Thank you for all your vids,I can't believe these conspiracy jerkwads can't or just won't accept this was exactly what it appeared to be. I don't make videos of my own so I would love to see you do something adressing the question of why they would even go to the trouble of controlled demo at all? If they wanted to scare Americans into action the planes would be more than enough to accomplish that goal,as if they would risk doing something of this scale live in front of the world for no reason!!
@Redrover8431 the thing is, truthers will never admit they are wrong they will never comment on this video explaining how explosives could have survived the impacts instead they comment things like "wtc 7 was a controlled demolition" to change the subject and think that if i cant answer that means that everything i say is wrong including this video yet they never proved me wrong in the 1st place
check out my video "sept 11th the smoking gun" see how i expose 1 of them in a cover up
@loosechangeexposed True. Also why the planes? Terrorists tried to bring the towers down from the basement in the 90s. They could of this time just use demolitions and blamed it on the terrorists and said see, this time they succeeded. That would have been perfectly believable. Why the planes, missile in the Pentagon, remote controlled air planes and fake phone calls to family members. It's a completely absurd theory out to make people like Alex Jones Rich...
@longhairsRcool i have a video that exposes alex's tricks, i have 4 videos of him and the 2 part one is edited with me telling how he talks fast and changes the subject many times so people get confused and can't keep up so he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, he blocked me before i made the video his channel is listed on the block list on my page, send him that video and see if he explains himself, he won't.
You estimate 40% of the cores were broken? What is your expertise to make such an estimate...you say this video proves how the towers fell...do me a favor and tell me exactly what piece of 'proof' you mention in this video.
There is no proof - only your opinion.
If the makers of Loose Change and AE911 Truth were only in this for the money - why did they release their videos free to YouTube?
@JusticeSpringChicken when the top of the so. tower leaned over towards the side it was hit just before the tower collapsed it showed that the steel on the side it was hit was destroyed, the 40% is just a guestimate, 35% damage would still make the top lean over, point is enough of the core was destroyed that the fires weakened the undestroyed steel to the point of failure and collapse, don't you understand logic and common sense? no you don't.
@loosechangeexposed Are you serious? You claim this is the case but you do not show the video that supports your point of view? Personally I dont remember seeing anything because the dust from the concrete seems to have blocked the view of everything. If you want to be credible show us the video that supports your claim!
@JusticeSpringChicken put "collapse of the so. tower" in the you tube search. you can see that the top of the tower did lean to the side it was hit, that is the indicator that the plane destroyed the steel on that side seeing how it leaned over towards the side hit by the plane, none of the videos have enough dust to block the view of the top of the tower leaning before collapse, look at the fact that the top did lean to the side it was hit.
@MrNoblemanoflove the reason you won't respond to me anymore is you never once proved me wrong and you are getting out before you dig yourself in a deeper hole.
In regards to the 'banana peel' remark above goes: that's in reference to the catastrophic overload of vulnerable connecting points in the structure, which allowed the collapse to progress and then overload the next series of components. These were progressive collapses which means that the components failed beginning at one piece of sub-assembly failed and then another. The core columns could not, and were not, designed to withstand all of the buildings' loads; the perimeter columns were needed
The reports of explosions were random: randomly located and randomly timed and they were heard well ahead of the collapses, which rules out that they were demolition charges. Demolition charges are sequenced and occur over a sequenced procession followed immediately by the collapse of the structure they are meant to fell.
@MrSkunkwork100 yes any in a sequence set off early would have started the rest, like setting up dominoes, one goes the rest follow, they would not set off any explosives till they started the sequence, someone said "it sounded like an explosion" while an elevator hitting its bottom would also sound like an explosion.
i bet while working on loose change dylan farted and jason giggled and said "smells like you died" so when was the funeral?
@MrNoblemanoflove and they say it came down like a planned demolition which is only a comparison, i'm sure many people would say it was like the end of the world, but was it? you are actually using a comparisson and trying to make it look like fact.
the video "miracle in stairwell B" is about 14 people who survived inside the no. tower, a few of them said the floors fell one on top of the other, one even said the term "pancake effect" are they lying?
@loosechangeexposed Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. His comments "As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it."
@MrNoblemanoflove he got that title from the manual "a project for a new american century/rebuilding americas defenses" a manual released to the public, i explain it in my video "loose change the 3 manuals" it was about rebuilding the military (it says so right in the title) that manual is made to look like the plans for 9/11 by truthers, so the gov't released the 9/11 playbook to the public and you people still can't prove inside job?
Hella holes in your video bro, especially the beginning. You went for the prototypical debunk answers and scarcely elaborated on the varying possibilities.There are dozens upon dozens of reports of people hearing explosions from underneath them even from firemen in the lobby... I'm not sure what to believe but you're presentation of this was extremely poor... 1 photo with no illustrations to help present your points and it sounded like you recorded this with a coffee mug.
@seanzoz all you have to do is listen to the video, the planes caused initial damage to the cores, the fires weakened the undestroyed steel to the point it could no longer support the weight above the impact zones and that is when collapses happened, thats why the so. tower fell 1st. more weight = less weakening.
most sounds heard are unidentified, i explain those sounds in my 2 videos "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and "loose change answer number 118 with witness"
@seanzoz google "ground zero then and now" and also search for a video of the helocopter view of the collapse of the towers to see how widespread the fallout of the towers was, the energy of the towers collapse went thru wtc 7 at and above ground level and also thru the tunnel network that connected the wtc complex buildings, here is a video of firefighters saying wtc 7 was going to collapse.
@seanzoz People heard something that sounded like a bomb, what they heard was something crashing down an elevator shaft. The "missing" black box. We know this because we know the material of which the black box is made of will eventually melt when in high temperatures for long periods of time. And they found that material melted in the basement. The black box fell from over 100 stories and crashed at the bottom through the shaft yes it would sound like an explosion.
@mafiachild1985 you have the right idea but the black boxes are too small to make enough noise in the elevator shafts for anyone to have heard them, my video "loose change answer number 168" covers the black boxes and the passport, and yes they ended up in the molten steel at the bottoms of the elevator shafts, but my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" explains what was loud enough to sound like explosions.
There is no way in hell this could be a conspiracy. I appreciate your explanations greatly and with my simple understanding of physics and weight distribution, i was able to explain the reasons for the south tower collapsing first
@nikiakasmith what you don't get is when the weight above each impact point slammed onto the floor below it could not support that weight and as more and more weight was added to each floor after that they all failed one at a time.
no matter how bad you want it to be a conspiracy you can't find the formula because it is as simple as elementry school logic.
@nikiakasmith watch?v=prwvj-npt5s This disproves your theory that the floors could not make the other floors collapse. Seriously, if people would have payed attention in school, America would not be as dumb as they say we are! Those floors were held up beams that were welded together and held together by bolts, so enough downward energy could snap the bolts and bring it down. Watch the video and see yourself get owned! 9/11 was NOT an inside job!
@logicCplusplus this video explains that the planes caused major structural damage to the cores, the top of the so. tower leaning over is 1 indicator, the weight above each impact point dictated when the steel would be weak enough to fail from the fires, not just the steel but the bolts and nuts that attached it, that's why the so. tower fell 1st, the excess weight meant the steel in that tower didn't need to be as weakened as the no tower.
both planes caused about the same amount of damage to the cores, when the remaining undestroyed steel was weakened by the 2000 deg fire it could no longer support the weight of the above structure, the no tower held up longer cuz there was much less weight to support, once the top landed on the floor at the impact point every floor failed as more and more weight was added.
the reason people think it was a C.D. was because the way the buildings fell, they collapsed the exact way a C.D. does but what else are you going to compare a building falling down to when not 1 on earth ever was ever destroyed by a plane hitting it before? if there were explosives then how were they planted in such a way that the planes impacts wouldn't set them off?
Anyhow, I will not go into great lengths here, you are entitled to your opinion that these buildings could fall because of about about 1 percent structural damage and temperature to cause the steel columns to "buckle" in about 20 minutes and "implosive" forces take over etc...and so forth. This is absolutely ridiculous to me from an engineering and physics point of view so you can continue beating this horse of yours. We won't know the real truth until maybe in about 20-30 years.
@logicCplusplus you only have to look into the details which is the evidence, the top of the so. tower leaned over just before collapse which is evident that the side of the core that was hit by the plane was destroyed to the point that when the fires weakened the undestroyed steel it leaned where the void of any support was, that and my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" are 2 indicators that the planes penetrated the cores, it's reaction to action.
The towers leaning over to me only indicate a bias because of the structural damage. If this was a demolition it would be far from "perfect" (or it would be too obvious), its only purpose was to make sure the tower collapsed from top to bottom, nothing more. Otherwise that could not have been a reality.
@logicCplusplus the top of the tower leaning over jet before collapse is evidence that the plane penetrated the core and destroyed the steel on that side, it did lean towards the side that was hit, my other video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" is further proof.
if there were explosives why were they not set off by the impacts and drop the towers right away? in a C.D. all the explosives are set off at the same time on each floor causing the building to fall straight down.
There was in fact an underground explosion before the North tower collapsed. There is a rare video on YT of a street camera picking up earthquake-like tremors about 15-20 miles away before it collapsed.
Also:
"Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred."
@logicCplusplus you are mixing up the agenda. are you confused?
there was a witness that said something was going on in the lower levels before the planes hit but i explain what those things were in my 2 videos 1) the engines fell down the elevator shafts /watch?v=CAogQ-uQLCI
2) the plane rocked the tower blowing out the windows and knocking marble panels off of the walls. /watch?v=L76wOIl5U7s
he was in sub level 1 and doesn't even know when the plane hit the building.
there was underground activity but not explosions it was the energy of the collapses that went thru the tunnel network that was under the complex and also the subway.
the earthquakes you are talking about were recorded by Columbia university in palasades new york the so. tower was a 2.1 and the no. tower was a 2.3 at the exact time each tower fell, how much did the towers weigh? enough to shake the ground.
and the video you are talking about, i notice you didn't post it, if i ask you to post it you will say you can't find it seeing how you didn't post it and convienently said it was rare. so where is it? too rare to find now?
as for seeing anything from under WTC 7 before the no. tower fell isn't anything new, the so. tower had already fallen and that energy and debris went thru WTC 7 at street level and thru the tunnel network, there were cars under WTC 7
@logicCplusplus the discription of the video says there was a nuke explosion underground, you believe that even though there is no evidence of anyone reporting radiation poisioning at any hospital? and the towers both collapsed starting at the tops so how would an underground explosion cause that to happen? that camera shaking could have been the owners dog bumping into the tripod, there is not enough evidence to conclude what you claim here is a video explaining your claim
@logicCplusplus that video was made by the same person as the other video,
in this video not 1 person mentions anything about the ground shaking, the discription says it was a 5.5. do you know how much the ground would have shaken in a 5.5? a lot more that again it claims that it was a nuke explosion but there was never a single report of any radiation, and the collapse started at the top so how would an underground explosion make that happen? you have many questions to answer.
