The McCormick example serves to illustrate that fire can significantly affect structural steel and ultimately bring about a global collapse. The World Trade Center buildings had sprinkler systems and fireproofing -- both of which were stripped and destroyed by the impact of the airliner.

The sites of planes crashes, building collapses and suchlike are routinely cordoned-off and assigned to investigators for very obvious reasons. There is nothing suspicious about that.

I have no particular desire to sit through yet another hour of fantasist nonsense, but I can make a few comments on Jones' very first claims (the first in the whole "documentary") that should give you some idea of his (and its) credibility.

Firstly, he rather dishonestly presents a false version of the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings; he suggests that it states that they collapsed due to fire. This is not true. The World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to a combination of the damage suffered from the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner and the ensuing, unfought, multiple-floor, jet-fuel-accelerated fires (in the cases of buildings 1 and 2) or due to a combination of the damage suffered from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper and eight hours of widespread, unfought fires (in the case of building 7). They were indeed the first buildings in history to collapse as a result of these factors, but, then again, they were the first buildings in history to have been subjected to these factors.

Wrong again -- twice. Firstly, the "entire buildings" simply were not "reduced to dust". Secondly, regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, if you had actually read it, then you would have known that it doesn't deal with the issue of building collapses at all, let alone claim that they were due to fire.

So, you accuse other people of not having read the relevant material while inadvertently letting slip that you haven't read it yourself. Nice.

Sorry dude, you're right, the speed of impact increased the mass of the airliners enough to reduce the entire buildings to dust, Saddam had WMDs, dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together 2000 years ago, evolution is a total fabrication and Jesus will appear on a shaft of light just as soon as Isreal nukes Iran.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.


Oh yeah, and the OFFICIAL 9/11 report says that the buildings collapsed due to fire.

You obviously haven't read it, which is the only reason I can think of for anyone actually believing it...

I don't know how to interpret this other than as a mistake by Bush in speaking. Assuming explosives were planted with the intent of bringing the whole structure down, it wouldn't matter whether they were planted in such a way as to trap people above them. Nobody is escaping once the hypothetical explosion takes place. Thus the only people he could have been referring to was the people who weren't planning on having the whole building collapse (ie. the people flying the planes).

I suppose you could argue it was a Freudian slip, and thus take it to mean there was "explosives" - but I think it's much more likely he was thinking about "plane impacts" and "explosions" and "fire is shiny" and said the word "explosives" by mistake.

(Entertaining nonetheless).

Does this show where the government placed the bombs to where the buildings collapsed....

...what's that? Oh, there's no big conspiracy theory on this one? My bad...

Do you believe he meant - pull the firefighters out? (Sielversteins interview)
He has made statements to that end.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The pull it meaning - pulling the firefighter out. (a grammatical curiosity to say the least falling under a rationale non the less)

Well, firstly, the first half of your reply doesn't seem to make sense. You say that only "three high-rise buildings in history have ever collapsed due to a fire," but also state that the "list includes five famous ones." If there have only ever been three such examples, how can the list of those examples include (at least) five?

Secondly, and more importantly, the World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to a combination of the damage suffered from the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner and the ensuing, unfought, multiple-floor, jet-fuel-accelerated fires (in the cases of buildings 1 and 2) or due to a combination of the damage suffered from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper and eight hours of widespread, unfought fires (in the case of building 7). They were indeed the first buildings in history to collapse as a result of these factors, but, then again, they were the first buildings in history to have been subjected to these factors.

I don't understand, the fires were at the top, but past a certain point, both buildings collapsed in seconds. Why?

Downvote for how ludicrous this video is. The video actually serves to debunk itself, and quite authoritatively at that. If there were supposedly secondary bombs used to demolish the building, then why does the video clearly show the building collapsing from the top, down? Oopsie!

"it has no narrative."

It indeed has a narrative, just no narrator.

Calling anything - especially anything like this - "not debunkable" is just silly. I'm with Theo (which might send him into despair). A mythically huge building collapsing would result in any number of exposive sounds.

valiant effort at sidestepping my questions with your cognitive dissonance, theo ... but i would still like to hear your thoughts on the following:


edit - theo's comment:
“ given that their internal structures weakening is what caused them to fall, of course they're going to fall in on themselves.”
... based on your own post, please tell me how weakening made it possible for 3 steel buildings to symmetrically fall into their own footprint??


what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

SaNdMaN:

Why are you commenting on a movie you haven't even watched? You didn't argue against the dozens of arguments. There are probably almost 50+ reasons why it doesn't make sense you only talked about the 6 or 7 I happened to present. Even so, you didn't resolve anything:

1. "They" is a private group of scientists in the video who ran computer simulations on what a 100 story pancaked building would be like. The result was each floor hitting the next and the collapse proceeding slower as each floor goes. Not at free fall velocity.

