Always remember that both towers were destroyed, in a way that the towers turned to dust, had more than 80 elevators in the towers, no trace or piece of one never appeared in the images, non any turbine from the planes, etc. But Your government was able to find a driver's license of one of the "terrorists", just a little burned in the corner. Now that is just really good luck !!
@jayaguilar12 Truther Myth #46 - Marvin Bush worked for a company called Securacom (later Stratesec) Securacom got the World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 but in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein,
@gazoopi thats interesting i didnt know that. maybe it was because that would be too much of a coincidence so they got rid of em before it all happened..?
if the US state was telling the truth, then why would they consider the rubble as 'evidence'? I'm pretty sure they didn't keep debris from Pearl Harbor for investigation.
Jeff King WAS an electrical engineer. When he went to MIT he majored in biology. He did not study structural, mechanical or civil engineering at MIT or anywhere... Jeff King does not have any expertise or training in those disciplines.
@dieselscience Check out the engineers, architects and other experts that agree with him. There must be something to his credentials.. patriotsquestion911*com/engineers*html 1,500+ Engineers and Architects 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 400+ Medical Professionals Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Scientists for 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth
The title of this video is misleading. It would have you think Jeff King is an expert engineer, a lecturer/researcher from MIT, and that therefore he's a good authority and is highly qualified to investigate WTC collapse.
However, King is none of the above. His only connection with MIT is that he holds a B.Sc in Biology-Electrical Engineering from there. He worked in that field for 8 years(!), before becoming a physician and has been practicing ever since.
No dude, the steel (internal support columns and palisades) from the buildings was not recycled or sent to China. This is part of the cover up. The gov. doesn't want you to see the obvious: the buildings of the WTC disintegrated from the top down leaving no seismic evidence (S and P waves). Also, there were huge anomalous magnetometer readings at the University of Alaska (GIMA) and western Canada during the exact time of 9/11. Fire or demolition can't do that.
hahaja crazy man too scared to actually read something? choose a factor of the ov and you will find numerous independent reports agreeing with it. Found those peer reviews yet? and let me guess you dint believe that man landed on the moon and i suspect that you are also a holocaust denier.
I appreciate the change of subject...moon landing, holocaust..very entertaining..but can you post just one website? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of experts willing to go on record for support of the official version? No?
@muzicmaker2001 correct there are thousands of experts willing to go on record for support of the official version, i have shown you a few journals that you could google and read, i can show you slot more, but your crazy mind want to see a single website? i don't understand ur logic? why not just Google the papers i have already gave you? why this one website fascination? How are those peer reviewed truther papers, found them yet?
It was a simple request. No journals or papers or no need to understand any logic as you say. Post just one website where experts with their names given show support of the OV? If you can't produce this, just say so and let's move on?
@muzicmaker2001 hahaha you asked for named experts unrelated to then official investigation which backed up the ov and i gave you them, Now for some reason u say they must all be on the same website, you are pretty weird, I take it then you admit that there are no peer reviewed pro truther papers.
ahhh man u are lame as hell, u truly got a beat down,
I'm confused. Aren't you here protecting 911, the lie? A look in the mirror might help a little...Are you here because 911 is filled with so irrefutable evidence...that it also needs protecting from you? Makes perfect sense to me...
@gazoopi this twat tried to pull the same shit with me a couple of weeks ago. i sent him a link to peer-reviewed articles written by m.i.t. experts with their names on them. first he tried to say the link didn't work then he changed his mind and said, oh no, he wants a website with a list of thousands of names and signatures and a statement of support for the official story. he's just a pathetic loser playing games on the internet. oh, and he's a no-planer. completely insane.
I don't know why this has caused so many issues for you two. All I asked for was a website where experts names are given in support of the OV. Although I appreciate it, I didn't ask for peer reviewed papers or articles and there are no games being played. If the website doesn't exist, just move on..its that simple.
@muzicmaker2001 of course you're playing games. expert support for the mainstream account of 911 is all over the internet. i sent you one example. first you tried to pretend the link didn't work, then you played dumb and said the names weren't listed, then you changed your mind and said there weren't "enough" names there, then you questioned the authenticity, even though it was the m.i.t. website.
whatever. i guess this is what losers like you do with their time.
And considering that there so many "peer reviewed" papers supporting the OV, one would think that there would be no need for you guys anmore…ya know, the defenders of 911? What gives?
@anvilblue INCORRECT. ae911truth has nil peer reviewed articles and the Stephen Jones thermite paper HAS NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED. THEY REVIEW EACH OTHERS SHIT, then get it published in a ;pay to publish' journals. The biggest conspiracy about 9/11 is how much money has been made from fake truth experts
Yes, I'm sure a debunker has never peer reviewed another debunker's paper. No way!!! A good article below for the delusion that seems to follow debunkers...
@muzicmaker2001 hahahahahaha the editor resigned after jones paper was printed. Jones is hell bent on destroying Open Journals the same way he did the Cold Fusion and the Jesus Came to America, um, industry.
@muzicmaker2001i some old truther propanganda about faked peer review. The editor of the journal resigned after learning the paper was published, A journal whose editor doesn't read the papers! ClaSSY
@gazoopi stop makin all that noise jew, people are starting to wake up and it's a matter of time before the "Stars and Boxcars" program starts up again.
@muzicmaker2001 See this is one of the reasons why you morons aren't taken seriously. Everytime you come across someone who does not agree with you your response it to immediately call them a "shill", a person who is hired to spread false information, this is simply preposterous. The only type of person I can think of that would believe litterally EVERYONE that contradicts them is paid to do so would be a paranoid schizophrenic.
As far the dislikes vs likes, take a good look at the majority of your saviour Rkowen's pages. Most show a majority of dislikes. And the "truther" pages show a proportion mostly like this one. Therefore, the majority of random people that voted on these YT 911 pages disagree with you. Welcome to reality...
What part of non-truthers put this shit behind them years ago did you fail to comprehend? The reason why there is a majority of dislikes is because the majority of the viewers are truthers because everyone else stopped giving a damn...
"Honestly, I don't even know what a truther is"
A truther is anyone who believes conspiracies reguarding 9/11. How can you be so ignorant of this?
"What part of non-truthers put this shit behind them years ago did you fail to comprehend?"
I'm confusd. Is this why you are still here protecting 911 at all costs? Is this why Rkowens has posted 60+ videos dedicated to defending 911? Is this why there are shills...err..people like yourrself defending 911 on every related page on YT? Years ago? Stop giving a damn? What year was that exactly? You're delusional..
@muzicmaker2001 I am the delusional one? Obviously not EVERYONE is going to just sit back and let you idiots smear the names of the victims the way you do... And just look at where you are doing your arguing. You are arguing your case on a video that is knowen to be misleading as saladismurder down there pointed out. Tell me something... If you were to so much as just investigate the very people who feed you this crap wouldn't allready know this man's credentials don't give him any credibility?
I don't recall anyone mentioning or disrespecting the victims in any one of my videos? If you doubt Jeff King's credentials, refute anything he is saying? Simple enough. Since you can't, you attack him. And why would anyone accept your assessment of these events over Jeff King? Or the other 1,500+ engineers and architects that agree with him? I don't understand this logic? And if you didn't have an agenda, you wouldn't be defending 911 on multiple YT pages, right?
@muzicmaker2001 So then what you are trying to say is an electrical engineer is qualified to speak with authority reguarding the collapse of the twin towers? Either you are a complete moron or you have an agenda. Or are you working on some kind of new theory that the towers were brought down by faulty wireing?
I have a great idea the next time we need a 1350 ft 110 story steel framed high rise taken down. No expensive, time consuming demolition crew is needed. Just punch a 4-6 floor hole in the building about 3/4th the way up. Fill the hole with jet fuel, light on fire, wait about an hour, and watch the whole building come crashing down to dust and manageable-sized steel pieces. And you can actually have people stand in the hole with the jet fuel and fire.
