Elevator shafts were hermetically sealed above and beyond all code standards in order to resist fire. The computers were confirmed that the doors did in fact close shutting off the air and fire. I will not comment on what caused the dust as there's no real proof of it either way, but I can tell you that your claim of air makes no sense according to the facts given and that you have no basis for it, meaning you're no better than him.
@SergeantPepper99 Fire and immense air pressure from a collapsing building are two entirely different things. We already know that flaming debris/jet fuel at the moment of impact reached all the way down to the basement via the elevator shafts.
But anyways, I think it's hilarious that many people think the steel is being vaporized. It's clearly dust escaping from the surface or interior of the beams.
@InvernessMoon we know no such thing at all. The elevators changed due to their design. You had to get off at another floor and catch another one.
They were specifically designed to avoid the fireball down the elevator shaft scenario. i think it was around the 78th floor but dont quote me on it. it was well below the plane impact zone anyway.
There is no way on earth the lobby should have blown out but impossible things happened all day on 911 apparently.
WELL THE NETHERLANDS DEMOLITION DOES NOT KNOW THIS BUILDING..IT WAS MADE TO BE STRONG BUT ..IT WAS THE UPPER 30 SOMETHING STORIES WEIGHT ABOVE WHERE THE PLANE WEAKENED THE BUILDING TO THE MAX... ADD TO THE MIX A THOUSAND POUNDS OF JET A FULE AND DOWN IT GOES... AND BY THE WAY THOSE BUILDINGS WERE MADE TO COME DOWN JUST LIKE THAT.. REGARDLESS OF HOW IT COMES DOWN SAVY?
@lukealandrummond Yes 18 floors collapsing is suficient to bring down the towers. You have not only the immense weight of those floors but the kinetic energy of them falling onto a floor simply not designed to take that weight and force. Once that floor gave way then the floors beloew followed suit all the way down. The weight on the falling mass most likely increased as more debris from the collapsing floors were added. The WTC was a bad design from a safety view compared to concrete buildings
@lukealandrummond Why what a constructive answer... it really shows you are just a truther fanboy with zero grasp of the science behind 9/11. l am sure the moon landing deniers will welcome you as you share their intelligence.
People get over it there is no freaking conspiracy Besides what about the plain that went down in pensulvaina and all the evidence in the plains black box Plus if the government did this. Which they didn't why would they try to destroy the pentagon Americas largest government building So you people who do nothing but try to get proof of this being fake you should take this seriously. Countless people lost there lives so just think about it
@eggmiceter There was only one hi-jakcing...and the plane was shot down...They then lied and said it crashed...But it was shot down...Eye witness reports say it was shot down and people say they lights flicked...Which indicates radar zapping...and that was heading for the white house...The others were not hijacked...Nothing...They weren't even airliner planes...No windows no markings...nothing
9/11 = 100% Inside Job and a Coverup......plus The 5 Dancing Israelis of 9/11 and the White Vans packed with explosives <----- Reported by TV News on 9/11
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
The thing is, until we build another WTC and fly a huge plane into it, we wont know the truth. Yes the conspiracy theories are highly believable and we can make a lot of hypothetical scenarios but also nothing like this has ever happened before in the world. If we could somehow stage a replica of the WTC attack and?they didn't fall I think we could have a MUCH stronger case.
@50darknight please don't tell me you think a plane could knock over a skyscraper! That is simply ridiculous! It would have taken 100 jets to knock them over to the side, most likely more! They fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down, it does not pull to the side! Please learn some basic physics before making another statement like that, it will save you a lot of embarrassment!
copy paste videos people, this is the truth, controlled demolition in new york, in england, in madrid (spain) in japan in haiti , in chile, haarp earthwuakes and tsunamis, ok with earthquakes? . not... is tsunami bombs. LISTEN TO BENJAIN FULFORD , please
Some people can´t understand that it is ABSOLUTE IMPOSIBLE that a steel tower collapse itself, needless to say at NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, don´t words on WTC 7 collapse, its a joke.
Was a nuclear demolition: Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov, and her banned book by the (Yes we can administration) on Amazon: The Third Thruth
@Inigo37 Good God, Grow up! There was no "controlled demolition", there isn't even the slightest reason to imagine a controlled demo! There was no "free fall speed", there were no explosives anywhere near the WTC. You truthers are a hysterical joke! Its very fun to laugh at you idiots! It's as though you WANT to look like an idiot! The best part of your comment is the ridiculous accusation of "nuclear demolition"! You have got to be a little retarded if you even consider such an idiotic myth!
@Inigo37 Please explain how it is "absolute impossible" for the WTC to collapse? You are an idiot and there is no way you are going to explain your claim, you know you cant! You are only repeating garbage you heard from other idiotic truthers! Please supply evidence to support your accusations or apologize to all the the government employees you are accusing of murdering their own friends, family and fellow Americans! Grow up little boy, you are a very irresponsible and ignorant fool.
@youstupidmoron it could fallen but the thing that gives it away is that it fell in its own footprint. If a commerical plane hit wtc's from the side it should fall over and no t straight down. Since we found this out now we need to now why, why would the government kill its own citizens?
There are no detonations at the right side - just collapse.( If there had been detonations, they would be heard and would make massive sounds).
The heavy debris falling below the collapse level is falling faster than the collapse - because the debris (unlike the building structure) IS falling at free fall rate.
Also controlled demolitions are not done from the top down.
@davidkesslerauthor Well how about this? We could clear up all these discrepancies if NIST would just agree to submit all the data they used to make their assumptions and their reports on the building collapse for peer review. How about international peer review? If the united states has nothing to hide then why not submit NIST's reports and all data used in the computer simulation for international peer review? Could you agree to that at least? Gimme somthin brotha man?
@davidkesslerauthor Oh no no no no no. That's not how it works in the real world. The government makes a claim, it should be able to withstand international scrutiny. It is the government's responsibility to prove it's theory of conspiracy by 19 hijackers who made NORAD do nothing in particular for 82 mintues and buildings fall in such a way as to make history, not some conspiracy theorist. The government goes first, like the prosecution, then the defense, like the conspiracy nuts.
@Daddyo930 The government has at least presented a complete theory. Their critics have thrown in everything but the kitchen sink: explosives, thermite, super-thermite (whatever that is), charges planted when the buildings were first constructed in the early seventies, a missile, a government plane And the passengers? Didn't exist, killed and buried in secret, Guantamo Bay? Who? US gov, Israelis? Why? Control of SOME oil? After wiping billions off share prices?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
really nice work !!! you´re the first person who really have evidence and show thath on internet !!! some day all peole is going to now the truth..............
this is controlled because they did find temperatures hot as 1800 degrees after the collapse caused by thermite and they found peices of twin towers in jersey cause of explosives
Ahh Yeah.. The "Squibs" are simply compressed air being forced out the side. What you have here is basically a gigantic pneumatic ram compressing the air in the building until it is forced out the sides. And if thermite was in the building we would see traces of Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate. Both not present. The whole thermite thing is blown to hell by the lack of these substances. They would HAVE to be there. Otherwise it aint Thermite.
I think it's hilarious how in the sample video with a building 1/30th its size there are about 15 squibs, while in the gigantic World Trade Center there are only two.
Why is the entire building pulverized? Why didn't any of that concrete stay together? There is footage of buildings that have collapsed due to structural damage and they fall over at an angle, never straight down into their own footprints. Basic level physics tells us that gravity causes objects to fall into the path of LEAST resistance, not most resistance into tonnes of concrete at free fall speed.
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
Yes because the Empire State building was hit by a World War II plane in 1945 and it still stood. So a plane wouldn't cause the collapse. In fact both Towers were built to sustain 13,000 tons of esat coast wind pressure.
One point I would make is (demolition accepted) that at 0.36 on the video there is a very important reference to "vaporized steel" and the trail of dust left by a falling steel beam that has been partially 'vaporized'. Does anyone believe that ANY conventional explosive (even thermate/thermite) can vaporize steel in that manner, I have my doubts... this leaves one option=advanced weaponry.
