The truth behind the truth. American engineers cant build structures that withstand office fires and your homeland air force is a joke to let hijacked jets fly around for an hour or so . Three buildings collapsed in one day and one of the most protected airspace's .........Ah why bother.
I found this clip very interesting! If you have not seen this clip and are interested in 911 I recommend it. Like it or not either way take care of yourself
The truth is so unbelievable and shocking americans cant register it. Its amazing strategy. I live in NYC I should be more concerned about whitehouse taking me down than al qaeda.
Many Badillo: "I'm not sure how much they (the photos) prove that 9/11 was an inside job." Regarding whether the explosives were inside the buildings he then states, "there's a lot of possibilities"
I wonder if when he talks to fellow truthers if his comments are this vague? I'm guessing not.
Notice also that nothing he said was specific enough to be falsifiable, the hallmark of any entrenched conspiracy theorist. Plenty of wiggle room.
thing is, when I watch the buildings fall, the top collapses down to the impact zone first, then the momentum carries and it collapses from the top down -the windows don't move down as they would if it were a demolition. This is why I don't buy the explosions theory.
@GlynGreen1982-O.K., there are only 3 possibilities that you typed what you did (if) and I repeat (if) you have done A LITTLE research on 9/11, 1 You are a Youtube-TROLL, #2. You are delusional, or #3. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!! Because anyone who has done research on 9/11 knows it was an inside job. Its time to WAKE UP from your "dream" where the government wants to protect you and take care of you. The 9 scariest words ever: I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP.
@BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER Your "research" is just going to sites that CONFIRM your beliefs, that isn't research, that is you being GULLIBLE. There's is no difference between religious nuts and truthers, you look for facts that suit your conclusion instead of looking at the facts and using REASON.
I've seen the "loose change" videos, wikipedia, etc. If I want to kill brain sells or listen to truthers I go to: exopolitics.blogs.com
@BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER For the record, hard to take you serious with an alias like your own. Assuming shit about people is IGNORANT. Even though you clearly are a douche, at least your for Ron Paul. Do this Canadian a favour and register with the Repubs. to vote for Ron Paul... getting him as the Repub. nominate is gonna be harder than beating Obama after all.
@GlynGreen1982-LOOK YOU CANADIAN PIECE OF TRASH....Why don't you stop making an ass clown out of yourself. What the fuck do you know about 9/11 you piece of Canadian Dog Shit. Have you done ANY RESEARCH on 9/11 {let me answer that for you} HELL NO!!! As I said you are a fucking DUMB ASS TROLL!!! I could eat you alive with that facts...but why? (Do you hear that sound?) That is me flushing a piece of shit like you down the stool....now grow a dick and go fuck yourself.....BITCH!!!
@GlynGreen1982 Instead of argue with ignorance! and massage your ego by thinking your somehow winning a debate! Its easy to make claims that be-little people who dis agree with the official story of 9/11! For some ppl its hard for them to accept a reality where their own government would do such a terrible thing! Look for credible evidence! Ask yourself if you can explain exactly wht happened! then use scientific facts about structures and draw a conclusion,search for the truth
@GlynGreen1982 CAn you answer these questions? Who Owned The Buildings? How did WTC 7 fall at freefall speed? What tempreture does steel melt? What Temp does Jet fuel burn at? how long can jet fuel burn for? How Many Steel Columns support the structure? Why is there no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon that clearly shows the event? Why wasn't the WTC site treated like a crime scene and thoroughly investigated? Why did USA attack without a complete investigation?
@GlynGreen1982 Why wern't Fighter jets at least deployed? Why did Mr. Silverstien not go Through his everyday routene on 9/11 which involved a breakfast at the WTC restaurant? Why didn't Mr Silverstien's children go to work at WTC 7 on 9/11? There are many more questions that need to be answered, so before any logical human being can draw a logical conclusion we need to know exactly what happened, because the official story is an insult to intelligence!!
Total inside job, & i'm a reasonable person. But our Government lies about everything what makes this an exception. Look what they say about Ron Paul, The media is doing everything in there power to sway the American public opinion. Lets hope for the sake of our Nation it doesn't work. Americans need to wake up & see how corrupt the media is. See that the real terrorist are in our Government, there "shredding our Constitution"
I present the list updated with more universities and associations of engineering and architecture of the U.S. against the lies of the A&E and the conspiracy of 9/11.
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations(NCSEA),
Structural Engineering Institute(SEI),
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE),
American Institute of Steel Construction Inc,Chicago(AISC),
University of Pennsylvania,University of Maryland,Stanford University,Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE),Worcester Polytechnic Institute,Massachusetts,American Institute of Steel Construction Inc,Chicago(AISC),State University of New York at Buffalo,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay,University of Perdue,American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE),American Institute of Architects(AIA),University of Arizona,University of Colorado,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
I present the list updated with more universities and associations of engineering and architecture of the U.S. against the lies of the A&E and the conspiracy of 9/11.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT),National Council of Structural Engineers Associations(NCSEA),American Council Of Engineering Companies(CASE),Structural Engineering Institute(SEI),Northwestern University,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,University of California,National Academy of Engineering,
ok let assume that wasnt inside job then where s fuckin body of bin laden? do u fuckin believe they dont have an agreement bin laden after so-called throwing him to the ocean? wht a lie! we threw him to the ocean where no one can see.all press says -bin laden got killed worl wide but no photo even despite they caugth him.then why did u give the photos of saddams sons and all other people killed by usa? americans wake up! we dnt wanna get killed by ur next so-called operations of democracy!
@kasim8t3 i read the quran and hadiths and this stuff is clearly satanic. Not that i believe in satan or any of this bullshit, but if satan had wrote a book, it could be the quran and the hadiths show how evil and backwarded this "religion" is.
@Serpico261 care. or dare to Elaborate ?? pick out the stuff that you 'interpret' to be evil.. and mss out allllllll the stuff that teaches being good. respectful. modest. loving. civil. fair.. just.. etc.. etcc
@kasim8t3 This surah allows muslim husbands to beat their wifes if they dont obey. Why do you think women should obey and be beaten if they dont?
4:34 "...the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they OBEY you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
America can do ANYTHING... including toppling skyscrapers, declaring and fighting unjustified wars, fomenting insurrection and revolt in foriegn countries and consistently and unabashedly lying to its' public and citizenry. It's true; America CAN do anything.
It truly scares me how gullible the youth of today are. They'll believe internet bloggers over renowned architects and experts. The WTO's architect himself has said the buildings collapsed as he would have expected. But of course, he's a liar and a murderer isn't he? THINK.
As far as I am aware, the building's architect actually said that the twin towers were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, don't no where you got that idea from. I sure as well wouldn't enter a building that couldn't handle multiple plane impacts, if buildings fell to dust that easily under those circumstances I sure as well wouldn't even go near them. Also, it's funny how in that latest 'transformers' film, a large building gets ripped to shreds (bottom up, inside out) & still stands.
@c23am Earlier this year I watched a documentary where a handful of young people who believed 9/11 was an inside job were taken to the US and introduced to several experts who knew better than the bloggers they had believed so completely. The Pentagon architect was interviewed, the mother of a Flight 93 passenger too. By the end of the programme, few of the group still believed it was an inside job. If you base your opinions on Transformers CGI then you are you naive in the extreme.
@FloatingOnAZephyr Obviously I don't base my opinions on any movie footage, I just found it ironic that the American public is expected to beLIEve that when planes hit steel-column buildings, the buildings collapse at near free-fall speed, & yet the American public are also expected be believe via other media that such buildings do not collapse like that when they are ripped to pieces inside out, down-up (FAR more destructive). BTW I was referring to the architect of the twin towers.
It was a crime scene!!! Why wasn't it treated as one?!! They shipped everything off to China to have all metal melted down...why?!!! Is that the way you treat a crime scene?!!! Wake up!!!!
Majority of the metal is still in an airplane hanger waiting to go in the new 9/11 museum. wow do you truthers spread lies like the good sheep that your puppet masters richard gage and alex jones wish you to be.
and since these steel is stil solid pieces and not melted like you idiots claim. why hasn't ae911 truth tested them for explosive residue after 10 years?
@MrLinkinparkrules yeah, so clear that you cant find any decent evidence to support that theory. ever thought that on this occassion, you have let your mistrust and paranoia of the government mess with your head?
ItWasTyped. com - the truth about conspiracy theories
@MrLinkinparkrules did i say anything about that? you are doing the typical consp.theorist thing of jumping from one thing to the next when challenged.
