Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure, look up a few posts there's your video....
No Ollie, the video that actually explains "how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches"...
I'd like to see that and the explanation of how that measurement was made. Surely one of you 'debunkers' has a link to something that you consider so important, right?
OK I'll school you again........
At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc]Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube[/ame]
No Ollie, the video that actually explains "how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches"...
I'd like to see that and the explanation of how that measurement was made. Surely one of you 'debunkers' has a link to something that you consider so important, right?
OK I'll school you again........
At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc]Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube[/ame]
Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?
NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!
911 commissions is not a technical report. The fact is the CT claims of free fall are all fail. Even when you claim that NIST admits freefall for WTC 7 you lie. They admit that the facade reached freefall for just over 2 seconds. The facade is not the building....Only a small part of it. Now go ahead and tell us why most truther videos cut out the first 8 to 9 seconds of the collapse of WTC7......
OK I'll school you again........
At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......
Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube
Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?
Nope I can't do that. Never pretended I could. And you don't believe the majority of the experts who have so what can I say......
Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.
Same guy claims there was partial unreacted thermite particles found.
I never heard of thermite that only partially reacted, Once it's lit, it's gone, in seconds......
And of course we all know that there is no audio of demolition explosions.....
You miss the video I posted with the firemen on the payphone and the explosions in the background? It's in this thread...
Or this one of the firefighters telling how the lobby exploded?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w&feature=player_embedded]9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby - YouTube[/ame]
Or this one from CBS reporting the explosions?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIvm0GDbCQ]CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse - YouTube[/ame]
Or Michael Hess, who worked for the city in WTC 7...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64]Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness - YouTube[/ame]
There were hundreds of secondary explosions, as you would expect in an office fire. Ever hear a battery explode? Or a can of spray paint? hair spray? Or any of a thousand different things that would have been in those buildings, for all we know that was a car gas tank exploding while the fireman was on the phone.
Now what was the timeline for Mr Hess? What time was the explosion that he thought trapped him? Obviously it didn't as he's still here, and the guy that was with him tells a whole different timeline. I would find Hess's timeline but i can't get through the 3 million truther posts to actually find the facts.... At least I don't feel like hunting it up tonight...
you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite
NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!
911 commissions is not a technical report. The fact is the CT claims of free fall are all fail. Even when you claim that NIST admits freefall for WTC 7 you lie. They admit that the facade reached freefall for just over 2 seconds. The facade is not the building....Only a small part of it. Now go ahead and tell us why most truther videos cut out the first 8 to 9 seconds of the collapse of WTC7......
You may have heard them but you still admit you don't understand what the arguments are about..or why there even are arguments and objections.I have listened to the arguments from all sides.
I have made what I believe to be the correct decision.
You have to look at the totality of the collapses, and not just focus on one small detail. All 3 buildings had the characteristics of a CD. The bowing of one of them is interesting, and is said to have been the result of the intense heat from fire. The question still remains...how did it get so hot? NISTS own testing on the trusses, that are thought to have been what caused this bowing of the perimeter, were failures, even though they used much hotter temps, on an untreated piece of truss mockup steel..They admitted they used temps to the most extreme...They used shotgun blasts to simulate a plane crash, that failed, all in all, their own testing discounts many phases of their theory.You may keep believing in your conspiracy all you want, yet you still cannot make your theory explain how those buildings sucked in like that.
What about the timeline? The 9-11 commission got at least 3 timelines from the Pentagon, and they still say they don't know what really happened, but you go on believing them?Also you can't give us the time line for Mr. Hess.
There was, but some are saying that some of the videos that were released were edited muting the sound. There has been proof that other means of cutting through the steel may have been used that wouldn't have produced any high decibel sounds of explosions. Regardless, nitpicking at certain things and cherry picking, does not take away or diminish the fact that 7 had many CD characteristics, and that the "new phenomena" of thermal expansion is a ludicrous theory, that NIST came to only after removing the shear studs from the equation in 2008.Nor can you explain why there was no audio of demolition charges for building 7.
Yes so many other things that are odd, deceitful, unscientific, ignored and hidden from being replicated by others.And so many other things....
If you don't understand it then how can you believe and go around parroting the NIST theory? It is your faith in the US governments agencies and the people within it that move you to believe in something you know nothing about. Your attitude is what is counted on to solidify their narrative, and it proves that Americans will believe anything that comes from "official sources".But then I admit there are things i can't explain either, but then I admit I'm not an engineer and do not pretend to understand the physics.