Please consider the enigma of where most of the mass of the towers disappeared to on 9-11?
@vortigern5 "Does anyone believe that ANY conventional explosive (even thermate/thermite) can vaporize steel" - No steel has been "vaporized". What you see is simply material such as fireprotection or concrete/gypsum dust separating from the beams.
Nearly all the steel of the twin towers was recoveres and examined. No sings of material loss.
This "vaporization" nonsense is a serious delusion.
BASTARDS MY MOM WAS KILLED IN THAT FUCKING, MURDERERS I WILL GET MY REVENGE, HOW CAN YOU CUNTS SAY THAT THIS IS NOT REAL CAN YOU NOT SEE THE FUCKING BOMBS GOING OFF THIS IS 100% PROOF THAT BUSH ORGANIZED AND ALLOWED THE MASS MURDER OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICAN HOW CAN WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS
@blite13 - I'm not making a point but an observation. It's an information question, objectively speaking, elliciting information in return. Doing my homework.
@itzamia it was office furniture and carpets that kept "burning". As you can see from all the smoke, it wasn't a heat intensive fire. Yes, ask anyone who knows about the jet fuel, most of it went up in the initial explosion and the rest burned off shortly after. Do some research if you are going to comment on it.
buliding no. 7 ( huge structure....fair to say) , was not hit by a plane....all we know, a fire took place,....and then it collapsed like a pan cake.....Personally, I dont think this is posible.
do you dumbasses REALLY believe that if the gov't was going to kill thousands of americans by attacking 2 huge building with hijacked airplanes, they would make it this obvious to figure out? i mean reeeeally? come on now.
i dont understand why americans blame themselves when clearly 2 planes crashed right into them.... its saddd, how there is no respect for the people who died that day... and the media used what happened to just start talking crap about their own country
I am proud to be an American, and believe me, I am not blaming myself for this anymore than I blame myself for dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima.
We have a great country and we need to use the justice system for what it is made for -- Putting criminals, whoever they may be, someplace where they can't hurt us again. Wake up
@CharlieOscarOmega Sorry to stick into this again - but how do you know that "clearly 2 planes crashed right into" the buildings...
What you mean is you have seen videos and tv footage which purport to show plane impacts
What you mean is that you have been told by the mass media that 2 plane impacts "happened" and you have listened to "witnesses" interviewed on TV who say that planes hit the buildings.
TURN OFF THE TVEEE - PLEASE Do Your Own Research - Find the Truth....
@vortigern5 "What you mean is you have seen videos and tv footage ... listened to witnesses ... Do Your Own Research - Find the Truth..." Hahaha Typical twoofer: "Reject all evidence! Make up your own conclusions!". Fact: Radar data shows planes lost over Manhattan. Fact: Plane debris found in Manhattan. Fact: Remains of passengers found in Manhattan. Fact: Thousands of witnesses. Fact: Dozends of independent videos. Fact: Voices from planes recorded. Fact: Planes missing. Fact: Planes hit WTC.
Many firefighters and eyewitness survivors testify that they heard explosions. These testimonies are widely available on youtube.
You also have not put forth a viable explanation of how building 7 fell at free fall speed. In fact, this was impossible without massive explosions. Your bellicosity is not a substitute for science.
You are a traitor and a disgrace to American patriots everywhere.
Anyone who can watch the above video and pretend not to see a massive explosion is stupid, blind, or a paid sock puppet traitor.
Have you lied to yourself for so long that you believe other people will believe your lies also? You have posted so many misstatements below that it is difficult to confront them all with little more than pity. But lets just take the "explosions" you say nobody heard.
"COULD TAKE MULTIPLE IMPACTS" -> WRONG. Could take 1 (ONE) impact of smaller plane going much slower (i,e. only 10% of the kinetic energy of the actual planes). And yet the towers DID survive the impacts (did not collapse immediately. Only LATER did they succumb to the combined devastation of impacts and fires.
@PapaOystein STOP LYING ON YOUTUBE - "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting"-Frank A.Demartini WTC construction manager, Deceased 9/11/01 RIP
@vortigern5 "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it." a) That was not in any building code, nor a design objective. It was more an afterthought b) The idea was of a 707 on landing approach to JFK lost in fog. That%s only 10% of kinetic energy c) Towers DID withstand plane crashes. They succumbed to fires eventually d) It was impossible in the 70s to predict behaviour after plane crash AND multi-floor unfought fires e) Do the physics math: Plane must penetrate.
Because the "19 arabs" explanation contains nothing that we do not already know for facts: a) we know that there were several Arabs on each plane b) planes were hijacked c) by non-native English speakers d) flown into towers e) causing MASSIVE structural damage f) igniting HUGE fires on a scale that easily weakens structural steel. For the alternative, you must assume a lot of things that you do NOT know, and some (like explosions) that you KNOW were NOT there (there was no BANG BANG BANG BANG)
@PapaOystein What I know is the aircraft engine that was photographed as supposedly being wreckage found on the street beneath WTC on 9/11 could not have come from any United Airlines or American Airlines aircraft as are suggested to have hit WTC. The wreckage is the wrong make of engine. Please PapaOystein (interesting name...) do not perpetuate lies some of us know better than to fall for them
@vortigern5 "What I know is the aircraft engine ... could not have come from any United Airlines or American Airlines aircraft " - you think you know. In reality, you have been spoon-fed lies. Your delusion has been debunked years ago. Welcome to 2010.
Just think: How can the NWO be oh so clever to pull this huge stunt off, and then be oh so dumb as to plant the wrong evidence??
@ 0:39-0:40 " ... vaporized heavy steel beams ..." noting that this is the obvious v.o. and that in the face of Denialisim such would be sensible, we cannot have "vaporization" of steel in the dustification position -- such an event would have an energy release sufficient to show on H.A.A.R.P. magnetometers in Alaska { as well as reducing miles of surrounding infrastructure to oblivion }
Anyone who can watch this video and pretend not to see massive explosions hurling steel beams and concrete hundreds of feet in the air is blind, stupid, or a traitor, paid sock puppet.
Any such explosions would be primarily noticed by their INSANELY loud and sharp BANGs, which would have been VERY MUCH louder than the noise of the following collapse. That is why videos like this NEVER keep the original soundtrack. Like when they compare to real controlled demolitions: Watch one with real sound, and you will always find that the BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG is a most impressive feature of CDs. NONE of that was heard by the 100.000 New Yorkers, none is on any of 100s of films
"Massive" explosions that are strong enough to sever the support columns of the towers would have been so insanely loud that not a single of the 100.000 New Yorkers within a a few miles of the site, and none of the hundreds of cameras and microfones would have missed it. Yet not all, but precisely no device recorded any such insanely loud BANG, let alone a series of BANG BANG BANG BANG as the video implies. Which, of course, does not contain original sound, in order to conceal that lack of BANG
@PapaOystein Are you suggesting that the buildings fell quietly?Support columns weren't blown up,they were burned with thermite.There are dozens of accounts of people hearing explosions even before a plane hit.If you think it would have taken large explosions to take the columns down,where did they go?
@MrSafetymeeting Not entirely quietly, but high explosives to cut columns would have been many many magnitudes louder than anything heard by anyone, and would have been recorded by every camera, no exception. No-one cuts big columns with thermite, that technique does not exist, and no-one has found any evidence of thermite. Jones and Harriet are plain wrong there. No-one really heard explosions before plane. Exposure to fire initiated collapse, that is a quiet and proven mode.
@PapaOystein Nobody cuts steel columns with explosives.Explosions break concrete.What do you think they use thermite for?Im sure the falling building was EXTREMELEY loud.Are you calling the fireman who heard the explosions liars?Why were their explosions in the basement?That would be the first building,sorry 3 buildings, in history to collapse because of fire.
@PapaOystein Why did WTC 7 collapse without being hit by a plane, taking with it the offices of American Express, the IRS, the SEC, Federal Home Loan Bank, the Department of Defense, and the CIA?