ItWasTyped. com - a million and one reasons why you are wrong
@MrLinkinparkrules thats the best u can find? LOL. thats really evil!... do u know how much violence there is in the Bible ? is there anything wrong with commanding respect from ur wife? ur religion lets u Drink. and ull end up doing far worse than that when ur drunk.... now i dare u to comment on allll the good it teaches in Islam
@MrLinkinparkrules no there are still inconcistancies for both inside job side and the terrorist attack side until that is cleared up nothing is certin
@MrLinkinparkrules there are some along with total holes in storys the most welll known ones are in relation to the execution and coverup most 9/11 consnuts clearly have no idea how complex and time consuming some of the things like controled demolition preperations are and they cant explain a viable method how it woud be executed and woud avoid notice especialy in a place like the towers, untill i hear something that makes sense and covers all bases its just unconvincing
@MrLinkinparkrules as i said both sides have flaws that dont add up so neither can be confirmed at the moment though one that might help the plane impact theory woud be if the towers were not build up to spec though that theory is not without holes either
In the end there is no certin way to confirm what happened with the information and technology that we have at the moment
@MrLinkinparkrules those claims always come from a 3rd person or cannot be confirmed + a lot of things can sounds similar to explosions indoors not to mention that the "explosion" coud have been from the 2nd airplane hitting the other tower, panic and confusion influence the human mind and noone is immune to that especialy in a situation like that when you dont know what the hell is going on
“if it a universal "law", size wouldnt matter. then again..."
By size I assume you mean mass, and mass DOES matter, silly. The equation is F=GmM/R^2, what do you think big M and little m represent? Go ahead and try one of your scale models. Take the mass of the moon, the mass of the earth, the distances between them, and make a scale model and show that you get the same behavior on the small scale as you do on the large scale lol, if you knew the math you'd already know why it wouldn't work.
That’s why it’s difficult to build large structures. I can’t just take the empire state buildings and scale it up 10,000 times and still have a stable structure. The structural components will not respond to the stresses in the same manner because of the increase in energy. That’s why building taller skyscrapers requires that engineers innovate new solutions to problems. It's funny you don't understand this and claim to be an engineer. This is why you shouldn't have dropped math, silly.
Even in CDs the buildings are not turned into dust by the explosives. The explosives may create some relatively small amounts of dust, but in many cases the majority of the concrete and steel is still intact after the explosions have stopped; columns have been severed, allowing the building to accelerate, and then is crushed by its’ own weight upon impact with the ground.
what? now your an expert in demolitions? so tell me, did wtc7 look like a classic demolition? (classic being the inner structure is weakened from the base up allowing gravity to bring down the remaining 95-98% of the building using its mass)
Kicking out a leg under a chair is not the same as severing a core or perimeter column in a skyscraper. Chairs, trees, cardboard boxes, or any other toys you may use to model collapse mechanics are just as invalid for a collapse model as they are for a controlled demolition model. You couldn’t replicate a CD with a chair, tree, or cardboard box either. They are low energy and cannot implode.
good lord. my point with the chair was not how it "collapsed". my point was that if you have a four legged object/structutre and remove to legs on the same axis, it will fall, regardless of its "engery system". please deny it wouldnt. i beg you. then give me an example where it would. once again, just one.
"ive got an idea. for your thesis, developed a physical, as opposed to a "simulated model" disproving the demolition of the twin towers"
Oh ok, I'll go get some cardboard boxes and paper airplanes and see if I can replicate the events of 9/11. The fact that the paper airplanes probably won't penetrate the cardboard boxes will probably be pretty good evidence that the airliners could not have penetrated the towers. This will prove that all the footage of the planes hitting was faked.
lololololololo youre being a dick now. shall i call you richard?
"Oh ok, I'll go get some cardboard boxes and paper airplanes and see if I can replicate the events of 9/11." - since you a theoretical scientists in the making, draw it up in autocad or solidworks. ive got blueprints if you need help as well as a 15 minute doco of how the towers were built. perhaps youve seen it.
“so the principle of removing/shifting the centre of gravity doesnt apply to my chair anaolgy? damn it! i thought i had you there.”
Your laughable “analogies” are not physically valid. You’re comparing low energy systems to much higher energy systems. It’s kind of like arguing that gravity must be a lie because I can’t get small rocks to orbit around bigger rocks to replicate planetary motion with a “scale model.” You’re very naive.
"You’re comparing low energy systems to much higher energy systems." - your own words right?
a chair made of lead and a chair made of balsa wood will topple without some "mechaincal" force if two legs are removed. a chair weighing 9,000 kilos and a chair weighing 9 kilos will topple without some "mechanical" force. are you suggesting otherwise? if not, clearly state in 1000 words of more why they wouldnt.
"It’s kind of like arguing that gravity must be a lie because I can’t get small rocks to orbit around bigger rocks to replicate planetary motion with a “scale model.”" - dont tell me, its relative to the masses of both bodies? or the gravity has an inverse relationship to the mass...........blah blah blah. if it a universal "law", size wouldnt matter. then again, all youre doing is repeating someone elses work right. have you tested it, or dont you have to?
"since you a theoretical scientists in the making"
Your attempts to trivialize the role of mathematics (the language of physics) in engineering are actually rather pitiful. Engineers study physics and mathematics as these subjects are at the core of most engineering fieldss. It is necessary to acquire competencies in mathematics to understand what you're doing. You just want to believe that it's unimportant because you don't understand any of it, nice try.
my efforts to trivialise mathematics huh? so i guess they dont build scale models of bridge, or scale model of building, or scale modle of planes..................because the "maths" and "physics" behind it doesnt require them? lololololololol
and how many physicist and mathematicians were present when america launched it first rocket? yep, mathematician are always right.................when it comes to theory. see atomic model.
Just because professionals develop scale models does not mean that the model solves all design problems. You cannot use scale models to solve energy problems without mathematical models. You can't scale the behaviors of high energy – high mass systems. Engineers have to CALCULATE energy to predict how high energy systems will behave; those calculations require mathematical models. cont...
i understand mathematics is a useful tool for predicting future events. its ablitilty to accurately calculate ceartain properties etc. afterall, you cant build a cylinder to contain 1 litre of liquids if you have 2 litres of liquid.
...........and how dare you suggest/imply that the planes were fake. two hit the towers, something else hit the pentagon and god knows what landed in shanksville.
" and yet steel and steel reinforced concrete isnt?"
Buildings are not a single homogenous hunk of rigid reinforced concrete; they are structures of interconnected parts, with large volumes of empty interior space, yet are also incomprehensibly massive and contain far more potential energy than a fucking tree and more powerful forces to balance. Your tree comparison is laughably preposterous, give it up.
lolololo, no need to get nasty sweety. so the principle of removing/shifting the centre of gravity doesnt apply to my chair anaolgy? damn it! i thought i had you there.
for the last time, its the principal! trees, or for that matter, NO object/structure that im familiar with could collapse if 90% of its mass is below it. give me just ONE exmample, just ONE.
""implosion" how was it possible for 150,000kgs of steel jetisoned some 100 meters (300 feet)?"
Debri is mechanically ejected outward as the building implodes. The majority of the building was crushed, not ejected. LIke I said before, the collapses were implosions. Even Richard Gage would probably agree that the buildings imploded, he would probably just invoke imaginary nano-thermite hush bombs as the trigger for the implosion.
"debri mechanically ejected"? so the building impodes and mechanically ejects 150,000kg peices of steel horizontally? cant wait to hear what forces acted on them.
ive got an idea. for your thesis, developed a physical, as opposed to a "simulated model" disproving the demolition of the twin towers, that way you could silence conspiracy theorists, scientist, engineers and earn your phd.
"no, I'm saying trees cannot implode because they do not have enough mass, and they are too rigid." - and yet steel and steel reinforced concrete isnt?
“im starting to wonder if youve ever watched a demolition.”
Yes, buildings implode, they don’t “explode,” lol. The towers did not explode; it’s funny that you still think that. The only difference between a demolition and the collapse is the trigger. Explosives are used to trigger implosions in demolition, the implosion of the towers was caused by structural failure due mostly to fire. In neither situation do the buildings themselves “explode,” lol.
how many videos have you seen of the destruction of the twin towers, wtc7 and the pentagon? also, if it was an "implosion" how was it possible for 150,000kgs of steel jetisoned some 100 meters (300 feet)?
"Yes, buildings implode, they don’t “explode,” lol. The towers did not explode; it’s funny that you still think that." - when debri is jetisoned, its called an explosion.
as for being pedantic, i'll assume you 18 trying to impress a college professor.
Engineers wouldn’t have to go to school and learn calculus and physics if they could just stay at home with you and stack boxes like a preschooler to understand collapse mechanics and skyscrapers. It’s clear you want to delude yourself that the rigorous mathematics and physical concepts are trivial; this is usually the dismissive attitude of any remedial algebra student.
"begins to accelerate? with the resistance of the remaining 90%? id like to see your thesis on that one."
