The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
A&E truth now has help in spreading the lie that biochemistry, pretends to be a forensic expert. In my country it is the explosive "dirty sand" in steel. It is used and industrial paints. He found the rest of the painting of the towers. I´m not alone, all the universities and engineering schools in the U.S., Brazil, Western Europe, Australia and Asia. See what was found in France against A&E truth and their lies
@kentekent He can't even prove that! If he could then there would be a HUGE number of scientist all over this...But that is simply not the case. Sorry.
whats so hard about believing the government is not a person who cares for you, its made up of buisness people, all they care about is money, its not an entity, its a system made up of sneeky idividuals who like to tell people what to do, boss people around, earn lots of money, that is their mind set, how can a government care? lol, they dont give a fuck about anything except lining their pockets and thats the truth, we all know this stop protecting them, they shit on the ppl constant everyday
they think the government care about them and just want to keep them safe lol, as for hearing no explosives which you would normally hear exploding when a building is demolished, this suspect nano thermite does not explode, it ignites and melts, you would only see plooms of smoke which do actually apear on some other footage.
i think they did very well explaining this but i still dont believe the buildings just fell, 3 buildings all falling into their own footprint supposedly from fire or being weakened due to impact of the planes yet we all know building 7 wasnt even hit by a plain and only a small part of it caught fire, everyone knows the government are lying they just dont want to admit it or accept that their own government could do this to their own
Excellent video. Niels Harrit, in spite of his protestation to the contrary, is a conspiracy theorist and, apparently, not even a very good one. His ideas are sheer bunk, and I'm happy this video exposes them for what they are. Can't believe that 51 people dislike it.
The video doesn't refute Harrit's key finding of nanothermite and instead switches the topic to the moltem metal. Are you really fooled by that diversion tactic? If the fluid were molten aluminium it would immediately flow away from the heat source looking silvery before it had the chance to rise to the much higher temeratures at which it looked surprisingly like molten iron. Of course the video doesn't even touch on the irion microspheres found in all the dust.
@Zooney1 Actually, it does. It points out that the ingredients for thermite were readily available in the building, and that elements unique to thermite were not found. There are a few additional points that need to be made. Harrit did NOT test ANY of the beams, but rather was given 4 samples (5-6 years after the fact). To determine the existence of thermite on the beams, he should have tested them. He didn't, and we have no way to know if his samples were contaminated.
Oh please do a bit more reading on this subject before commenting. Professor Harrit et al found high tech unreacted nanothermite particles in all 4 of the wtc dust samples that they managed to get hold of. What on earth do you mean by saying that the materials for thermite were readily available in the building? Do you mean the elements sulphur, iron etc?
If you knew any basic chemistry you would know what a very silly statement that was.
@Zooney1 There is a reason that only 1,400 engineers out of the 1.7 million who are employed in the United States are calling for a "new investigation." Yes that's right, 1,400 engineers out of 1.7 million. That means 0.00082% of engineers in the United States support the delusional 9/11 conspiracies. Idiot!! Only delusional fags agree with you wake up!! the world is a wonderful place!
@Zooney1 You do realize that NASA came out saying these guys were wack jobs and tried to stop then falsifying data (of course nut jobs thought the government got to them LOL , NO you guys give science a bad name quit copping out!)
@Zooney1 plus saying they found "unreacted nanothermite particles" is like a murder investigation team saying that they found the murderers and he was the "killers" LOL Well what was the killers names? Basically, what were the chemicals in these "unreacted nanothermite particles" Can you name them ? no? then dont speak on what you don't know faggot!
Well seeing your childish comments I see you are not exactly a very highly evolved individual.
The composition of the nanothermitic material was primarily iron oxide and extremely fine grain aluminium in intimate admixture - a high tech form of thermite in fact that doesn't form randomly in collapsing buildings.
Paint chips don't burn to form iron microspheres this stuff does. Enjoy your continuing ignorance.
Neither he was debunked, nor the paper him and his partners have authored was debunked. And he didn't really suggest a conspiracy theory. He alleged to a theory of how the buildings might've been brought down was it done via thermite whence asked it.
Also, as far as explosion noise, when an entire building smolders and collapse and we're talking about a rather ginormous skycraper at that, you wouldn't hear jack shit.
Not to mention, we're not talking conventional explosives here. Fusion chain.
Niels Harrit is not making any conspiracy claims. He's looking at what evidence suggests. There's no mention at all from him of who or why, and in this he is acting with complete integrity. It is logical to ask why building 7 collapsed and to expect an answer from official investigating bodies which makes sense. This man is not a conspiracy theorist- if he is where is his conspiracy theory?
It is hard to pay attention to the video while laughing at the fact that you wrote "agle" instead of angle. Niels Harrit never said for certain that the material was steel, he only raised it as a possibility (which it is). You also fail to account for the many videos and news reports of explosives going off, heard at ground level. Lastly, thermite set off on the inner columns would produce the collapse and the molten steel many reported seeing, and also explain fires that raged for 99 days.
John Kenneth Galbraith “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p15
if someone threw a rock at my 30' fiberglass sailboat's aluminum mast and the boat sank, would i need a scientist to tell me that the rock sank the sailboat? The truth of the matter is that conspiracy denials are in a corner and they hope to complicated the issue with pseudoscience. This reminds me of a quote by JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH:
I still don't believe 200,000 tons of steel just collapsed like that all the way down to the first floor from fires.
/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=related
("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, MIGHT JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY. Therefore, NIST shall not release [this] information.
@jarii12366 here in the video you made...at 8:54 you can see at least 2 small puffs of what looks like smoke shooting out of the building way below the collapseing level..and people did hear the sounds of explosions before and far after the first plane hit...enter 1 of these 3 things into search here on youtube and watch for yourself....1.witnesses heard sounds of explosions on 9/11...2. 9/11:sounds evidence for WTC7 explosions and NIST cover up..3. WTC7 explosions on audio(heard by firemen)
There are different types of explosives that can be discussed as theoritcal possibilities concerning the twin towers. Dynamite, thermite, thermate and so forth. I have a theory in which the explosives were placed and placed in the exact needed spot. 9 months before 9/11, the elevators were undergoing modernization allowing full access to the elevator shafts and thusly the inner columns allowing workers to run the neccesary wiring for the bombs however the bombs werent installed until the cont.
@AmericanPoliceState the weekend before 9/11 in which the buildings were powered down, no security systems were online and all bomb sniffing dogs had been removed, with the help of certain security personel workers could then begin installation of the bombs or perhaps they were already installed and the workers simply were there to activate the charges and check the systems to see if they were ready.
These charges SHOULDNT go of before if so?? so whats the prob..
Furthermore funny how it falls to the side of the molten ''Aliminium''!
And a dutch demolition ekspert seeing wtc7 said he was ABSOLUTELY surten it was a demolition, and was quite stuned when told it was wtc7. Cause he didnt know ...UHHHH
minute 7:00" It is important to note the demolition waves don't begin until after the building began to collapse".....any wave, any sequence such as we see at the WTC must, by definition, be After the initiation of the onset of movement we see. It would be impossible for a wave of demolition to occur, intentional or not, prior to the WTC's movement downward. Min 7:10, We also see 20+ stories tilt 20+ degrees pulverized in mid air. No concrete pancakes or even chunks. just little rocks
You can't argue with a liar, only one way, strap those 9/11 liars on to a lie detector connect a couple of hundreds of volt, and a few amps, and when the needle goes up in the red, another amp.
3 buildings collapse in a way ( through fire) that has never happened before within hours, in the same city? The chances of that happening are astronomically impossible!!
@aburgheim What nonsense. Two jet liners loaded with Aviation fuel never slammed at full speed into two Sky Scrapers in the same city before either. Like... why do you keep referring to the collapses as simply ''fire'' induced? You completly ignore the initial high speed impact damage and the massive explosion damage... which led to those ''fires''. Talk about selectively picking your evidence! You sir... are a retard!
The twin towers were build to withstand multiple airplane impacts. The collapse did not follow upon impact, the planes hit at different angles and still the wtc collapsed the same way, at free fall into their own footprint while having the chance to follow impact direction and collapsing within 360 different angles. Not to mention that building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical.
building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical. Respect the dead investigate 9/11 again!!''
You are sooo retarded its hilarious! What was sooo suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7???
Listen troll go lick some cia heels if it makes you feel good. But for someone that portrays himself so concerned with these matters to ask what was so suspicious about wtc7 is total proof that you are not!! You are a provocateur a chill and keyboard coward of the silliest kind so please leave the thread you creepy boy!!
@aburgheim@aburgheim I find it hilarious that when the ''truther'' is is confronted with valid points and backed into a corner, he ignores the arguments and instead refers to his opponent as a ''shill''. Its akin to a creationist blocking his ears and shouting ''LALALALA...''; when you discuss evolution with them. Its rather pathetic! I have heard arguements ... cont
about the ''suspicious'' collapse of WTC7 before and whenever I destroy those arguements, instead of been refuted, I get called a ''shill''. Its hilarious. But maybe you have evidence concerning the fall of WTC7 that is unrefutable and will change my mind?
building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical. Respect the dead investigate 9/11 again!!''
You are sooo retarded its hilarious! What was sooo suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7??? --FINISH-- below comments unrelated
@ndjm00 You are correct, they were designed to handle a 707. The construction manager believed the towers could handle multiple hits. watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU The 707 was 20% smaller. But it had a faster cruising speed and had more kinetic energy during normal flight. And the fact of the matter is: both towers survived the plane hits.
@aburgheim I find it hilarious that when the ''truther'' is is confronted with valid points and backed into a corner, he ignores the arguments and instead refers to his opponent as a ''shill''. Its akin to a creationist blocking his ears and shouting ''LALALALA...''; when you discuss evolution with them. Its rather pathetic! I have heard arguements about the ''suspicious'' collapse of WTC7 before and whenever I destroy those arguements,.. cont
@ndjm00 "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected
the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination." Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, Bazant; Verdure.
@AnnRKey ''The construction manager believed the towers could handle multiple hits.''... yes, ''believe'' being the all important word. Isaac Newton for instance believed in alchemy... There is a massive difference between believing something and been able to verify it! ''the fact of the matter is: both towers survived the plane hits.'' ... and your point???? ''No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire.'' ... and no man ever walked on the moon until the 60's.. so again; your point?
@ndjm00 I mentioned the towers surviving the plane hits because you said they were designed for "much smaller planes". I mentioned that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire because you asked what was so suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7? Men going to the moon and the first collapse of a skyscraper due to fire is an unfair comparison. Read the quote from the structural engineering analysis again. Can we say the same thing about a walk on the moon?