@Reflection1989 Easy. Because it burned for hours on many floors, the fires could not be fought, and destrcution is what awaits buildings that burn unchecked. Ask any fire fighter or structural enineer what fire does to steel bars. If you have no fire fighter or structural engineer in your family or circle of friends, I recommend you pick up your yellow pages and call the ones nearest to you. Just ask them: "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" Listen, learn
@PapaOystein Ok. Next question: Why were hundreds of thousands of poor American children warehoused in institutions by state governments, with the compliance of the federal government in the 20th century as a part of the Eugenics movement, which aimed to separate people considered to be genetically inferior from the rest of society, to prevent them from reproducing?
@Reflection1989 Has nothing to do with 9/11. Very probably just another delusion. Question back at you: Why are you still alive even though you so cleverly look through and expose the evil forces' vicious plans? Duh'
@PapaOystein This will be the last time I respond to you, because you're obviously mentally retarded. "Very probably just another delusion" Very probably??? That doesn't even make sense, you dumb son of a bitch. Learn grammar before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot. Why am I still alive even though i so cleverly look through and expose the evil forces plans? How is asking questions clever? Do you not ask questions? Obviously not, dipshit.
@Reflection1989 Internet rule A: You call me names = automatic win for me :D "Very probably" and not "certainly", because I have no inclination to look into the matter. Unlike you, I don't gullibly lap up any wild claim anybody throws at me just because it fits my prejudices. Rule B: You move goal posts away from topic = automatic win for me :D This video is about WTC1 collapse. The video tells nonsense based on an amateurs imagination or lack thereof. Let's stick to that, ok?
@PapaOystein While you're pondering that question, I have another question. Why did Donald Rumsfeld confess that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion on September 10th, 2001?
@PapaOystein Next question: Why did the United States government order the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the country during the Prohibition era, which killed at least 10,000 people?
@PapaOystein Next question: Why did Christoph Meili, a nightwatchman at UBS find employees shredding decades-old contracts and lists of mortgaged buildings in German cities like Berlin and Breslau in the 1930's and 1940's -- the years of Nazi rule in Germany?
@Reflection1989 Attaboy Attaboy - on, on, forward attack, attack - this is more like it!!! Reflection 1989 you take the fight to the enemy - brilliant - If you were in the army and you were a Colonel I would say make him a General now! PapaOystein - works for them - I have encountered him before many times on the comment rosters on similar videos on this site....
@Reflection1989 This is where it is at - this is the important information - THEY were playing both sides long before the 'Cold War' - your comment is the truth and it exposes this...
Alger Hiss, The Reece Committee Report, Norman Dodd, Bush-Banking, US companies building factories in Soviet Russia 1930s-1960s,
Their game is up - but they will never give up without struggle
@PapaOystein Ok, Ok. Last question, I promise. Why is J.P Morgan, the wealthy financier also the face of Milton Bradley's popular board game Monopoly?
@PapaOystein Sorry bud, none of those are delusions. They are all facts. The fact that when I point out facts to you, you dismiss them as "delusions" shows that you are in denial of the truth. "***Probably*** just another delusion" - "Probably" is a pretty uncertain word. Just because you can't handle the truth doesn't mean I'm delusional, asshole.
@PapaOystein In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse.
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.
@KS8730 Interstate Bldg., LA: Go to Wiki, find link to Technical Report in References, and read: "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire" ... "The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the fire" (ca. 50 minutes after fire broke out) "active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core". So there are 2 major differences to WTC.
@KS8730 One Meridian Plaza was eventually abandoned by fire fighters because it lost structural integrity. It was rendered beyond repair and had to be demolished eventually. So it was good luck it didn't collapse. This result was in part due to firefighting (although effective attack didn't occur until about 2 hours after fire began). So in fact, OMP is an example of fires destroying the structural integrity of a steel frame highrise, rendering it prone to collapse.
@PapaOystein February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.
The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009. 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse.
@KS8730 Yup. Not a single bit of your own research and reasoning. Just regurgitating what you have been spoon-fed. Why do you throw at me the names of buildings you found at truther-websites? Where is your argument? Why do you think it matters? Why do you not know that these examples don't prove anything at all?
@PapaOystein I think you maybe jumping the gun a little. Did I say this proves anything? You said "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" These were examples. Are you implying that a steel frame building will fall if it burns for hours? lol.
"Why do you not know that these examples don't prove anything at all?"
Why do you not know that phoning the fire dept or structural engineer and asking that question you suggested proves nothing either. lol.
@PapaOystein I said it because of your comment. In your comment to Reflection 1989 you said " I recommend you pick up your yellow pages and call the ones nearest to you. Just ask them: "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" Did you not? Then I gave examples of what happens. i.e they are still standing. They did not collapse into a neat pile.
@KS8730 Ah OK, I was lacking context here. So which of the buildings you gave me was steel frame AND burned uncontrolledly? Oh and by the way, you can still call the structural engineering firm nearest to you and ask them exactly this question, and I guarantee you they will answer "collapse is a very likely outcome". Just try it!
@KS8730 "Interstate bank building. Steel framed, sprinklers not working, burned for 4 hours."
Look it up on Wikipedia. There a link to the Technical Report. Read: "initial (fire fighing) attack began at approximately 2310 (48 minutes after fire broke out). ...attack was initiated from all four stairways". That's a major difference to WTC fire , which was never attacked at all.
Also: "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire."
@PapaOystein U could pick a major difference with all of them since none of them are the actual twin towers. 48 minutes uncontrolled? Only 8 mins less than wtc2. lol. What about 1 new york plaza? Explosion, burning for 6 hours, no collapse?
Lets assume, like you said, "collapse is a very likely outcome". How would u expect it to collapse? Straight down?
@KS8730 "U could pick a major difference with all of them" - Correct, which is why giving examples won't get you far. You would have to look at the actual twin towers. Which NIST, Purdue, Arup, Bazant did. All of them found that collapse isn't a mystery.
"48 minutes uncontrolled? Only 8 mins less than wtc2" - Another MAJOR difference: 1000s of gallons of fuel started fires in WTC through several floors at once, while Interstate fire started small, took time to grow
@PapaOystein What about those qualified engineers and scientists who think collapse is still a mystery? Should they be ignored? Dont u agree that another independent investigation would finally put this to bed one way or another?
@KS8730 "What about 1 new york plaza?" - That building had a reinforced concrete core, not steel frame. Major difference
"Explosion" - pretty irrelevant, as load-bearing structures are not easily affected by these
"no collapse" - INCORRECT. Partial collapse.
"Lets assume, like you said, "collapse is a very likely outcome". How would u expect it to collapse? Straight down? " I already replied to this: Yes, gravity works that way; the null hypothesis will be "straight down"
@KS8730 "U mean it didnt fall straight down thru the path of most resistance?" INCORRECT. Even partial collapse goes mostly straight down. I meant that you were simpy WRONG when you asserted "no" collapse.
"What about those qualified engineers and scientists" - Name them, their qualifications, and their reasons to not understand!
"Should they be ignored?" No, not if and when they publish their concerns the way engineers and scientists do: In real engineering and science journals.
@PapaOystein "Dont u agree that another independent investigation would finally put this to bed one way or another? "
Not at all. Do you agree that any "independent investigation" would finally put any religion to bed? You can't overcome cultist belief with facts. Truthers will always find fault with any investigation. They will judge it by its outcome: If it destroys their delusions, they will cry foul, or move goal posts. We seen you guys do that for 9 years now, going on 10.
@PapaOystein To clarify, I am not afraid to find out the official story is true. As long as the investigation is carried out by an independent body who has no vested interest in the reults. Are you afraid to find out the official story is lies?
@PapaOystein Neils Harrit, professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University for 37 years. Peer reviewed paper in Bentham journal. Talks about chemicals present that have no way of being there by chance and could not be created in the collapse. Is that not worth investigating?
Kevin Ryan formerly of NIST, peer reviewed paper Environmental anomalies, evidence for energetic materials. Have u read these?
@KS8730 "Harrit...Talks about chemicals present...Is that not worth investigating?"