When the steel gives out there’s has to be an instantaneous acceleration, toots. When something begins to move, that’s because a force is acting on it (in this case gravity) and that force is not being balanced by an equal and opposite force at that instant, creating a net force F=ma, the quantity “a” is called acceleration. It will accelerated until it is halted.
im starting to wonder if youve ever watched a demolition.
implode: Verb: Collapse or cause to collapse violently inward.
explode: Verb: Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process,...
describe to me in 300 words what you saw as the twin towers "collasped". it will represent 35% of your overall mark.
To topple over to the side a force has to push over to one side. The towers did fall slightly to the side, atleast the south tower did, but most of the motion is downward. To topple to the side you have to have torque, Trees fall to the side because they can't implode, they don't have enough mass to crush themselves. Large buidlings will implode. Even in controlled demolitions they implode, they do not explode...cont
"To topple over to the side a force has to push over to one side." - sorry toots, there was no pushing. no mythical force acted on the towers. if you have a chair and remove a leg, what happens? even better, what happens if you remove 2 legs? its simple, its elegant and you dont need a masters in calculus to know. show me an example, just one where what you state occurs. just one.
"sorry toots, there was no pushing. no mythical force acted on the towers."
Right, that's what I'm saying, there is no mythical force acting on the towers to topple it over to one side, LOL. I hope that answers your dumb question when you asked "why it doesn't topple over to one side?" Now there might be a slight tilt since the structural failure is localized, and gravity will generate a torque, but the bulk of the acceleration is directly downward.
"To topple to the side you have to have torque" - and here i thought all you needed was gravity and a centre of gravity off centre.
"Trees fall to the side because they can't implode, they don't have enough mass to crush themselves" - can i quote you on that? are you saying that iron and iron can but paper and paper cant?
From gravity, if the steel can no longer hold the load the structure begins to accelerate under gravity. Even the slightest motion gives rise to an enormous momentum as potential energy is converted to kinetic, which all depends on the amount of mass. This is why you can't model systems like this with cardboard boxes and trees, you don't have enough mass and energy, in the "scale model."
"one plane hit between the 80th and 90th floor, most of the mass (roughly 90%) was below it."
This does not matter, once the upper portion wieghing hundreds-of-thousands of tons starts accelerating it becomes a dynamic load the potential energy is converted to kinetic, the momentum is enormous. It will crush the rest of the builidng, or atleast most of it. It probably wouldn't have happened if the buildings hadn't been so massive.
lololololo@ "it does not matter" - the top portion was not dropped onto the lower portion. so where did the acceleration come from? and why didnt it topple to one side instead symmetrically and vertically? show me another exmaple of this in nature. just one.
i beg you, build me a model that shows all your maths and physics and replicate it. i beg you.
BTW, the function is in x,y,z form, it wouldn't let me send it written in proper form, but I think it's pretty obvious what the function is. So let's see your "mechanical engineering" skills. My guess is that anyone that thinks that cardboard or trees can be used to model collapse mechanics of a skyscrapers probably doesn't know his calculus, or is just deluded by his conspiracy occult religion like the assholes that claim that planes didn't even strike the towers.
"deluded by his conspiracy occult religion like the assholes that claim that planes didn't even strike the towers." - i guess you clearly saw the 747 hitting the pentagon right? can you tell me how many windows were on that particular plane? what about its ID?
cont...Plus, I'm pretty sure assange has made it clear that he does not believe in any of the laughably preposterous government conspiracies that the 9/11 "truth" cult has been trying to shove down our throats for the last decade. So any info that "he's maintained that he would release if something happened to him," probably isn't going to support the "inside job" fairytale.
5:23 - hahaa this 'truther' knows he's actually made a point against himself -' there has never been any planes flying into any buildings EVER'... and then he realises how dumb he is to try and talk about how a building normally falls down or how it should have fallen down. exactly you dont know how it should because it's never happened before... god all fucking mighty. even julian assange the master of truth is annoyed by this shit.
actually, the empire state builsing was hit by a plan in the 30's if im not mistaken. it left a small impact hole, i think 3 people were killed and the building still stood.
as for building collapses, there are several videos on youtube showing what happens when demolitions go wrong as well as hundreds of when things go right. to suggest the twin towers as well as wtc7 werent demolished, is ludicrous.
@johnnytheprick so it's ludicrous because you think the towers should have either stayed standing with all that smokeand stuff coming out from where the plane hit it or that it should have fallen down but not straight down like a demolition but kind of leaning over one side like a human would fall down?
"like a human falling down"? - not quiet sweety. a human body is not rigid. if you said a power pole, then yes. so tell me, have you ever seen a power pole collapse after its been 9/10ths of the way up? also, theres a reason loggers cut trees from the bottom.
as for "smoke and stuff", you said it. lots of smoke.
@johnnytheprick exactly sweety poo the human body isn't rigid and therefore it doesnt fall down like a buildingwhich is straight down. which is what you saw the first time a plane hit a building (911). you actually compare a tree to the largest sky scrapers ever. you're fucking stupid stop patronising me with your ridiculous non arguments. you quoted me but didnt actually say anything. i want actual arguments please. btw are you a engineer of any sort? what do you do?
lololololololo.....youre kidding right? buildings fall vertically and at free fall speed?
so tell me, where was most of the mass when both towers "collasped"? although plausible, wtc7 at least had most of its mass above impact point. wait a minute, it wasnt hit by a plane.
as for comparing trees to large sky scrapers, the principle is the same. trees dont get chopped from the top for a reason.
"as for comparing trees to large sky scrapers, the principle is the same."
No it isn't dummy, you cannot model the collapse of a skyscrapper by observing a tree fall, LOL. The fact that you think the "principle is the same" just shows the stupidity of the average 9/11 "truth" cult follower. Trees do not contain as much mass as skyscrapers, trees therefore cannot implode like skyscrapers; even if you used explosives, trees don't implode, LOL, funny how dumb truthers are.
The buildings imploded, they did not "explode." The overwhelming majority of the building was crushed by it's own weight and turned to dust.
"engineers build scale models."
You cannot model collapse mechanics of skyscrapers with scale models made out of cardboard
"free fall speeds"
Free fall acceleration, doctor. Free fall is not a speed, it's a change in velocity through time with units in meters per second SQUARED. Speeds are given in meters per second.
lololololo......i guess seeing is believing. they "imploded" huh?
re "under its own weight": for goodness sake, one plane hit between the 80th and 90th floor, most of the mass (roughly 90%) was below it.
re: "You cannot model collapse mechanics of skyscrapers with scale models made out of cardboard": other than building an exact replica, you are correct. then again, you would argue it wasnt hit with the same velocity or that the ambient air temp was cooler.............
if you placed a 2 kilo sphere of solid pure iron into a vacuum and dropped it from a height of roughly 1200 feet, what would its speed be from 90% of impact point, 80% of impact.....................all the way to impact point?
ive studied software engineering, electronic engineering and am currently studying mechanical engineering.
as for actual arguments, id rather stick to irrefultable science, namely, nothing can fall a free fall speeds when resitance is present, this includes air.
@johnnytheprick but what's your degree? nothing can fall at free speeds. so just describe what you think after the planes hit the towers what physically should have happened to the towers.
@johnnytheprick dont give me a generic 'i stand corrected'. you said something. i repeated it in agreement. no need to mention the impossibility of a vacuum smartass. so you think after 2 planes flew into the towers and all that smoke and burning took place at the top floor. and when i say all that smoke i mean enough black smoke to fill the entire vision of the sky above it. after all that you just expect them to keep standing for how long?
youd have to speak to the engineers on that one. afterall, and i quote: "it was desgined to withstand the impact of a 707, in fact it could withstand multiple impacts." (see my notes on the 1930 plane crash into the empire state building.
btw, are you aware that in 1993, a bomb went off in the basement of one of the towers? it blew a 60 foot hole through 3 floors. it was in the basement.
"ive studied software engineering, electronic engineering and am currently studying mechanical engineering."
lol, and you think cardboard boxes and trees can model skyscrapers? LOL, ok, give me the acceleration vector function of the giving position function,
yes cardboard boxes and trees can model the principles and you dont need an acceleration vector function (whatever that is) to demonstrate it. and sweety, just because i dont know what it means or how to use it, doesnt mean that the phenomenon doesnt exist. afterall, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"yes cardboard boxes and trees can model the principles "
LOL, no they can't. There isn't enough energy in low mass systems to model higher energy systems.
"you dont need an acceleration vector function (whatever that is) to demonstrate it."
You need to know calculus to study mechanical engineering like you claimed. That's an elementary problem found in any college calculus text book, acceleration is just a second derivative, not difficult, sweety.
"no they can't. There isn't enough energy in low mass systems to model higher energy systems." - relativity springs to mind.
