to respond to your remark. It did not work! Of course, when you are blocked it only looks like I can not answer but of course I can. I will now await the moment this response is removed or my account will be blocked. It is my experience that blocking and removing criticism is a common trademark habit of many truthers. Truthers really don't like criticism.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
I blocked you because you act like a biget.
You're intolerant of opinions and beliefs that differ from yours and you don't even deny it.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
Thanks for exposing your true nature.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
Oh yes, my true nature to avoid narcissistic know it alls, who share personality traits with klan members, .keep telling yourself, you're the good guy.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
That is called an ad hominum. So, back to the facts. Explain the following:
Why is there not a single university in the world - not one! - that confirms that it is utterly impossible to have periods of free fall in a collapsing building? Who confirms that it is impossible that there can be a major structure INTERNAL failure BEFORE, eventually, the outer shell collapses? Why did BYU university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones?
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
Are you still trying to start these little debates on a youtube video?
Pretty sad kid.
Give it a rest, Everyone that stands up in agreement to 911 being a false flag attack, is discredited base on BS.
Even the Japanese government questions the whole event. But you being a biget I understand why you wouldn't care about that either.
Oh well, back to your game kid.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSmUSA: Even the Japanese government questions the whole event. But you being a biget I understand why you wouldn't care about that either.
Me: Where is this official statement of the Japanese government? I am indeed unaware of it. References please. So I can read this official statement.
You also claim everyone agrees...
This also is a bold statement. Can you name just one university or engineering bureau that, as you put it so eloquently, agrees 9/11 being a false flag operation.
MrAbrahamPais 2 years ago
I think I made myself clear on this issue. I'm not going to play your sad little game.
You ignore what you don't want to deal with , then shift back to the questions, As if you can't do the research yourself.
Give it a rest. btw, stop misquoting people.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
I am unaware I have misquoted anybody. Tell me were I did so and I will correct myself.
I am unaware I am ignoring any issue. Tell me were I did so and I will answer you.
And I humbly agree that I did not read everything that has been written or claimed about 9/11. I read a lot but not everything. I indeed do not know about any official Japanese governmental statement on the 9/11 issue. Nor can I find it using google. Nor can I find any university or bureau that confirms a false flag operations.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
[cont..]
I did find that a Japanese congress member who happen to have such an opinion. Nothing new here. Such individuals do exist in the states too. For instance I am familiar with Jesse Ventura and his outspoken opinion. To equate such individual opinions with official governmental positions is, of course, a misrepresentation. And I really had the feeling that that was suggested here.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
@SOSnUSA,
.
"I made myself clear on this issue. I'm not going to play your sad little game"
.
Yes! Indeed you made yourself clear. You made it clear that you accuse without proof. You make it clear that you are unwilling to provide any references for your claims. And that sad little game you are unwilling to play is called backing up your claims with evidence.
And when did I ever misquote anybody? Unless, of course, you consider asking for evidence and references for accusations misquoting.
BerkeleyBay 1 year ago
@BerkeleyBay "Why is there not a single university in the world - not one! - that confirms that it is utterly impossible to have periods of free fall in a collapsing building?"
How about Newton's Laws? Or just the general laws of physics? Do they not have any merit here? It is physically and scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for a collapsing building to undergo freefall acceleration unless there is a deliberate elimination of any structural resistance.
rubeeye127 1 year ago
@rubeeye127,
.
"How about Newton's Laws? Or ... physics? Do they not have any merit here?"
.
Yes they do! But what is your problem? As noticed by some facts just prior to the collapse and as shown by WTC5 it is scientifically convincingly explained that, for a substantial part, the interior had already internally collapsed before the outer walls gave way. As such there was for some period no significant resistance. Hence, the close to freefall acceleration for some time during the collapse.
BerkeleyBay 1 year ago
@BerkeleyBay Show me one picture or one video that shows any part of the inside of WTC7 collapsing before the rest of the building came down.
rubeeye127 1 year ago
@rubeeye127 The "East Penthouse" on the top of the building caved in first, you could probably find one by searching those terms. But who says a controlled demolition CAN'T be made to look like a collapse? THIS collapse certainly looked & sounded like a controlled demolition.
Galv140577 1 year ago
@BerkeleyBay Who says what happened to WTC5 is what happened to WTC7? Do you have any evidence for that? It's pretty obvious that WTC5 was destroyed at the time the Twin Towers were destroyed, apparently by falling debris, not by fires.
