LOL @ truthers. again, a completely inept look at WTC 7 by using CD mistake vids. Those buildings that you used as support for your theories were mismanaged controlled demos that went wrong, a sure indicator that CD needs to be perfect to symmetrically collapse a building onto its footprint. so what you actually gained here is PROVING that a CD was not the cause of WTC 7's collapse. cuz if it had been, the damage from the north tower would have ruined the work of the CD team. dumbass.
You fail to mention that WTC7 was built on a pre-existing, much smaller, foundation. Steel trusses were used to extend the footprint of this much larger building down to the original footprint. Falling debris wiped out the first 15 floors of one corner, including the foundation trusses. WTC1,2 and & were all non-standard buildings and that is why they collapsed. You will never see buildings built like this again for this very reason.
I thought there was a top section that crumbled first? If you look at the usual videos of it starting to fall, it's the top section at the back that goes girst, not the bottom? So I'm not sure that you can say none of the top was damaged. But I do agree that it still looks suspect. But also agree that more investigation needed.
I am interested in the truthers being questioned as much as the official story. Then we may know the right truth in the end. Unlikely, but would be better closure...
why dont you post some more of you rants on here with your br007306 account?
Oh, you cant? that account got BANNED - Lol, hahahahahahahah" i'll add that one to my list of bitches i've OWNED - along with your br007308 & br007307 account
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You act SO TOUGH on YT, but in real life your scared of little girls and obviousy have an issue with girls
@br007315 Oh really? Is that all I get? A pretentious acceptance of winning, and then telling me to get lost? Wow, you continue to disappoint me. Also, what is your username supposed to be? Are your initials B.R., or did you go to type "bro", but wanted to be cool and hip and use a zero instead of the letter "o", and then had a seizure on the numberpad?
@br007315 I wrote that comment from my iPhone. You can't comment directly from that. And trust me, even if I thought what you would say would be poignant at all, I would not be afraid of it. It's the internet after all, where people, much like yourself, can disguise themselves as tough blokes and never have to really stand up to the plate. And if this was all I was looking forward to as a reply? Well, lets just hope your sexual partners have been more satisfied...
Am I missing something with this video? It is entitled: "How WTC 7 might have fallen IF it were fatally damaged by fire." And then it proceedes to show two videos of buildings that were NOT on fire!? HUH?
What i'm trying to get across is that It isn't necessarily you that is so special to warrant murder, you're an insect, it isn't necessarily murder :p. kiss.
Wrong again, show me any CD video where the penthouse, or any structure in the center of the building, collapses seconds before the exterior does. Why would we need another investigation? It was obviously not a CD.
Wrong. Because clearly the entire building did not collapse at freefall, it merely looked that way from the exterior. You can see the penthouse on the left roof the building collapse several seconds (well before) the exterior of the building even budges. That is the initiation of the progressive collapse. The total time for collapse is actually about 13 seconds. Controlled demolitions certainly do not collapse in that manner. But you can keep ignoring the penthouse, if you'd like.
No he isn't right. Because he said pancake theory, not progressive collapse. I'm sure you can read well enough to realize this. Do you even know what progressive collapse is? Define it, in your own words. And no, "removing all resistance" is not the definition.
Tis nothing to do with wanting to murder 'you' you're unintelligent and clearly have issues :p. Just want to murder somebody 'like' you. Anyway, addresssssssss plox.
Br007309, your subpar arguments would have more impact and your (questionable) intellect would be conveyed better if you refrained from typing out your obvious fake laughter at the end of every comment you leave.
Can't believe that people actually accept the NIST created 'pancaking theory'. They just show how the Asche Conformity Experiment works. I just call them 'pancake believers'!
What is this? A twoofer thinking that NIST agrees with the pancake theory? It's called progressive collapse. Different from the pancake effect. But you wouldn't know that, you don't know a thing about NIST's report. Just what Alex Jones tells you, which is unsurprisingly wrong.
@darkwhitty "No i am just bored of you trying to create a straw man."
What strawman did I create? State your opinions clearly so I cannot make a strawman. Because as far as I can tell you believe this video in particular adds credibility to the criticisms of the NIST models, and they clearly don't. What have I got wrong?
@darkwhitty Yes, because the official story is backed up by evidence, the peer reviewed literature and sound theories. Just because it is "official" doesn't mean its wrong. I also believe George Bush should be executed for war crimes under international law, so what do I have to lose or gain from accepting in the official story. Facts are facts.
"Well i never stated that, or heard any1 else state that. Irrelevant." I never said you said that, I was making a larger point about truthers.
@admx94 LMAO I have noticed the same thing, they all have degrees in science or engineering or some kind of field of expertise. I called them internet experts, because when they don't have an answer, they don't need one their word is good enough.
How does this video prove anything? The buildings they are comparing Building 7 were imploded with explosives and yet in the video they say that these are examples of buildings falling because of fire? what? This is insanely stupid.
@thesparitan The point is that those buildings were rigged with explosives yet still failed to demolish correctly. But we are expected to believe that WTC7 demolished completely yet no explosives were used? The building apparently completely failed in all areas.
@darkwhitty I don't know what you are arguing. How does videos on buildings being brought down with explosives prove that building 7 was brought down with explosives? I hope you understand the utter stupidity of these videos. Showing examples of how buildings being brought down with explosives are actually examples of buildings falling because of fire and damage. All examples are of implosions, so what does this prove? This doesn't make sense.
@thesparitan Well if we are going to talk about a controlled demolition, it is useful to look at existing demolitions for comparison reasons. It's a very reasonable thing to do. The main point is that WTC7 resembled a CD based on comparison.
The videos here show that even demolitions fail. So buildings designed to collapse can fail to collapse, but WTC7 was apparently not designed to collapse but it did so 100%, at free-fall speed. Not saying its proof, but it's cause for suspicion.
@darkwhitty So when does resembling prove anything? I have been to a magic show where a woman resembled being cut in half, do you think that makes it anymore believable that she actually was? Second, using examples of failed CD only prove that some CD's fail, so how does that have anything to do with building 7, unless you are going to argue that it was a failed CD. That is basic logic. Third, buildings are not designed to collapse.
@thesparitan You keep dismissing the idea that you can compare two similar but different things in order to help understand how something works or why somethings happens.
You say i don't know science yet this method is often used in the scientific world because it is helpful in understanding the world.
For example, working out how fast a dinosaur runs: "Two basic approaches for estimating dinosaur speed are comparing to recorded speeds of modern animals of similar body size and build"
@darkwhitty For the most part comparisons are not used as a proof for anything, how could they be that would be a logical fallacy. Think of when neurologist compare the brain to a computer, does that prove that brains are designed like computers or have programs? No, but I have had a creationist make that argument once.
@thesparitan Again, nobody said it was proof on its own. You said i do not understand how science works yet these kind of comparisons happen all the time. They are used to help form theory's and are cited as reasons to suggest that something could happen the way it does.
"Think of when neurologist compare the brain to a computer, does that prove that brains are designed like computers or have programs" - Poor example, that's merely a metaphorical description of the human brain.
@darkwhitty You are making a fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion. Showing videos of a failed controlled demolitions only prove that there are failed demolitions. It is completely absurd to say that a failed demolition and a building that had fire weaken the lower structure should look the same. Even if they did he wouldn't prove anything, so its doubly wrong.
@thesparitan How a demolition looks is not irrelevant. It's called drawing a comparison, it's a common practice throughout science. If YOU can get an opinion of why WTC7 fell from looking at the collapse footage, then why not get an opinion about collapses from other examples?
You believe the official story, so either you have degrees in science and engineering, or you are going on blind faith. I will not address the other points or engage you anymore as you resort to petty name calling.