"You need to know calculus to study mechanical engineering like you claimed" - no you dont. i dropped out of maths because i didnt want to become the likes of you, meaning, id rather build and show than to think and argue.
can you use a mig, tig, arc welders? ever used a lathe? ever wonder why you dont need cooling when using a tungsten tip?
yeah, I can tell you did. If you don't know calc, you're not studying mech. eng.
By the way to solve the problem you gave you really don't need to know the mass or the type of substance. It will have the same acceleration and velocity regardless. It's an elementary kinematics problem you just just solve the system v=gt and h=1200-.5gt^2 for t at the indicated heights and plug the obtained values of t into the velocity function and your done.
like i said, i dropped out cos i cant stand it. it wasnt a prerequisite subject, so i chose 3d modelling using solidworks instead. my other subjects in 3d autocad, welding technology, lathe and milling operations, pneumatics and hydraulics, material science and of course OH&S <----------- something youd enjoy given your predisposition for theory.
"h=1200-.5gt^2 " - so you worked out how fast the building collapsed? cool, what number did you come up with?
are you suggesting that in order to be heard, one needs to know calculus, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the 19th law of falling mass in aqueous resolutions? mathematics is used to model observed phenomena, not the other way around.
Most mechanical engineers have to take calculus. I'm not an engineer, my major is physics and math, but most of the students in my classes are engineers. You have to know calculus to study engineering. Most students in those majors study calc and differential equations within their first two years. Not knowing math and claiming to be an engineer makes you suspicious, especially after claiming that trees and cardboard can model the collapse mechanics of skyscrapers.
as i previously pointed out, i withdrew from maths because i cant stand the subject, i wouldve failed, and knowing how to solve quadratic equations bores the hell out of me. what i do know how to do is weld using mig, tig and arc, i know the operating temps are around 6,000c (as hot as the surface of the sun), i know how to use a lathe and milling machines, as well as setup pneumatic and hydraulics systems. i build things through trial an error.
if i fail my course because i dont know how to find x given pt^h/9.9 then so be it. some would argue that maths and physics are important elements of engineering. all you do is regurgitate what your professors say. have you ever questioned scientific "laws" or is the fact that they are "laws" unquestionable? change comes from opposition, not comformity. apparently, einstien was wrong, there is something faster than light.
"So let's see your "mechanical engineering" skills." - id love build you an exact replica of the twin towers if i had the resources in a foreign land because no doubt the american govt wouldnt allow such an experiment to be done on home soil. id build you a scale model, but as you pointed, that wouldnt be enough due to some mass blah blah law.
the wright brothers didnt need to be scientists to work out how to fly.
since you have alot of time on your hands, try reconstructing a simple model using cardboard boxes and some wire. if you can demonstrate a total collapse of the boxes from top down, you will have been the first person in history to do so. for that, i would like you autograph and a singed copy of you first book. btw, what would you call it?
"but what's your degree? nothing can fall at free speeds."
He doesn't have a degree in anything, he's likely making up his "mechanical engineering" experience. There is no such thing as free fall speed, there's only free fall acceleration which is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 on earth. The buildings did not necessarily collapse with this acceleration. They collapsed with less than this acceleration except for a roughly 2 second interval measured on WTC7.
lol, here we go again, more RT promotion of conspiracy occult propaganda. The reality (the real truth) is that wikileaks has not released any documents that prove or suggest the "inside job" delusion pushed by the 9/11 "truth" cult. The buildings were not "demolished," XD, lol.
wait til the do. assange has always maintained that he has info in the event that something were to happen to him.
also, do me a favour and try and reconstruct, what you call a "collapse" and post it on youtube. cant wait to see your result. carboard boxes held together with wire will suffice.
"...try and reconstruct, what you call a "collapse" and post it on youtube. cant wait to see your result. carboard boxes held together with wire will suffice."
LOL, right, except cardboard boxes held together with wire WILL NOT suffice in modeling the collapse of sky scrapers hit airliners.
"...he has info in the event"
An info he does have would not confirm the conspiracy occult "inside job" delusion because 9/11 was not an "inside job."
I'm sick of all this talk. Everyone should want another investigation. Even the debunkers. If they believe what the government said is true, another investigation would only support their arguments. Although, I highly doubt thats what another investigation would uncover.
The truth behind the truth. American engineers cant build structures that withstand office fires and your homeland air force is a joke to let hijacked jets fly around for an hour or so . Three buildings collapsed in one day and one of the most protected airspace's .........Ah why bother.
Wake up . Like sheep's off to slaughter.
joecanukk 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=bmmQ6OWMHTI&list=FLtthuPVyyjjhhbr7r_R3t1g&index=9&feature=plpp_video
I found this clip very interesting! If you have not seen this clip and are interested in 911 I recommend it. Like it or not either way take care of yourself
TruthWithinRange 6 days ago
just a simple question : if the official story is true, why then the pentagon building which is way smaller , didn't come down in the same manner
why we have footage of the twin towers only but not of the other incidents which took place the same day
dumitrual 1 week ago
The truth is so unbelievable and shocking americans cant register it. Its amazing strategy. I live in NYC I should be more concerned about whitehouse taking me down than al qaeda.
jad1025 2 weeks ago
Not US GOV.. The UN and NATO that run coroprations. By the elite families.
adam3176 2 weeks ago
RT is just the Russian version of Fox News, it's utter bullshit.
asubjectiveopinion 2 weeks ago
Is she stupid or something?
they should replace her, i mean what would they want from bombing the world trade center?
isn't it obvious....seriously..
Imoutosoft 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one word answer for everything "JEWS"
1968sizzler 3 weeks ago
i think 9/11 was an inside job.
lenthokchom 3 weeks ago
Hi everyone, Why argue about 9/11, cause end of the day even a donkey knows that 9/11 was a inside job, case closed, very simple.....
americaisevil1 1 month ago 8
@americaisevil1 one word answer for everything "JEWS"
1968sizzler 3 weeks ago
@americaisevil1 GOOD STATEMENT I AGREE YOUR THE MAN..........
samlexco 1 week ago
Anyone who still doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job hasn't seen the evidence yet. Here's a link to some of it.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144746
Anyone who looks at the evidence and still says it wasn't an inside job should watch this video. /watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
Cosmored 1 month ago
The emptiness of these comments are interesting.
Many Badillo: "I'm not sure how much they (the photos) prove that 9/11 was an inside job." Regarding whether the explosives were inside the buildings he then states, "there's a lot of possibilities"
I wonder if when he talks to fellow truthers if his comments are this vague? I'm guessing not.
Notice also that nothing he said was specific enough to be falsifiable, the hallmark of any entrenched conspiracy theorist. Plenty of wiggle room.
HellRehab 2 months ago
pls google "AA911truth"
new good site
HailAtheism 2 months ago
RON PAUL voters Check out FUTUREZONE channel
Support Dr. 'Sir' RON PAUL 2012
Welfarism: Give Jack a fish and he wont go hungry today
Freedom: Teach Jack to fish, he will never go hungry!
*RON PAUL vs WRONG POLL* AMERICA vs MEDIA
FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT SPREAD RON'S 'WHAT IF' AND 'IMAGINE' SPEECH ON IPAD,IPOD
Please vote on vids and comments, Your opinion matters!
Write on bills : IN RON WE TRUST ! END THE FED OR FEED THE END
Click like for ♥ RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
thing is, when I watch the buildings fall, the top collapses down to the impact zone first, then the momentum carries and it collapses from the top down -the windows don't move down as they would if it were a demolition. This is why I don't buy the explosions theory.
tneighbors 2 months ago
Exploding buildings? Turning to dust? Fantasy bullshit
Spindry96 2 months ago
NO NO NO, it was the LIZARD men from Nibiru!!!!
I saw them do it!
/That is how crazy you people sound... research only proves your delusion.
GlynGreen1982 2 months ago
@GlynGreen1982-O.K., there are only 3 possibilities that you typed what you did (if) and I repeat (if) you have done A LITTLE research on 9/11, 1 You are a Youtube-TROLL, #2. You are delusional, or #3. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!! Because anyone who has done research on 9/11 knows it was an inside job. Its time to WAKE UP from your "dream" where the government wants to protect you and take care of you. The 9 scariest words ever: I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP.
-R.Regan
BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER 2 months ago
@BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER Your "research" is just going to sites that CONFIRM your beliefs, that isn't research, that is you being GULLIBLE. There's is no difference between religious nuts and truthers, you look for facts that suit your conclusion instead of looking at the facts and using REASON.
I've seen the "loose change" videos, wikipedia, etc. If I want to kill brain sells or listen to truthers I go to: exopolitics.blogs.com
GlynGreen1982 2 months ago
@BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER For the record, hard to take you serious with an alias like your own. Assuming shit about people is IGNORANT. Even though you clearly are a douche, at least your for Ron Paul. Do this Canadian a favour and register with the Repubs. to vote for Ron Paul... getting him as the Repub. nominate is gonna be harder than beating Obama after all.