2. The point about concrete turning into dust is this: when you drop concrete it shatters, it doesn't EXPLODE into tiny particles of dust. Even if you think that the floors dropping were high enough to turn them into dust, why was there a explosive dust cloud on the first collapsed floor? The concrete should have simply broken into big pieces when falling a mere 10 feet. Also, all 100 floors or each building would have to collapsed at all points simultaneously, and instantly for the collapse to occur. The probability of such things is astronomical.

3. The point of the temperature of the fire isn't that it weakened steel. Lets say you are right that it weakened the steal enough an the building collapsed on its own. How do you explain the presence of molten steel? This right here is enough to tell something is wrong. It doesn't matter if 1000 planes crashed into the tower at the same time--jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to MELT steel. Therefore if you have 1000 planes full of jet fuel crashing every day into a steel pile they it would never melt.

4. The building supported by an insanely strong metal core designed with a safety factor of 2000%. The pancaking theory states that the floors lost contact with the core and thus dropped on each other, all the way down. This says nothing about the core and explains in no where why the core started falling before the building collapsed, or that it collapsed at all.

6. Actually commercial planes have hit skyscrapers before and they were fine. The WTC was designed to be hit by a fulled fueled 707 and still maintain integrity. They not only designed this in mind, but over designed it by 2000%.


The problem here is that you don't believe the government would do such a thing. So it doesn't matter what evidence you face--we could show you pictures of bombs placed in the WTC and you'd find a way to explain it. We could even have internal cameras going off in conjunction to live feed with demolitions experts pressing the buttons and you still wouldn't believe it. The problem is that you don't realize 9/11 is just a part of whats happening to this country. You don't live in America anymore this country is already to the point of being fascist and the rest of the world is following suit.

DOPPLER-"None of your "points" matter because unless you are a subject expert your opinions mean nothing."
Faith in god, faith in experts, faith in yer fucking shoe, does common sense, and your OWN ability to process data ever come into play?? Experts are so-called, so paid, so what. Give me enough cash and I'll find you a cabal of experts....fuck em!
ZAMNIGHT-"All I see is a tragedy played out over and over with people repeatedly seeking a reason for it. It's almost the denial stage of grieving that finding the towers were demolished, rather than official reasons, changes the fact that they are gone. I do think there's a steaming pile in all of this but I doubt that it is in how the buildings collapsed."

Denial?? Yes. Denial that the possibility exists, is an idiot's wallow. Why label anyone a conspiracy nut, before facts are in? Does it need that cozy and comfortable "OFFICIAL" stamp to ring true or plausible? A nut in this case is someone that does not want to deal with a dynamic, fluid, and ever-changing world.....there are still folks who believe in the fairy tale of "Oswald, the Lone Gunman"...just as there are still men alive who know the truth about what happened. But the supreme omnipotenece of our wonderful country, has locked the files till 2025, when all who would be held responsible, will have led their lives out in full.
This one may be no different....if enough folks like those here who trust in the spin, the diversion, the "EXPERTS", and the false hope, that this country has a chance in hell at lasting another 100 years, clicking along, business as usual....

Our government did not "DO IT", the government is a tool, just like her peoples, in a game bigger than folks want to believe......Truth being stranger than fiction is predictable, moreso now, as we spiral downward...then up...then down....

Just like Wobal Glorming, humans have everything and nothing to do with it at all......Cyclical Phenom. Theo is as frustrated with folks for not copping to the "FACT" of global warming, but all the "FACTOR" are never addressed by the devout.....its a goddamn religion, with devout, and tithers, just like a Southern Baptist congregation....

Solar-what about the blast furnace called the sun?
What about the natural phenom that produces greenhouse gas?

Humans are a drop in the freekin bucket, and humanity has waaaayyyy more to worry about than what he is doing to the physical world......

This vid has a lot of great information, but comes to some pretty odd conclusions based on that information. All I see is a tragedy played out over and over with people repeatedly seeking a reason for it. It's almost the denial stage of grieving that finding the towers were demolished, rather than official reasons, changes the fact that they are gone. I do think there's a steaming pile in all of this but I doubt that it is in how the buildings collapsed.

This is not directed at aaronfr, but it happens to be the most relevant quote - "However, I do want to continue to point out that the government is directly responsible for creating an environment in which these theories are encouraged to run rampant."

Yes, the bill of rights is a wonderful thing and should remain so. It allows us all the ability to dissent, theorize and ask questions. I am worried that our ability to speak our minds is becoming limited. I would caution people not to get so bogged down in the events of over 5 years ago that we loose sight of the damage being caused today. I may not agree with the conclusions of this video but I firmly believe in the right to question what we are told. I hope we don't loose that.