No, it is not. That paper is full of errors. I don't know why Harrit is doing this. Figure 29 proves the stuff is not nanothermite. Energy release of >3.9kJ/g proves it can't be any thermite at all. Data and pix on samples a-d shows red layer is ordinary paint. Data on sample e shows it's a different material - no aluminium in samples a-d. In the meantime, S. Jones has inadvertantly shown sample e is primer!
@KS8730 "Kevin Ryan formerly of NIST, peer reviewed paper Environmental anomalies, evidence for energetic materials. Have u read these?"
Get your facts straight. Kevin Ryan is not formerly of NIST. The article you allude to is a predecessor of the Harrit paper; its authors (including Ryan) are co-authors of Harrit, so there is no independence of the studies. The later paper is totally false, so I won't bother with the preliminary one. They look at events long AFTER 9/11 - why? It's bullshit.
@PapaOystein Sorry. Underwriters laboratory. He was sacked for questioning NIST.
" They look at events long AFTER 9/11 - why? It's bullshit." What about the family members of the dead who want a proper investigation? Is it bullshit to them?
" Figure 29 proves the stuff is not nanothermite. Energy release of >3.9kJ/g proves it can't be any thermite at all." Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about? Do u know what "pyrocool" is used for?
"Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about?"
Haha, your best(only) "evidence" for controlled demo is shown to be false and you immediately do exactly what Papa said you would. "You can't overcome cultist belief with facts".
Faced with the facts, you make claims of something unprovable.
@KS8730 "He was sacked for questioning NIST." - He was sacked for betraying his employer, and meddling with things he doesn't understand.
"What about the family members of the dead who want a proper investigation? Is it bullshit to them?" - Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who says it.
"Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about?" - No technology will beat fundamental laws of physics; here: Conservation of energy. It's impossible because of first principles.
@PapaOystein "No technology will beat fundamental laws of physics; here: Conservation of energy. It's impossible because of first principles."
Believe me, I have a good understanding of the laws of physics. So, what is the "it" that u refer to here? What is impossible due to 1st principles and how is it relevant to unknown technologies?
@bigrpb What are you dude? A complete idiot? Even the dumbest person who examines the visual and forensic evidence can see that the towers were rigged with explosives, Bush's family is part of the Illuminati bloodline, these guys are bred and trained for these operations.
To anybody who buys the bullshit official story: IF it was a "Pancake collapse" and the collapse started on the 82nd story, it would have taken ~162 seconds to completely collapse to the ground...
clearly it did not take 162 seconds for the tower to collapse.
There are many papers out by real structural engineers, who have shown conclusively that the expected collapse speed would in fact very closely match the observed speed. With a sound grasp high school level physics and math and a simple 1-dimensional model you could verify for yourself that indeed a speed faster than half that of a free fall is absolutely reasonable.
The papers that come up with 162 seconds have obvious flaws. Their authors are either really dumb, or outright liars,
@PapaOystein PLEASE STOP LYING AND TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE. Your statement is not true and you know that to be the case. You have been exposed already - you are working to a corrupt agenda. Please do not comment here when you are only seeking to spread lies. The collapse was at near free fall speed. Anything other than a controlled demolition could not achieve this - the mass beneath would cause too much resistance.
@sch3ffs you keep telling yourself that....And while you are at it..just keep telling yourself that building 7 fell on its own!
kowtpr187 1 month ago
bush lie
xXMEM0 3 months ago
@sch3ffs
Elevator shafts were hermetically sealed above and beyond all code standards in order to resist fire. The computers were confirmed that the doors did in fact close shutting off the air and fire. I will not comment on what caused the dust as there's no real proof of it either way, but I can tell you that your claim of air makes no sense according to the facts given and that you have no basis for it, meaning you're no better than him.
What you suggest is conspiracy as well you moron.
SergeantPepper99 4 months ago
@SergeantPepper99 Fire and immense air pressure from a collapsing building are two entirely different things. We already know that flaming debris/jet fuel at the moment of impact reached all the way down to the basement via the elevator shafts.
But anyways, I think it's hilarious that many people think the steel is being vaporized. It's clearly dust escaping from the surface or interior of the beams.
InvernessMoon 3 months ago
@InvernessMoon we know no such thing at all. The elevators changed due to their design. You had to get off at another floor and catch another one.
They were specifically designed to avoid the fireball down the elevator shaft scenario. i think it was around the 78th floor but dont quote me on it. it was well below the plane impact zone anyway.
There is no way on earth the lobby should have blown out but impossible things happened all day on 911 apparently.
zenoist2 3 months ago
WELL THE NETHERLANDS DEMOLITION DOES NOT KNOW THIS BUILDING..IT WAS MADE TO BE STRONG BUT ..IT WAS THE UPPER 30 SOMETHING STORIES WEIGHT ABOVE WHERE THE PLANE WEAKENED THE BUILDING TO THE MAX... ADD TO THE MIX A THOUSAND POUNDS OF JET A FULE AND DOWN IT GOES... AND BY THE WAY THOSE BUILDINGS WERE MADE TO COME DOWN JUST LIKE THAT.. REGARDLESS OF HOW IT COMES DOWN SAVY?
kguitar765 4 months ago in playlist WTC Conspiracy
@kguitar765 It was 18 floors out of 110...That is not sufficient amount for the tower to collapse
lukealandrummond 4 months ago
@lukealandrummond Yes 18 floors collapsing is suficient to bring down the towers. You have not only the immense weight of those floors but the kinetic energy of them falling onto a floor simply not designed to take that weight and force. Once that floor gave way then the floors beloew followed suit all the way down. The weight on the falling mass most likely increased as more debris from the collapsing floors were added. The WTC was a bad design from a safety view compared to concrete buildings
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 Do you not know a simple thing about Physics or the Design of the WTC
lukealandrummond 2 months ago
@lukealandrummond Why what a constructive answer... it really shows you are just a truther fanboy with zero grasp of the science behind 9/11. l am sure the moon landing deniers will welcome you as you share their intelligence.
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 Actually it's a well constructed question to see if you actually know anything about which you are discussing
lukealandrummond 2 months ago
@lukealandrummond Meh enjoy you fantasy truther fanboy
Spindry96 2 months ago
People get over it there is no freaking conspiracy Besides what about the plain that went down in pensulvaina and all the evidence in the plains black box Plus if the government did this. Which they didn't why would they try to destroy the pentagon Americas largest government building So you people who do nothing but try to get proof of this being fake you should take this seriously. Countless people lost there lives so just think about it
eggmiceter 4 months ago
@eggmiceter There was only one hi-jakcing...and the plane was shot down...They then lied and said it crashed...But it was shot down...Eye witness reports say it was shot down and people say they lights flicked...Which indicates radar zapping...and that was heading for the white house...The others were not hijacked...Nothing...They weren't even airliner planes...No windows no markings...nothing
lukealandrummond 4 months ago
9/11 = 100% Inside Job and a Coverup......plus The 5 Dancing Israelis of 9/11 and the White Vans packed with explosives <----- Reported by TV News on 9/11
Born2Flesh 4 months ago
my God... it is a conspiracy :(
simplysmall7 4 months ago
Yeah because a bomb squad can go through a 100+ floor building in less than and hour... MY ASS
cds587 5 months ago
@cds587 bomb squad??? less than an hour??? Why would this need to happen? Who said this....ever....in history?