@muzicmaker2001 The north tower was hit at 8:46 a.m and collapsed at 10:28 a.m. The jet fuel was scattered throughout the impacted floors but the fuel it's self burned out quickly leaving behind scattered fires throughout the floor. People would ahve easily been able to traverse these floors in areas away from these scattered fires. What you fail to understand is these fires where able to take down the towers because the planes stripped away their fire proofing.
@mephisto88x Maybe... just maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that every building in the area got pummeled with massive slabs of falling debris? Infact tower 7 took the worst of it because the initial impact dent a large chuck flying straight into it... Not to mention the beating it too also lit it on fire too. Hey what do you know... the impacts would have stripped the fire proofing there too. The planes don't mean shit. Damaged fire proofing and fire took them down.
@mephisto88x By the way dumb ass... We didn't fucking go to Iraq untill nearly 2 years later after every one had started to get tired of the incident. If you recall they got us into Iraq with faulty intel. 9/11 didn't have a damn thing to do with Iraq. It is pretty sad that I have to give you a fucking history lesson on events that are barely even a decade old.
@mephisto88x Your comment means nothing to me because it contains no information to refute the truth of what I have said. By the way the next time you decide to mock your opponen'ts foul language the least you could do is not cuss within the same comment. Cussing is not nearly as bad as being a hypocrit.
So, the plane enters the building dispersing 10,000 gals of jet fuel in its path. Office supplies are ignited bringing temps up to 1000 degrees. 80 minutes later, two people are seen on opposite sides of the impact hole. They obviously had to walk there from another location. So, every step they took from opposite sides of the impact hole AND the impact hole itself was as cool as the cold side of my pillow, but 1000 degree temps took the "other parts" of the steel floors down?
@muzicmaker2001 "They obviously had to walk there from another location. So, every step they took from opposite sides of the impact hol" - How do you know it was from the opposite side? Oh I know. You're psychic.
If you look at the NIST modeling. At no point was any entire floor covered with fire. The fires spread around consuming material as they go. The fact that two people made it to the impact hole in such a large building is no surprise at all.
British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, NO COLLAPSE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE SIX EXPERIMENTS.
@muzicmaker2001 Did they remember to account for the added 200,000 pounds of aircraft the beams would have bearing down on them too? No ofcourse not...
Ok, I got your logic now. The fire proofing removed and plane impact caused the Towers to collapse but just some falling debris damaging only one side caused WTC7 to crumble?
@muzicmaker2001 Idiot... The debris that struck tower 7 also lit it on fire and damaged it's fire proofing aswell. By the way don't understate the damage... over a third of the building's width was carved out by the impact on it's lower portion.
So, falling debris only damaging one side of a building (WTC7) is not equivalent in its ability to collapse a steel framed high rise as a plane impact at 500+mph loaded with jet fuel? Wait. Didn't falling debris damage the entire WTC complex, but only WTC7 collapsed like folding deck of cards in secs? What are the odds? But again, can you post any proof that fireproofing was removed from the impacted zone of the WTC and damaged sections of WTC7?
@muzicmaker2001 The debris did not just damage the side of the building. The side is just what took the worst of it as it was closest to the source of the debris. Did you really just ask me to prove that the fireproofing was damaged? Considering it would only take a few nicks in the coating to compromize each truss can you proove that an object can penetrate a STEEL framed building with out damaging it's FOAM insulation? In my experience steel is stronger then foam...
This is a simple request. Third time now. Show me ANY evidence that the fireproofing directly from the impacted area's steel was removed. If you don't have this evidence, please save your opinion of what should've happened. You have yet to post your credentials, so your opinion carries the same weight as any random person on YT.
@muzicmaker2001 "how me ANY evidence that the fireproofing directly from the impacted area's steel was removed"
The work NIST did regarding the dislodgement of SFRM for the towers would certainly establish how likely it was that at least some of the SFRM would have been affected by the falling debris.
Either way the SFRM does not provide protection for 7 hours...
@muzicmaker2001 By the way yes the entire area was pummeled with debris... the thing that sets tower 7 aside is that it also was lit on fire by the debris that struck it. I allready told you this but I guess you have the listening skills of a rock.
@muzicmaker2001 "NO COLLAPSE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE SIX EXPERIMENTS" - You are (once again) misrepresenting tests you don't understand.
They did not want the building to collapse. That was not what was being tested and they took measures to ensure this would NOT happen.
They built this structure specifically for testing the behavior of fire and had a series of tests to run. Imagine if it collapsed on the first one.? Waste of time and money.
So who designs a steel framed building to collapse when subjected to high temps? What prompted the test? The Broadgate development fire. Despite being subjected to a fire lasting 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C, none of the columns, beams or floors collapsed. But, debunkers would like us to believe that when fireproofing is removed from only 4-6 floors, it only takes 56 minutes to collapse a 1350 ft 110 story steel framed high rise to dust and steel.
@muzicmaker2001 "So who designs a steel framed building to collapse when subjected to high temps?" - That's like saying who designs an iphone that breaks when you throw it against a wall.
Steel is susceptible to fire. This isn't news to rest of the world. If you are going to build something out of it there is always a risk that fire will affect the structure.
Perhaps we should build skyscrapers out of asbestos instead?
- Different construction... mostly empty building that wasn't finished... not hit by a plane..no jet fuel... fire fighters actually focused on it... you are making flawed comparisons...
You are of course doing this to get the attention away from your recent posts...
- The time comparisons become irrelevant when one fire begins with an inferno created in seconds from thousands of litres of jet fuel.
Some buildings have collapsed. Some haven't. Pointing to one that didn't doesn't make the others go away. It's like pointing to someone who was shot and lived as evidence that bullets can't kill you. It's a flawed argument.
@muzicmaker2001 It is not the design dumb ass. It is the properties of the steel it's self that cause the structures to be inherently weak to fire. That is why insulation is required by law. And I find it hilarious you keep asking me for proof that the insulation around the steel was damaged when we clearly see the plane managed to rip it's way through the steel the insulation was adhered to... It does not take much damage to the insulation to compromise it. A stray panel striking a beam will do
Oh, the properties of steel. So, do you like probability? Strap yourself in for this. A steel framed high rise has NEVER collapsed due to fire before or after 911. A steel framed building has NEVER collapsed in a controlled experiment also. So, I will let you figure out how this refers to the properties of steel when exposed to high temps. You seem intelligent...
@muzicmaker2001 Correction... There has never been a steel building to suffer a total collapse... Than again total collapses are rare with most kinds of buildings And infact the steel core of the towers still ramained standing up to at least the 20th floor Though it is uncertain how many more floors above this where still standing because of the debris cloud blocking it from view. In short... there still haven't been any total collapses of steel buildings.
@muzicmaker2001 I would like to remind you there have been many partial collapses of steel structures in the past. There is however a key difference here. See in all of htose partial collapses the fire proofing was intact during the fire. In addition to this the steel framework it's self was aslo intact prior to it's collapse in ALL prior fire related steel collapses.
@muzicmaker2001 If the steel buildings can suffer a partial collapse from fire while having the benifits of it's fire proofing and being in pristine condition prior to the fire rather then having a gaping hole allready torn through it does it not stand to reason we would see a more severe collapse with these benefits abscent? Ofcourse it does... well unless you are an idiot.
You state that total building collapses are so rare but have no issue with three buildings totally collapsing all on the same day?? I’m really trying to understand your logic here. And why continue to state that the fireproofing from the Towers and WTC7 was removed when you have no evidence of this? Once again, can you post ANY documented proof that the fireproofing was removed?
@muzicmaker2001 "rare but have no issue with three buildings totally collapsing all on the same day??"
- The event becomes more likely when two of them are the target of a terrorist attack... and the other is just left to burn. You're trying to present the situation as if the collapses were random events and no one can figure out why. That is utterly stupid.