@AnnRKey ''I mentioned the towers surviving the plane hits because you said they were designed for "much smaller planes".'' ... yes and not only were they designed for smaller, slower (I think) planes with a smaller fuel load, they were also designed to be hit by a low flying plane going relatively slow that was looking for a place to land and had little remaining fuel. They were not designed to be hit full trottle... by a bigger plane... with almost full tanks! cont...
@ndjm00 ''I mentioned that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire because you asked what was so suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7?'' ... and my question still stands i.e. what was so suspicious about the fall of WTC7? I mean come on... there is a first time for everything... so simply stating it never happened before is a non starter! And in any case... WTC7 did not fall solely due to fire damage! A sizeable chunk of the structure was ...cont
removed from the falling debris of the North tower. Not only did this compromise the stability of WTC7... but it also contradicts the idea that the North tower ''fell into its own footprint''. <--- This been a theory that many truthers like to spout about both the North and South Towers!
''Read the quote from the structural engineering analysis again.''
Once again... he used the word ''believe'', and he never mentioned the type, speed or load of these theoretical aircrafts and collisions.
@ndjm00 How did the North Tower cause so much damage to 7 when the analysis states that the tower material was being compacted? Anyone that says the towers fell into their own footprint needs to review the videos again. Most of the tower debris fell outside the footprint or disintegrated. I said read the quote from the Bazant/Verdure analysis, not the quote from the contractor. Can we say the same thing about a walk on the moon?
@ndjm00 The 707 is smaller and faster with a net increase in kinetic energy at cruise speed. I have sources that say the towers were designed for a 707 at 600 mph. Where do you get your designed for slow planes? The planes that hit the towers had ~10000 gallons of fuel.
WTC7 is suspicious because its the first and only skyscraper to collapse due to fire. NIST states that WTC7 would have collapsed without the damage. Since you mention a size-able chuck of 7 was removed. . .cont
@AnnRKey ''The 707 is smaller and faster with a net increase in kinetic energy at cruise speed.''... Again... your point? ''I have sources that say the towers were designed for a 707 at 600 mph'' and you don't cite them because??? ''The planes that hit the towers had ~10000 gallons of fuel.'' ... Yeh... something truthfull for once. My sincere apologies for stating the planes tanks were almost full. In any case... its in consequential to the facts. Also, you keep stating: ...cont
''WTC7 is suspicious because its the first and only skyscraper to collapse due to fire.''... and again I must respond: there is a first time for everything... so simply stating it never happened before is a non starter! Until you point out a fault in this response to your assertion, I see no reason to not keep responding to your assertion with this reply. ''NIST states that WTC7 would have collapsed without the damage.'' ... Im not sure of the validity of this assertion... state source ...cont
and page please in order for me to verify. And then you come out with this dinger: ''How did the North Tower cause so much damage to 7 when the analysis states that the tower material was being compacted? Anyone that says the towers fell into their own footprint needs to review the videos again. Most of the tower debris fell outside the footprint or disintegrated.'' That is possibly the most self contradictory thing I have heard a truther state. i.e.: Do you believe the towers compacted... cont
in on themselves like you state in the first sentence... or do you believe that most of the debri fell outside the foot print? These 2 statement seem utterly contradictory! So are you telling me you don't believe the towers fell into their own foot print... you don't believe the collapses resembled a controlled demolition and you do believe that debris did fall 100's of feet from the North tower and did in fact cause considerable structural damage to WTC7? I would like you to make these ...cont
toughts clear to me in the interest of having a proper argument / debate! Could you also please provide me with an explanation as to how the cover up was carried out? i.e. could you please tell me why all none of the presidents cabinet have hinted at a conspiracy... the airlines have kept quiet... the supposed passengers have kept quiet... All security personel in and around the Towers kept quiet during and after the buildings were rigged and the thousands of WTC employees never spotted ...cont
any suspicious bomb planting behaviour in the time running up to the faithful day? and if they did notice bombs been planted... how come not one has spoken out? We are talking literally about 1000's of people who are in on this supposed conspiracy and are keeping there mouths shut to this day! That is some achievment... particularly for one of the most bungling administrations in American history. Do you know how many people were involved in the water gate scandal?... and they were found out!
@ndjm00 I really have no idea who or how many could have done this. All I know is what I see. The videos do not back up the unofficial account of how the towers collapsed. Moreover, their is no official explanation for WTC 1 and 2. There is only an official explanation for WTC 7, which is more believable than 1 and 2. And there is still the mystery of why they ostensibly shipped most of the steel overseas. The steel would solve this debate. . .and its gone.
@ndjm00 I have no idea how many were involved in the Watergate scandal. Are you suggesting that all secrets those in government have tried to keep secret have been made known? On a side note, during the same time period COINTELPRO was also discovered. While almost everyone can remember Watergate, relatively few know about COINTELPRO. I'll bet COINTELPRO is alive and well.
@ndjm00 You haven't read the analysis have you? The analysis by Bazant/Verdure states that the buildings were compacting. They are not truthers. They are structural/civil engineers. Yes, what their analysis states and what the videos show are completely contradictory, which has been my contention all along. I have a video on it but its been corrupted. I am working on a new one.
@AnnRKey Im sorry but you are one crazy ass mother fucker. I will send you one link via PM to a peer reviewed paper by one of the most respected demolitions companies in the world. I suggest you read it. It covers not only the possibility of a controlled demolition... but it also rebukes any ridiculous ideas you have about the steel been shipped before thorough examination. You can PM me with any material you wish me to view to support your case. However, I will only discuss the topic ..cont
here in the comment section to this video. So come back here if you wish to rebuke the peer reviewed paper by the demolitions company. I will not make any responses via PM.
@ndjm00 I have read that paper before and I will read it again, but I would like to share something about the paper that I distinctly remember. In it we read: "A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom: effect around its perimeter". Contrast this with Bazant's paper: "Some lay critics claim that Kout [the amount of debris being forced away] should be about 95%, . . .cont.
Assertion 1 "The tower's collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
Protec comment: No they didn't. It's the "where." [sic]
ARK: I agree. The "collapse" of WTCs 1 & 2 do not resemble any kind of controlled demolition we have seen before. It looks like the towers were blown to kingdom come. . . .cont
"But they fell straight down into their own footprint"
Protec comment: They did not.
ARK: Agreed, they did not. This begs the question, why not? Whether we are talking gravity driven progressive collapse or implosion (controlled progressive collapse) the towers should have fell straight down into their own footprint with minimal debris being forced away.
Protec comment: They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.
ARK: Actually, the "crushing front" followed the path of most resistance. This goes to the 95% of the debris being forced over the sides. Structural engineer guru Bazant says 95% is not possible. The maximum is 50%. Moreover, both analyses are assuming that the superior structure is staying intact. This is simply not the case.
@ndjm00 Why do you think me a crazy ass mother fucker? As for the steel: 1. "Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort." - LEARNING FROM 9/11 - UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF REPS, ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
@AnnRKey The paper I sent you explicitly states that all sttel of structural importance was thoroughly examined by an army of experts before been shipped to China. Man... you are actually crazy. Your replies make no sense and you have yet to actually state what you think happened on 911? I accept the official story. You don't. So can you please tell me what you think did happen? ... otherwise, what exactly are we debating here?
@ndjm00 Are you selectively reading my comments? I got a Congressional record that states important pieces of evidence were destroyed early during the search. So you have a statement from someone that says the steel was examined. Where is the evidence for this examination? Where are the photos? And what about the discrepancy between your analysis and mine where yours say 95% of the debris was forced away and my analysis says no way? We are debating the "collapses" of the towers.
@AnnRKey I just have the same reply... so once again: Your replies make no sense and you have yet to actually state what you think happened on 911? I accept the official story. You don't. So can you please tell me what you think did happen? ... otherwise, what exactly are we debating here?
@ndjm00 Simply saying my replies make no sense is a cop out. What specifically makes no sense? I am not sure how the towers "collapsed". I am sure that what we are seeing in the videos is not progressive collapse as described by Bazant. I am confident the "collapse" of the towers were examples of atypical controlled demolition. What we are debating is whether the towers collapsed per the official version or they were demolished.
@ndjm00 OK. Bazant describes a two phase progressive collapse: crush-down followed by crush-up. During the first phase the upper portion of the tower is crushing down on the lower structure with no loss of material in the upper portion. The photos and videos show that this is not the case.
Two observations are the above and the south tower core that remained standing after the initial collapse. The core should have been crushed per Bazant.
@AnnRKey '' with no loss of material in the upper portion. The photos and videos show that this is not the case.''
What exactly do you mean here? What do you mean by two phases? Bazants research led to a 4 point failure scenario which I quote: ''1.Severed and significantly deflected columns at the point of impact redistributed stress to other columns, exhausting their load capacity. 2.Because insulation was stripped from many structural steel members, the ...cont
jet-fuel induced inferno heated remaining columns up to 600°C, causing them to lose up to 85% of their strength. 3.Heat and stress combined to induce both viscous and plastic properties in the remaining columns. That, and thermal expansion, caused the floor trusses to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward. These factors along with the deflection of some columns due to aircraft impact induced multistory buckling of the outer frame wall tube. ...cont
4.As a result of the buckling of the outer frame, the upper part of the tower fell through at least one floor height. The kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that could be absorbed by the floor below, triggering progressive collapse.''
This is exactly what Bazant states as the findings of his research and it correlates exactly with what happened on that faithful day... so whats your problem? And the South Tower Core was crushed. There ...cont
was very little of it left. Do you expect that it had to be completely obliterated in order for Bazants theory to be true? What nonsense. All theories have room for error, and considering the small amount of core that was left... Bazant was pretty much on the mark. How ever, the fact that you believe there was controlled demolition goes against the idea of any of the Core been left standing. Did they run out of explosive? :) So again... I must ask ...cont
what EXACTLY have you observed in the collapses that has given you the idea that the collapses were an ''atypical demolition''? In fact... since you believe it was an atypical demolition, what evidence do you have at all... that a demolition took place considering you believe this demolition to be unlike any other? In essence... what demolition are you comparing the fall of the twin towers to... to confirm your belief, when you state that this demolition was atypical?
@ndjm00 Its either progressive collapse or its demolition. I see no other option. Progressive collapse is ruled out unless Bazant has incorrectly described progressive collapse, which would seem highly unlikely. Therefore, it was demolition. You said it, this demolition is unlike any other. There is no demolition that I can compare to this. The WTC towers "collapses" are unique.
@ndjm00 There was quite a bit of the core left. Yes, the core should have been added to the accreting mass until there was nothing left to compact.
"After the lower crushing front hits the ground, the upper crushing front of the compacted zone can begin propagating into the falling upper part of the tower."
The lower crushing front never made it to the ground. The core apparently pushed back well before the crushing front made it to the ground....cont after a break.