JulietsMan 4 months ago
@JulietsMan Why don't you go and watch the video...
cds587 4 months ago
@cds587 the bombs were palnted weeks earlier
djkhaled412 4 months ago
@djkhaled412 And you get this bull shit from where???
cds587 4 months ago
@cds587 This video explains how they got the bombs in those buildings
/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM
prettynessaful 4 months ago
@prettynessaful I CAN NOT BELIVE HOW GULLIBLE YOU FAGGOTS ARE. ALL THESE CONSPIRACY VIDEOS ARE FULL OF ASS LOADS OF BULL SHIT!
cds587 4 months ago
@cds587 Dont respond to me like that asshole
prettynessaful 4 months ago
@prettynessaful I can respond to you any way i want. You don't controll me bitch.
cds587 4 months ago
@cds587 Jerk! Ill cut your lil dick off and hand it to you patna
prettynessaful 4 months ago
@prettynessaful Jesus, calm down. No need go all rambo bitch on me.
cds587 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djkhaled412 And you get this bull shit from where???
cds587 4 months ago
@djkhaled412 And you get this bull shit from where???
cds587 4 months ago
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
djkhaled412 4 months ago
@djkhaled412 This video right? Cds587 is confused
/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM
prettynessaful 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
djkhaled412 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djkhaled412 um i got this from an honest investigation from a documentray from people who were there and people said there were suspious people coming into wtc towers weeks earlier before 911 and they would go to certain areas of the buldings with a map of the towers and they said the people were trrying to plant somekind of squareshaped things into the walls after drilling it , but ofcouse you'll never hear about that
djkhaled412 4 months ago
The thing is, until we build another WTC and fly a huge plane into it, we wont know the truth. Yes the conspiracy theories are highly believable and we can make a lot of hypothetical scenarios but also nothing like this has ever happened before in the world. If we could somehow stage a replica of the WTC attack and?they didn't fall I think we could have a MUCH stronger case.
ainokea8080808 5 months ago
@50darknight please don't tell me you think a plane could knock over a skyscraper! That is simply ridiculous! It would have taken 100 jets to knock them over to the side, most likely more! They fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down, it does not pull to the side! Please learn some basic physics before making another statement like that, it will save you a lot of embarrassment!
youstupidmoron 5 months ago
Comment removed
GeRzAwN 5 months ago
copy paste videos people, this is the truth, controlled demolition in new york, in england, in madrid (spain) in japan in haiti , in chile, haarp earthwuakes and tsunamis, ok with earthquakes? . not... is tsunami bombs. LISTEN TO BENJAIN FULFORD , please
Wecanstopnwo1 6 months ago
The plane made the towers collapse and I'm a fucking idiot.
The fire made building 7 collapse and the earth is flat!!
b1ackhaz3 6 months ago
Some people can´t understand that it is ABSOLUTE IMPOSIBLE that a steel tower collapse itself, needless to say at NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, don´t words on WTC 7 collapse, its a joke.
Was a nuclear demolition: Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov, and her banned book by the (Yes we can administration) on Amazon: The Third Thruth
Inigo37 6 months ago
@Inigo37 Good God, Grow up! There was no "controlled demolition", there isn't even the slightest reason to imagine a controlled demo! There was no "free fall speed", there were no explosives anywhere near the WTC. You truthers are a hysterical joke! Its very fun to laugh at you idiots! It's as though you WANT to look like an idiot! The best part of your comment is the ridiculous accusation of "nuclear demolition"! You have got to be a little retarded if you even consider such an idiotic myth!
youstupidmoron 6 months ago
@Inigo37 Please explain how it is "absolute impossible" for the WTC to collapse? You are an idiot and there is no way you are going to explain your claim, you know you cant! You are only repeating garbage you heard from other idiotic truthers! Please supply evidence to support your accusations or apologize to all the the government employees you are accusing of murdering their own friends, family and fellow Americans! Grow up little boy, you are a very irresponsible and ignorant fool.
youstupidmoron 6 months ago
@youstupidmoron it could fallen but the thing that gives it away is that it fell in its own footprint. If a commerical plane hit wtc's from the side it should fall over and no t straight down. Since we found this out now we need to now why, why would the government kill its own citizens?
50darknight 5 months ago
I didn't see any squibs.
The dust is not ejected in a symmetrical pattern.
There are no detonations at the right side - just collapse.( If there had been detonations, they would be heard and would make massive sounds).
The heavy debris falling below the collapse level is falling faster than the collapse - because the debris (unlike the building structure) IS falling at free fall rate.
Also controlled demolitions are not done from the top down.
nigelfarringdon 6 months ago
Comment removed
nigelfarringdon 6 months ago
Am I the only one not seeing anything?
ChakatBlackstar 6 months ago
@davidkesslerauthor Well how about this? We could clear up all these discrepancies if NIST would just agree to submit all the data they used to make their assumptions and their reports on the building collapse for peer review. How about international peer review? If the united states has nothing to hide then why not submit NIST's reports and all data used in the computer simulation for international peer review? Could you agree to that at least? Gimme somthin brotha man?
Daddyo930 7 months ago
Comment removed
davidkesslerauthor 7 months ago
@davidkesslerauthor Oh no no no no no. That's not how it works in the real world. The government makes a claim, it should be able to withstand international scrutiny. It is the government's responsibility to prove it's theory of conspiracy by 19 hijackers who made NORAD do nothing in particular for 82 mintues and buildings fall in such a way as to make history, not some conspiracy theorist. The government goes first, like the prosecution, then the defense, like the conspiracy nuts.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
Comment removed
nigelfarringdon 7 months ago
@Daddyo930 The government has at least presented a complete theory. Their critics have thrown in everything but the kitchen sink: explosives, thermite, super-thermite (whatever that is), charges planted when the buildings were first constructed in the early seventies, a missile, a government plane And the passengers? Didn't exist, killed and buried in secret, Guantamo Bay? Who? US gov, Israelis? Why? Control of SOME oil? After wiping billions off share prices?
nigelfarringdon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 7 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, what happened to the passengers and crew?
How many times did William Rodriguez change his 911 testimony?
If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?
ctcole77 7 months ago
really nice work !!! you´re the first person who really have evidence and show thath on internet !!! some day all peole is going to now the truth..............
kfhify 8 months ago
Nice work :)
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
this is controlled because they did find temperatures hot as 1800 degrees after the collapse caused by thermite and they found peices of twin towers in jersey cause of explosives
Dantedijon 10 months ago
Ahh Yeah.. The "Squibs" are simply compressed air being forced out the side. What you have here is basically a gigantic pneumatic ram compressing the air in the building until it is forced out the sides. And if thermite was in the building we would see traces of Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate. Both not present. The whole thermite thing is blown to hell by the lack of these substances. They would HAVE to be there. Otherwise it aint Thermite.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
I think it's hilarious how in the sample video with a building 1/30th its size there are about 15 squibs, while in the gigantic World Trade Center there are only two.
BobBobbert100 1 year ago
Why is the entire building pulverized? Why didn't any of that concrete stay together? There is footage of buildings that have collapsed due to structural damage and they fall over at an angle, never straight down into their own footprints. Basic level physics tells us that gravity causes objects to fall into the path of LEAST resistance, not most resistance into tonnes of concrete at free fall speed.
jtking2504 1 year ago
great video
ps2nolimits 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
This looks nothing like a demolition. Also you can hear no explosions.
eebeni 1 year ago
@eebeni dude. have you ever seen a controlled demolition before? because this looks REMARKABLY similar...
mindfullofjellyfish 1 year ago
@mindfullofjellyfish Actually it is not even remotely similar in many ways. This is anything but controlled.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
Yes because the Empire State building was hit by a World War II plane in 1945 and it still stood. So a plane wouldn't cause the collapse. In fact both Towers were built to sustain 13,000 tons of esat coast wind pressure.
SLICKDSM 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw ER because he works for them maybe.....
vortigern5 1 year ago
@1337chsacker Please quote a world reknowned scientist specialising in this type of question and metals who agrees with you.
Advanced weaponry is the only viable explanation for this steel vaporization and many of the other phenomena that were witnessed on 9/11.
vortigern5 1 year ago
Good video.
One point I would make is (demolition accepted) that at 0.36 on the video there is a very important reference to "vaporized steel" and the trail of dust left by a falling steel beam that has been partially 'vaporized'. Does anyone believe that ANY conventional explosive (even thermate/thermite) can vaporize steel in that manner, I have my doubts... this leaves one option=advanced weaponry.
Please consider the enigma of where most of the mass of the towers disappeared to on 9-11?
vortigern5 1 year ago
@vortigern5 "Does anyone believe that ANY conventional explosive (even thermate/thermite) can vaporize steel" - No steel has been "vaporized". What you see is simply material such as fireprotection or concrete/gypsum dust separating from the beams.