@muzicmaker2001 "I’m really trying to understand your logic here"
- Obviously you are not.
"And why continue to state that the fireproofing from the Towers and WTC7 was removed when you have no evidence of this? "
- I answered this but you ignore my posts. The fireproofing in the towers is addressed in the report in NCSTAR1-3C. e.g figure 2-34... and then experiments were also performed for further confirmation. NCSTAR1-6A I think.
Laboratory tests conducted by NIST to prove loss of fireproofing. The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. The tests showed: minimal floor sagging and no floor collapse.
@muzicmaker2001 "The floor assemblies tests were important" - So you're now changing the subject. Okay. You're conceding that there is evidence of loss of fireproofing. We'll move on.
"because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory."
- 1. No they were not. They were done to determine how the 'as new' assemblies performed against their fire rating because they were larger than normal and NIST could not find the details of these having been performed.
@muzicmaker2001 2. NIST didn't even support the pancake theory. So you're all confused there...
"less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers" - False. Their test was to confirm performance against design requirements which specified .5 inches. You are still misunderstanding the point of the tests.
Well lets be honest all you're doing is repeating what Kevin Ryan says.
@muzicmaker2001 "minimal floor sagging and no floor collapse."
- More dishonesty... In the four tests conducted by NIST all tests were stopped when collapse was imminent or the sagging went beyond the range of their instruments.
.. and these were undamaged, fully fireproofed assemblies. Unlike the ones in the WTC.
The shotgun experiment disproved the dislodged fireproofing theory with no correlation to how a plane impact is equivalent?? Also, the shotgun pellets only removed some of the insulation. Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging. NIST found that there was no floor collapse.
@muzicmaker2001 "The shotgun experiment disproved the dislodged fireproofing theory"
- Wrong... again. It supported it by demonstrating the dis lodgement of fireproofing. I find it funny that you twits think NIST are all liars.. yet they perform tests that supposedly prove their theory wrong... yet they leave the test in the report showing their theory wrong. Yeah makes sense.
There's no evidence that a shotgun is equivalent to a plane in its ability to dislodge insulation. Sounds ridiculous, right? And speaking of sidestepping the issue, save your randi forums and post any proof that the NIST reports were peer reviewed.
@muzicmaker2001 "There's no evidence that a shotgun is equivalent to a plane"
- It replicates an object hitting the fireproofed steel. I suppose that the only thing that can replicate it is building another WTC and flying a 767 into it .. right? That's the stupidity I'm used to from truthers...
"And speaking of sidestepping the issue, save your randi forums"
- So you're now no longer interested in peer review?
You seem to change your mind quick when cornered...
@muzicmaker2001 "Also, the shotgun pellets only removed some of the insulation"
- Not sure what point you think you are making here. No one is claiming all the insulation was removed. However you only need to affect a small amount of insulation and the partially exposed steel beam will lose structural strength in high temperatures.
@muzicmaker2001 "Lab tests showed: Minimal floor " - You just changed the subject. I'm not sure if you even know you are doing it.
"NIST found that there was no floor collapse."
- You're trying to sidestep the facts you don't like and think just repeating a previous comment is a response. ALL TESTS were stopped when collapse was imminent or the sagging went beyond the range of their instruments. Read the report.
"Rather, the tests were continued until it was determined that collapse of the test specimen was imminent or until instrumentation critical to the determination of safe continuation of the test failed to provide reliable readings."
You're just following what dishonest idiots like Kevin Ryan say. Go look at the report yourself.
NIST's conclusion: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
They weren't trying to collapse them, they were testing them to see how well they adhered to code. (It was done in Toronto fyi). The largest span was 35ft, well below the 60ft spans in the WTC. All this test was for to see if the WTC was built to code, and what could be done in the future to prevent them from collapsing.
The idea that people investigating a building collapse would conduct tests for the purpose of learning is alien to the truthers brain..
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."-NIST
@muzicmaker2001 I didn't say the fire proofing was removed. I said it was DAMAGED. Try reading next time... You can't have anything pierce through a steel structure with out damaging it's fire proofing. The fire proofing is around the steel you have to damage the fire proofing to reach the steel to damage the steel. Why do I have to repeatedly explain this to you? Are you really just this slow?
@muzicmaker2001 To tear through the structure and leave the fire proofing intact would be like throwing feces at a running high speed celing fan and the walls comming out perfectly clean. Your argument that the fire proofing woult be in prestine condition is just absurd and frankly you ought to be smacked for being stupid enough to make such an argument.
Was the fireproofing "damaged" in the remaining 80-90 undamaged floors below the impact zone? Were these floors made of peanut butter? And was the fireproofing damaged with other buildings in the WTC complex, but no collapse? Hmm..Please read a HS physics book. It might help.
@muzicmaker2001 You really are pretty damn stupid if you need me to spell it out for you this damn many times. Where ever you see fire and damaged fire proofing in the same spot you have bad things happen. Is that simple enough for you to understand this time? the fire and damaged fire proofing are what weakened the structure enough to trigger the collapse.
Did you mean "bad things happen" only on 911? Fires has never led to a steel framed building collapse. A plane impact has never led to dislodged fireproofing and a building collapse. No historical data=low probability of ocurring. Wouldn't you agree?
@muzicmaker2001 Hey dumbass, it is called going to your channel, going over to edit channel, scroll over to info and settings, and clicking the setting "make my channel visible on youtube", the check button disappears and makes your channel disappear. Oh and "Outside of the official investigation", you are supporting an Ad Hominem by suggesting because they were in the official investigation that they are not correct! Sorry, but you are loosing!
@muzicmaker2001 What is your point? You are desperately looking for a way around NIST and that you seem to knock anyone off the list who supports their theory by claiming they are part of the system. An Ad Hominem. You do know what that is right?
I was asking if there are experts (with their names given) outside of the official investigation that support the official version. So far, debunkers have had trouble producing some. It’s nice to have a confirmation of your beliefs from your peers, right? That is my point…
I have no idea why you are speaking for him, but he did not provide experts outside of the official investigation or specific expert's names showing support. Wait a sec. Are you markh1011 also?
@muzicmaker2001 Oh wow, now the accusations start! It is called Ad Hominem because you are ignoring the people who did the investigation because they were appointed by the US government! It is like me saying that I do not accept your theory because you are a conspiracy nut job.
It just seems more than a little weird you speaking for someone else's post as being fact. But, mark, ed, whoever, if you can't find experts outside of the official investigation that can confirm your beliefs, just say and stop making excuses.
@muzicmaker2001 Are you on drugs? You can email those "3" and ask them for their other engineer friend's emails and then proceed to ask questions. Can you show us a link to those "1200" engineers with names and emails to contact? Oh and btw, you may want to check the big guy above in the video and his credentials.
@EdwardTheGray (aka markh1011) 3, huh? patriotsquestion911*com/engineers*html 1,500+ Engineers and Architects 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 400+ Medical Professionals Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Scientists for 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth
@muzicmaker2001 Dear god, you did not understand, where is the web page with ALL of their names, phone numbers, and emails? I want to contact some of them personally. And you can believe what you want, as most paranoid individuals do, as I could care less of what you think. You are a big dumbass to start believing your own lies and start Ad Hominem Fallacies on me!
Everyone of the groups I just listed has a contact page on the website to email any member by the signatories or petition. All you had to do is look. Big dumbass? That's actually funny. Let me know when you can produce more than 3 experts, ok?
@muzicmaker2001 "And was the fireproofing damaged with other buildings in the WTC complex, but no collapse? Hmm..Please read a HS physics book. It might help."
Are you really THIS stupid? Or are you just playing dumb so as to avoid confronting the fact that you are wrong? The other buildings were not on fire dumb ass... duh.