Also, I want to point to you that small earthquakes are less noticeable to people standing outside and but are still very noticeable in "static" structures such as buildings, structures that tend not to move with the ground, and have structural resistance. So basically an underground bomb could go off with nobody noticing it by standing outside. Mount a camera and the effects will be shown as "shaking".
@logicCplusplus yes that makes perfect sence seeing how inside you may notice things shake a little, like a glass of water or windows, but where is the video that shows that it was before the tower collapsed? because there is video explaining 2 earthquakes that happened at the exact time as the towers were falling indicating that it was the weight of the towers falling that shook the ground.
@logicCplusplus those videos are made by the same person making the same claim, a nuke explosion, so where is the evidence of nuke fallout like radiation? where is 1 report of there ever being radiation in the air? or 1 person effected by radiation? there is no evidence of an underground nuke explosion, and how would that make the tower fall starting from the top? how do make the link of an underground explosion and the start of the collapse?
@logicCplusplus the top of the so. tower leaning over just before collapse is only an indicator that the plane did penetrate the core and caused major damage, the fires weakened the undestroyed steel, and the weight above the impact points also had to do with the collapses, the so. tower to fell 1st cuz that steel did not need to be as weakened as the steel in the no. tower due to the amount of weight above each impact point.
@loosechangeexposed The tower fell because of joints connecting the floors to the steel super structure melting, causing them to give way. When a floor fell onto the floor below, the weight would break the next floor's joints and cause it to snowball all the way down. The fires got hot enough to do this from a stoking effect from 80mph winds in the elevator shafts. The person who showed me this was the daughter of one of the foremen on the original WTC project.
@loosechangeexposed you are right and you are wrong (ps I'm on your side). A good friend of mine is the daughter of one of the foremen that put up the world trade center. She showed me a slide show from the 60s where he had went to the architects and told them that a fire 2/3rds of the way up the building would be stoked by the elevator shafts. The intense heat resulting from would melt joints holding the floors to the steel super structure, causing them to fall upon each other.
@zakquack i tried that, i got propaganda comments cuz they can't explain how i am wrong the way your comment doesn't prove me wrong, i'm not scared just want to send the right message to people who have questions.
nice... video starts with ad hominem... conjecture follows... grandstanding makes me smile :-)
thermite requires direct, high heat to ignite... something like 2200 degrees farenheit... its why you use magnesium strips for it... isolated thermite packets would not necessarily ignite due to fire... its hard to follow this rambling jackoff...
@zakquack you are only saying that it takes 2200 degrees to ignite thermite to make it look like the jet fuel fire would not have ignited it trying to fit it into the agenda, thermite is what a childs 4th of july sparkler is made of and it can't even melt the aluminum stick it is on, it has a much lower flash point than you are admitting to. lets say it does have a high flash point, you still can't explain how the static electricity and the buildings severed electrical wiring didn't set it off.
@loosechangeexposed sparklers are indeed a thermitic reaction.. But theyve also got combustables like blasting powder, coloring agents, and igniter compounds which all have a much lower boiling point. Magnesium is often used in sparklers.. My point is that a kerosine fire would not have necessarily ignited a thermitic reaction. Have u ever seen a sparkler give a false start? When some of the ignition mix catches but fails to set off the thermitic reaction and goes out...
@zakquack here is a video showing how pure thermite does not melt steel. /watch?v=l3ZBEmjzwLg
there are 2 ways to ignite thermite. fire and electric, if you google thermite you will read that the fire at the wtc did get hot enough to ignite it and that it is also ignited by magneizum (electric matches) but you are dismissing the static electricity created by the planes and also the buildings severed electrical wiring.
@loosechangeexposed /physicsandreason shows thermite cutting through reinforced steel.. Vertically and horozontally.. Kinda discredits mythbusters, a&e, and other major network programming when theyre actively producing propaganda.. Thermite can cut through steel. Im not neglecting anything. Simply dissolving one of your favorite arguments. There are plenty of things that COULD set of a thermitic reaction.. I dont need to google something i have training and experience with.
@zakquack here is video evidence that thermite does not cut steel /watch?v=l3ZBEmjzwLg
you are throwing physics and reason out the window when you dismiss that thermite is activated by fire and also by electric when you know that the planes impacts created fireballs, static electricity and also severed the buildings electrical wiring which one of would have ignited the thermite and dropped the towers upon impact of the planes, we all know that didn't happen. /watch?v=h6uUDd94q98
you disolve nothing but your claim when you can not show evidence of that claim like where is 1 pic of any I - beam that was cut on a 45 deg angle? i bet you think that thermite created the molten steel found under all 3 buildings but can't explain how none of that molten steel found its way into the stairwell where 14 people survived. /watch?v=K5cvO0uEYhM jet fuel fire burns at 2000+ deg hot enough to weaken steel /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
This is a ludicrous claim. It doesn't matter how much evidence you can provide showing that something CANNOT happen, it only takes one piece of evidence that shows it CAN happen to falsify them all. Don't you know this? This is like showing the planets of our solar system (except Earth) to "prove" that our solar system cannot support life. Btw, your claim, in the video, that Fe2O3 in the buildings and Al from the planes explains the thermitic material found shows a (2)
@ThePeage your cluelessness is obvious, how can you believe that a jumbo jet full of fuel hitting a building at the rate of speed it did does not do the damage it took to take down that tower? there is overwhelming evidence that proves it, video evidence of the planes, the top of the so. tower leaning over just before collapse shows that flight 175 did cut into the core like an axe into a tree. 9500 gallons of jet fuel would burn for 6 hrs 45 min @ 2000 deg /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
the planes hit the towers so hard they rocked them /watch?v=XqMRHx0K1ns
flight 11 rocked the no. tower so hard it blew out windows and knocked marble panels off the walls.
/watch?v=L76wOIl5U7s in the video there is no evidence of debris on the floor like there would be in an explosion, the outside north face is cracked about 30 or so floors up, when the plane bent the tower it cracked the exterior.
janitor willie rodreguez heard 2 unidentified noises that sounded like explosions, what would 2 engines hitting from 1000 feet above sound like? (6 ton engines?) the jenny karr audio has a 2nd sound 9 seconds after the crash, how long is free fall speed for an engine to have hit the lobby? 9 seconds. theres your explosives, they were just sounds. /watch?v=CAogQ-uQLCI
so it was the planes penetrating the cores that didn't set off any thermite or explosives, the inital damage by the planes to the cores, the weight of the structures above each impact points and the fires burning @ 2000 deg weakening the undestroyed steel is how the towers fell, which is why the so. tower fell first, it had more weight above its impact point, hijacked planes destroyed the wtc, there is absolutly no proof of anything else except talk.
Rather than waste my time on this, all I'll say is that you need to learn about jet-fuel. Find out the temperatures it burns at in air and HOW it burns. You'll discover it would all have gone (either ignited or vapourised) within minutes of the impact. Even your beloved NIST states this - the fuel was all GONE within minutes - the idea that 9500 gallons would "burn for 6 hrs 45 min" is so ignorant it borders on insanity.
@ThePeage where is a link to your findings? talk is cheap, i did find out the temperatures it burns at in air and HOW it burns. here is a video backing up my findings (700 gal. will burn for 30 min. 2000 deg. there was 13 times that amount in each tower) /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q you obviously get your info from other truthers (hearsay) i bet you believe that the fires were starved for oxygen cuz a truther said that they were /watch?v=yK4MzcrQzAM
(2) You do not need to take my word for this. It is easily verified by anyone who can read....or pick up the phone and ask a scientist - ask at your local university. Once you've found out loosechangeexposed's ignorance about the behaviour of kerosene, you might like to check out more of his claims... not by asking either "truthers" or "debunkers", but by reading science books.
@ThePeage by saying "don't take my word for it read a science book" that is a desperate cry to get people to believe you, you want people to believe that you have read a book and found the info, but your comment is a strawman attempt at trying to look good. post where you got your info about what jet fuel burns at, here's my post. /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q it is the exact test that shows 700 gal. of jet fuel burns at 2000 deg. for 30 min. there was over 13 times that amount in each tower, do the math
first of all you need to see why these attacks were needed for USA, again why there was wtc 1 bombing in 1993, and olkahoma city bombing, i dont think so 19 Saudi Cia agent would kill themself with suicide mission after all they couldnt prove they have relation to osama, and why both tower with build 7 came down just because some plane hitted it, they are multiple air strike proof building so its unacceptable, i dont think so al qaeda would target pentagon where they kept 2 trillion $ reciepts
@idrismetalcore ok so you show how you don't understand the physics of 2 planes destroying the towers, but you also only mention the collapses taking down building 7, the debris field of the collapses was 16 acres, an acre is 200 by 200 feet so it was 3200 feet widespread (over a half mile) and more than just #7 besides the towers were destroyed, there were many other buildings that had to be taken down due to damage. where is your proof who did it?
@loosechangeexposed and why did bbc and cnn told the story of build 7 , 20mins before it came down, and why did firefighters told the building were coming down, they have bombs in them, how they know before it happened, it clearly shows, they need to be taken down, and plane is method, then who was in the plane is a reason, what religion those poeple follows is the cause, wow rewind it more, you will just laugh of govt lies.
@idrismetalcore here is the explanation of the mistake that the BBC made /watch?v=FEETTxeCS9w
as for the firefighters saying the buildings had bombs in them that is lack of comunication, witnesses said things like "it sounded like a bomb went off" that is a comparison of a sound like a carbackfire sounds like a gunshot, if the fire dept had knowledge of bombs being planted then why would they go into those buildings? search "miracle in stairway B" here on you tube.
@fixcpu i would rather they live long lives and tell everyone they lied to their tricks and tactics that make themselves look like they know what they are talking about, and show that they made videos and wrote books and speak in public and lie so they can make money from nieave people who buy into their lies.
After a few seconds I already had evidence contrary to what you say. Explosions were audible and were also caught on video...or are you calling the Firemen who were making calls and who all jumped after hearing a loud explosion, liars? You are either convinced of what you believe, or you are pro-Israel, Zionist and with an agenda. So what it is?
@JillAngie2 i never said people didn't hear sounds that sounded like explosions, the only 2 sounds that are identified were the 2 planes exploding, an elevator crashing to the bottom of its shaft would sound like an explosion. the towers made many noises as they were falling apart and collapsing, willie rodreguez said he heard 2 in the lower levels he 1st thought 1 was a generator i explain what he heard in my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts".
truthers say explosives caused the damage to the no. tower lobby, my video "loose change answer number 118 with witness" explains how the plane rocked the tower causing the damage, there is no debris on the floor of the lobby and the outside no. face is white from being stretched and cracked by it rocking.
here is a question no truther can seem to answer. how did they set explosives or thermite in the towers so the plane's impacts wouldn't set them off?