Look closer at what NIST has done. They have pulled a fast one. Illogical arguments for ruling out evidence. Claiming that it "might jeopardize public safety" to release their simulation data. The reporter was right: they are making bare assertions.
SciMethod 1 year ago
KevinMerck,
Nothing is concealed. The only thing that is concealed is that the truthers are unable to tell a non-contradictory and consistent story.
Truthers hate to talk about WTC5 because it demolishes their pet theory. They also hate to explain how you synchronize the alleged (nano-)thermite/thermate charges in a damaged burning building. They also hate the fact that not a single clearer has ever reported to have seen any hint of explosives being used. Truthers have no answers.
wimahlers 2 years ago
Truthers have questions that some just don't want to answer.
Questions to questions.
Insults instead of answers.
Generalizations are easy to make my friend.
They prove nothing but, lack of creativity.
Some people live in reality, Others lick boots and have too much faith in a system that has lied to the American people many, many times.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
I have not seen a single question of truthers that has been answered multiple times over.
You claim to live in reality, and I am happy to hear that.
Therefore, can you please give me a realistic scenario why WTC5 was internally collapsed, why no traces of explosives were found by any clearer and give me a realistic model for any kind of explosive that ensures a building collapses at freefall speed.
I mean, realistically, of course. Without generalizations or insults.
wimahlers 2 years ago
The Truth movement should be about Asking questions and demanding answers.
It would be silly of me to think I have the answers, I am not qualified nor arrogant enough to give an answer to your question.
The truth is not for us to provide, But as tax paying Americans, We have the right to ask questions and we should.
False flag attacks are nothing new. In 20 or so years when the truth is declassified, People won't care, Just like the Gulf of Tonkin, We bring it up and we are attacked for it.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
First, the Gulf of Tonkin was NOT a false flag attack but an unfortunate mistake that got out of control and had dramatic consequences. For this there are more examples. Like the murder of Franz Ferdinand (Serbia, June, 1914) which led to WWI.
Secondly, the truthers are arrogant enough NOT to listen to reason and logical explanations and scientific proofs. To demand, despite all that, an investigation to satisfy your own paranoia IS arrogant.
wimahlers 2 years ago
clearly we just have a difference of opinion.
You come across very arrogant and insulting.
So I don't see how you are any better than the ones you attack.
Maybe you spent too much time on that high horse and your perception is warped.
Either way, I would simply agree to disagree.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
What makes me better?
The same thing that makes me better than a creationist. Creationists also believe in a global conspiracy, ignore all scientific proof, make unreasonable demands for other proof and only have speculations of their own.
And all of the characteristics as described above is exactly true for truthers. Including the same false argument that evolution is just an opinion as creation,and are of equal value. Creation=truthers, evolution=Islam terror attack.
wimahlers 2 years ago
Well I hate to break it to you, You're not better than anyone. The fact is clear, you have more in common with Racist people than anything else.
You don't show or have respect for people with different beliefs. You are indeed arrogant. Attacking truthers, religious people and anyone else who thinks different than you.
You are a god in your own mind and for that, I feel sorry for you Your perceptive is indeed warped my friend. I feel shame in wasting my time on you. You are misguided.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
Questions for all those who are desperately trying to proof or are convinced that WTC7 or any of the other WTC buildings collapsed with freefall speed:
1: How the hell do you synchronize explosives in such a way that a 47 storey building collapses exactly with freefall speed?
2: Why did nobody registrate the characteristic boom-boom-boom demolitian sounds.
3: Why the hell would anybody take the unnecessary trouble to make it fall at freefall speed?
wimahlers 2 years ago
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon WeakIy
Over half the people want a real investigation and why wouIdn't they?
If it wasn't controIIed demoIition, then what's there to conceal???
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Comment removed
wimahlers 2 years ago
Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:
"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? If so, take a look at Appendix C of the FEMA report and get back to me. NIST never addressed this, despite attaching it to their report. NIST=FRAUDS.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[part 2]....actually...[part 2 a]...[part 2 b] will follow.
Most of the research was done by various engeneering bureaus contracted by FEMA. All of them arrived at the same conclusion. After which several public sessions were held accepting criticism. Based on this criticism some DETAILS were revised, added, or explained in more detail. These details did not change the general conclusion at all.
[part 2b] will follow....
wimahlers 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[intermezzo]
Independent of WTC7, the damage of WTC5 is 100% consistent with the findings of WTC7.