If you suspected the herd was heading towards a cliff, would you still join them? This feeling of needing to be part of the majority, undermines individualism, and actually hurts our nation. With the way human mentality and emotion has been used in the past, and still used today, it is no wonder the people are easily led in whichever direction that is needed...Mass brainwashing tactics are evident everywhere, from product advertising to political pundits on the MSM circuits. The individual is ostracized and ridiculed for not "going with the flow" and labels (names) are thrown at them like has been done to so many throughout history.But I accept what the majority of those people tell me instead of the minority.
it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite
Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?
it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite
Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?
hey paulie if you have nothing to add other then calling ever one goose steppers, then shut the fuck up!it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.ok like i said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
Btw, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?
oh calm down there dawgshit/sayit/candyass/del. They have special meds for you sock troll assholes. Give em a try.
it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite
Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?
isaid no twoofer conjecture .it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?
It IS an estimation you ignorant fucking tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.
The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”
Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet laterally. Gravity cannot do this.
Most of the debris was ejected outside the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.
It IS an estimation you ignorant fucking tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.
The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required one powerful jolt.[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newtons Third Law.
Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet laterally. Gravity cannot do this.
Most of the debris was ejected outside the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.
Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it...ignoring, or dismissing calculations and theories is the best you can do to answer the information, then you you're a coward LOL!http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf[/quote=daws101;6822231]isaid no twoofer conjecture .
Where did I say that it had to be "in" the tower you lying POS?the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time. not free fall
I said ON, as in pointing to it...as in camera, focused ON IT...You dumb MFKer you.
And why can't you understand I am not claiming the FF of the towers?I'll explain the point I'm making again, because you are too stupid to understand it. The towers experienced very little resistance when it "collapsed" The linked and reviewed paper with the calculations, show this. It alludes that given the mass of the building, the lower parts of them, that were not damaged by fire, or plane impact would have provided enough resistance to
momentarily halt the collapse front while the lower structure resisted the smaller falling
upper structure..
Wow! This proves what a fucking idiot you are...for real! You have no fucking idea what is being put forth here do you? Let me see, you say "as to the powerful jolt" as if one occurred? You fucking dipshit!! We are talking about a missing jolt, to the lower part you mental fucking midget! OMG...as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so.Don't you read??
Conjecture is having a position that is unproven, and the NIST conjecture is a prime example. You supply no details of why the NIST conjecture and theory is accurate. We supply reviewed papers with analysis that shows how wrong NIST is. I mention and link to a paper that mentions missing jolts, and you talk about the planes???? Whose impacts occurred waaaay before anything that is being discussed in the linked paper and study??? Wow man....just wow...your twoofer conjecture proves this..
YOU truly fit your own "shithead" ad hominem.. Now you actually agree with what you are originally contesting!!??
This paper shows that something did. What you are supposed to be to substantiating, and failing miserably at, is that fire removed the buildings resistance. NIST has not proved this, and all they have is conjecture. You have not even attempted to prove this, and think the "powerful jolt" that they are talking about...is from the planes!!!!???also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!
btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.
That's right asshole The NIST Bazant theory!!!! You stupid ass SB!
I gave you a link that does exactly what you you are calling it....proves that the Bazant/NIST thoery is "a steaming pile"!!
So NOW you surely admit AND you agree that the Bazant/NIST theory is flawed, as is shown by the link I posted entitled....Drum roll please.....
THE MISSING JOLT-A SIMPLE REFUTATION OF THE NIST-BAZANT COLLAPSE HYPOTHESIS
This last remark of yours is proof positive that you are an idiot who doesn't even know a thing about what he is talking about!!!!
How can anyone like you, who is such a staunch advocate of the OCT, and NIST not even know this fact about the Bazant-NIST collapse theory????
As a mater of fact now you seemed to have switched sides?!!! LOL!! Good to know that you think the Bazant NIST theory is nothing but a "steaming pile"!!!
Man I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering!!! LOL!!
You once again prove what a worthless idiot you are, and prove again for all to see that you do not bother to read anything that is posted, and because you don't bother to read anything and try to understand it...It caught up with you asshole, and you exposed yourself as the stupid uninformed ignorant troll that you are!!!! HA HA, you deserved it you stupid bitch...I even highlighted the fact regarding the association of Bazant and NIST in red in my ORIGINAL post...that you replied to....!!!
The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
Good catch Guy, I missed that in my over exuberance to squash him and Dawgshit...The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...
The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...