@2Xyousee if the videos at the WTC are fake then how come no one came forward that was at the scene ever said they didn't see a plane hit the south tower? what i mean is of all the people who saw the south tower get hit that were live at the scene not one said they didn't see a plane? this video >> /watch?v=iac6J4gITa0&feature=related << has a witness who was on the 78th floor of the so. tower who explains what he saw, he saw the plane come right at him, go to 2:00 of the video to meet Stanley.
@2Xyousee where is 1 video of any pilot claiming the planes were fake?, of all the people who trained their cameras on the burning north tower where is the one video that shows the south tower exploding without a plane in the shot? wouldn't that video be worth many millions of dollars? where is your evidence that proves that you are right?
@2Xyousee i saw the footage of the 2 different angles, the lighter background can be explained by the effect of the sunlight on the different cameras, those cameras could not have been from 2 different helocopters cuz they would have been flying way too close, you started showing that you know how to cgi a plane into a shot then show a video claiming that the govt cgi'd a plane in the shot for the news so why didn't the govt cgi a plane in the video at the pentagon?
your video shows that you do know the truth but are lying to make it look like an inside job. you need to read the you tube user agreement, people like you can be brought up on charges for spreading slander without proof, and even if you delete everything you have ever posted (videos too) it may have been saved and when a new investigation exposes the fraud people like you will go down for spreading lies which carries prison time for each count. go girl.
@2Xyousee CGI is used on video, what about the 1000's of people who saw it live at the scene? where is 1 interview of anyone saying they were looking at the no. tower burn and saw the so. tower explode without a plane hitting it? the only way to make a plane appear out of thin air is with a hologram, and they do not work in sunlight, explain the plane shaped holes in the towers, explain the engine and landing gear that landed on the street.
explain the debris outside of the pentagon, explain the black box found at the scene of flight 93 that was played for the families, explain how they failed to CGI a plane on the video at the pentagon, explain where all the passengers of every flight that crashed are, explain how terrorists who trained for 8 years didn't figure out how to pull it off.
DIS INFO!!! he says loose change are only in it for the money???
this guy is also in it for the money!! hes wrote a book claiming he as proof!!
planes do not turn buildings to dust.. and building 7 wasnt even hit with a plane but hey it still fell the same way and speed.. so mr loosechangeexpossed you know nothing..HENCE YOUR VIEWS..
@bomberbruno1 my book exposes L/C for lying and hiding the truth so they can make money, so my book is more about exposing the movement starting with them, and books cost money, other people get paid to put my book out, who would work for free? i guess you haven't seen my website where it says i am going to open a store for the victims and give them 90% of the profits once it is set up
your entire comment is what you think and shows you didn't research any of your claims. hence your "views".
@bomberbruno1 You don't know nothing you nut job! You all truthers have no critical thinking whatsoever. What is it that you guys want to ignore that controlled demolition is in fact very very noisy, I speaking about explosion noise. Never heard a single explosion! Also thermite don't work in that case. Thermite can only cut on horyzontal plane, and you would have neede some much of it. All the evidence shown by the truth movement is in fact made up! Lies,misrepresentation...out of context...
@kindly4real ask any one of them how explosives or thermite was set in the towers in such a way that the planes impacts wouldn't set them off and started the collapses within moments. it would have been impossible because thermite is activated by fire and other types of explosives could be activated by electric.
physics, evidence and common sense tells us that the planes created fireballs, static electricity, and severed the buildings electrical wiring.
it is evident from the way the top of the so. tower fell over just before collapse that the planes destroyed a major part of the cores which means that the planes made contact with the steel in the core which is where the explosives or thermite would have needed to be in order to destroy the steel.
1500 A & E's @ 10 yrs exp. = 15,000 yrs exp. or 15 melinia's of exp. and they can't figure out how to prove planned demo, that's who you believe.
'ask any one of them how explosives or thermite was set in the towers'
lol..WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!
it is the OFFICIAL DENIAL that "NO explosives or accelerants were there", given YEARS AFTER INVESTIGATION, when INVESTIGATION NEVER TESTED to determine either way.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
@hgfbob no one ever tested for explosives or thermite cuz we all knew how 2 jumbo jets would, and did destroy the towers, it was only the truthers who claimed explosives cuz they can't understand the physics of the collapses, but this video explains the collapses and also explains how explosives would have been impossible.
in court you will need to prove there were explosives planted cuz the evidence already proves the planes took down the towers. you need ratings cuz your posts are weak.
"we all knew how 2 jumbo jets would, and did destroy the towers"
but they DIDN'T, so YOU LIE!
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged....MINIMAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
@hgfbob my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and common sence that the plane did penetrate the core which is also proven in any video of the top of the so. tower leaning over (because the plane cut into the core like an axe thru a tree) just before collapse, and the fact that the impacts would have set off any explosives and collapsed the towers right away shows that you do not know what you are talking about, it shows that you don't understand the physics of planes hitting buildings.
"and common sense that the plane did penetrate the core"
and all you need is PROOF and YOU have NONE OF IT.
"because the plane cut into the core like an axe thru a tree"
Where is the evidence aluminum planes, after already smashing through one set of steel columns, would still have the energy to cut through even larger steel columns? Simple physics tells us this is not logical..OR possible.
EVIDENCE FOOL!
what part on "MINIMAL structural damage DON'T you understand.
@hgfbob the engines and landing gear were not directly mounted to the aluminum wings (aluminum is a soft metal) there is a thick steel beam mounted under the wings which is where the engines and landing gear are attached and also supports the weight of the fuel, the engines and that steel support beam is what did all the damage that and (3rd grade education) the wings were stronger full of fuel, the entire plane was not just aluminum, the planes caused maximum structural damage. ask a child.
the impacts caused MINIMAL asymmetrical structural damage...INVESTIGATION found LESS THAN 15%.
33 outer columns out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15%.
you pathetic shilly attempt of twisting the TRUTH is futile.
@hgfbob who's investigation? NIST, the 9/11 commission? the 2 that most truthers say is wrong untill they find something that fits their agenda? as a debunker i even prove the 9/11 commission wrong in my video "loose change answer number 118 with witness" where i explain it wasn't a fireball but was from the plane rocking the tower that caused the lobby damage. how did the top of the so. tower lean over before collapse if it didn't have major structural damage, start by explainming that.
"how did the top of the so. tower lean over before collapse if it didn't have major structural damage, start by explaining that"
why don't YOU...YOU wrote the the book.
that is your problem..YOU FOCUS on the WRONG aspects thinking they matter, and they don't
how can the 'tipping top' MAINTAIN the lean against a mass which is 3 times greater than itself? How can it possibly impart an EQUAL force on the opposite side of the building when it's toppling over to ONE side?
@hgfbob the top of the so. tower leaned over in the direction that the plane hit it, indicating that the side that was hit shows that the steel was destroyed by the plane (it cut thru the steel like an axe into a tree) when the fires weakened the remaining steel it could not handle the weight that was above the impact points so the side without steel fell 1st when the remaining steel was weakened, this is just 1 clue that explains how the planes collapsed the towers.
3 elements that explain how the towers fell are 1) the initial damage to the cores, 2) the fires weakening the undestroyed steel, and 3) the weight above the impact points.
so when the fires weakened the remaining steel the weight above is also what caused collapse, evidence of that is that the so. tower fell after 56 min cuz it had much more weight above that impact point. the no. tower stood for 102 min. cuz it had less weight. understand?
YOU don't even UNDERSTAND what it would take for that TOP to tip like that as a WHOLE as it did. That unified movement could ONLY occur with ALL the columns severed AT THE SAME TIME...if those 47 columns don't fail simultaneously, that upper mass doesn't move as 'one'. Simple. Try looking at the WTC blueprints.
that WON'T happen with temps of ...."no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
@hgfbob the core was in the center of the tower, enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core to cause the top to tip over like it did. when the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree the load was put upon the columns that were not destroyed, over time the fire weakened the standing steel (in the center of the core) to the point of failure, when that happened the top leaned over putting more weight on the northern core columns and that is when they failed.
in a planned demolition all the core columns are cut on the same floor at the exact same time in order to make it collapse the entire floor straight down, the top leaned over about 5 to 10 seconds before the collapse happened, this does not happen in a planned demo, there is enough evidence that the plane destroyed the core on the side the top tipped over to than there is of planted explosives.
if you believe there were explosives planted then you must know how the planes impacts didn't set them off, you must know how they were set in the towers in such a way that the fireballs, the static electricity and the building's severed electrical wiring did not activate any explosives or incindiary devices that were attached to the steel (which is where it needed to be attached) if you can't explain that then you do not know how to prove your claim.
"enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core "
lol..PROVE IT
PROVE DIFFERENT that what INVESTIGATION FOUND.....less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage on EACH towers impact floor leaving about 240 INTACT FIREPROOFED vertical support that YOU have NO EVIDENCE of failing from the *FIRE PRESENT*.
@hgfbob "enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core "
"lol..PROVE IT"
the proof is in how the top of the south tower leaned over just before collapse, it leaned in the same direction as the plane hit, that is video evidence that a major part of the core was destroyed by the plane, in planned demolitions the entire floor comes straight down cuz they destroy every support column on each floor at the same time, your data is wrong cuz who was taking measurements during the event?
"the REACTION is that the top of the so. tower leaned over CAUSE the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree.
as INVESTIGATION PROVED--THAT did NOT occur--but YOU IGNORE that FACT for another agenda.
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
@hgfbob truthers use any part of the "official investigation" that seems to fit their agenda no matter if it is right or wrong, even though truthers say the "official investigation" is wrong. in a C.D. all the supports are cut at the same exact time to cause each floor to come straight down.
anyone can see that the top of the so. tower leaned over cuz the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree. showing there was about 40% to 50% damage by the plane.
here is where you got the 15% damage from, of the 4 sides @ 25% each 3 were not destroyed, leaving 75% of the tower undamaged, the side that was hit (the towers were each an acre, 200 by 200 feet) by a plane with a wingspan of 155 feet, that is about 75% of 1 side leaving about 25% of that side (6.2% of that side) undamaged, so 3 sides @75% plus 1 side @ 6.2% which is 81.2% undamaged. there's your estimated 85%.
that is where I get it from--the NIST report--why do YOU IGNORE that to PUSH your pathetic UNPROVABLE agenda?
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST *ESTIMATES* that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
@hgfbob you believe something that has never been proven. who is in jail for inside job?
where are all the protests demanding a new investigation? with all the regular people like charlie sheen, alex jones, jesse ventura, michael moore, people who speak to the public and get paid who can raise money from the people who go to see them speak about 9/11, why aren't they paying for a new investigation? because they are lying to make money and did not find any real evidence in their own research.