That is:
WTC5 was internally collapsed by the subsequent fires as a result of the WTC1 debris hitting WTC5. Mostly only the outer wall of WTC5 remained standing.
In contrast, the outer wall of WTC7 collapsed also of the internal collapse. This, of course, is completely logical and explainable.
You think not? Than explain the destruction by fire alone of WTC5 first!
wimahlers 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[intermezzo]
You said:
Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence...
Me:
What do I care what any individual claims or says. It is totally irrelevant for the accusation of foul play. Any accusation demands proof of the accusation. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof must be.
What TANGIBLE proof do you have?...Other than baseless and hearsay insinuations. None!
Explain WTC5!
wimahlers 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[part 2 b] peer-review.
MIT relation, see:
cee . mit . edu / node / 2672 (remove spaces)
The faculty and staff of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Ask yourself the question:
Is this faculty also into the conspiracy? Or are they just plain stupid over there?
wimahlers 2 years ago
[cont.]
Are they into it at MIT or are they just plain stupid to accept the following:
dspace . mit . edu / bitstream / handle / 1721.1 / 31114 / 61145960.pdf ? sequence=1
(rremove spaces)
Note: deals with WTC1+2 only. Not WTC7.
wimahlers 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[part 2 b] continued...
References that validates the NIST findings or references to articles that validates the NIST findings:
Journal of Structural Engineering.
Fire Safety Journal.
Engineering News Record.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
And of course many, many more.
Ask yourself the question why they all CONFIRM the fire induced collapse and why Jones does not publish his findings in any of these journals!?!
Are they all "into it"? Is that your only excuse?
wimahlers 2 years ago
Sound science my ass!
clint525fuller 2 years ago
New phenomenon my ASS.
joanand13 2 years ago
Please watch David Chandler's videos here on YouTube, especially the exchange between Chandler and Dr. Sunder on free fall acceleration. In that exchange, Dr. Sunder is extremely uncomfortable but refuses to lie. Shortly afterward, NIST acknowledged free fall acceleration.
Once Sunder knows he's been busted by Chandler he stutters and squirms, but REFUSES to lie to a fellow scientist. Dr. Sunder knows his place in the government hierarchy but refuses to lie. An honorable man!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
NIST admits that there was molten steel in the rubble but they did not examine it because it was not necessary for the study, LMAO.
ActaAgere 2 years ago
There's now proof beyond a reasonable doubt that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. U.S. Military produced nano-thermite was positively identified in the WTC dust.
This is not an opinion to be debated; this is an undeniable fact to be dealt with.
Check out Niels Harrit.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
search Kevin McPadden
9/II was an inside job ! ! !
GoForTruth911 2 years ago
It's a lot easier to just debunk NIST with high school physics, to prove an inside job. Also, check out David ray Griffin-omissions and distortions.
"simple, elegant, and technical" LMFAO
bigc028282 2 years ago
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns...
NIST Report!
pcuimac 2 years ago
I better not preheat any more columns before I weld them. It might cause the building to collapse! LOL!!
izzysykopth 2 years ago
WTC7 is the best clue that their was NO inside job and NO explosives were used. Let me explain:
Allegedly explosives were smuggled into WTC1+2 and installed without being seen by any. A great accomplishment indeed! Assuming this was the case then it is peanuts to smuggle out all incriminating evidence, whatever it was, out of WTC7. However, it is claimed that WTC7 was blown up to get rid of some incriminating evidence! Therefore, reductio ad absurdum, WTC7 was not blown up and NIST is correct.
wimahlers 2 years ago
The dust doesn't lie.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said:
The dust doesn't lie
Me:
Indeed! But then again it has nothing to tell. Before you start talking about Harrit, I read it all! If you read his analysis carefully you will notice that based on his assumption an estimated 1000 tons of nanothermite was put into WTC1+2. Good job...though totally unrealistic. If you continue reading his findings then you will notice that he assumes nanothermite above any other explanation. His paper is also NOT peer-reviewed.
wimahlers 2 years ago
The science and evidence doesn't lie. You and your precious NIST just ignore it.
Claiming the dust doesn't contain any evidence is just silly.
But you have the right to your beliefs.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said:
The science and evidence doesn't lie.
