Loading...

Facts "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see: REAL 911 Truth

684,848 views

Loading...

Loading...

Transcript

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on May 18, 2006

"Inside Job" conspiracists push false motive for 9/11 attack. The fact is their theories have been debunked, they just don't want you to know. (why the hell are they banning me from "truth forums"?)

*Yes, the exterior columns were load bearing: In the WTC, the architect and engineers "took on vertical weight and horizontal forces in a different way. ... the load bearing exterior columns have become the wall." From p 175 of "Building Big," the 2000 book by architect David MaCaulay http://bit.ly/qqxC4u
*No, the bowing columns weren't where the planes hit, they were on the other side of the buildings.
http://TinyUrl.com/FactsNotFantasy
http://sites.google.com/site/factsnot...
http://911conspiracydebunked.googlepa...
http://www.representativepress.org/
Firemen knew:
"A NUMBER OF fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." - Fire chief Daniel Nigro
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

http://TinyUrl.com/NISTFAQ
http://TinyUrl.com/WTC7FAQ
Griffin is simply wrong. The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong. http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
Griffin also makes the mistake of quoting Kevin Ryan who concocted the idea that one of the tests designed to estimate the fire rating of the floor assemblies as they were built was done in order to provide data to input into the fire response model. Griffin and Kevin Ryan are wrong. See page 50 of "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation" by Ryan Mackey "Because this test was subscale and represented an undamaged floor assembly, we should not expect floor deflection in the WTC Towers, both larger and with damaged fireproofing, to be the same. Thus, the WTC Tower floors would not be expected to sag only 3 inches." "We have now demonstrated that the NIST models do not rely upon unsupported "tweaking" of models. Rather, Dr. Griffin and his colleagues are mistaken about the sources of information used to develop those models. As a result, Dr. Griffin's charge, that the NIST model conclusions result from circular reasoning, is incorrect." (pp. 50-51) http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_revi...

Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewi...

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
http://www.tinyurl.com/q6v43
http://www.tinyurl.com/pe62n
http://www.tinyurl.com/e27ay

Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://sites.google.com/site/factsnot...
Steven Jones doesn't even understand the central basic fact about why the buildings failed, even though he has read what NIST has said. After quoting this part of the NIST report, "To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports," Jones writes " [e.g., complete collapse occurred]" ( e.g. means "for example".) But Jones is totally wrong! NIST is NOT talking about "complete collapse" but rather is referring to the observable events BEFORE complete collapse! Jones has demonstrated that he is embarrassingly not fit to publish scientific papers.
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
"Jones has latched onto iron spheres found in a dust sample after the collapse. Once again he points to an anomaly and suggests it cannot be produced normally and are evidence of controlled demolition. And once again he's wrong... NASA scientist Ryan Mackey addresses Steven Jones "Iron Spheres""
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm... Spheres
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2010 blog post:
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

Loading...

When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...