A copied video. I am making a playlist of a collection of videos proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Challenge yourself to learn that it was in fact an inside…
(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)
What happened to building 7?
A copied video. I am making a playlist of a collection of videos proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Challenge yourself to learn that it was in fact an inside…
Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants
WTC Dust Study
2/28/2012
"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coating with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite."
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
yes we should rebuild it, WTC <3 !!!!!!!
The lack of any reported injuries and deaths also does not add up. Even if the building was evacuated earlier before the fires got too bad, there should have still been some injured people from when debris hit the various parts of the building, initially. This building was the farthest removed from the immediate WTC plaza, and should have been the one surviving building of the seven.
I find it difficult to believe that one column was responsible for that building to collapse. For example, the Titanic was designed to stay afloat with the first 4 compartments flooded. If people in 1908 were of the mindset to make sure one compartment didn't sink an 800ft+ ocean liner, then builders almost 80 years later could make sure one column wouldn't collapse an ENTIRE 47-floor building. The building would have had to meet lots of safety standards, especially withstanding fire.
Wow, you mean the guy who bought the WTC buildings that had already been attacked by terrorists previously, wanted an insurance policy that covered terrorist attacks?? Wow, that is a smoking gun. I mean its like someone who bought a house in a flood plain and then got flood insurance… Did they cause the flood that later destroyed their home? We will just never know for sure.
I see the resemblance, but that is not enough. We have to analyze it, the human eye (or brain) is not exactly infallible. Regarding the whole top falling sideways thing: The plane did not have the force necessary to push the extremely heavy (relative to the plane) top off to the side.
Yes I can see where you are coming from but it is only a few windows every 30 floors. Don't you think that is suspicious? I certainly do. Also, I am not saying the building should have fallen over on its side, I am saying the the top section should have simply fallen sideways, not the entire building falling straight down. Look up a video of a controlled demolition, then watch a building fall over some any random reason. Striking resemblance to the controlled demolition, huh?
You argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down. And the plumes were simply air along with dust and debris escaping the building as it collapsed. Engineers call the process "pancaking".
Jet fuel burns at 1,750 degrees. Jet fuel didn't play a part in the WTC 7 collapse. As for the Twin Towers, each was separated into 3 sections, each with concrete in between. Since the jets hit the top of the towers, the top would have toppled over (no pun intended) instead of it falling like a controlled demolition. Watch the towers fall, you can see small plumes coming out of the sides every 20 or 30 floors, almost like explosions. It is so obvious, you are just too scared to face the truth.
You said it yourself, "Jet fuel burns at 1,750 degrees". The steel didn't have to melt. All that had to happen is for the steel floor trusses to heat up, expand, and buckle. They were held to the central concrete elevator core by 2- 5/8" bolts at each end per truss. Not much when you are talking about the impact of jet airliner which blew much of the fireproofing off the steel. Once the floor trusses started to buckle and individual sections of the floor gave way, it was only a matter of time.
Yes, but do you think a tiny fire (that no one even saw) could destroy a building? No. Didn’t think so. There is no way a small amount of debris could take down that building, plus, think about this; were any of the other building affected by the debris? No. Did any of them mysteriously collapse? No. Open your eyes, stop being a mindless little sheep being herded by the governments white lies.
Heat has this curious ability to make things expand. This ability is not very helpful when the thing expanding is holding up a building.
WTC7 was evacuated at 9 AM and the area around it was evacuated and cordoned off around 1030 AM.
There were no people or firecrew anywhere near it after that time.
I dont know what Larry with his "pull it"means except it cant possibly be people or firemen.
NIST NCSTAR 1A aka the official final report on wtc7 direct quote "This acceleration was 32.2ft/s² (9.81m/s² ) equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g."
Please explain the freefall from fire damage debunkers since NIST didnt?
Steel loses 50% of it’s strength at about 1,500 degrees.
… Did you even watch the video? There is no way debris could cause that much damage, and the building was made of steel. STEEL. Steel burns somewhere around 2800+ degrees, and the average temperature for a fire (average of all types of fires) is probably around 1200 degrees. Jet fuel burns at 1,750 degrees, so there is no way it could have caused the collapse of any of these buildings.
I think that is the point of the video.
Your argument has many flaws… First of all, Earth was discovered to be round a few hundred years BCE, and leeches are useful in medicine, we still use them today. The government used fire damage as an excuse because then they could say any evidence etc.. was burned in the fire. Why do you even watch these videos if you think they are false? Or you should just open your eyes and accept the fact that our government is evil. Always has been, always will be. Look up "false flag operations" for me.
Common sense is a much weaker argument. In the 1300s, "common sense" said that the Earth was flat. "Common sense" also said that leeches were useful in medicine. Common sense is too often an uninformed, unreliable, and subjective perception of reality. If you're looking to make an argument, research and practical logic should be used. Not common sense.
Unfortunately, any 9/11 conspiracy theory requires such an absurd amount of embellishment that eventually circumvents practicality altogether.
If you dont believe me go to google.com not youtube b/c here on youtube people make their own videos which are radical and extreme – but go to a credible source such as google and type in Israel responsible for 9/11- there will a number of articles that pop up – credible ones – some newspaper articles – you do the research – if you do that then you will understand – cant explain things here b/c it would just take too long –
Was 9/11 an inside job? Yes – but you see people get it wrong – they blame Bush and his administration as those behind 9/11 when actually Bush had nothing to do with those events on that day – he just went along with it – This country has a government within a government – Israel has major influence on the leaders of this country and they help dictate how things go – Israel planned out 9/11 so that the US would have a reason to invade the middle east
your doing reverse psychology on yourself – a better excuse? thats a weak argument to say that it wasnt an inside job – common sense says that its an inside job – common sense
RIP Bill Ding the 7th he died in a terrorism
If 9/11 were an inside job, don't you think the gov't would have a better excuse than "fire damage" to explain the building 7 collapse?
I think the real reason for the vague explanation is that the 9/11 commission really had no idea why it collapsed, and that was the best they could come up with.
Explain the free fall from fire damage?
What laws of physics make a steel framed building collapse at proven free fall from fire damage?
Yep all that massive damage on ONE side made all the rest of the undamaged. sides collapse the exact same didnt it you debunker morons.
Go and chop down a very large tree and stand underneath the side with the damage before it falls you idiots.
Dear Dumbass,
fuck off you dumbass.
"Those who give up Liberty for Security, doeserve neither". Benjamin Franklin. Ben Franklin came to me in a Dream. He stated, It's illuminatti, "N" umerical "W" orld "O" ccult sybolism. Larry Silverstein owns building #7. The Trade Tower that colapsed, (#7). The hour it colapsed, (5th). Third building that collapsed, (3). Bush's IQ, (84). 7 + 5 + 3 + 8 + 4 = (27). Divide by 3 = 999: Upside down 666
"pull it" was said by the building manager to the fire chief suggesting that they remove the fire unit from the building, also, pull it is not used by demolition teams, it's used when they pull down a pre-weakened building with cables
Building 7 was hit by tons of debris from the collapse of the towers, it was set ablaze and suffered massive structural damage.
It was an inside job
I saw some footage of building 7 from the opposite side – it was completely ablaze - this informatation is alway omitted on these conpiracy videos. Its falling apart and they're evacuating firemen. Its looks very very unstable – the footage conspiracy videos always show is from the front – so of course it looks kinda stable – but it was a very different story. I no longer think it was 'pulled' – now i think 'pull it' refers to getting the firemen out of there cause I know it was collapsing.