My answer:
I am pleased to hear that you, like I, hold science in such a high regard. Therefore I am anxious to hear from you how to place a thousand tons of high explosives in WTC1+2 without anybody noticing anything at all. Mind you, this is not the NIST theory but Harrit's/Jones's theory after Harrit had analyzed the red dust. The NIST report, for that matter, can be totally wrong but you cannot escape Harrit's conclusion.
wimahlers 2 years ago
We need more, REAL research into the findings, Trying to jump ahead and find out how the explosives were put into the building is premature. We need an honest debate over the evidence in order to focus our efforts into further theories and understandings.
The real people looking for truth are stuck between Total shills and total radicals who both believe what they feel comfortable with.
As I said science doesn't lie, But the scientist are human and are known to lie.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnuUSA,
You said:
We need more, REAL research into the findings
My answer:
I admire your stance, therefore I will predict the following:
Given the conclusive and unrealistic amount of active explosives it seems more than likely that the chemicals found and identified have a different origin than suggested by Harrit.
I too think that his paper was premature and it would, in hindsight, have been wiser and more scientifc had he let his paper being reviewed by his scientific peers.
wimahlers 2 years ago
I don't have the ego needed to predict anything as you have.
I clearly don't share your faith in these "scientific peers" These same people believe in magic bullets and have a history with going along with who ever is in control at the time.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
Comment removed
wimahlers 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said:
don't have the ego needed to predict anything as you have.
I clearly don't share your faith in these "scientific peers"
My answer:
Judging on your response I fear you did not enjoy an academically scientific education.
And yes! When defending an alledged scientific paper you are morally obliged to show objective integrity by at least providing a realistic hypothesis concerning the assumptions of the paper in question. It has nothing to do with ego or faith.
wimahlers 2 years ago
Sorry this is common sense, Trusting something or someone is faith. The ego I speak of is displayed by your arrogant belief that these scientific peers are 100% honest and would never lie to protect their funding.
I just simply disagree.
btw, you continue to display your ego with you little insults and assumptions. That doesn't impress me.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said:
The ego I speak of is displayed by your arrogant belief that these scientific peers are 100% honest.
Me:
It seems to me that you are unaware of the scientific procedure of peer-review. The idea and purpose of peer-review is to criticize the paper. Admiration is not at all appreciated in a peer-review. Peer-review is done by randomly and dispersed scientists and nobody is excluded exactly because to eradicate and neutralize the natural human bias.
wimahlers 2 years ago
Plenty of scientific theories are ignored. The fact you don't know this is kind of silly. Anyways this conversation is going no where. I really don't want to waste my time with someone trying desperately pick apart my comments to form some argument that doesn't really matter. I understand the procedure of peer review but as I stated before, I don't have much faith in it. This is where we disagree, no need for your petty insults.
SOSnUSA 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said:
Plenty of scientific theories are ignored.
Me:
A scientific theory is the last stage and the highest form of scientific proof. Before that you have a hypothesis.A hypothesis must be supported by some tentative evidence. The demolition hypothesis was considered. Zero evidence for any demolition damage or demolition wreckage was found. The red dust was considered and tentative explanations were given, among them a common thermic reaction. Just research for it!
wimahlers 2 years ago
They did NOT look into demolition! They just got rid of the evidence as fast as they could. Research that and you find it!
pcuimac 2 years ago
SOSnUSA,
You said: I understand the procedure of peer review but as I stated before, I don't have much faith in it. This is where we disagree, no need for your petty insults.
My answer:
Firstly, I am unaware of any intended or unintended insult advocated by me,
Secondly, you say you don't trust the peer review process and yet it has proved to be extremely succesful, Take for instance Steven E Jones's review of cold fusion. The peer review process did triumph here.
wimahlers 2 years ago
wimahlers, you seem to be unaware that NIST's reports are NOT peer-reviewed. They won't let anyone see the computer modeling data, despite numerous FOIAs. I'm sure you will argue 'thousands of scientists and engineers agree with NIST'. Prove it. They can't agree with something they can't peer-review, and that includes the GIGO of the computer modeling.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
LipsMalloy,
[part 1]
You asked: I'm sure you will argue 'thousands of scientists and engineers agree with NIST'. Prove it.
Me:
Sure! No Problem. Just one word: MIT.
Don't believe me? Contact their engineering department, they will confirm.