'in court you will need to prove there were explosives planted"
WRONG!
In a court of Law the ones who ASSERT THE CLAIM that "NO explosives or accelerants were used", MUST supply the PROOF of THAT claim.......they don't want this in court silly.
"you need ratings cuz your posts are weak"
this is NOT competition and YOUR the one RUNNING from my "weak" comments.
"your data is wrong"
Basic Physics fundamentals and STRAIGHT from the ones Charged with INVESTIGATION...NIST!
@hgfbob if i was on the stand and the lawyer told me to prove there were no explosives planted i would say there is no evidence of them being found and that is my proof that they never existed.
it is innocent until proven guilty here in America, so anyone claiming explosives needs to show evidence of explosives in order to prove their claim, if it was the other way where are the people on trial waiting to prove there were no explosives? you are confused.
@hgfbob here is the evidence. terrorism does exist, they planned for 8 years to attack, they went to flight school to learn the instrument panels, how to shut off transpondors, and the fastest way to prevent the pilots from sending the code for a hijacking to avoid detection, and basic flight, people in the network took dry runs to see how to gain entry into the cockpits. there is video of them boarding the planes on 9/11, video of the plane hitting the no. tower,
some saw the plane hit the no. tower live, thousands of witnesses at the scene saw the so. tower get hit as BILLIONS saw it live on t.v. there is way more evidence of what really happened and none of inside job other than what truthers made up, lack of evidence is why you will never win, only about 1 of 100,000 people believe conspiracy, the rest either hate the govt, or think we are too good to be hit. how many people in your life think you are nuts?
@loosechangeexposed it's 1 out of every 100,000 americans. i am sure it is higher in other countries cuz those people only hear what conspiracy theorists like willie rodreguez tell them.
"we are NOT talking "terrorism", WE are talking the SCIENCE of the collapses...terrorism has NOTHING to do wit it. All YOU are doing is DISTRACTING cause YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!
all these post from YOU and what have YOU presented to defend what YOU assert happened on 9-11...NOTHING!
sorry YOU don't want to talk, OR KNOW, the SCIENCE of it..but THAT is why WE ARE ALL HERE.
@hgfbob the point is that you can't seem to understand how terrorists could have destroyed the WTC using 2 planes they trained how to do and figured out how to hijack, with out any explosives being planted that you can't explain were planted in the towers when the planes impacts would have set them off and dropped the towers upon impact of the planes. you have no answers that prove what you think happened. you don't understand the science of the attacks so you blame explosives.
@hgfbob in a controlled demolition they cut every support beam on each floor at the same exact time so the building falls straight down, the top of the so. tower leaned over because the plane cut into the core destroying about 40% of the core causing the top to lean when the undestroyed steel was weakened by the fire.
each side of the towers is 25% the plane only cut thru 1 side destroying about 60% of the 1 side 60% of 25% is 15% damage, there's your 15% damage. the core was 40% destroyed.
You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
"core was 40% destroyed."
Where is the evidence aluminum planes, after already smashing through one set of steel columns,still have the energy to cut through LARGER ones
@hgfbob there are no images or videos of the core, just the outside impact holes. the core of a building is what holds it up, when the cores collapsed they pulled the outter structure inward that is how the towers collapsed.
aluminum is a softer metal, the engines and landing gear were attached to a thick steel beam that was the span of the wings, that beam also supported the weight of the fuel, the wings are stronger with fuel in them, that and the steel beam did all the damage.
This is a good video. Thank you. These truthers remind me of those ancient alien idiots like Erich von Daniken who are frauds and love to herd uneducated masses in believing their bullshit theories.
@mp40Furth what the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement is based on are hearsay, rumors, opinions, and speculations, the exact things the old "the earth is flat" theory was based on, not evidence, facts, witnesses or proof.
this is the modern day "the earth is flat" scare, except this time it is profitable.
Yes, this pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. What I find interesting, is that first the collapse does not at all look like a CD. Also I find it interesting that these planes can fly directly into the exact floors where the explosives would have to have been set to start the collapse, because that is where the collapse began. They just make stuff up, and do not think about it
@quedorf there is a video in one of my playlists titled "miracle in stairwell B" it is an amazing story of 14 people (13 of who were firefighters) who survived in the collapsing no. tower, they tell their story and a few tell of the pancake effect happening, they are further proof that if explosives were planted in the cores they would have been killed too seeing how the survived inside the stairwell which was in the core.
The only problem with the engines down the elevator shaft theory is the shafts were staggered in 3 sections, they werent continious from top to bottom. And if the engines went through the elevator doors, the double layer drywall on the back of the shaft wouldn't stop them from going all the way through. Besides, they would have come apart as soon as the plane hit the building
@joebananatube there is a video somewhere on my channel page titled "767 engine?" it was the engine from the right side of flight 175, it missed the core cuz it was so far over to the right, it landed 6 blocks to the north, you can see the size to scale in a picture with a street sign compared to an empty elevator shaft, it would have fit easily in the shaft, at 6 tons each both engines sunk into the shafts, broke off, then fell.
my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" explains all the details and there is a link to the tower's floor plans, so you can see that there were express elevators in the towers. as for the sheetrock wall you are right it wouldn't have stopped the engines but something did (them falling into the shafts) and the engine on the street in that video shows it didn't come apart as soon as it hit the building.
@loosechangeexposed you haven't proved anything in this post. You have stated your "opinion" as to what you think could have happened. You are neither right nor wrong sir, because all you are telling a theory based on 3rd hand information.
Do some actual research if you want to be taken seriously.
@bir2187 the way the top of the south tower fell over just before collapse shows that the planes cut thru the cores like an axe into a tree, my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" shows how the planes penetrated the cores.
if there were explosives they would have been attached to the steel, the planes made contact with the steel and the fireball, static electricity the planes created, and the buildings severed electrical wiring also made contact and would have set off the explosives.
@bir2187 your comment does not explain that i am wrong, explaining how they set explosives or thermite in the towers in such a way that the planes didn't set them off would be proving that i am wrong, there is evidence of planes penetrating the cores my videos "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and "loose change answer number 118 with witness" both prove that they did penetrate the cores, when you dismiss the evidence and physics you get to make up the outcome.
@bir2187 They did not find actual thermite. They found ingredients contained in thermite. So perhaps YOU should do a little research into what is being said by both sides. The truth movement is grasping at straws when they claim thermite was used.
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
Yes, excellent point. Just because a witness uses the word "explosions" or "it is as if there had been a bomb that went off" doesn't really mean that there were explosives or bombs in effect or used. The people who used that phraseology, are simply using descriptive language to describe the chaos that was unfolding around them and none of them agree with the "inside job" hype.
I witnessed the start of the conspiracy theory movement on a website called "unansweredquestions(dot)org", which popped up within weeks of the events. I started noticing more and more silly theories coming up, and the whole site became overloaded with kooks. Result: All the serious questions were ignored, in favor of the crackpot conspiracy theories, and those who thought Bush was responsible for ignoring the warning sides were drowned out by those who think that he laid the explosives himself.
Thank you for all your vids,I can't believe these conspiracy jerkwads can't or just won't accept this was exactly what it appeared to be. I don't make videos of my own so I would love to see you do something adressing the question of why they would even go to the trouble of controlled demo at all? If they wanted to scare Americans into action the planes would be more than enough to accomplish that goal,as if they would risk doing something of this scale live in front of the world for no reason!!
Redrover8431 1 week ago
@Redrover8431 the thing is, truthers will never admit they are wrong they will never comment on this video explaining how explosives could have survived the impacts instead they comment things like "wtc 7 was a controlled demolition" to change the subject and think that if i cant answer that means that everything i say is wrong including this video yet they never proved me wrong in the 1st place
check out my video "sept 11th the smoking gun" see how i expose 1 of them in a cover up
loosechangeexposed 1 week ago
@loosechangeexposed True. Also why the planes? Terrorists tried to bring the towers down from the basement in the 90s. They could of this time just use demolitions and blamed it on the terrorists and said see, this time they succeeded. That would have been perfectly believable. Why the planes, missile in the Pentagon, remote controlled air planes and fake phone calls to family members. It's a completely absurd theory out to make people like Alex Jones Rich...
longhairsRcool 1 week ago
@longhairsRcool i have a video that exposes alex's tricks, i have 4 videos of him and the 2 part one is edited with me telling how he talks fast and changes the subject many times so people get confused and can't keep up so he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, he blocked me before i made the video his channel is listed on the block list on my page, send him that video and see if he explains himself, he won't.
loosechangeexposed 1 week ago
You estimate 40% of the cores were broken? What is your expertise to make such an estimate...you say this video proves how the towers fell...do me a favor and tell me exactly what piece of 'proof' you mention in this video.
There is no proof - only your opinion.
If the makers of Loose Change and AE911 Truth were only in this for the money - why did they release their videos free to YouTube?
JusticeSpringChicken 3 weeks ago
@JusticeSpringChicken when the top of the so. tower leaned over towards the side it was hit just before the tower collapsed it showed that the steel on the side it was hit was destroyed, the 40% is just a guestimate, 35% damage would still make the top lean over, point is enough of the core was destroyed that the fires weakened the undestroyed steel to the point of failure and collapse, don't you understand logic and common sense? no you don't.
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
@loosechangeexposed Are you serious? You claim this is the case but you do not show the video that supports your point of view? Personally I dont remember seeing anything because the dust from the concrete seems to have blocked the view of everything. If you want to be credible show us the video that supports your claim!
JusticeSpringChicken 3 weeks ago
@JusticeSpringChicken put "collapse of the so. tower" in the you tube search. you can see that the top of the tower did lean to the side it was hit, that is the indicator that the plane destroyed the steel on that side seeing how it leaned over towards the side hit by the plane, none of the videos have enough dust to block the view of the top of the tower leaning before collapse, look at the fact that the top did lean to the side it was hit.
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
The only thing I'm confused about is why I bother to respond to you at all.
But I'll fix that...
MrNoblemanoflove 3 weeks ago
@MrNoblemanoflove the reason you won't respond to me anymore is you never once proved me wrong and you are getting out before you dig yourself in a deeper hole.
too late for that.
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
In regards to the 'banana peel' remark above goes: that's in reference to the catastrophic overload of vulnerable connecting points in the structure, which allowed the collapse to progress and then overload the next series of components. These were progressive collapses which means that the components failed beginning at one piece of sub-assembly failed and then another. The core columns could not, and were not, designed to withstand all of the buildings' loads; the perimeter columns were needed
MrSkunkwork100 3 weeks ago
The reports of explosions were random: randomly located and randomly timed and they were heard well ahead of the collapses, which rules out that they were demolition charges. Demolition charges are sequenced and occur over a sequenced procession followed immediately by the collapse of the structure they are meant to fell.