@ndjm00 As I said, I have no idea how the demolition was carried out. I only know that it is not a progressive collapse as described and that it was very atypical. The core did not simply collapse, it disintegrated. The video I have is grainy, but when one puts the video along side the photos, it is very clear the behavior of the core was strange. There is also a news report where an eyewitness describes the south tower core as a "disintegration". . . .cont
@ndjm00 "The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass." "In the crush-down phase, the compacted Zone B and the upper Part A [sic] of the tower move together as one rigid body accreting mass. . ." - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Bazant, Verdure.
@AnnRKey You are actually retarded! I see no reason to fuel your delusions any longer. Its a waste of my time. But you are a rather funny person. I loved the false dichotomy too: ''Its either progressive collapse or its demolition.'' LMFAO!!! Here is a link to a video series... this is the first vid, but I suggest you watch the whole series as It describes your behaviour perfectly:
@ndjm00 You have got to be kidding me! Did you read all of my comments? How exactly are you fueling my alleged delusions? How is it a false dichotomy? What else is there? Aliens brought down the towers? I watched the first part of dprjones' video and when he got to the part that says that CTs believe the government did it, I stopped. Have I ever said the government did it? I presented evidence that Bazant is incorrect. You have presented nothing to counter. I'll be here if you change your mind.
@AnnRKey '' I watched the first part of dprjones' video and when he got to the part that says that CTs believe the government did it, I stopped.''
Of course you stopped! You had no choice other than to stop. That is exactly what people like you do. You find one little thing you disagree with and disregard every thing else in an effort to falsly confirm your delusion. Dprs comment about perpetrators or motives does nothing to invalidate his actual counter arguments and your failure...cont
to watch his counter arguemnts tells me all I need to know about you. You are basically telling me you are willing to ignore evidence which contradicts your beliefs i.e. controlled demolition, of the towers... hence I see no reason to waste time on you. If you actually grow some balls and stop looking for excuses to not look at the counter evidence, the links to the other 2 vids in the series are:
Don't be such a twonk and cease to look at the counter evidence simply because you don't have the motive for believing your conspiracy theory that DPR alleges ''truthers'' have. That is so utterly pathetic and shows your willfull ignorance. On that note... that really is all I have to say to you!
@ndjm00@ndjm00 If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. You find one minor flaw in my argument and throw everything else out. To be completely honest, you are technically correct. Prog collapse and demolition is a false dichotomy. The dichotomy would be prog. collapse or not prog. collapse. And I am making a "leap" that it is in fact demolition based on that. BTW, I am going to finish watching the dprjones videos. I happen to like dpr. . .cont
@ndjm00 I am willing to look at evidence that contridicts my "beliefs". That is why I looked at the prog. collapse theory in detail. I found things in Bazant's analysis that doesn't coincide with the evidence. I didn't simply say Bazant is claiming prog. collapse and therefore I won't look at it. Again, I have looked at the evidence, the evidence suggests that it was not progressive collapse. I could just as easily say you are unwilling to look at the evidence that goes against your beliefs.cont
A twonk? Why do insist on calling me names? Do you consider that evidence of prog. collapse? I'll be back after I watch the dpr in its entirety. I doubt its going to show anything I haven't seen before. Again, I'll be here if you change your mind.
@ndjm00 OK, let's have a look at dpr's checklist for CTs.
1. A nebulous entity. I have none.
2. Reliance on dubious evidence. You would need to show that my evidence against prog. collapse is dubious.
3. Deaf to opposing views. I will examine in detail all opposing views.
4. Fanciful explanations. You may have me on my "leap" to demolition. Nevertheless, I have evidence that it was not a prog. collapse as described by Bazant.
@ndjm00 Your claim that I do not look at counter evidence is lacking. I had already seen the last two videos you gave. I am not asking for a lot here. You have already spent this much time on the debate, why not continue it? Do you continue to believe that I refuse to look at counter arguments?
Furthermore, I think you are lumping me in with all other CTs. For instance dpr keeps bringing up the free fall claim made by CTs. I do not make that claim, never did. And I don't move the goalposts.
@ndjm00 You know what's really messed up? You sent me a link to the Blanchard paper and I immediately responded because I had read the paper previously. And then you have the nerve to say I don't look at opposing views. And you never responded to my first comment on the Blanchard paper. You lose!
@AnnRKey What I really don't get... and this really is messed up... is why you are using Bazants model at all to disprove progressive collapse? You do realise that Bazants model was not only that; a 'model', but also an idealised one. i.e. Bazants model left out several intervening variables (which actually occured on 9/11) and gave the towers the best possible chance of survival. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest i.e.stop, as the ...cont
strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct. In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely ...cont
conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC. The truth is, Bazants model had all forces going semetrically down through the interior structural (core) columns which gave the towers the best chance of survival... and yet in his model the towers still fail. No when you look at what actually happened, it is more than obvious that a symetrical, idealised collapse did not take place, i.e. the collapse force was not going straight down onto the core...cont
structural steel, but rather to one specific side of the building... causing the upper sections to fall outwards... not straight down. This also accounts for why some of the core collumns were still intact after collapse. You truthers don't seem to realise that if the Towers failed in Bazants model (where he gives them the best chance of survival)... it was only enevitable that they would collapse in the situation that actually occured where the downward forces were not symetrical. ...cont
I've never understood the "ah ha!" we get from truthers - such as yourself - about Bazant's model and how the towers actually collapsed, as if somehow it's proof of some kind of conspiracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Bazant's model as a proof of concept more than any representation of how the Towers actually collapsed. From what this layman can tell, if the towers collapsed in Bazant's model, there was no way they weren't going to in real life. ...cont
I must reitierate this point once again. Bazants case was a ''limiting one''. i.e. A limiting case removes variables in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was no other movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was least likely to result in the collapse progression. A scenario where the full capacity of the columns ...cont
could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in removing the variables which made collapse even more likely it still would have happened. It doesn't model reality, but then again it was never intended to in the first place... The collapses were not nearly as optimistic as his model. So I must ask... why are you comparing Bazants model to the real life situation??? ...and then using this as some sort of ridiculous proof that it was explosives and not PC?????
@ndjm00 First, thanks for coming back. As I state, I am willing, indeed eager, to look at opposing views, but until I get an "ah-ha, you are right", I will remain skeptical. Just an FYI, while I am not a structural engineer, I do have a degree in engineering, so I am not completely out of my depth. I have reviewed many analyses in my years and I was very good at finding mistakes. Herein lies the problem, I have a discrepancy between what actually happened and what is presented in the analyses.
I am using Bazant's model because it is the only explanation for a gravity driven PC we have. Bazant states: "However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives. Its formulation is the main objective of what follows."
The Mechanics of Progressive Collapse is all we have to explain what happened beyond the initial trigger. That is what I/We are asking for, an explanation for what actually happened. The "collaspes" of the towers did involve the strongest part of the structure. I have always agreed with Bazant , i.e., in order for PC to occur, it must be as Bazant describes. The upper mass must stay rigid and centered as we see in the verinage technique.
The North Tower clearly shows the core failing first and with the "crushing front" continuing symmetrically vertically down. With the South Tower Bazant explains how the upper portion rotated about its center and continued vertically downward. The debris was "falling" out all four sides in a symmetrical fashion. The South Tower is especially striking. What exactly happened to the core? Did the upper two thirds break apart and go over the sides?
If Bazant's model doesn't explain what we are seeing, when are we going to get an explanation of what actually happened? If Bazant's model does not model reality, what use is it to me? I'll say it again, I don't know what the explanation may be and I never said it was explosives. I corrected myself with the false dichotomy. The dichotomy is PC or not PC. If its not PC, I am making the "leap" to atypical CD. I don't think it’s that big of a leap.
@AnnRKey ''If Bazant's model doesn't explain what we are seeing, when are we going to get an explanation of what actually happened? If Bazant's model does not model reality, what use is it to me?''
For a person that claims to be an Engineer, that statement does not make much sense, especially since I have already explained the importance of Bazants model in relation to what actually happened, but let me repeat: Bazants case was a ''limiting one''. i.e. A LIMITING CASE ...cont
REMOVES VARIABLES in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was NO OTHER movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was LEAST likely to result in the collapse progression. i.e. scenario where the full capacity of the columns could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in REMOVING THE VARIABLES which made collapse even more ... cont
likely it still would have happened. The fact is, neither collapses of the Towers were symetrical. This is more than obvious with the South Tower as it was hit lower down than the North, therefore making the leaning of the upper section as it falls more pronounced to the human eye. However, careful scrutiny of the collapse of the North Tower clearly shows a lean, - however slight - of the upper section as it begins to fall. Here is a good angle, watch to ...cont
the left of the Tower carefully as the collapse initiates:
watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&feature=related
The fact that the collapses were not symetrical means that if the collapses occured in Bazants symetrical model which provides for the strongest possibility of resistence and therefore collapse arrest, ... it was enevitable that the Towers would fall in a non symetrical collapse where there was excessive weight leaning on non core steel which was severely weakened by fire. ...cont
The North Towers collapses was not symetrical in any sense at all. The Core collumn steel that was removed from Ground Zero from both Towers was removed in large chunks. Some Chunks were so large they had to be cut. This proves that the steel was dragged down in large intact chunks by the surrounging collapsing structure rather than a scenario where it was been steadily crushed in a symetrical collapse. There is also the fact that 100's / 1000's of Tonnes of the debris from the North ...cont
fell outwards towards WTC7, seriously damaging that building. This is more evidence that contrary to your claim, the North Tower did not fall symetrically down. And if your claim is correct that Controlled Demolition was used in the Towers, why was the fall of the South and North Towers so different? (I am assuming that you accept that there was a definite and undeniable lean in the upper section of the South Tower when I ask this question.) ...cont
You then go on to state: ''If its not PC, I am making the "leap" to atypical CD. I don't think it’s that big of a leap.''
First of all, I think using the word ''atypical'' is a preemptive cop out on your behalf as it allows you to deny any evidence which invalidates controlled demolition. All you have to say in response to contradictory evidence is: ''Well I never said it was a typical Controlled Demolition The Conspirators obviously used a method which your evidence does not...cont
contradict''. This is an immpossible position for me to take on. Particularly when you won't elaborate on the method of Controlled Demolition you believe occured. You simply state: 'It was atypical''. That is a position which is impossible for me to refute as one needs particulars to refute the assertion. All you are doing is making vague assertions which can't... by there very nature be properly refuted. With this in mind, I am going to give you the opportunity to elaborate on ...cont
your Controlled Demolition theory. To do this, I will present you with a video:
watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w&list=QL
This video clearly shows the structure of the Towers starting to bend and sag at the impact points before collapse initiates. I would like you to tell me, with this footage in mind, not what method of Controlled Demolition was used to create this effect, but rather, I would like you to tell me how one could even imagine this phenomena occurring via any other mechanism ...cont
other than that contained within the official explanation. If you can't at least do this, then I will have to disregaurd your special plea of ''an atypical Controlled Demolition'' as wishfull thinking with no backing evidence whatsoever. ... and I take the same view as Christopher Hitchens on this one i.e. Extraordinary claims which are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence i.e. Controlled Demolition.