[par 2] Addressing peer-review will follow...
wimahlers 2 years ago
Notice how when the reporter says he is from infowars sham looks to the guy with the camera who takes a picture of the reporter?
izzysykopth 2 years ago
I'm so sick of seeing that damn Gorilla in the room and they continue telling me its a damn dog, Does anyone feel the same way?
cjames11 3 years ago
It's pretty clear that nist's report made a concerted effort not to look into the POSSIBILITY of alternate causes for 3 buildings collapsing from fire on the same day. That shows me that they are not concerned with anything that would deviate from the official story. So, their report, basically, must justify the story in the end.
jesusgrc1762 3 years ago
Is not a vertical free fall collapse considered a "robust sign" of controlled demolition?
JSSTyger 3 years ago
N - Not
I - Interested in
S - Science or
T - Technology
ThoughtCrime7 3 years ago 3
good one!
jesusgrc1762 3 years ago
l - laugh
o - out
l - loud
noodle360 3 years ago
Look how nervous they got!
You should be scared NIST Liars and those who paid for this cover-up.
NanoThermite911 3 years ago 2
Shit thermally expands too, and did so quite easily from Dr. Shyam mouth. How did they know precisely which columns failed when there was NO DEBRIS FROM WTC 7 AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO STUDY. There 236 pieces left over from the tons of metal from all 7 buildings yet those left over 3,4,5,6 and 7 were indistinguishable from one another. What a pile of BS.
pitojr 3 years ago
Thermal expansion is "a new phenomenon", yet the elements that lead to this "new" phenomenon are not. Fire in high rise buildings is not new and neither is their effect on those structures else it would be a recurring phenomenon.
So, to recap, his conclusion implies that this building was then designed to collapse at the onset of normal office fires.
I see the logic now.
jesusgrc1762 3 years ago
Oh yeah, let me get to reading those 1000 pages right now during the press coference. Let's not forget the molten metal found underneath WTC 7, you can't have molten metal from fire burning office chairs and computers.
pitojr 3 years ago
"So, to recap, his conclusion implies that this building was then designed to collapse at the onset of normal office fires"
Yes...because it is a "simple, straightforward, elegant explanation that (stupid) people can understand"
JSSTyger 3 years ago
By "stupid" people, you mean the hundreds of engineers, architects, physicists that called it a farce and have been calling for a real investigation. Not the BS we were told.
jesusgrc1762 3 years ago
It is not that the structure fell Mr Sundar, but that it was expected to fall, as conclusively shown by videos and witnesses and how it fell. That is to say, 'straight down total collapse'..
zoskiaist 3 years ago
Q: Discuss why you did no tests for explosives when its obvious this was a demo
A: Ehhh for this particular question we would rather not answer because it would expose our entire organization as a fraud.We suggest you reread our 10,000 page horrendously long report again and email us your question so we can ignore you and not be exposed on camera.
or
A) Small fires, truss failures, pancaking, piledriving, Thermal expansion, and Godzilla caused the collapse.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
And if explosives were used there would have been chemical traces of it.
Weirdo10o4 3 years ago
chemical traces were found in the dust that covered New York.
SOSnUSA 3 years ago
What of jet fuel? I didnt mean all sorts of explosive/chemical and whats your source?
Weirdo10o4 3 years ago
The major part of the fuel was burned off in the first few seconds. The Dust from all over the city doesn't lie.
You should check out.
911scholars
americanscholarssymposium
SOSnUSA 3 years ago
"...based on solid evidence..." LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL
JSSTyger 3 years ago
The Windsor building in Madrid Spain burned like a giant torch for two days and never fell .yet building 7 had small fires for a few hours and collapsed in on it self my ass . And how come we never hear about building 7 on the news over and over and over again ? .Also the day before 9/11 it was made public that 2.3 trillion dollars of American tax payers money is unaccounted for or lost. coincidence ?
dragnbody 3 years ago
If you don't see all the evidence supporting the conspiracy you HAVE TO BE a total sheep zombie! It's time for people to see what's really going on. They play on our fears to control the population. They divide and conquer (Elections). They have an invisible man in a cave keeping us frightened. They use the media to shove false info down our throats. Time to get mad people!
Fuck this shit...They can lie to me NO MORE!
I hope more peeps get tired of being lied to before it's too late.
PeaceIsRad 3 years ago
911 Truth is a classic question of faith. Trying to turn it into a question of fact is like arguing about religious doctrine. No conceivable facts will persuade a devout Muslim or Jew that it is fine to eat pork. No facts could persuade most of us that the "sport" of dog fighting is clean fun.
