Q and A regardless of the topic please learn this. Whoever has the mic should repeat the question so the answer means more as those who are not there can not hear the question. There should be no argument about that.
@@jubeanie2730I mean, I get that it is irritating, but disgust? It's just an oversight, not an intelligence issue, and doesn't seem worth working yourself up to the point of feeling disgusted. Like, there are way worse, more important things in the world to feel so strongly about, you know?
I also hate the people who say "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" like they are some engineers when in reality they are a young kid in there mama's attick.
It's attributed to Ben Franklin, but likely originated with William Shakespeare. And has been used by many others over the years, including Clinton probably. But I prefer Mark Twain's version: "Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
Yeah, but when you reference truth without the article, the, it begs the questions, whose truth are you talking about? His truth, your truth, their truth? Her truth?
@@dikranovichk5889 There is only one real truth. Things either happened exactly as the 'government' and mainstream media said they did, or they did not. So it becomes a simple yes or no question. The answer i believe to be true is no. The events of 9/11 did not happen exactly as described in the 'official story'. The term 'conspiracy theory' has only been around since the early 1960s. It never existed before that, and was never used before that time period. That term was invented by the CIA soon after the murder of former US President JFK. It was used as a weapon to discredit anybody who did not believe the 'official story' of the murder of the president at that time and ever since. But more recently the findings of the old Warren Commission that created the 'official story' have been proven to be false. There was no 'magic bullet' fired by Lee Harvey Oswald that killed JFK. He was murdered by members of the CIA. Of course, now that it has been almost 60 years to the day since that murder, no one will or can be held accountable for that crime. How convenient, right? Anyway, it appears that the 'conspiracy theorists' were right all along regarding the murder of JFK. How many others could they have been right about? My guess is pretty much all of them, including the crimes that happened back on 9/11 2001. Sadly, the criminals behind that will never be held accountable either. Those that control the 'governments' are the very worst ultra wealthy criminals on the planet, and they are able to do anything they want as they operate well above all 'laws' made by man. The 'laws' have only been put into place to keep the common man and woman in check. They apply to the masses, but not to those at the very top of the economic food chain that control 'governments' and rule the world. That is the reality of the world we live in.
@@tonyprice2256 "The term 'conspiracy theory' has only been around since the early 1960s. It never existed before that, and was never used before that time period.." Fun fact: the first time the term "conspiracy theory" was used is uncertain, but it's at LEAST as far back as 1863. Strangely, there was neither a CIA nor a JFK at the time. So, I guess your "fun fact" was pure nonsense. Imagine that. "and the mainstream media " Interestingly, there was no such thing as a nebulous "Mainstream media" at the time. There was just "the media". Imagine that, your cool buzz-word was nonsense. Poor you. "And recently, it has been proven that the Warren Commission got it wrong in that there was no 'magic bullet' fired by Lee Harvey Oswald that killed the president" Recently, it hasn't been proven anything at all. See, making claims isn't proof. It's just someone saying something. Proof requires, well, proof. Amazingly, you and your house god didn't have any. Another fun fact: copy-pasting the same nonsense again and again only mean you know you have nothing.
At 16:16 he is complaining that a conspiracy theorist kept revising their version of events, suggesting that revising your story reduces your credibility. Then at 35:04 he says, "If you are searching for the truth, your beliefs must be revisable." 🤔
Nobody said he was smart. I mean, he just did a two hour lecture explaining to adults what conspiracy theories are and why they're open to rebuttal. And used it as a mic drop moment that he somehow thinks devalues conspiracy itself. Amazing level of self worth he has.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g. No weight no collapse, unless the support was removed first.
He also says a conspiracy theorist presents a theory of what really happened so if someone simply points out why the official story can’t be true then they are not a conspiracy theorist. You don’t have to know the truth to know what’s a lie.
Also interesting that at 3:46 the slide says, "MAY or may not be true". Yes. Let's all just dismiss items that require further study because I tell you with an air of superiority that this is false. Then he goes on to regale us with the knowledge that you need advanced degrees in architecture, chemistry, or physics to understand all of this, even though those experts still don't agree on the story.
@@theconsummatenerd mmmhmm and many professional experts in the relative fields have put their lucrative careers at risk to tell the rest of us the official story simply cannot be true.
They expedited the removal of steel and concrete from ground zero. Most people would have good faith and assume it’s being done as an attempt to find and rescue survivors buried in the rubble. Considering they used excavators and other heavy equipment to shift the debris as they load trucks, it becomes obvious that was not their goal. It’s illegal to destroy evidence in a crime scene. The initial cleanup involved loading trucks with concrete and steel. One can also argue it was an exception just to quickly remove it so it can be studied elsewhere, yet the steel was sent to China to be destroyed and recycled. Although not all steel was shipped away. I presume mostly the beams that are less telling were kept. Government officials were aware that ground zero was dangerous due the the airborne alphabet soup of toxic construction materials, but since they wanted the evidence to be gone ASAP, they lied to the first responders and all those involved in the cleanup. They had told the workers and the public that it was okay to not wear mask, as an attempt to reassure it was safe. All those hero’s who were exposed, and many other citizens died from cancer, either months after the event, or decades later. Some even till this day are suffering from respiratory illnesses. All because they were told it was okay to work in a hazardous area w/o protection. Many researchers were warned that they would lose their job if they sample the air in the area. They did not want the public to find out. Some didn’t listen and upon studying their samples, they found out how bad it was, as well as traces of thermite, which is a substance that burns extremely hot in a matter of seconds, capable of melting steel. This is something only (for the most part) the military has access to. It’s unnatural for a building (especially one of that hight) to collapse perfectly on its own footprint. This is why demolition is a profession that requires experts. One needs to strategically place explosives to prevent the destruction of neighboring buildings. Many eye witnesses shared their experience of hearing what sounded like a controlled demolition, as well as seeing how windows from floors where blasted out sequentially from top to bottom. There is recorded evidence that shows it in action from different angles. The explosions were so powerful that most of the 100 tons of concrete turned into fine dust. Since there was too much questionable evidence, NIST was assigned with the duty to gaslight the public with inaccurate cgi recreations in an attempt to explain away what people saw with their own eyes. There have been buildings prior that have burned for almost 20 hrs with raging fires. Yet they never collapsed due to the structural integrity being made of steel. It’s a phenomenon how a state of the art engineered structure to have gone down with only 2 hrs of burning. This has never happened in the past, and it will never happen again in the future. Fun Fact: it’s been found that NYC sidewalks and potholes have been filled with cement mixes which have the remains of bodies. They can date it back due to the condition of the burned and crushed bone fragments.
*Considering they used excavators and other heavy equipment to shift the debris* What is your suggestion for moving 20 ton slabs of concrete and steel? *yet the steel was sent to China to be destroyed and recycled* The first steel didn't leave for China until Jan/02. This was after FEMA had access to examine it at the recycling yards and the WTC site itself. The last steel wasn't removed until May/02. 236 steel samples were kept for NIST's investigation. *They had told the workers and the public that it was okay to not wear mask, as an attempt to reassure it was safe* This was for the areas outside of the WTCs complex. Anyone entering the site to assist in clean up was instructed to wear a mask. *as well as traces of thermite* There was no thermite. Harris/Jones lit a paint chip on fire and called it thermite. And you all bought it. They never sent any of their samples for verification even though there was $5000 fund raising for Mark Basile to do so. He took the money and never heard anything more about it. *This is something only (for the most part) the military has access to* 🤦♂ Mythbusters made thermite in their backyard. *to collapse perfectly on its own footprint* WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed into a 16 acre field, outside their 2 acre footprints. WTC7 collapsed into neighboring Verizon Building. *There is recorded evidence that shows it in action from different angles* Show these videos and explain why it is exclusive to CD as opposed to a building tearing itself apart. *The explosions were so powerful that most of the 100 tons of concrete turned into fine dust* It's simply unbelievable how you lot repeat something without giving it minimal scrutiny. Because a simple google image search will show you the layers of concrete removed during clean up and 2 separate analyses of the dust that covered Manhattan showed less than 5% composition of concrete. *There have been buildings prior that have burned for almost 20 hrs with raging fires. Yet they never collapsed due to the structural integrity being made of steel* Were they hit by planes? With 10,000 gals of fuel dumped in them? Were they actively fought by firefighters? Spraying water to control temperatures? Ever ask any of these questions to yourself?
I can’t believe how shallow this presentation is. Until 6 years ago at least 50 hours of debunking the official story was available on RUclips. All of them gone. I wonder why?
Hi friend, time for some good news for a change!💌 Everywhere we look there something scary or evil going on. If you are looking for peace, I have good news for you! Salvation and redemption is near, go to Jesus Christ! He is the living water! He is the Prince of Peace!!! Are you tired of being tired? If you're weary and very burdened, simply call on Jesus Christ and He will give you rest and peace. Jesus Christ is calling you personally to eternal life. He's the only way to eternal life! He loves you so much He died for your sins. In fact, He was crucified, buried, and raised again on the 3rd day according to the scriptures. Why would want to turn down that free gift?! He's calling you to repent and trust Him. Our way may seem right, but it usually leads to destruction. Jesus Christ isn't just a righteous man or good teacher, He's Lord of lords and King of kings! He's coming back to judge this world that full of rebellion, evil and sin. Please rethink your plans, it's not to late to turn (REPENT)! I did it and was born-again! Leaving behind my old way and now I live through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. God's Spirit is given to those who believe in His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ and who trust in Him alone. Good works can't save us, philanthropy can't save us, yoga can't save us, dead saints can't save us, new age can't save us, self-denial can't save us nor us thinking we're so called gods! We are just plain human and only the Creator of the world in which we live CAN and WILL save those who chose Him. The Word of God says every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! And He is! Read the Bible (KJV), get to know your Creator! God bless you! 😊
Funny I've found the same thing just searching today for the first time in years, not even loose change is on here now although I don't agree with every claim on loose change but still. None of these conspiracy claims however absurd or true they are anywhere on YT. That is strange 🤔
Well lets look at just one element of 9/11 (WTC 7) The 4 year study by the Institute of Northern Engineering | University of Alaska Fairbanks has concluded and states "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." This is no longer a conspiracy, it is FACT And to lump this into the same category as "flat earthers" is absolute stupidity. (insert cute animal pic here)
Do you realise that contradiction, by definition, works both ways? That if A contradicts B, then B contradicts A? A UA professor and 2 Phd students produces a report where he didn't try to explain why WTC7 collapsed contradicts the multi million dollar report of dozens of engineers and consultants that did try to explain it and the professor, who didn't try to explain it, and who didn't think he had to explain it, thinks people should believe his non-explanation?
"The 4 year study" You mean the 2-year-study that ran over by another whole 2 years? That one? " by the Institute of Northern Engineering | University of Alaska Fairbanks" The Institute and University that was, in no way, involved at all in the "study"? "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11" Or in other words, "We proved a negative!" Which anyone at all involved in any form of science will tell you is impossible. "This is no longer a conspiracy" It's never been a conspiracy, it's been an IDIOCY. "it is FACT" There's nothing factual about it at all. What it is is a joke. "And to lump this into the same category as "flat earthers" is absolute stupidity" That's true enough. There's at least some hope for "Flerfs". "truthers" are completely brainless.
If every column collapsed simultaneously, why does video show the roof collapsing in, and the inside of the building collapsing down, this is followed by the exterior shell collapsing. If this is what happens, how can all columns be cut simultaneously?
His debunking of building 7 was quite pathetic. That is the thing that most "conspiracy theorists" focus on, as it's the least believable part. His counter evidence is "two other buildings were damaged but didn't fall".
Did you look at the model NIST put together? Their model contradicts their own explanation as well as what we saw. We cant just take NIST word blindly when there are so many things that contradict their story so obviously there should have been more studies done and its a real shame we werent allowed to do this.
FACT: The number of United States troops who have died fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had passed 7,000 at the end of 2019. Official Pentagon numbers do not include the many troops who return home and kill themselves as a result of psychological wounds such as PTSD. Over 30,177 service members and veterans of the post-9/11 wars have committed suicide -- over four times as many as have died in combat. 😢 P.S. WE NEVER FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 😢
"P.S. WE NEVER FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" Isn't it funny? The gummint is supposedly able to perfectly pull off some massive Rube Goldberg kind of operation that makes no sense whatsoever and do it in complete secrecy, but cannot even plant a little nerve gas or half-finished nuclear bomb in Iraq?
The best way to debunk some conspiracy theories is to get a job working for the government for a couple of years. You'll quickly realize that most people have no idea what is going on and stumble their way through 99% of things on a day-to-day basis. Plus most conspiracy theories have a foundation the government has total control over everything.
Yeah as a government employee when I hear these grand conspiracies I'm just like, wow you think we're that smart?? 😂😂 you just know if anything like this were going on some overworked employee would accidentally send a classified email to the wrong person, that's all it would take.
50:29 "A lot of conspiracy theories begin with your imagination." No, they don't. They begin when the official story doesn't make any sense. Or when the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane is completely ignored in the official report.
'Or when the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane is completely ignored in the official report." - What's funny is you don't even know that you're wrong.
@@TheMiddleClassholes technicality... NIST reports that they do not know why B7 collapsed but how it collapsed. therefore: 'completely ignored' is a bit hyperbolic, yes but the 'inattention' to B7 is suspicious.
Operation Northwoods never happened, it was a proposal that was rejected. But what would that have to do with whether or not I should accept a conspiracy theory in this case? Which is the crux of the matter here, isn't it? How do you tell the difference between reality and fantasy? There's only one reality as to what happened on 9/11, everything else is fantasy.
This is such a good lecture, yet conspiracy theorists will never accept anything you say. You're not even saying these things couldn't have happened, you are explaining why acting certain in the face of uncertainty, latching on to anomalies (like discounting thousands of witnesses saying they think they saw a passenger plane, yet singling out the one guy who said he saw a cargo plane) and spending most of your efforts arguing why you don't like the official stories instead of providing evidence for your own... these things don't make your beliefs true. But none of that matters to conspiracy theorists, just like my comment doesn't matter either. Their only interest is finding ways to fit things into what they already believe, while everything else can be ignored.
You’re 100% correct. Presenting any evidence (whether about this, about Sandy Hook, about COVID) they will just claim you’re a sheep or are part of the conspiracy yourself. There’s been a comment made on this video about WTC7 since you made your comment. I started to reply but quickly thought, “What’s the use?”
Not true. Usually 9/11 truthers are UNBIASED and did NOT want to believe in the inside job explanation. It's only after a lot of painstaking OBJECTIVE research that they come to that conclusion, which is purely evidence based. Look up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Or see the documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor" by Massimo Mazzuco. Or "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" which is one of the best documentaries.
Horses, Kittens, & BS. Eye witness accounts are usually given priority in a court of law. Those who saw, heard, and felt explosions never had their day in court.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher. At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck. Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.
Eyewitness testimony is notorious for not always being reliable. This is evident in cases like the Titanic, where hundreds swore up and down that the ship never broke apart, but findings later contradicted that. Many claimed to have heard “explosions” in the lobby as the plane impacted, but it was later revealed to be jet fuel igniting as it rushed down an elevator shaft. Reality is a lot more dull than movies.
Can he explain how they found Mohammed Atta's passport down the street from the wreckage shortly after impact? That's how they found out about him, remember?
The surviving passport was recovered from flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville. The passport belonged to Ziad Samir, not Muhammad Atta. Seriously, a quick google search is not hard.
@@BeeEatingOrchid - No, the recovered passport was found a block or two away from the WTC. Garrick Utley reported it on CNN with a “ Can you believe it?”.
@@BeeEatingOrchid Quick google search said that the passport found on the street belonged to Satam al Suqami. Is your google broken or you didn't try hard enough?
No! You are not being patriotic and brave and a seeker of justice and an end to wars etc. Structural collapses are boring. The worst thing that could happen to these truthers would be to find that there were structural collapses of the buildings. They are not going to let that happen...
@@clinteranovic8075 obviously the structures collapsed. The question is HOW they collapsed, and the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that explosives were used.
There were, in fact, no lack of things to make loud noises, or even explode....none of which were explosives. Water pipes bursting, massive lead-acid UPS batteries going up, etc, etc.
The buildings were designed to perfectly collapse in upon themselves in case of a fire. The flimsy floors- overburdened with concrete, furniture, people, etc.- would pull the steel beams inward. It's as if you filled a hammock with cinder blocks til it collapsed. The people never had a chance.
@@julielockett1812 If it were the case that the "explosion" sounds were the floors hitting each other as they collapsed, then shouldn't we logically expect each floor to be providing some resistance to the collapse? What im getting at is that the floors below the fire and impact shouldnt have lost their structural integrity, so if "explosion" sounds were the floors pancaking ontop of each other, why is it that the buildings collapsed at a near (99%) freefall speed?
@zchettaz, Z, when the north tower collapsed, did you notice, how a portion of the building remained standing for several seconds after the collapse of the rest of the building?
That list of “all of the theories” is not very comprehensive…. You’re missing some of the bigger questions. Like where is the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rummy said was missing, and the search was happening in building seven? That’s the one that I wonder about. The money trail…. And who benefits. Those are the questions. Rummy, Cheney, and a lot of others made more money because of the “war on terror” than is imaginable. Trillions.
@debunker you're right. He said they couldnt account for where the 2.3 trillion in transactions went, and also said they were "declaring war" on the bureaucracy of the pentagon. On sept 10 2001 🤔
@@devonaveii2675 Allegedly a plane flew into the Pentagon. Factually, the exact location that was taken out was the offices used for conducting internal investigations regarding the missing trillions.
There is a good video from Chomsky on this. Basically, the fact that a lot of people took advantage of the situation for their own personal benefit is not evidence that they themselves created the situation. It's kind of like, there are dudes on the streets of New York City who go out and sell $5 umbrellas for $25 a piece every time it rains. But I don't think that these guys control the weather. One of the things that Chomsky mentions in his video is that if you looked around the world just after 9/11, you actually saw that every authoritarian power in the world used it as an excuse to crack down on their citizens, and tighten their control. But that doesn't mean that they caused it or planned it. It just means that they knew how to capitalize on an opportunity when they saw one.
FACT: The Ground Zero fires burned for almost 100 days. It took 99 days-until December 19, 2001-for the fires at Ground Zero to be extinguished. “You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley, a firefighters’ union representative. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.” The fire caused by the attack on the Pentagon took approximately 36 hours to put out. I'd be curious to know how NIST or the 911 Commission explained this. 😮
Jane Stanley of BBC didn’t accidentally misread that building 7 collapsed because the broadcast also scrolled text on the screen also stating that the building had collapsed and when it was obvious from the view behind her that the building had not collapsed, they cut the live feed from New York and switched to a London studio.
It was not obvious to Jane Standley or the BBC or to you or to the millions of people watching TV that WTC7 had not collapsed. It is obvious though when people afterwards get the video and then add a big red arrow to the video pointing to it, a building that you and millions of people had never heard of, knew nothing about and was just one of many buildings on the skyline of New York. But then people see the big red arrow in the sky pointing to WTC7 and make statements like 'it was obvious from the view behind her that the building had not collapsed'.
