Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 2nd PROGRAM

In this second of three programs, Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer, and Ryan Mackey, rocket scientist at Jet Propulsion Labs, discuss the physics of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, 2001. Ronald Wieck hosts. Originally aired December 8, 2009. See the first program at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE See the third program at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk

In this program, Ryan's audio is closed-captioned. To see the captions, while you are viewing the video, click on the upward-pointing white arrow in the lower-right corner of the viewing screen. Click on CC to see the captions. To turn closed-captioning off, click there again. Closed-captioning was completed November 14, 2009.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• 9/11
• world
• trade
• center
• wieck
• szamboti
• mackey

[newsmanbluesman]

Trolls, shills, and de-bunks are doomed - now that our side's got Rodney Dangerfield

[wordgeezer]

Well, I'm certainly not an expert, but Tony Szamboti seems to be the only one in this video with any expertise, I don't believe that Judy Wood is the key to all of the answers, and she would probably agree with that. She would also probably agree that the single most important thing concerning 911 is real evidence and documents. She is on the same page as all truth seekers about an open and independent investigation...BTW....John Hutchison's experiments are of great interest to me...G%

[MrAutobuildit]

@wordgeezer

Interesting WTC6 Smoking Gun.

Interesting lumps of ill-assorted material blobs...

reminds me of Judy's scientist partner who'd be dismissed as insane by those too blind to ask themselves exactly how John DOES produce e.g. a lump of uncharred timber cast into an aluminum block...then Judy invites comparison with WTC remains which would very-loosly fit a vague "cold fusion" caption.

Judy Wood's questions are so far ahead of all the others, look to her for answers first

[wordgeezer]

@MrAutobuildit

You're welcome...May I clarify, that while the word "incinerated" usually pertains to combustion, it is caused by extreme temperatures. Judy Wood, imo, is correct in what she says, and should be included when this is finally investigated.

Google: The smoking gun from WTC 6

Dump employees talking about what they found in the cars G%

[MrAutobuildit]

@wordgeezer

Thanks for the thoughts.... but lest anybody be mislead by "incinerated".... let's remember the endless descriptions and photos that showered vast quantities of unburned paper all over Manhattan streets.... and if you check drjudywood com you'll find quite a few official govt photos of toasted cop cars, one half burned out the other part polished like-new.  Many fire-fighters telling about fires with no heat. Ask Judy ;-)

[wordgeezer]

@MrAutobuildit Good point. The towers didn't collapse. but were exploded, or should I say incinerated, from the top down. The top 2/3 of the towers were gone but there were survivors in the stairwells at the bottom. For those that deny that steel beams were vaporizing as they were blown upward and outward, take a good look at the spire. You can watch the top part vaporize before your eyes. Definitely hot stuff at work there...G%

[MrAutobuildit]

Do I need new specs to watch 9/11 YT vids, or do we all watch buildings turn to dust BEFORE they hit the deck?

The potential gravitation energy of two (2) of the three (3) Twin Towers was converted to nano-micron-sized dust particles.

We're not talking big grains like you'd expect if e.g. concrete shatters on impact with a video-producer's thick head, we're observing/seeing/watching concrete (AND steel) turn to micro-fine DUST ...in less than 10 seconds.

Clouds of it, all over Manhattan

[cchris874]

@Seigu007

Which lie was that?

[Seigu007]

@cchris874 4 dodges, 3 projections.

It's sad how comfortable you seem to be perpetuating your lie. You're not very believable either.