MrSkunkwork100 3 weeks ago
@MrSkunkwork100 yes any in a sequence set off early would have started the rest, like setting up dominoes, one goes the rest follow, they would not set off any explosives till they started the sequence, someone said "it sounded like an explosion" while an elevator hitting its bottom would also sound like an explosion.
i bet while working on loose change dylan farted and jason giggled and said "smells like you died" so when was the funeral?
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
The Bldg is comming apart like a banana peel...
Not piledriver driven....
Search YouTube....
North Tower Exploding- David Chandler...
5:33...of your time...
MrNoblemanoflove 4 weeks ago
@MrNoblemanoflove and they say it came down like a planned demolition which is only a comparison, i'm sure many people would say it was like the end of the world, but was it? you are actually using a comparisson and trying to make it look like fact.
the video "miracle in stairwell B" is about 14 people who survived inside the no. tower, a few of them said the floors fell one on top of the other, one even said the term "pancake effect" are they lying?
prove this video wrong.
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
@loosechangeexposed Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. His comments "As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it."
Source: U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Now call him "misguided"
MrNoblemanoflove 3 weeks ago
@MrNoblemanoflove he got that title from the manual "a project for a new american century/rebuilding americas defenses" a manual released to the public, i explain it in my video "loose change the 3 manuals" it was about rebuilding the military (it says so right in the title) that manual is made to look like the plans for 9/11 by truthers, so the gov't released the 9/11 playbook to the public and you people still can't prove inside job?
how confused are you right now?
loosechangeexposed 3 weeks ago
Hella holes in your video bro, especially the beginning. You went for the prototypical debunk answers and scarcely elaborated on the varying possibilities.There are dozens upon dozens of reports of people hearing explosions from underneath them even from firemen in the lobby... I'm not sure what to believe but you're presentation of this was extremely poor... 1 photo with no illustrations to help present your points and it sounded like you recorded this with a coffee mug.
seanzoz 1 month ago
@seanzoz all you have to do is listen to the video, the planes caused initial damage to the cores, the fires weakened the undestroyed steel to the point it could no longer support the weight above the impact zones and that is when collapses happened, thats why the so. tower fell 1st. more weight = less weakening.
most sounds heard are unidentified, i explain those sounds in my 2 videos "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and "loose change answer number 118 with witness"
loosechangeexposed 1 month ago
@loosechangeexposed what's your take on tower 7
seanzoz 1 month ago
@seanzoz google "ground zero then and now" and also search for a video of the helocopter view of the collapse of the towers to see how widespread the fallout of the towers was, the energy of the towers collapse went thru wtc 7 at and above ground level and also thru the tunnel network that connected the wtc complex buildings, here is a video of firefighters saying wtc 7 was going to collapse.
/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw
loosechangeexposed 1 month ago
@seanzoz People heard something that sounded like a bomb, what they heard was something crashing down an elevator shaft. The "missing" black box. We know this because we know the material of which the black box is made of will eventually melt when in high temperatures for long periods of time. And they found that material melted in the basement. The black box fell from over 100 stories and crashed at the bottom through the shaft yes it would sound like an explosion.
mafiachild1985 4 weeks ago
@mafiachild1985 you have the right idea but the black boxes are too small to make enough noise in the elevator shafts for anyone to have heard them, my video "loose change answer number 168" covers the black boxes and the passport, and yes they ended up in the molten steel at the bottoms of the elevator shafts, but my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" explains what was loud enough to sound like explosions.
loosechangeexposed 4 weeks ago
There is no way in hell this could be a conspiracy. I appreciate your explanations greatly and with my simple understanding of physics and weight distribution, i was able to explain the reasons for the south tower collapsing first
michigan1777 2 months ago
Mathematics don't lie google the mathematics on why the weight of the upper levels couldn't bring down the lower levels in the time that it did
nikiakasmith 2 months ago
@nikiakasmith what you don't get is when the weight above each impact point slammed onto the floor below it could not support that weight and as more and more weight was added to each floor after that they all failed one at a time.
no matter how bad you want it to be a conspiracy you can't find the formula because it is as simple as elementry school logic.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@nikiakasmith watch?v=prwvj-npt5s This disproves your theory that the floors could not make the other floors collapse. Seriously, if people would have payed attention in school, America would not be as dumb as they say we are! Those floors were held up beams that were welded together and held together by bolts, so enough downward energy could snap the bolts and bring it down. Watch the video and see yourself get owned! 9/11 was NOT an inside job!
BaldurdashWoW 1 month ago
@loosechangeexposed
mKay, you should really read my comments. Why should have the building fallen down exactly like in a demolition? That would be too obvious I'm afraid.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus this video explains that the planes caused major structural damage to the cores, the top of the so. tower leaning over is 1 indicator, the weight above each impact point dictated when the steel would be weak enough to fail from the fires, not just the steel but the bolts and nuts that attached it, that's why the so. tower fell 1st, the excess weight meant the steel in that tower didn't need to be as weakened as the no tower.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed ont from prev post
both planes caused about the same amount of damage to the cores, when the remaining undestroyed steel was weakened by the 2000 deg fire it could no longer support the weight of the above structure, the no tower held up longer cuz there was much less weight to support, once the top landed on the floor at the impact point every floor failed as more and more weight was added.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post
the reason people think it was a C.D. was because the way the buildings fell, they collapsed the exact way a C.D. does but what else are you going to compare a building falling down to when not 1 on earth ever was ever destroyed by a plane hitting it before? if there were explosives then how were they planted in such a way that the planes impacts wouldn't set them off?
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
Anyhow, I will not go into great lengths here, you are entitled to your opinion that these buildings could fall because of about about 1 percent structural damage and temperature to cause the steel columns to "buckle" in about 20 minutes and "implosive" forces take over etc...and so forth. This is absolutely ridiculous to me from an engineering and physics point of view so you can continue beating this horse of yours. We won't know the real truth until maybe in about 20-30 years.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus you only have to look into the details which is the evidence, the top of the so. tower leaned over just before collapse which is evident that the side of the core that was hit by the plane was destroyed to the point that when the fires weakened the undestroyed steel it leaned where the void of any support was, that and my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" are 2 indicators that the planes penetrated the cores, it's reaction to action.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
The towers leaning over to me only indicate a bias because of the structural damage. If this was a demolition it would be far from "perfect" (or it would be too obvious), its only purpose was to make sure the tower collapsed from top to bottom, nothing more. Otherwise that could not have been a reality.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus the top of the tower leaning over jet before collapse is evidence that the plane penetrated the core and destroyed the steel on that side, it did lean towards the side that was hit, my other video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" is further proof.
if there were explosives why were they not set off by the impacts and drop the towers right away? in a C.D. all the explosives are set off at the same time on each floor causing the building to fall straight down.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
There was in fact an underground explosion before the North tower collapsed. There is a rare video on YT of a street camera picking up earthquake-like tremors about 15-20 miles away before it collapsed.
Also:
"Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred."
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus you are mixing up the agenda. are you confused?
there was a witness that said something was going on in the lower levels before the planes hit but i explain what those things were in my 2 videos 1) the engines fell down the elevator shafts /watch?v=CAogQ-uQLCI
2) the plane rocked the tower blowing out the windows and knocking marble panels off of the walls. /watch?v=L76wOIl5U7s
he was in sub level 1 and doesn't even know when the plane hit the building.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
there was underground activity but not explosions it was the energy of the collapses that went thru the tunnel network that was under the complex and also the subway.
the earthquakes you are talking about were recorded by Columbia university in palasades new york the so. tower was a 2.1 and the no. tower was a 2.3 at the exact time each tower fell, how much did the towers weigh? enough to shake the ground.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post
and the video you are talking about, i notice you didn't post it, if i ask you to post it you will say you can't find it seeing how you didn't post it and convienently said it was rare. so where is it? too rare to find now?
as for seeing anything from under WTC 7 before the no. tower fell isn't anything new, the so. tower had already fallen and that energy and debris went thru WTC 7 at street level and thru the tunnel network, there were cars under WTC 7
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
I found the video faster than I thought: watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
Secondly, if you are so confident in your position, why block comments?
Surely your reasoning overshadows anyone else, so there is no need for moderation.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus the discription of the video says there was a nuke explosion underground, you believe that even though there is no evidence of anyone reporting radiation poisioning at any hospital? and the towers both collapsed starting at the tops so how would an underground explosion cause that to happen? that camera shaking could have been the owners dog bumping into the tripod, there is not enough evidence to conclude what you claim here is a video explaining your claim
/watch?v=2Lz1VcPhsZ8
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
and another: watch?v=MXeAPcsD3-o
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus that video was made by the same person as the other video,
in this video not 1 person mentions anything about the ground shaking, the discription says it was a 5.5. do you know how much the ground would have shaken in a 5.5? a lot more that again it claims that it was a nuke explosion but there was never a single report of any radiation, and the collapse started at the top so how would an underground explosion make that happen? you have many questions to answer.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
Also, I want to point to you that small earthquakes are less noticeable to people standing outside and but are still very noticeable in "static" structures such as buildings, structures that tend not to move with the ground, and have structural resistance. So basically an underground bomb could go off with nobody noticing it by standing outside. Mount a camera and the effects will be shown as "shaking".
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus yes that makes perfect sence seeing how inside you may notice things shake a little, like a glass of water or windows, but where is the video that shows that it was before the tower collapsed? because there is video explaining 2 earthquakes that happened at the exact time as the towers were falling indicating that it was the weight of the towers falling that shook the ground.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
I've pointed to you two videos already that show exactly that, perhaps you're being a bit too dramatic with your moderation?
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus those videos are made by the same person making the same claim, a nuke explosion, so where is the evidence of nuke fallout like radiation? where is 1 report of there ever being radiation in the air? or 1 person effected by radiation? there is no evidence of an underground nuke explosion, and how would that make the tower fall starting from the top? how do make the link of an underground explosion and the start of the collapse?
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
So your argument is that because the top of the tower toppled at an angle therefore the structural damage and fires were the cause.
At most this explains a bias in the collapse, not that this caused the collapse itself.
I'm curious but have you done the physics velocity calculations? These don't seem to support your case.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus the top of the so. tower leaning over just before collapse is only an indicator that the plane did penetrate the core and caused major damage, the fires weakened the undestroyed steel, and the weight above the impact points also had to do with the collapses, the so. tower to fell 1st cuz that steel did not need to be as weakened as the steel in the no. tower due to the amount of weight above each impact point.
loosechangeexposed 2 months ago
@loosechangeexposed The tower fell because of joints connecting the floors to the steel super structure melting, causing them to give way. When a floor fell onto the floor below, the weight would break the next floor's joints and cause it to snowball all the way down. The fires got hot enough to do this from a stoking effect from 80mph winds in the elevator shafts. The person who showed me this was the daughter of one of the foremen on the original WTC project.
