Never Before Seen 9/11 COLLAPSE Footage

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago in Misc

Controlled demolition? Inside job? Tragic and unnecessary no matter what.
There are 53 comments:
Male 40,734
@Palfas:
#1 A Repub was in office, so the Dems have a "sitting duck" target!
#2 People who believe IN Big Gov`t think Big Gov`t IS behind everything.
#3 Show me where the political make-up up "troofers" is ANYTHING BUT highly Democrat!
#4 Lots of people believe in conspiracies, but THIS particular set has a slightly more political bias.

Look at me for example: I`m seriously "right wing" but I am a "Questioner"...

And it`s 4 pages or under!

I WIN THE POOL!!!



Um, now what am I going to DO with it?
0
Reply
Male 411
@5cats. Yeah, that makes sense, the party that disdains the federal government and sees liberal conspiracies everywhere is NOT the source of "truthers"
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@carmium
The wording of your demand gives you pretty much free rein to dismiss ANY expert just by claiming he`s a pathological liar. I guess the onus would then be on you to somehow PROVE your claim, right?

Tom Sullivan, Explosives Tech for CDI: "Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period."

Dennis A. Thompson, CA Commercial Blaster: "I believe now as I did when I first saw the event live on TV the day it happened, that the WTC collapse was due to Controlled Detonation."

Tim Erney, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions: "Based on what I know, looking at it from various disciplines, it`s obvious that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to pre-planned, well placed, precisely timed controlled demolitions."

I know, I know... they`re all pathological liars.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Female 6,381
Find me ONE professional demolition expert who isn`t a pathological liar and says it was a controlled demolition. Jeezuz I`m tired of that idiotic, utterly bogus claim.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"The fires burned down there for weeks"

Which is one of the things to support the possible use of thermite (or thermate) which supplies its own oxygen.

True, "not all require a `conspiracy`" but then again, none of them precludes a conspiracy either. All possibilities should be available to an open mind, no?

(Incidentally, discussions with you are much more enjoyable when we manage to keep it civil like this, thanks)
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@patchy: Well thanks! I`m not saying all troofers are Dems, just more of them than Repubs.
Many of those Dems could fall into the "Questioners" catagory too (that`s where I am!).

@chalket: The fires burned down there for weeks, I think you`ve even said that! That means they got oxygen from somewhere, the fuel was everywhere! THAT is where the melted METAL (not just steel) came from, weeks after.

>The Towers falling has been explained to my satisfaction. Sound of "explosions" = falling humans. The way it fell makes perfect engineering sense. The second tower hit & fell first? Because there was way more mass over the damaged area...
>Building 7, & Flight 93 (crashed) not so well.
>Flight 77 & the Pentagon = NOT AT ALL explained!

There`s plenty of other questions too... but not all require a `conspiracy` to resolve eh?
0
Reply
Male 1,243
chalket: you`ve got some great points. But some people are afraid of the truth. Don`t worry though, they are the minority.

davymid: orly?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@5Rats: A valid point, however kilns and furnaces require constant input of fuel and/or oxygen to attain and maintain those temperatures. The tower basements had neither of those inputs, yet there was molten steel at least 8 weeks later.

[quote]The fires in the Towers weakend (not melted!) the steel core[/quote]
Then where did the reported molten steel come from?

Just curious, but if you acknowledge that the official story on Building 7 is questionable, why do you not at all question the official story on the other buildings?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
[quote]The fact that the towers with stood the impact of the planes is in it self remarkable. [/quote]
The towers were designed for the impact of a Boeing 707. According to John Skilling, one of the two WTC structural engineers, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed." But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

A `white paper` describing the study states, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@CRAIGJ
Then there would have been some semblance of that backbone remaining standing. Even if the floors could somehow give way one after the other at literally free-fall speed (physically impossible, by the way), how did all that steel super-structure simply disappear?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
All right @5cats, I suppose I`ll take your word for it.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@patchy: There`s literally dozens, if not a hundred polls which say VERY similar things! I`m not going to list every one of them. And from literally EVERY polling agency, not just 1 or 2.

The chart shows that "trooferism" is both widespread AND idiotic! It is, however, worse in countries other than the USA and Canada...

SO these polls which show Democrats as thinking "Bush done it!" = highly believable. Not just "way back when" but even 2011...