@@clinteranovic8075 I highly doubt Jane Stanley knew the collapse had not happened yet but the people who cut the live feed from New York knew. Very few people even today know that the BBC reported the highly unlikely collapse had occurred before it actually happened.
@@harrowgateguy The collapse of WTC7 was expected for hours by the FDNY. It's why they stopped all rescue work and placed a cordon around the building. Satellite channels are hired for time slots by TV companies and then the channel cuts off.
The facinating part to me is when the building finally dropped later on, they completely 'forget' to report the real collapse. So they accidentally report a building collapse too early. They accidentally go off the air 5 minutes before the building does collapse. And they accidentally forget to report the real collapse. But they also accidentally forget to issue a retraction when they finally see their "accidents'?
I wonder what he would say about Alaska's Structural Engineer professors? I doubt he knows more than they do about engineering? ruclips.net/video/LJPuWy9utss/видео.html
@@joshd3192 1 of the students is now a professor in China the other is a professional engineer. BTW 2 1/2 years later and not one debunking from any university or TV personality science expert in the entire world. The media looks the other way will not tell the public the News from Alaska because they are not a Free Press...and they say democracy is in trouble LOL
How to debunk a theory according to this guy... "It must not be true because a whistle blower never survived long enough to speak out in public" You sir have perfected excellent techniques to gaslight your audience. Well done.
Did you actually listen to anything this guy said, or did you already have your mind made up long before you even clicked play for this video? First off, the guy doesn't ever say....."This is how you debunk a theory. All you have to do is....blah blah blah" The guy is bringing up individual conspiracy theories and addresses them one by one, explaining some of the flaws in their thinking. And they certainly don't all include some BS about a whistle blower not surviving long enough...etc. Well done.
Wow. You explained nothing, and only enforced the concept of a 'conspiracy theory' in the most extreme definition of the phrase. There are very in depth theories, with a lot of documented evidence, which you are obviously not aware of because like most 'debunkers' you've never actually read one of the real theories behind this. Please do actuall research in the subject matter you wish to discuss next time. I was hoping for an intellectually based conversation to help me with the finer points of the more in depth theories as to how the buildings fell etc. But I see now you just like to keep reminding people that "if it's called a conspiracy theory it must be wrong"
So let's dispense with the vague, hand wavy dismissal here. Pick your strongest 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one with the most "evidence" and let's step through it. Go.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g.
My thing is that pilots saying that you cannot fly planes that size at those speeds that low to the ground without them literally falling apart...an that the second plane would have been pulling 4 or 5 Gs to maneuver to hit that building....or that there is no video of the pentagon being it other then 2 frames from a security camera..you would think that military headquarters would have more videos..given there are camera all over the outside of that building or from other buildings in the area??????
@@dark_sky_guyIt's not that you *can't* fly planes at that speed close to the ground or that the they can't pull those sort of manoeuvres, it's that you *shouldn't*. These parameters are outside of the normal flying envelope specified for these planes. This means that such manoeuvres could lead to either instant or long term structural damage - something commercial pilots are careful to avoid. The hijackers couldn't care less of course. In extremis, the flight that went down a month later in NY shows how excess use of the rudder could rip off the entire tailplane.
34:33 MY EVIDENCE IS SUPER STRONG YOU'RE BEING LIED TO!!!! But seriously, that's hilarious... I've never thought about it before, but you know you got under someone's skin when they bust out the caps lock
but that's a really poor strawman fallacy, considering that the 9/11 truth movement is being led by a group of professional engineers and architects and firefighters and pilots and lawyers, and family members of victims.
Imagine a neck straining skyline 110 floors overhead. A towering lattice of structural steel welded and bolted together. Interlaced with five inch thick carpets of concrete. Each floor nearly the size of a football field. Imagine an airplane shaped aluminium coffee can with a plastic nose cone. Just a backyard swimming pool amount of low heat weber grille kerosene half filling breakable hollow wings. A swimming pool of jet fuel won’t do much to a steel tower of 110 concrete covered football fields. Imagine lighting a match so a missing 2.3 trillion dollars magically reappears as insurance claims and war profits.
What are you even talking about? Are you comparing a big commercial airplane traveling at 500 MPH to a swimming pool? Here’s a simple equation, KE=(1/2)mv^2. That’s the amount of energy the plane released onto the steel columns when it crashed. It’s okay, math is hard. Not everyone is smart enough to be an engineer
Do you nutters think it’s just a theory that human remains, of victims of this terrorist attack, were found at all the sites? Is it theory or is it fact that human remains still attached to their seats were in the WTC square, even before the buildings collapsed?
@@dikranovichk5889 almost as crazy as your accusations of FDNY being complicit in the demolitions of 9/11. Remember you’ve made that claim thousands of times on RUclips Fitz
THe problem with official story vs conspiracy theory's is that people don't know who to believe or trust anymore. Social media and online news has pulled people's attention thousands of different ways and because people absolutely believe that their government lies to them on a daily basis, it's only logical to believe that they would lie about this too. Best thing to do is just carry on with life and change the things you know you can change and ignore the thing you cannot. Dwelling on these things will only just decrease the quality and happiness of your life.
That's very true. NOONE is to be trusted. Especially not the US government or their mainstream media whores. However....the events of 9/11 are well understood and explained for anyone who possesses the intelligence, training, education and experience to understand it. For those lacking a formal education in relevant fields there are several videos on YT and a wealth of other resources to explain the events of 9/11 to the layman. And there are those like me who are willing to explain it and answer any questions. It requires a level of intelligence and understanding but I'm quite sure anyone with a 3 digit IQ CAN understand this stuff when presented in a digestible form. I do my best to do just that. I do not waste my time on brain dead "truthers" who simply do not want the TRUTH even if they could understand it, which they can't. Show me you want to understand what really happened, regardless of what that may be and I'll do my best to help.
They also took so long to put anything out the seeds of doubt were allowed to grow. I was a staunch inside jobber. but just before this anniversary something peaked my interest and I went on a WTC info binge. I have to say the more complete picture with the testimony and science it made much more since and explained away the issues I had. Im still not positive on all of it but I see why they fell it was not a demolition etc
@@Kid_Kootenay - exactly. And it takes a mature person of character to admit when they're wrong. Kudos to you. Most "truthers" , well, the ones with a 3 digit IQs, would arrive at the same conclusion IF they were capable of clearing their minds of the "truther" fog and actually a) OBJECTIVELY look at the existing EVIDENCE and b) realize, admit to and actually process the total lack of evidence that exists in support of their MANY "truther" theories and claims. Not to mention, realizing the absolute IMPOSSIBILITY of their cockamamie Tom Clancey/Scooby-Doo government conspiracy. Most "truthers" do NOT want the TRUTH, however. They only want their ridiculously complex and technologically and practically impossible government conspiracy to be true and will forgo all logic, abandon all reason, ignore all evidence and warp their very reality to have it! It's insane! Btw, I'd be happy to help dispell and clear up any misgivings or questions you might have if possible or direct you to someone who can.
This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Let's give only the dumbest and most redicelous examples of theories so they are easy to knock down.
The problem with these debunkers is they don't realize that it's not enough to say fires weakened or compromised the building steel. They have to account for collapse at free fall which means the steel wasn't just weakened. It offered zero resistance all the way to the ground. There's only one known way to do that.
How did you figure that out? Was there a survay or studie of some kind. What do you base your "generally" upon? Here is my take on this: generally, the conspiratorial mind engages when there are no reasonable explanations left.
Of course he did. He wants to lump "conspiracy theorists" into the same pile to discredit anything that they say. Anyone with half a brain knows that some shady stuff went down on 9/11. If a poll was put out now globally on whether one trusts the US government the results would be a resounding no!
they have to bring as many well poisoning red herrings as possible, guilt by association. it's a tactic regimes always use. look at how flat earth is also often adjacent to other populist ideas
This guy along with many other geniuses won’t spend any time discussing how jet fuel weakened the beams at free fall speed. If the theory that jet fuel weakened the steel, wouldn’t the towers have leaned over and fell at the point of impact?
I thought they said jet fuel can't melt steel. Also said when the towers were built, that a 747 COUDN'T take down the WTC towers. Steel was melting, jet fuel can't do that.
LOL this is a rollercoaster topic I went from the day it happening believing it was an attack. to later on belonging to the inside job club then after a period of no interest I returned to be on the official explanation side the difference came in having more transparent information videos from people the computer gen reenactments fuel dispersals etc
Only for people like you with open minds and critical reasoning skills. That's probably rarer than you might believe these days and is to be respected/admired if you ask me.
Even more interesting is the fact that the most entitled, comfortable, opulent people on the planet often feel they are repressed in some way. We could all do with a reality check. No matter how wonderful people's existence is they will always focus on negatives and completely lose a sense of proportion.
Speak for yourself. Most people are not living a wonderful opulent life. And even you yourself are under totalitarian surveillance. What a pathetic and naive comment. The govt loves people like you.
Just like all the other people that day who were.. late for work, had a meeting somewhere, had to go to the doctor, were on a business trip, were not feeling well, missed their train/bus, their car broke down, just decided to take a day off, their child was ill and had to stay home, were on holiday, etc etc...
@@clinteranovic8075 yep could happen. You know his two children happened to take a day off too ? Thats just a massive coïncidence i guess! With the lack of humanity Larry has im surprised he even thought about saving his children
Like all the lucky people that day who were late for work or had meetings or family problems or were not feeling well.. Of course if nothing had happened that day, it was just an ordinary day and someone had told you that Larry Silverstein had an appointment with his dermatologist you would have said , "Who?"
Just look at the chronology of the events. Bombs blew up the basement before the 1st plane hit a tower. This is the testimony of William Rodriguez, a 20-year employee of the towers. There is no way that was done by 19 hijackers with box cutters. Who had the capability to get around security, plant bombs in the building, and they were able to have bombs explode almost simultaneously with a plane hitting a tower? All of that requires planning and access. This chronology is consistently avoided because they don't want to tell the truth. You simply can't look at this chronology and blame the events on 19 hijackers with box cutters. In contrast, if you tell a lie over and over people will believe it. By definition, solving the crime of the century the day the crime happens is called a Hasty Generalization. When the government and the media claimed to have solved this crime the day it happened, did they analyze the dust for Nanothermite? That is just one example of not having all the information required to solve the crime. It is ludicrous to use the label of conspiracy theories when the official story is a block of swiss cheese and lies and omissions of material facts.
You might want to check out the test that your leader Jesse Ventura did with the guy from New Mexico University where they tried proving nanothermite works and it didn't. And nanothermite is also used in a whole bunch of pains and other shit that is very common in the tower so good try. Not to mention the fact that the main guy from bring um young who tested a supposed piece of Steel did not follow proper Protocols of having eight Trails of evidence where the steel came from how it was shipped he can explain how he got it. But only his steel was contaminated. All you people do is pick little pieces out of a bigger picture to fit your agenda. You're probably a flat Earth or two
The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) - freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized - William Rodriguez That terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. - William Rodriguez He never, ever, mentioned a bomb.
I was straining my eyes and ears throughout this presentation. Why was the camera not closer to the stage, the speaker, and the screen? Alright, some screenshots were highlighted with close-ups of the text, but other parts of the presentation were frankly just a fuzzy mess. The sound quality was very poor - I had to turn my audio up quite high to hear the speaker at all, and yet in other parts he seemed to shout, making my listening pleasure very dubious! And walking up and down all the time? I am sure the speaker thinks that this gives a relaxed impression, but to me it was just irritating. And the Q & A session with no microphone for the members of the audience? Come on!! I am sure you had plenty of time to set up this lecture - it looked like a regular working lecture space - so why couldn't we hear the questions from the audience? The questions could at least have been partially repeated by the presenter, to help us. Sorry - marks 2 out of 10 for limited effort.
All the hijackers were not from Saudi Arabia. 15 of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. NONE however, were citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan.
So beyond a reasonable doubt just saying "plus there's this other dude who masterminded it so we get to invade 2 countries that had nothing to do with it trust us bro" is undeniable evidence of conspiracy
The top 20% of the building collapsed the lower stronger 80% . . Thats why demolition companies use this method to demolish buildings now, just blow up the top of it 😅😅😅
Some of those survival stories from the Pentagon aren’t very good ones. One whistleblower claimed when she hit the power button on her computer that all of her computers and TVs exploded in hers and numerous offices right before whatever it was hit the building. You also mentioned the plane pieces. A lot of them show a White with orange material and millions of tiny fragments that didn’t match how the supposed plane was built. It did happen to match a newer technology that’s built into our stealth choppers where if they need to destroy their own chopper, it breaks everything into small fragments so that it can’t be reverse engineered. The planes don’t match the story. Sounds more like the official story is the conspiracy theory.
Don't let that slip. They'll hunt you down and kill you for exposing the truth. Take note of how Loose Change and similar documentaries have disappeared from the Internet
actually the official story is a conspiracy which is where two or more people conspire to commit a crime! Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 371, makes it a federal crime for “two or more persons [to] conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.” 2 In addition, one or more of these persons engaged in the conspiracy must act in a way that furthers the conspiracy itself. 3
@@JohnfromWaterFrontVillige Those two guys who made it . They pissed me off. Such factually inaccurate nonsense that they sat there and defended it like little arrogant tough guys
@@theTavis01 The facts dont lie my friend. Controlled demolition?? Wheres the audio? There is none. You cant fit the facts to support your nonsense stories
@@theTavis01 I am so sorry that you embrace such complete nonsense. Put out by morons and idiots. The guy who made "Loose Stool" doesn't even believe it anymore. That should tell you everything about these goofs.
"Thermal expansion"? LOL Yeah dude, it was "thermal expansion" due to office fires that brought down a steel framed structure into its own footprint that would have been the tallest building in 33 states. NIST's Shyam Sunder fed the world this utter bs with a straight face. But what he failed to mention is that his collapse calculations were based on a model that neglected to include _key structural components._ And btw, a formal request submitted by a lawyer for AE9/11Truth for answers remains unaddressed by NIST. Their "collapse" scenario is *_totally implausible_* if the key girder supports that they left out, are included. EVERY characteristic of a controlled demolition is visible in what we all can clearly see of that "collapse". "Thermal expansion"... sheesh.
*"Conspiracy theorists assert certainty where there isn't any"* Professor Wagner is asserting this as a certainty. That is quite hypocritical in my view.
He has the information necessary to make that statement with certainty whereas the truthers do not. It's not hypocritical at all. For example: If someone says "John is going to wear green today," and I ask why, and they say "oh, well because he wore green the past 3 days so that must mean he will today as well." Well, that's a fair assessment but you cannot say he "will" wear green because you can't possibly know that until you see him. You can't CERTAINLY say he will wear green. So therefore I can say with CERTAINTY that you are making statements of CERTAINTY without having the knowledge necessary to make such a claim. You can make an educated guess, but you can't say you know for certain, which is what he's saying many conspiracy theorists do. And he knows they don't know for certain because nobody does other than those that perpetrated the acts.
@@Dismal626 Whatever your baffling comment of doubletalk is supposed to mean, it doesn't excues Professor Wagner's ignorance on the facts pertaining to the explosives that blew up the WTC towers on 9/11. He can wear a yellow dress with black polkadots and he would still be in error. The World Trade Towers 1 & 2, plus building 7 were brought down by explosive nanothermite. See: *Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe* *Abstract:* We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
@@williamwhitten7820 You seem confused. I'll break it down further. I can say WITH CERTAINTY that we don't have absolute knowledge about who is responsible for the attacks. That is an objective fact. Nobody knows who's responsible other than those responsible. Therefore, if you claim to know who perpetrated the attacks then I can say with certainty that you do not know. That does not make me a hypocrite.
@@Dismal626 says, "That does not make me a hypocrite," However it does prove you are misinforrmed. By critical thinking and deduction we can prove the ultimate fact that the WTC buildings were destroyed by nanothermite explosives, that it is impossible that they were brought down by fire as assertd by NIST. Therefore, as the impact of the planes had nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings, that Islamic terrorist do not and did not have access to military grade nanothermetic explosives, that it therefore follows that only US military personell had access to and the ability to plant said explosives in the buildings..primarily the elevator shafts -- Plus the fact that ACE Elevator company was doing work on replacing the WTC elevator systems at the time the on September 11, 2001. A team of undercover military operatives infiltrated the ACE teams and planted the explosives in the WTC buildings.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g. No weight no collapse, unless the support was removed first.
can someone explain to me how any of those passengers made phone connections at altitude in 2001? or how on the recorded calls there seems to be no background noise within the aircraft? Bose noise cancelling headphones were popular for that very reason...to cancel out the racket. i wont bother asking how a rookie pilot could fly an aircraft at virtually sea level across a lawn without so much as a blade of grass out of place.
_"can someone explain to me how any of those passengers made phone connections at altitude in 2001? "_ Seatback phones. _"how on the recorded calls there seems to be no background noise within the aircraft?"_ Because phones (or seatback phones) allow only a specific frequency band to pass. Because the calls were made from the back of the plane. Because the recording we hear was taped. _"i wont bother asking how a rookie pilot could fly an aircraft at virtually sea level across a lawn without so much as a blade of grass out of place."_ That "rookie pilot" had obtained a commercial license from the FAA. None of the planes flew level for more than a few dozen of ft. And if you think flight 93 didn't hit anything but the buildings, I'd recommend to research that claim a little bit better.
That's true. Mobile phones were rare then and a big no no one planes. (Though I guess if you are going to die you wouldn't be too bothered about turning it on.) But yeah, connecting to a cellphone tower wouldn't be reliable.
You can make phone calls if you're within range of a tower, plus there used to be satellite phones. Airplane mode exists so the signals won't interfere with the instruments during takeoff.
@@brucelansberg5485The plane didn’t hit anything but the buildings… the grass was completely sound. A missile hit the pentagon. You have to be living in a dream world if you think a licensed FAA pilot can sit in an airliner after hijacking it during a commercial flight and fly it into the pentagon perfectly… It’s not possible. You have been playing too many video games if you think anyone could have done this.
My favourite 9/11 memory was Donald Rumsfelds press conference on 9/10, where he declared the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars from the budget. What a wild coincidence that the “plane” that hit the Pentagon impacted precisely the offices investigating the missing $$$$ and destroying all evidence in the process..What are the odds?? Oh, there was one other back up copy of the accounting documents..but, they were held in WTC7. I shit you not. Easily verifiable.
@@naysayer1238, I’m with you bro. People who suggest the money for covert operations and foreign regime takeovers (democratically elected, or otherwise) has to come from somewhere are clearly Russian bots. America, fuck yeah!
