9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[TESLAMotors]

I was looking something up and came across this. LMAO
I have never seen this before and holy shit, what a verbal slip.
0:50, but it starts at 0:57

Love one of the more popular comments below.

A.C. Meyer 1 month ago
He is thinking "oh shit I shouldn't have said that"

:frusty:

 

[destillat]

You can see from any YouTube video that this "YouTube expert" is flat out wrong. You can literally see the building pancakes. It does not fall into its foundation. The building above the impact falls down into and crushes the building by below, with the lower part remaining motionless until it is destroyed by the falling part.

Anyone can see that in any of the videos so stop posting this idiotic and easily refuted garbage.

Except there were plenty of pre-collapse 'explosions' documented.

 

[fuji]

Just as an aside, I don't think it works the way you are saying when speaking of increasing force (but I could be wrong).

You don't believe a falling object accelerates as it falls?

Or that two floors weigh more than one?

Umm.......

 

[Titalian]

You don't believe a falling object accelerates as it falls?

Or that two floors weigh more than one?

Umm.......

Free fall is not possible, if there's an obstruction in the way.

 

[fuji]

He's not a youtube expert he's an explosives tech who was recorded and the video was subsequently put online. Saying "youtube expert" is a red herring, YouTube is a medium, a platform, it's really that simple.
No different than Fox News or Faux as some call it, no different than CNN, CBS, ABC, 123, RT, AL-JAZEERA, etc.

Go ahead and refute his points, would love to see you try.

And he is flat wrong as anyone can see the building does not fall into its foundations like a controlled demolition. You can go look yourself and see the bottom of the building remained motionless as the part above the impact site fell into it.

You are posting utter garbage.

 

[fuji]

Except there were plenty of pre-collapse 'explosions' documented.

Again, you can see with your own eyes that he is wrong. He is talking pure nonsense which means the claim that he is any kind of expert is itself bullshit.

Go look with your own eyes. Find the collapse videos yourself. The bottom of the building remains motionless until it is crushed by the falling part.

That is a fact. Go look.

 

[TESLAMotors]

And he is flat wrong as anyone can see the building does not fall into its foundations like a controlled demolition. You can go look yourself and see the bottom of the building remained motionless as the part above the impact site fell into it.

You are posting utter garbage.

Here you go. 0:50 but the video is only 3 minutes, watch NIST "making our case" (meaning the expert's case). lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

And he is flat wrong as anyone can see the building does not fall into its foundations like a controlled demolition. You can go look yourself and see the bottom of the building remained motionless as the part above the impact site fell into it.

You are posting utter garbage.

........SKIP 11:25 in the video below.....
I'll create an entire thread just for this video and take a poll on whether it looks like it's falling straight down or whether it's falling all over the place and damaging other buildings that are in plain sight.

So where did the building fall? ALL OVER THE PLACE? lol
Fuji, you realize how silly and obvious you're making yourself look now right?


if THAT isn't onto its own footprint and THAT was caused by fire and debris which fell from the other WTC buildings in turn causing it (again) to fall STRAIGHT down.... lmfao
One column (from the corner) of the building, yet amazingly, poof, almost symmetrically down. :thumb:

Building at 1:36 looks a LOT like WTC 7, EXCEPT that debris and fires caused WTC 7's collapse. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

 

[TESLAMotors]

Building at 1:36 looks a LOT like WTC 7, EXCEPT that debris and fires cuased WTC 7's collapse. lol

 

[fuji]

yeah... in freefall... ok

Yeah, as can be clearly seen in all the videos.

 

[fuji]

Here you go. 0:50 but the video is only 3 minutes, watch NIST "making our case" (meaning the expert's case). lol

Now look at how the WTC did not collapse from the bottom and fall into its foundation, but instead collapsed from the impact site, with the top half falling on and crushing the stationary bottom half.

You can clearly see with your own damned eyes that the WTC did not collapse that way. It simply didn't.

What the fuck are you even still debating??????

 

[TESLAMotors]

Now look at how the WTC did not collapse from the bottom and fall into its foundation, but instead collapsed from the impact site, with the top half falling on and crushing the stationary bottom half.

You can clearly see with your own damned eyes that the WTC did not collapse that way. It simply didn't.

What the fuck are you even still debating??????

Thank you for watching it and clearly showing everyone you're being intentionally dishonest.
NIST had to change a few things (sciency facts) to FIT their story. lol

The building falls picture perfectly onto its own footprint, EXACTLY like all successful demolitions do.
Another angle at 11:24

Again, thanks for showing everyone how dishonest you're being with this. lol

 

[Titalian]

Now look at how the WTC did not collapse from the bottom and fall into its foundation, but instead collapsed from the impact site, with the top half falling on and crushing the stationary bottom half.

You can clearly see with your own damned eyes that the WTC did not collapse that way. It simply didn't.

What the fuck are you even still debating??????

It would have had to explode from the bottom otherwise the rubble would have been 14 stories high.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Yeah, as can be clearly seen in all the videos.

Freefall cannot be attained when there are things in the way of said falling object, in this case, support columns (concrete) etc.

NIST said it was freefall, THEN, changed it to freefall PLUS 40%. lol

 

[basketcase]

New documentary on the whole thing, just came across this.


Some of the comments below the video

Those comments are a pretty good synopsis of how nutty and racist most conspiracytheorists are.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Those comments are a pretty good synopsis of how nutty and racist most conspiracytheorists are.

Okay, ignore that video, chime in on the video Fuji and I are discussing.
We'll keep it very simple for you guys. Some things I can understand are hard to swallow, so maybe moving pictures with sound (aka video) will help you understand.

 

[fuji]

Thank you for watching it and clearly showing everyone you're being intentionally dishonest.
NIST had to change a few things (sciency facts) to FIT their story. lol

The building falls picture perfectly onto its own footprint, EXACTLY like all successful demolitions do.
Another angle at 11:24

Again, thanks for showing everyone how dishonest you're being with this. lol

Babble on mindlessly as long as you like. Anyone with eyes can go look at the videos and see that the top half of the building above the impact site falls onto the motionless bottom half below.

So much for your "YouTube expert ".

 

[fuji]

Freefall cannot be attained when there are things in the way of said falling object, in this case, support columns (concrete) etc.

NIST said it was freefall, THEN, changed it to freefall PLUS 40%. lol

Meanwhile you can see the top half falling.

 

[basketcase]

A structural engineer can tell you what would happen if the core was breached, but he won't be able to confirm whether the core was rigged withe explosive charges.....

He will be able to tell you what would have to be involved for a demolition to occur.

Since it is obvious from videos that the collapses started where the planes hit, that would mean that they would have had to known in advance exactly where the planes would hit (unless you believe like tit that there were no planes, the live video was faked, the thousands upon thousands who saw the planes with their own eyes were in on it, the hundreds on the planes were secretly exterminated, etc. etc).

It would also mean that the people on those floors would have to have seen the massive prep work and that there were invisible explosives on the exterior structural members.

 

[basketcase]

I still don't know. Didn't he say that you must weaken the building before you rig the explosives? Does that also apply to a steel frame building? How would they have weakened the WTC without detection? The WTC had a unique steel frame structure, not the usual framed buildings that this gent would be experienced with.

....

It sure seems you do know.