@chalket: fires INSIDE a kiln or furnace burn hotter than, say, a campfire, eh?
The fires in the Towers weakend (not melted!) the steel core which holds the whole thing up! With zillions of tons of weigth on top of it? It came down, destroying each floor below one-by-one.
Like @CraigJ says: it was a combination, not just "one thing".
Building 7? Not so much...
0
Reply
Male 146
@chalket... If you have done so much research you would know that how the towers were constucted contributed to how they came down. The "backbone" of the towers were an interior core of steel beams the entire height of the buildings. This acted like a guide as the floors collapsed on them selves from the weight of the floor above. The fact that the towers with stood the impact of the planes is in it self remarkable. It was not "just the fires" that brought them down, it was a combination of the whole event.
0
Reply
Male 60
"Controlled demolition? Inside job?"
DUH! Sorry, but you`re intensely stupid if you think those collapses were caused by a plane hitting the building.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: A Zogby poll (paid for by truthers) is not a reliable poll. The questions they asked were a joke, clearly intended to influence decisions. You can`t have a question be "Some people think that blah blah..." because right there you`re putting ideas in people`s heads. Bad polling is bad. Your CNN poll also doesn`t seem to say that Bush knew or that he did it on purpose, just that they blame him for it. Oh yeah, they apparently blame Clinton a bit too. Find better polls. And what`s with that chart? It`s not even people from the US...
0
Reply
Male 141
It`s only a "controlled" demolition if you`re an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@intrigid: Thanks for stupid answer #1. It`s not made up, many firefighters and cleanup people reported it. Did you even click the link?
0
Reply
Male 914
"MOLTEN STEEL FLOWING LIKE LAVA in the basements, weeks and even months later, buried under tons of rubble where they were all but starved of oxygen. How can you explain that away?"

I dunno, some sh*thead making sh*t up? It would only be like the trillionth time someone did that.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
I know I`m in the minority on this one, but I`ve done a lot of research and I am certain that the planes/jet fuel were not enough to bring down all three buildings, into their very own footprints. No other buildings have ever collapsed straight down like that without precisely timed demolition. Traditional pancake collapses always fall to one side, at least a little, but these buildings fell right into their own basements.

One of the biggest red flags to me is the fact that most experts agree that a jet fuel fire could not possibly burn hot enough to melt steel but the cleanup crews reported MOLTEN STEEL FLOWING LIKE LAVA in the basements, weeks and even months later, buried under tons of rubble where they were all but starved of oxygen. How can you explain that away?
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Feast you eyes on THAT chart! It`s from 2008!
Egypt and Jordan "blame the JEWS" I understand...
But WTF is wrong with Mexico? Did they have an outbreak of "troofferitis" or something??
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@LillianDulci: Wiki Says Otherwise!
Of course you have to "think it through" Eh? Zogby Aug 2007: About 50% of Americans think Bush "had something to do with it". BUT broken down by party? 80% of them are Democrats! So that`s about 40% of ALL Democrats who are "troofers"... at least as far as Bush is concerened. It`s A FACT!
CNN Agrees! In a 2006 poll.
And the numbers have NOT gotten better over the years, a 2011 poll found apx the same results...

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Is no wonder the world chants "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!"[/quote]
Smiley, no-one is chanting that except you. Over and over and over again.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Many Democrats (about half, iirc...) believe Bush and Cheney "masterminded" 9/11"

Pulled that out of your ass to try to make people you don`t like look bad for something that`s not even true.

"They`ve proven over and over it did in fact get hot enough to melt steel. You guys are worse than "birthers"."

My understanding is that it didn`t get hot enough to melt steel, but it got hot enough to weaken the steel, which caused it to bend and eventually snap when it was too far bent.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Nothing new here. Move along...
0
Reply
Male 2,424
They`ve proven over and over it did in fact get hot enough to melt steel. You guys are worse than "birthers".
0
Reply
Male 914
1. Point out the holes in the "official" 9/11 story.
2. Come up with an alternate story that has 10 times as many holes.
3. ???
4. Don`t profit because you were spending your time dicking around on the internet instead of contributing something useful to society.
0
Reply
Male 936
i feel bad for those who still think 9/11 was a pure act of terrorism. The scary part is that those people actually vote.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I`ll take "under" and say it`ll stall out by page 4, tops.[/quote]

Nope sorry has to be "at least" and you have to state your bet with one comment.
0
Reply
Male 40,734
@rickwhite`s link is a "troofer" video...

@lostinkorea I`ll take "under" and say it`ll stall out by page 4, tops.

Even IABers get tired of the same GD arguements...