_"My favourite 9/11 memory was Donald Rumsfelds press conference on 9/10, where he declared the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars from the budget."_ Have you actually watched that presentation (which was not a press conference by the way)? Please read the quote and see what is actually being said. It's not the money that's unaccounted for. "According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion USD IN TRANSACTIONS". The keyword here is "transactions". It was part of his Excellence and Logistics Week kickoff speech. And within its context: "The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible." Rumsfeld was talking about an IT/accounting issue. System A could not talk to system B. Why would he admit money went missing the day before any alleged evidence would be destroyed? That makes zero sense. _"What a wild coincidence that the “plane” that hit the Pentagon impacted precisely the offices investigating the missing $$$$ and destroying all evidence in the process."_ Yet another nonsensical and unsubstantiated claim. Part of the hit wing housed the Resource Services Washington office, which is a budgeting department. 65 people were working in that department and 34 lost their lives in the attack. They kept track of a 3.5 billion USD budget that funded the Army's Washington area operations and some installations around the world. There is no single piece of evidence these people were doing an investigation for missing money that never went missing. Any paperwork that would have gone missing, would have been digitally backed up. Off site. _"Oh, there was one other back up copy of the accounting documents..but, they were held in WTC7."_ Now you're just making up stuff. But let me ask you this: if you'd own some compromising document in your home that you needed to be destroyed, would you demolish your home of would you simply shred that document? _"I shit you not. Easily verifiable."_ Great. Would you mind posting your source then?
@@haraldthorson9153 like the other guy said, meaningless. Multiple times government has lost accounting of their spending with no explanation and no consequences I’m aware of
The information density is sooo low in this le ture that my brain is lulled into a sleeplike state. Perhaps that is by design, on purpose, as in that state brains are mode receptive, tend to just accept claims instead of asking critical questions and start thinking for it’s self…
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher. At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck. Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.
I never gave the idea that 9/11 was an inside job any attention. But then I learned about Operation Northwoods. Inside jobs are not farfetched *at all.*
The guy started his lecture by removing his mask, lost all credibility and common sense at that point. "I used to be a conspiracy theorists, but then all my conspiracies came true."
Anyone know if the hijackers use their real names and that is how they were known or did we have to go back and unravel the fake names to find it the real names
The big problem is the lack of critical thinking. Social media should be such a wonderful tool and this should be a required video to watch before you dive in rabbit hole. Don't watch one thing...watch or read more before you decide what you think is the truth.
@@i.marr.6688 RUclips is the best of the worst. MySpace poisoned everyone, the Facebook furthered it. Twitter and Tumblr normalized and validated mental illness instead of reinforcing the need for treatment. And tick tock...
People see what they want to see, or rather don't see what's beyond their grasp to deal with. Like one survivor who said he wondered why someone would throw a suit out the window, his brain just could not compute it was a jumper. Same as me, followed the entire newscast over many channels and did not see a single jumper, I first chalked it down to press ethics here, them not showing people in their dying moments but have since heard from people saying they watched the same channels and did see jumpers. Having a fear of heights my guess is my brain just would not acknowledge that falling object as a person.
That's an amazing observation and analysis of your own process of thinking. Good for you. Not many people can figure out why they did or didn't see something.
Very fascinating point you've raised. It's true, sometimes our brains just will not allow us to process what we're experiencing. It's a protective firewall that prevents emotional overload. It's very fascinating.
@@BillSmith-kl7sbso did the NY Islanders lose to the oilers in WHT would have been their fifth Stanley in a row or did the Islanders let them win as mandated by the NHL's commissioner at the time John Ziegler.
So the interesting thing here. This guy's claims are in many cases no less extraordinary than some of the conspiracy theories he's debunking. Try and unsee this. Take a coke can, accelerate it as fast as you want and then smash it into a concrete breeze block. Taking into account that the block isn't even reinforced with steel. AND NOW???????? You don't need to be a structural engineer to figure out that something in this picture just isn't right. So much for debunking all those theories then.
The official story of 9/11 has brought me to the point of believing in miracles, miracles of convenience that is, the survival of a passport through a ball of fire that could pulverize concrete and melt construction steel is one miracle I would’ve never believed in before
My family member was involved in helping pick up the pieces after a tragic accident that took many lives. Conveniently he found the finger with a wedding ring still attached that was able to be given back to loved ones. Through a whole mess of wreckage, fire, blood and other debris, and all that chaos. These things do happen whether you like to admit it or not. The best you can say is "I don't know how that happened" because it doesn't prove anything.
@@just_julian *NIST Fraud:* WTC Disaster Study - The specific objectives were: [1] Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/world-trade-center-disaster-study NIST was mandated to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed” -They FAILED to do so And they admitted it! NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”-Catherine S. Fletcher, Chief Management and Organization Division, NIST Sept. 27, 2007 “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”-NIST “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” BUT the “focus” of the investigation is NOT the “goal” of the investigation as stated in their own words: “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” This is spurious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of rational argumentation on the part of NIST. NIST did not provide a full explanation as to why the WTC Towers collapsed. NIST modeled their CGI cartoons to the point that the building was “poised for collapse”, and left it at that, a glaring example of circular reasoning. This is scientific fraud and nothing less. . . . . . . Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor. Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel - divide that by number of floors, we have about 1,000 tons of steel per floor. North Tower (WTC 1) at 8:46 am, impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 approached from the southwest, over New York Harbor, and crashed into the South Tower (WTC 2) southern facade at 9:03 am between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center . . . . . . Disproving simple gravity collapse by simple math: Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor. North Tower (WTC 1) Planes impacted a span of 93rd and 99th floors. So the upper section would be about 16 floors. Multiply 16 x 5,000 = 80,000 tons verses 420,000 tons of remaining undamaged floors. . . . . . . . . . . Disproving simple gravity collapse by common sense One can not presume that a cohesive block of intact material can exist acting as a pile driver can fall through the center of the buildings, when we can see with our own eyes that there is that amount of crushed and fragmented material blown horizontally beyond the frame of the buildings in all of the imagery available of the destruction of WTC 1&2. I have already shown how elementary Newtonian physics precludes the possibility of a gravity driven collapse: All progressive collapse theories defy Newtonian physics: Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applying this principle to the collapse of the WTC Towers, it proves that the upper portion could only destroy the lower portion by the equal amount of the floors; That is if 12 floors are crushing the floors beneath them they can crush no more than 12 stories below. Simple physics. What is the work done in ‘crushing’? It is smashing and destroying a material and objects. Equal and opposite crushing is crushing from above and equal crushing from below. ‘Crush up-Crush down’. The material crushed in the interaction is equal. Therefore there is no material left to crush down after it is exhausted itself against the crush up. *Cardington fire test data British Steel* *Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.* Cardington fire test data British Steel carried out four fire tests on the Cardington frame between 1995 and 1997. An additional two test were carried out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). These test underpin much of the modern science of structural fire engineering in steel framed buildings with composite steel deck floors The first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m² to 340m² with fire loadings provided by gas, wooden cribs and standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not. Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place. The full set of data from the four British Steel tests is to be found in this article. Descriptions of the tests and guidance on how to interpret the data can be found by following the link here. Data from the two fire test carried out by the BRE can be found by following the link here. Data on a subsequent, stand alone test conducted by BRE can be found online.
I swear half of the people in this comment section didn't watch the video. Most all of your suspicions are addressed in the lecture, yet here you are displaying the same logical fallacies pointed out as insufficient.
3 buildings free fall into a very small footprint, as the result of caotic structure failure. Huge complete steel skeletons disapear into dust. Nothing is left standing except for a few outer shells, of the lower floors. Why do we spend months preparing controlled demolitions? Why don't we just place some random "fuel bombs" somewhere inside a building and see it free fall into a small footprint? According to the building design, the pancaking couldn't have happen with the building cores as they were solid (continuous) blocks of steel and cement. Shouldn't the cores of both buildings be left sticking up way above the rubble? The "Surfside condominium collapse" was due to the failure of a couple of columns, just like implied with building 7, however it collapsed in stages, sideways and definitely didn't free fall. I don't think my thinking about the fall of the buildings (never mind everything else, at this moment) is about my mental patterns, it just doesn't make sense with what the laws of physics dictate. A pancaking building does not fall in free fall. Free fall implies the total absence of resistence under a body, a pancaking scenario implies action/reaction, thus resistence, Q.E.D., no free fall is possible.
That’s because there’s no need to watch these videos anymore. The delusional conspiracy theories have been discredited. The Bush regime didn’t need a conspiracy to start a war. They started one regardless. And when you look at Bin Laden’s stated goals we reacted exactly how he wanted us to. The conspiracy theories only benefited both the US war machine and Al-qaeda in the long run.
Overall his presentation is NOT COMPELLING AT ALL but some points he makes are good. Eyewitnesses relate observing a large number of beams which were cut on 45° angles among the wreckage by the first evening of the collapse, long before workers were found to make the cuts that were done to remove some of the debris. He provides no mention of the beams that were found with complex cuts that would not be needed to help dislodge collapsed beams from the wreckage but are standard cuts used in demo work. He makes no mention of the many eyewitnesses who experienced actual explosions before the plane hit the first building. How did body parts of firefighters end up on the top of the Deutsche Bank building? What force sent them there in fragments? If the plane in Shanksville was submerged below the surface of the ground how do you explain plane parts that were found miles away from that crash site? If the buildings collapsed by simply weakened steel (which would only possibly happen on the floors where there were fires), what caused the thick welded and bolted steel to weaken on the lower floors that experienced no fires? How do you account for almost everything in both buildings except the steel beams being reduced to powder? Some conspiracy ideas are provably false, by evidence, but that doesn't mean all theories that leave open the possibility of or lean towards suggesting some sort of conspiracy as being worth considering are automatically false. Any theory is just a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Isn't the idea of middle eastern terrorist hijackers masterminding and coordinating the attacks itself a conspiracy theory? How were they able to coordinate the whole scheme to correspond to a day when brand new people would be in charge of our air defenses and on a day (when many in our own government were not even in the know) that Air Force exercises would be conducted? And, if you believe those people could be so evil to do such murderous things, why do you think only they are capable of such wickedness but people you think are "on your side" couldn't possibly be capable of such evil? Maybe they could. Maybe they have sinful hearts with selfish ambitions too. It's theoretically possible isn't it? Do we have any evidence that aligns with that? Did anyone on "your side" ever claim a national leader was hiding weapons of mass destruction and drop bombs on his country only to later claim they were acting on bad information, even when many around them warned them the evidence didn't support their position and resultant policy? Honestly this lecturer is guilty of the very things he accuses others of in my opinion.
Prove it and confront the eyewitness that stated it. A firefighter present at the scene gave this testimony. Just saying it's false doesn't make it so unless YOU were there too and submit different testimony. Then we'd have to reconcile any differences or refute them. Something about eyewitnesses who are clearly just recalling from memory what they experienced has more weight for me than people who just go in the opposite direction and make statements with no proof or evidence or reason offered. Just postulating an alternative doesn't make it the reality of what happened. It takes more than that. The witness actually answered your objection stating there was such an abundance of such columns that he saw, and while they were having difficulty locating skilled people to make the needed cuts to remove some of the beams, he said there would be NO WAY all the cuts he observed could possibly be made in such a short amount of time on the day of the collapse to that evening. So I believe some cuts were made during the demolition and other cuts were made during the removal.
@@billeckert6454 *A firefighter present at the scene gave this testimony* Where? *would not be needed to help dislodge collapsed beams from the wreckage* These were multi ton beams. Like CD, they cut them this way during clean up so they can control which way they fall. *How did body parts of firefighters end up on the top of the Deutsche Bank building* Where is it determined it was firefighters? *explain plane parts that were found miles away from that crash site* Debris was found less than a mile away. The dolts at Loose Change Google mapped it to come up with 8miles. That was 8 miles _Driving,_ not a straight line. And the material was lightweight capable of being carried with the wind. *what caused the thick welded and bolted steel to weaken on the lower floors* The weight load limit of every floor, even the lower ones, was 29,000,000 lbs. Far exceeded by the collapsing debris. *when brand new people would be in charge of our air defenses* Honestly, where do you get your information? Major Nasypany was a seasoned commander. You truly don't know what you're talking about. That's enough
@@joshd3192 why not answer the points and testimonies made by people who experienced the events of that day first hand rather than maligning the people who put together the "conspiracy" video, or people who have viewed them? Why not prove THE EYEWITNESSES wrong and confront THEM: the people who were there and gave the testimony? As I said, this "debunker" ignores much. Like it or not news reports are news reports. They are historical events and must be faced, and as I said, either refuted or reconciled. They are still available and whether you agree with the conclusions promoted by any "conspiracy" video or not, you still have the problem of the testimonies given which were included in the various video presentations. Those are first hand accounts like it or not, and they must be included in any honest attempt to understand what happened that day. What's your explanation of how everything in the twin towers becomes dust? Did the pancaking floors grind people to powder? Did pancaking floors also grind virtually every computer, every desk, every chair to powder too? If that's what you believe, please tell us all how that happened without invoking the involvement of explosives? How did pancaking floors cause steel beams and complete sections of the tower walls to become embedded in neighboring buildings hundreds of feet away? Photos of those still exist. They record historical facts. What's YOUR explanation of why didn't they just fall down to the ground close to the towers?
@@billeckert6454 The truth movement has had 22 years to provide evidence to their claims and have failed miserably. Your long-winded posts and personal incredulity mean nothing.
Yes, Professor Steven Jones had samples of the dust sent to him...and it was actually quite simple for him to use the technology of the day to determine the presence of thermite in each and every sample sent to him. I went to his seminar in L.A. Very professional. Of course the Mormons dug their heels in and fired him for having the audacity to challenge the prevailing lie regarding the presence or absence of un spent thermetic material. The simplest perspective is usually the correct one. Mr. Jones would not compromise himself...and the Mormons trashed him.
@@elang3366 Oh...so anyone could just get samples to them. The most extreme of crime scenes, that was easy. I should have asked for the samples. If it was a such a conspiracy, he must have had some clever operatives obtain them. Your explanation is simplistic and weak. "Here are your samples. Have a nice day." Really? Crime scenes, especially that highly sensitive one, would not be so accommodating. Not buying your explanation.
You really have enough balls to say hitting the targets because the planes were already in the air was a simple task? Then why couldn’t the replicate it in a simulator? The best pilots couldn’t do it! Did you do any research? Do planes even fly those speeds at low altitude?
@@Forensource a conspiritarc? You learned a new word? Learn how to spell it. You can watch any of the conspiracy documentaries and get their names. Sorry I don’t have them memorized. I’ll give you a video and prove you wrong again, but I do I really need to do the research for you? One guy’s name is John Lear. Ever heard of him? ruclips.net/video/hcTQdqSDYB0/видео.html
Funny how b-52 pilots fly at a hundred feet to do that at 600 mph. John Lear was a UFO conspiracy nut. Who cares? So what happened to the four planes? The flight crews and passengers? What about all the videos of the planes hitting the towers? Silly conspirtard.
Wouldn’t you also have to believe that people who have little to no flight experience can navigate the turbulence and with pinpoint accuracy hit their targets?
Actually, of the four pilots, three had pilot licenses, the forth had pilot training. Some of the other hijackers also had flight training. These are the ones usually pointed to as flight-school drop outs. Many ignore the ones who didn't drop out. You don't become qualified without accumulating flight time. It's not necesaary to accumulate a lot of experience to crash. Usually you accumulate experience so you won't crash. If you look at the crazy angle they hit the towers they look more like inexperienced pilots than professionals. Professionals would have done a better job. Pilots can't afford to be sloppy. As for the turbulence, from the footage I saw it was a clear day. They weren't flying through a huricane.
@@user-il7ku8zi9q Yes. They knew enough to fly badly and without having to cover 98% of what I professional pilot would need to know. If you look at the first tower they hit it at an angle. Banked. That is, even with a target that stood out for miles they needed to turn into it. If you look at footage of the second plane they almost missed. Again with a target that they would have been able to see from miles away. That doesn't imply a high degree of airline flying skill to me. What they would have known is how the rudder and stick worked and for what they were doing that was enough, if barely. If they were not doing the flying, in the last minutes at least, then the alternative is either the airline pilots were doing it or the planes were remotely controlled (there are a number of more insane theories but let's ignore them for now). Of the alternatives the most plausible one, and the one the evidence points to, is that, unfortunately, they just had enough skill to hit the towers. I think they were 767's, not that it's central to your argument.
I liked it. Although I disagreed with the presenter, I did get the sense that he'd be open to calm, polite conversations about all things related to 9/11. Not like YT....where we love to argue.... :)
The “truther” can’t handle the truth. Any conversation turns into a bait and switch pivot. Or, you’re just talking to a robot, in which case, the “conversation” ends with crickets. Then, there is the classic, let me delete my thread, or all my comments nutter. It’s really a lot to contend with, but I think that is the point.
University is a waste of time and money when u go into believing 2 genders and u go out believing in billions. Life is based on duelality. U can't have good wo bad. U can't have up wo down ect boy girl
I’m genuinely curious what you mean. Do you believe that critical analysis of conspiracy theories in general isn’t worth studying? Or that conspiracy theories about this particular topic (9/11) aren’t worth studying?
"There are hundreds of testimonies, and I have a Word document of all of the eye witness testimonies that claim they say a plane hit the Pentagon, and it's several pages long. And referenced with citations. I should have brought that with me today" You think?
About 100,000 people were "in on" the creation of the atomic bomb, but the project was so secret that vice president Harry Truman did not know about it until he became president.
@@adamsyed5535 9/11 wouldn’t be as hard to keep secret as this guy thinks. Just think about the people who in so many cases we know about were part of simulations of the exact same thing at the exact same time and place going on. These people who are orchestrating the real events at least know about the plans for the simulations. People started to catch onto it and now they don’t make it public knowledge anymore. You used to be able to lookup FEMA workshops and they’re also not posted anymore to the public. You used to be able to see a lot of the crisis actor workshops and it’s the same thing. No longer available for the public to see. I wish Jesse Ventura would be President. There wouldn’t be near as many things redacted and top secret anymore. There’s more top secret info than there is info in general from them. This is OUR government and not the Government’s government. It’s not some secret society here just to exploit us. Everything needs to be un-redacted after a year and public knowledge unless it’s still going on and really puts people in harm’s way. No more of this BS Bradley Manning type stuff where nobody’s at risk of anything except the guilty party. That should’ve been made public knowledge long before wiki-leaks showed it. The lies in the 9/11 Commission’s Report are finally going to be proven. They finally are being forced to admit their omissions in their cpu simulations would’ve made a difference and kept WTC 7 from falling. Their lies actually put people’s lives at risk when they say this certain thing caused catastrophic failure in the building and they withheld it from us. We all knew it was a lie and that them telling us it jeopardizes public safety was BS. Now it throws a monkey wrench in the whole narrative they put out where 6 of the 10 members said the report was a lie. The main author is a self confessed “expert in misleading the public and putting out propaganda”. The FOIA requests and info are on the front page of A&E911Truth.org. I’m a builder so it was easy for me to read the plans, but I think anyone could most likely read it and have a decent comprehension of it. 9/11 could’ve been kept a secret. If you can convince our public that biological men can be women, you can convince them of anything.. That is those same people who control the media brainwashing us again. They’re trolling us.