@muzicmaker2001 By the way... The reason why the other floors here crushed is because once the fire weakened floors finally gave way the upper portion that began to fall fell through a good 2-3 floors where there was little resistance (You know thanks to the fire damage and all that...) allowing it to pick up quite a bit of speed. The more speed it has the more force it hit's with... being so "well versed" in physics you should know an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called the conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence.
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence.
@muzicmaker2001 Oh I know all about the conservation of momentum. Why do you think the rate of the collapse was slower near the end then it was in the beginning? Oh right you didn't pay enough attention to notice that did you? See there is something you are forgetting. The force of gravity and the additional mass of each smashed floor combined to give additional momentum to the collapse replacing some of what was lost to smash the floor thus slowing the rate of deceleration.
So, here's a good question. When most of the undamaged floors were either pulverized to dust or ejected laterally at the initiation of the collapse, what was this additional mass pushing downwards to the base of the Tower? Was it dust or air? This is very entertaining. Thanx..seriously
@muzicmaker2001 Ofcourse idiots like yourself wouldn't know that because you struggle to apply even just one of the laws of physics to your theories at a time. Anything more complex then that might give you a brain tumor.
@muzicmaker2001 To put it simply... what you are asking me to prove is as stupid as asking me to proove a banana peel gets damaged in addition to the core when you slice through the whole bannana with a cleaver. You are just being stupid now and it is really getting to the point of just being pathetic.
Again, this is simple. You find the steel from the impacted zone. All of the WTC steel pieces were numbered as according to their location in the building. You look at the steel and test it to see if the fireproofing was removed. Not exactly brain surgery, right? So, all this time, you have no evidence that the fireproofing was removed but you continue to preach this as if it were fact? Great debunking as usual...keep up the good work
@muzicmaker2001 "Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED" - But all the columns were.
In fact in one early test, a little part of one column wasn't shielded properly and it started buckling (when it was only about 670C) and the floor started sinking.
They made a point of this and made sure to completely shield all columns totally.
Why? Because they didn't want it to collapse.
You're reading from the truther script and don't even check what you're referring to.
@muzicmaker2001 It amazes me that you are incapable of understanding that the primary cause of the collapse was that the fire proofing was damaged accellerating the rate at which the fires damaged their structure. Why is this so difficult for you? Do you think fire proofing is required around steel beams for no reason? How can you not understand that stripping away fire proofing and then exposing the building to fire is very devastating to a building's structure?
So, you think 4-6 floors impacted with the supposed fireproofing removed will cause the other 90 floors to crumble into to dust and nicely cut steel pieces ready for recycling.
@muzicmaker2001 The only cut beams seen in the debris are those that had been cut by the clean up crew. ofcourse truthers take pictures from after the clean up began and then start telling stories...
@muzicmaker2001 "And is there some proof of this fireproofing being reemoved from the steel from the impacted zone? Can you post it? Thanx"
Were you actually trying to be serious there? A 200,000 pound aircraft ripped it's way into the structure plowing through several STEEL beams... Obviously any FOAM fireproof insulation it made contact with would be shredded to bits. If you cannot even understand that then it is no wonder you can't understand how the towers fell.
@muzicmaker2001 "And you can actually have people stand in the hole with the jet fuel and fire." - Such a confused statement. The people were standing in the coldest area - the well ventilated impact hole... You can see that are not even standing near any fire!! duh.
Debris was forced away from that area by the impacts and the collapses initiated at the other side.
It's really only a big mystery if you switch your brain off and become a truther.
@muzicmaker2001 Especially when you consider the fact that truthers are indeed a MINORITY. In other words there are less people who believe as you do then there are that believe the official story. The veiws I see on truther videos is some where in the ball park of about 5million at the most, many of which with a good mixture of likes and dislikes so only about 2.5million of which would be supporters Which is oh just under 1 truther for every 2400 people on the planet... Just a rough guess.
@muzicmaker2001 Just sayin... it does not look good on your mental health when you automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so when you are part of such a small minority. Frankly the only reason why these truther videos are not constantly swamped with people berating you morons is because most of the people who don't believe this rediculus conspiracy theroy put the event behind them long ago and stopped paying attention to you guys.
In the same respect, not everyone that questions 911 is a truther. Honestly, I don't even know what a truther is. I've never been to any meetings, attended any banquets or any baseball games. I just have a brain. Please look in the mirror..
@muzicmaker2001 Actually a shill is some one who is paid to spread false information... There are no shills around on this subject. Why would there be? Truthers are a small minority destined to exist on the fringes of society just as all the other conspiracy theoriests before them. Even if your absurd beliefes where true it would be a waste of money.
Oh I see! The Jews did it. it all makes sense now. hahahaha
gazoopi 1 day ago
Always remember that both towers were destroyed, in a way that the towers turned to dust, had more than 80 elevators in the towers, no trace or piece of one never appeared in the images, non any turbine from the planes, etc. But Your government was able to find a driver's license of one of the "terrorists", just a little burned in the corner. Now that is just really good luck !!
argjmg 2 days ago 2
if u could date Richard Gage or Alex Jones... would your head explode.
gazoopi 3 days ago
O..You know.. It was only the bush family who owned the twin tower security company.. I'm sure that "maybe" "someone" had access..
jayaguilar12 3 days ago
@jayaguilar12 Truther Myth #46 - Marvin Bush worked for a company called Securacom (later Stratesec) Securacom got the World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 but in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein,
gazoopi 3 days ago
@gazoopi thats interesting i didnt know that. maybe it was because that would be too much of a coincidence so they got rid of em before it all happened..?
jayaguilar12 3 days ago
if the US state was telling the truth, then why would they consider the rubble as 'evidence'? I'm pretty sure they didn't keep debris from Pearl Harbor for investigation.
markyboy28able99 3 days ago
Jeff King WAS an electrical engineer. When he went to MIT he majored in biology. He did not study structural, mechanical or civil engineering at MIT or anywhere... Jeff King does not have any expertise or training in those disciplines.
dieselscience 4 days ago
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
so Elvis was the pilot of the plane that hit the pentagon, right?
gazoopi 4 days ago
@gazoopi
Actually, it was Wonder Woman and her invisible plane....
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
see people make mistakes, greed blinds them , building 7 is the smoking gun
and the so called cell phone calls on 2001 cell phone sucked back in 2001
even now you can hardly use cell phones when your up in the plane.
mephisto88x 1 week ago
few people in denial here , open your minds and eyes
is so obvious 1 plane hitting a building of this magnitude
does not bring it down the way it did and that fast
fire can take days before it can bring a building down
it's foundation was cut right under it, simple, it was for money greed
the owners were there to score big by having those buildings destroyed
and bush and his administration to go to Iraq simple, see is easy using common sense.
mephisto88x 1 week ago
ok you mean 9-11 was a setup and i lost my papa in 9-11 and 1 brother to afghan im piised
MARINEFREAK84 1 week ago
The title of this video is misleading. It would have you think Jeff King is an expert engineer, a lecturer/researcher from MIT, and that therefore he's a good authority and is highly qualified to investigate WTC collapse.
However, King is none of the above. His only connection with MIT is that he holds a B.Sc in Biology-Electrical Engineering from there. He worked in that field for 8 years(!), before becoming a physician and has been practicing ever since.
(Information taken from his homepage)
saladismurder 1 week ago
@saladismurder misleading? no, it's an out-and-out lie.
shoofirbin 2 days ago
Comment removed
Strange0ne 1 week ago
No dude, the steel (internal support columns and palisades) from the buildings was not recycled or sent to China. This is part of the cover up. The gov. doesn't want you to see the obvious: the buildings of the WTC disintegrated from the top down leaving no seismic evidence (S and P waves). Also, there were huge anomalous magnetometer readings at the University of Alaska (GIMA) and western Canada during the exact time of 9/11. Fire or demolition can't do that.
mujaku 1 week ago
hahaja crazy man too scared to actually read something? choose a factor of the ov and you will find numerous independent reports agreeing with it. Found those peer reviews yet? and let me guess you dint believe that man landed on the moon and i suspect that you are also a holocaust denier.