Nearly all the steel of the twin towers was recoveres and examined. No sings of material loss.
This "vaporization" nonsense is a serious delusion.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
The US government is criminal and needs to be executed.
To cover up the controlled demolition is a crime.
shevegen 1 year ago
BASTARDS MY MOM WAS KILLED IN THAT FUCKING, MURDERERS I WILL GET MY REVENGE, HOW CAN YOU CUNTS SAY THAT THIS IS NOT REAL CAN YOU NOT SEE THE FUCKING BOMBS GOING OFF THIS IS 100% PROOF THAT BUSH ORGANIZED AND ALLOWED THE MASS MURDER OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICAN HOW CAN WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS
MephedroneMonster 1 year ago
@MephedroneMonster im sorry for your loss that day
STeroidsnicca 1 year ago
@STeroidsnicca thanks mate means a lot
MephedroneMonster 1 year ago
For his sake I hope they be trolling if there not how paranoid can you get.
papcrap2 1 year ago
there was an airliner stuck in the building with fuel burning incase everyone forgot
itzamia 1 year ago
@itzamia the airliners blew to pieces, the fuel burned off in 10-15 mins. In case YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13 - What about WTC7 which was hit by NO aircraft?
algdgadu00 1 year ago
@algdgadu00 your point is?
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13 - I'm not making a point but an observation. It's an information question, objectively speaking, elliciting information in return. Doing my homework.
algdgadu00 1 year ago
@blite13 burned off in 10-15 minute? thats why they were burning for over an hour before collapsing.....
itzamia 1 year ago
@itzamia it was office furniture and carpets that kept "burning". As you can see from all the smoke, it wasn't a heat intensive fire. Yes, ask anyone who knows about the jet fuel, most of it went up in the initial explosion and the rest burned off shortly after. Do some research if you are going to comment on it.
blite13 1 year ago
it's not the government, it's the looney liberals and their liberal media. it's all a hoax
SarafanLord101 1 year ago
Mossad did 911
cappucinokid100 1 year ago
As you can see, if the tower had fallen without explosves the debris wouldn't have gone as far.
josh71111 1 year ago
buliding no. 7 ( huge structure....fair to say) , was not hit by a plane....all we know, a fire took place,....and then it collapsed like a pan cake.....Personally, I dont think this is posible.
raulahuatl 1 year ago
These are illusions, many say many different things after some happenings. Even those who are blamed might often be wrong.
Mehmedilyas 1 year ago
Conspiracy does not explain the fact that stacks up against.
youtubkicksass 1 year ago
do you dumbasses REALLY believe that if the gov't was going to kill thousands of americans by attacking 2 huge building with hijacked airplanes, they would make it this obvious to figure out? i mean reeeeally? come on now.
lordhelmit3 1 year ago
squibs SQUIBS ITS ALL ABOUT THE MOTHER FUCKIN FACT THAT IS WAS AN
wait for it ... INSIDE JOB
GIRLY44EMO 1 year ago
i dont understand why americans blame themselves when clearly 2 planes crashed right into them.... its saddd, how there is no respect for the people who died that day... and the media used what happened to just start talking crap about their own country
CharlieOscarOmega 1 year ago
@CharlieOscarOmega
hey CharlieOscarMomega
No planes hit building seven, for your information, no planes hit building 7, wake up....
dbetsa 1 year ago
@CharlieOscarOmega
I am proud to be an American, and believe me, I am not blaming myself for this anymore than I blame myself for dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima.
We have a great country and we need to use the justice system for what it is made for -- Putting criminals, whoever they may be, someplace where they can't hurt us again. Wake up
dbetsa 1 year ago
@CharlieOscarOmega And I still don't get how 2 planes could destroy such a tower.
Which makes this theory even more believable.
CorrosiveTongue 1 year ago
@CorrosiveTongue it's a plane man....crashed into them and the top of the towers became unstable and collapsed
CharlieOscarOmega 1 year ago
@CorrosiveTongue Thousands of gallons of aviation fuel, plus fire will melt steel, and bring down any building.
dekepetrol 1 year ago
@dekepetrol: Then why didn't a plane crashing into the Empire State Building in 1945 not bring it down?
krayzeejojo 1 year ago
@dekepetrol "...aviation fuel, plus fire will melt steel, and bring down any building."
Thanks for that information! Could you give us some examples of building collapses like that of WTC7? Thanks so much!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@CharlieOscarOmega Sorry to stick into this again - but how do you know that "clearly 2 planes crashed right into" the buildings...
What you mean is you have seen videos and tv footage which purport to show plane impacts
What you mean is that you have been told by the mass media that 2 plane impacts "happened" and you have listened to "witnesses" interviewed on TV who say that planes hit the buildings.
TURN OFF THE TVEEE - PLEASE Do Your Own Research - Find the Truth....
vortigern5 1 year ago
@vortigern5 "What you mean is you have seen videos and tv footage ... listened to witnesses ... Do Your Own Research - Find the Truth..." Hahaha Typical twoofer: "Reject all evidence! Make up your own conclusions!". Fact: Radar data shows planes lost over Manhattan. Fact: Plane debris found in Manhattan. Fact: Remains of passengers found in Manhattan. Fact: Thousands of witnesses. Fact: Dozends of independent videos. Fact: Voices from planes recorded. Fact: Planes missing. Fact: Planes hit WTC.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
HEY PapaOytein
Many firefighters and eyewitness survivors testify that they heard explosions. These testimonies are widely available on youtube.
You also have not put forth a viable explanation of how building 7 fell at free fall speed. In fact, this was impossible without massive explosions. Your bellicosity is not a substitute for science.
You are a traitor and a disgrace to American patriots everywhere.
dbetsa 1 year ago
Anyone who can watch the above video and pretend not to see a massive explosion is stupid, blind, or a paid sock puppet traitor.
Have you lied to yourself for so long that you believe other people will believe your lies also? You have posted so many misstatements below that it is difficult to confront them all with little more than pity. But lets just take the "explosions" you say nobody heard.
dbetsa 1 year ago
Comment removed
dbetsa 1 year ago
Comment removed
dbetsa 1 year ago
"COULD TAKE MULTIPLE IMPACTS" -> WRONG. Could take 1 (ONE) impact of smaller plane going much slower (i,e. only 10% of the kinetic energy of the actual planes). And yet the towers DID survive the impacts (did not collapse immediately. Only LATER did they succumb to the combined devastation of impacts and fires.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein STOP LYING ON YOUTUBE - "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting"-Frank A.Demartini WTC construction manager, Deceased 9/11/01 RIP
vortigern5 1 year ago
@vortigern5 "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it." a) That was not in any building code, nor a design objective. It was more an afterthought b) The idea was of a 707 on landing approach to JFK lost in fog. That%s only 10% of kinetic energy c) Towers DID withstand plane crashes. They succumbed to fires eventually d) It was impossible in the 70s to predict behaviour after plane crash AND multi-floor unfought fires e) Do the physics math: Plane must penetrate.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
Because the "19 arabs" explanation contains nothing that we do not already know for facts: a) we know that there were several Arabs on each plane b) planes were hijacked c) by non-native English speakers d) flown into towers e) causing MASSIVE structural damage f) igniting HUGE fires on a scale that easily weakens structural steel. For the alternative, you must assume a lot of things that you do NOT know, and some (like explosions) that you KNOW were NOT there (there was no BANG BANG BANG BANG)
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein What I know is the aircraft engine that was photographed as supposedly being wreckage found on the street beneath WTC on 9/11 could not have come from any United Airlines or American Airlines aircraft as are suggested to have hit WTC. The wreckage is the wrong make of engine. Please PapaOystein (interesting name...) do not perpetuate lies some of us know better than to fall for them
vortigern5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vortigern5 "What I know is the aircraft engine ... could not have come from any United Airlines or American Airlines aircraft " - you think you know. In reality, you have been spoon-fed lies. Your delusion has been debunked years ago. Welcome to 2010.