I realise you have made other points but I believe I have ...cont
covered the main ones so I will cease here with my rebuttal. As a side note, when making your response, could you be kind enough to post your initial comment as a direct response to this one. Then if extra comments are needed (im sure thet will '',) could you refresh the page and post the nest comment as a reponse to the one you just made and repeat if necessary. This makes reading your rebuttal much easier when I hit the ''view all comments'' link as they will flow down the page. Cheers.
@ndjm00 I had a detailed response ready and even had a video draft prepared, but I think we need to resolve this “limiting case” issue first. I am not so sure that Bazant’s model is a limiting case. You stated ““The Core column steel that was removed...was removed in large chunks... This proves that the steel was dragged down in large intact chunks by the surrounding collapsing structure rather than a scenario where it had been steadily crushed in a symmetrical collapse.” ...cont
Bazant, however, states in Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It? “The free fall curve in Fig. 7, showing the motion history of the tower top, corresponds to the free fall of the top part of tower, and the moment comparable to the end of crush-down is the intersection of this curve with the horizontal line corresponding to the end of crush-down, at which the compacted layer of debris hits the foundation (i.e., the bottom of ‘bathtub’). . .cont
The fact that the structure in the ‘bathtub’ under the ground level was essentially destroyed and mostly compacted into rubble was documented during debris removal. . .The onset of the strongest tremor, marked in the figure as instant c, may logically be interpreted as the instant at which the crush-down front (bottom of the layer of compacted debris) hits the foundation slab in the ‘bathtub’.” ...cont
This sounds like Bazant thinks the collapses were as he described in Mechanics of Progressive Collapse. What do you think? And do you have photos of these large chunks of core? Lastly, I commented per your suggestion, but I think the way I did it last time gave the same results, i.e., repeatedly replied to your last comment. Cheers.
One more thing - The fall times also match Bazant’s model. Again from Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It? “Thus it ensues from the seismic records that the crush-down phase lasted 12.59 ± 0.50 s for the North Tower, and 10.09 ± 0.50 s for the South Tower. . .These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers,. . .”
@AnnRKey ''This sounds like Bazant thinks the collapses were as he described in Mechanics of Progressive Collapse. What do you think?''
How so? It sounds to me like Bazant is just stating; that like in his theoretical symetrical collapse... the Towers eventually reached the ground (and remember, the collapse was more likely to reach the ground in real life... than in Bazants model) ... and continued to crush the floors beneath in the ''Bathtub''...
''And do you have photos of these large chunks of core?''
Link sent via PM... I will send you more if necessary... but I cant see how it would be necessary to do so?
''These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers,. . ''
... without accusing you of quote mining, I have to say that this is been extremely selective on your part. This statement was directly followed ...cont
''Now note that these durations are, on the average 57.6% and 41.7% longer than those of a freefall of the upper part of each tower which are 8.08 for the North Tower and 7.42 for the South Tower. So the Seismic record, too, appears to contradict the hypothesis of PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITION by TIMED EXPLOSIVES, albeit not as blatantly as the video record.''
... this might be a slight tangent... but an important point none the less. ...cont
... but to get back to your point, Bazants model still fell collapsed more slowly... than the actual collapse. And again, Bazants model was a limiting case where he made the informed but not necessarily completely accurate assumption ''that the reduction factor 'b' applied to 'Fb' is 0.70''... as Bazant states himself.
But in any case, the biggest issue I have with your latest response is the following:
''I am not so sure that Bazant’s model is a limiting case.''
afraid simply isn't up for debate. Whether you are ''sure'' or not makes little difference to the facts. Bazant is the first to admit that his model is a limiting one where the real worls intricaces of the collapse were impossible to factor into his equations. Thus... he simplified his model to include for a symetriical collapse which provided for the best chance of survival... and still in his model, the buildings did not survive... meaning that enevitably the real world buildings ...cont
@ndjm00 Freaking YouTube. I never got notification of your latest comments. Anyway, I am still going to have beg to differ. Bazant is speaking about actual "compacted" debris and even gives a source. Do you have a source where Bazant states that his model is a "limiting case" and that the actual collapses were very different from his model?
I've never said it was timed explosives, and even if it were, they could be timed however one wants.
Yes, shockofgod is either a retard or a prankster.
@ndjm00 I just realized something. I misspoke. Yes, Bazant's model IS a limiting case, but it is ostensibly what actually happened as well if we take Bazant at his word.
@ndjm00 I am still having some difficulty with this "limiting case" definition. A better description for the Bazant model would be "conservative". A limiting case is more of a mathematical term. I found an analysis by Bazant where he used limiting cases. One of note is this: "It is interesting to note that for R/a -> ∞ equation (17) yields the same condition, but this limit case is of questionable significance. . ."
I am saying that the Bazant model is of questionable significance...cont
Let me propose an extreme hypothetical to illustrate my point. Let's say the upper section dropped onto the lower section, bounced three times, did a 360 and then collapsed to the ground. Would the Bazant model have any significance?
@AnnRKey ''A limiting case is more of a mathematical term.''
...we're agreed, and that is why Bazants model is a limited case. His mathematics are simple and leave out complicated equations for side impacts from the planes and load shifts which would enevitably have occured. Bazants model was mathematically constrained and simple. It does not account for impacts and it has the load staying symetrical.... AND THE BUILDING STILL FAILS IN HIS MODEL. This is the point of Bazants ...cont
calculations. He has shown in his simplifed constrained mathematical model that the buildings would have eventually collapsed even if the load were bearing down symetrically to the structure below. From this it is easy to extrapolate; that when you factor in the actual aircraft impacts and loads incurred as such as well as load shift, it is enevitable that the buildings would collapse. Bazant gave the bulidings the best chances of survival in his model and they still failed. ....cont
The terrorists gave the buildings no such best chance of survival and so according to Bazants model... they enevitably failed! I have been making this point over and over and you seem to be unwilling to listen to it, or your sense of logic is not as sharp as I am willing to assume it is? Which is it?
''Let's say the upper section dropped onto the lower section, bounced three times, did a 360 and then collapsed to the ground. Would the Bazant model have any significance?''
model is extremely flawed as it has no basis in the laws of physics whereas the actual collapse and Bazants model are perfectly alligned with the laws of physics. Objects as large as the upper section ... don't hust violently ''bounce'' ... ''three times'', and fall into a three sixty spin without a seriously strong sideways force encouraging such a manouvour. They take the path of least resistance.... which according to the laws of physics; is straight down! We call it gravity...
@ndjm00 Bazant states that his model matches the actual collapses and you seem to be unwilling to grasp that, or your sense of logic is not as sharp as I am willing to assume it is? Which is it? For example, I missed something before. You said the Bazant model collapsed slower than actual collapses, this is not the case. Again: "Thus it ensues from the seismic records that the crush-down phase lasted 12.59 ± 0.50 s for the North Tower, and 10.09 ± 0.50 s for the South Tower. . . (cont)
These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers". Bazant's fall times fall right in the window of the seismic record. Moreover, you didn't comment on the actual compacted debris statements by Bazant.
Yes, I know my hypothetical is unreasonable, I was simply trying to make a point. My point is that the Bazant model is accurately describing a progressive collapse,...cont
Bazant made statements equating his model with the actual collapse, yet the actual collapses in fact do NOT match up with the Bazant model. Ergo, the Bazant model is questionable. Can you quote for me Bazant stating that his model is simply a "limiting case"?
@tarkus21 Really ...so what in your opinion was the path of least resistance for these buildings to collapse believably? ...By the way ...if you say ''fall over like a tree'' ...and I will laugh my ass off...
This has been flagged as spam show
URGENT-FRAUD "A&E Truth"-FRANCE
Effondrement des tours jumelles
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
aczjbr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A&E truth now has help in spreading the lie that biochemistry, pretends to be a forensic expert. In my country it is the explosive "dirty sand" in steel. It is used and industrial paints. He found the rest of the painting of the towers. I´m not alone, all the universities and engineering schools in the U.S., Brazil, Western Europe, Australia and Asia. See what was found in France against A&E truth and their lies
aczjbr 2 months ago
The 3D model shows that the core of the tower still stands. Can you debunk that?
suitmeup1 3 months ago
The ONLY thing Harrit can prove is that the thermite was there. The rest is speculation.
kentekent 4 months ago
@kentekent He can't even prove that! If he could then there would be a HUGE number of scientist all over this...But that is simply not the case. Sorry.
Viracocha711 4 months ago
@Viracocha711 After careful evaluation I have to agree with with you :)
kentekent 4 months ago
This video completely ignores that nano thermite was found by several sources in the wtc dust
40joel 4 months ago
whats so hard about believing the government is not a person who cares for you, its made up of buisness people, all they care about is money, its not an entity, its a system made up of sneeky idividuals who like to tell people what to do, boss people around, earn lots of money, that is their mind set, how can a government care? lol, they dont give a fuck about anything except lining their pockets and thats the truth, we all know this stop protecting them, they shit on the ppl constant everyday
GLICKTON 6 months ago
they think the government care about them and just want to keep them safe lol, as for hearing no explosives which you would normally hear exploding when a building is demolished, this suspect nano thermite does not explode, it ignites and melts, you would only see plooms of smoke which do actually apear on some other footage.
GLICKTON 6 months ago
i think they did very well explaining this but i still dont believe the buildings just fell, 3 buildings all falling into their own footprint supposedly from fire or being weakened due to impact of the planes yet we all know building 7 wasnt even hit by a plain and only a small part of it caught fire, everyone knows the government are lying they just dont want to admit it or accept that their own government could do this to their own
GLICKTON 6 months ago
Excellent video. Niels Harrit, in spite of his protestation to the contrary, is a conspiracy theorist and, apparently, not even a very good one. His ideas are sheer bunk, and I'm happy this video exposes them for what they are. Can't believe that 51 people dislike it.
mamboz1 8 months ago
@mamboz1
The video doesn't refute Harrit's key finding of nanothermite and instead switches the topic to the moltem metal. Are you really fooled by that diversion tactic? If the fluid were molten aluminium it would immediately flow away from the heat source looking silvery before it had the chance to rise to the much higher temeratures at which it looked surprisingly like molten iron. Of course the video doesn't even touch on the irion microspheres found in all the dust.