@@adamsyed5535 Your comment is so true and speaks on multiple issues. It shows that people only know what they allow them to know. Presidents are selected, not elected. Even when they become President, they still only have so much power. I just wonder how many are completely corrupt going into the seat or if they’re compromised after taking the seat as POTUS. I believe more than 75% are corrupt going into it. People love Trump, but always forget he didn’t drain the swamp. He still played nice with both sides. He didn’t even do anything to Hillary. He never told us what happened to JFK, disclosed the truth about Aliens or what really happened on 9/11 like he promised. The biggest of those obviously being 9/11. Although a lot of people believe telling us there are really aliens would somehow take away the control religions have over us and somehow we’d all just go crazy. But yeah, those are just things you’d think would be really easy for a president to do.
Weirdly, this is EXACTLY what happens when you crash hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of steel, aluminium and flesh and bones and jet fuel into a 1,700 ft building of steel, glass and concrete. Weird, right?
of course not why would they even lie to us? impossible ppl are so smart today they have solved everything that came before them they educate themself in youtube and share all the truth on social media we truly life in an enlightend time ppl where never smarter than today. awww nice puppies
For years I spewed all this conspiracy nonsense to my friends with the upmost confidence. It was only when I went to university and studied a module ‘professional research skills for finance’, I had an epiphany that I had no idea what I was talking about and had massively embarrassed myself.
You should watch the documentary “Seven” about the collapse of building seven. It revolves around a 5 year study led by Dr Leroy Hulsey who is the professor of structural engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The documentary can be found on here if you search for “building seven documentary” Hopefully university hasn’t completely destroyed your curiosity and common sense.
Can I ask if there were bombs in the basement how were all the shops and other areas not impacted so much, because they were able to search those areas, surely bombs down there would have destroyed those areas at the same time as collapsing the building
But the building didnt collapse ftom the bottom so whst did your conspirators put bombs in the basement for ? What you actually mean is some people heard explosions after the planes hit. Yes they did jet fuel went down tbe lift shafts
@41:08 structural integrity of the beams. The truss rods that supported the floors were incredibly smaller than the beams and were compromised much sooner, not to mention that floors they supported were covered in 4 inches of concrete. And each truss rod support rested on an L bracket that lost its structural integrity. Fire engineers attested to the weakness of the truss supports in many normal fires.
Imagine allowing a flight to get within 10 miles of the Pentagon well after the first tower was hit. Billions of dollars of military capability, sitting in their hands. Why???
There is an airport very close to the Pentagon and planes fly practically over the building when they are taking off and landing there. What exactly were the military supposed to do, shoot down planes if they thought they were hijacked? There were about dozen planes at one stage that were suspected, do you think the military should have shot them down?
The truth may never come out on this if our society listens to pinheads like this Professor Brian Wagner, of Rock Valley College, Rockford, IL. He shows Clear evidence of Steven Jones’ thermite samples and this jerk’s reply to evidence is “ I don’t know , I’m not a chemist”. If you are listening to this assclown’s arguments, you are part of the problem why this cover up persists. A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher. At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck. But it’s easy to see the squibs of explosions shooting out the sides of the tower collapses, looks exactly the same as squibs that are seen on any number of building demolitions you can watch online. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
@@clinteranovic8075 …yes. Are you seriously saying there is no absolutely immediate military air support for the fucking Pentagon? Hard decisions are made often like this. If the aircraft cannot be contacted, under this situation, it’s a threat. There was time, lots of time to stop this attack. Lives could have been saved by the sacrifice of less.
@@stevet5087 Why would there be "immediate military air support for the Pentagon"? As for "hard decisions", sadly for you, this is the real world and not those cool movies you watch. As for "lots of time", there was about 35 minutes. During those 35 minutes, there was no transponder telling the exact location and limited radar coverage. Here's a challenge. I'll put 4000 dots on an A3 sized paper. I'll pick one of them at random. You have 10 minutes, what with the limited radar coverage, to find which one it is. Each one will have to be checked individually, taking at least a minute each time.
@@mooneyes2k478 stop with these hypothetical little scenarios you are bringing to people that take them off their point so you can try and attack them using your hypothetical constructs. I know who you are, you’ve been on here spreading your debunker crap. ASK ME, i ‘ll go head to head with you on any of your BS you want to ask, again, I know who you are. In fact, I’ll meet with you publicly ANYTIME/ANYWHERE to discuss this subject. The result of 911 was the neoconservative power element in our government at that time forcing their so called Patriot Act on you and I and everyone other citizen. This country is burning, powerful people conspired this attack to weaken us- and the Constitution. The truth may never come out on this if our society continues to listen to pinheads like this Professor Brian Wagner, of Rock Valley College, Rockford, IL. He shows Clear evidence of Steven Jones’ thermite samples and this jerk’s reply to evidence is “ I don’t know , I’m not a chemist”. If we listen to this assclown’s arguments, we become part of the problem why this cover up persists. A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher. At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck. But it’s easy to see the squibs of explosions shooting out the sides of the tower collapses, looks exactly the same as squibs that are seen on any number of building demolitions you can watch online. THINK FOR YOURSELF. 1:00:56Loose Change: 1st Edition (2005) Full DocumentaryRUclipsMay 18, 202035.4K Views
the difference between being an accessory to a crime, before and after the fact, is that after the fact is usually punished as harshly as the main perpetrator of the crime himself. treason, mass murder, mass fraud and crimes against humanity...
Any good debater can take either side of this argument and make it seem true. What we need is an honest look at real events seen and heard by people on scene. If that is done, cracks in the story show. Nist said there was no molten iron at ground zero even when video of molten iron is pulled from the debris days and weeks later.
@@tpryce6243 First is the temp which you can get from nasa images showing temps hot enough, also the color of the Iron tells how hot it is. There are pictures and videos of molten iron, Firemen working at g-zero saw molten iron. I am a retired Aeronautical Engineer ERAU 79. I live in NY. I was There and saw it. What do you know?
@@toLothair2 I know that a liquid can’t be identified by sight, nor can a molten material be identified by color, nor was any metallurgical analysis done on whatever witch’s brew of materials was seen in the ruins of the WTC.
So the light stuff (fuselage) cut though the steel columns like a hot knife through butter, but the heaviest part of the plane (engines) bounced off and ejected 4 blocks away. How does anyone take this guy seriously! LMAO
The steel issue has another component in addition to the weakening of of the steel itself. The jet fuel set many other objects on fire in the buildings, which further contributed to the heating.
Yupp the tower where essentially just kilns. To attest how it was the debris from the attack where still very hot some of it was even still burning smoking and red hot 100 days after the attacks
Exactly well said and in the fire service one of the subcategories of a structure fire is a office fire, and it is differentiated due to the fact that a office build will have waaaayy more fuel because of the paper and other office supplies. So I have no clue how many offices are even on a single floor let alone the whole tower. So that amount of fuel has to be taken into account. More fuel more heat.
@@k45207 so what you are saying is that the office furniture along with the jet fuel (like karoseen) made it so hot that the steel was still in liquid form in the basement for three weeks, like a volcano. Ubfos.
“When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
I love that he's carrying all of this "I'm the smartest guy in the room, so here, I'll explain to you morons what a conspiracy theory is" and "I'm smart but I'm also an entertainer, so I'll be making you laugh throughout" None of which happens.
I wonder what he would say about Alaska's Structural Engineer professors? I doubt he knows more than they do about engineering? ruclips.net/video/LJPuWy9utss/видео.html
I would respectully submit that this proves he very much takes it seriously. He knows it's a highly distressing topic that involves an incredible amount of needless human suffering and death, and that he's asking people to sit down and have a think about it for more than an hour. That he occasionally reminds them with his cuddly animal slides that the world is not all darkness and horror shows both his compassion and that he is extremely aware of how serious the topic is: so serious people need to be able to take a second to reset every now and then or else they'll just shut down and refuse to look anymore.
Your claim at 47:34 is misleading. No amount of fire and debris damage could possibly make a building collapse. Nobody in their right mind would EVER make that claim. They’re saying that no steel framed building is going to fall at free fall speed and faster from fire alone. You’d have parts of the building falling over time or the whole thing falling over on it’s side. The whole thing had catastrophic failure all at once like a controlled demolition. Maybe you should watch some presentations from Firemen For 9/11 Truth. I believe them over the official story and you should too. In history, only 3 steel framed high rises have fallen from fire. All 3 on 9/11.
A shit load of floors fell down on a shit load of floors below. Once it’s moving it can’t be stopped. What’s so hard to understand about that? If metal is bending inside it’s not going to expand in diameter it’s going to pull in
@@EpicCrust Which building are you talking about first off? There’s only 3 steel framed buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire. All 3 happened on 9/11 and had proof of explosives all throughout the dust. I’m asking you which building you’re talking about so I can point you in the direction to show you why you’re being lied to.
@@NickkaDUB how many buildings have had a Jet Liner rip a huge hole in it 100 stories up with a structure that is supported by the external walls? Explosives found? Yeah right. In a concrete and steel blender, AFTER blowing up. Sounds like a load of crap.
@@EpicCrust I’m sorry you feel this way bro. In all honesty it just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I’m not putting you down. I promise. Yes, they found all kinds of spheres of iron and chips that look like thermites. While TWC 1/2 had an outer wall of steel and concrete, you’re obviously forgetting the entire core of steel columns. The core was extremely strong. ruclips.net/video/Qamecech9m4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/9oVs_94VHk8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/HXYswf3lzU8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/hcTQdqSDYB0/видео.html ruclips.net/video/m7f32qIwsUs/видео.html Here’s the core. Idk what video is about, but it’ll show you the core. ruclips.net/video/CCBSUj84eIk/видео.html
What engine parts ? The manufacture of the engines saw that plant and said it was not a part of any engine, how did a 747 fit on that hole in the pentagon and disappear, landing gear and tires poof, gone, bodies, luggage and pentagon has cameras all over but not one captured incoming. I refuse to turn myself in to the nut house, ok asylum.
@@ak-488how did silkair flight hit water and leave notbing larger tban a basketball? Its because you dont understand the physics of what happens to things at those velocities. Was not claimed to be a 747 either
@@qwerp3 @lordakujin never once said he believed the theories in this video. However it's perfectly fine to question the original story and people should. Why? Because it was the government who did the investigation and submitted the final report.
@@qwerp3 Ok Mr. genius explain building 7 then?!?! While you're thinking about which excuse to use for building 7 refer to my other comment with video's debunking many claims about the towers.
@@Lugare2011 funny how you don't understand what happens to a steel building when it has been on fire for 6 hours and heavily damaged from 2 of the tallest buildings of the world collapsing right by it.
Nobody will ever see the comment ca. #5400, but what I find most interesting is the velocity of the collapse. Which is said to be free fall speed, which isn’t possible if there was no suction from down under.
I wouldn't describe it as "Free fall speed" because it can lead to confusion such as your own. However, the sheer amount of weight, force, and energy involved in the collapses made very quick work of the floors beneath. You can see the collapses increase speed initially as they are gathering momentum.
@@Kyle.Johnson, in the end of this: ruclips.net/video/vzInIjD6nKw/видео.html it is claimed that the fall is simulated and happened as expected. Some day I will search more about this.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher. At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck. Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.
Q and A regardless of the topic please learn this. Whoever has the mic should repeat the question so the answer means more as those who are not there can not hear the question. There should be no argument about that.
I always have the same complaint. How dumb can they be? Disgusting.
The entire presentation was amateurish.
@@johnnycharisma162 Woah, woah, woah there. There were animal pictures every now and then! That has to count for something.
@@jubeanie2730I mean, I get that it is irritating, but disgust? It's just an oversight, not an intelligence issue, and doesn't seem worth working yourself up to the point of feeling disgusted. Like, there are way worse, more important things in the world to feel so strongly about, you know?
@@pearcat08they have lots of first world problems
7/11 was a part time job. 🙄
Russian troll humor?
@@coimbralaw Naw! Makeing fun of idiots humor!
I also hate the people who say "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" like they are some engineers when in reality they are a young kid in there mama's attick.
@robertramirez1082 it's a funny joke but I've got countless things about 9/11 that nobody has ever explained.
@@jr5993 Yeah sure you do Scooter..SMH...
"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." ― Benjamin Franklin
i thought that was a clinton quote
It's attributed to Ben Franklin, but likely originated with William Shakespeare. And has been used by many others over the years, including Clinton probably. But I prefer Mark Twain's version: "Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
@@jeremylarson6267🤣
"Put it in your mouth or I'll tell your parents you skipped school" - The Pope
“You’re an Idiot” - Judge Judy
The sad thing is most people are more comfortable feeling certain with a lie than being uncertain seeling truth.
Yeah, but when you reference truth without the article, the, it begs the questions, whose truth are you talking about? His truth, your truth, their truth? Her truth?
@@dikranovichk5889 There is only one real truth. Things either happened exactly as the 'government' and mainstream media said they did, or they did not. So it becomes a simple yes or no question. The answer i believe to be true is no. The events of 9/11 did not happen exactly as described in the 'official story'.
The term 'conspiracy theory' has only been around since the early 1960s. It never existed before that, and was never used before that time period. That term was invented by the CIA soon after the murder of former US President JFK. It was used as a weapon to discredit anybody who did not believe the 'official story' of the murder of the president at that time and ever since.
But more recently the findings of the old Warren Commission that created the 'official story' have been proven to be false. There was no 'magic bullet' fired by Lee Harvey Oswald that killed JFK. He was murdered by members of the CIA. Of course, now that it has been almost 60 years to the day since that murder, no one will or can be held accountable for that crime. How convenient, right?
Anyway, it appears that the 'conspiracy theorists' were right all along regarding the murder of JFK. How many others could they have been right about? My guess is pretty much all of them, including the crimes that happened back on 9/11 2001. Sadly, the criminals behind that will never be held accountable either.
Those that control the 'governments' are the very worst ultra wealthy criminals on the planet, and they are able to do anything they want as they operate well above all 'laws' made by man. The 'laws' have only been put into place to keep the common man and woman in check. They apply to the masses, but not to those at the very top of the economic food chain that control 'governments' and rule the world. That is the reality of the world we live in.
@@tonyprice2256 "The term 'conspiracy theory' has only been around since the early 1960s. It never existed before that, and was never used before that time period.."
Fun fact: the first time the term "conspiracy theory" was used is uncertain, but it's at LEAST as far back as 1863.
Strangely, there was neither a CIA nor a JFK at the time. So, I guess your "fun fact" was pure nonsense. Imagine that.
"and the mainstream media "
Interestingly, there was no such thing as a nebulous "Mainstream media" at the time. There was just "the media".
Imagine that, your cool buzz-word was nonsense. Poor you.
"And recently, it has been proven that the Warren Commission got it wrong in that there was no 'magic bullet' fired by Lee Harvey Oswald that killed the president"
Recently, it hasn't been proven anything at all. See, making claims isn't proof. It's just someone saying something. Proof requires, well, proof. Amazingly, you and your house god didn't have any.
Another fun fact: copy-pasting the same nonsense again and again only mean you know you have nothing.
@@dikranovichk5889 I 100% agree.
Most closed minded people think what they believe is the truth
its easier to fool ppl then convince them they are beeing fooled
At 16:16 he is complaining that a conspiracy theorist kept revising their version of events, suggesting that revising your story reduces your credibility. Then at 35:04 he says, "If you are searching for the truth, your beliefs must be revisable." 🤔
Nobody said he was smart. I mean, he just did a two hour lecture explaining to adults what conspiracy theories are and why they're open to rebuttal. And used it as a mic drop moment that he somehow thinks devalues conspiracy itself. Amazing level of self worth he has.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g. No weight no collapse, unless the support was removed first.
He also says a conspiracy theorist presents a theory of what really happened so if someone simply points out why the official story can’t be true then they are not a conspiracy theorist. You don’t have to know the truth to know what’s a lie.
Also interesting that at 3:46 the slide says, "MAY or may not be true". Yes. Let's all just dismiss items that require further study because I tell you with an air of superiority that this is false. Then he goes on to regale us with the knowledge that you need advanced degrees in architecture, chemistry, or physics to understand all of this, even though those experts still don't agree on the story.
@@theconsummatenerd mmmhmm and many professional experts in the relative fields have put their lucrative careers at risk to tell the rest of us the official story simply cannot be true.
They expedited the removal of steel and concrete from ground zero.
Most people would have good faith and assume it’s being done as an attempt to find and rescue survivors buried in the rubble. Considering they used excavators and other heavy equipment to shift the debris as they load trucks, it becomes obvious that was not their goal.
It’s illegal to destroy evidence in a crime scene. The initial cleanup involved loading trucks with concrete and steel. One can also argue it was an exception just to quickly remove it so it can be studied elsewhere, yet the steel was sent to China to be destroyed and recycled.
Although not all steel was shipped away. I presume mostly the beams that are less telling were kept.
Government officials were aware that ground zero was dangerous due the the airborne alphabet soup of toxic construction materials, but since they wanted the evidence to be gone ASAP, they lied to the first responders and all those involved in the cleanup. They had told the workers and the public that it was okay to not wear mask, as an attempt to reassure it was safe. All those hero’s who were exposed, and many other citizens died from cancer, either months after the event, or decades later. Some even till this day are suffering from respiratory illnesses. All because they were told it was okay to work in a hazardous area w/o protection.
Many researchers were warned that they would lose their job if they sample the air in the area. They did not want the public to find out. Some didn’t listen and upon studying their samples, they found out how bad it was, as well as traces of thermite, which is a substance that burns extremely hot in a matter of seconds, capable of melting steel. This is something only (for the most part) the military has access to.
It’s unnatural for a building (especially one of that hight) to collapse perfectly on its own footprint. This is why demolition is a profession that requires experts. One needs to strategically place explosives to prevent the destruction of neighboring buildings.
Many eye witnesses shared their experience of hearing what sounded like a controlled demolition, as well as seeing how windows from floors where blasted out sequentially from top to bottom. There is recorded evidence that shows it in action from different angles.
The explosions were so powerful that most of the 100 tons of concrete turned into fine dust.
Since there was too much questionable evidence, NIST was assigned with the duty to gaslight the public with inaccurate cgi recreations in an attempt to explain away what people saw with their own eyes.
There have been buildings prior that have burned for almost 20 hrs with raging fires. Yet they never collapsed due to the structural integrity being made of steel.
It’s a phenomenon how a state of the art engineered structure to have gone down with only 2 hrs of burning. This has never happened in the past, and it will never happen again in the future.
Fun Fact: it’s been found that NYC sidewalks and potholes have been filled with cement mixes which have the remains of bodies. They can date it back due to the condition of the burned and crushed bone fragments.
All your claims are false.
*Considering they used excavators and other heavy equipment to shift the debris*
What is your suggestion for moving 20 ton slabs of concrete and steel?
*yet the steel was sent to China to be destroyed and recycled*
The first steel didn't leave for China until Jan/02. This was after FEMA had access to examine it at the recycling yards and the WTC site itself. The last steel wasn't removed until May/02. 236 steel samples were kept for NIST's investigation.
*They had told the workers and the public that it was okay to not wear mask, as an attempt to reassure it was safe*
This was for the areas outside of the WTCs complex. Anyone entering the site to assist in clean up was instructed to wear a mask.
*as well as traces of thermite*
There was no thermite. Harris/Jones lit a paint chip on fire and called it thermite. And you all bought it. They never sent any of their samples for verification even though there was $5000 fund raising for Mark Basile to do so. He took the money and never heard anything more about it.