Just think: How can the NWO be oh so clever to pull this huge stunt off, and then be oh so dumb as to plant the wrong evidence??
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@ 0:39-0:40 " ... vaporized heavy steel beams ..." noting that this is the obvious v.o. and that in the face of Denialisim such would be sensible, we cannot have "vaporization" of steel in the dustification position -- such an event would have an energy release sufficient to show on H.A.A.R.P. magnetometers in Alaska { as well as reducing miles of surrounding infrastructure to oblivion }
pzmtuthcvpvl 1 year ago
Anyone who can watch this video and pretend not to see massive explosions hurling steel beams and concrete hundreds of feet in the air is blind, stupid, or a traitor, paid sock puppet.
True Americans would want to know what happend.
dbetsa 1 year ago 8
Any such explosions would be primarily noticed by their INSANELY loud and sharp BANGs, which would have been VERY MUCH louder than the noise of the following collapse. That is why videos like this NEVER keep the original soundtrack. Like when they compare to real controlled demolitions: Watch one with real sound, and you will always find that the BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG is a most impressive feature of CDs. NONE of that was heard by the 100.000 New Yorkers, none is on any of 100s of films
PapaOystein 1 year ago
"Massive" explosions that are strong enough to sever the support columns of the towers would have been so insanely loud that not a single of the 100.000 New Yorkers within a a few miles of the site, and none of the hundreds of cameras and microfones would have missed it. Yet not all, but precisely no device recorded any such insanely loud BANG, let alone a series of BANG BANG BANG BANG as the video implies. Which, of course, does not contain original sound, in order to conceal that lack of BANG
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Are you suggesting that the buildings fell quietly?Support columns weren't blown up,they were burned with thermite.There are dozens of accounts of people hearing explosions even before a plane hit.If you think it would have taken large explosions to take the columns down,where did they go?
MrSafetymeeting 1 year ago
@MrSafetymeeting Not entirely quietly, but high explosives to cut columns would have been many many magnitudes louder than anything heard by anyone, and would have been recorded by every camera, no exception. No-one cuts big columns with thermite, that technique does not exist, and no-one has found any evidence of thermite. Jones and Harriet are plain wrong there. No-one really heard explosions before plane. Exposure to fire initiated collapse, that is a quiet and proven mode.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Nobody cuts steel columns with explosives.Explosions break concrete.What do you think they use thermite for?Im sure the falling building was EXTREMELEY loud.Are you calling the fireman who heard the explosions liars?Why were their explosions in the basement?That would be the first building,sorry 3 buildings, in history to collapse because of fire.
MrSafetymeeting 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Why did WTC 7 collapse without being hit by a plane, taking with it the offices of American Express, the IRS, the SEC, Federal Home Loan Bank, the Department of Defense, and the CIA?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 Easy. Because it burned for hours on many floors, the fires could not be fought, and destrcution is what awaits buildings that burn unchecked. Ask any fire fighter or structural enineer what fire does to steel bars. If you have no fire fighter or structural engineer in your family or circle of friends, I recommend you pick up your yellow pages and call the ones nearest to you. Just ask them: "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" Listen, learn
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Ok. Next question: Why were hundreds of thousands of poor American children warehoused in institutions by state governments, with the compliance of the federal government in the 20th century as a part of the Eugenics movement, which aimed to separate people considered to be genetically inferior from the rest of society, to prevent them from reproducing?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 Has nothing to do with 9/11. Very probably just another delusion. Question back at you: Why are you still alive even though you so cleverly look through and expose the evil forces' vicious plans? Duh'
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein This will be the last time I respond to you, because you're obviously mentally retarded. "Very probably just another delusion" Very probably??? That doesn't even make sense, you dumb son of a bitch. Learn grammar before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot. Why am I still alive even though i so cleverly look through and expose the evil forces plans? How is asking questions clever? Do you not ask questions? Obviously not, dipshit.
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 Internet rule A: You call me names = automatic win for me :D "Very probably" and not "certainly", because I have no inclination to look into the matter. Unlike you, I don't gullibly lap up any wild claim anybody throws at me just because it fits my prejudices. Rule B: You move goal posts away from topic = automatic win for me :D This video is about WTC1 collapse. The video tells nonsense based on an amateurs imagination or lack thereof. Let's stick to that, ok?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein While you're pondering that question, I have another question. Why did Donald Rumsfeld confess that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion on September 10th, 2001?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 He said something there in his shoddy parlance that does not mean what you think it means. I.o.w.: It is all only in your head.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Next question: Why did the United States government order the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the country during the Prohibition era, which killed at least 10,000 people?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Next question: Why did Christoph Meili, a nightwatchman at UBS find employees shredding decades-old contracts and lists of mortgaged buildings in German cities like Berlin and Breslau in the 1930's and 1940's -- the years of Nazi rule in Germany?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 Attaboy Attaboy - on, on, forward attack, attack - this is more like it!!! Reflection 1989 you take the fight to the enemy - brilliant - If you were in the army and you were a Colonel I would say make him a General now! PapaOystein - works for them - I have encountered him before many times on the comment rosters on similar videos on this site....
vortigern5 1 year ago
@PapaOystein As you can see, not all questions have such easy answers. Next question: Why was Adolph Hitler time magazines man of the year in 1938?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 This is where it is at - this is the important information - THEY were playing both sides long before the 'Cold War' - your comment is the truth and it exposes this...
Alger Hiss, The Reece Committee Report, Norman Dodd, Bush-Banking, US companies building factories in Soviet Russia 1930s-1960s,
Their game is up - but they will never give up without struggle
vortigern5 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Ok, Ok. Last question, I promise. Why is J.P Morgan, the wealthy financier also the face of Milton Bradley's popular board game Monopoly?
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@Reflection1989 There is not a single delusion that you don't lap up happily, is there?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Sorry bud, none of those are delusions. They are all facts. The fact that when I point out facts to you, you dismiss them as "delusions" shows that you are in denial of the truth. "***Probably*** just another delusion" - "Probably" is a pretty uncertain word. Just because you can't handle the truth doesn't mean I'm delusional, asshole.
Reflection1989 1 year ago
@PapaOystein In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse.
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.
Shall I continue.
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 Interstate Bldg., LA: Go to Wiki, find link to Technical Report in References, and read: "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire" ... "The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the fire" (ca. 50 minutes after fire broke out) "active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core". So there are 2 major differences to WTC.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@KS8730 One Meridian Plaza was eventually abandoned by fire fighters because it lost structural integrity. It was rendered beyond repair and had to be demolished eventually. So it was good luck it didn't collapse. This result was in part due to firefighting (although effective attack didn't occur until about 2 hours after fire began). So in fact, OMP is an example of fires destroying the structural integrity of a steel frame highrise, rendering it prone to collapse.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.
The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009. 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse.
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 You have been spoon-fed by "truthers", but they didn't tell you the truth
Windsor Bldg.: Was mainly a CONCRETE core structure. The steel-frame part did collapse
Beijing CC: Was built after 9/11 with the NIST recommendations that followed 9/11 already implemented.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein LOL. Spoon fed by truthers?
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 Yup. Not a single bit of your own research and reasoning. Just regurgitating what you have been spoon-fed. Why do you throw at me the names of buildings you found at truther-websites? Where is your argument? Why do you think it matters? Why do you not know that these examples don't prove anything at all?
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein I think you maybe jumping the gun a little. Did I say this proves anything? You said "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" These were examples. Are you implying that a steel frame building will fall if it burns for hours? lol.
"Why do you not know that these examples don't prove anything at all?"
Why do you not know that phoning the fire dept or structural engineer and asking that question you suggested proves nothing either. lol.
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "Did I say this proves anything?" - No, but why else did you bring these up? Just chity-chat?
"You said "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?"" - No, I didn't. Quote??
"Are you implying that a steel frame building will fall if it burns for hours?" - No, not that it WILL, only that it MAY.