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
I appreciate the change of subject...moon landing, holocaust..very entertaining..but can you post just one website? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of experts willing to go on record for support of the official version? No?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 correct there are thousands of experts willing to go on record for support of the official version, i have shown you a few journals that you could google and read, i can show you slot more, but your crazy mind want to see a single website? i don't understand ur logic? why not just Google the papers i have already gave you? why this one website fascination? How are those peer reviewed truther papers, found them yet?
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
It was a simple request. No journals or papers or no need to understand any logic as you say. Post just one website where experts with their names given show support of the OV? If you can't produce this, just say so and let's move on?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 i gave you published peer reviewed journals from named experts and you want a website? so look i googled those papers
//sydney dot edu dot au/engineering/civil/latest/aibs_2002_wtc dot pdf
era dot lib dot ed dot ac dot uk/handle/1842/1216
civil dot northwestern dot edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466 dot pdf
jod911 dot com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06 dot pdf
there are alot more, but i'm sure this will be enough reading material for you.
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
I've seen most of these before. ask for an apple, get a grapefruit. Thanks for trying anyway..A for effort
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 hahahahahahahahah talk about gettin owned....... so back to these peer reviewed truther papers?
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
Did I mention I'm just looking for ONE website? Not several? Again, its alright to state that there isn't one. Its easy...
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 hahaha you asked for named experts unrelated to then official investigation which backed up the ov and i gave you them, Now for some reason u say they must all be on the same website, you are pretty weird, I take it then you admit that there are no peer reviewed pro truther papers.
ahhh man u are lame as hell, u truly got a beat down,
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
There still a chance to spare the ranting and list just one website..good luck
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 still playing your little games, i see. why don't you give this shit up and do something remotely worthwhile with your life?
shoofirbin 1 week ago
@shoofirbin
I'm confused. Aren't you here protecting 911, the lie? A look in the mirror might help a little...Are you here because 911 is filled with so irrefutable evidence...that it also needs protecting from you? Makes perfect sense to me...
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001
"I'm confused."
you finally told the truth. good for you.
shoofirbin 1 week ago
@gazoopi this twat tried to pull the same shit with me a couple of weeks ago. i sent him a link to peer-reviewed articles written by m.i.t. experts with their names on them. first he tried to say the link didn't work then he changed his mind and said, oh no, he wants a website with a list of thousands of names and signatures and a statement of support for the official story. he's just a pathetic loser playing games on the internet. oh, and he's a no-planer. completely insane.
shoofirbin 1 week ago
@shoofirbin
I don't know why this has caused so many issues for you two. All I asked for was a website where experts names are given in support of the OV. Although I appreciate it, I didn't ask for peer reviewed papers or articles and there are no games being played. If the website doesn't exist, just move on..its that simple.
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 of course you're playing games. expert support for the mainstream account of 911 is all over the internet. i sent you one example. first you tried to pretend the link didn't work, then you played dumb and said the names weren't listed, then you changed your mind and said there weren't "enough" names there, then you questioned the authenticity, even though it was the m.i.t. website.
whatever. i guess this is what losers like you do with their time.
shoofirbin 1 week ago
@shoofirbin thanks man, the guy is a bit insane, i didn't realize there were still 'no planes' about, i thought they died out years ago.
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
And considering that there so many "peer reviewed" papers supporting the OV, one would think that there would be no need for you guys anmore…ya know, the defenders of 911? What gives?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a good site, good peer-reviewed article on the presence of nano-thermite.
anvilblue 1 week ago
@anvilblue INCORRECT. ae911truth has nil peer reviewed articles and the Stephen Jones thermite paper HAS NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED. THEY REVIEW EACH OTHERS SHIT, then get it published in a ;pay to publish' journals. The biggest conspiracy about 9/11 is how much money has been made from fake truth experts
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
Yes, I'm sure a debunker has never peer reviewed another debunker's paper. No way!!! A good article below for the delusion that seems to follow debunkers...
911debunkers*blogspot*com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put*html
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 hahahahahaha the editor resigned after jones paper was printed. Jones is hell bent on destroying Open Journals the same way he did the Cold Fusion and the Jesus Came to America, um, industry.
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
If the link doesn't work, google, "Steven Jones Tells 9/11 'Debunkers' to Put up or Shut up!" It's a good read..enjoy...
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001i some old truther propanganda about faked peer review. The editor of the journal resigned after learning the paper was published, A journal whose editor doesn't read the papers! ClaSSY
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi stop makin all that noise jew, people are starting to wake up and it's a matter of time before the "Stars and Boxcars" program starts up again.
14knuckledragger 1 week ago
@14knuckledragger hahaha that's right i'm a Jew.. you dickhead, the truth movement died years ago
gazoopi 1 week ago
@gazoopi
I'm confused. If the truth movement died yrs ago. why are you shills still here?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 yep you are definitely confused
gazoopi 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 See this is one of the reasons why you morons aren't taken seriously. Everytime you come across someone who does not agree with you your response it to immediately call them a "shill", a person who is hired to spread false information, this is simply preposterous. The only type of person I can think of that would believe litterally EVERYONE that contradicts them is paid to do so would be a paranoid schizophrenic.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
As far the dislikes vs likes, take a good look at the majority of your saviour Rkowen's pages. Most show a majority of dislikes. And the "truther" pages show a proportion mostly like this one. Therefore, the majority of random people that voted on these YT 911 pages disagree with you. Welcome to reality...
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 "Most show a majority of dislikes"
What part of non-truthers put this shit behind them years ago did you fail to comprehend? The reason why there is a majority of dislikes is because the majority of the viewers are truthers because everyone else stopped giving a damn...
"Honestly, I don't even know what a truther is"
A truther is anyone who believes conspiracies reguarding 9/11. How can you be so ignorant of this?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
"What part of non-truthers put this shit behind them years ago did you fail to comprehend?"
I'm confusd. Is this why you are still here protecting 911 at all costs? Is this why Rkowens has posted 60+ videos dedicated to defending 911? Is this why there are shills...err..people like yourrself defending 911 on every related page on YT? Years ago? Stop giving a damn? What year was that exactly? You're delusional..
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 I am the delusional one? Obviously not EVERYONE is going to just sit back and let you idiots smear the names of the victims the way you do... And just look at where you are doing your arguing. You are arguing your case on a video that is knowen to be misleading as saladismurder down there pointed out. Tell me something... If you were to so much as just investigate the very people who feed you this crap wouldn't allready know this man's credentials don't give him any credibility?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
I don't recall anyone mentioning or disrespecting the victims in any one of my videos? If you doubt Jeff King's credentials, refute anything he is saying? Simple enough. Since you can't, you attack him. And why would anyone accept your assessment of these events over Jeff King? Or the other 1,500+ engineers and architects that agree with him? I don't understand this logic? And if you didn't have an agenda, you wouldn't be defending 911 on multiple YT pages, right?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 So then what you are trying to say is an electrical engineer is qualified to speak with authority reguarding the collapse of the twin towers? Either you are a complete moron or you have an agenda. Or are you working on some kind of new theory that the towers were brought down by faulty wireing?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
Great. Post your credentials against Jeff King's?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
I have a great idea the next time we need a 1350 ft 110 story steel framed high rise taken down. No expensive, time consuming demolition crew is needed. Just punch a 4-6 floor hole in the building about 3/4th the way up. Fill the hole with jet fuel, light on fire, wait about an hour, and watch the whole building come crashing down to dust and manageable-sized steel pieces. And you can actually have people stand in the hole with the jet fuel and fire.