Zooney1 8 months ago
@Zooney1 Actually, it does. It points out that the ingredients for thermite were readily available in the building, and that elements unique to thermite were not found. There are a few additional points that need to be made. Harrit did NOT test ANY of the beams, but rather was given 4 samples (5-6 years after the fact). To determine the existence of thermite on the beams, he should have tested them. He didn't, and we have no way to know if his samples were contaminated.
mamboz1 8 months ago
@mamboz1
Oh please do a bit more reading on this subject before commenting. Professor Harrit et al found high tech unreacted nanothermite particles in all 4 of the wtc dust samples that they managed to get hold of. What on earth do you mean by saying that the materials for thermite were readily available in the building? Do you mean the elements sulphur, iron etc?
If you knew any basic chemistry you would know what a very silly statement that was.
Zooney1 8 months ago
@Zooney1 There is a reason that only 1,400 engineers out of the 1.7 million who are employed in the United States are calling for a "new investigation." Yes that's right, 1,400 engineers out of 1.7 million. That means 0.00082% of engineers in the United States support the delusional 9/11 conspiracies. Idiot!! Only delusional fags agree with you wake up!! the world is a wonderful place!
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@Zooney1 You do realize that NASA came out saying these guys were wack jobs and tried to stop then falsifying data (of course nut jobs thought the government got to them LOL , NO you guys give science a bad name quit copping out!)
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@kushsmokkeralt
Where is your evidence for this comment? Harrit is a highly credentialled Chemistry Professor. What are you?
Zooney1 8 months ago
@Zooney1 oh and the themite turned out to be paint chips hahaha FAIL FAIL FAIL
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@Zooney1 plus saying they found "unreacted nanothermite particles" is like a murder investigation team saying that they found the murderers and he was the "killers" LOL Well what was the killers names? Basically, what were the chemicals in these "unreacted nanothermite particles" Can you name them ? no? then dont speak on what you don't know faggot!
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@kushsmokkeralt
Well seeing your childish comments I see you are not exactly a very highly evolved individual.
The composition of the nanothermitic material was primarily iron oxide and extremely fine grain aluminium in intimate admixture - a high tech form of thermite in fact that doesn't form randomly in collapsing buildings.
Paint chips don't burn to form iron microspheres this stuff does. Enjoy your continuing ignorance.
Zooney1 8 months ago
@mamboz1 This x 383984389 why can't truthers accept the truth how ironic!!!!
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
Im ashamed of those who cant see the forest from the trees. These people represent the idiocy of today.
God bless the truth movement.
Seigu007 9 months ago
Neither he was debunked, nor the paper him and his partners have authored was debunked. And he didn't really suggest a conspiracy theory. He alleged to a theory of how the buildings might've been brought down was it done via thermite whence asked it.
Also, as far as explosion noise, when an entire building smolders and collapse and we're talking about a rather ginormous skycraper at that, you wouldn't hear jack shit.
Not to mention, we're not talking conventional explosives here. Fusion chain.
Foxstab 9 months ago
Niels Harrit is not making any conspiracy claims. He's looking at what evidence suggests. There's no mention at all from him of who or why, and in this he is acting with complete integrity. It is logical to ask why building 7 collapsed and to expect an answer from official investigating bodies which makes sense. This man is not a conspiracy theorist- if he is where is his conspiracy theory?
cmmndrblu 10 months ago
It is hard to pay attention to the video while laughing at the fact that you wrote "agle" instead of angle. Niels Harrit never said for certain that the material was steel, he only raised it as a possibility (which it is). You also fail to account for the many videos and news reports of explosives going off, heard at ground level. Lastly, thermite set off on the inner columns would produce the collapse and the molten steel many reported seeing, and also explain fires that raged for 99 days.
granade88 10 months ago
The only reason that this 9/11 event has not cause a revolution is that most people dont care. All you need to do is look at WTC 7
se7ensnakes 1 year ago
John Kenneth Galbraith “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p15
se7ensnakes 1 year ago
if someone threw a rock at my 30' fiberglass sailboat's aluminum mast and the boat sank, would i need a scientist to tell me that the rock sank the sailboat? The truth of the matter is that conspiracy denials are in a corner and they hope to complicated the issue with pseudoscience. This reminds me of a quote by JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH:
se7ensnakes 1 year ago
I still don't believe 200,000 tons of steel just collapsed like that all the way down to the first floor from fires.
/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=related
("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, MIGHT JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY. Therefore, NIST shall not release [this] information.
gekko101 1 year ago
@jarii12366 here in the video you made...at 8:54 you can see at least 2 small puffs of what looks like smoke shooting out of the building way below the collapseing level..and people did hear the sounds of explosions before and far after the first plane hit...enter 1 of these 3 things into search here on youtube and watch for yourself....1.witnesses heard sounds of explosions on 9/11...2. 9/11:sounds evidence for WTC7 explosions and NIST cover up..3. WTC7 explosions on audio(heard by firemen)
ladyjewelsnc 1 year ago
There are different types of explosives that can be discussed as theoritcal possibilities concerning the twin towers. Dynamite, thermite, thermate and so forth. I have a theory in which the explosives were placed and placed in the exact needed spot. 9 months before 9/11, the elevators were undergoing modernization allowing full access to the elevator shafts and thusly the inner columns allowing workers to run the neccesary wiring for the bombs however the bombs werent installed until the cont.
AmericanPoliceState 1 year ago
@AmericanPoliceState the weekend before 9/11 in which the buildings were powered down, no security systems were online and all bomb sniffing dogs had been removed, with the help of certain security personel workers could then begin installation of the bombs or perhaps they were already installed and the workers simply were there to activate the charges and check the systems to see if they were ready.
AmericanPoliceState 1 year ago
These charges SHOULDNT go of before if so?? so whats the prob..
Furthermore funny how it falls to the side of the molten ''Aliminium''!
And a dutch demolition ekspert seeing wtc7 said he was ABSOLUTELY surten it was a demolition, and was quite stuned when told it was wtc7. Cause he didnt know ...UHHHH
ppedalen 1 year ago
LOL when i think i am wrong i will admit..But you aint getting me there.
I rather looks like you aint abel to
ppedalen 1 year ago
Why does this video just ignore the 'squib' footage?
s3v3rdl0ck 1 year ago
minute 7:00" It is important to note the demolition waves don't begin until after the building began to collapse".....any wave, any sequence such as we see at the WTC must, by definition, be After the initiation of the onset of movement we see. It would be impossible for a wave of demolition to occur, intentional or not, prior to the WTC's movement downward. Min 7:10, We also see 20+ stories tilt 20+ degrees pulverized in mid air. No concrete pancakes or even chunks. just little rocks
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
Bla...Bla..
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
You can't argue with a liar, only one way, strap those 9/11 liars on to a lie detector connect a couple of hundreds of volt, and a few amps, and when the needle goes up in the red, another amp.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
3 buildings collapse in a way ( through fire) that has never happened before within hours, in the same city? The chances of that happening are astronomically impossible!!
The emperor is naked wake up you idiots!!
aburgheim 1 year ago
@aburgheim What nonsense. Two jet liners loaded with Aviation fuel never slammed at full speed into two Sky Scrapers in the same city before either. Like... why do you keep referring to the collapses as simply ''fire'' induced? You completly ignore the initial high speed impact damage and the massive explosion damage... which led to those ''fires''. Talk about selectively picking your evidence! You sir... are a retard!
ndjm00 1 year ago
The twin towers were build to withstand multiple airplane impacts. The collapse did not follow upon impact, the planes hit at different angles and still the wtc collapsed the same way, at free fall into their own footprint while having the chance to follow impact direction and collapsing within 360 different angles. Not to mention that building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical.
Respect the dead investigate 9/11 again!!
aburgheim 1 year ago
@aburgheim ''The twin towers were build to withstand multiple airplane impacts.''
No they werent. In fact the lead designer only considered the impact of a much smaller plane (Boeing 707) when designing the building.
''at free fall into their own footprint''
Free fall????... absolutely not! Into their own footprint????? Absolutely not!
''Not to mention that ...cont...
ndjm00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical. Respect the dead investigate 9/11 again!!''
You are sooo retarded its hilarious! What was sooo suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7???
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Listen troll go lick some cia heels if it makes you feel good. But for someone that portrays himself so concerned with these matters to ask what was so suspicious about wtc7 is total proof that you are not!! You are a provocateur a chill and keyboard coward of the silliest kind so please leave the thread you creepy boy!!
aburgheim 1 year ago
@aburgheim @aburgheim I find it hilarious that when the ''truther'' is is confronted with valid points and backed into a corner, he ignores the arguments and instead refers to his opponent as a ''shill''. Its akin to a creationist blocking his ears and shouting ''LALALALA...''; when you discuss evolution with them. Its rather pathetic! I have heard arguements ... cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
about the ''suspicious'' collapse of WTC7 before and whenever I destroy those arguements, instead of been refuted, I get called a ''shill''. Its hilarious. But maybe you have evidence concerning the fall of WTC7 that is unrefutable and will change my mind?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 AAAHHHHHH what valid points please???
aburgheim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aburgheim Well Ill just copy paste my last comments so:
''The twin towers were build to withstand multiple airplane impacts.''
No they werent. In fact the lead designer only considered the impact of a much smaller plane (Boeing 707) when designing the building.
''at free fall into their own footprint''
Free fall????... absolutely not! Into their own footprint????? Absolutely not!
''Not to mention that ...cont...
ndjm00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
building 7 collapsed the same way and was not even hit by a plane. Chance of all these similarities: Astronomical. Respect the dead investigate 9/11 again!!''
You are sooo retarded its hilarious! What was sooo suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7??? --FINISH-- below comments unrelated
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 You are correct, they were designed to handle a 707. The construction manager believed the towers could handle multiple hits. watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU The 707 was 20% smaller. But it had a faster cruising speed and had more kinetic energy during normal flight. And the fact of the matter is: both towers survived the plane hits.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@aburgheim I find it hilarious that when the ''truther'' is is confronted with valid points and backed into a corner, he ignores the arguments and instead refers to his opponent as a ''shill''. Its akin to a creationist blocking his ears and shouting ''LALALALA...''; when you discuss evolution with them. Its rather pathetic! I have heard arguements about the ''suspicious'' collapse of WTC7 before and whenever I destroy those arguements,.. cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnnRKey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndjm00 "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected
the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination." Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, Bazant; Verdure.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey ''The construction manager believed the towers could handle multiple hits.''... yes, ''believe'' being the all important word. Isaac Newton for instance believed in alchemy... There is a massive difference between believing something and been able to verify it! ''the fact of the matter is: both towers survived the plane hits.'' ... and your point???? ''No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire.'' ... and no man ever walked on the moon until the 60's.. so again; your point?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I mentioned the towers surviving the plane hits because you said they were designed for "much smaller planes". I mentioned that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire because you asked what was so suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7? Men going to the moon and the first collapse of a skyscraper due to fire is an unfair comparison. Read the quote from the structural engineering analysis again. Can we say the same thing about a walk on the moon?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey ''I mentioned the towers surviving the plane hits because you said they were designed for "much smaller planes".'' ... yes and not only were they designed for smaller, slower (I think) planes with a smaller fuel load, they were also designed to be hit by a low flying plane going relatively slow that was looking for a place to land and had little remaining fuel. They were not designed to be hit full trottle... by a bigger plane... with almost full tanks! cont...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 ''I mentioned that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire because you asked what was so suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7?'' ... and my question still stands i.e. what was so suspicious about the fall of WTC7? I mean come on... there is a first time for everything... so simply stating it never happened before is a non starter! And in any case... WTC7 did not fall solely due to fire damage! A sizeable chunk of the structure was ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
removed from the falling debris of the North tower. Not only did this compromise the stability of WTC7... but it also contradicts the idea that the North tower ''fell into its own footprint''. <--- This been a theory that many truthers like to spout about both the North and South Towers!