"phoning the fire dept or structural engineer and asking that question you suggested proves nothing" - No, but you will learn something.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PapaOystein I said it because of your comment. In your comment to Reflection 1989 you said " I recommend you pick up your yellow pages and call the ones nearest to you. Just ask them: "What happens when a steel frame building burns for hours uncontrolledly?" Did you not? Then I gave examples of what happens. i.e they are still standing. They did not collapse into a neat pile.
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 Ah OK, I was lacking context here. So which of the buildings you gave me was steel frame AND burned uncontrolledly? Oh and by the way, you can still call the structural engineering firm nearest to you and ask them exactly this question, and I guarantee you they will answer "collapse is a very likely outcome". Just try it!
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein Interstate bank building. Steel framed, sprinklers not working, burned for 4 hours.
OK. Lets assume "collapse is a very likely outcome". Does this mean it will collapse straight down?
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "Interstate bank building. Steel framed, sprinklers not working, burned for 4 hours."
Look it up on Wikipedia. There a link to the Technical Report. Read: "initial (fire fighing) attack began at approximately 2310 (48 minutes after fire broke out). ...attack was initiated from all four stairways". That's a major difference to WTC fire , which was never attacked at all.
Also: "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire."
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein U could pick a major difference with all of them since none of them are the actual twin towers. 48 minutes uncontrolled? Only 8 mins less than wtc2. lol. What about 1 new york plaza? Explosion, burning for 6 hours, no collapse?
Lets assume, like you said, "collapse is a very likely outcome". How would u expect it to collapse? Straight down?
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "U could pick a major difference with all of them" - Correct, which is why giving examples won't get you far. You would have to look at the actual twin towers. Which NIST, Purdue, Arup, Bazant did. All of them found that collapse isn't a mystery.
"48 minutes uncontrolled? Only 8 mins less than wtc2" - Another MAJOR difference: 1000s of gallons of fuel started fires in WTC through several floors at once, while Interstate fire started small, took time to grow
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein What about those qualified engineers and scientists who think collapse is still a mystery? Should they be ignored? Dont u agree that another independent investigation would finally put this to bed one way or another?
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "What about 1 new york plaza?" - That building had a reinforced concrete core, not steel frame. Major difference
"Explosion" - pretty irrelevant, as load-bearing structures are not easily affected by these
"no collapse" - INCORRECT. Partial collapse.
"Lets assume, like you said, "collapse is a very likely outcome". How would u expect it to collapse? Straight down? " I already replied to this: Yes, gravity works that way; the null hypothesis will be "straight down"
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein "partial collapse"? U mean it didnt fall straight down thru the path of most resistance? lol. I thought thats how these things went.
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "U mean it didnt fall straight down thru the path of most resistance?" INCORRECT. Even partial collapse goes mostly straight down. I meant that you were simpy WRONG when you asserted "no" collapse.
"What about those qualified engineers and scientists" - Name them, their qualifications, and their reasons to not understand!
"Should they be ignored?" No, not if and when they publish their concerns the way engineers and scientists do: In real engineering and science journals.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein "Dont u agree that another independent investigation would finally put this to bed one way or another? "
Not at all. Do you agree that any "independent investigation" would finally put any religion to bed? You can't overcome cultist belief with facts. Truthers will always find fault with any investigation. They will judge it by its outcome: If it destroys their delusions, they will cry foul, or move goal posts. We seen you guys do that for 9 years now, going on 10.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein To clarify, I am not afraid to find out the official story is true. As long as the investigation is carried out by an independent body who has no vested interest in the reults. Are you afraid to find out the official story is lies?
KS8730 10 months ago
@PapaOystein Neils Harrit, professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University for 37 years. Peer reviewed paper in Bentham journal. Talks about chemicals present that have no way of being there by chance and could not be created in the collapse. Is that not worth investigating?
Kevin Ryan formerly of NIST, peer reviewed paper Environmental anomalies, evidence for energetic materials. Have u read these?
KS8730 10 months ago
@KS8730 "Harrit...Talks about chemicals present...Is that not worth investigating?"
No, it is not. That paper is full of errors. I don't know why Harrit is doing this. Figure 29 proves the stuff is not nanothermite. Energy release of >3.9kJ/g proves it can't be any thermite at all. Data and pix on samples a-d shows red layer is ordinary paint. Data on sample e shows it's a different material - no aluminium in samples a-d. In the meantime, S. Jones has inadvertantly shown sample e is primer!
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@KS8730 "Kevin Ryan formerly of NIST, peer reviewed paper Environmental anomalies, evidence for energetic materials. Have u read these?"
Get your facts straight. Kevin Ryan is not formerly of NIST. The article you allude to is a predecessor of the Harrit paper; its authors (including Ryan) are co-authors of Harrit, so there is no independence of the studies. The later paper is totally false, so I won't bother with the preliminary one. They look at events long AFTER 9/11 - why? It's bullshit.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PapaOystein Sorry. Underwriters laboratory. He was sacked for questioning NIST.
" They look at events long AFTER 9/11 - why? It's bullshit." What about the family members of the dead who want a proper investigation? Is it bullshit to them?
" Figure 29 proves the stuff is not nanothermite. Energy release of >3.9kJ/g proves it can't be any thermite at all." Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about? Do u know what "pyrocool" is used for?
KS8730 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KS8730
"Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about?"
Haha, your best(only) "evidence" for controlled demo is shown to be false and you immediately do exactly what Papa said you would. "You can't overcome cultist belief with facts".
Faced with the facts, you make claims of something unprovable.
Blacktoe 10 months ago
@KS8730 "He was sacked for questioning NIST." - He was sacked for betraying his employer, and meddling with things he doesn't understand.
"What about the family members of the dead who want a proper investigation? Is it bullshit to them?" - Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who says it.
"Did it ever occur to u there may be technologies that u dont know about?" - No technology will beat fundamental laws of physics; here: Conservation of energy. It's impossible because of first principles.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PapaOystein "No technology will beat fundamental laws of physics; here: Conservation of energy. It's impossible because of first principles."
Believe me, I have a good understanding of the laws of physics. So, what is the "it" that u refer to here? What is impossible due to 1st principles and how is it relevant to unknown technologies?
KS8730 10 months ago
@PapaOystein
Papa, keep up the good work.
Blacktoe 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KS8730 "OK. Lets assume "collapse is a very likely outcome". Does this mean it will collapse straight down?"
Yes, gravity works that way; the null hypothesis will be "straight down"
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@PapaOystein Silence is golden. lol.
KS8730 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KS8730 "Silence is golden"
Silence on the internet sometimes is a sign that I have a real life, with friends and all.
PapaOystein 10 months ago
@dbetsa The problem is that it is a long time since the US Govt was run by True Americans
vortigern5 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Conspiracy theorists are all nutcases.
bigrpb 1 year ago
Especially the media hypnotized ones who believe the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
truebluestar 1 year ago 12
@bigrpb What are you dude? A complete idiot? Even the dumbest person who examines the visual and forensic evidence can see that the towers were rigged with explosives, Bush's family is part of the Illuminati bloodline, these guys are bred and trained for these operations.
Xendrius 1 year ago
To anybody who buys the bullshit official story: IF it was a "Pancake collapse" and the collapse started on the 82nd story, it would have taken ~162 seconds to completely collapse to the ground...
clearly it did not take 162 seconds for the tower to collapse.
venturafor2012 2 years ago 4
There are many papers out by real structural engineers, who have shown conclusively that the expected collapse speed would in fact very closely match the observed speed. With a sound grasp high school level physics and math and a simple 1-dimensional model you could verify for yourself that indeed a speed faster than half that of a free fall is absolutely reasonable.
The papers that come up with 162 seconds have obvious flaws. Their authors are either really dumb, or outright liars,
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein PLEASE STOP LYING AND TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE. Your statement is not true and you know that to be the case. You have been exposed already - you are working to a corrupt agenda. Please do not comment here when you are only seeking to spread lies. The collapse was at near free fall speed. Anything other than a controlled demolition could not achieve this - the mass beneath would cause too much resistance.
vortigern5 1 year ago