9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 911
• conspiracy
• truth
• Conspiracy
• Theories
• Debunked

[TimReed22222]

@TheReptilianBrain "Further, there are plenty (a few thousand) engineers and architects that will tell you it was a controlled demolition."

BULLSHIT - they said NO SUCH THING. They signed a petition calling for further investigation - PERIOD.

"NYC firefighters ... saying they heard multiple explosions"

Explosion sounds have many possible causes, but if you can find ANY FDNY who were there that day who believe they heard CD charges, please present them.

[TimReed22222]

"Most of the fuel was burnt off in the initial fireball" IGNITING the tower's contents, starting the REAL fires.

"the towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane impact" TRUE. "that includes fuel" FALSE!

"Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." - Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer.

[TimReed22222]

@TheReptilianBrain NO, the fire was NOT hot enough to melt steel; there was none! ZERO EVIDENCE OF MELTED STEEL.

And in case you didn't notice, the fires were NOT burning where that poor woman was. The images you're thinking of are of the NORTH side of the building & were taken 45' after the crash; by that time the fires had moved to the SOUTH side. THINK - why would those people have moved *towards* fire? Of course, they wouldn't; they were ESCAPING the fire.

[katiepeace16]

you didnt mention anything about wtc7..hmmm..wonder why? can't defend the obvious

[TheReptilianBrain]

@TimReed22222 Further, there are plenty (a few thousand) engineers and architects that will tell you it was a controlled demolition. Couple that with NYC firefighters and first hand witnesses saying they heard multiple explosions--you can hear them during amateur videos. Accept that this was a govt carried out false flag attack. These things have been going on for years to justify going to war to make profits for the military industrial complex and further the advance for a one world government.

[TheReptilianBrain]

@TimReed22222 1. I'm done numbering.

Seems strange the fire was hot enough to melt steel yet not hot enough that a woman could stand at the impact zone and wave helplessly to helicopters. Most of the fuel was burnt off in the initial fireball. True, there was some residual, but the towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane impact (that includes fuel). Doesn't really matter about the twin towers, when you look at WTC 7, the rest of the official story collapses--pun intended.

[hgfbob]

@TimReed22222

"DID NOT FALL IN FREE-FALL "

YOU are all taking 'free-fall' too literally. Yes, less than free-fall means there was at least air resistance. But when it comes to a building collapse the resistance should be MASSIVE, so a few seconds less than free-fall speed does not equate to resistance in the system that should have been there. The symmetry shows that there was no resistance from the buildings structure, as that resistance cannot be symmetrical unless controlled.

[hgfbob]

@TimReed22222

'Plane crashes into tower, exploding fuel is forced down elevator shafts'

lol...PROVE IT TIMMY!!!

no one else has.

"The towers DID NOT FALL IN FREE-FALL"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

seems that DID OCCUR TIMMY!!!

why do YOU LIE?

[TimReed22222]

@TheReptilianBrain

1. ?

2. (I think you put the answer to #1 here, but ...) Plane crashes into tower, exploding fuel is forced down elevator shafts - hence explosions in basement. Falling elevators were also described as sounding like explosions.

2. How do you know that's steel?

3. By WHOM? What INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED thermite experts verified thermite?

4. The towers DID NOT FALL IN FREE-FALL time. You have been misled.

I don't carry out these debates by email, thanks.

[TheReptilianBrain]

@TimReed22222 1. I'm not trying to be a dick.

2. A plane crashing into the highest levels of a building will NEVER cause the basement floors to blow out as they did.

3. Nanothermite HAS been confirmed and detected in the rubble of these towers.

4. Towers that fall from structural failure don't fall at free-fall speeds. If they do, suspect demolition.

Fuck it. We don't have enough characters. Expect a personal email.