*This is something only (for the most part) the military has access to*
🤦♂
Mythbusters made thermite in their backyard.
*to collapse perfectly on its own footprint*
WTCs 1 & 2 collapsed into a 16 acre field, outside their 2 acre footprints. WTC7 collapsed into neighboring Verizon Building.
*There is recorded evidence that shows it in action from different angles*
Show these videos and explain why it is exclusive to CD as opposed to a building tearing itself apart.
*The explosions were so powerful that most of the 100 tons of concrete turned into fine dust*
It's simply unbelievable how you lot repeat something without giving it minimal scrutiny. Because a simple google image search will show you the layers of concrete removed during clean up and 2 separate analyses of the dust that covered Manhattan showed less than 5% composition of concrete.
*There have been buildings prior that have burned for almost 20 hrs with raging fires. Yet they never collapsed due to the structural integrity being made of steel*
Were they hit by planes? With 10,000 gals of fuel dumped in them? Were they actively fought by firefighters? Spraying water to control temperatures?
Ever ask any of these questions to yourself?
Funny how the one time we didn’t actually need masks we were forced to wear them, and on 9/11 they were not required.
@@tpryce6423
Except their not claims but facts.
Either look it up or remain ignorant and in denial.
@@OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOq Nope. It’s all failed conspiracy nonsense.
This is the worst CIA op ever
Where's your proof??
Yes but luckily we have you to balance it out with your Yoooooooutube research 🤡
I can’t believe how shallow this presentation is.
Until 6 years ago at least 50 hours of debunking the official story was available on RUclips. All of them gone. I wonder why?
Solving 9-11 .ruclips.net/video/R1ivfjnNoJc/видео.html
Hi friend, time for some good news for a change!💌
Everywhere we look there something scary or evil going on. If you are looking for peace, I have good news for you!
Salvation and redemption is near, go to Jesus Christ! He is the living water! He is the Prince of Peace!!!
Are you tired of being tired? If you're weary and very burdened, simply call on Jesus Christ and He will give you rest and peace.
Jesus Christ is calling you personally to eternal life. He's the only way to eternal life! He loves you so much He died for your sins. In fact, He was crucified, buried, and raised again on the 3rd day according to the scriptures.
Why would want to turn down that free gift?! He's calling you to repent and trust Him. Our way may seem right, but it usually leads to destruction. Jesus Christ isn't just a righteous man or good teacher, He's Lord of lords and King of kings! He's coming back to judge this world that full of rebellion, evil and sin. Please rethink your plans, it's not to late to turn (REPENT)! I did it and was born-again! Leaving behind my old way and now I live through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. God's Spirit is given to those who believe in His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ and who trust in Him alone. Good works can't save us, philanthropy can't save us, yoga can't save us, dead saints can't save us, new age can't save us, self-denial can't save us nor us thinking we're so called gods! We are just plain human and only the Creator of the world in which we live CAN and WILL save those who chose Him. The Word of God says every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! And He is!
Read the Bible (KJV), get to know your Creator!
God bless you! 😊
One ALL will be exposed!!!💌
Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn , '
Funny I've found the same thing just searching today for the first time in years, not even loose change is on here now although I don't agree with every claim on loose change but still. None of these conspiracy claims however absurd or true they are anywhere on YT.
That is strange 🤔
Well lets look at just one element of 9/11 (WTC 7) The 4 year study by the Institute of Northern Engineering | University of Alaska Fairbanks has concluded and states "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." This is no longer a conspiracy, it is FACT And to lump this into the same category as "flat earthers" is absolute stupidity. (insert cute animal pic here)
Do you realise that contradiction, by definition, works both ways? That if A contradicts B, then B contradicts A? A UA professor and 2 Phd students produces a report where he didn't try to explain why WTC7 collapsed contradicts the multi million dollar report of dozens of engineers and consultants that did try to explain it and the professor, who didn't try to explain it, and who didn't think he had to explain it, thinks people should believe his non-explanation?
"The 4 year study"
You mean the 2-year-study that ran over by another whole 2 years? That one?
" by the Institute of Northern Engineering | University of Alaska Fairbanks"
The Institute and University that was, in no way, involved at all in the "study"?
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11"
Or in other words, "We proved a negative!" Which anyone at all involved in any form of science will tell you is impossible.
"This is no longer a conspiracy"
It's never been a conspiracy, it's been an IDIOCY.
"it is FACT"
There's nothing factual about it at all. What it is is a joke.
"And to lump this into the same category as "flat earthers" is absolute stupidity"
That's true enough. There's at least some hope for "Flerfs". "truthers" are completely brainless.
If every column collapsed simultaneously, why does video show the roof collapsing in, and the inside of the building collapsing down, this is followed by the exterior shell collapsing. If this is what happens, how can all columns be cut simultaneously?
His debunking of building 7 was quite pathetic. That is the thing that most "conspiracy theorists" focus on, as it's the least believable part. His counter evidence is "two other buildings were damaged but didn't fall".
Did you look at the model NIST put together? Their model contradicts their own explanation as well as what we saw. We cant just take NIST word blindly when there are so many things that contradict their story so obviously there should have been more studies done and its a real shame we werent allowed to do this.
FACT:
The number of United States troops who have died fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had passed 7,000 at the end of 2019.
Official Pentagon numbers do not include the many troops who return home and kill themselves as a result of psychological wounds such as PTSD. Over 30,177 service members and veterans of the post-9/11 wars have committed suicide -- over four times as many as have died in combat.
😢
P.S. WE NEVER FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
😢
Congratulations, you managed to get it wrong. Considering your OTHER posts, I can only assume it was malicious, though bog-stupid can't be discounted.
ruclips.net/video/GvAv-114bwM/видео.htmlsi=tKkAnnlYjgs0tsbe
"P.S. WE NEVER FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" Isn't it funny? The gummint is supposedly able to perfectly pull off some massive Rube Goldberg kind of operation that makes no sense whatsoever and do it in complete secrecy, but cannot even plant a little nerve gas or half-finished nuclear bomb in Iraq?
Mass destruction isn’t just nuclear weapons 😂 They did find tons of deadly chemical weapons which CAN be used to kill mass populations.
@@Brady_Da_GOAT I don't think so. That would have been big news. I'm quite sure they found jack shit.
The best way to debunk some conspiracy theories is to get a job working for the government for a couple of years. You'll quickly realize that most people have no idea what is going on and stumble their way through 99% of things on a day-to-day basis.
Plus most conspiracy theories have a foundation the government has total control over everything.
Yeah as a government employee when I hear these grand conspiracies I'm just like, wow you think we're that smart?? 😂😂 you just know if anything like this were going on some overworked employee would accidentally send a classified email to the wrong person, that's all it would take.
you think regular government employees carry these out? christ help you
@@estebandelasexface8193 it's on a need to know basis, foo
@chadcudi6104 Well evidently you never worked for the government lolol
Government can’t organize a bake sale let alone a good conspiracy theory.
50:29 "A lot of conspiracy theories begin with your imagination."
No, they don't. They begin when the official story doesn't make any sense. Or when the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane is completely ignored in the official report.
'Or when the collapse of a building that wasn't hit by a plane is completely ignored in the official report." - What's funny is you don't even know that you're wrong.
@@TheMiddleClassholes technicality... NIST reports that they do not know why B7 collapsed but how it collapsed. therefore: 'completely ignored' is a bit hyperbolic, yes but the 'inattention' to B7 is suspicious.
So, as noted, they begin with your imagination. Cool. But why'd you need to repeat it?
@@AbsurdityViewer No, NIST doesn't report that.
@@mooneyes2k478 oh well, if you say so then... right.
More than one hour of speech and he never mentioned Architects and Engineers. Mostly responding to theories in youtube comments….
And you believe they’re architects and engineers…. Why?
He wasted our time..tsk.tsk.. Check this i think Dr. Judy Wood explains best what really happened at 9/11
ruclips.net/video/Zj84TYa__9I/видео.html
@@just_julian ummm A & E for 9/11 truth. Richard Gage even got to appear on CSPAN. A& E stands for Architect's & Engineers.
@@owlhater270 So?
“An inside job?? The government would NEVER do that, they have our best interests in mind!”
Operation northwoods has entered the chat.
Operation Northwoods never happened, it was a proposal that was rejected. But what would that have to do with whether or not I should accept a conspiracy theory in this case? Which is the crux of the matter here, isn't it? How do you tell the difference between reality and fantasy? There's only one reality as to what happened on 9/11, everything else is fantasy.
Care to explain pls?
Your joking right?
@@ChrisWarari no. I don’t know what operations northwoods is.
@@angelan5566 there’s something miraculous called google. Use it.
This is gonna be a fun comment section to read.
This is such a good lecture, yet conspiracy theorists will never accept anything you say.
You're not even saying these things couldn't have happened, you are explaining why acting certain in the face of uncertainty, latching on to anomalies (like discounting thousands of witnesses saying they think they saw a passenger plane, yet singling out the one guy who said he saw a cargo plane) and spending most of your efforts arguing why you don't like the official stories instead of providing evidence for your own... these things don't make your beliefs true.
But none of that matters to conspiracy theorists, just like my comment doesn't matter either. Their only interest is finding ways to fit things into what they already believe, while everything else can be ignored.
You’re 100% correct. Presenting any evidence (whether about this, about Sandy Hook, about COVID) they will just claim you’re a sheep or are part of the conspiracy yourself. There’s been a comment made on this video about WTC7 since you made your comment. I started to reply but quickly thought, “What’s the use?”
Not true. Usually 9/11 truthers are UNBIASED and did NOT want to believe in the inside job explanation. It's only after a lot of painstaking OBJECTIVE research that they come to that conclusion, which is purely evidence based. Look up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Or see the documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor" by Massimo Mazzuco. Or "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" which is one of the best documentaries.
No I won’t accept what he says cause it’s bull shit
He is literally disregarding anyone who believes the conspiracies. He is doing the ‘they are deplorable’ Schtick
Because it's all lies and we have proof.
Horses, Kittens, & BS.
Eye witness accounts are usually given priority in a court of law. Those who saw, heard, and felt explosions never had their day in court.
There’s plenty of on-the-record testimony of “explosions” and other loud noises.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher.
At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck.
Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.
Eyewitness testimony is notorious for not always being reliable. This is evident in cases like the Titanic, where hundreds swore up and down that the ship never broke apart, but findings later contradicted that. Many claimed to have heard “explosions” in the lobby as the plane impacted, but it was later revealed to be jet fuel igniting as it rushed down an elevator shaft.
Reality is a lot more dull than movies.
Can he explain how they found Mohammed Atta's passport down the street from the wreckage shortly after impact? That's how they found out about him, remember?
The surviving passport was recovered from flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville. The passport belonged to Ziad Samir, not Muhammad Atta. Seriously, a quick google search is not hard.
Can you explain how you became a twoofer?
@@BeeEatingOrchid - No, the recovered passport was found a block or two away from the WTC. Garrick Utley reported it on CNN with a “ Can you believe it?”.
@@joshd3192 By banging your [*fill family relative here*]?
@@BeeEatingOrchid Quick google search said that the passport found on the street belonged to Satam al Suqami. Is your google broken or you didn't try hard enough?
Maybe it wasn't an inside job at all. Maybe it was really an outside job.😊
No! You are not being patriotic and brave and a seeker of justice and an end to wars etc. Structural collapses are boring. The worst thing that could happen to these truthers would be to find that there were structural collapses of the buildings. They are not going to let that happen...
Maybe it was an inside unemployment 🤔
@@clinteranovic8075 obviously the structures collapsed. The question is HOW they collapsed, and the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that explosives were used.
@58:01 Firefighter heard explosions. Concrete floors pancaking or collapsing would sound like an explosion. The floors were 4 inches of concrete.
There were, in fact, no lack of things to make loud noises, or even explode....none of which were explosives. Water pipes bursting, massive lead-acid UPS batteries going up, etc, etc.
Fireman didn't say he heard explosions he said he heard the floors falling on top of each other bang bang bang, he didn't say explisions
The buildings were designed to perfectly collapse in upon themselves in case of a fire. The flimsy floors- overburdened with concrete, furniture, people, etc.- would pull the steel beams inward. It's as if you filled a hammock with cinder blocks til it collapsed. The people never had a chance.
@@julielockett1812
If it were the case that the "explosion" sounds were the floors hitting each other as they collapsed, then shouldn't we logically expect each floor to be providing some resistance to the collapse?
What im getting at is that the floors below the fire and impact shouldnt have lost their structural integrity, so if "explosion" sounds were the floors pancaking ontop of each other, why is it that the buildings collapsed at a near (99%) freefall speed?
@zchettaz, Z, when the north tower collapsed, did you notice, how a portion of the building remained standing for several seconds after the collapse of the rest of the building?
Please let me help you out…. This guy’s a joker…enough said!
That list of “all of the theories” is not very comprehensive…. You’re missing some of the bigger questions. Like where is the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rummy said was missing, and the search was happening in building seven? That’s the one that I wonder about. The money trail…. And who benefits. Those are the questions. Rummy, Cheney, and a lot of others made more money because of the “war on terror” than is imaginable. Trillions.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are trillionaires?
@debunker you're right. He said they couldnt account for where the 2.3 trillion in transactions went, and also said they were "declaring war" on the bureaucracy of the pentagon. On sept 10 2001 🤔
@@devonaveii2675 Allegedly a plane flew into the Pentagon. Factually, the exact location that was taken out was the offices used for conducting internal investigations regarding the missing trillions.
Muslims are the victim
There is a good video from Chomsky on this.
Basically, the fact that a lot of people took advantage of the situation for their own personal benefit is not evidence that they themselves created the situation.
It's kind of like, there are dudes on the streets of New York City who go out and sell $5 umbrellas for $25 a piece every time it rains.
But I don't think that these guys control the weather.
One of the things that Chomsky mentions in his video is that if you looked around the world just after 9/11, you actually saw that every authoritarian power in the world used it as an excuse to crack down on their citizens, and tighten their control.
But that doesn't mean that they caused it or planned it.
It just means that they knew how to capitalize on an opportunity when they saw one.
FACT:
The Ground Zero fires burned for almost 100 days.
It took 99 days-until December 19, 2001-for the fires at Ground Zero to be extinguished. “You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley, a firefighters’ union representative. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.” The fire caused by the attack on the Pentagon took approximately 36 hours to put out.
I'd be curious to know how NIST or the 911 Commission explained this. 😮
Easy: oxygen.
Fire smoulders until you uncover it, give it oxygen, then it burns.
You can do it in your own backyard.
@@RSterkenburg You shouldn't have even dignified it with a response..
The pot calling the kettle black
@@RSterkenburg HAha, Yeah right. 🤣
Jane Stanley of BBC didn’t accidentally misread that building 7 collapsed because the broadcast also scrolled text on the screen also stating that the building had collapsed and when it was obvious from the view behind her that the building had not collapsed, they cut the live feed from New York and switched to a London studio.
It was not obvious to Jane Standley or the BBC or to you or to the millions of people watching TV that WTC7 had not collapsed. It is obvious though when people afterwards get the video and then add a big red arrow to the video pointing to it, a building that you and millions of people had never heard of, knew nothing about and was just one of many buildings on the skyline of New York. But then people see the big red arrow in the sky pointing to WTC7 and make statements like 'it was obvious from the view behind her that the building had not collapsed'.
@@clinteranovic8075 I highly doubt Jane Stanley knew the collapse had not happened yet but the people who cut the live feed from New York knew. Very few people even today know that the BBC reported the highly unlikely collapse had occurred before it actually happened.
@@harrowgateguy The collapse of WTC7 was expected for hours by the FDNY. It's why they stopped all rescue work and placed a cordon around the building. Satellite channels are hired for time slots by TV companies and then the channel cuts off.
@@clinteranovic8075 True, but why would the BBC even announce it then?
The facinating part to me is when the building finally dropped later on, they completely 'forget' to report the real collapse.
So they accidentally report a building collapse too early. They accidentally go off the air 5 minutes before the building does collapse. And they accidentally forget to report the real collapse. But they also accidentally forget to issue a retraction when they finally see their "accidents'?
Yet no one has come forward in the last 20 years with a guilty conscience.
Yeah like who killed Jimmy Hoffa ?
I wonder what he would say about Alaska's Structural Engineer professors? I doubt he knows more than they do about engineering? ruclips.net/video/LJPuWy9utss/видео.html
@@davidmudry5622 What do you mean professors? It was one person. Research is hard for the twoofers.
@@joshd3192 1 of the students is now a professor in China the other is a professional engineer. BTW 2 1/2 years later and not one debunking from any university or TV personality science expert in the entire world. The media looks the other way will not tell the public the News from Alaska because they are not a Free Press...and they say democracy is in trouble LOL
@@joshd3192 There were also students who were threatened not to get involved in the study...nice right...freedom right.
10:13 the amazing thing is, you can cast doubt on literally anything in existence with those 4 claims
Remember, the evidence is never faked if the conspiracy theorist can use it to explain his theory!
How to debunk a theory according to this guy... "It must not be true because a whistle blower never survived long enough to speak out in public" You sir have perfected excellent techniques to gaslight your audience. Well done.
Did you actually listen to anything this guy said, or did you already have your mind made up long before you even clicked play for this video? First off, the guy doesn't ever say....."This is how you debunk a theory. All you have to do is....blah blah blah" The guy is bringing up individual conspiracy theories and addresses them one by one, explaining some of the flaws in their thinking. And they certainly don't all include some BS about a whistle blower not surviving long enough...etc. Well done.
@@finkeldaddy01 nobody needs your false claims that the FDNY was helping demolish the WTC either. So what?
Nobody cares what you think Russian agent troll
Wow. You explained nothing, and only enforced the concept of a 'conspiracy theory' in the most extreme definition of the phrase. There are very in depth theories, with a lot of documented evidence, which you are obviously not aware of because like most 'debunkers' you've never actually read one of the real theories behind this.
Please do actuall research in the subject matter you wish to discuss next time.
I was hoping for an intellectually based conversation to help me with the finer points of the more in depth theories as to how the buildings fell etc. But I see now you just like to keep reminding people that "if it's called a conspiracy theory it must be wrong"
So let's dispense with the vague, hand wavy dismissal here. Pick your strongest 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one with the most "evidence" and let's step through it. Go.
Metallic Microspheres are created by NUMEROUS methods and end up creating a molecule of fuel that can then burn through steel just like thermite.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g.
"I don't know if thats true but neither do you" Bro is just up there waffling.
This guy is a crazy coincidence theorist.
Yeah. It was all just random. Really.
If you believed the official story, you probably now don't after watching this
My thing is that pilots saying that you cannot fly planes that size at those speeds that low to the ground without them literally falling apart...an that the second plane would have been pulling 4 or 5 Gs to maneuver to hit that building....or that there is no video of the pentagon being it other then 2 frames from a security camera..you would think that military headquarters would have more videos..given there are camera all over the outside of that building or from other buildings in the area??????