GlynGreen1982 2 months ago
@GlynGreen1982-LOOK YOU CANADIAN PIECE OF TRASH....Why don't you stop making an ass clown out of yourself. What the fuck do you know about 9/11 you piece of Canadian Dog Shit. Have you done ANY RESEARCH on 9/11 {let me answer that for you} HELL NO!!! As I said you are a fucking DUMB ASS TROLL!!! I could eat you alive with that facts...but why? (Do you hear that sound?) That is me flushing a piece of shit like you down the stool....now grow a dick and go fuck yourself.....BITCH!!!
BLACKPUSSYPUNISHER 2 months ago
@GlynGreen1982 Instead of argue with ignorance! and massage your ego by thinking your somehow winning a debate! Its easy to make claims that be-little people who dis agree with the official story of 9/11! For some ppl its hard for them to accept a reality where their own government would do such a terrible thing! Look for credible evidence! Ask yourself if you can explain exactly wht happened! then use scientific facts about structures and draw a conclusion,search for the truth
kevin21122 1 month ago
@GlynGreen1982 CAn you answer these questions? Who Owned The Buildings? How did WTC 7 fall at freefall speed? What tempreture does steel melt? What Temp does Jet fuel burn at? how long can jet fuel burn for? How Many Steel Columns support the structure? Why is there no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon that clearly shows the event? Why wasn't the WTC site treated like a crime scene and thoroughly investigated? Why did USA attack without a complete investigation?
kevin21122 1 month ago
@GlynGreen1982 Why wern't Fighter jets at least deployed? Why did Mr. Silverstien not go Through his everyday routene on 9/11 which involved a breakfast at the WTC restaurant? Why didn't Mr Silverstien's children go to work at WTC 7 on 9/11? There are many more questions that need to be answered, so before any logical human being can draw a logical conclusion we need to know exactly what happened, because the official story is an insult to intelligence!!
kevin21122 1 month ago
Total inside job, & i'm a reasonable person. But our Government lies about everything what makes this an exception. Look what they say about Ron Paul, The media is doing everything in there power to sway the American public opinion. Lets hope for the sake of our Nation it doesn't work. Americans need to wake up & see how corrupt the media is. See that the real terrorist are in our Government, there "shredding our Constitution"
JimmerGstring 2 months ago
"What we see..."
To bad thats not what we hear.
grandmastershek 2 months ago
Totally was inside job, anyone with a half a Brian can see it clearly...
P14YCR 2 months ago
umm... the hole was actually 90ft wide, which is the same as the wingspan of a Boeing 757
see for yourselves: itwastyped. com /?p=493
problem, truthers?
culturebully3 2 months ago
University of Perdue,
University of Arizona,
University of Colorado,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
University of Akron,
aczjbr 2 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
University of California,
National Academy of Engineering,
University of Pennsylvania,
University of Maryland,
Stanford University,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute,Massachusetts,
State University of New York at Buffalo,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
aczjbr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Americam Institute of Steel Construction.. (AISC)
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Society for Fire Protection Engineering. (SFPE)
Department of Design and Construction (DDC) in NY.
Institute of Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)
American Council Of Engineering Companies(ACEC),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT),
Northwestern University
aczjbr 2 months ago
I present the list updated with more universities and associations of engineering and architecture of the U.S. against the lies of the A&E and the conspiracy of 9/11.
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations(NCSEA),
Structural Engineering Institute(SEI),
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE),
American Institute of Steel Construction Inc,Chicago(AISC),
American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE),
American Institute of Architects(AIA)
aczjbr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
University of Pennsylvania,University of Maryland,Stanford University,Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE),Worcester Polytechnic Institute,Massachusetts,American Institute of Steel Construction Inc,Chicago(AISC),State University of New York at Buffalo,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay,University of Perdue,American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE),American Institute of Architects(AIA),University of Arizona,University of Colorado,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
aczjbr 2 months ago
I present the list updated with more universities and associations of engineering and architecture of the U.S. against the lies of the A&E and the conspiracy of 9/11.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT),National Council of Structural Engineers Associations(NCSEA),American Council Of Engineering Companies(CASE),Structural Engineering Institute(SEI),Northwestern University,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,University of California,National Academy of Engineering,
aczjbr 2 months ago
ok let assume that wasnt inside job then where s fuckin body of bin laden? do u fuckin believe they dont have an agreement bin laden after so-called throwing him to the ocean? wht a lie! we threw him to the ocean where no one can see.all press says -bin laden got killed worl wide but no photo even despite they caugth him.then why did u give the photos of saddams sons and all other people killed by usa? americans wake up! we dnt wanna get killed by ur next so-called operations of democracy!
esraretin 3 months ago
the collapse of building 7 proves it was an inside job, no severely damaging debris could have hit building 7.
Zeldagigafan90210 3 months ago
Islam is TRUTH
kasim8t3 3 months ago
@kasim8t3 Islam can go to hell, where it came from
Serpico261 2 months ago
@Serpico261 so can ur mum
kasim8t3 2 months ago
@kasim8t3 i read the quran and hadiths and this stuff is clearly satanic. Not that i believe in satan or any of this bullshit, but if satan had wrote a book, it could be the quran and the hadiths show how evil and backwarded this "religion" is.
Serpico261 2 months ago
@Serpico261 care. or dare to Elaborate ?? pick out the stuff that you 'interpret' to be evil.. and mss out allllllll the stuff that teaches being good. respectful. modest. loving. civil. fair.. just.. etc.. etcc
kasim8t3 2 months ago
@kasim8t3 This surah allows muslim husbands to beat their wifes if they dont obey. Why do you think women should obey and be beaten if they dont?
4:34 "...the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they OBEY you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
why can a non perfect human write a better verse?
Serpico261 2 months ago
America can do ANYTHING... including toppling skyscrapers, declaring and fighting unjustified wars, fomenting insurrection and revolt in foriegn countries and consistently and unabashedly lying to its' public and citizenry. It's true; America CAN do anything.
BigBlue0002 3 months ago
It truly scares me how gullible the youth of today are. They'll believe internet bloggers over renowned architects and experts. The WTO's architect himself has said the buildings collapsed as he would have expected. But of course, he's a liar and a murderer isn't he? THINK.
FloatingOnAZephyr 3 months ago
As far as I am aware, the building's architect actually said that the twin towers were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, don't no where you got that idea from. I sure as well wouldn't enter a building that couldn't handle multiple plane impacts, if buildings fell to dust that easily under those circumstances I sure as well wouldn't even go near them. Also, it's funny how in that latest 'transformers' film, a large building gets ripped to shreds (bottom up, inside out) & still stands.
c23am 3 months ago
@c23am Earlier this year I watched a documentary where a handful of young people who believed 9/11 was an inside job were taken to the US and introduced to several experts who knew better than the bloggers they had believed so completely. The Pentagon architect was interviewed, the mother of a Flight 93 passenger too. By the end of the programme, few of the group still believed it was an inside job. If you base your opinions on Transformers CGI then you are you naive in the extreme.
FloatingOnAZephyr 3 months ago
@FloatingOnAZephyr Obviously I don't base my opinions on any movie footage, I just found it ironic that the American public is expected to beLIEve that when planes hit steel-column buildings, the buildings collapse at near free-fall speed, & yet the American public are also expected be believe via other media that such buildings do not collapse like that when they are ripped to pieces inside out, down-up (FAR more destructive). BTW I was referring to the architect of the twin towers.
c23am 3 months ago
It was a crime scene!!! Why wasn't it treated as one?!! They shipped everything off to China to have all metal melted down...why?!!! Is that the way you treat a crime scene?!!! Wake up!!!!
VIKING33NY 3 months ago
@VIKING33NY And unless the USA can pay its bill there they may send it back again in the form of nuke missiles.
dozer3955 2 months ago
911 was an inside job! We have a terrorist government and a criminal media that lies to AMERICA. Our enemies are within!!!!!!!!!!!!
rchemp1111 3 months ago 42
@rchemp1111 isn't that the story with all "acts of terrorism"
Zeldagigafan90210 3 months ago
@rchemp1111 Stop listening to muslim propaganda!!
Northern85Star 1 month ago
911 was an inside job! We have a terrorist government and a criminal media that lies to AMERICA.
rchemp1111 3 months ago
:all youre doing is repeating someone elses work right. have you tested it, or dont you have to?”"
Tested what? Gravity? lol, no I've never seen any evidence for this, how about you?
"good lord. my point with the chair was not how it "collapsed""
Right, chairs topple over when they collapse, they don't implode, sweety.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties 9/11 was an inside job, clear as day.
MrLinkinparkrules 3 months ago 36
@MrLinkinparkrules You know it!!! It was a crime scene!! We sent the metal to China to have it melted down?