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago 8
@muzicmaker2001 The north tower was hit at 8:46 a.m and collapsed at 10:28 a.m. The jet fuel was scattered throughout the impacted floors but the fuel it's self burned out quickly leaving behind scattered fires throughout the floor. People would ahve easily been able to traverse these floors in areas away from these scattered fires. What you fail to understand is these fires where able to take down the towers because the planes stripped away their fire proofing.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 now explain why building 7 was brought down the same without any planes hitting Einstein ?
mephisto88x 1 week ago
@mephisto88x Maybe... just maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that every building in the area got pummeled with massive slabs of falling debris? Infact tower 7 took the worst of it because the initial impact dent a large chuck flying straight into it... Not to mention the beating it too also lit it on fire too. Hey what do you know... the impacts would have stripped the fire proofing there too. The planes don't mean shit. Damaged fire proofing and fire took them down.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@mephisto88x By the way dumb ass... We didn't fucking go to Iraq untill nearly 2 years later after every one had started to get tired of the incident. If you recall they got us into Iraq with faulty intel. 9/11 didn't have a damn thing to do with Iraq. It is pretty sad that I have to give you a fucking history lesson on events that are barely even a decade old.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 i see Einstein you can't articulate without cussing
wash your mouth first before you write to me and wipe your ass too.
it stinks dang.;
mephisto88x 6 days ago
@mephisto88x Your comment means nothing to me because it contains no information to refute the truth of what I have said. By the way the next time you decide to mock your opponen'ts foul language the least you could do is not cuss within the same comment. Cussing is not nearly as bad as being a hypocrit.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
So, the plane enters the building dispersing 10,000 gals of jet fuel in its path. Office supplies are ignited bringing temps up to 1000 degrees. 80 minutes later, two people are seen on opposite sides of the impact hole. They obviously had to walk there from another location. So, every step they took from opposite sides of the impact hole AND the impact hole itself was as cool as the cold side of my pillow, but 1000 degree temps took the "other parts" of the steel floors down?
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "They obviously had to walk there from another location. So, every step they took from opposite sides of the impact hol" - How do you know it was from the opposite side? Oh I know. You're psychic.
If you look at the NIST modeling. At no point was any entire floor covered with fire. The fires spread around consuming material as they go. The fact that two people made it to the impact hole in such a large building is no surprise at all.
markh1011 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,700 F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100 F, NO COLLAPSE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE SIX EXPERIMENTS.
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Did they remember to account for the added 200,000 pounds of aircraft the beams would have bearing down on them too? No ofcourse not...
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Ok, I got your logic now. The fire proofing removed and plane impact caused the Towers to collapse but just some falling debris damaging only one side caused WTC7 to crumble?
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Idiot... The debris that struck tower 7 also lit it on fire and damaged it's fire proofing aswell. By the way don't understate the damage... over a third of the building's width was carved out by the impact on it's lower portion.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
So, falling debris only damaging one side of a building (WTC7) is not equivalent in its ability to collapse a steel framed high rise as a plane impact at 500+mph loaded with jet fuel? Wait. Didn't falling debris damage the entire WTC complex, but only WTC7 collapsed like folding deck of cards in secs? What are the odds? But again, can you post any proof that fireproofing was removed from the impacted zone of the WTC and damaged sections of WTC7?
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 The debris did not just damage the side of the building. The side is just what took the worst of it as it was closest to the source of the debris. Did you really just ask me to prove that the fireproofing was damaged? Considering it would only take a few nicks in the coating to compromize each truss can you proove that an object can penetrate a STEEL framed building with out damaging it's FOAM insulation? In my experience steel is stronger then foam...
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
This is a simple request. Third time now. Show me ANY evidence that the fireproofing directly from the impacted area's steel was removed. If you don't have this evidence, please save your opinion of what should've happened. You have yet to post your credentials, so your opinion carries the same weight as any random person on YT.
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "how me ANY evidence that the fireproofing directly from the impacted area's steel was removed"
The work NIST did regarding the dislodgement of SFRM for the towers would certainly establish how likely it was that at least some of the SFRM would have been affected by the falling debris.
Either way the SFRM does not provide protection for 7 hours...
markh1011 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 By the way yes the entire area was pummeled with debris... the thing that sets tower 7 aside is that it also was lit on fire by the debris that struck it. I allready told you this but I guess you have the listening skills of a rock.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "NO COLLAPSE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE SIX EXPERIMENTS" - You are (once again) misrepresenting tests you don't understand.
They did not want the building to collapse. That was not what was being tested and they took measures to ensure this would NOT happen.
They built this structure specifically for testing the behavior of fire and had a series of tests to run. Imagine if it collapsed on the first one.? Waste of time and money.
markh1011 6 days ago
@markh1011
So who designs a steel framed building to collapse when subjected to high temps? What prompted the test? The Broadgate development fire. Despite being subjected to a fire lasting 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C, none of the columns, beams or floors collapsed. But, debunkers would like us to believe that when fireproofing is removed from only 4-6 floors, it only takes 56 minutes to collapse a 1350 ft 110 story steel framed high rise to dust and steel.
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "So who designs a steel framed building to collapse when subjected to high temps?" - That's like saying who designs an iphone that breaks when you throw it against a wall.
Steel is susceptible to fire. This isn't news to rest of the world. If you are going to build something out of it there is always a risk that fire will affect the structure.
Perhaps we should build skyscrapers out of asbestos instead?
markh1011 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Broadgate"
- Different construction... mostly empty building that wasn't finished... not hit by a plane..no jet fuel... fire fighters actually focused on it... you are making flawed comparisons...
You are of course doing this to get the attention away from your recent posts...
markh1011 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "56 minutes to collapse"
- The time comparisons become irrelevant when one fire begins with an inferno created in seconds from thousands of litres of jet fuel.
Some buildings have collapsed. Some haven't. Pointing to one that didn't doesn't make the others go away. It's like pointing to someone who was shot and lived as evidence that bullets can't kill you. It's a flawed argument.
markh1011 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 It is not the design dumb ass. It is the properties of the steel it's self that cause the structures to be inherently weak to fire. That is why insulation is required by law. And I find it hilarious you keep asking me for proof that the insulation around the steel was damaged when we clearly see the plane managed to rip it's way through the steel the insulation was adhered to... It does not take much damage to the insulation to compromise it. A stray panel striking a beam will do
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Oh, the properties of steel. So, do you like probability? Strap yourself in for this. A steel framed high rise has NEVER collapsed due to fire before or after 911. A steel framed building has NEVER collapsed in a controlled experiment also. So, I will let you figure out how this refers to the properties of steel when exposed to high temps. You seem intelligent...
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Correction... There has never been a steel building to suffer a total collapse... Than again total collapses are rare with most kinds of buildings And infact the steel core of the towers still ramained standing up to at least the 20th floor Though it is uncertain how many more floors above this where still standing because of the debris cloud blocking it from view. In short... there still haven't been any total collapses of steel buildings.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I would like to remind you there have been many partial collapses of steel structures in the past. There is however a key difference here. See in all of htose partial collapses the fire proofing was intact during the fire. In addition to this the steel framework it's self was aslo intact prior to it's collapse in ALL prior fire related steel collapses.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 If the steel buildings can suffer a partial collapse from fire while having the benifits of it's fire proofing and being in pristine condition prior to the fire rather then having a gaping hole allready torn through it does it not stand to reason we would see a more severe collapse with these benefits abscent? Ofcourse it does... well unless you are an idiot.
MrAwsome514 4 days ago
@MrAwsome514
You state that total building collapses are so rare but have no issue with three buildings totally collapsing all on the same day?? I’m really trying to understand your logic here. And why continue to state that the fireproofing from the Towers and WTC7 was removed when you have no evidence of this? Once again, can you post ANY documented proof that the fireproofing was removed?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "rare but have no issue with three buildings totally collapsing all on the same day??"
- The event becomes more likely when two of them are the target of a terrorist attack... and the other is just left to burn. You're trying to present the situation as if the collapses were random events and no one can figure out why. That is utterly stupid.
markh1011 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "I’m really trying to understand your logic here"
- Obviously you are not.