RebelSoul2010 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed you are right and you are wrong (ps I'm on your side). A good friend of mine is the daughter of one of the foremen that put up the world trade center. She showed me a slide show from the 60s where he had went to the architects and told them that a fire 2/3rds of the way up the building would be stoked by the elevator shafts. The intense heat resulting from would melt joints holding the floors to the steel super structure, causing them to fall upon each other.
RebelSoul2010 3 months ago
Weird... J cole's videos don't have comment approval...
I think you know what would happen if you let people comment freely on your videos...
Don't be scared, homey.
zakquack 3 months ago
@zakquack i tried that, i got propaganda comments cuz they can't explain how i am wrong the way your comment doesn't prove me wrong, i'm not scared just want to send the right message to people who have questions.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
nice... video starts with ad hominem... conjecture follows... grandstanding makes me smile :-)
thermite requires direct, high heat to ignite... something like 2200 degrees farenheit... its why you use magnesium strips for it... isolated thermite packets would not necessarily ignite due to fire... its hard to follow this rambling jackoff...
zakquack 3 months ago
@zakquack you are only saying that it takes 2200 degrees to ignite thermite to make it look like the jet fuel fire would not have ignited it trying to fit it into the agenda, thermite is what a childs 4th of july sparkler is made of and it can't even melt the aluminum stick it is on, it has a much lower flash point than you are admitting to. lets say it does have a high flash point, you still can't explain how the static electricity and the buildings severed electrical wiring didn't set it off.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed sparklers are indeed a thermitic reaction.. But theyve also got combustables like blasting powder, coloring agents, and igniter compounds which all have a much lower boiling point. Magnesium is often used in sparklers.. My point is that a kerosine fire would not have necessarily ignited a thermitic reaction. Have u ever seen a sparkler give a false start? When some of the ignition mix catches but fails to set off the thermitic reaction and goes out...
zakquack 3 months ago
@zakquack here is a video showing how pure thermite does not melt steel. /watch?v=l3ZBEmjzwLg
there are 2 ways to ignite thermite. fire and electric, if you google thermite you will read that the fire at the wtc did get hot enough to ignite it and that it is also ignited by magneizum (electric matches) but you are dismissing the static electricity created by the planes and also the buildings severed electrical wiring.
how the towers fell> /watch?v=ywHW5UewN8A
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed /physicsandreason shows thermite cutting through reinforced steel.. Vertically and horozontally.. Kinda discredits mythbusters, a&e, and other major network programming when theyre actively producing propaganda.. Thermite can cut through steel. Im not neglecting anything. Simply dissolving one of your favorite arguments. There are plenty of things that COULD set of a thermitic reaction.. I dont need to google something i have training and experience with.
zakquack 3 months ago
@zakquack here is video evidence that thermite does not cut steel /watch?v=l3ZBEmjzwLg
you are throwing physics and reason out the window when you dismiss that thermite is activated by fire and also by electric when you know that the planes impacts created fireballs, static electricity and also severed the buildings electrical wiring which one of would have ignited the thermite and dropped the towers upon impact of the planes, we all know that didn't happen. /watch?v=h6uUDd94q98
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
you disolve nothing but your claim when you can not show evidence of that claim like where is 1 pic of any I - beam that was cut on a 45 deg angle? i bet you think that thermite created the molten steel found under all 3 buildings but can't explain how none of that molten steel found its way into the stairwell where 14 people survived. /watch?v=K5cvO0uEYhM jet fuel fire burns at 2000+ deg hot enough to weaken steel /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
This is a ludicrous claim. It doesn't matter how much evidence you can provide showing that something CANNOT happen, it only takes one piece of evidence that shows it CAN happen to falsify them all. Don't you know this? This is like showing the planets of our solar system (except Earth) to "prove" that our solar system cannot support life. Btw, your claim, in the video, that Fe2O3 in the buildings and Al from the planes explains the thermitic material found shows a (2)
ThePeage 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
(2) a mindboggling lack of understanding of chemistry. I didn't think anyone was still using this one.
ThePeage 3 months ago
@ThePeage your cluelessness is obvious, how can you believe that a jumbo jet full of fuel hitting a building at the rate of speed it did does not do the damage it took to take down that tower? there is overwhelming evidence that proves it, video evidence of the planes, the top of the so. tower leaning over just before collapse shows that flight 175 did cut into the core like an axe into a tree. 9500 gallons of jet fuel would burn for 6 hrs 45 min @ 2000 deg /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
the planes hit the towers so hard they rocked them /watch?v=XqMRHx0K1ns
flight 11 rocked the no. tower so hard it blew out windows and knocked marble panels off the walls.
/watch?v=L76wOIl5U7s in the video there is no evidence of debris on the floor like there would be in an explosion, the outside north face is cracked about 30 or so floors up, when the plane bent the tower it cracked the exterior.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post
janitor willie rodreguez heard 2 unidentified noises that sounded like explosions, what would 2 engines hitting from 1000 feet above sound like? (6 ton engines?) the jenny karr audio has a 2nd sound 9 seconds after the crash, how long is free fall speed for an engine to have hit the lobby? 9 seconds. theres your explosives, they were just sounds. /watch?v=CAogQ-uQLCI
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post
so it was the planes penetrating the cores that didn't set off any thermite or explosives, the inital damage by the planes to the cores, the weight of the structures above each impact points and the fires burning @ 2000 deg weakening the undestroyed steel is how the towers fell, which is why the so. tower fell first, it had more weight above its impact point, hijacked planes destroyed the wtc, there is absolutly no proof of anything else except talk.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
Rather than waste my time on this, all I'll say is that you need to learn about jet-fuel. Find out the temperatures it burns at in air and HOW it burns. You'll discover it would all have gone (either ignited or vapourised) within minutes of the impact. Even your beloved NIST states this - the fuel was all GONE within minutes - the idea that 9500 gallons would "burn for 6 hrs 45 min" is so ignorant it borders on insanity.
To anyone else reading this.. (see 2)
ThePeage 3 months ago
@ThePeage where is a link to your findings? talk is cheap, i did find out the temperatures it burns at in air and HOW it burns. here is a video backing up my findings (700 gal. will burn for 30 min. 2000 deg. there was 13 times that amount in each tower) /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q you obviously get your info from other truthers (hearsay) i bet you believe that the fires were starved for oxygen cuz a truther said that they were /watch?v=yK4MzcrQzAM
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
(2) You do not need to take my word for this. It is easily verified by anyone who can read....or pick up the phone and ask a scientist - ask at your local university. Once you've found out loosechangeexposed's ignorance about the behaviour of kerosene, you might like to check out more of his claims... not by asking either "truthers" or "debunkers", but by reading science books.
Good luck.
ThePeage 3 months ago
@ThePeage by saying "don't take my word for it read a science book" that is a desperate cry to get people to believe you, you want people to believe that you have read a book and found the info, but your comment is a strawman attempt at trying to look good. post where you got your info about what jet fuel burns at, here's my post. /watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q it is the exact test that shows 700 gal. of jet fuel burns at 2000 deg. for 30 min. there was over 13 times that amount in each tower, do the math
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
I like your videos. Its nice to see that there are some normal people out there.
skymonkey81 3 months ago
first of all you need to see why these attacks were needed for USA, again why there was wtc 1 bombing in 1993, and olkahoma city bombing, i dont think so 19 Saudi Cia agent would kill themself with suicide mission after all they couldnt prove they have relation to osama, and why both tower with build 7 came down just because some plane hitted it, they are multiple air strike proof building so its unacceptable, i dont think so al qaeda would target pentagon where they kept 2 trillion $ reciepts
idrismetalcore 3 months ago
@idrismetalcore ok so you show how you don't understand the physics of 2 planes destroying the towers, but you also only mention the collapses taking down building 7, the debris field of the collapses was 16 acres, an acre is 200 by 200 feet so it was 3200 feet widespread (over a half mile) and more than just #7 besides the towers were destroyed, there were many other buildings that had to be taken down due to damage. where is your proof who did it?
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed and why did bbc and cnn told the story of build 7 , 20mins before it came down, and why did firefighters told the building were coming down, they have bombs in them, how they know before it happened, it clearly shows, they need to be taken down, and plane is method, then who was in the plane is a reason, what religion those poeple follows is the cause, wow rewind it more, you will just laugh of govt lies.
idrismetalcore 3 months ago
@idrismetalcore here is the explanation of the mistake that the BBC made /watch?v=FEETTxeCS9w
as for the firefighters saying the buildings had bombs in them that is lack of comunication, witnesses said things like "it sounded like a bomb went off" that is a comparison of a sound like a carbackfire sounds like a gunshot, if the fire dept had knowledge of bombs being planted then why would they go into those buildings? search "miracle in stairway B" here on you tube.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
Conspiracy theorists deserves death.
fixcpu 3 months ago
@fixcpu i would rather they live long lives and tell everyone they lied to their tricks and tactics that make themselves look like they know what they are talking about, and show that they made videos and wrote books and speak in public and lie so they can make money from nieave people who buy into their lies.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
After a few seconds I already had evidence contrary to what you say. Explosions were audible and were also caught on video...or are you calling the Firemen who were making calls and who all jumped after hearing a loud explosion, liars? You are either convinced of what you believe, or you are pro-Israel, Zionist and with an agenda. So what it is?
JillAngie2 4 months ago
@JillAngie2 i never said people didn't hear sounds that sounded like explosions, the only 2 sounds that are identified were the 2 planes exploding, an elevator crashing to the bottom of its shaft would sound like an explosion. the towers made many noises as they were falling apart and collapsing, willie rodreguez said he heard 2 in the lower levels he 1st thought 1 was a generator i explain what he heard in my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts".
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
truthers say explosives caused the damage to the no. tower lobby, my video "loose change answer number 118 with witness" explains how the plane rocked the tower causing the damage, there is no debris on the floor of the lobby and the outside no. face is white from being stretched and cracked by it rocking.
here is a question no truther can seem to answer. how did they set explosives or thermite in the towers so the plane's impacts wouldn't set them off?
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
ha!!!look how fucking CRAP the wtc fake videos are!!!!!!
CAN YOU IMAGINE SHANKSVILLE & PENTAGON????...
even more ridiculously CARTOONISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the plane was added in the evening news footage....
it's the SAME SHOT!!!
you're 99.9 % braindead....
go celebrate!