''Read the quote from the structural engineering analysis again.''
Once again... he used the word ''believe'', and he never mentioned the type, speed or load of these theoretical aircrafts and collisions.
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 How did the North Tower cause so much damage to 7 when the analysis states that the tower material was being compacted? Anyone that says the towers fell into their own footprint needs to review the videos again. Most of the tower debris fell outside the footprint or disintegrated. I said read the quote from the Bazant/Verdure analysis, not the quote from the contractor. Can we say the same thing about a walk on the moon?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 The 707 is smaller and faster with a net increase in kinetic energy at cruise speed. I have sources that say the towers were designed for a 707 at 600 mph. Where do you get your designed for slow planes? The planes that hit the towers had ~10000 gallons of fuel.
WTC7 is suspicious because its the first and only skyscraper to collapse due to fire. NIST states that WTC7 would have collapsed without the damage. Since you mention a size-able chuck of 7 was removed. . .cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey ''The 707 is smaller and faster with a net increase in kinetic energy at cruise speed.''... Again... your point? ''I have sources that say the towers were designed for a 707 at 600 mph'' and you don't cite them because??? ''The planes that hit the towers had ~10000 gallons of fuel.'' ... Yeh... something truthfull for once. My sincere apologies for stating the planes tanks were almost full. In any case... its in consequential to the facts. Also, you keep stating: ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
''WTC7 is suspicious because its the first and only skyscraper to collapse due to fire.''... and again I must respond: there is a first time for everything... so simply stating it never happened before is a non starter! Until you point out a fault in this response to your assertion, I see no reason to not keep responding to your assertion with this reply. ''NIST states that WTC7 would have collapsed without the damage.'' ... Im not sure of the validity of this assertion... state source ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
and page please in order for me to verify. And then you come out with this dinger: ''How did the North Tower cause so much damage to 7 when the analysis states that the tower material was being compacted? Anyone that says the towers fell into their own footprint needs to review the videos again. Most of the tower debris fell outside the footprint or disintegrated.'' That is possibly the most self contradictory thing I have heard a truther state. i.e.: Do you believe the towers compacted... cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
in on themselves like you state in the first sentence... or do you believe that most of the debri fell outside the foot print? These 2 statement seem utterly contradictory! So are you telling me you don't believe the towers fell into their own foot print... you don't believe the collapses resembled a controlled demolition and you do believe that debris did fall 100's of feet from the North tower and did in fact cause considerable structural damage to WTC7? I would like you to make these ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
toughts clear to me in the interest of having a proper argument / debate! Could you also please provide me with an explanation as to how the cover up was carried out? i.e. could you please tell me why all none of the presidents cabinet have hinted at a conspiracy... the airlines have kept quiet... the supposed passengers have kept quiet... All security personel in and around the Towers kept quiet during and after the buildings were rigged and the thousands of WTC employees never spotted ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
any suspicious bomb planting behaviour in the time running up to the faithful day? and if they did notice bombs been planted... how come not one has spoken out? We are talking literally about 1000's of people who are in on this supposed conspiracy and are keeping there mouths shut to this day! That is some achievment... particularly for one of the most bungling administrations in American history. Do you know how many people were involved in the water gate scandal?... and they were found out!
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I really have no idea who or how many could have done this. All I know is what I see. The videos do not back up the unofficial account of how the towers collapsed. Moreover, their is no official explanation for WTC 1 and 2. There is only an official explanation for WTC 7, which is more believable than 1 and 2. And there is still the mystery of why they ostensibly shipped most of the steel overseas. The steel would solve this debate. . .and its gone.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I have no idea how many were involved in the Watergate scandal. Are you suggesting that all secrets those in government have tried to keep secret have been made known? On a side note, during the same time period COINTELPRO was also discovered. While almost everyone can remember Watergate, relatively few know about COINTELPRO. I'll bet COINTELPRO is alive and well.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 You haven't read the analysis have you? The analysis by Bazant/Verdure states that the buildings were compacting. They are not truthers. They are structural/civil engineers. Yes, what their analysis states and what the videos show are completely contradictory, which has been my contention all along. I have a video on it but its been corrupted. I am working on a new one.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 The source would be NIST. Do a search for "nist wtc 7 faq".
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center
by James Glanz and Eric Lipton
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Im sorry but you are one crazy ass mother fucker. I will send you one link via PM to a peer reviewed paper by one of the most respected demolitions companies in the world. I suggest you read it. It covers not only the possibility of a controlled demolition... but it also rebukes any ridiculous ideas you have about the steel been shipped before thorough examination. You can PM me with any material you wish me to view to support your case. However, I will only discuss the topic ..cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
here in the comment section to this video. So come back here if you wish to rebuke the peer reviewed paper by the demolitions company. I will not make any responses via PM.
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I have read that paper before and I will read it again, but I would like to share something about the paper that I distinctly remember. In it we read: "A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom: effect around its perimeter". Contrast this with Bazant's paper: "Some lay critics claim that Kout [the amount of debris being forced away] should be about 95%, . . .cont.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
in the (mistaken) belief that this would give a faster collapse and thus vindicate their allegation of free fall".
Both are claiming progressive collapse. Who's right?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Assertion 1 "The tower's collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
Protec comment: No they didn't. It's the "where." [sic]
ARK: I agree. The "collapse" of WTCs 1 & 2 do not resemble any kind of controlled demolition we have seen before. It looks like the towers were blown to kingdom come. . . .cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00
Protec: "...blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized".
ARK: Indeed. Implosions are basically controlled progressive collapses. The "collapse" of WTCs 1 & 2 looked nothing like progressive collapse.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Asssertion 2
"But they fell straight down into their own footprint"
Protec comment: They did not.
ARK: Agreed, they did not. This begs the question, why not? Whether we are talking gravity driven progressive collapse or implosion (controlled progressive collapse) the towers should have fell straight down into their own footprint with minimal debris being forced away.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Assertion 2 Continued
Protec comment: They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.
ARK: Actually, the "crushing front" followed the path of most resistance. This goes to the 95% of the debris being forced over the sides. Structural engineer guru Bazant says 95% is not possible. The maximum is 50%. Moreover, both analyses are assuming that the superior structure is staying intact. This is simply not the case.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Assertion 2 Continued2 95% of the superior structure is forced over the sides before the "collapse front" begins its descent.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Why do you think me a crazy ass mother fucker? As for the steel: 1. "Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort." - LEARNING FROM 9/11 - UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF REPS, ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 2. The steel is gone. Where are the documents showing all the steel was accounted for? Where are the photographs?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey The paper I sent you explicitly states that all sttel of structural importance was thoroughly examined by an army of experts before been shipped to China. Man... you are actually crazy. Your replies make no sense and you have yet to actually state what you think happened on 911? I accept the official story. You don't. So can you please tell me what you think did happen? ... otherwise, what exactly are we debating here?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Are you selectively reading my comments? I got a Congressional record that states important pieces of evidence were destroyed early during the search. So you have a statement from someone that says the steel was examined. Where is the evidence for this examination? Where are the photos? And what about the discrepancy between your analysis and mine where yours say 95% of the debris was forced away and my analysis says no way? We are debating the "collapses" of the towers.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey I just have the same reply... so once again: Your replies make no sense and you have yet to actually state what you think happened on 911? I accept the official story. You don't. So can you please tell me what you think did happen? ... otherwise, what exactly are we debating here?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Simply saying my replies make no sense is a cop out. What specifically makes no sense? I am not sure how the towers "collapsed". I am sure that what we are seeing in the videos is not progressive collapse as described by Bazant. I am confident the "collapse" of the towers were examples of atypical controlled demolition. What we are debating is whether the towers collapsed per the official version or they were demolished.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Okay... you have finally made some claims we can debate:
''I am sure that what we are seeing in the videos is not progressive collapse as described by Bazant''
Why not? What exactly did Bazant claim that you reject? What did you observe that did not correlate with Bazants theory?
''I am confident the "collapse" of the towers were examples of atypical controlled demolition.''
... and what EXACTLY have you observed in the collapses that has given you this idea?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 OK. Bazant describes a two phase progressive collapse: crush-down followed by crush-up. During the first phase the upper portion of the tower is crushing down on the lower structure with no loss of material in the upper portion. The photos and videos show that this is not the case.
Two observations are the above and the south tower core that remained standing after the initial collapse. The core should have been crushed per Bazant.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey '' with no loss of material in the upper portion. The photos and videos show that this is not the case.''
What exactly do you mean here? What do you mean by two phases? Bazants research led to a 4 point failure scenario which I quote: ''1.Severed and significantly deflected columns at the point of impact redistributed stress to other columns, exhausting their load capacity. 2.Because insulation was stripped from many structural steel members, the ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
jet-fuel induced inferno heated remaining columns up to 600°C, causing them to lose up to 85% of their strength. 3.Heat and stress combined to induce both viscous and plastic properties in the remaining columns. That, and thermal expansion, caused the floor trusses to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward. These factors along with the deflection of some columns due to aircraft impact induced multistory buckling of the outer frame wall tube. ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
4.As a result of the buckling of the outer frame, the upper part of the tower fell through at least one floor height. The kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that could be absorbed by the floor below, triggering progressive collapse.''