"And why continue to state that the fireproofing from the Towers and WTC7 was removed when you have no evidence of this? "
- I answered this but you ignore my posts. The fireproofing in the towers is addressed in the report in NCSTAR1-3C. e.g figure 2-34... and then experiments were also performed for further confirmation. NCSTAR1-6A I think.
"can you post ANY documented" - I did.
markh1011 4 days ago
@markh1011
Laboratory tests conducted by NIST to prove loss of fireproofing. The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. The tests showed: minimal floor sagging and no floor collapse.
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "The floor assemblies tests were important" - So you're now changing the subject. Okay. You're conceding that there is evidence of loss of fireproofing. We'll move on.
"because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory."
- 1. No they were not. They were done to determine how the 'as new' assemblies performed against their fire rating because they were larger than normal and NIST could not find the details of these having been performed.
markh1011 4 days ago
Comment removed
markh1011 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 2. NIST didn't even support the pancake theory. So you're all confused there...
"less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers" - False. Their test was to confirm performance against design requirements which specified .5 inches. You are still misunderstanding the point of the tests.
Well lets be honest all you're doing is repeating what Kevin Ryan says.
markh1011 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "minimal floor sagging and no floor collapse."
- More dishonesty... In the four tests conducted by NIST all tests were stopped when collapse was imminent or the sagging went beyond the range of their instruments.
.. and these were undamaged, fully fireproofed assemblies. Unlike the ones in the WTC.
markh1011 4 days ago
@markh1011
The shotgun experiment disproved the dislodged fireproofing theory with no correlation to how a plane impact is equivalent?? Also, the shotgun pellets only removed some of the insulation. Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging. NIST found that there was no floor collapse.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "The shotgun experiment disproved the dislodged fireproofing theory"
- Wrong... again. It supported it by demonstrating the dis lodgement of fireproofing. I find it funny that you twits think NIST are all liars.. yet they perform tests that supposedly prove their theory wrong... yet they leave the test in the report showing their theory wrong. Yeah makes sense.
markh1011 3 days ago
@markh1011
There's no evidence that a shotgun is equivalent to a plane in its ability to dislodge insulation. Sounds ridiculous, right? And speaking of sidestepping the issue, save your randi forums and post any proof that the NIST reports were peer reviewed.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "There's no evidence that a shotgun is equivalent to a plane"
- It replicates an object hitting the fireproofed steel. I suppose that the only thing that can replicate it is building another WTC and flying a 767 into it .. right? That's the stupidity I'm used to from truthers...
"And speaking of sidestepping the issue, save your randi forums"
- So you're now no longer interested in peer review?
You seem to change your mind quick when cornered...
markh1011 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Also, the shotgun pellets only removed some of the insulation"
- Not sure what point you think you are making here. No one is claiming all the insulation was removed. However you only need to affect a small amount of insulation and the partially exposed steel beam will lose structural strength in high temperatures.
markh1011 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "Lab tests showed: Minimal floor " - You just changed the subject. I'm not sure if you even know you are doing it.
"NIST found that there was no floor collapse."
- You're trying to sidestep the facts you don't like and think just repeating a previous comment is a response. ALL TESTS were stopped when collapse was imminent or the sagging went beyond the range of their instruments. Read the report.
markh1011 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001
NCSTAR1-6B.
"Rather, the tests were continued until it was determined that collapse of the test specimen was imminent or until instrumentation critical to the determination of safe continuation of the test failed to provide reliable readings."
You're just following what dishonest idiots like Kevin Ryan say. Go look at the report yourself.
markh1011 3 days ago
@markh1011
NIST's conclusion: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001
They weren't trying to collapse them, they were testing them to see how well they adhered to code. (It was done in Toronto fyi). The largest span was 35ft, well below the 60ft spans in the WTC. All this test was for to see if the WTC was built to code, and what could be done in the future to prevent them from collapsing.
The idea that people investigating a building collapse would conduct tests for the purpose of learning is alien to the truthers brain..
gazoopi 3 days ago
@gazoopi
I appreciate the FYI, but it doesn't change anything. Thanks for the wasted time though. Cheers..
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I accept your apology.
gazoopi 3 days ago
@gazoopi "They weren't trying to collapse them, they were testing them to see how well they adhered to code"
- Exactly. I have told him that a couple times.
His/her response: "Yes but there was no collapse"
markh1011 3 days ago
@markh1011
This is not from the Cardington study..
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."-NIST
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@markh1011 what a standard truther drone you are
gazoopi 2 days ago
@gazoopi
markh1011 is actually a 911 shill, like you.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 ""The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,"
- .... and undamaged... complete... fireproofed assembly.
Unlike on 9/11.
markh1011 2 days ago
@markh1011
Uhh, mark. Those were questions all posed to MrAwsome514. Are you also MrAwsome514?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Those were questions all posed to MrAwsome514. Are you also MrAwsome514? "
- Can't I contribute? If you are really after the truth it shouldn't matter who answers.
markh1011 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I didn't say the fire proofing was removed. I said it was DAMAGED. Try reading next time... You can't have anything pierce through a steel structure with out damaging it's fire proofing. The fire proofing is around the steel you have to damage the fire proofing to reach the steel to damage the steel. Why do I have to repeatedly explain this to you? Are you really just this slow?
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 To tear through the structure and leave the fire proofing intact would be like throwing feces at a running high speed celing fan and the walls comming out perfectly clean. Your argument that the fire proofing woult be in prestine condition is just absurd and frankly you ought to be smacked for being stupid enough to make such an argument.
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Was the fireproofing "damaged" in the remaining 80-90 undamaged floors below the impact zone? Were these floors made of peanut butter? And was the fireproofing damaged with other buildings in the WTC complex, but no collapse? Hmm..Please read a HS physics book. It might help.
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 You really are pretty damn stupid if you need me to spell it out for you this damn many times. Where ever you see fire and damaged fire proofing in the same spot you have bad things happen. Is that simple enough for you to understand this time? the fire and damaged fire proofing are what weakened the structure enough to trigger the collapse.
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Did you mean "bad things happen" only on 911? Fires has never led to a steel framed building collapse. A plane impact has never led to dislodged fireproofing and a building collapse. No historical data=low probability of ocurring. Wouldn't you agree?
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Fires has never led to a steel framed building collapse"
- Kader Toy Factory.
You don't seem to be able to get anything right.
markh1011 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "No historical data=low probability of ocurring. Wouldn't you agree? "
- No one has ever performed a controlled demolition of a 110 story building before...the tallest was 1/3 that height...
So the probability of it happening is nearly zero... and two in the same day?.... oh and a third?... Covertly?
Impossible. Truther logic. = Nothing can happen for the first time.
markh1011 2 days ago
@markh1011 Dude, you are now one of my favorite 9/11 conspiracy debunkers!
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdwardTheGray "Dude, you are now one of my favorite 9/11 conspiracy debunkers!"
- Thanks mate.
markh1011 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
This channel is not available.
Can you say sock puppet?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Hey dumbass, it is called going to your channel, going over to edit channel, scroll over to info and settings, and clicking the setting "make my channel visible on youtube", the check button disappears and makes your channel disappear. Oh and "Outside of the official investigation", you are supporting an Ad Hominem by suggesting because they were in the official investigation that they are not correct! Sorry, but you are loosing!
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
"engineers who worked on the BPAT team" That's part of the official investigation with FEMA on the WTCs.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 What is your point? You are desperately looking for a way around NIST and that you seem to knock anyone off the list who supports their theory by claiming they are part of the system. An Ad Hominem. You do know what that is right?
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
I was asking if there are experts (with their names given) outside of the official investigation that support the official version. So far, debunkers have had trouble producing some. It’s nice to have a confirmation of your beliefs from your peers, right? That is my point…
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Um I seem to remember that the guy you are debating has provided you with some....