@darkwhitty To this I would have to say that you don't understand science very much. Comparisons can help explain theories, but they don't prove anything in of themselves. But what you are saying is actually worse then that, because this video is showing CDs and implying that these are examples of how B7 should preformed using NIST models, even though they are not falling because of fire but explosives. How many fallacies can you fit in one comment?
@thesparitan "Comparisons can help explain theories" Exactly, you make out that somebody is claiming it is proof in of itself, but nobody did. Even NIST looked at the footage as part of their investigations, so do they not understand science either?
"because this video is showing CDs and implying that these are examples of how B7 should preformed using NIST models" - Never stated once, i said it's acceptable to make observations of CD, i did not state they should have performed the same.
@darkwhitty Oh your back, I suspected you might, I had 50/50 odds that my last comment would. My argument against comparisons was directed at your comments that any comparison between falling buildings is relevant to proving your and the videos conclusion. Just because something looks similar proves nothing beyond the fact that it looks similar. My second point was a bit more important because these aren't even proper comparisons. And I find it rather convenient that you keep ignoring that
@darkwhitty "Never stated once, i said it's acceptable to make observations of CD, i did not state they should have performed the same."
I never said that you said that. In your own quote you will see I said "because this video..." therefore I wasn't talking about anything that you said but rather the conclusion of the video and because you are defending that conclusion you are guilty of the same fallacy even though you never explicitly made it.
@darkwhitty "I will not address the other points or engage you anymore as you resort to petty name calling."
I never called you any names, I called your argues bad and poorly thought out and I have said this video is stupid but those are not personal attacks. I see this done so often now I can anticipate you were going to say this. You are just trying to make an excuse to run away because you cannot handle your ideas being destroyed by my effect use of logic. Seen it so many times.
I have to say you are a bit of a pussy, anywho, throw me your address & private message and let's see how you react when an actual psychopath turns up at your door. I've only read one of your comments and i'd safely say i'm willing to murder you.
You're making a argument from ignorance. Building 7 collapsed internally first due to uncontrolled fires and then the unsupported outer shell collapsed on top of that. There are lots of vids on this - don't speculate, watch the expert reconstructions and simulations. It is quite simple to understand what happened a good explanation is here: watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
@8DX He is also making an fallacy of irrelevant conclusion using buildings that were brought down with explosives and then saying that they are examples of buildings that fall because of fires is rather fucking stupid. The thinking skills these truthers show are somewhere between insane and idiotic.
Just another reason we need to have an impartial investigation, not one staffed by people with interests in defense contracts and administration appointees. How blinded many Americans are by the mainstream news that is owned by the same war-profiteering corporations that arranged the events of 9/11. Time to wake up folks! They are taking your constitution away from you. Time to speak out and stand up in patriotism for your country and boot these crooks out! Who's afraid of a real investigation?
Just the fact that the entire building from left to right started to fall evenly exactly at the same time tells us it was made to collapse... it cannot have been weakening in that way by the fire.
@railstoruin You didn't make the video, so no I don't believe you. So if it was you or some guy then nobody would 'believe' you unless you had something intelligent to say which actually has merit. Some people listen to ae911t because they are engineers and whether they 'believe' them or not is based on merit of the material rather than the one presenting it..
Good job. We know that WTC7 dropped at free fall for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters, then dropped at a constant speed, meaning NO acceleration. You are right; we should ask why it did not tip or slow its descent even more... Supposedly it was built to be very strong for government tenants and Giuliani's "Hitler Bunker"....
@idontfkinknow1234 That's what I said that day and I was 15...unfortunately every teacher and student I explained it to was convinced arabs did it. Public schools...
This is a very important video but I would like to make two suggestions~1. At the end of the video add the footage of the actual free-fall collapse and 2. Add some music (Tom Petty's song Free Falling comes to mind but ANY music would be an improvement).
@br007309 ZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzz like a stuck record u are. u dont get it. u make yourself just look more foolish everytime u point a finger forgetting your own actions. u are such a morron. really. here i said it. feul for your wanking sessions. leave me the fuck alone. this time im not gonna respond to a lieng litle boy. that cant seem to answer qeustions. to scared to uphold his own word. btw u did not fav the vid i made for u. go back to your self denail,
@br007309 and this is where u rant cause all other options for your hate speech ahve been blocked. why cause we all know what litle cunt u are. and need atention. and need to shout to get a orgasme. and u keep pulling a chain until it pops. and then get scared and defensive whilst u yourself started. u are A quality morron. shuff your one isseu, and ranting up a place where the sun does not shine.
@br007309 your so fucking delusional is starting to get funny and again. u do it first but if i do it its not ok. go fuck yourself. there i said it again, but twhat do u expect from a scared litle jew cunt that tells people shit , but when he gets a invite, shout some more and hides bihind his yt handle. u call the cetle black. know that verb, probly not cause u did not fisnish school. and fuck my grammer u understood it enough to bitch about it. go play hide and seek morron.
@br007309 cause its the only thing u can. watch the vid, but i think u did not understand it cause your a morron. believe what u whant rant what u whant , it just makes my vid that much better, and shows what a morron u really are. your a know hate speech ,egotistical ranter with no much to offer but bad words and insane thoughts, have a nice day.
Cont. and thats just what we hear about on the news. imagine all the shit that goes down thats equally as important that we dont know about. the globalists are putting their plan into overdrive because they know that their window of oppurtunity for their plan is quickly closing. they'll keep on going, but when their plan gets to the point to where the majority of the masses is experiencing it. their plan will crumble. arm yourselves with knowledge, wake up, love your neighbor, join together
Cont. they openly allow the truth to leak out, little by little, even on mainstream media, which they own and control. because they think nobody can do anything about it. their wrong. they underestimate the power of enlightened masses. they will fail. becasue humanity simply wont allow things to go down that way. global awakening is happening at a very fast pace, and they know that. thats why they are forced to speed up their plan. notice how 3 middle eastern countries have fallen in 6 months?
Cont. since we rely heavily on foreign oil. eventually "they" hope to force the rest of the world into accepting a "solution". which is a world govnt. and they will make it out to be the best solution, the one solution that will save us all. but that is just the start, eventually will will see a global police state, depopulation, etc. the list goes on and on. BUT, it wont happen. why? because "they" have become so arrogant, they think they have already won, and they are wrong!
Cont. So by having an excuse to enter the middle east with military, they are literally able to have a military presence there to ensure control. at the same time they use their economic power to destabilize the region, one country after another. if you havnt noticed, thats exactly whats going on RIGHT now. afganistan, then iraq, now tunisia, egypt, and libya. falling like dominoes. this destabilization is necessary to eventually force the rest of the world to come to the "negotiation table"
so most of us can agree that 9/11 was setup. ok, now the masses need to go further into it. who planned it and why. ALOT of ppl already know, but the ppl who are still hung up on the ins and outs of 9/11 need to move on. it was a false flag operation to send forces into the middle east. why? because the middle east region(obviously very unstable in itself) is the only region of the world that isnt manipulated by the "powers that be". (globalists planning a global control grid)
Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice
Cut the crap please. Silverstein: 'I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...And I said you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do would be to just pull it. And then they made that decision to pull, then we watched the building collapse." He clearly described a DECISION made, to take an ACTION, that produced the complete sudden implosion of the structure.
(continued) There had to have been explosions before each floor fell on the next one. The unusual part of this ordeal which many official story sympathizers ignore or simply put off is in regards to the collapse of the twin towers is the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by the explosions from below. Building 7 imploded from bottom up.
(continued) Progressive pancaking CAN NOT happen at free fall speed, free fall requires the pulling, moving obstacles below before they can slow the acceleration of falling objects from above, sequenced explosions on the other hand can do this in a sequenced explosion you remove very bottom of the floors above them, fall directly into the building's own footprint. This explains why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails badly.