2Xyousee 4 months ago
@2Xyousee if the videos at the WTC are fake then how come no one came forward that was at the scene ever said they didn't see a plane hit the south tower? what i mean is of all the people who saw the south tower get hit that were live at the scene not one said they didn't see a plane? this video >> /watch?v=iac6J4gITa0&feature=related << has a witness who was on the 78th floor of the so. tower who explains what he saw, he saw the plane come right at him, go to 2:00 of the video to meet Stanley.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
i agree that
loose change is full of shit...
they ENFORCE (purposely) the airplane crash myth...
they waste endless time talking about 'hijackers'...(cia actors, patsy's, drill participants or just plain fictitious)
the 911 'truth' movement is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION set up by the 911 perps themselves...
2Xyousee 4 months ago
FAKE IS FAKE...
nothing can ever change that...
airline pilots will tell you IMMEDIATELY...
THOSE ARE NOT AIRPLANES!!!!
2Xyousee 4 months ago
@2Xyousee where is 1 video of any pilot claiming the planes were fake?, of all the people who trained their cameras on the burning north tower where is the one video that shows the south tower exploding without a plane in the shot? wouldn't that video be worth many millions of dollars? where is your evidence that proves that you are right?
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed at 3;58 of my featured video...ummm...they ADDED A PLANE FOR THE EVENING NEWS!!!!
oh, & they whited out the entire backdrop!!!!
2Xyousee 4 months ago
@2Xyousee i saw the footage of the 2 different angles, the lighter background can be explained by the effect of the sunlight on the different cameras, those cameras could not have been from 2 different helocopters cuz they would have been flying way too close, you started showing that you know how to cgi a plane into a shot then show a video claiming that the govt cgi'd a plane in the shot for the news so why didn't the govt cgi a plane in the video at the pentagon?
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
your video shows that you do know the truth but are lying to make it look like an inside job. you need to read the you tube user agreement, people like you can be brought up on charges for spreading slander without proof, and even if you delete everything you have ever posted (videos too) it may have been saved and when a new investigation exposes the fraud people like you will go down for spreading lies which carries prison time for each count. go girl.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
the 'planes' were CGI BS...
easily detectable with the naked eye...
35 so called amateur videos all depicting impossible physical feats...
entering buildings seamlessly, while travelling at the same frame rate as through thin air!!!
EASILY DETECTED...
show ANY of the WTC vids to an airline pilot ( i did!)
FAKE AS 3 DOLLAR BILLS!!!
2Xyousee 4 months ago
@2Xyousee CGI is used on video, what about the 1000's of people who saw it live at the scene? where is 1 interview of anyone saying they were looking at the no. tower burn and saw the so. tower explode without a plane hitting it? the only way to make a plane appear out of thin air is with a hologram, and they do not work in sunlight, explain the plane shaped holes in the towers, explain the engine and landing gear that landed on the street.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
explain the debris outside of the pentagon, explain the black box found at the scene of flight 93 that was played for the families, explain how they failed to CGI a plane on the video at the pentagon, explain where all the passengers of every flight that crashed are, explain how terrorists who trained for 8 years didn't figure out how to pull it off.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
DIS INFO!!! he says loose change are only in it for the money???
this guy is also in it for the money!! hes wrote a book claiming he as proof!!
planes do not turn buildings to dust.. and building 7 wasnt even hit with a plane but hey it still fell the same way and speed.. so mr loosechangeexpossed you know nothing..HENCE YOUR VIEWS..
bomberbruno1 5 months ago
@bomberbruno1 my book exposes L/C for lying and hiding the truth so they can make money, so my book is more about exposing the movement starting with them, and books cost money, other people get paid to put my book out, who would work for free? i guess you haven't seen my website where it says i am going to open a store for the victims and give them 90% of the profits once it is set up
your entire comment is what you think and shows you didn't research any of your claims. hence your "views".
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@bomberbruno1 You don't know nothing you nut job! You all truthers have no critical thinking whatsoever. What is it that you guys want to ignore that controlled demolition is in fact very very noisy, I speaking about explosion noise. Never heard a single explosion! Also thermite don't work in that case. Thermite can only cut on horyzontal plane, and you would have neede some much of it. All the evidence shown by the truth movement is in fact made up! Lies,misrepresentation...out of context...
nononsenseinrational 4 months ago
Let's see, now you expect me to believe you over 1500 certified architects and engineers? What are your credentials?
kindly4real 5 months ago
@kindly4real ask any one of them how explosives or thermite was set in the towers in such a way that the planes impacts wouldn't set them off and started the collapses within moments. it would have been impossible because thermite is activated by fire and other types of explosives could be activated by electric.
physics, evidence and common sense tells us that the planes created fireballs, static electricity, and severed the buildings electrical wiring.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
it is evident from the way the top of the so. tower fell over just before collapse that the planes destroyed a major part of the cores which means that the planes made contact with the steel in the core which is where the explosives or thermite would have needed to be in order to destroy the steel.
1500 A & E's @ 10 yrs exp. = 15,000 yrs exp. or 15 melinia's of exp. and they can't figure out how to prove planned demo, that's who you believe.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
'ask any one of them how explosives or thermite was set in the towers'
lol..WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!
it is the OFFICIAL DENIAL that "NO explosives or accelerants were there", given YEARS AFTER INVESTIGATION, when INVESTIGATION NEVER TESTED to determine either way.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
disabled ratings...lol..go figure!
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob no one ever tested for explosives or thermite cuz we all knew how 2 jumbo jets would, and did destroy the towers, it was only the truthers who claimed explosives cuz they can't understand the physics of the collapses, but this video explains the collapses and also explains how explosives would have been impossible.
in court you will need to prove there were explosives planted cuz the evidence already proves the planes took down the towers. you need ratings cuz your posts are weak.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"we all knew how 2 jumbo jets would, and did destroy the towers"
but they DIDN'T, so YOU LIE!
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged....MINIMAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
sorry IDIOT, YOU can not spin it ANY OTHER WAY!
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and common sence that the plane did penetrate the core which is also proven in any video of the top of the so. tower leaning over (because the plane cut into the core like an axe thru a tree) just before collapse, and the fact that the impacts would have set off any explosives and collapsed the towers right away shows that you do not know what you are talking about, it shows that you don't understand the physics of planes hitting buildings.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"and common sense that the plane did penetrate the core"
and all you need is PROOF and YOU have NONE OF IT.
"because the plane cut into the core like an axe thru a tree"
Where is the evidence aluminum planes, after already smashing through one set of steel columns, would still have the energy to cut through even larger steel columns? Simple physics tells us this is not logical..OR possible.
EVIDENCE FOOL!
what part on "MINIMAL structural damage DON'T you understand.
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob the engines and landing gear were not directly mounted to the aluminum wings (aluminum is a soft metal) there is a thick steel beam mounted under the wings which is where the engines and landing gear are attached and also supports the weight of the fuel, the engines and that steel support beam is what did all the damage that and (3rd grade education) the wings were stronger full of fuel, the entire plane was not just aluminum, the planes caused maximum structural damage. ask a child.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"the planes caused maximum structural damage"
the impacts caused MINIMAL asymmetrical structural damage...INVESTIGATION found LESS THAN 15%.
33 outer columns out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15%.
you pathetic shilly attempt of twisting the TRUTH is futile.
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob who's investigation? NIST, the 9/11 commission? the 2 that most truthers say is wrong untill they find something that fits their agenda? as a debunker i even prove the 9/11 commission wrong in my video "loose change answer number 118 with witness" where i explain it wasn't a fireball but was from the plane rocking the tower that caused the lobby damage. how did the top of the so. tower lean over before collapse if it didn't have major structural damage, start by explainming that.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"how did the top of the so. tower lean over before collapse if it didn't have major structural damage, start by explaining that"
why don't YOU...YOU wrote the the book.
that is your problem..YOU FOCUS on the WRONG aspects thinking they matter, and they don't
how can the 'tipping top' MAINTAIN the lean against a mass which is 3 times greater than itself? How can it possibly impart an EQUAL force on the opposite side of the building when it's toppling over to ONE side?
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob the top of the so. tower leaned over in the direction that the plane hit it, indicating that the side that was hit shows that the steel was destroyed by the plane (it cut thru the steel like an axe into a tree) when the fires weakened the remaining steel it could not handle the weight that was above the impact points so the side without steel fell 1st when the remaining steel was weakened, this is just 1 clue that explains how the planes collapsed the towers.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
3 elements that explain how the towers fell are 1) the initial damage to the cores, 2) the fires weakening the undestroyed steel, and 3) the weight above the impact points.
so when the fires weakened the remaining steel the weight above is also what caused collapse, evidence of that is that the so. tower fell after 56 min cuz it had much more weight above that impact point. the no. tower stood for 102 min. cuz it had less weight. understand?
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
YOU don't even UNDERSTAND what it would take for that TOP to tip like that as a WHOLE as it did. That unified movement could ONLY occur with ALL the columns severed AT THE SAME TIME...if those 47 columns don't fail simultaneously, that upper mass doesn't move as 'one'. Simple. Try looking at the WTC blueprints.
that WON'T happen with temps of ...."no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob the core was in the center of the tower, enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core to cause the top to tip over like it did. when the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree the load was put upon the columns that were not destroyed, over time the fire weakened the standing steel (in the center of the core) to the point of failure, when that happened the top leaned over putting more weight on the northern core columns and that is when they failed.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
in a planned demolition all the core columns are cut on the same floor at the exact same time in order to make it collapse the entire floor straight down, the top leaned over about 5 to 10 seconds before the collapse happened, this does not happen in a planned demo, there is enough evidence that the plane destroyed the core on the side the top tipped over to than there is of planted explosives.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
if you believe there were explosives planted then you must know how the planes impacts didn't set them off, you must know how they were set in the towers in such a way that the fireballs, the static electricity and the building's severed electrical wiring did not activate any explosives or incindiary devices that were attached to the steel (which is where it needed to be attached) if you can't explain that then you do not know how to prove your claim.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core "
lol..PROVE IT
PROVE DIFFERENT that what INVESTIGATION FOUND.....less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage on EACH towers impact floor leaving about 240 INTACT FIREPROOFED vertical support that YOU have NO EVIDENCE of failing from the *FIRE PRESENT*.
Where is YOUR DATA?
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob "enough of the plane destroyed enough of the core "
"lol..PROVE IT"
the proof is in how the top of the south tower leaned over just before collapse, it leaned in the same direction as the plane hit, that is video evidence that a major part of the core was destroyed by the plane, in planned demolitions the entire floor comes straight down cuz they destroy every support column on each floor at the same time, your data is wrong cuz who was taking measurements during the event?
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"proof is in how the top of the south tower leaned'
no fool--THAT is a REACTION to a CAUSE--it is NOT the 'mechanism'.
why are you arguing--lol--you have NOTHING!!!
you so IGNORANT--even IGNORING FACTS from the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION cause they ..'do not fit' with your agenda.
Your pathetic, so-called, EVIDENCE is--tell me, WHERE is YOUR EVIDENCE???