@@dark_sky_guyIt's not that you *can't* fly planes at that speed close to the ground or that the they can't pull those sort of manoeuvres, it's that you *shouldn't*. These parameters are outside of the normal flying envelope specified for these planes. This means that such manoeuvres could lead to either instant or long term structural damage - something commercial pilots are careful to avoid. The hijackers couldn't care less of course.
In extremis, the flight that went down a month later in NY shows how excess use of the rudder could rip off the entire tailplane.
34:33 MY EVIDENCE IS SUPER STRONG YOU'RE BEING LIED TO!!!!
But seriously, that's hilarious... I've never thought about it before, but you know you got under someone's skin when they bust out the caps lock
but that's a really poor strawman fallacy, considering that the 9/11 truth movement is being led by a group of professional engineers and architects and firefighters and pilots and lawyers, and family members of victims.
Imagine a neck straining skyline 110 floors overhead. A towering lattice of structural steel welded and bolted together. Interlaced with five inch thick carpets of concrete. Each floor nearly the size of a football field. Imagine an airplane shaped aluminium coffee can with a plastic nose cone. Just a backyard swimming pool amount of low heat weber grille kerosene half filling breakable hollow wings. A swimming pool of jet fuel won’t do much to a steel tower of 110 concrete covered football fields. Imagine lighting a match so a missing 2.3 trillion dollars magically reappears as insurance claims and war profits.
Thanks for that glimpse into the mind of a deluded individual.
South Park was so right when they said "one in four americans believe 9/11 was an inside job, and one in four americans are retarded"
@@tpryce6243Thank you. The deluded individuals were those who planted the explosives and paid off the writers of the NIST report.
What poem’s that from?
Fantastically articulated, I doth my hat, sir
What are you even talking about? Are you comparing a big commercial airplane traveling at 500 MPH to a swimming pool? Here’s a simple equation, KE=(1/2)mv^2. That’s the amount of energy the plane released onto the steel columns when it crashed. It’s okay, math is hard. Not everyone is smart enough to be an engineer
Well those that seem to be hooked a conspiracy theory do not understand that the official story is also a theory
Yeah. A conspiracy theory.
And not a very convincing one
Do you nutters think it’s just a theory that human remains, of victims of this terrorist attack, were found at all the sites? Is it theory or is it fact that human remains still attached to their seats were in the WTC square, even before the buildings collapsed?
@@dikranovichk5889 almost as crazy as your accusations of FDNY being complicit in the demolitions of 9/11. Remember you’ve made that claim thousands of times on RUclips Fitz
Is it theory or fact that commercial airliners slammed into the twin towers on 9/11?
THe problem with official story vs conspiracy theory's is that people don't know who to believe or trust anymore. Social media and online news has pulled people's attention thousands of different ways and because people absolutely believe that their government lies to them on a daily basis, it's only logical to believe that they would lie about this too. Best thing to do is just carry on with life and change the things you know you can change and ignore the thing you cannot. Dwelling on these things will only just decrease the quality and happiness of your life.
Well said.
That's very true. NOONE is to be trusted.
Especially not the US government or their mainstream media whores.
However....the events of 9/11 are well understood and explained for anyone who possesses the intelligence, training, education and experience to understand it.
For those lacking a formal education in relevant fields there are several videos on YT and a wealth of other resources to explain the events of 9/11 to the layman.
And there are those like me who are willing to explain it and answer any questions.
It requires a level of intelligence and understanding but I'm quite sure anyone with a 3 digit IQ CAN understand this stuff when presented in a digestible form.
I do my best to do just that.
I do not waste my time on brain dead "truthers" who simply do not want the TRUTH even if they could understand it, which they can't.
Show me you want to understand what really happened, regardless of what that may be and I'll do my best to help.
They also took so long to put anything out the seeds of doubt were allowed to grow. I was a staunch inside jobber. but just before this anniversary something peaked my interest and I went on a WTC info binge. I have to say the more complete picture with the testimony and science it made much more since and explained away the issues I had. Im still not positive on all of it but I see why they fell it was not a demolition etc
@@Kid_Kootenay - exactly. And it takes a mature person of character to admit when they're wrong. Kudos to you.
Most "truthers" , well, the ones with a 3 digit IQs, would arrive at the same conclusion IF they were capable of clearing their minds of the "truther" fog and actually a) OBJECTIVELY look at the existing EVIDENCE and b) realize, admit to and actually process the total lack of evidence that exists in support of their MANY "truther" theories and claims.
Not to mention, realizing the absolute IMPOSSIBILITY of their cockamamie Tom Clancey/Scooby-Doo government conspiracy.
Most "truthers" do NOT want the TRUTH, however. They only want their ridiculously complex and technologically and practically impossible government conspiracy to be true and will forgo all logic, abandon all reason, ignore all evidence and warp their very reality to have it! It's insane!
Btw, I'd be happy to help dispell and clear up any misgivings or questions you might have if possible or direct you to someone who can.
@@holdernewtshesrearin5471 Is the government conspiracy theory "absolutely" impossible or "practically" impossible?
This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Let's give only the dumbest and most redicelous examples of theories so they are easy to knock down.
So, where's he wrong?
@@mooneyes2k478 lol lol lol
The fact is they are all ridiculous , it's only a question of degree.
@@clinteranovic8075 dudes in a cave. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
Guess he weren't, after all...
The problem with these debunkers is they don't realize that it's not enough to say fires weakened or compromised the building steel. They have to account for collapse at free fall which means the steel wasn't just weakened. It offered zero resistance all the way to the ground. There's only one known way to do that.
No one has to account for things that never happened.
@@tpryce6423 lol lol lol
@@c.augustedupin2559 Uh huh. Anything else?
@@tpryce6423 lol
@@c.augustedupin2559 So you’re all done now?
Cracked pots exist. Generally, the conspiratorial mind, once engaged, resists the possibility of other explanations.
Cool story bro
@@hawks4305 Crack pot triggered.
How did you figure that out? Was there a survay or studie of some kind. What do you base your "generally" upon? Here is my take on this: generally, the conspiratorial mind engages when there are no reasonable explanations left.
Do you have any evidence of that? Ha ha
Yours is an evidence free statement. A theory. One might even say a conspiracy theory
i love how he brought flat earthers into this haha
"FlatEarth" was/is clearly created in order to use as a weapon to link to any claim the Government doesn't want people to look any deeper into.
Of course he did.
He wants to lump "conspiracy theorists" into the same pile to discredit anything that they say.
Anyone with half a brain knows that some shady stuff went down on 9/11.
If a poll was put out now globally on whether one trusts the US government the results would be a resounding no!
they have to bring as many well poisoning red herrings as possible, guilt by association. it's a tactic regimes always use. look at how flat earth is also often adjacent to other populist ideas
Flat Earther-ism has to be the stupidest conspiracy theory ever.
ohh so you believe we landed on the moon?.. what a sheep
This guy along with many other geniuses won’t spend any time discussing how jet fuel weakened the beams at free fall speed. If the theory that jet fuel weakened the steel, wouldn’t the towers have leaned over and fell at the point of impact?
Who ever said that?
Look at pictures of the south tower collapse, you can clearly see the tower leaning over at the point of impact.
I thought they said jet fuel can't melt steel. Also said when the towers were built, that a 747 COUDN'T take down the WTC towers. Steel was melting, jet fuel can't do that.
Didn't the jet fuel burn up at least 50 World Trade Center 1 and 2 collapsed the exact same way really think about it
@@tpryce1525 huh?
The Patriot Act can be a reason to “create” without 9/11 it’s a hard sell
Wasnt Bush senior staying in White House the night before. The man who had John Lennon assassinated (2 gunmen/Jose Perdomo (CIA)).
LOL this is a rollercoaster topic I went from the day it happening believing it was an attack. to later on belonging to the inside job club then after a period of no interest I returned to be on the official explanation side the difference came in having more transparent information videos from people the computer gen reenactments fuel dispersals etc
Same
Only for people like you with open minds and critical reasoning skills. That's probably rarer than you might believe these days and is to be respected/admired if you ask me.
Even more interesting is the fact that the most entitled, comfortable, opulent people on the planet often feel they are repressed in some way. We could all do with a reality check. No matter how wonderful people's existence is they will always focus on negatives and completely lose a sense of proportion.
100%
Speak for yourself. Most people are not living a wonderful opulent life. And even you yourself are under totalitarian surveillance. What a pathetic and naive comment. The govt loves people like you.
I guess Larry Silverstein really did have an appointment to the dermatologist then. What a lucky guy!
Just like all the other people that day who were.. late for work, had a meeting somewhere, had to go to the doctor, were on a business trip, were not feeling well, missed their train/bus, their car broke down, just decided to take a day off, their child was ill and had to stay home, were on holiday, etc etc...
@@clinteranovic8075 yep could happen. You know his two children happened to take a day off too ? Thats just a massive coïncidence i guess! With the lack of humanity Larry has im surprised he even thought about saving his children
@@MrCollewet Yes like Willy Rodrigues who decided to take a day off that day..but when he rang his boss he was told to come in..
Like all the lucky people that day who were late for work or had meetings or family problems or were not feeling well.. Of course if nothing had happened that day, it was just an ordinary day and someone had told you that Larry Silverstein had an appointment with his dermatologist you would have said , "Who?"
And two trillion was announced missing the day before.
Just look at the chronology of the events.
Bombs blew up the basement before the 1st plane hit a tower. This is the testimony of William Rodriguez, a 20-year employee of the towers.
There is no way that was done by 19 hijackers with box cutters.
Who had the capability to get around security, plant bombs in the building, and they were able to have bombs explode almost simultaneously with a plane hitting a tower?
All of that requires planning and access.
This chronology is consistently avoided because they don't want to tell the truth.
You simply can't look at this chronology and blame the events on 19 hijackers with box cutters.
In contrast, if you tell a lie over and over people will believe it.
By definition, solving the crime of the century the day the crime happens is called a Hasty Generalization.
When the government and the media claimed to have solved this crime the day it happened, did they analyze the dust for Nanothermite?
That is just one example of not having all the information required to solve the crime.
It is ludicrous to use the label of conspiracy theories when the official story is a block of swiss cheese and lies and omissions of material facts.
Great. When are you going to do something about it?
You might want to check out the test that your leader Jesse Ventura did with the guy from New Mexico University where they tried proving nanothermite works and it didn't. And nanothermite is also used in a whole bunch of pains and other shit that is very common in the tower so good try. Not to mention the fact that the main guy from bring um young who tested a supposed piece of Steel did not follow proper Protocols of having eight Trails of evidence where the steel came from how it was shipped he can explain how he got it. But only his steel was contaminated. All you people do is pick little pieces out of a bigger picture to fit your agenda. You're probably a flat Earth or two
@@tpryce6234 u believe whatever u want, my eyes are wide fuckin open. Jules from pulp fiction
@@petermachiela5441 Your point?
The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) - freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized - William Rodriguez
That terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. - William Rodriguez
He never, ever, mentioned a bomb.
I was straining my eyes and ears throughout this presentation.
Why was the camera not closer to the stage, the speaker, and the screen?
Alright, some screenshots were highlighted with close-ups of the text, but other parts of the presentation were frankly just a fuzzy mess.
The sound quality was very poor - I had to turn my audio up quite high to hear the speaker at all, and yet in other parts he seemed to shout, making my listening pleasure very dubious!
And walking up and down all the time? I am sure the speaker thinks that this gives a relaxed impression, but to me it was just irritating.
And the Q & A session with no microphone for the members of the audience? Come on!!
I am sure you had plenty of time to set up this lecture - it looked like a regular working lecture space - so why couldn't we hear the questions from the audience? The questions could at least have been partially repeated by the presenter, to help us.
Sorry - marks 2 out of 10 for limited effort.
All the hijackers were not from Saudi Arabia. 15 of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. NONE however, were citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan.
And so what?
So beyond a reasonable doubt just saying "plus there's this other dude who masterminded it so we get to invade 2 countries that had nothing to do with it trust us bro" is undeniable evidence of conspiracy
The top 20% of the building collapsed the lower stronger 80% . . Thats why demolition companies use this method to demolish buildings now, just blow up the top of it 😅😅😅
Some of those survival stories from the Pentagon aren’t very good ones. One whistleblower claimed when she hit the power button on her computer that all of her computers and TVs exploded in hers and numerous offices right before whatever it was hit the building.
You also mentioned the plane pieces. A lot of them show a White with orange material and millions of tiny fragments that didn’t match how the supposed plane was built. It did happen to match a newer technology that’s built into our stealth choppers where if they need to destroy their own chopper, it breaks everything into small fragments so that it can’t be reverse engineered.
The planes don’t match the story.
Sounds more like the official story is the conspiracy theory.
Don't let that slip. They'll hunt you down and kill you for exposing the truth. Take note of how Loose Change and similar documentaries have disappeared from the Internet
' Solving 9-11 by Christopher Bollyn .
ruclips.net/video/R1ivfjnNoJc/видео.html
actually the official story is a conspiracy which is where two or more people conspire to commit a crime! Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 371, makes it a federal crime for “two or more persons [to] conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.” 2 In addition, one or more of these persons engaged in the conspiracy must act in a way that furthers the conspiracy itself. 3
You just make your silly shit up.
The guy who made Loose Stool... Sorry, Loose Change!! has admitted he no longer believes the movie he made. Pretty much says all.
He was just a boy who wanted daddy’s attention.
@@JohnfromWaterFrontVillige Those two guys who made it . They pissed me off. Such factually inaccurate nonsense that they sat there and defended it like little arrogant tough guys
@@roquefortfiles I'm so glad that you chose the side of fear and lies instead of truth and courage like a real man.
@@theTavis01 The facts dont lie my friend. Controlled demolition?? Wheres the audio? There is none. You cant fit the facts to support your nonsense stories
@@theTavis01 I am so sorry that you embrace such complete nonsense. Put out by morons and idiots. The guy who made "Loose Stool" doesn't even believe it anymore. That should tell you everything about these goofs.
Is flat guy 93 the one without wheels and engines or bodies?
"Thermal expansion"? LOL Yeah dude, it was "thermal expansion" due to office fires that brought down a steel framed structure into its own footprint that would have been the tallest building in 33 states.
NIST's Shyam Sunder fed the world this utter bs with a straight face. But what he failed to mention is that his collapse calculations were based on a model that neglected to include _key structural components._ And btw, a formal request submitted by a lawyer for AE9/11Truth for answers remains unaddressed by NIST. Their "collapse" scenario is *_totally implausible_* if the key girder supports that they left out, are included. EVERY characteristic of a controlled demolition is visible in what we all can clearly see of that "collapse". "Thermal expansion"... sheesh.
Your opinion matters, how?
@@tpryce6234 Well you got me cornered with that cogent response. Can't argue with that. :)
@@432b86ed Nor can you address the question, apparently.
@@tpryce6234 All I hear from you are bleating sounds.
@@Paul-gp7hs So?
*"Conspiracy theorists assert certainty where there isn't any"* Professor Wagner is asserting this as a certainty. That is quite hypocritical in my view.
He has the information necessary to make that statement with certainty whereas the truthers do not. It's not hypocritical at all.
For example: If someone says "John is going to wear green today," and I ask why, and they say "oh, well because he wore green the past 3 days so that must mean he will today as well." Well, that's a fair assessment but you cannot say he "will" wear green because you can't possibly know that until you see him. You can't CERTAINLY say he will wear green. So therefore I can say with CERTAINTY that you are making statements of CERTAINTY without having the knowledge necessary to make such a claim.
You can make an educated guess, but you can't say you know for certain, which is what he's saying many conspiracy theorists do. And he knows they don't know for certain because nobody does other than those that perpetrated the acts.
@@Dismal626 Whatever your baffling comment of doubletalk is supposed to mean, it doesn't excues Professor Wagner's ignorance on the facts pertaining to the explosives that blew up the WTC towers on 9/11. He can wear a yellow dress with black polkadots and he would still be in error.
The World Trade Towers 1 & 2, plus building 7 were brought down by explosive nanothermite. See:
*Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe*
*Abstract:*
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
@@williamwhitten7820 You seem confused. I'll break it down further.
I can say WITH CERTAINTY that we don't have absolute knowledge about who is responsible for the attacks. That is an objective fact. Nobody knows who's responsible other than those responsible.
Therefore, if you claim to know who perpetrated the attacks then I can say with certainty that you do not know.
That does not make me a hypocrite.
@@Dismal626 says, "That does not make me a hypocrite," However it does prove you are misinforrmed. By critical thinking and deduction we can prove the ultimate fact that the WTC buildings were destroyed by nanothermite explosives, that it is impossible that they were brought down by fire as assertd by NIST. Therefore, as the impact of the planes had nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings, that Islamic terrorist do not and did not have access to military grade nanothermetic explosives, that it therefore follows that only US military personell had access to and the ability to plant said explosives in the buildings..primarily the elevator shafts -- Plus the fact that ACE Elevator company was doing work on replacing the WTC elevator systems at the time the on September 11, 2001. A team of undercover military operatives infiltrated the ACE teams and planted the explosives in the WTC buildings.
Gravity on earth's surface is 1g...Everything on earth that they say is in a static weight condition (i.e. said to be standing still like a chair) is being accelerated up at 1g. If you accelerate up in a rocket to the moon you will experience more than 1g and your weight goes up. If you're accelerating down like the twin towers (NIST WTC FAQ 31 says they fell essentially in free fall) then you are accelerating up at less than 1g and you will weigh less than standing still. And essentially in free fall would be essentially no weight force down, or accelerating up at essentially zero g. No weight no collapse, unless the support was removed first.
can someone explain to me how any of those passengers made phone connections at altitude in 2001? or how on the recorded calls there seems to be no background noise within the aircraft? Bose noise cancelling headphones were popular for that very reason...to cancel out the racket. i wont bother asking how a rookie pilot could fly an aircraft at virtually sea level across a lawn without so much as a blade of grass out of place.
_"can someone explain to me how any of those passengers made phone connections at altitude in 2001? "_
Seatback phones.
_"how on the recorded calls there seems to be no background noise within the aircraft?"_
Because phones (or seatback phones) allow only a specific frequency band to pass. Because the calls were made from the back of the plane. Because the recording we hear was taped.
_"i wont bother asking how a rookie pilot could fly an aircraft at virtually sea level across a lawn without so much as a blade of grass out of place."_
That "rookie pilot" had obtained a commercial license from the FAA. None of the planes flew level for more than a few dozen of ft. And if you think flight 93 didn't hit anything but the buildings, I'd recommend to research that claim a little bit better.
That's true. Mobile phones were rare then and a big no no one planes. (Though I guess if you are going to die you wouldn't be too bothered about turning it on.) But yeah, connecting to a cellphone tower wouldn't be reliable.
You can make phone calls if you're within range of a tower, plus there used to be satellite phones. Airplane mode exists so the signals won't interfere with the instruments during takeoff.
@@brucelansberg5485The plane didn’t hit anything but the buildings… the grass was completely sound. A missile hit the pentagon. You have to be living in a dream world if you think a licensed FAA pilot can sit in an airliner after hijacking it during a commercial flight and fly it into the pentagon perfectly…
It’s not possible. You have been playing too many video games if you think anyone could have done this.