VIKING33NY 3 months ago
@VIKING33NY
Majority of the metal is still in an airplane hanger waiting to go in the new 9/11 museum. wow do you truthers spread lies like the good sheep that your puppet masters richard gage and alex jones wish you to be.
and since these steel is stil solid pieces and not melted like you idiots claim. why hasn't ae911 truth tested them for explosive residue after 10 years?
taledarkside 3 months ago
@VIKING33NY Dont worry dude, what comes around goes around.
MrLinkinparkrules 3 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules
Yeah, except it wasn't an inside job.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties Jip bombs jst went off for fun I guess.
MrLinkinparkrules 3 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules yeah, so clear that you cant find any decent evidence to support that theory. ever thought that on this occassion, you have let your mistrust and paranoia of the government mess with your head?
ItWasTyped. com - the truth about conspiracy theories
culturebully3 2 months ago
@culturebully3 Nope, jst not stupid, did you find th weapons off mass distruction yet?
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules did i say anything about that? you are doing the typical consp.theorist thing of jumping from one thing to the next when challenged.
ItWasTyped. com - a million and one reasons why you are wrong
culturebully3 2 months ago
@culturebully3 O thats cul............... and life carries on.
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules thats the best u can find? LOL. thats really evil!... do u know how much violence there is in the Bible ? is there anything wrong with commanding respect from ur wife? ur religion lets u Drink. and ull end up doing far worse than that when ur drunk.... now i dare u to comment on allll the good it teaches in Islam
kasim8t3 2 months ago
@kasim8t3 What are u talking about? Im not Islam.
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules no there are still inconcistancies for both inside job side and the terrorist attack side until that is cleared up nothing is certin
cropathfinder 2 months ago
@cropathfinder What are the inconcistancies for inside job?
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules there are some along with total holes in storys the most welll known ones are in relation to the execution and coverup most 9/11 consnuts clearly have no idea how complex and time consuming some of the things like controled demolition preperations are and they cant explain a viable method how it woud be executed and woud avoid notice especialy in a place like the towers, untill i hear something that makes sense and covers all bases its just unconvincing
cropathfinder 2 months ago
@cropathfinder Oky, so how do think the towers fell?
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules as i said both sides have flaws that dont add up so neither can be confirmed at the moment though one that might help the plane impact theory woud be if the towers were not build up to spec though that theory is not without holes either
In the end there is no certin way to confirm what happened with the information and technology that we have at the moment
cropathfinder 2 months ago
@cropathfinder Oky... What about th firemen reporting bombs?... People that were silenced?...
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
@MrLinkinparkrules those claims always come from a 3rd person or cannot be confirmed + a lot of things can sounds similar to explosions indoors not to mention that the "explosion" coud have been from the 2nd airplane hitting the other tower, panic and confusion influence the human mind and noone is immune to that especialy in a situation like that when you dont know what the hell is going on
cropathfinder 2 months ago
@cropathfinder Oky I respect ur opinion... but Im sticking with mine dude...
MrLinkinparkrules 2 months ago
“if it a universal "law", size wouldnt matter. then again..."
By size I assume you mean mass, and mass DOES matter, silly. The equation is F=GmM/R^2, what do you think big M and little m represent? Go ahead and try one of your scale models. Take the mass of the moon, the mass of the earth, the distances between them, and make a scale model and show that you get the same behavior on the small scale as you do on the large scale lol, if you knew the math you'd already know why it wouldn't work.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
That’s why it’s difficult to build large structures. I can’t just take the empire state buildings and scale it up 10,000 times and still have a stable structure. The structural components will not respond to the stresses in the same manner because of the increase in energy. That’s why building taller skyscrapers requires that engineers innovate new solutions to problems. It's funny you don't understand this and claim to be an engineer. This is why you shouldn't have dropped math, silly.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
Even in CDs the buildings are not turned into dust by the explosives. The explosives may create some relatively small amounts of dust, but in many cases the majority of the concrete and steel is still intact after the explosions have stopped; columns have been severed, allowing the building to accelerate, and then is crushed by its’ own weight upon impact with the ground.
watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
what? now your an expert in demolitions? so tell me, did wtc7 look like a classic demolition? (classic being the inner structure is weakened from the base up allowing gravity to bring down the remaining 95-98% of the building using its mass)
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
Kicking out a leg under a chair is not the same as severing a core or perimeter column in a skyscraper. Chairs, trees, cardboard boxes, or any other toys you may use to model collapse mechanics are just as invalid for a collapse model as they are for a controlled demolition model. You couldn’t replicate a CD with a chair, tree, or cardboard box either. They are low energy and cannot implode.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
good lord. my point with the chair was not how it "collapsed". my point was that if you have a four legged object/structutre and remove to legs on the same axis, it will fall, regardless of its "engery system". please deny it wouldnt. i beg you. then give me an example where it would. once again, just one.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"ive got an idea. for your thesis, developed a physical, as opposed to a "simulated model" disproving the demolition of the twin towers"
Oh ok, I'll go get some cardboard boxes and paper airplanes and see if I can replicate the events of 9/11. The fact that the paper airplanes probably won't penetrate the cardboard boxes will probably be pretty good evidence that the airliners could not have penetrated the towers. This will prove that all the footage of the planes hitting was faked.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
lololololololo youre being a dick now. shall i call you richard?
"Oh ok, I'll go get some cardboard boxes and paper airplanes and see if I can replicate the events of 9/11." - since you a theoretical scientists in the making, draw it up in autocad or solidworks. ive got blueprints if you need help as well as a 15 minute doco of how the towers were built. perhaps youve seen it.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
“so the principle of removing/shifting the centre of gravity doesnt apply to my chair anaolgy? damn it! i thought i had you there.”
Your laughable “analogies” are not physically valid. You’re comparing low energy systems to much higher energy systems. It’s kind of like arguing that gravity must be a lie because I can’t get small rocks to orbit around bigger rocks to replicate planetary motion with a “scale model.” You’re very naive.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"You’re comparing low energy systems to much higher energy systems." - your own words right?
a chair made of lead and a chair made of balsa wood will topple without some "mechaincal" force if two legs are removed. a chair weighing 9,000 kilos and a chair weighing 9 kilos will topple without some "mechanical" force. are you suggesting otherwise? if not, clearly state in 1000 words of more why they wouldnt.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"It’s kind of like arguing that gravity must be a lie because I can’t get small rocks to orbit around bigger rocks to replicate planetary motion with a “scale model.”" - dont tell me, its relative to the masses of both bodies? or the gravity has an inverse relationship to the mass...........blah blah blah. if it a universal "law", size wouldnt matter. then again, all youre doing is repeating someone elses work right. have you tested it, or dont you have to?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"since you a theoretical scientists in the making"
Your attempts to trivialize the role of mathematics (the language of physics) in engineering are actually rather pitiful. Engineers study physics and mathematics as these subjects are at the core of most engineering fieldss. It is necessary to acquire competencies in mathematics to understand what you're doing. You just want to believe that it's unimportant because you don't understand any of it, nice try.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
my efforts to trivialise mathematics huh? so i guess they dont build scale models of bridge, or scale model of building, or scale modle of planes..................because the "maths" and "physics" behind it doesnt require them? lololololololol
and how many physicist and mathematicians were present when america launched it first rocket? yep, mathematician are always right.................when it comes to theory. see atomic model.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
Just because professionals develop scale models does not mean that the model solves all design problems. You cannot use scale models to solve energy problems without mathematical models. You can't scale the behaviors of high energy – high mass systems. Engineers have to CALCULATE energy to predict how high energy systems will behave; those calculations require mathematical models. cont...
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
i understand mathematics is a useful tool for predicting future events. its ablitilty to accurately calculate ceartain properties etc. afterall, you cant build a cylinder to contain 1 litre of liquids if you have 2 litres of liquid.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
...........and how dare you suggest/imply that the planes were fake. two hit the towers, something else hit the pentagon and god knows what landed in shanksville.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
" and yet steel and steel reinforced concrete isnt?"
Buildings are not a single homogenous hunk of rigid reinforced concrete; they are structures of interconnected parts, with large volumes of empty interior space, yet are also incomprehensibly massive and contain far more potential energy than a fucking tree and more powerful forces to balance. Your tree comparison is laughably preposterous, give it up.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
lolololo, no need to get nasty sweety. so the principle of removing/shifting the centre of gravity doesnt apply to my chair anaolgy? damn it! i thought i had you there.
for the last time, its the principal! trees, or for that matter, NO object/structure that im familiar with could collapse if 90% of its mass is below it. give me just ONE exmample, just ONE.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
The pentagon was not an implosion.
""implosion" how was it possible for 150,000kgs of steel jetisoned some 100 meters (300 feet)?"