Troofers: Fire cannot melt steel!
Questioners: How did THAT happen?
CoInTelPro: Look, I built a model and set it on fire!
True Believers: The Government would NEVER lie to it`s own citizens!
Anti-Semites: (various types) Teh JEWS did it!
Democrats: Bush & Cheney did it!
Republicans: We TOLD you to keep America strong, but nooooo...

(Counter Intelligence Program, run by the gov`t to make other groups LOOK bad and to spread false information)
(CoinPro was actively harrassing Martin Luther King & his failmy during his life. The day he died: A FEDERAL SPY was on the baclony with him... not nutty theory, it`s a fact!)
0
Reply
Male 151
http://youtu.be/n_fp5kaVYhk
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Trooferism is...

0
Reply
Male 186
Sites like these that continue to push the conspiracy theory crap (which certain people scream at every tragic event)only fans the stupidy fires.
If the simply minded can`t figure it out, it must be faked by the government! lol
0
Reply
Male 1,243
9/11: Blueprint for Truth

It appears that the supports were some how weakened/broken so that the top could pile drive down through the bottom part of the building. using physics the buildings top would have either fallen over at their impact point, or fell on it and stuck there.

WTC7 was a smoking gun, clearly a classical controlled demolition.

Who did it? Who knows? But a lot of people are beginning to understand that there is some type of coverup somewehre. Where, we may never know. But it`s been a fishy tale all along, since it`s the first time in history when 3 buildings fell due to fire, and nearly perfectly in their own footprint. Is no wonder the world chants "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!"
0
Reply
Female 3,726
You`re on McGovern and Cajun. I`m going with 25 pages...you know it`s going to turn political and then religious. And once we start talking about religion, you may as well go and get a snack!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
"Never before seen"? I`m pretty sure I`ve seen this footage before.
0
Reply
Male 4,235
Tin Foil Hat
is a good song
0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 40,734
@Howler81: Whya re you disrespecting the "Martian Anal Probe" people??
Lolz! j/k!
Nice link! B.Clinton had many faults, but there`s no denying he`s a gifted public speaker!
(who doesn`t stammer, or rely on a teleprompter...)

I got in early this time! No ranting, just people donning their tinfoil hats...



Why isn`t MY tinfoil hat working??
0
Reply
Male 40,734
Nothing in this video relates to what the description says... except the "tragic" part.

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again:

#1 The Twin Towers has been explained to my satisfaction. Building 7, less so.
#2 The Pentagon was NOT struck by an airliner, the physical damage is absolute proof of that.
#3 At least 2 videos exist which show what happened at the Pentagon CLEARLY. Both have never -and will never be- seen by the public. The "9/11 Comission" specificly did NOT investigate nor look at any evidence about the Pentagon (afaik).
#4 The other plane was shot down by -or at the very least crashed while avoing- a US fighter jet.
#5 Many Democrats (about half, iirc...) believe Bush and Cheney "masterminded" 9/11... before he even was elected! To this day they believe this!

Off to read the ranting of others now...
0
Reply
Male 5,094


I`m prepared!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
ONE DOLLAR BOB! Oh wait this is getting to technical I don`t wanna play!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Your bets also have to based on MINIMUMS.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Anyone who places a bet on the page count is automatically disqualified from participating, it would skew the results.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I know how you feel truthers, I`ve played the Mass Effect trilogy. Really frustrating to be someone like Commander Shepard.

(see what I did there?)

Seriously people, we don`t need onerous tenuous conspiracy theories to know how govt robs us of our liberties.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Lets take a pool I`ll go with mmmmmm 31 pages.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
How does this in anyway indicate a controled demolition or inside job. I think I`ve seen this before even.


0
Reply
Male 325
OK, that`s actually not fair. I should apologize. To those who believe the Loch Ness Monster and/or Bigfoot exist, I respect your beliefs and should not compare them to such nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 325
Loch Ness Monster? Bigfoot? Martian Anal Probe expedition gone awry? Pointless conspiracy theory prefacing no matter what.

I like Clinton`s take on the matter, frankly.
http://tinyurl.com/b55smhl
0
Reply
Male 4,235
no its called physics
0
Reply
Male 406
that looks like a controlled blow out to me. Just saying.

*puts on tinfoil hat*
0
Reply
Female 3,726
Oh here we go...how many pages are we going to have this time? 15-20? Anyone wanna bet?
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Never Before Seen 9/11 COLLAPSE Footage [Rate Link] - Controlled demolition? Inside job? Tragic and unnecessary no matter what.
0
Reply