My favourite 9/11 memory was Donald Rumsfelds press conference on 9/10, where he declared the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars from the budget.
What a wild coincidence that the “plane” that hit the Pentagon impacted precisely the offices investigating the missing $$$$ and destroying all evidence in the process..What are the odds??
Oh, there was one other back up copy of the accounting documents..but, they were held in WTC7.
I shit you not. Easily verifiable.
Meaningless. The DoD mentioned this number of transactions that could not be tracked more than a year earlier.
@@naysayer1238, I’m with you bro. People who suggest the money for covert operations and foreign regime takeovers (democratically elected, or otherwise) has to come from somewhere are clearly Russian bots.
America, fuck yeah!
_"My favourite 9/11 memory was Donald Rumsfelds press conference on 9/10, where he declared the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars from the budget."_
Have you actually watched that presentation (which was not a press conference by the way)? Please read the quote and see what is actually being said. It's not the money that's unaccounted for. "According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion USD IN TRANSACTIONS". The keyword here is "transactions". It was part of his Excellence and Logistics Week kickoff speech. And within its context:
"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."
Rumsfeld was talking about an IT/accounting issue. System A could not talk to system B.
Why would he admit money went missing the day before any alleged evidence would be destroyed? That makes zero sense.
_"What a wild coincidence that the “plane” that hit the Pentagon impacted precisely the offices investigating the missing $$$$ and destroying all evidence in the process."_
Yet another nonsensical and unsubstantiated claim. Part of the hit wing housed the Resource Services Washington office, which is a budgeting department. 65 people were working in that department and 34 lost their lives in the attack. They kept track of a 3.5 billion USD budget that funded the Army's Washington area operations and some installations around the world. There is no single piece of evidence these people were doing an investigation for missing money that never went missing. Any paperwork that would have gone missing, would have been digitally backed up. Off site.
_"Oh, there was one other back up copy of the accounting documents..but, they were held in WTC7."_
Now you're just making up stuff. But let me ask you this: if you'd own some compromising document in your home that you needed to be destroyed, would you demolish your home of would you simply shred that document?
_"I shit you not. Easily verifiable."_
Great. Would you mind posting your source then?
Uhm yeah, someone "debunk" this please.
@@haraldthorson9153 like the other guy said, meaningless. Multiple times government has lost accounting of their spending with no explanation and no consequences I’m aware of
The information density is sooo low in this le ture that my brain is lulled into a sleeplike state. Perhaps that is by design, on purpose, as in that state brains are mode receptive, tend to just accept claims instead of asking critical questions and start thinking for it’s self…
The design is to get u focussed on the huggin bears 😂😂😂❤
It does t seem like you have any questions. Just some incredulous position
This is not thinking critically. It is actually the opposite. This person is not a critical thinker.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher.
At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck.
Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.
I never gave the idea that 9/11 was an inside job any attention. But then I learned about Operation Northwoods. Inside jobs are not farfetched *at all.*
Successful inside jobs are almost exclusively accomplished by folks at the top.... oy vey
Because there one was proposal from the CIA, that was never carried out, to use faked attacks on the US you think that 9/11 could be an inside job?
Or mockingbird…
The guy started his lecture by removing his mask, lost all credibility and common sense at that point.
"I used to be a conspiracy theorists, but then all my conspiracies came true."
Anyone know if the hijackers use their real names and that is how they were known or did we have to go back and unravel the fake names to find it the real names
Used real names, they were given visas.
Does this video contain any dancing?
The big problem is the lack of critical thinking. Social media should be such a wonderful tool and this should be a required video to watch before you dive in rabbit hole. Don't watch one thing...watch or read more before you decide what you think is the truth.
Huh? The rabbit hole was the irrational conclusions stemming from all the approved media lies
Social media is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.
@@hoobaguy4311 I agree, before RUclips came on the scene no one was saying "Inside Job"
@@i.marr.6688 RUclips is the best of the worst. MySpace poisoned everyone, the Facebook furthered it. Twitter and Tumblr normalized and validated mental illness instead of reinforcing the need for treatment. And tick tock...
@@i.marr.6688 the Americans also accuse the Russians of an inside job
People see what they want to see, or rather don't see what's beyond their grasp to deal with. Like one survivor who said he wondered why someone would throw a suit out the window, his brain just could not compute it was a jumper. Same as me, followed the entire newscast over many channels and did not see a single jumper, I first chalked it down to press ethics here, them not showing people in their dying moments but have since heard from people saying they watched the same channels and did see jumpers. Having a fear of heights my guess is my brain just would not acknowledge that falling object as a person.
That's an amazing observation and analysis of your own process of thinking. Good for you. Not many people can figure out why they did or didn't see something.
Very fascinating point you've raised. It's true, sometimes our brains just will not allow us to process what we're experiencing. It's a protective firewall that prevents emotional overload.
It's very fascinating.
"You see what your knowledge tells you you see." is the way i put it
Which is why we thought the sun revolved around the earth for so long
@@BillSmith-kl7sbso did the NY Islanders lose to the oilers in WHT would have been their fifth Stanley in a row or did the Islanders let them win as mandated by the NHL's commissioner at the time John Ziegler.
So the interesting thing here. This guy's claims are in many cases no less extraordinary than some of the conspiracy theories he's debunking. Try and unsee this. Take a coke can, accelerate it as fast as you want and then smash it into a concrete breeze block. Taking into account that the block isn't even reinforced with steel. AND NOW???????? You don't need to be a structural engineer to figure out that something in this picture just isn't right. So much for debunking all those theories then.
The official story of 9/11 has brought me to the point of believing in miracles, miracles of convenience that is, the survival of a passport through a ball of fire that could pulverize concrete and melt construction steel is one miracle I would’ve never believed in before
The steel did not need to be melted. Only weakened.
My family member was involved in helping pick up the pieces after a tragic accident that took many lives. Conveniently he found the finger with a wedding ring still attached that was able to be given back to loved ones. Through a whole mess of wreckage, fire, blood and other debris, and all that chaos. These things do happen whether you like to admit it or not. The best you can say is "I don't know how that happened" because it doesn't prove anything.
@@DavidSmith-oy4of yup. That sh*t was real. No joke
@@joshd3192 there was molten steel in the rubble for 3 months after the collapse
@@CB13212 Oh you watched A New Pearl Harbor too? Neat.
For the Selective Evidence portion he forgot to add this presentation itself as a bullet item.
Absolutely! This guy likes low hanging fruits.
🤣
@@pepelapiu2004 And he can't even successfully debunk those. The professor is a dud.
Lmao gottem
@@just_julian *NIST Fraud:*
WTC Disaster Study - The specific objectives were:
[1] Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/world-trade-center-disaster-study
NIST was mandated to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed” -They FAILED to do so
And they admitted it!
NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”-Catherine S. Fletcher, Chief Management and Organization Division, NIST Sept. 27, 2007
“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”-NIST
“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” BUT the “focus” of the investigation is NOT the “goal” of the investigation as stated in their own words: “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”
This is spurious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of rational argumentation on the part of NIST.
NIST did not provide a full explanation as to why the WTC Towers collapsed. NIST modeled their CGI cartoons to the point that the building was “poised for collapse”, and left it at that, a glaring example of circular reasoning.
This is scientific fraud and nothing less.
. . . . . .
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel - divide that by number of floors, we have about 1,000 tons of steel per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) at 8:46 am, impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 approached from the southwest, over New York Harbor, and crashed into the South Tower (WTC 2) southern facade at 9:03 am between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
. . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by simple math:
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) Planes impacted a span of 93rd and 99th floors. So the upper section would be about 16 floors. Multiply 16 x 5,000 = 80,000 tons verses 420,000 tons of remaining undamaged floors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by common sense
One can not presume that a cohesive block of intact material can exist acting as a pile driver can fall through the center of the buildings, when we can see with our own eyes that there is that amount of crushed and fragmented material blown horizontally beyond the frame of the buildings in all of the imagery available of the destruction of WTC 1&2.
I have already shown how elementary Newtonian physics precludes the possibility of a gravity driven collapse:
All progressive collapse theories defy Newtonian physics:
Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Applying this principle to the collapse of the WTC Towers, it proves that the upper portion could only destroy the lower portion by the equal amount of the floors; That is if 12 floors are crushing the floors beneath them they can crush no more than 12 stories below. Simple physics.
What is the work done in ‘crushing’? It is smashing and destroying a material and objects. Equal and opposite crushing is crushing from above and equal crushing from below. ‘Crush up-Crush down’.
The material crushed in the interaction is equal. Therefore there is no material left to crush down after it is exhausted itself against the crush up.
*Cardington fire test data British Steel*
*Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.*
Cardington fire test data British Steel carried out four fire tests on the Cardington frame between 1995 and 1997. An additional two test were carried out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). These test underpin much of the modern science of structural fire engineering in steel framed buildings with composite steel deck floors The first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m² to 340m² with fire loadings provided by gas, wooden cribs and standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not.
Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.
The full set of data from the four British Steel tests is to be found in this article. Descriptions of the tests and guidance on how to interpret the data can be found by following the link here. Data from the two fire test carried out by the BRE can be found by following the link here. Data on a subsequent, stand alone test conducted by BRE can be found online.
I wish I could've heard the student's questions..
I swear half of the people in this comment section didn't watch the video.
Most all of your suspicions are addressed in the lecture, yet here you are displaying the same logical fallacies pointed out as insufficient.
3 buildings free fall into a very small footprint, as the result of caotic structure failure. Huge complete steel skeletons disapear into dust. Nothing is left standing except for a few outer shells, of the lower floors.
Why do we spend months preparing controlled demolitions? Why don't we just place some random "fuel bombs" somewhere inside a building and see it free fall into a small footprint?
According to the building design, the pancaking couldn't have happen with the building cores as they were solid (continuous) blocks of steel and cement. Shouldn't the cores of both buildings be left sticking up way above the rubble?
The "Surfside condominium collapse" was due to the failure of a couple of columns, just like implied with building 7, however it collapsed in stages, sideways and definitely didn't free fall.
I don't think my thinking about the fall of the buildings (never mind everything else, at this moment) is about my mental patterns, it just doesn't make sense with what the laws of physics dictate. A pancaking building does not fall in free fall. Free fall implies the total absence of resistence under a body, a pancaking scenario implies action/reaction, thus resistence, Q.E.D., no free fall is possible.
You’re extremely confused.
@@tpryce9800 Sorry, did you say anything?
@@pedrolopes4778 Yup. I said you’re extremely confused.
@@tpryce9800 are you a kid? Does your mom knows you troll people on the Internet?
@@pedrolopes4778 Does that mean you you have no answer?
40K views, 300 likes, that says it all 😸
ruclips.net/video/LgYNPaO1rNY/видео.html
That’s because there’s no need to watch these videos anymore. The delusional conspiracy theories have been discredited. The Bush regime didn’t need a conspiracy to start a war. They started one regardless. And when you look at Bin Laden’s stated goals we reacted exactly how he wanted us to. The conspiracy theories only benefited both the US war machine and Al-qaeda in the long run.
Overall his presentation is NOT COMPELLING AT ALL but some points he makes are good. Eyewitnesses relate observing a large number of beams which were cut on 45° angles among the wreckage by the first evening of the collapse, long before workers were found to make the cuts that were done to remove some of the debris. He provides no mention of the beams that were found with complex cuts that would not be needed to help dislodge collapsed beams from the wreckage but are standard cuts used in demo work. He makes no mention of the many eyewitnesses who experienced actual explosions before the plane hit the first building. How did body parts of firefighters end up on the top of the Deutsche Bank building? What force sent them there in fragments? If the plane in Shanksville was submerged below the surface of the ground how do you explain plane parts that were found miles away from that crash site? If the buildings collapsed by simply weakened steel (which would only possibly happen on the floors where there were fires), what caused the thick welded and bolted steel to weaken on the lower floors that experienced no fires? How do you account for almost everything in both buildings except the steel beams being reduced to powder? Some conspiracy ideas are provably false, by evidence, but that doesn't mean all theories that leave open the possibility of or lean towards suggesting some sort of conspiracy as being worth considering are automatically false. Any theory is just a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Isn't the idea of middle eastern terrorist hijackers masterminding and coordinating the attacks itself a conspiracy theory? How were they able to coordinate the whole scheme to correspond to a day when brand new people would be in charge of our air defenses and on a day (when many in our own government were not even in the know) that Air Force exercises would be conducted? And, if you believe those people could be so evil to do such murderous things, why do you think only they are capable of such wickedness but people you think are "on your side" couldn't possibly be capable of such evil? Maybe they could. Maybe they have sinful hearts with selfish ambitions too. It's theoretically possible isn't it? Do we have any evidence that aligns with that? Did anyone on "your side" ever claim a national leader was hiding weapons of mass destruction and drop bombs on his country only to later claim they were acting on bad information, even when many around them warned them the evidence didn't support their position and resultant policy? Honestly this lecturer is guilty of the very things he accuses others of in my opinion.
Prove it and confront the eyewitness that stated it. A firefighter present at the scene gave this testimony. Just saying it's false doesn't make it so unless YOU were there too and submit different testimony. Then we'd have to reconcile any differences or refute them. Something about eyewitnesses who are clearly just recalling from memory what they experienced has more weight for me than people who just go in the opposite direction and make statements with no proof or evidence or reason offered. Just postulating an alternative doesn't make it the reality of what happened. It takes more than that. The witness actually answered your objection stating there was such an abundance of such columns that he saw, and while they were having difficulty locating skilled people to make the needed cuts to remove some of the beams, he said there would be NO WAY all the cuts he observed could possibly be made in such a short amount of time on the day of the collapse to that evening. So I believe some cuts were made during the demolition and other cuts were made during the removal.
TRANSLATION: I watched some conspiracy videos and now I'm smart.
@@billeckert6454
*A firefighter present at the scene gave this testimony*
Where?
*would not be needed to help dislodge collapsed beams from the wreckage*
These were multi ton beams. Like CD, they cut them this way during clean up so they can control which way they fall.
*How did body parts of firefighters end up on the top of the Deutsche Bank building*
Where is it determined it was firefighters?
*explain plane parts that were found miles away from that crash site*
Debris was found less than a mile away. The dolts at Loose Change Google mapped it to come up with 8miles. That was 8 miles _Driving,_ not a straight line. And the material was lightweight capable of being carried with the wind.
*what caused the thick welded and bolted steel to weaken on the lower floors*
The weight load limit of every floor, even the lower ones, was 29,000,000 lbs. Far exceeded by the collapsing debris.
*when brand new people would be in charge of our air defenses*
Honestly, where do you get your information? Major Nasypany was a seasoned commander. You truly don't know what you're talking about.
That's enough
@@joshd3192 why not answer the points and testimonies made by people who experienced the events of that day first hand rather than maligning the people who put together the "conspiracy" video, or people who have viewed them? Why not prove THE EYEWITNESSES wrong and confront THEM: the people who were there and gave the testimony? As I said, this "debunker" ignores much. Like it or not news reports are news reports. They are historical events and must be faced, and as I said, either refuted or reconciled. They are still available and whether you agree with the conclusions promoted by any "conspiracy" video or not, you still have the problem of the testimonies given which were included in the various video presentations. Those are first hand accounts like it or not, and they must be included in any honest attempt to understand what happened that day. What's your explanation of how everything in the twin towers becomes dust? Did the pancaking floors grind people to powder? Did pancaking floors also grind virtually every computer, every desk, every chair to powder too? If that's what you believe, please tell us all how that happened without invoking the involvement of explosives? How did pancaking floors cause steel beams and complete sections of the tower walls to become embedded in neighboring buildings hundreds of feet away? Photos of those still exist. They record historical facts. What's YOUR explanation of why didn't they just fall down to the ground close to the towers?
@@billeckert6454 The truth movement has had 22 years to provide evidence to their claims and have failed miserably. Your long-winded posts and personal incredulity mean nothing.
@38:54 How did Steve jones gain access to the site and obtain the material. What were his credentials to allow access and remove specimens?
I don't believe he was at the site. If I recall, it was collected off or near a building by someone who lived close to Ground Zero and sent to him.
You’re the one advancing conspiracy theories that d**k-riding factless garbage. You tell us
Yes, Professor Steven Jones had samples of the dust sent to him...and it was actually quite simple for him to use the technology of the day to determine the presence of thermite in each and every sample sent to him. I went to his seminar in L.A. Very professional. Of course the Mormons dug their heels in and fired him for having the audacity to challenge the prevailing lie regarding the presence or absence of un spent thermetic material. The simplest perspective is usually the correct one. Mr. Jones would not compromise himself...and the Mormons trashed him.
@@elang3366 Oh...so anyone could just get samples to them. The most extreme of crime scenes, that was easy. I should have asked for the samples. If it was a such a conspiracy, he must have had some clever operatives obtain them. Your explanation is simplistic and weak. "Here are your samples. Have a nice day." Really? Crime scenes, especially that highly sensitive one, would not be so accommodating. Not buying your explanation.
There was dust all over New York. He collected samples from various people and had the samples documented and signed.
Remember the dancers who took time off from their shift as urban movers in a system.
The guys who show up AFTER the first plane hit? Yeah....neat story.
' Solving 9-11 by Christopher Bollyn . '
@@TheMiddleClassholes ruclips.net/video/R1ivfjnNoJc/видео.html
@@roysmith3767 The guy reviews a book. NEAT!
@@TheMiddleClassholes lol lol lol
You really have enough balls to say hitting the targets because the planes were already in the air was a simple task? Then why couldn’t the replicate it in a simulator? The best pilots couldn’t do it!
Did you do any research? Do planes even fly those speeds at low altitude?
What best pilots were those? Are you just a conspirtarc?
@@Forensource a conspiritarc? You learned a new word? Learn how to spell it.
You can watch any of the conspiracy documentaries and get their names. Sorry I don’t have them memorized.
I’ll give you a video and prove you wrong again, but I do I really need to do the research for you? One guy’s name is John Lear. Ever heard of him?
ruclips.net/video/hcTQdqSDYB0/видео.html
@@NickkaDUBConspirtard.
Funny how b-52 pilots fly at a hundred feet to do that at 600 mph.
John Lear was a UFO conspiracy nut. Who cares?
So what happened to the four planes? The flight crews and passengers? What about all the videos of the planes hitting the towers?
Silly conspirtard.
@@Forensourcethat’s all you know how to say.
ruclips.net/video/GEQtxTnDusk/видео.html
Wouldn’t you also have to believe that people who have little to no flight experience can navigate the turbulence and with pinpoint accuracy hit their targets?
Since that has no bearing on the facts...no. No, you wouldn't have to believe that.