Debri is mechanically ejected outward as the building implodes. The majority of the building was crushed, not ejected. LIke I said before, the collapses were implosions. Even Richard Gage would probably agree that the buildings imploded, he would probably just invoke imaginary nano-thermite hush bombs as the trigger for the implosion.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
how much footage have you actually seen?
"debri mechanically ejected"? so the building impodes and mechanically ejects 150,000kg peices of steel horizontally? cant wait to hear what forces acted on them.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"can i quote you on that? are you saying that iron and iron can but paper and paper cant?"
lol, no, I'm saying trees cannot implode because they do not have enough mass, and they are too rigid.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
ive got an idea. for your thesis, developed a physical, as opposed to a "simulated model" disproving the demolition of the twin towers, that way you could silence conspiracy theorists, scientist, engineers and earn your phd.
"no, I'm saying trees cannot implode because they do not have enough mass, and they are too rigid." - and yet steel and steel reinforced concrete isnt?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
“im starting to wonder if youve ever watched a demolition.”
Yes, buildings implode, they don’t “explode,” lol. The towers did not explode; it’s funny that you still think that. The only difference between a demolition and the collapse is the trigger. Explosives are used to trigger implosions in demolition, the implosion of the towers was caused by structural failure due mostly to fire. In neither situation do the buildings themselves “explode,” lol.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
im still waiting for examples that illustrate your premise.................... i guess we'll have to wait until the next orchestrated demolition huh?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
how many videos have you seen of the destruction of the twin towers, wtc7 and the pentagon? also, if it was an "implosion" how was it possible for 150,000kgs of steel jetisoned some 100 meters (300 feet)?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndividualParties
"Yes, buildings implode, they don’t “explode,” lol. The towers did not explode; it’s funny that you still think that." - when debri is jetisoned, its called an explosion.
as for being pedantic, i'll assume you 18 trying to impress a college professor.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
Engineers wouldn’t have to go to school and learn calculus and physics if they could just stay at home with you and stack boxes like a preschooler to understand collapse mechanics and skyscrapers. It’s clear you want to delude yourself that the rigorous mathematics and physical concepts are trivial; this is usually the dismissive attitude of any remedial algebra student.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
oh please, of all the engineers that have completed degrees, how many innovate? sheeeeeeeeesh. copy paste, copy paste.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"begins to accelerate? with the resistance of the remaining 90%? id like to see your thesis on that one."
When the steel gives out there’s has to be an instantaneous acceleration, toots. When something begins to move, that’s because a force is acting on it (in this case gravity) and that force is not being balanced by an equal and opposite force at that instant, creating a net force F=ma, the quantity “a” is called acceleration. It will accelerated until it is halted.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
...Explosions are simply used to knock out support structures to start the implosion.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
im starting to wonder if youve ever watched a demolition.
implode: Verb: Collapse or cause to collapse violently inward.
explode: Verb: Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process,...
describe to me in 300 words what you saw as the twin towers "collasped". it will represent 35% of your overall mark.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"and why didnt it topple to one side "
To topple over to the side a force has to push over to one side. The towers did fall slightly to the side, atleast the south tower did, but most of the motion is downward. To topple to the side you have to have torque, Trees fall to the side because they can't implode, they don't have enough mass to crush themselves. Large buidlings will implode. Even in controlled demolitions they implode, they do not explode...cont
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"To topple over to the side a force has to push over to one side." - sorry toots, there was no pushing. no mythical force acted on the towers. if you have a chair and remove a leg, what happens? even better, what happens if you remove 2 legs? its simple, its elegant and you dont need a masters in calculus to know. show me an example, just one where what you state occurs. just one.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"sorry toots, there was no pushing. no mythical force acted on the towers."
Right, that's what I'm saying, there is no mythical force acting on the towers to topple it over to one side, LOL. I hope that answers your dumb question when you asked "why it doesn't topple over to one side?" Now there might be a slight tilt since the structural failure is localized, and gravity will generate a torque, but the bulk of the acceleration is directly downward.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
and yet my simple chair analogy is dimissed?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"To topple to the side you have to have torque" - and here i thought all you needed was gravity and a centre of gravity off centre.
"Trees fall to the side because they can't implode, they don't have enough mass to crush themselves" - can i quote you on that? are you saying that iron and iron can but paper and paper cant?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"so where did the acceleration come from?"
From gravity, if the steel can no longer hold the load the structure begins to accelerate under gravity. Even the slightest motion gives rise to an enormous momentum as potential energy is converted to kinetic, which all depends on the amount of mass. This is why you can't model systems like this with cardboard boxes and trees, you don't have enough mass and energy, in the "scale model."
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
begins to accelerate? with the resistance of the remaining 90%? id like to see your thesis on that one.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
"you're done" actually.
"one plane hit between the 80th and 90th floor, most of the mass (roughly 90%) was below it."
This does not matter, once the upper portion wieghing hundreds-of-thousands of tons starts accelerating it becomes a dynamic load the potential energy is converted to kinetic, the momentum is enormous. It will crush the rest of the builidng, or atleast most of it. It probably wouldn't have happened if the buildings hadn't been so massive.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
lololololo@ "it does not matter" - the top portion was not dropped onto the lower portion. so where did the acceleration come from? and why didnt it topple to one side instead symmetrically and vertically? show me another exmaple of this in nature. just one.
i beg you, build me a model that shows all your maths and physics and replicate it. i beg you.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
you: "johnny, the 13th law of falling properties states that it is not possible to accelerate an object past its PNR!"
me: "show me the calculations and what formula are you using?"
you: "yht=np/e*9.5 (56.ui) /[erx2.92]"
me: "wow, thats impressive. what does it mean?"
you: "good lord. its the theoretcical value of G"
me: "while you were crunching numbers and recycling 200 year old maths and scientific laws, i managed to build one."
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
conintued............
you: "lmao. i doubt it johnny, its impossible."
me: "but look, i did, i really did!"
you: "sorry johnny, i like you but the maths and science says its impossible. i have to go."
me: "thats what they told the wright brothers arsehole."
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
BTW, the function is in x,y,z form, it wouldn't let me send it written in proper form, but I think it's pretty obvious what the function is. So let's see your "mechanical engineering" skills. My guess is that anyone that thinks that cardboard or trees can be used to model collapse mechanics of a skyscrapers probably doesn't know his calculus, or is just deluded by his conspiracy occult religion like the assholes that claim that planes didn't even strike the towers.
-_-
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"deluded by his conspiracy occult religion like the assholes that claim that planes didn't even strike the towers." - i guess you clearly saw the 747 hitting the pentagon right? can you tell me how many windows were on that particular plane? what about its ID?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
cont...Plus, I'm pretty sure assange has made it clear that he does not believe in any of the laughably preposterous government conspiracies that the 9/11 "truth" cult has been trying to shove down our throats for the last decade. So any info that "he's maintained that he would release if something happened to him," probably isn't going to support the "inside job" fairytale.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
5:23 - hahaa this 'truther' knows he's actually made a point against himself -' there has never been any planes flying into any buildings EVER'... and then he realises how dumb he is to try and talk about how a building normally falls down or how it should have fallen down. exactly you dont know how it should because it's never happened before... god all fucking mighty. even julian assange the master of truth is annoyed by this shit.
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
actually, the empire state builsing was hit by a plan in the 30's if im not mistaken. it left a small impact hole, i think 3 people were killed and the building still stood.
as for building collapses, there are several videos on youtube showing what happens when demolitions go wrong as well as hundreds of when things go right. to suggest the twin towers as well as wtc7 werent demolished, is ludicrous.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick so it's ludicrous because you think the towers should have either stayed standing with all that smokeand stuff coming out from where the plane hit it or that it should have fallen down but not straight down like a demolition but kind of leaning over one side like a human would fall down?
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
"like a human falling down"? - not quiet sweety. a human body is not rigid. if you said a power pole, then yes. so tell me, have you ever seen a power pole collapse after its been 9/10ths of the way up? also, theres a reason loggers cut trees from the bottom.
as for "smoke and stuff", you said it. lots of smoke.
do you weld?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick exactly sweety poo the human body isn't rigid and therefore it doesnt fall down like a buildingwhich is straight down. which is what you saw the first time a plane hit a building (911). you actually compare a tree to the largest sky scrapers ever. you're fucking stupid stop patronising me with your ridiculous non arguments. you quoted me but didnt actually say anything. i want actual arguments please. btw are you a engineer of any sort? what do you do?
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
lololololololo.....youre kidding right? buildings fall vertically and at free fall speed?
so tell me, where was most of the mass when both towers "collasped"? although plausible, wtc7 at least had most of its mass above impact point. wait a minute, it wasnt hit by a plane.
as for comparing trees to large sky scrapers, the principle is the same. trees dont get chopped from the top for a reason.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"as for comparing trees to large sky scrapers, the principle is the same."