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@markh1011
Yes,..engineers who worked on the BPAT team, which were directly involved with the official investigation.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 and? Again, he provide them to you, the names of the engineers, you can contact them yourself and ask questions.
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
I have no idea why you are speaking for him, but he did not provide experts outside of the official investigation or specific expert's names showing support. Wait a sec. Are you markh1011 also?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Oh wow, now the accusations start! It is called Ad Hominem because you are ignoring the people who did the investigation because they were appointed by the US government! It is like me saying that I do not accept your theory because you are a conspiracy nut job.
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
It just seems more than a little weird you speaking for someone else's post as being fact. But, mark, ed, whoever, if you can't find experts outside of the official investigation that can confirm your beliefs, just say and stop making excuses.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 h t t p : / / w w w.debunking911. c o m /civil.h t m
Not hard bro....
EdwardTheGray 1 day ago
@EdwardTheGray
Hmmm...markh1011 posted his links like this..
h t t p : // w w w . asce. org/ASCE-Remembers-9-11/
And you posted your links like this..
h t t p : / / w w w.debunking911. c o m /civil.h t m
Do I need a private investigator for this one? And it happens to be the same link mark posted with..I count..what 3 people?
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Are you on drugs? You can email those "3" and ask them for their other engineer friend's emails and then proceed to ask questions. Can you show us a link to those "1200" engineers with names and emails to contact? Oh and btw, you may want to check the big guy above in the video and his credentials.
EdwardTheGray 22 hours ago
muzicmaker2001 13 hours ago
@muzicmaker2001 Dear god, you did not understand, where is the web page with ALL of their names, phone numbers, and emails? I want to contact some of them personally. And you can believe what you want, as most paranoid individuals do, as I could care less of what you think. You are a big dumbass to start believing your own lies and start Ad Hominem Fallacies on me!
EdwardTheGray 9 hours ago
@EdwardTheGray
Everyone of the groups I just listed has a contact page on the website to email any member by the signatories or petition. All you had to do is look. Big dumbass? That's actually funny. Let me know when you can produce more than 3 experts, ok?
muzicmaker2001 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "And was the fireproofing damaged with other buildings in the WTC complex, but no collapse? Hmm..Please read a HS physics book. It might help."
Are you really THIS stupid? Or are you just playing dumb so as to avoid confronting the fact that you are wrong? The other buildings were not on fire dumb ass... duh.
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 By the way... The reason why the other floors here crushed is because once the fire weakened floors finally gave way the upper portion that began to fall fell through a good 2-3 floors where there was little resistance (You know thanks to the fire damage and all that...) allowing it to pick up quite a bit of speed. The more speed it has the more force it hit's with... being so "well versed" in physics you should know an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
@MrAwsome514
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
@MrAwsome514
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called the conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence. Get back to me, ok?
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Oh, you like physics? Then, please look up this fundamental concept of physics called conservation of momentum and why 80-90 undamaged floors below the impacted zone reacted as if they were just made of peanut butter with marshmallow fluff with absolutely no resistence.
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Oh I know all about the conservation of momentum. Why do you think the rate of the collapse was slower near the end then it was in the beginning? Oh right you didn't pay enough attention to notice that did you? See there is something you are forgetting. The force of gravity and the additional mass of each smashed floor combined to give additional momentum to the collapse replacing some of what was lost to smash the floor thus slowing the rate of deceleration.
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
So, here's a good question. When most of the undamaged floors were either pulverized to dust or ejected laterally at the initiation of the collapse, what was this additional mass pushing downwards to the base of the Tower? Was it dust or air? This is very entertaining. Thanx..seriously
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Steel and slabs of cement. What are you retarded or blind?
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Please find the steel and clabs so massive that it forces the collapse wave to the base? Possibly, you are seeing something I'm not?
watch?v=aBOd1XB943o
muzicmaker2001 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ofcourse idiots like yourself wouldn't know that because you struggle to apply even just one of the laws of physics to your theories at a time. Anything more complex then that might give you a brain tumor.
MrAwsome514 2 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 To put it simply... what you are asking me to prove is as stupid as asking me to proove a banana peel gets damaged in addition to the core when you slice through the whole bannana with a cleaver. You are just being stupid now and it is really getting to the point of just being pathetic.
MrAwsome514 5 days ago
@MrAwsome514
Again, this is simple. You find the steel from the impacted zone. All of the WTC steel pieces were numbered as according to their location in the building. You look at the steel and test it to see if the fireproofing was removed. Not exactly brain surgery, right? So, all this time, you have no evidence that the fireproofing was removed but you continue to preach this as if it were fact? Great debunking as usual...keep up the good work
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Secondary steel beams were NOT PROTECTED" - But all the columns were.
In fact in one early test, a little part of one column wasn't shielded properly and it started buckling (when it was only about 670C) and the floor started sinking.
They made a point of this and made sure to completely shield all columns totally.
Why? Because they didn't want it to collapse.
You're reading from the truther script and don't even check what you're referring to.
markh1011 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 It amazes me that you are incapable of understanding that the primary cause of the collapse was that the fire proofing was damaged accellerating the rate at which the fires damaged their structure. Why is this so difficult for you? Do you think fire proofing is required around steel beams for no reason? How can you not understand that stripping away fire proofing and then exposing the building to fire is very devastating to a building's structure?
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
So, you think 4-6 floors impacted with the supposed fireproofing removed will cause the other 90 floors to crumble into to dust and nicely cut steel pieces ready for recycling.
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 The only cut beams seen in the debris are those that had been cut by the clean up crew. ofcourse truthers take pictures from after the clean up began and then start telling stories...
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@MrAwsome514
And is there some proof of this fireproofing being reemoved from the steel from the impacted zone? Can you post it? Thanx
muzicmaker2001 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "And is there some proof of this fireproofing being reemoved from the steel from the impacted zone? Can you post it? Thanx"
Were you actually trying to be serious there? A 200,000 pound aircraft ripped it's way into the structure plowing through several STEEL beams... Obviously any FOAM fireproof insulation it made contact with would be shredded to bits. If you cannot even understand that then it is no wonder you can't understand how the towers fell.
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "And you can actually have people stand in the hole with the jet fuel and fire." - Such a confused statement. The people were standing in the coldest area - the well ventilated impact hole... You can see that are not even standing near any fire!! duh.
Debris was forced away from that area by the impacts and the collapses initiated at the other side.
It's really only a big mystery if you switch your brain off and become a truther.
markh1011 6 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 Especially when you consider the fact that truthers are indeed a MINORITY. In other words there are less people who believe as you do then there are that believe the official story. The veiws I see on truther videos is some where in the ball park of about 5million at the most, many of which with a good mixture of likes and dislikes so only about 2.5million of which would be supporters Which is oh just under 1 truther for every 2400 people on the planet... Just a rough guess.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 Just sayin... it does not look good on your mental health when you automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so when you are part of such a small minority. Frankly the only reason why these truther videos are not constantly swamped with people berating you morons is because most of the people who don't believe this rediculus conspiracy theroy put the event behind them long ago and stopped paying attention to you guys.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
In the same respect, not everyone that questions 911 is a truther. Honestly, I don't even know what a truther is. I've never been to any meetings, attended any banquets or any baseball games. I just have a brain. Please look in the mirror..
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514
Characteristics of a 911 shill:
1. Shills give off the impression like they have something to lose if anyone even questions the official version of 911
2. A true shill will defend 911 as if he's a mother lion defending her cub
3. Even though shills preach to you that 911 is filled with irrefutable evidence, they have to be on YT on a daily basis defending it
4. Shills immediately uses words like truther, truthtard, twoofer, etc
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 Actually a shill is some one who is paid to spread false information... There are no shills around on this subject. Why would there be? Truthers are a small minority destined to exist on the fringes of society just as all the other conspiracy theoriests before them. Even if your absurd beliefes where true it would be a waste of money.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago