Apparently, he can't come up with an answer. But, there was evidence of thermite found on the site.
http://investigate911.org/
Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
http://investigate911.org/
No, nice attempt to try and somehow dismiss youtube videos altogether??? lol Watch whichever ones you want, but you have firefighters hearing explosions going off, they can't be discounted, no matter which video(s) you watch.
According to your opinion, but in my opinion, they weren't debunked. I'm not spamming them, again, your opinion. Truth hurts bothers you maybe?
But it could also be an appeal to ignorance on your part.
I'm not passing any of my theories, I'm passing what people heard (firefighters = explosions), what people saw and found at the site (firefighters = molten lava, residual matter with thermite).
Again, appealing to some ignorance.
"The ground level fireballs make sense, however, when we consider what Mark Loizeaux--the president of Controlled Demolition Inc.--has said:
"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.co/2007/12/ground-level-fireballs-disprove.html
Hmmm, firefighters said they heard explosions as did your average citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVE5VyR1M3A
People hearing explosions, remember the guys at 3:58 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfxkcBmZfK0
Yes, and none in the history of modern day have collapsed due to office fires?
I notice that a lot of your arguments are appealing to ignorance, "well NASA officials say they have never seen aliens nor have any aliens visited earth, therefore, aliens don't exist".
Right?
As for credible theory there's a NIST guy who denied ever seeing or hearing of any stories of molten lava found at the site, yet there are FIREFIGHTERS who said they saw it with their own eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o
(Fuji, I noticed you didn't mention WTC 7 again, funny)
How many times have you driven by a construction site and seen them tearing things up, then stopping to ask them what they're doing?
Now if you have, like I have (to satiate my own curiosity), got your answer and walked away saying "interesting" or "oh ok".
Did you ever go in an inspect to see the work they're doing? Probably not, because you know for certain they'd tell you "what are you doing? get off the site/premises! etc. "
Or did you take them for face value, like what the majority of people do when they see a "crew" working on a site, walk by and go on with their lives.
What about the explosions heard near the ground floor? Would the planes have triggered some kind of explosion which was heard down below as well?
I'll go ahead with your "actual" scientific study and match you with Dr. Steven Jones - an expert in thermite who found "nano-thermitic" evidence at the site.
http://investigate911.org/
"After a rigorous peer-review process, their paper was published in the Bentham Chemical Physics Journal, which has been endorsed by Nobel Laureates and is respected within the scientific community."
I'm hoping this passes in your eyes as an "actual scientific study" as well.
Bingo.
"The ground level fireballs make sense, however, when we consider what Mark Loizeaux--the president of Controlled Demolition Inc.--has said:
"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.co...-disprove.html
The conspiracy promoters point to other structural steel buildings that were lost in fires but did not collapse however, I point out that the construction of the WTC towers was different. They don't care to compare apples to oranges.
That did not happen.
As even pointed out by Basketcase's intuitive observation that the falling loose debris fell faster than the collapsing building, which proves that they did not fall at the rate of free fall.
Other's have measured the rate of descent based on the video, and it is not at the free fall rate.
{I'm not a disbeliever of conspiracies, but I doubt that the WTC catastrophe was a controlled demolition}.
Yes. I am dismissing your bullshit YouTube videos. You have had many of these videos refuted and there is no reason to believe that your source is credible. It's just a stream of bullshit from fake experts who don't have any fucking clue what they are talking about. Random videos on YouTube are NOT credible.
Stuff blows up in any building fire. So what?
Yes they were. By multiple posters, and in some cases very thoroughly. Once the first few were totally discredited there's no reason to believe the next one.
What's your M.O. here? Each time one of your nonsense videos is disproven just go find another? Try to "win" by wearing everybody out with spam?
Up thread that theory was disproven. We know the building did NOT collapse from the basement. We know for an absolute fact that it collapsed from the impact floor. This guy you are quoting is a fucking idiot, as anybody with eyes can see in any video that the building collapsed from the impact floors, not the basement.
Your WYC7 theory was annihilated. People saw the building buckling, firefighters knew it was about to collapse, there's no mystery at all.
Now stop spamming us. Coming up with yet one more theory after all your others were disproved is childish.
You lost the debate above, your main points were refuted. Coming back with different points and alleging a different conspiracy is spamming.
Stick to one theory and when it's disproven go away.
Italian lawyer-turned physicist Alberto Miatello believes in a controlled demolition at the base because he figures that the debris pile would've been larger without one, although he measured the rate of descent and it is not free fall.
I disagree with him on his controlled-demolition point because the debris field was spread out over 16 acres. [Edit: I note Fuji's point that the collapse occurred at the point of impact - good one].
American Professional Engineer Tony Szambotti believes it was a controlled demolition. I disagree with him but haven't studied his reasoning at length. I respect him because he meticulously debunked the notion that JFK's backward movement was attributable to a so-called "Jet Effect" theory, which another investigator has proven also false. (IOW, JFK reacted to a shot from the front, ergo murder conspiracy and not a lone nut like Oswald).
We've discussed this at length before in another thread.
Building 7 was hit by falling sections of one of the WTC towers. It had a multi-floor gash in it's structure, not to mention raging fires which caused the building to buckle. The firefighters used a transit level to measure the bulge in the side of the building, and knew that it would collapse. That's how they decide whether to send in more firefighters or not.
Excellent guys. Just reading this thread now as I was vacationing in Italy during the anniversary.
Not all conspiracy theories are wacky.
Conspiracies do exist.
When it comes to the JFK Assassination, I'm a conspiracy realist. The weight of circumstantial evidence and the fallibility of the so-called Warren Commission conclusions easily points to a murder conspiracy and cover-up (the latter two can be independent acts and not a product of a massive, far-reaching conspiracy).
When it comes to 9/11, I do not believe in a controlled-demolition conspiracy.
I think the 9/11 report said that the explosive impact of the planes and the resultant jet-fuelled fires were too much for the spray on retardent.
A lack of critical thinking skills, however, it's healthy to question authority and government scenarios (e.g. the Warren Commission's conclusions).
Video or pics of some molten hot metal also was found to be melting or combustible batteries in a battery or computer room, which have a lower melting point.
Right.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
The Debunking site is offline for some reason, but it had a report that the molten metal you see dripping in your photo above was probably melting batteries in a computer room.
Last edited:
You seem to be forgetting Newton's 3rd law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Regardless of how much time it took for the the top of the building to reach to ground, free fall is "9.8 seconds in a vacuum"
Free-fall with air resistance is damn close to the actual time of between 12-15 seconds.
19 stories of the North Tower went through the bottom 91 stories, "path of greatest resistance", like a hot knife through butter.
You should read the paper that Szamboti helped with, you can see his math for yourself.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
But in order to do what you are saying, it would take demolition on the lower stories.
So, now were back to installing 30,000 lbs (15 imperial ton) of thermite - unnoticed - and then controlling the firing of it, assuming all the jet fuel and everything else going on in the building didn't affect the firing sequences or anything.
In addition to that, how many people are conspirators......how are they being kept quiet? I guess none of them have a moral code because they killed a lot of people.