No it isn't dummy, you cannot model the collapse of a skyscrapper by observing a tree fall, LOL. The fact that you think the "principle is the same" just shows the stupidity of the average 9/11 "truth" cult follower. Trees do not contain as much mass as skyscrapers, trees therefore cannot implode like skyscrapers; even if you used explosives, trees don't implode, LOL, funny how dumb truthers are.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
firstly, the buildings didnt implode (see websters dictionary for a defintion), they exploded. mass was ejected from the inside out.
secondly, of course a tree doesnt have the same mass as a 110 storey building. do you know why engineers build scale models?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
The buildings imploded, they did not "explode." The overwhelming majority of the building was crushed by it's own weight and turned to dust.
"engineers build scale models."
You cannot model collapse mechanics of skyscrapers with scale models made out of cardboard
"free fall speeds"
Free fall acceleration, doctor. Free fall is not a speed, it's a change in velocity through time with units in meters per second SQUARED. Speeds are given in meters per second.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
lololololo......i guess seeing is believing. they "imploded" huh?
re "under its own weight": for goodness sake, one plane hit between the 80th and 90th floor, most of the mass (roughly 90%) was below it.
re: "You cannot model collapse mechanics of skyscrapers with scale models made out of cardboard": other than building an exact replica, you are correct. then again, you would argue it wasnt hit with the same velocity or that the ambient air temp was cooler.............
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
if you placed a 2 kilo sphere of solid pure iron into a vacuum and dropped it from a height of roughly 1200 feet, what would its speed be from 90% of impact point, 80% of impact.....................all the way to impact point?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
ive studied software engineering, electronic engineering and am currently studying mechanical engineering.
as for actual arguments, id rather stick to irrefultable science, namely, nothing can fall a free fall speeds when resitance is present, this includes air.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick but what's your degree? nothing can fall at free speeds. so just describe what you think after the planes hit the towers what physically should have happened to the towers.
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
i stand corrected, things can fall at free fall speeds.......................in a vacuum.
what shouldve happened after the planes. were remotely flown into the towers is exactly what happened, nothing.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick dont give me a generic 'i stand corrected'. you said something. i repeated it in agreement. no need to mention the impossibility of a vacuum smartass. so you think after 2 planes flew into the towers and all that smoke and burning took place at the top floor. and when i say all that smoke i mean enough black smoke to fill the entire vision of the sky above it. after all that you just expect them to keep standing for how long?
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
youd have to speak to the engineers on that one. afterall, and i quote: "it was desgined to withstand the impact of a 707, in fact it could withstand multiple impacts." (see my notes on the 1930 plane crash into the empire state building.
btw, are you aware that in 1993, a bomb went off in the basement of one of the towers? it blew a 60 foot hole through 3 floors. it was in the basement.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"ive studied software engineering, electronic engineering and am currently studying mechanical engineering."
lol, and you think cardboard boxes and trees can model skyscrapers? LOL, ok, give me the acceleration vector function of the giving position function,
r(t)=( ln(sin(t)), cos(t), sin(t) )
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
yes cardboard boxes and trees can model the principles and you dont need an acceleration vector function (whatever that is) to demonstrate it. and sweety, just because i dont know what it means or how to use it, doesnt mean that the phenomenon doesnt exist. afterall, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"yes cardboard boxes and trees can model the principles "
LOL, no they can't. There isn't enough energy in low mass systems to model higher energy systems.
"you dont need an acceleration vector function (whatever that is) to demonstrate it."
You need to know calculus to study mechanical engineering like you claimed. That's an elementary problem found in any college calculus text book, acceleration is just a second derivative, not difficult, sweety.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"no they can't. There isn't enough energy in low mass systems to model higher energy systems." - relativity springs to mind.
"You need to know calculus to study mechanical engineering like you claimed" - no you dont. i dropped out of maths because i didnt want to become the likes of you, meaning, id rather build and show than to think and argue.
can you use a mig, tig, arc welders? ever used a lathe? ever wonder why you dont need cooling when using a tungsten tip?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"i dropped out of maths "
yeah, I can tell you did. If you don't know calc, you're not studying mech. eng.
By the way to solve the problem you gave you really don't need to know the mass or the type of substance. It will have the same acceleration and velocity regardless. It's an elementary kinematics problem you just just solve the system v=gt and h=1200-.5gt^2 for t at the indicated heights and plug the obtained values of t into the velocity function and your done.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
like i said, i dropped out cos i cant stand it. it wasnt a prerequisite subject, so i chose 3d modelling using solidworks instead. my other subjects in 3d autocad, welding technology, lathe and milling operations, pneumatics and hydraulics, material science and of course OH&S <----------- something youd enjoy given your predisposition for theory.
"h=1200-.5gt^2 " - so you worked out how fast the building collapsed? cool, what number did you come up with?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
are you suggesting that in order to be heard, one needs to know calculus, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the 19th law of falling mass in aqueous resolutions? mathematics is used to model observed phenomena, not the other way around.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
Most mechanical engineers have to take calculus. I'm not an engineer, my major is physics and math, but most of the students in my classes are engineers. You have to know calculus to study engineering. Most students in those majors study calc and differential equations within their first two years. Not knowing math and claiming to be an engineer makes you suspicious, especially after claiming that trees and cardboard can model the collapse mechanics of skyscrapers.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
as i previously pointed out, i withdrew from maths because i cant stand the subject, i wouldve failed, and knowing how to solve quadratic equations bores the hell out of me. what i do know how to do is weld using mig, tig and arc, i know the operating temps are around 6,000c (as hot as the surface of the sun), i know how to use a lathe and milling machines, as well as setup pneumatic and hydraulics systems. i build things through trial an error.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
if i fail my course because i dont know how to find x given pt^h/9.9 then so be it. some would argue that maths and physics are important elements of engineering. all you do is regurgitate what your professors say. have you ever questioned scientific "laws" or is the fact that they are "laws" unquestionable? change comes from opposition, not comformity. apparently, einstien was wrong, there is something faster than light.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
"So let's see your "mechanical engineering" skills." - id love build you an exact replica of the twin towers if i had the resources in a foreign land because no doubt the american govt wouldnt allow such an experiment to be done on home soil. id build you a scale model, but as you pointed, that wouldnt be enough due to some mass blah blah law.
the wright brothers didnt need to be scientists to work out how to fly.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@TheStfu1000
since you have alot of time on your hands, try reconstructing a simple model using cardboard boxes and some wire. if you can demonstrate a total collapse of the boxes from top down, you will have been the first person in history to do so. for that, i would like you autograph and a singed copy of you first book. btw, what would you call it?
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
@johnnytheprick
"but what's your degree? nothing can fall at free speeds."
He doesn't have a degree in anything, he's likely making up his "mechanical engineering" experience. There is no such thing as free fall speed, there's only free fall acceleration which is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 on earth. The buildings did not necessarily collapse with this acceleration. They collapsed with less than this acceleration except for a roughly 2 second interval measured on WTC7.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
lol, here we go again, more RT promotion of conspiracy occult propaganda. The reality (the real truth) is that wikileaks has not released any documents that prove or suggest the "inside job" delusion pushed by the 9/11 "truth" cult. The buildings were not "demolished," XD, lol.
IndividualParties 4 months ago
@IndividualParties
wait til the do. assange has always maintained that he has info in the event that something were to happen to him.
also, do me a favour and try and reconstruct, what you call a "collapse" and post it on youtube. cant wait to see your result. carboard boxes held together with wire will suffice.
johnnytheprick 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnytheprick
"...try and reconstruct, what you call a "collapse" and post it on youtube. cant wait to see your result. carboard boxes held together with wire will suffice."
LOL, right, except cardboard boxes held together with wire WILL NOT suffice in modeling the collapse of sky scrapers hit airliners.
"...he has info in the event"
An info he does have would not confirm the conspiracy occult "inside job" delusion because 9/11 was not an "inside job."
IndividualParties 4 months ago
Why the fuck would you americans fucken kill yourselves then blame another country for it? WTF is wrong with you ?!
FallenMonk55 4 months ago
@FallenMonk55
Its the jews
ar2110302 4 months ago
@ar2110302
The jews run America?!
FallenMonk55 4 months ago
Time for an American jihad
jfkcia 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was an inside job. Plane and Simple.
bmw200000 4 months ago
I'm sick of all this talk. Everyone should want another investigation. Even the debunkers. If they believe what the government said is true, another investigation would only support their arguments. Although, I highly doubt thats what another investigation would uncover.
bdawgz 4 months ago
IF IT IS FALSE.............WHO IS RESPONSIBLE 3,000,000 INNOCENT MUSLIMS DIED FOR THIS LIES........
IF IT IS FALSE......ALL WESTERN MORALITY IS FALSE TOO.....
BECAUSE LIERS HAVE NO ANY MORALITY.
Puresomalilander 4 months ago