Many refuse to believe our government would kill 3000 citizens for political advantage. Others laugh at such faith in a corrupt government.
Remember: hostility STRENGTHENS your opponent's faith!
Skeptic121 3 years ago
"They meant to cut his mic." So they hit a LIGHT SWITCH instead?? LMAO. I have to admit, sometimes you guys are pretty entertaining when you take any and every incident and turn it into a conspiracy tactic.
oxomaticman 3 years ago
They meant to cut his mic, was a joke, because clearly they would not of complained if the mic was cut. DUH!!! get a grip kid.
SOSnUSA 3 years ago
Watch interviews of IRWIN CANTOR about the collapse. Cantor was the engineer of record. His career stems from Silverstein and The Solomans- but he knows he built a great structure that would not have fallen down from fire and debris alone. He talks about weight loads pride of construction and EVEN WENT SO FAR as to send a letter to The History Channel Producers explaining the type beam connections shown in their documantary as non existant in the buildings construction. The man knows the truth
LJARSONBECK 3 years ago 2
The NIST report is VERY shaky! There's a lot of strange and unexplained things and many contradictions to their original report on the WTC.
DO NOT BELIEVE THE NIST COVER-UP ON WTC 7!
These are paid liars! A well funded cover-up! Look at them refusing to answer questions then refering him to 1000 pages of reading.
WarCrime911 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
9/11 truthers should be shot dead!
AbuZubaydah 3 years ago
where did u get this nick from u r arab ??
mediaintruder 3 years ago
Shyam Sunder needs to go on trial: that dirt bag. Those a-holes even trid to stop that guy but he kept on talking. Keep up the good work.
Politicalchick99 3 years ago 2
will the cover-ups ever stop? what a joke NIST is....
yernickle 3 years ago 2
yeah tell me about it...those engineers have no idea what they're talking about!!!
InsaneMoronicTruther 3 years ago
if streaking is really a US infantryman, it wouldn't surprise me unfortunately.
the army is indeed in desperate need of morons that can neither articulate or spell...
unfortunately, he isn't. pretty obvious, frankly. you see, if he was, he wouldn't be so invested into proving it to a bunch of 'little emo bitches'. also, further proof is the use of the term 'little emo bitches' in a sentence.
i think it's a vain attempt to add a shred of legitimacy to an otherwise fictitious argument.
roninmediaoutlet 3 years ago
MYSTERY SOLVED!!!!!!!!They accidentally added a "y" to Sham. Notice how Sham looks to the guy on the right when the reporter tells him where he is from. A few moments later same dude starts snapping photos of the infowars reporter. Look out Mr.!!!!You are going to end up like others who have exposed lies, R.I.P.
izzysykopth 3 years ago
if you consider what the new NIST report sums up to be... RARE EVENT and NEW PHENOMENON.
dance around the issue all you want, but thats the official story now.
cdddraffsman 3 years ago
Bush did it and zionist buddies of him, and very few arabs.
cdddraffsman 3 years ago
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
--Sir Winston Churchill
cdddraffsman 3 years ago
SOSnUSA, Its clear that you are somekind of shithouse expert on everything, its to bad that you still live in your mothers basement and have no life experience to add to anything here, I bet you prob work in the food court at the mall making popcorn or fries and think of conspiracys all day long, if you had half the ass of your mouth maybe you could get on your little moped and make it all the way to washington, Shanes a dipshit but atleast he tried, all ur good for is a blog!!
nundeelogan 3 years ago
It's clearly you can't deal with reality.
I hope you have the common sense to not act like this in public. You will never gain respect from people with such a temper. Relax!, you are judging someone from very, very little information, and you are incorrect on every insult. yet! look how personal YOU are taking all of this. I think it speaks volume about who you are.
SOSnUSA 3 years ago
Reality is the only word in the english language that should be used in quotes.
The reality of this video is that in the reporters quest to make sure he disrupted what we all know to be a BS explantion of events-the guy in the tan suit in the back of the room leaned against the wall and accidently hit the light switch. That is the reality of the situation. It had NOTHING to do with Alex Jones's reporter-period. I hope that Alex is smart enough to realize this and persue another avenue...
msneebo 3 years ago
Previous comment directed at you proves how ready,willing and able sheeple are to accept something from an authority figure without even verifying their name!!!and carve it in stone!!The only honest debaters have been brought over to the move