This is pure genius and should be posted all over the net, it should be exposed to the 9/11 Commision and stump Cheney/Bush and other such mass murderers in Britain and Israel also Saudi Arabia, but if your still a skeptic after watching this and other such videos and want to still go with the official story that the building fell free fall speed because of "melting steel core," a pancake type collapse with one floor progressively falling onto another floor below is a really bad explaination.
Look how many shills will comment and change subjects . Go look at their channels they are paid to have a stupid opinion and deflect from this simple video
geared for ignorant americans
(and stupid Canadians ) to understand . This video along with AE911truth info is enough for a Grand Jury .
• your statement that no NYFD personel reported explosions is not true. There are videos tsken on 9-11 of FF describing the boom boom boom of explosions before, and as the buildings came down. And how could jet fuel melt or weaken anything when most of it burned up in those big fireballs we saw when it crashed. And, how could the fire be so hot they sink 3 buildings which had damage to less than 10%of the total structure yet so cool that ppl are seen standing in same spot the plane crashed?
These OSers and Bush/Rush devotees are really something. The GOP really should change their mascot from an Elephant to an Ostrich. Theyll say the Govt wouldnt kill their own ppl yet ignore the thousands of dead GIs that would be alive if not for the lies of the Bushklan sending these men and women to their deaths.
@punkamunka No one's disputing that Bush & Co. started horrific and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one's even disputing that they'd have qualms about killing US civilians either. What we're disputing is that the evidence shows they engineered the 9/11 attacks to excuse their land grabs.
And maybe truthers have been yelling their dogma so loudly for so long that they've lost the ability to question their beliefs. Does the fact that Building 7 collapsed really constitute evidence?
@unRompecabezas -- No, the premise is that Israel/Mossad and the Zoglings embedded in the U.S. government and New York engineered it so that Zog (Israel by U.S. proxy) could destroy enemies and take over their countries. Steel frame buildings down fall down like fragile mud structures.
But in true Ostrich Party form, they just wave flags, come up with some catch phrase like "Lets roll" that gets Parroted over and over, hoping everyone forgets the lies that got our soldiers killed. Not the terrorist insurgent commie liberal socialists. It was GOP Lies.
THAAAAAAAAAANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! : ) If people would SIMPLY LOOK at the facts they would see how SIMPLE this is. Even a wooden structure would not have fallen in that manner given that amount of damage (provided the wood didn't burn ; )
PRECISELY PRECISELY PRECISELY! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS! This is not rocket science. It would take approximately 97% of the columns being completely compromised before hand to allow for the structure to ACCELERATE downward at nearly F.F.. GOOD WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also i wanted to show, what happens when the controlled demolition is NOT done right. It is hard even when you plan it, no to mention that some UNcontrolled events could lead to perfect collapse.
So for those of us who believe the earth is round, that fire can weaken steel and that a buildings fall down -- just what did bring down wtc 7? and why wtc 7?
why caNnt ppl see it like this...,,we use pots and pans cos they dont friggn burn and if we leave one on what happens ? its still there but charred..now imagine thats same steal but much thicker and stonger in a building..and light it infact try lighting the harbour bridge up,,its the same deal here steal frame structure,,.the structure itself still; should have stood. due to fire..but it WAS DEMOLISHED ..
@Denierbud11 oh you dont even get the point metal doesnt melt ....like i said if you read properly that the building materials are different stronger (i shoiuldnt have said same steal,but any one that looks into the case will see this anyway.),,and fuel can only burn at a certain degrees asteal buckles at a higehr temperature,(not goes to dust) anyone with common sence knows steal dont burn.by fire...thats the point im making you knew it but you had to make a dig..piss off.
@Denierbud11 You do know that the FDNY reported the building damage that resulted from explosions throughout the day right? Barry jennings experienced one such explosion.
yep - explosions are not uncommon in uncontrolled office fires -- did you expect an uncontrolled fire in a 47 building to not result in some explosions?
Now can you answer the direct question - was the NYFD correct when they predicted the bulding could collapse? The prediction predicated on the uncontrolled fire and structural damage.
@Denierbud11 nevermind your rhetorical questioning.. if you truly believe in the integrity of the FDNY, first responders, the people that mangaged to escape.. how about you actually check out their statements/interviews, ask yourself this.. why wasn't any of the key witness statements used in the 9/11 commision?
Why is it twoofers cannot answer direct questions ... I've read all the first hand reports, listened to the archived recordings and everything publically available -- not ONE NYFD member commander or sr member has ever claimed explosives were used -- all back up the real story, fire and structural failure destroyed the building
i think you will find it was rhetorical, we all know that the FDNY reported that it was likely to collapse. Because they had been hearing continuous explosions and in some cases people actually witnessed said explosions..
@Denierbud11 You obviously havent read or listened to everything >> /watch?v=Kanj8gx4E1M and thats just a snipet of whats out there.. why are you dissrespecting the dead by technically calling them liars by not accepting thier eye witness statements i.e the truth
Ignorance is bliss though yeh, what a wonderfull world you are leaving for your children.. *sigh*
The NYFD would disagree with you -- they predicted the collapse and evacuated the area -- still avoiding the questions. Do you have anything other than your incredulity?
@Denierbud11 After witnessing WTC 1 and 2 collapsing like that, they started to believe, that partial damage and office fires could lead to collapse (that's my guess). But no matter what they said or did, this "pulling out" fact doesn't change the impossible collapse fact and countless other facts.
Those conspiracy skeptics... will pull out one half-fact and make ultimate proof out of it.
How is the collapse impossible if those that fight the fires agree that it is possible? you are just arguing your incredulity with no supporting evidence - rather pathetic, no wonder the truth movement has lost ground and dying fast
are you able to provide examples of other steel-framed high-rise buildings which have EVER completely collapesed at near freefall speed as a result of fire? EVER????
it defies physics -- in what way? C'mon - tell us how it happened? and explain why every NYFD commander agreed the building was in danger, explain why it had a lean to it before it fell
@lynnej1970 yes over a certain dgrees..your an idiot ppl like you think you know it all,,you have all these architects engineers forefighters,witnesses and you belive the tv,,you belive what you are told,,cos you cannot think for yourself and you dont go look at the facts.
every person i talk to (irl) knows that the official story is a joke... its only the media (and faceless people online) that still hold to the official story... its strange that I never find people irl that believe the government story... never happens, coz most people know they're being lied to
If only the evil conspirators hadn't insisted on complete, symmetrical collapses for the WTCs, their ruse might have gone unnoticed. Fortunately, anyone with a computer and time to waste can now make pronouncements on how we should expect skyscrapers to collapse from fire damage.
Yes, it was obviously pre-rigged with explosives in a controlled demo, just like the other two buildings.That's as obvious as the sun. And Larry Silverstein told them to "pull it" as he let slip. (A controlled demo term. These liars can't always perform perfectly, the truth slips out.) No more Jewish false flag murders.
@DivineFellowship I still think it's hysterically funny that people think Silverstein spilled the beans in front of a TV camera, using a "controlled demo term" that people in the CD industry don't even use, but his insurance company still forked over a few billion dollars to him.
Think we'd still be having this debate if Larry's last name were Smith?
Yes the same HCC insurance that Marvin Bush joined in 2000, a year piror to 9/11. Also they paid out the insurance before there was an investigation into 9/11 let alone finished. Why would an insurance company ok something that would make them fork over 7 billion for 15 million in insurance money before theres even an investigation started. I can tell you that answer now. Obama Care! With Obama care in place every person in the us must get insurance. That means trillions!