This is exactly what Bazant states as the findings of his research and it correlates exactly with what happened on that faithful day... so whats your problem? And the South Tower Core was crushed. There ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
was very little of it left. Do you expect that it had to be completely obliterated in order for Bazants theory to be true? What nonsense. All theories have room for error, and considering the small amount of core that was left... Bazant was pretty much on the mark. How ever, the fact that you believe there was controlled demolition goes against the idea of any of the Core been left standing. Did they run out of explosive? :) So again... I must ask ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
what EXACTLY have you observed in the collapses that has given you the idea that the collapses were an ''atypical demolition''? In fact... since you believe it was an atypical demolition, what evidence do you have at all... that a demolition took place considering you believe this demolition to be unlike any other? In essence... what demolition are you comparing the fall of the twin towers to... to confirm your belief, when you state that this demolition was atypical?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Its either progressive collapse or its demolition. I see no other option. Progressive collapse is ruled out unless Bazant has incorrectly described progressive collapse, which would seem highly unlikely. Therefore, it was demolition. You said it, this demolition is unlike any other. There is no demolition that I can compare to this. The WTC towers "collapses" are unique.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 There was quite a bit of the core left. Yes, the core should have been added to the accreting mass until there was nothing left to compact.
"After the lower crushing front hits the ground, the upper crushing front of the compacted zone can begin propagating into the falling upper part of the tower."
The lower crushing front never made it to the ground. The core apparently pushed back well before the crushing front made it to the ground....cont after a break.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 As I said, I have no idea how the demolition was carried out. I only know that it is not a progressive collapse as described and that it was very atypical. The core did not simply collapse, it disintegrated. The video I have is grainy, but when one puts the video along side the photos, it is very clear the behavior of the core was strange. There is also a news report where an eyewitness describes the south tower core as a "disintegration". . . .cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 "The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass." "In the crush-down phase, the compacted Zone B and the upper Part A [sic] of the tower move together as one rigid body accreting mass. . ." - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Bazant, Verdure.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey You are actually retarded! I see no reason to fuel your delusions any longer. Its a waste of my time. But you are a rather funny person. I loved the false dichotomy too: ''Its either progressive collapse or its demolition.'' LMFAO!!! Here is a link to a video series... this is the first vid, but I suggest you watch the whole series as It describes your behaviour perfectly:
watch?v=Y8HsoiYypJY&feature=sub&playnext_from=TL&videos=WWxtWsQqEUM&playnext=1
Nothing more to say to you...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 You have got to be kidding me! Did you read all of my comments? How exactly are you fueling my alleged delusions? How is it a false dichotomy? What else is there? Aliens brought down the towers? I watched the first part of dprjones' video and when he got to the part that says that CTs believe the government did it, I stopped. Have I ever said the government did it? I presented evidence that Bazant is incorrect. You have presented nothing to counter. I'll be here if you change your mind.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Ad hominem is not an argument.
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." - Issac Newton.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey '' I watched the first part of dprjones' video and when he got to the part that says that CTs believe the government did it, I stopped.''
Of course you stopped! You had no choice other than to stop. That is exactly what people like you do. You find one little thing you disagree with and disregard every thing else in an effort to falsly confirm your delusion. Dprs comment about perpetrators or motives does nothing to invalidate his actual counter arguments and your failure...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
to watch his counter arguemnts tells me all I need to know about you. You are basically telling me you are willing to ignore evidence which contradicts your beliefs i.e. controlled demolition, of the towers... hence I see no reason to waste time on you. If you actually grow some balls and stop looking for excuses to not look at the counter evidence, the links to the other 2 vids in the series are:
watch?v=Ft5y0BXOXQk&playnext_from=TL&videos=9FXXe_BbXDE&feature=sub
and... cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4&playnext_from=TL&videos=ifuqUCKxlj4&feature=sub
Don't be such a twonk and cease to look at the counter evidence simply because you don't have the motive for believing your conspiracy theory that DPR alleges ''truthers'' have. That is so utterly pathetic and shows your willfull ignorance. On that note... that really is all I have to say to you!
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 @ndjm00 If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. You find one minor flaw in my argument and throw everything else out. To be completely honest, you are technically correct. Prog collapse and demolition is a false dichotomy. The dichotomy would be prog. collapse or not prog. collapse. And I am making a "leap" that it is in fact demolition based on that. BTW, I am going to finish watching the dprjones videos. I happen to like dpr. . .cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I am willing to look at evidence that contridicts my "beliefs". That is why I looked at the prog. collapse theory in detail. I found things in Bazant's analysis that doesn't coincide with the evidence. I didn't simply say Bazant is claiming prog. collapse and therefore I won't look at it. Again, I have looked at the evidence, the evidence suggests that it was not progressive collapse. I could just as easily say you are unwilling to look at the evidence that goes against your beliefs.cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
A twonk? Why do insist on calling me names? Do you consider that evidence of prog. collapse? I'll be back after I watch the dpr in its entirety. I doubt its going to show anything I haven't seen before. Again, I'll be here if you change your mind.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 OK, let's have a look at dpr's checklist for CTs.
1. A nebulous entity. I have none.
2. Reliance on dubious evidence. You would need to show that my evidence against prog. collapse is dubious.
3. Deaf to opposing views. I will examine in detail all opposing views.
4. Fanciful explanations. You may have me on my "leap" to demolition. Nevertheless, I have evidence that it was not a prog. collapse as described by Bazant.
5. Ignorance. What don't I know?
cont.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
6. Willingness to lie and deceive. I have no willingness to lie or deceive.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Your claim that I do not look at counter evidence is lacking. I had already seen the last two videos you gave. I am not asking for a lot here. You have already spent this much time on the debate, why not continue it? Do you continue to believe that I refuse to look at counter arguments?
Furthermore, I think you are lumping me in with all other CTs. For instance dpr keeps bringing up the free fall claim made by CTs. I do not make that claim, never did. And I don't move the goalposts.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 You know what's really messed up? You sent me a link to the Blanchard paper and I immediately responded because I had read the paper previously. And then you have the nerve to say I don't look at opposing views. And you never responded to my first comment on the Blanchard paper. You lose!
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey What I really don't get... and this really is messed up... is why you are using Bazants model at all to disprove progressive collapse? You do realise that Bazants model was not only that; a 'model', but also an idealised one. i.e. Bazants model left out several intervening variables (which actually occured on 9/11) and gave the towers the best possible chance of survival. Bazant's case was the best possible situation to have allowed the collapse to arrest i.e.stop, as the ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
strongest parts of the structure (the columns) took the direct impact of the falling mass. That same impact on any other structure of the building would have been more likely to lead to a collapse, not less likely. Bazant's analysis showed that even in this best case scenario, total collapse was to be expected; the verinage technique shows that his analysis was most likely correct. In the absence of any better analysis, or any better experiment, we can safely ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
conclude from this that explosives were not needed to create the collapses of the WTC. The truth is, Bazants model had all forces going semetrically down through the interior structural (core) columns which gave the towers the best chance of survival... and yet in his model the towers still fail. No when you look at what actually happened, it is more than obvious that a symetrical, idealised collapse did not take place, i.e. the collapse force was not going straight down onto the core...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
structural steel, but rather to one specific side of the building... causing the upper sections to fall outwards... not straight down. This also accounts for why some of the core collumns were still intact after collapse. You truthers don't seem to realise that if the Towers failed in Bazants model (where he gives them the best chance of survival)... it was only enevitable that they would collapse in the situation that actually occured where the downward forces were not symetrical. ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
I've never understood the "ah ha!" we get from truthers - such as yourself - about Bazant's model and how the towers actually collapsed, as if somehow it's proof of some kind of conspiracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Bazant's model as a proof of concept more than any representation of how the Towers actually collapsed. From what this layman can tell, if the towers collapsed in Bazant's model, there was no way they weren't going to in real life. ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
I must reitierate this point once again. Bazants case was a ''limiting one''. i.e. A limiting case removes variables in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was no other movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was least likely to result in the collapse progression. A scenario where the full capacity of the columns ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in removing the variables which made collapse even more likely it still would have happened. It doesn't model reality, but then again it was never intended to in the first place... The collapses were not nearly as optimistic as his model. So I must ask... why are you comparing Bazants model to the real life situation??? ...and then using this as some sort of ridiculous proof that it was explosives and not PC?????
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 First, thanks for coming back. As I state, I am willing, indeed eager, to look at opposing views, but until I get an "ah-ha, you are right", I will remain skeptical. Just an FYI, while I am not a structural engineer, I do have a degree in engineering, so I am not completely out of my depth. I have reviewed many analyses in my years and I was very good at finding mistakes. Herein lies the problem, I have a discrepancy between what actually happened and what is presented in the analyses.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
I am using Bazant's model because it is the only explanation for a gravity driven PC we have. Bazant states: "However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives. Its formulation is the main objective of what follows."
AnnRKey 1 year ago
The Mechanics of Progressive Collapse is all we have to explain what happened beyond the initial trigger. That is what I/We are asking for, an explanation for what actually happened. The "collaspes" of the towers did involve the strongest part of the structure. I have always agreed with Bazant , i.e., in order for PC to occur, it must be as Bazant describes. The upper mass must stay rigid and centered as we see in the verinage technique.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
It is not at all obvious that a symmetrical collapse did not take place. See below for definition of symmetrical in this context.
symmetrical: characterized by or exhibiting symmetry
symmetry: the correspondence in size, form, and arrangement of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point;
correspondence: similarity or analogy
similarity: the state of being similar; likeness; resemblance.
similar: having a likeness or resemblance, esp. in a general way.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
The North Tower clearly shows the core failing first and with the "crushing front" continuing symmetrically vertically down. With the South Tower Bazant explains how the upper portion rotated about its center and continued vertically downward. The debris was "falling" out all four sides in a symmetrical fashion. The South Tower is especially striking. What exactly happened to the core? Did the upper two thirds break apart and go over the sides?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
If Bazant's model doesn't explain what we are seeing, when are we going to get an explanation of what actually happened? If Bazant's model does not model reality, what use is it to me? I'll say it again, I don't know what the explanation may be and I never said it was explosives. I corrected myself with the false dichotomy. The dichotomy is PC or not PC. If its not PC, I am making the "leap" to atypical CD. I don't think it’s that big of a leap.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey ''If Bazant's model doesn't explain what we are seeing, when are we going to get an explanation of what actually happened? If Bazant's model does not model reality, what use is it to me?''