Actually, of the four pilots, three had pilot licenses, the forth had pilot training. Some of the other hijackers also had flight training. These are the ones usually pointed to as flight-school drop outs. Many ignore the ones who didn't drop out. You don't become qualified without accumulating flight time. It's not necesaary to accumulate a lot of experience to crash. Usually you accumulate experience so you won't crash. If you look at the crazy angle they hit the towers they look more like inexperienced pilots than professionals. Professionals would have done a better job. Pilots can't afford to be sloppy. As for the turbulence, from the footage I saw it was a clear day. They weren't flying through a huricane.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 747 takes a bit more training that a Cesna
@@user-il7ku8zi9q Yes. They knew enough to fly badly and without having to cover 98% of what I professional pilot would need to know. If you look at the first tower they hit it at an angle. Banked. That is, even with a target that stood out for miles they needed to turn into it. If you look at footage of the second plane they almost missed. Again with a target that they would have been able to see from miles away. That doesn't imply a high degree of airline flying skill to me. What they would have known is how the rudder and stick worked and for what they were doing that was enough, if barely. If they were not doing the flying, in the last minutes at least, then the alternative is either the airline pilots were doing it or the planes were remotely controlled (there are a number of more insane theories but let's ignore them for now). Of the alternatives the most plausible one, and the one the evidence points to, is that, unfortunately, they just had enough skill to hit the towers. I think they were 767's, not that it's central to your argument.
This lecture is a testament to why university is a waste of time and money
It’s not really.
I liked it. Although I disagreed with the presenter, I did get the sense that he'd be open to calm, polite conversations about all things related to 9/11. Not like YT....where we love to argue.... :)
The “truther” can’t handle the truth. Any conversation turns into a bait and switch pivot. Or, you’re just talking to a robot, in which case, the “conversation” ends with crickets. Then, there is the classic, let me delete my thread, or all my comments nutter. It’s really a lot to contend with, but I think that is the point.
University is a waste of time and money when u go into believing 2 genders and u go out believing in billions. Life is based on duelality. U can't have good wo bad. U can't have up wo down ect boy girl
I’m genuinely curious what you mean. Do you believe that critical analysis of conspiracy theories in general isn’t worth studying? Or that conspiracy theories about this particular topic (9/11) aren’t worth studying?
"There are hundreds of testimonies, and I have a Word document of all of the eye witness testimonies that claim they say a plane hit the Pentagon, and it's several pages long. And referenced with citations. I should have brought that with me today"
You think?
Keeping secrets isn’t hard. You obviously aren’t aware of how many compartmentalized people worked on the nuclear bombs without their knowledge.
About 100,000 people were "in on" the creation of the atomic bomb, but the project was so secret that vice president Harry Truman did not know about it until he became president.
@@adamsyed5535 9/11 wouldn’t be as hard to keep secret as this guy thinks.
Just think about the people who in so many cases we know about were part of simulations of the exact same thing at the exact same time and place going on. These people who are orchestrating the real events at least know about the plans for the simulations.
People started to catch onto it and now they don’t make it public knowledge anymore. You used to be able to lookup FEMA workshops and they’re also not posted anymore to the public.
You used to be able to see a lot of the crisis actor workshops and it’s the same thing. No longer available for the public to see.
I wish Jesse Ventura would be President. There wouldn’t be near as many things redacted and top secret anymore. There’s more top secret info than there is info in general from them.
This is OUR government and not the Government’s government. It’s not some secret society here just to exploit us.
Everything needs to be un-redacted after a year and public knowledge unless it’s still going on and really puts people in harm’s way. No more of this BS Bradley Manning type stuff where nobody’s at risk of anything except the guilty party. That should’ve been made public knowledge long before wiki-leaks showed it.
The lies in the 9/11 Commission’s Report are finally going to be proven. They finally are being forced to admit their omissions in their cpu simulations would’ve made a difference and kept WTC 7 from falling. Their lies actually put people’s lives at risk when they say this certain thing caused catastrophic failure in the building and they withheld it from us. We all knew it was a lie and that them telling us it jeopardizes public safety was BS. Now it throws a monkey wrench in the whole narrative they put out where 6 of the 10 members said the report was a lie.
The main author is a self confessed “expert in misleading the public and putting out propaganda”. The FOIA requests and info are on the front page of A&E911Truth.org.
I’m a builder so it was easy for me to read the plans, but I think anyone could most likely read it and have a decent comprehension of it.
9/11 could’ve been kept a secret. If you can convince our public that biological men can be women, you can convince them of anything..
That is those same people who control the media brainwashing us again. They’re trolling us.
@@adamsyed5535 Your comment is so true and speaks on multiple issues. It shows that people only know what they allow them to know. Presidents are selected, not elected. Even when they become President, they still only have so much power.
I just wonder how many are completely corrupt going into the seat or if they’re compromised after taking the seat as POTUS. I believe more than 75% are corrupt going into it.
People love Trump, but always forget he didn’t drain the swamp. He still played nice with both sides. He didn’t even do anything to Hillary. He never told us what happened to JFK, disclosed the truth about Aliens or what really happened on 9/11 like he promised. The biggest of those obviously being 9/11. Although a lot of people believe telling us there are really aliens would somehow take away the control religions have over us and somehow we’d all just go crazy. But yeah, those are just things you’d think would be really easy for a president to do.
Manhattan Project. 100,000+ involved, and yet they kept it airtight.
@@saje911 Compartmentalization.
I thought the bomb had 42,000 people? I’m probably wrong on that.
Weirdly, this is EXACTLY what happens when you crash hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of steel, aluminium and flesh and bones and jet fuel into a 1,700 ft building of steel, glass and concrete. Weird, right?
That didn't happen to building 7
“There is no conspiracy, look at these puppies”
of course not why would they even lie to us? impossible ppl are so smart today they have solved everything that came before them they educate themself in youtube and share all the truth on social media we truly life in an enlightend time ppl where never smarter than today. awww nice puppies
For years I spewed all this conspiracy nonsense to my friends with the upmost confidence. It was only when I went to university and studied a module ‘professional research skills for finance’, I had an epiphany that I had no idea what I was talking about and had massively embarrassed myself.
You should watch the documentary “Seven” about the collapse of building seven. It revolves around a 5 year study led by Dr Leroy Hulsey who is the professor of structural engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The documentary can be found on here if you search for “building seven documentary”
Hopefully university hasn’t completely destroyed your curiosity and common sense.
@@UncleRicoOSU Why would anyone spend time looking at laughably stupid shit. Watch Laurel and Hardy, instead. Significantly more fun AND intelligent.
Obviously you need to go back to school. Anyone with any real knowledge can clearly see the swiss cheese of holes within the government's story.
*Utmost - and I never went to uni
Wtf does finance have to do with physics?
He fails to mention Wille the janitor. He spoke of bombs in the basement before the planes hit
Can I ask if there were bombs in the basement how were all the shops and other areas not impacted so much, because they were able to search those areas, surely bombs down there would have destroyed those areas at the same time as collapsing the building
Is willy the janitor, the same person as Willy the clown?
But the building didnt collapse ftom the bottom so whst did your conspirators put bombs in the basement for ? What you actually mean is some people heard explosions after the planes hit. Yes they did jet fuel went down tbe lift shafts
@@dikranovichk5889 Wiley Coyote
I think the speaker planted the charges,
@41:08 structural integrity of the beams. The truss rods that supported the floors were incredibly smaller than the beams and were compromised much sooner, not to mention that floors they supported were covered in 4 inches of concrete. And each truss rod support rested on an L bracket that lost its structural integrity. Fire engineers attested to the weakness of the truss supports in many normal fires.
Architects have a saying " Never trust a truss" And I believe that's what caused the collapse
@@i.marr.6688 - pretty sure the collapse of the other building into 7 caused the collapse
and even if the floors could collapse, how would the beams still be standing?
@@TimJSwan - physics
@@Peterbrendanalbert - a significant part of a 110 story building falling into building 7 does do that - again physics, not magic
Imagine allowing a flight to get within 10 miles of the Pentagon well after the first tower was hit. Billions of dollars of military capability, sitting in their hands. Why???
There is an airport very close to the Pentagon and planes fly practically over the building when they are taking off and landing there. What exactly were the military supposed to do, shoot down planes if they thought they were hijacked? There were about dozen planes at one stage that were suspected, do you think the military should have shot them down?
The truth may never come out on this if our society listens to pinheads like this Professor Brian Wagner, of Rock Valley College, Rockford, IL. He shows Clear evidence of Steven Jones’ thermite samples and this jerk’s reply to evidence is “ I don’t know , I’m not a chemist”.
If you are listening to this assclown’s arguments, you are part of the problem why this cover up persists.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher.
At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck.
But it’s easy to see the squibs of explosions shooting out the sides of the tower collapses, looks exactly the same as squibs that are seen on any number of building demolitions you can watch online.
THINK FOR YOURSELF.
@@clinteranovic8075 …yes. Are you seriously saying there is no absolutely immediate military air support for the fucking Pentagon? Hard decisions are made often like this. If the aircraft cannot be contacted, under this situation, it’s a threat. There was time, lots of time to stop this attack. Lives could have been saved by the sacrifice of less.
@@stevet5087 Why would there be "immediate military air support for the Pentagon"? As for "hard decisions", sadly for you, this is the real world and not those cool movies you watch.
As for "lots of time", there was about 35 minutes. During those 35 minutes, there was no transponder telling the exact location and limited radar coverage. Here's a challenge. I'll put 4000 dots on an A3 sized paper. I'll pick one of them at random. You have 10 minutes, what with the limited radar coverage, to find which one it is. Each one will have to be checked individually, taking at least a minute each time.
@@mooneyes2k478 stop with these hypothetical little scenarios you are bringing to people that take them off their point so you can try and attack them using your hypothetical constructs. I know who you are, you’ve been on here spreading your debunker crap.
ASK ME, i ‘ll go head to head with you on any of your BS you want to ask, again, I know who you are. In fact, I’ll meet with you publicly ANYTIME/ANYWHERE to discuss this subject.
The result of 911 was the neoconservative power element in our government at that time forcing their so called Patriot Act on you and I and everyone other citizen.
This country is burning, powerful people conspired this attack to weaken us- and the Constitution.
The truth may never come out on this if our society continues to listen to pinheads like this Professor Brian Wagner, of Rock Valley College, Rockford, IL. He shows Clear evidence of Steven Jones’ thermite samples and this jerk’s reply to evidence is “ I don’t know , I’m not a chemist”.
If we listen to this assclown’s arguments, we become part of the problem why this cover up persists.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher.
At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck.
But it’s easy to see the squibs of explosions shooting out the sides of the tower collapses, looks exactly the same as squibs that are seen on any number of building demolitions you can watch online.
THINK FOR YOURSELF.
1:00:56Loose Change: 1st Edition (2005) Full DocumentaryRUclipsMay 18, 202035.4K Views
the difference between being an accessory to a crime, before and after the fact, is that after the fact is usually punished as harshly
as the main perpetrator of the crime himself.
treason, mass murder, mass fraud and crimes against humanity...
Any good debater can take either side of this argument and make it seem true.
What we need is an honest look at real events seen and heard by people on scene.
If that is done, cracks in the story show.
Nist said there was no molten iron at ground zero even when video of molten iron is pulled from the debris days and weeks later.
How do you know it's molten iron?
@@tpryce6243 First is the temp which you can get from nasa images showing temps hot enough, also the color of the Iron tells how hot it is. There are pictures and videos of molten iron, Firemen working at g-zero saw molten iron.
I am a retired Aeronautical Engineer ERAU 79.
I live in NY. I was There and saw it.
What do you know?
@@toLothair2 I know that a liquid can’t be identified by sight, nor can a molten material be identified by color, nor was any metallurgical analysis done on whatever witch’s brew of materials was seen in the ruins of the WTC.
@@tpryce6243 Great, I don't look, so I don't SEE
FOOL
BYE
@@toLothair2 Brilliant.
So the light stuff (fuselage) cut though the steel columns like a hot knife through butter, but the heaviest part of the plane (engines) bounced off and ejected 4 blocks away. How does anyone take this guy seriously! LMAO
OK, twoofer.
By actually understanding the facts, THAT'S how. You, on the other hand, amply illustrated that you fail to understand even the basics.
Every statement on the projection screen, visible in the thumbnail, is EXACTLY what the speaker will spend the next hour and 37 minutes doing.
Ty
Have you never been in a University class?
xD
jesus this guys arguments are so shallow,his name should be puddle..or puddled,,
Very interesting lecture video, just a shame the Q&A questions are not repeated out loud. No you have to guess the questions.
better than misrepresenting the answer, i suppose
This issss Jeopardy
I don't believe there was even an audience there!
@@mvwmark8955great conspiracy theory!
The steel issue has another component in addition to the weakening of of the steel itself. The jet fuel set many other objects on fire in the buildings, which further contributed to the heating.
Yupp the tower where essentially just kilns. To attest how it was the debris from the attack where still very hot some of it was even still burning smoking and red hot 100 days after the attacks
@@trashman835it's from the chemicals used to melt the steel,
Same chemicals that melted some cars and didn't burn the papers inside the car's
@@patrickjohnson7801what chemical would that be 😂
Exactly well said and in the fire service one of the subcategories of a structure fire is a office fire, and it is differentiated due to the fact that a office build will have waaaayy more fuel because of the paper and other office supplies. So I have no clue how many offices are even on a single floor let alone the whole tower. So that amount of fuel has to be taken into account. More fuel more heat.
@@k45207 so what you are saying is that the office furniture along with the jet fuel (like karoseen) made it so hot that the steel was still in liquid form in the basement for three weeks, like a volcano.
Ubfos.
“When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
Anything else scumbag?
After all, quote-mining and lying are arguments. Really.
Where'd the "first responder" you claimed go? Still haven't actually managed to make one up?
"Puppy butts."
Clearly this guy takes it seriously.
I love that he's carrying all of this "I'm the smartest guy in the room, so here, I'll explain to you morons what a conspiracy theory is" and "I'm smart but I'm also an entertainer, so I'll be making you laugh throughout"
None of which happens.
I wonder what he would say about Alaska's Structural Engineer professors? I doubt he knows more than they do about engineering? ruclips.net/video/LJPuWy9utss/видео.html
I would respectully submit that this proves he very much takes it seriously. He knows it's a highly distressing topic that involves an incredible amount of needless human suffering and death, and that he's asking people to sit down and have a think about it for more than an hour. That he occasionally reminds them with his cuddly animal slides that the world is not all darkness and horror shows both his compassion and that he is extremely aware of how serious the topic is: so serious people need to be able to take a second to reset every now and then or else they'll just shut down and refuse to look anymore.
I don't get the gag?
Your claim at 47:34 is misleading. No amount of fire and debris damage could possibly make a building collapse.
Nobody in their right mind would EVER make that claim.
They’re saying that no steel framed building is going to fall at free fall speed and faster from fire alone. You’d have parts of the building falling over time or the whole thing falling over on it’s side. The whole thing had catastrophic failure all at once like a controlled demolition.
Maybe you should watch some presentations from Firemen For 9/11 Truth.
I believe them over the official story and you should too. In history, only 3 steel framed high rises have fallen from fire. All 3 on 9/11.
A shit load of floors fell down on a shit load of floors below. Once it’s moving it can’t be stopped. What’s so hard to understand about that? If metal is bending inside it’s not going to expand in diameter it’s going to pull in
@@EpicCrust lol sure thing
@@EpicCrust Which building are you talking about first off?
There’s only 3 steel framed buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire. All 3 happened on 9/11 and had proof of explosives all throughout the dust. I’m asking you which building you’re talking about so I can point you in the direction to show you why you’re being lied to.
@@NickkaDUB how many buildings have had a Jet Liner rip a huge hole in it 100 stories up with a structure that is supported by the external walls?
Explosives found? Yeah right. In a concrete and steel blender, AFTER blowing up. Sounds like a load of crap.
@@EpicCrust I’m sorry you feel this way bro. In all honesty it just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I’m not putting you down. I promise.
Yes, they found all kinds of spheres of iron and chips that look like thermites.
While TWC 1/2 had an outer wall of steel and concrete, you’re obviously forgetting the entire core of steel columns. The core was extremely strong.
ruclips.net/video/Qamecech9m4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/9oVs_94VHk8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/HXYswf3lzU8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/hcTQdqSDYB0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/m7f32qIwsUs/видео.html
Here’s the core. Idk what video is about, but it’ll show you the core.
ruclips.net/video/CCBSUj84eIk/видео.html
How big would a crew need to be if they were planting engine parts in the rubble? They would have to be trucked in with news crews watching.
Who says they were trucked in?
@@Maximilian-Willert If it's a conspiracy, how do you plant huge parts like that secretly and get the masses to agree to be a part of a huge cover up?
What engine parts ? The manufacture of the engines saw that plant and said it was not a part of any engine, how did a 747 fit on that hole in the pentagon and disappear, landing gear and tires poof, gone, bodies, luggage and pentagon has cameras all over but not one captured incoming. I refuse to turn myself in to the nut house, ok asylum.
@@ak-488did you see Bill Clinton saying ( when the bomb hit the Pentagon)
@@ak-488how did silkair flight hit water and leave notbing larger tban a basketball? Its because you dont understand the physics of what happens to things at those velocities. Was not claimed to be a 747 either
The official story with it's numerous holes and weaknesses is indeed a conspiracy theory.
i can't believe ppl actually still believe the official story
You watched this entire thing and still believe in those baseless theories?
@@qwerp3 @lordakujin never once said he believed the theories in this video. However it's perfectly fine to question the original story and people should. Why? Because it was the government who did the investigation and submitted the final report.
@@Lugare2011 it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened. How steel towers collapsed when struck by a high speed airline
@@qwerp3 Ok Mr. genius explain building 7 then?!?! While you're thinking about which excuse to use for building 7 refer to my other comment with video's debunking many claims about the towers.
@@Lugare2011 funny how you don't understand what happens to a steel building when it has been on fire for 6 hours and heavily damaged from 2 of the tallest buildings of the world collapsing right by it.
People in positions of power .should be held responsible for their actions .no matter how long ago it happened. Starting with bush
the us where never held responsible for their war crimes why would this start now?
Nobody will ever see the comment ca. #5400, but what I find most interesting is the velocity of the collapse.
Which is said to be free fall speed, which isn’t possible if there was no suction from down under.
I wouldn't describe it as "Free fall speed" because it can lead to confusion such as your own. However, the sheer amount of weight, force, and energy involved in the collapses made very quick work of the floors beneath. You can see the collapses increase speed initially as they are gathering momentum.
@@Kyle.Johnson, in the end of this: ruclips.net/video/vzInIjD6nKw/видео.html
it is claimed that the fall is simulated and happened as expected.
Some day I will search more about this.
Back then they had something called gravity. It was quite effective at making things fall without suction.
Five ⁽⁽⁽people⁾⁾⁾ are dancing the Hava Nagila to the tune of this hasbara... 🕺🕺🕺🕺🕺
And a small number of half-wits make up stupid shit.
@@mooneyes2k478is this made up u waste of semen?
@@user-fq3rf3dr3g Yes, anything you say is a made-up waste of semen, that's correct.
You harp on “selective evidence” but you are using that same tactic.
A single plane hitting a single spot on the tower, blowing a hole and burning off most of the jet fuel out the other end, DOES NOT RESULT in free fall collapse of a steel framed building that was built thicker at the bottom and thinner as the building construction gets higher.
At most, it should have FALLEN OVER, at the point where the plane struck.
Do not believe this lousy POS, if anyone on here ever gets to meet this speaker, crack his jaw.