@unRompecabezas -- You're saying liars never make mistakes or slip up? False. A lie is a heavy burden; what the mind knows often blurts itself out. There are other such instances with 9-11, like Rumsfeld referring to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon. You say "pull it" is not a term used in the controlled demo industry? False. We'd not be having this debate if steel frame buildings had not fallen explosively at free-fall speed just like controlled demos, plus many other suspicious oddities.
@DivineFellowship "You say "pull it" is not a term used in the controlled demo industry? False. "
So why does no one in the controlled demolition industry use it to mean "destroy with explosives"? Can you find a CD expert who will verify your claim? It's clear this bit of truther dogma is something you fine folks cooked up to impugn Silverstein for his alleged complicity.
chemistry, physics... what is this science you talk about?
allah's great warriors destroyed nyc after drunkenly whoring strip clubs for virgens... please, leave your black magic for those cursed people in Haiti who made a pact with the devil.
@ae911truth ...can you make a video of what it really looks like when you fly an airplane into a building showing how crash physics works and how flying debris from an impact reaction looks with the hollow center as it happens intsantly and not a delayed explosive reaction. To me 911 was missing a impact reaction and we skipped to the explosion Maybe the reason the "planes" penetrated the buildings like missles is because they were missles. Planes behave one way missles behave another way :)
@skibee50 but at the pentagon, a plane crash-landed there as well!! what of that, sensei?? didn't we find tons of Boeing wreckage there as well? you know, like tail sections that wouldn't be broken up, or fuelsalages, or at least a bit of landing gear? oh, too much to ask for evidence in a matter such as this, eh?
I think you might be thinking of a crash at slower speeds. This test shows that a plane can be pretty much destroyed at 500mph (the wing tips survived because they didn't impact the wall). Yes, this was a smaller plane and, yes, the wall was specifically made to survive the impact, but the lack of large debris at the Pentagon is not conclusive evidence that a plane didn't hit it.
There are more scientifically robust reasons to doubt the OS.
My question is why the fuck is it taking so long to make this right. Why the fuck does the plane and fire theory prevail to this day? FUCK EVERYTHING.
I hope the next video installment explains WHY the building would have burned out of control for several hours IF it had actually been a controlled demolition.
Because there's so many CDs that gush smoke for seven hours before collapsing, aren't there?
This will not be enough to convince those in heavy denial. To them the building has to be exactly the same as the twin towers and Building 7 or your physics are flawed.
Also has to be the same temperature, wind conditions, correct alignment with the stars in the universe, moons gravitational effects etc.
they're comparing WTC7 to buildings that have brought down by controlled demolition and saying building 7 should have looked like them. lol they don't know what they're arguing anymore
@brokenstyx Yes because instead we should be comparing it to high-rise buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone or to buildings which collapsed due to known structural damage.
Wait a sec... there are no recorded cases of complete high-rise from fire damage alone and natural high-rises collapses support the model shown here.
@DarkwingScooter what are you trying to say...the buildings behavior should resemble another damaged building falling. I think the video is giving you a lot just assuming total failure of all verticle supports on an entire floor at the same time would happen anyway ...lol
LOL @ truthers. again, a completely inept look at WTC 7 by using CD mistake vids. Those buildings that you used as support for your theories were mismanaged controlled demos that went wrong, a sure indicator that CD needs to be perfect to symmetrically collapse a building onto its footprint. so what you actually gained here is PROVING that a CD was not the cause of WTC 7's collapse. cuz if it had been, the damage from the north tower would have ruined the work of the CD team. dumbass.
Tommygb21 2 months ago
You fail to mention that WTC7 was built on a pre-existing, much smaller, foundation. Steel trusses were used to extend the footprint of this much larger building down to the original footprint. Falling debris wiped out the first 15 floors of one corner, including the foundation trusses. WTC1,2 and & were all non-standard buildings and that is why they collapsed. You will never see buildings built like this again for this very reason.
flatl1n3 4 months ago
Good vid, you should have put a bit at the end showing the freefall and total disintegration of WTC7 to show how unfeasible it was.
MagikalRose 4 months ago
All I see is a con man trying to sell DVDs and books.
hammr25 4 months ago
@hammr25 All I see is a troll
MrHangbush 3 months ago
There was also a concrete silo that fail to collapse after a failed demo attempt.
UNTC321 4 months ago
I thought there was a top section that crumbled first? If you look at the usual videos of it starting to fall, it's the top section at the back that goes girst, not the bottom? So I'm not sure that you can say none of the top was damaged. But I do agree that it still looks suspect. But also agree that more investigation needed.
I am interested in the truthers being questioned as much as the official story. Then we may know the right truth in the end. Unlikely, but would be better closure...
beasmith1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@br007315 /14/13/12/09/08/07/06
hey 'punk ass bitch'
why dont you post some more of you rants on here with your br007306 account?
Oh, you cant? that account got BANNED - Lol, hahahahahahahah" i'll add that one to my list of bitches i've OWNED - along with your br007308 & br007307 account
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You act SO TOUGH on YT, but in real life your scared of little girls and obviousy have an issue with girls
Pass it on!
Don't want to be pwned?
Unblock me or STFU!
BCAIlisons 5 months ago
@br007315 Oh really? Is that all I get? A pretentious acceptance of winning, and then telling me to get lost? Wow, you continue to disappoint me. Also, what is your username supposed to be? Are your initials B.R., or did you go to type "bro", but wanted to be cool and hip and use a zero instead of the letter "o", and then had a seizure on the numberpad?
goodvideos101 5 months ago
@br007315 Hahahah. Good one!
goodvideos101 5 months ago
>different size and weight
more research needed here.
SuperBrobot 5 months ago
@br007315 I wrote that comment from my iPhone. You can't comment directly from that. And trust me, even if I thought what you would say would be poignant at all, I would not be afraid of it. It's the internet after all, where people, much like yourself, can disguise themselves as tough blokes and never have to really stand up to the plate. And if this was all I was looking forward to as a reply? Well, lets just hope your sexual partners have been more satisfied...
goodvideos101 5 months ago
@br007315
I want to talk to you via voice, lets have a chat =(. I need you.
and my penis is infact atleast 3 millimeters.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309
Roooooooooooooooooooooooooarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr raaaaaageeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
Am I missing something with this video? It is entitled: "How WTC 7 might have fallen IF it were fatally damaged by fire." And then it proceedes to show two videos of buildings that were NOT on fire!? HUH?
azul8811 5 months ago
@br007309
What i'm trying to get across is that It isn't necessarily you that is so special to warrant murder, you're an insect, it isn't necessarily murder :p. kiss.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@bd886
A 2 hour-long video instead of answering my question. Typical conspiracy theory "debating".
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@bd886
Wrong again, show me any CD video where the penthouse, or any structure in the center of the building, collapses seconds before the exterior does. Why would we need another investigation? It was obviously not a CD.
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@bd886
Wrong. Because clearly the entire building did not collapse at freefall, it merely looked that way from the exterior. You can see the penthouse on the left roof the building collapse several seconds (well before) the exterior of the building even budges. That is the initiation of the progressive collapse. The total time for collapse is actually about 13 seconds. Controlled demolitions certainly do not collapse in that manner. But you can keep ignoring the penthouse, if you'd like.
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@bd886
No he isn't right. Because he said pancake theory, not progressive collapse. I'm sure you can read well enough to realize this. Do you even know what progressive collapse is? Define it, in your own words. And no, "removing all resistance" is not the definition.