For a person that claims to be an Engineer, that statement does not make much sense, especially since I have already explained the importance of Bazants model in relation to what actually happened, but let me repeat: Bazants case was a ''limiting one''. i.e. A LIMITING CASE ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
REMOVES VARIABLES in order to simplify the equation. By assuming that there was NO OTHER movement in the collapse initiation other than straight down with a direct column-column contact, he calculated for the impact which was LEAST likely to result in the collapse progression. i.e. scenario where the full capacity of the columns could resist the collapse with the maximum efficiency; his conclusion was that even in REMOVING THE VARIABLES which made collapse even more ... cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
likely it still would have happened. The fact is, neither collapses of the Towers were symetrical. This is more than obvious with the South Tower as it was hit lower down than the North, therefore making the leaning of the upper section as it falls more pronounced to the human eye. However, careful scrutiny of the collapse of the North Tower clearly shows a lean, - however slight - of the upper section as it begins to fall. Here is a good angle, watch to ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
the left of the Tower carefully as the collapse initiates:
watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&feature=related
The fact that the collapses were not symetrical means that if the collapses occured in Bazants symetrical model which provides for the strongest possibility of resistence and therefore collapse arrest, ... it was enevitable that the Towers would fall in a non symetrical collapse where there was excessive weight leaning on non core steel which was severely weakened by fire. ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
The North Towers collapses was not symetrical in any sense at all. The Core collumn steel that was removed from Ground Zero from both Towers was removed in large chunks. Some Chunks were so large they had to be cut. This proves that the steel was dragged down in large intact chunks by the surrounging collapsing structure rather than a scenario where it was been steadily crushed in a symetrical collapse. There is also the fact that 100's / 1000's of Tonnes of the debris from the North ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
fell outwards towards WTC7, seriously damaging that building. This is more evidence that contrary to your claim, the North Tower did not fall symetrically down. And if your claim is correct that Controlled Demolition was used in the Towers, why was the fall of the South and North Towers so different? (I am assuming that you accept that there was a definite and undeniable lean in the upper section of the South Tower when I ask this question.) ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
You then go on to state: ''If its not PC, I am making the "leap" to atypical CD. I don't think it’s that big of a leap.''
First of all, I think using the word ''atypical'' is a preemptive cop out on your behalf as it allows you to deny any evidence which invalidates controlled demolition. All you have to say in response to contradictory evidence is: ''Well I never said it was a typical Controlled Demolition The Conspirators obviously used a method which your evidence does not...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
contradict''. This is an immpossible position for me to take on. Particularly when you won't elaborate on the method of Controlled Demolition you believe occured. You simply state: 'It was atypical''. That is a position which is impossible for me to refute as one needs particulars to refute the assertion. All you are doing is making vague assertions which can't... by there very nature be properly refuted. With this in mind, I am going to give you the opportunity to elaborate on ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
your Controlled Demolition theory. To do this, I will present you with a video:
watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w&list=QL
This video clearly shows the structure of the Towers starting to bend and sag at the impact points before collapse initiates. I would like you to tell me, with this footage in mind, not what method of Controlled Demolition was used to create this effect, but rather, I would like you to tell me how one could even imagine this phenomena occurring via any other mechanism ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
other than that contained within the official explanation. If you can't at least do this, then I will have to disregaurd your special plea of ''an atypical Controlled Demolition'' as wishfull thinking with no backing evidence whatsoever. ... and I take the same view as Christopher Hitchens on this one i.e. Extraordinary claims which are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence i.e. Controlled Demolition.
I realise you have made other points but I believe I have ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
covered the main ones so I will cease here with my rebuttal. As a side note, when making your response, could you be kind enough to post your initial comment as a direct response to this one. Then if extra comments are needed (im sure thet will '',) could you refresh the page and post the nest comment as a reponse to the one you just made and repeat if necessary. This makes reading your rebuttal much easier when I hit the ''view all comments'' link as they will flow down the page. Cheers.
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I had a detailed response ready and even had a video draft prepared, but I think we need to resolve this “limiting case” issue first. I am not so sure that Bazant’s model is a limiting case. You stated ““The Core column steel that was removed...was removed in large chunks... This proves that the steel was dragged down in large intact chunks by the surrounding collapsing structure rather than a scenario where it had been steadily crushed in a symmetrical collapse.” ...cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Bazant, however, states in Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It? “The free fall curve in Fig. 7, showing the motion history of the tower top, corresponds to the free fall of the top part of tower, and the moment comparable to the end of crush-down is the intersection of this curve with the horizontal line corresponding to the end of crush-down, at which the compacted layer of debris hits the foundation (i.e., the bottom of ‘bathtub’). . .cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
The fact that the structure in the ‘bathtub’ under the ground level was essentially destroyed and mostly compacted into rubble was documented during debris removal. . .The onset of the strongest tremor, marked in the figure as instant c, may logically be interpreted as the instant at which the crush-down front (bottom of the layer of compacted debris) hits the foundation slab in the ‘bathtub’.” ...cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
This sounds like Bazant thinks the collapses were as he described in Mechanics of Progressive Collapse. What do you think? And do you have photos of these large chunks of core? Lastly, I commented per your suggestion, but I think the way I did it last time gave the same results, i.e., repeatedly replied to your last comment. Cheers.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
One more thing - The fall times also match Bazant’s model. Again from Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It? “Thus it ensues from the seismic records that the crush-down phase lasted 12.59 ± 0.50 s for the North Tower, and 10.09 ± 0.50 s for the South Tower. . .These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers,. . .”
AnnRKey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnnRKey ''This sounds like Bazant thinks the collapses were as he described in Mechanics of Progressive Collapse. What do you think?''
How so? It sounds to me like Bazant is just stating; that like in his theoretical symetrical collapse... the Towers eventually reached the ground (and remember, the collapse was more likely to reach the ground in real life... than in Bazants model) ... and continued to crush the floors beneath in the ''Bathtub''...
...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
''And do you have photos of these large chunks of core?''
Link sent via PM... I will send you more if necessary... but I cant see how it would be necessary to do so?
''These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers,. . ''
... without accusing you of quote mining, I have to say that this is been extremely selective on your part. This statement was directly followed ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
by Bazant and Co. with the following:
''Now note that these durations are, on the average 57.6% and 41.7% longer than those of a freefall of the upper part of each tower which are 8.08 for the North Tower and 7.42 for the South Tower. So the Seismic record, too, appears to contradict the hypothesis of PROGRESSIVE DEMOLITION by TIMED EXPLOSIVES, albeit not as blatantly as the video record.''
... this might be a slight tangent... but an important point none the less. ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
... but to get back to your point, Bazants model still fell collapsed more slowly... than the actual collapse. And again, Bazants model was a limiting case where he made the informed but not necessarily completely accurate assumption ''that the reduction factor 'b' applied to 'Fb' is 0.70''... as Bazant states himself.
But in any case, the biggest issue I have with your latest response is the following:
''I am not so sure that Bazant’s model is a limiting case.''
This I'm ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
afraid simply isn't up for debate. Whether you are ''sure'' or not makes little difference to the facts. Bazant is the first to admit that his model is a limiting one where the real worls intricaces of the collapse were impossible to factor into his equations. Thus... he simplified his model to include for a symetriical collapse which provided for the best chance of survival... and still in his model, the buildings did not survive... meaning that enevitably the real world buildings ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
didn't have a chance considering the type of impacts they incurred and the damage caused by those impacts and fires.
As a side note, this method of writing comments has made yours much more ledgible so keep it up if you are going to continue... please! :)
And Shockof God is a Retard...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Freaking YouTube. I never got notification of your latest comments. Anyway, I am still going to have beg to differ. Bazant is speaking about actual "compacted" debris and even gives a source. Do you have a source where Bazant states that his model is a "limiting case" and that the actual collapses were very different from his model?
I've never said it was timed explosives, and even if it were, they could be timed however one wants.
Yes, shockofgod is either a retard or a prankster.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I just realized something. I misspoke. Yes, Bazant's model IS a limiting case, but it is ostensibly what actually happened as well if we take Bazant at his word.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 I am still having some difficulty with this "limiting case" definition. A better description for the Bazant model would be "conservative". A limiting case is more of a mathematical term. I found an analysis by Bazant where he used limiting cases. One of note is this: "It is interesting to note that for R/a -> ∞ equation (17) yields the same condition, but this limit case is of questionable significance. . ."
I am saying that the Bazant model is of questionable significance...cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Let me propose an extreme hypothetical to illustrate my point. Let's say the upper section dropped onto the lower section, bounced three times, did a 360 and then collapsed to the ground. Would the Bazant model have any significance?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey ''A limiting case is more of a mathematical term.''
...we're agreed, and that is why Bazants model is a limited case. His mathematics are simple and leave out complicated equations for side impacts from the planes and load shifts which would enevitably have occured. Bazants model was mathematically constrained and simple. It does not account for impacts and it has the load staying symetrical.... AND THE BUILDING STILL FAILS IN HIS MODEL. This is the point of Bazants ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
calculations. He has shown in his simplifed constrained mathematical model that the buildings would have eventually collapsed even if the load were bearing down symetrically to the structure below. From this it is easy to extrapolate; that when you factor in the actual aircraft impacts and loads incurred as such as well as load shift, it is enevitable that the buildings would collapse. Bazant gave the bulidings the best chances of survival in his model and they still failed. ....cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
The terrorists gave the buildings no such best chance of survival and so according to Bazants model... they enevitably failed! I have been making this point over and over and you seem to be unwilling to listen to it, or your sense of logic is not as sharp as I am willing to assume it is? Which is it?
''Let's say the upper section dropped onto the lower section, bounced three times, did a 360 and then collapsed to the ground. Would the Bazant model have any significance?''
Your ...cont
ndjm00 1 year ago
model is extremely flawed as it has no basis in the laws of physics whereas the actual collapse and Bazants model are perfectly alligned with the laws of physics. Objects as large as the upper section ... don't hust violently ''bounce'' ... ''three times'', and fall into a three sixty spin without a seriously strong sideways force encouraging such a manouvour. They take the path of least resistance.... which according to the laws of physics; is straight down! We call it gravity...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Bazant states that his model matches the actual collapses and you seem to be unwilling to grasp that, or your sense of logic is not as sharp as I am willing to assume it is? Which is it? For example, I missed something before. You said the Bazant model collapsed slower than actual collapses, this is not the case. Again: "Thus it ensues from the seismic records that the crush-down phase lasted 12.59 ± 0.50 s for the North Tower, and 10.09 ± 0.50 s for the South Tower. . . (cont)
AnnRKey 1 year ago
These durations match reasonably well the durations of the crush-down phase calculated from Eq. (1), which are 12.74 s and 10.52 s for the North and South towers". Bazant's fall times fall right in the window of the seismic record. Moreover, you didn't comment on the actual compacted debris statements by Bazant.
Yes, I know my hypothetical is unreasonable, I was simply trying to make a point. My point is that the Bazant model is accurately describing a progressive collapse,...cont
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Bazant made statements equating his model with the actual collapse, yet the actual collapses in fact do NOT match up with the Bazant model. Ergo, the Bazant model is questionable. Can you quote for me Bazant stating that his model is simply a "limiting case"?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@ndjm00 TONS OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT BELOW UPPER SECTION IS NOT THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE...Sorry I don't buy IT
tarkus21 11 months ago
@tarkus21 Really ...so what in your opinion was the path of least resistance for these buildings to collapse believably? ...By the way ...if you say ''fall over like a tree'' ...and I will laugh my ass off...
ndjm00 11 months ago