I'm playing with you so OTHERS can see how much of an IDIOT you are--BEGGING for attention instead of PROVING your claims
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob the REACTION is that the top of the so. tower leaned over CAUSE the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"the REACTION is that the top of the so. tower leaned over CAUSE the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree.
as INVESTIGATION PROVED--THAT did NOT occur--but YOU IGNORE that FACT for another agenda.
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob truthers use any part of the "official investigation" that seems to fit their agenda no matter if it is right or wrong, even though truthers say the "official investigation" is wrong. in a C.D. all the supports are cut at the same exact time to cause each floor to come straight down.
anyone can see that the top of the so. tower leaned over cuz the plane cut into the core like an axe into a tree. showing there was about 40% to 50% damage by the plane.
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
here is where you got the 15% damage from, of the 4 sides @ 25% each 3 were not destroyed, leaving 75% of the tower undamaged, the side that was hit (the towers were each an acre, 200 by 200 feet) by a plane with a wingspan of 155 feet, that is about 75% of 1 side leaving about 25% of that side (6.2% of that side) undamaged, so 3 sides @75% plus 1 side @ 6.2% which is 81.2% undamaged. there's your estimated 85%.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"got the 15% damage from"
THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION!!!!
that is where I get it from--the NIST report--why do YOU IGNORE that to PUSH your pathetic UNPROVABLE agenda?
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%, count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.. NIST *ESTIMATES* that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
what makes you smarter than NIST?
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob you believe something that has never been proven. who is in jail for inside job?
where are all the protests demanding a new investigation? with all the regular people like charlie sheen, alex jones, jesse ventura, michael moore, people who speak to the public and get paid who can raise money from the people who go to see them speak about 9/11, why aren't they paying for a new investigation? because they are lying to make money and did not find any real evidence in their own research.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
'in court you will need to prove there were explosives planted"
WRONG!
In a court of Law the ones who ASSERT THE CLAIM that "NO explosives or accelerants were used", MUST supply the PROOF of THAT claim.......they don't want this in court silly.
"you need ratings cuz your posts are weak"
this is NOT competition and YOUR the one RUNNING from my "weak" comments.
"your data is wrong"
Basic Physics fundamentals and STRAIGHT from the ones Charged with INVESTIGATION...NIST!
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob if i was on the stand and the lawyer told me to prove there were no explosives planted i would say there is no evidence of them being found and that is my proof that they never existed.
it is innocent until proven guilty here in America, so anyone claiming explosives needs to show evidence of explosives in order to prove their claim, if it was the other way where are the people on trial waiting to prove there were no explosives? you are confused.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"i would say there is no evidence of them being found and that is my proof that they never existed."
through IGNORANCE!
but IF YOU wereCharged by Government to SCIENTIFICALLY find out HOW and WHY 3 buildings fell on 9-11...you would be asked to PROVE your CLAIM!
"anyone claiming explosives needs to show evidence of explosives"
and ANY ONE OFFICIALLY DENYING in the investigation into the mass murder of 3000 innocents BETTER HAVE EVIDENCE if one is going to CLAIM none.
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob here is the evidence. terrorism does exist, they planned for 8 years to attack, they went to flight school to learn the instrument panels, how to shut off transpondors, and the fastest way to prevent the pilots from sending the code for a hijacking to avoid detection, and basic flight, people in the network took dry runs to see how to gain entry into the cockpits. there is video of them boarding the planes on 9/11, video of the plane hitting the no. tower,
cont next post.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
some saw the plane hit the no. tower live, thousands of witnesses at the scene saw the so. tower get hit as BILLIONS saw it live on t.v. there is way more evidence of what really happened and none of inside job other than what truthers made up, lack of evidence is why you will never win, only about 1 of 100,000 people believe conspiracy, the rest either hate the govt, or think we are too good to be hit. how many people in your life think you are nuts?
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed it's 1 out of every 100,000 americans. i am sure it is higher in other countries cuz those people only hear what conspiracy theorists like willie rodreguez tell them.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"here is the evidence. terrorism does exist,
"we are NOT talking "terrorism", WE are talking the SCIENCE of the collapses...terrorism has NOTHING to do wit it. All YOU are doing is DISTRACTING cause YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!
all these post from YOU and what have YOU presented to defend what YOU assert happened on 9-11...NOTHING!
sorry YOU don't want to talk, OR KNOW, the SCIENCE of it..but THAT is why WE ARE ALL HERE.
why do YOU think we are here?
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob the point is that you can't seem to understand how terrorists could have destroyed the WTC using 2 planes they trained how to do and figured out how to hijack, with out any explosives being planted that you can't explain were planted in the towers when the planes impacts would have set them off and dropped the towers upon impact of the planes. you have no answers that prove what you think happened. you don't understand the science of the attacks so you blame explosives.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
'he point is that you can't seem to understand how terrorists could have destroyed the WTC using 2 planes '
and YOU can seem to UNDERSTAND, or WILLFULLY IGNORE, INVESTIGATION found THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
you IGNORE the less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage IMPACTS CAUSED IN EACH TOWER...that is FACT you can do NOTHING ABOUT!
The FACT that YEARS AFTER investigation an OFFICIAL CLAIM was given that "NO Explosives or accelernats were used"..INVESTIGATION NEVER TESTED
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob in a controlled demolition they cut every support beam on each floor at the same exact time so the building falls straight down, the top of the so. tower leaned over because the plane cut into the core destroying about 40% of the core causing the top to lean when the undestroyed steel was weakened by the fire.
each side of the towers is 25% the plane only cut thru 1 side destroying about 60% of the 1 side 60% of 25% is 15% damage, there's your 15% damage. the core was 40% destroyed.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
@loosechangeexposed
"side of the towers is 25% "
You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes.
33 outer columns were damaged out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.
"core was 40% destroyed."
Where is the evidence aluminum planes, after already smashing through one set of steel columns,still have the energy to cut through LARGER ones
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob there are no images or videos of the core, just the outside impact holes. the core of a building is what holds it up, when the cores collapsed they pulled the outter structure inward that is how the towers collapsed.
aluminum is a softer metal, the engines and landing gear were attached to a thick steel beam that was the span of the wings, that beam also supported the weight of the fuel, the wings are stronger with fuel in them, that and the steel beam did all the damage.
loosechangeexposed 4 months ago
This is a good video. Thank you. These truthers remind me of those ancient alien idiots like Erich von Daniken who are frauds and love to herd uneducated masses in believing their bullshit theories.
mp40Furth 5 months ago
@mp40Furth what the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement is based on are hearsay, rumors, opinions, and speculations, the exact things the old "the earth is flat" theory was based on, not evidence, facts, witnesses or proof.
this is the modern day "the earth is flat" scare, except this time it is profitable.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
Yes, this pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. What I find interesting, is that first the collapse does not at all look like a CD. Also I find it interesting that these planes can fly directly into the exact floors where the explosives would have to have been set to start the collapse, because that is where the collapse began. They just make stuff up, and do not think about it
quedorf 5 months ago
@quedorf there is a video in one of my playlists titled "miracle in stairwell B" it is an amazing story of 14 people (13 of who were firefighters) who survived in the collapsing no. tower, they tell their story and a few tell of the pancake effect happening, they are further proof that if explosives were planted in the cores they would have been killed too seeing how the survived inside the stairwell which was in the core.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
The only problem with the engines down the elevator shaft theory is the shafts were staggered in 3 sections, they werent continious from top to bottom. And if the engines went through the elevator doors, the double layer drywall on the back of the shaft wouldn't stop them from going all the way through. Besides, they would have come apart as soon as the plane hit the building
joebananatube 5 months ago
@joebananatube there is a video somewhere on my channel page titled "767 engine?" it was the engine from the right side of flight 175, it missed the core cuz it was so far over to the right, it landed 6 blocks to the north, you can see the size to scale in a picture with a street sign compared to an empty elevator shaft, it would have fit easily in the shaft, at 6 tons each both engines sunk into the shafts, broke off, then fell.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" explains all the details and there is a link to the tower's floor plans, so you can see that there were express elevators in the towers. as for the sheetrock wall you are right it wouldn't have stopped the engines but something did (them falling into the shafts) and the engine on the street in that video shows it didn't come apart as soon as it hit the building.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed you haven't proved anything in this post. You have stated your "opinion" as to what you think could have happened. You are neither right nor wrong sir, because all you are telling a theory based on 3rd hand information.
Do some actual research if you want to be taken seriously.
bir2187 5 months ago
@bir2187 the way the top of the south tower fell over just before collapse shows that the planes cut thru the cores like an axe into a tree, my video "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" shows how the planes penetrated the cores.
if there were explosives they would have been attached to the steel, the planes made contact with the steel and the fireball, static electricity the planes created, and the buildings severed electrical wiring also made contact and would have set off the explosives.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
I love how a complete moron gets on an lectures about "how things happened" with a thick NYC accent.
Yo you know you take a little iron here and a some aluminum there and BAM you got your fucking thermite!
Leave the explanations to theories to the experts. You are just as bad as the loose change guys with your speculation.
bir2187 5 months ago
@bir2187 your comment does not explain that i am wrong, explaining how they set explosives or thermite in the towers in such a way that the planes didn't set them off would be proving that i am wrong, there is evidence of planes penetrating the cores my videos "9/11 engines down elevator shafts" and "loose change answer number 118 with witness" both prove that they did penetrate the cores, when you dismiss the evidence and physics you get to make up the outcome.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@bir2187 They did not find actual thermite. They found ingredients contained in thermite. So perhaps YOU should do a little research into what is being said by both sides. The truth movement is grasping at straws when they claim thermite was used.
quedorf 5 months ago
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@quedorf yes the ingredients were aluminum and iron, the planes were aluminum and the towers were built with iron, the reaction of the fire and collapses fused some of the materials togeather.
thermite is activated by fire or a magnizeum (electrical charge) strip, no one who claims thermite was used can explain how they set it in the towers in such a way that the planes explosions, the static they created or the severed buildings electrical wiring wouldn't set off the thermite upon impact.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
Yes, excellent point. Just because a witness uses the word "explosions" or "it is as if there had been a bomb that went off" doesn't really mean that there were explosives or bombs in effect or used. The people who used that phraseology, are simply using descriptive language to describe the chaos that was unfolding around them and none of them agree with the "inside job" hype.
MrSkunkwork100 5 months ago
I witnessed the start of the conspiracy theory movement on a website called "unansweredquestions(dot)org", which popped up within weeks of the events. I started noticing more and more silly theories coming up, and the whole site became overloaded with kooks. Result: All the serious questions were ignored, in favor of the crackpot conspiracy theories, and those who thought Bush was responsible for ignoring the warning sides were drowned out by those who think that he laid the explosives himself.
dangerouslytalented 5 months ago