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@br007309
Tis nothing to do with wanting to murder 'you' you're unintelligent and clearly have issues :p. Just want to murder somebody 'like' you. Anyway, addresssssssss plox.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
Br007309, your subpar arguments would have more impact and your (questionable) intellect would be conveyed better if you refrained from typing out your obvious fake laughter at the end of every comment you leave.
goodvideos101 5 months ago
i was looking for a video of a chimp using a tool, and end up here, an there is a lot of people angry here, come on guys...chimps are cool...
iamcornholiothegreat 5 months ago
Can't believe that people actually accept the NIST created 'pancaking theory'. They just show how the Asche Conformity Experiment works. I just call them 'pancake believers'!
zombiehellmonkey 5 months ago 9
@zombiehellmonkey
What is this? A twoofer thinking that NIST agrees with the pancake theory? It's called progressive collapse. Different from the pancake effect. But you wouldn't know that, you don't know a thing about NIST's report. Just what Alex Jones tells you, which is unsurprisingly wrong.
eatwoodman 5 months ago
@br007309
Coward.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309
4 days later after your huffing & puffing I responded.
Calm down! Still waiting. x
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309
Sorry, waiting for you to give me your address, nothing much else to say until you do.
x
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309 Another VOI program been around for years.
Zontor2 5 months ago
@br007309
Can you troll me over ventrilo perhaps, i'd like to hear your voice sexy. Hm?
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309
Eh, you're the one required to give it, ain't my balls being questioned here. You bore me, throw me the details or f.o.
BobbyRice2 5 months ago
@br007309
You were willing to meet him, and you're not willing to meet me?.. =( What a small penis you must have.
BobbyRice2 6 months ago
@br007309
I'd like to visit you in person if that isn't an issue!
BobbyRice2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwhitty "No i am just bored of you trying to create a straw man."
What strawman did I create? State your opinions clearly so I cannot make a strawman. Because as far as I can tell you believe this video in particular adds credibility to the criticisms of the NIST models, and they clearly don't. What have I got wrong?
thesparitan 6 months ago
Comment removed
thesparitan 6 months ago
Comment removed
thesparitan 6 months ago
@darkwhitty Yes, because the official story is backed up by evidence, the peer reviewed literature and sound theories. Just because it is "official" doesn't mean its wrong. I also believe George Bush should be executed for war crimes under international law, so what do I have to lose or gain from accepting in the official story. Facts are facts.
"Well i never stated that, or heard any1 else state that. Irrelevant." I never said you said that, I was making a larger point about truthers.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@admx94 LMAO I have noticed the same thing, they all have degrees in science or engineering or some kind of field of expertise. I called them internet experts, because when they don't have an answer, they don't need one their word is good enough.
thesparitan 6 months ago
How does this video prove anything? The buildings they are comparing Building 7 were imploded with explosives and yet in the video they say that these are examples of buildings falling because of fire? what? This is insanely stupid.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan The point is that those buildings were rigged with explosives yet still failed to demolish correctly. But we are expected to believe that WTC7 demolished completely yet no explosives were used? The building apparently completely failed in all areas.
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty I don't know what you are arguing. How does videos on buildings being brought down with explosives prove that building 7 was brought down with explosives? I hope you understand the utter stupidity of these videos. Showing examples of how buildings being brought down with explosives are actually examples of buildings falling because of fire and damage. All examples are of implosions, so what does this prove? This doesn't make sense.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan Well if we are going to talk about a controlled demolition, it is useful to look at existing demolitions for comparison reasons. It's a very reasonable thing to do. The main point is that WTC7 resembled a CD based on comparison.
The videos here show that even demolitions fail. So buildings designed to collapse can fail to collapse, but WTC7 was apparently not designed to collapse but it did so 100%, at free-fall speed. Not saying its proof, but it's cause for suspicion.
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty So when does resembling prove anything? I have been to a magic show where a woman resembled being cut in half, do you think that makes it anymore believable that she actually was? Second, using examples of failed CD only prove that some CD's fail, so how does that have anything to do with building 7, unless you are going to argue that it was a failed CD. That is basic logic. Third, buildings are not designed to collapse.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan You keep dismissing the idea that you can compare two similar but different things in order to help understand how something works or why somethings happens.
You say i don't know science yet this method is often used in the scientific world because it is helpful in understanding the world.
For example, working out how fast a dinosaur runs: "Two basic approaches for estimating dinosaur speed are comparing to recorded speeds of modern animals of similar body size and build"
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty For the most part comparisons are not used as a proof for anything, how could they be that would be a logical fallacy. Think of when neurologist compare the brain to a computer, does that prove that brains are designed like computers or have programs? No, but I have had a creationist make that argument once.
I will continue this later.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan Again, nobody said it was proof on its own. You said i do not understand how science works yet these kind of comparisons happen all the time. They are used to help form theory's and are cited as reasons to suggest that something could happen the way it does.
"Think of when neurologist compare the brain to a computer, does that prove that brains are designed like computers or have programs" - Poor example, that's merely a metaphorical description of the human brain.
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty You are making a fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion. Showing videos of a failed controlled demolitions only prove that there are failed demolitions. It is completely absurd to say that a failed demolition and a building that had fire weaken the lower structure should look the same. Even if they did he wouldn't prove anything, so its doubly wrong.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan How a demolition looks is not irrelevant. It's called drawing a comparison, it's a common practice throughout science. If YOU can get an opinion of why WTC7 fell from looking at the collapse footage, then why not get an opinion about collapses from other examples?
You believe the official story, so either you have degrees in science and engineering, or you are going on blind faith. I will not address the other points or engage you anymore as you resort to petty name calling.
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty To this I would have to say that you don't understand science very much. Comparisons can help explain theories, but they don't prove anything in of themselves. But what you are saying is actually worse then that, because this video is showing CDs and implying that these are examples of how B7 should preformed using NIST models, even though they are not falling because of fire but explosives. How many fallacies can you fit in one comment?
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan "Comparisons can help explain theories" Exactly, you make out that somebody is claiming it is proof in of itself, but nobody did. Even NIST looked at the footage as part of their investigations, so do they not understand science either?
"because this video is showing CDs and implying that these are examples of how B7 should preformed using NIST models" - Never stated once, i said it's acceptable to make observations of CD, i did not state they should have performed the same.
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty Oh your back, I suspected you might, I had 50/50 odds that my last comment would. My argument against comparisons was directed at your comments that any comparison between falling buildings is relevant to proving your and the videos conclusion. Just because something looks similar proves nothing beyond the fact that it looks similar. My second point was a bit more important because these aren't even proper comparisons. And I find it rather convenient that you keep ignoring that
thesparitan 6 months ago
@thesparitan What point have i conveniently ignored then?
darkwhitty 6 months ago
@darkwhitty "Never stated once, i said it's acceptable to make observations of CD, i did not state they should have performed the same."
I never said that you said that. In your own quote you will see I said "because this video..." therefore I wasn't talking about anything that you said but rather the conclusion of the video and because you are defending that conclusion you are guilty of the same fallacy even though you never explicitly made it.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@darkwhitty "I will not address the other points or engage you anymore as you resort to petty name calling."
I never called you any names, I called your argues bad and poorly thought out and I have said this video is stupid but those are not personal attacks. I see this done so often now I can anticipate you were going to say this. You are just trying to make an excuse to run away because you cannot handle your ideas being destroyed by my effect use of logic. Seen it so many times.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@br007309
I have to say you are a bit of a pussy, anywho, throw me your address & private message and let's see how you react when an actual psychopath turns up at your door. I've only read one of your comments and i'd safely say i'm willing to murder you.
Show me your hand, sexy boy & let's partay-.
BobbyRice2 6 months ago
You're making a argument from ignorance. Building 7 collapsed internally first due to uncontrolled fires and then the unsupported outer shell collapsed on top of that. There are lots of vids on this - don't speculate, watch the expert reconstructions and simulations. It is quite simple to understand what happened a good explanation is here: watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
8DX 6 months ago
@8DX He is also making an fallacy of irrelevant conclusion using buildings that were brought down with explosives and then saying that they are examples of buildings that fall because of fires is rather fucking stupid. The thinking skills these truthers show are somewhere between insane and idiotic.
thesparitan 6 months ago
LOL
No wonder Richard Gage couldn't make any money as an Architect and became a grifter instead.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@admx94 So what qualifications do you have that allows you to come to that conclusion ? Do you have a degree in engineering ?
MrGoNzObeAtZ 8 months ago
Just another reason we need to have an impartial investigation, not one staffed by people with interests in defense contracts and administration appointees. How blinded many Americans are by the mainstream news that is owned by the same war-profiteering corporations that arranged the events of 9/11. Time to wake up folks! They are taking your constitution away from you. Time to speak out and stand up in patriotism for your country and boot these crooks out! Who's afraid of a real investigation?
freeseattle 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Gage (AE911Truth) Talk @ Cambridge University
UK 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)
See the featured video on my channel for full details.
cappucinokid100 9 months ago
Just the fact that the entire building from left to right started to fall evenly exactly at the same time tells us it was made to collapse... it cannot have been weakening in that way by the fire.
Welcom to the reality USA.
artholmenssommarstad 9 months ago
VIdeo maker: "I'm not a structural engineer; I'm just some guy on the internet. You believe me, right...?"
Me: "Umm...."
railstoruin 9 months ago
@railstoruin You didn't make the video, so no I don't believe you. So if it was you or some guy then nobody would 'believe' you unless you had something intelligent to say which actually has merit. Some people listen to ae911t because they are engineers and whether they 'believe' them or not is based on merit of the material rather than the one presenting it..
eldongb1 7 months ago
Good job. We know that WTC7 dropped at free fall for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters, then dropped at a constant speed, meaning NO acceleration. You are right; we should ask why it did not tip or slow its descent even more... Supposedly it was built to be very strong for government tenants and Giuliani's "Hitler Bunker"....
Skeptic121 10 months ago
This is apparent to anyone who doesn't have rocks in their head from the moment they watched those towers collapse on live TV.
idontfkinknow1234 10 months ago
@idontfkinknow1234 That's what I said that day and I was 15...unfortunately every teacher and student I explained it to was convinced arabs did it. Public schools...
eldongb1 7 months ago
This is a very important video but I would like to make two suggestions~1. At the end of the video add the footage of the actual free-fall collapse and 2. Add some music (Tom Petty's song Free Falling comes to mind but ANY music would be an improvement).
Keep up the awesome work~Spence
MasterSpencer1 10 months ago
@br007309 ZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzz like a stuck record u are. u dont get it. u make yourself just look more foolish everytime u point a finger forgetting your own actions. u are such a morron. really. here i said it. feul for your wanking sessions. leave me the fuck alone. this time im not gonna respond to a lieng litle boy. that cant seem to answer qeustions. to scared to uphold his own word. btw u did not fav the vid i made for u. go back to your self denail,
dogsofwarclan 10 months ago
@br007309 and this is where u rant cause all other options for your hate speech ahve been blocked. why cause we all know what litle cunt u are. and need atention. and need to shout to get a orgasme. and u keep pulling a chain until it pops. and then get scared and defensive whilst u yourself started. u are A quality morron. shuff your one isseu, and ranting up a place where the sun does not shine.
dogsofwarclan 10 months ago
@br007309 your so fucking delusional is starting to get funny and again. u do it first but if i do it its not ok. go fuck yourself. there i said it again, but twhat do u expect from a scared litle jew cunt that tells people shit , but when he gets a invite, shout some more and hides bihind his yt handle. u call the cetle black. know that verb, probly not cause u did not fisnish school. and fuck my grammer u understood it enough to bitch about it. go play hide and seek morron.
dogsofwarclan 10 months ago
the bigger the building is the differently laws of physics affect on it. 47 story building is a giant compare to these ones.
I can jump with my full weight on barbie doll house and it doesnt collapse.
nadoeloiskat 10 months ago
@br007309 cause its the only thing u can. watch the vid, but i think u did not understand it cause your a morron. believe what u whant rant what u whant , it just makes my vid that much better, and shows what a morron u really are. your a know hate speech ,egotistical ranter with no much to offer but bad words and insane thoughts, have a nice day.
dogsofwarclan 10 months ago
Cont. and thats just what we hear about on the news. imagine all the shit that goes down thats equally as important that we dont know about. the globalists are putting their plan into overdrive because they know that their window of oppurtunity for their plan is quickly closing. they'll keep on going, but when their plan gets to the point to where the majority of the masses is experiencing it. their plan will crumble. arm yourselves with knowledge, wake up, love your neighbor, join together
caddyrolla123 11 months ago
Cont. they openly allow the truth to leak out, little by little, even on mainstream media, which they own and control. because they think nobody can do anything about it. their wrong. they underestimate the power of enlightened masses. they will fail. becasue humanity simply wont allow things to go down that way. global awakening is happening at a very fast pace, and they know that. thats why they are forced to speed up their plan. notice how 3 middle eastern countries have fallen in 6 months?
caddyrolla123 11 months ago
Cont. since we rely heavily on foreign oil. eventually "they" hope to force the rest of the world into accepting a "solution". which is a world govnt. and they will make it out to be the best solution, the one solution that will save us all. but that is just the start, eventually will will see a global police state, depopulation, etc. the list goes on and on. BUT, it wont happen. why? because "they" have become so arrogant, they think they have already won, and they are wrong!
caddyrolla123 11 months ago
Cont. So by having an excuse to enter the middle east with military, they are literally able to have a military presence there to ensure control. at the same time they use their economic power to destabilize the region, one country after another. if you havnt noticed, thats exactly whats going on RIGHT now. afganistan, then iraq, now tunisia, egypt, and libya. falling like dominoes. this destabilization is necessary to eventually force the rest of the world to come to the "negotiation table"
caddyrolla123 11 months ago
so most of us can agree that 9/11 was setup. ok, now the masses need to go further into it. who planned it and why. ALOT of ppl already know, but the ppl who are still hung up on the ins and outs of 9/11 need to move on. it was a false flag operation to send forces into the middle east. why? because the middle east region(obviously very unstable in itself) is the only region of the world that isnt manipulated by the "powers that be". (globalists planning a global control grid)
caddyrolla123 11 months ago
Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice
TheMamabear2010 11 months ago
Cut the crap please. Silverstein: 'I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...And I said you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do would be to just pull it. And then they made that decision to pull, then we watched the building collapse." He clearly described a DECISION made, to take an ACTION, that produced the complete sudden implosion of the structure.
DivineFellowship 11 months ago
(continued) There had to have been explosions before each floor fell on the next one. The unusual part of this ordeal which many official story sympathizers ignore or simply put off is in regards to the collapse of the twin towers is the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by the explosions from below. Building 7 imploded from bottom up.
MrFuhrer2009 11 months ago
(continued) Progressive pancaking CAN NOT happen at free fall speed, free fall requires the pulling, moving obstacles below before they can slow the acceleration of falling objects from above, sequenced explosions on the other hand can do this in a sequenced explosion you remove very bottom of the floors above them, fall directly into the building's own footprint. This explains why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails badly.
MrFuhrer2009 11 months ago 4
This is pure genius and should be posted all over the net, it should be exposed to the 9/11 Commision and stump Cheney/Bush and other such mass murderers in Britain and Israel also Saudi Arabia, but if your still a skeptic after watching this and other such videos and want to still go with the official story that the building fell free fall speed because of "melting steel core," a pancake type collapse with one floor progressively falling onto another floor below is a really bad explaination.
MrFuhrer2009 11 months ago 2
dude who cares what happened to wtc 7 no one was hurt and theres a better looking biulding in its place
ilovefood861 11 months ago
Look how many shills will comment and change subjects . Go look at their channels they are paid to have a stupid opinion and deflect from this simple video
geared for ignorant americans
(and stupid Canadians ) to understand . This video along with AE911truth info is enough for a Grand Jury .
SAYYOURROSARY 11 months ago
• your statement that no NYFD personel reported explosions is not true. There are videos tsken on 9-11 of FF describing the boom boom boom of explosions before, and as the buildings came down. And how could jet fuel melt or weaken anything when most of it burned up in those big fireballs we saw when it crashed. And, how could the fire be so hot they sink 3 buildings which had damage to less than 10%of the total structure yet so cool that ppl are seen standing in same spot the plane crashed?
punkamunka 11 months ago
@punkamunka
there were no explosions directly before the collapse -- there were certainly explosions. its to be expected with office fires
Denierbud11 11 months ago
Comment removed
punkamunka 11 months ago
These OSers and Bush/Rush devotees are really something. The GOP really should change their mascot from an Elephant to an Ostrich. Theyll say the Govt wouldnt kill their own ppl yet ignore the thousands of dead GIs that would be alive if not for the lies of the Bushklan sending these men and women to their deaths.
punkamunka 11 months ago
@punkamunka No one's disputing that Bush & Co. started horrific and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one's even disputing that they'd have qualms about killing US civilians either. What we're disputing is that the evidence shows they engineered the 9/11 attacks to excuse their land grabs.
And maybe truthers have been yelling their dogma so loudly for so long that they've lost the ability to question their beliefs. Does the fact that Building 7 collapsed really constitute evidence?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas -- No, the premise is that Israel/Mossad and the Zoglings embedded in the U.S. government and New York engineered it so that Zog (Israel by U.S. proxy) could destroy enemies and take over their countries. Steel frame buildings down fall down like fragile mud structures.
DivineFellowship 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But in true Ostrich Party form, they just wave flags, come up with some catch phrase like "Lets roll" that gets Parroted over and over, hoping everyone forgets the lies that got our soldiers killed. Not the terrorist insurgent commie liberal socialists. It was GOP Lies.
punkamunka 11 months ago
Comment removed
punkamunka 11 months ago
Comment removed
punkamunka 11 months ago
Comment removed
punkamunka 11 months ago
THAAAAAAAAAANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! : ) If people would SIMPLY LOOK at the facts they would see how SIMPLE this is. Even a wooden structure would not have fallen in that manner given that amount of damage (provided the wood didn't burn ; )
PythagorasHyperborea 11 months ago
People need to google FACTOR OF SAFETY. These structures could continue to stand perfectly fine even if 80% of the columns were lost (symmetrically).
PythagorasHyperborea 11 months ago
PRECISELY PRECISELY PRECISELY! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS! This is not rocket science. It would take approximately 97% of the columns being completely compromised before hand to allow for the structure to ACCELERATE downward at nearly F.F.. GOOD WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PythagorasHyperborea 11 months ago
Also i wanted to show, what happens when the controlled demolition is NOT done right. It is hard even when you plan it, no to mention that some UNcontrolled events could lead to perfect collapse.
You can find more my videos in my channel.
KBendix 11 months ago
and btw - that was not a rhetorical question
Denierbud11 11 months ago
class dismissed.
thaw8stedd1 11 months ago
charlie sheen blinked and WTC7 collapsed
BDoran1988 11 months ago
So for those of us who believe the earth is round, that fire can weaken steel and that a buildings fall down -- just what did bring down wtc 7? and why wtc 7?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
So if one of the WTC buildings caught fire and only suffered partial collapse, the truthers wouldn't be suspicious of a conspiracy?
Is that why no truther ever brings up WTC5?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
Why does the author of the video compare a steel framed building to a concrete framed building?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
why caNnt ppl see it like this...,,we use pots and pans cos they dont friggn burn and if we leave one on what happens ? its still there but charred..now imagine thats same steal but much thicker and stonger in a building..and light it infact try lighting the harbour bridge up,,its the same deal here steal frame structure,,.the structure itself still; should have stood. due to fire..but it WAS DEMOLISHED ..
lynnej1970 11 months ago
@lynnej1970
if you think building mechanics and aluminum or steel cooking utensils is similar, then you are an extremely stupid twoofer
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 oh you dont even get the point metal doesnt melt ....like i said if you read properly that the building materials are different stronger (i shoiuldnt have said same steal,but any one that looks into the case will see this anyway.),,and fuel can only burn at a certain degrees asteal buckles at a higehr temperature,(not goes to dust) anyone with common sence knows steal dont burn.by fire...thats the point im making you knew it but you had to make a dig..piss off.
lynnej1970 11 months ago
@lynnej1970
metal actually does melt, that's how they make it -- why are twoofers such morons?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 if u think fire brought down building 7 then u also are stupid......
chunkyboy100 11 months ago
@chunkyboy100
You do know it was the NYFD that first suggested that the building was in danger of collapse -- are they stupid as well?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 no, just you
chunkyboy100 11 months ago
@chunkyboy100
So you agree with the NYFD that the building was in danger of collapse from the fire and structural damage?
how about it chunky, did they lie, were they incompetent or were they correct?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 i said spain would win world cup but i didnt know they would win 1-0 with a goal from inesta in extra time.....
i hope u see my point......
chunkyboy100 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 You do know that the FDNY reported the building damage that resulted from explosions throughout the day right? Barry jennings experienced one such explosion.
deathlesszero 11 months ago
@deathlesszero
yep - explosions are not uncommon in uncontrolled office fires -- did you expect an uncontrolled fire in a 47 building to not result in some explosions?
Now can you answer the direct question - was the NYFD correct when they predicted the bulding could collapse? The prediction predicated on the uncontrolled fire and structural damage.
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 nevermind your rhetorical questioning.. if you truly believe in the integrity of the FDNY, first responders, the people that mangaged to escape.. how about you actually check out their statements/interviews, ask yourself this.. why wasn't any of the key witness statements used in the 9/11 commision?
TONE9142 11 months ago
@TONE9142
Why is it twoofers cannot answer direct questions ... I've read all the first hand reports, listened to the archived recordings and everything publically available -- not ONE NYFD member commander or sr member has ever claimed explosives were used -- all back up the real story, fire and structural failure destroyed the building
Denierbud11 11 months ago
i think you will find it was rhetorical, we all know that the FDNY reported that it was likely to collapse. Because they had been hearing continuous explosions and in some cases people actually witnessed said explosions..
TONE9142 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 You obviously havent read or listened to everything >> /watch?v=Kanj8gx4E1M and thats just a snipet of whats out there.. why are you dissrespecting the dead by technically calling them liars by not accepting thier eye witness statements i.e the truth
Ignorance is bliss though yeh, what a wonderfull world you are leaving for your children.. *sigh*
TONE9142 11 months ago
wouldnt let me put the youtube.com bit so add it in..
TONE9142 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 Lol, office fires don't cause buildings to collapse like 7 did, they're really is no argument.
deathlesszero 11 months ago
@deathlesszero
The NYFD would disagree with you -- they predicted the collapse and evacuated the area -- still avoiding the questions. Do you have anything other than your incredulity?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 After witnessing WTC 1 and 2 collapsing like that, they started to believe, that partial damage and office fires could lead to collapse (that's my guess). But no matter what they said or did, this "pulling out" fact doesn't change the impossible collapse fact and countless other facts.
Those conspiracy skeptics... will pull out one half-fact and make ultimate proof out of it.
KBendix 11 months ago
@KBendix
How is the collapse impossible if those that fight the fires agree that it is possible? you are just arguing your incredulity with no supporting evidence - rather pathetic, no wonder the truth movement has lost ground and dying fast
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@KBendix that's right!
barquedust 11 months ago
@deathlesszero
So your argument is that the NYFD was wrong, buildings cannot collapse from fire?
Denierbud11 11 months ago
are you able to provide examples of other steel-framed high-rise buildings which have EVER completely collapesed at near freefall speed as a result of fire? EVER????
barquedust 11 months ago
@Denierbud11 - of course you can't, because it has never ever happened before. do you know why? because it defies physics.
barquedust 11 months ago
@barquedust
it defies physics -- in what way? C'mon - tell us how it happened? and explain why every NYFD commander agreed the building was in danger, explain why it had a lean to it before it fell
Denierbud11 11 months ago
@lynnej1970 yes over a certain dgrees..your an idiot ppl like you think you know it all,,you have all these architects engineers forefighters,witnesses and you belive the tv,,you belive what you are told,,cos you cannot think for yourself and you dont go look at the facts.
lynnej1970 11 months ago
107 likes and 0 dislikes does not mean it has a 107% approval rating, its still 100%, and nice video :)
Nestlewow 11 months ago
every person i talk to (irl) knows that the official story is a joke... its only the media (and faceless people online) that still hold to the official story... its strange that I never find people irl that believe the government story... never happens, coz most people know they're being lied to
ott0Kitam 11 months ago
@theblitzchannel Exactly. Wild Wacky shit happened, therefore it was the terrorist!
woody91142069 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What percentage of approval?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
107 likes, 0 dislikes... it's not very often you see a video with 107% approval and no opposition.
JibbyJedi 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@JibbyJedi What percentage of approval?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
Makes sense to me...and about 100 million other people
JoeyPencils 11 months ago
0:12 "Office fires can not so much weaken the steel structure, even if a part of the structure would be damaged."
I wonder what could cause such damage and deformation to your sentence structure.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
If only the evil conspirators hadn't insisted on complete, symmetrical collapses for the WTCs, their ruse might have gone unnoticed. Fortunately, anyone with a computer and time to waste can now make pronouncements on how we should expect skyscrapers to collapse from fire damage.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas
"Fortunately, anyone with a computer and time to spare can now make pronouncements on how we should expect skyscrapers to collapse from fire damage".
What???
You mean like NIST did? Hmmmm, sadly, we can't check NIST's work since they won't release their input data because of "public safety" issues.
ThePeage 11 months ago
Yes, it was obviously pre-rigged with explosives in a controlled demo, just like the other two buildings.That's as obvious as the sun. And Larry Silverstein told them to "pull it" as he let slip. (A controlled demo term. These liars can't always perform perfectly, the truth slips out.) No more Jewish false flag murders.
DivineFellowship 11 months ago
@DivineFellowship I still think it's hysterically funny that people think Silverstein spilled the beans in front of a TV camera, using a "controlled demo term" that people in the CD industry don't even use, but his insurance company still forked over a few billion dollars to him.
Think we'd still be having this debate if Larry's last name were Smith?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas
Yes the same HCC insurance that Marvin Bush joined in 2000, a year piror to 9/11. Also they paid out the insurance before there was an investigation into 9/11 let alone finished. Why would an insurance company ok something that would make them fork over 7 billion for 15 million in insurance money before theres even an investigation started. I can tell you that answer now. Obama Care! With Obama care in place every person in the us must get insurance. That means trillions!
darion65 11 months ago
@unRompecabezas -- You're saying liars never make mistakes or slip up? False. A lie is a heavy burden; what the mind knows often blurts itself out. There are other such instances with 9-11, like Rumsfeld referring to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon. You say "pull it" is not a term used in the controlled demo industry? False. We'd not be having this debate if steel frame buildings had not fallen explosively at free-fall speed just like controlled demos, plus many other suspicious oddities.
DivineFellowship 11 months ago
@DivineFellowship "You say "pull it" is not a term used in the controlled demo industry? False. "
So why does no one in the controlled demolition industry use it to mean "destroy with explosives"? Can you find a CD expert who will verify your claim? It's clear this bit of truther dogma is something you fine folks cooked up to impugn Silverstein for his alleged complicity.
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
chemistry, physics... what is this science you talk about?
allah's great warriors destroyed nyc after drunkenly whoring strip clubs for virgens... please, leave your black magic for those cursed people in Haiti who made a pact with the devil.
BreakfastBentoBox 11 months ago
Umm i known what happened , the big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew WT7 down .
AllWeNeedIsAHero 11 months ago
Well I'll be damned, it didn't break into a bazillion pieces like it was made of legos, it must be TV fakery!
fakeham 11 months ago
@ae911truth ...can you make a video of what it really looks like when you fly an airplane into a building showing how crash physics works and how flying debris from an impact reaction looks with the hollow center as it happens intsantly and not a delayed explosive reaction. To me 911 was missing a impact reaction and we skipped to the explosion Maybe the reason the "planes" penetrated the buildings like missles is because they were missles. Planes behave one way missles behave another way :)
skibee50 11 months ago 4
@skibee50 This is building 7 not tower 1 or 2
bobthechipmonk 11 months ago
@skibee50 but at the pentagon, a plane crash-landed there as well!! what of that, sensei?? didn't we find tons of Boeing wreckage there as well? you know, like tail sections that wouldn't be broken up, or fuelsalages, or at least a bit of landing gear? oh, too much to ask for evidence in a matter such as this, eh?
BreakfastBentoBox 11 months ago
@BreakfastBentoBox
I think you might be thinking of a crash at slower speeds. This test shows that a plane can be pretty much destroyed at 500mph (the wing tips survived because they didn't impact the wall). Yes, this was a smaller plane and, yes, the wall was specifically made to survive the impact, but the lack of large debris at the Pentagon is not conclusive evidence that a plane didn't hit it.
There are more scientifically robust reasons to doubt the OS.
ThePeage 11 months ago
My question is why the fuck is it taking so long to make this right. Why the fuck does the plane and fire theory prevail to this day? FUCK EVERYTHING.
boylebongo 11 months ago
I hope the next video installment explains WHY the building would have burned out of control for several hours IF it had actually been a controlled demolition.
Because there's so many CDs that gush smoke for seven hours before collapsing, aren't there?
unRompecabezas 11 months ago
This will not be enough to convince those in heavy denial. To them the building has to be exactly the same as the twin towers and Building 7 or your physics are flawed.
Also has to be the same temperature, wind conditions, correct alignment with the stars in the universe, moons gravitational effects etc.
timberwolves100 11 months ago
@timberwolves100 you are wacky
skibee50 11 months ago
Can you make the word "if" in the video's title bigger?
jelinto 11 months ago
same apllies for wtc1 and two only reverse the graphs. to the intact lower portion. and voila.
dogsofwarclan 11 months ago
these buildings aren't directly comparable with building 7. you guys are supposed to be architects.
brokenstyx 11 months ago
Nothing is directly comparable. Their point makes sense for any building. If one part is damaged the whole thing can't turn to rubble.
howitzer24 11 months ago 10
@howitzer24
they're comparing WTC7 to buildings that have brought down by controlled demolition and saying building 7 should have looked like them. lol they don't know what they're arguing anymore
brokenstyx 11 months ago
@brokenstyx Yes because instead we should be comparing it to high-rise buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone or to buildings which collapsed due to known structural damage.
Wait a sec... there are no recorded cases of complete high-rise from fire damage alone and natural high-rises collapses support the model shown here.
DarkwingScooter 11 months ago
@DarkwingScooter what are you trying to say...the buildings behavior should resemble another damaged building falling. I think the video is giving you a lot just assuming total failure of all verticle supports on an entire floor at the same time would happen anyway ...lol
skibee50 11 months ago