LOL conspiracy. you americans crack me up.

lol @ ignorant comments

first of all, I'm Canadian. secondly - you don't have to be American to question the official story

you should be more motivated, however, being American.

this is less conspiracy theory, more fact-checking and objective analysis.

the conspiracy theory starts after the conclusion can be made that it was a controlled demolition

Apparently, the definition of "proof" to these wankers is "whatever ignorant crap I pull out of my ass".

Did you even watch this? This isn't a bunch of truthers down at ground-zero screaming and handing out pamphlets. It seems you came here to comment with a bias already established. Why don't you take the time to listen to the claims made in this video and then make your comments.

No he didn't watch it, he just wanted to type whatever ignorant crap he pulled out of his ass.

It's so obvious that those buildings were demo'd that it hurts to watch.

I've watched about an hour last night and now I'm close flip-flopping back to saying it was a demolition job! I wish I could make up my mind...

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Huh, I've been largely dismissive of all the conspiracy nuts on this, but I sat down and watched this from an engineer's perspective. I have to say that I'm seriously considering the possibility of demolition, now. The energy considerations along with the early detonations in the videos are either incredibly damning, or a massive fluke. The thing that doesn't make the most sense about this is that assuming it was a demolition job, I can't imagine how a project of this size could be pulled off without being leaked.

Every single aspect of the "demolition theory" has been dismissed and proven wrong by many engineers and architects several times over with far more compelling and reasoned proof than this retarded bullshit. You you somehow still believe that it was a conspiracy involving a secret controlled demolition then please, for the good of humanity, kill yourself.

>> ^LostTurntable:
Every single aspect of the "demolition theory" has been dismissed and proven wrong by many engineers and architects several times over with far more compelling and reasoned proof than this retarded bullshit. You you somehow still believe that it was a conspiracy involving a secret controlled demolition then please, for the good of humanity, kill yourself.


Oh, well hell. If you say so then it MUST be true! I'm off to kill myself now.

So, smart guy. Lets see some of this "far more compelling proof" you speak of then.

He isn't doing anything different than those fools behind Loose Change; he's taking things people said out of context, pushing them forward as evidence and then building his theory around that, backed up with other conspiracy theories to fill in the gaps and make it seem more feasible that he's not the only person who thought this shit up. Just because he's an architect doesn't mean he can't be completely misguided and wrong.

The biggest flaw in his theory (and probably all of these theories) is the audio from that day. If you listen to any of those building implosions that he used as examples, there are a good number of detonations just before the actual collapse. If you listen to the audio from the WTC collapses (as well as Bldg 7), there are no such sounds before the building starts to give way. All the noise and "sounds of explosions" comes after the building starts collapsing on itself. If they had wired "every other floor" like he puts forward, you would have heard dozens and dozens of explosions just before the collapses.

I keep waiting to see what's so convincing for the people here and I can't find it. But rather than counter-arguing I'll give my advice as a scientist to the people who present these things.

1) Quit talking about the "myth" and "official story." You should be proposing this as a hypothesis as an alternative to the standard hypothesis. Presenting the scientific method as a way to tell the truth from lies is a perfect example of this where they should have simply described it as a method for determining the truth. You're giving away an emotional conviction toward the conclusion of the study.

2) Quit mentioning that no building has collapsed due to fire before. It's irrelevant.

3) Almost all of the eyewitness accounts should be ignored - especially given the chaotic nature of the events that day and especially people claiming to have heard explosions.

4) The fact that the towers fell mostly on their own footprint is exactly what you'd expect from a building collapsing under the weight of the topmost floors. There's simply no source of momentum to force the tower to fall sideways. Building 7 is more interesting though and the video spent more time on this.

6) Too much of the analysis is based on small samples and having been done by this Dr. Jones alone. It seems as though there could be several other explanations for the thermite evidence Jones found that isn't presented. I'm not even saying they're better explanations, but I feel pretty certain someone has presented other explanations and this guy doesn't present them.

...Anyway, I'm getting bored. Basically, by the way this is presented I can't believe this guy, or any others I've seen, are being objective and so I can't shake the feeling that there's lots of data that isn't being presented here. I spend a lot of time listening to technical talks and you can quickly tell the difference between someone presenting scientific results and someone trying to sell you something.

I don't have 2 hours to watch the entire thing but from what I saw he starts out with the assumption that a large fire left to burn in a tall building couldn't cause a symmetrical fall like a controlled demolition. He just showed a couple pictures and used that as the basis for the rest of his argument. And like crotchflame said the whole thing had an emotional bias to it.

Allot of people in power had a heck of allot to gain from 911 at that particular time but that doesn't mean they managed to demolish landmarks in the middle of NYC in broad daylight and not get caught. Nixon couldn't even break into a DC hotel at night without getting caught.

"2) Quit mentioning that no building has collapsed due to fire before. It's irrelevant."




I would argue its not irilivent

Granted other buildings didn't have plans fly into them and they were also different buildings. However it would be foolish to ignore the fact that no other steel building has fallen down from fire as there are still aspects of the buildings that are similar evan more so with bulding 7. ( I would be prepared to ignore them if infarct it was the case that other buildings r infact not analogous to building 7 I don't know enough to make an informed desisoin on the issue)

So yes I would not make a big point of no other steal buildings falling down as its only partiality relivent and could not be used as an argument in itself , it dose however help with determining a lose grounding and basses for what sort of temperatures and fire damage general steal structures can withstand.
(and as i said the other buildings might in reality be compleatly different structures so it could be 100% irelivent as you say )


and yeah crotch flame your totally right about the eyewitness accounts , this is the thing that annoys me the most you simply cannot trust what people say from an event , even more so when its something like this where they will be in shock and the fact that so much of what eye witness have said has been taken out of context. having said that I don't think you should ignore eye witnesses outright and many of the comments talking about audible explosions should still be considered however as I say be treated as a very low form of evidence and likely to be wrong.


IT is important to maintain proper application of scientific method and as you say I don't think this is that well written but then again these people are structural enganears not scientists and they do make manny valid points/ points of interest . At a minimum this is far more "scientific" than 99% of the other talks and videos on 9.11 but it could defiantly be allot better.

Asside fromt he whole consiprcy thing , history has shown repatedly that it dosenot matter whether the event was faked real , or whatever , you will not progress by atacking it.

it would be vastly more constructive attacking the current wars directly or attacking current actions of bush and oabama administration as these can be proven very eseaily with scientific verifiable evidence ( more importantly for political issues scientific verifiable evidence the public will go along with) .

The amount of time some of these people have investead in 911 truth maby they could have gotten into goverment and had mroe of an impact ? maby not ,

>> ^LostTurntable:
Every single aspect of the "demolition theory" has been dismissed and proven wrong by many engineers and architects several times over with far more compelling and reasoned proof than this retarded bullshit. You you somehow still believe that it was a conspiracy involving a secret controlled demolition then please, for the good of humanity, kill yourself.


Proven wrong is fine -- good even. Dismissed isn't. Anytime questions like these are brought up, it seems that they are dismissed and mocked.

I'm not convinced that these were controlled demolitions, but I think that there are enough strange aspects and gaps in the official story that the people that ask questions in a rational way like in this video should be faced and answered instead of dismissed.

I think you're right Westy, I probably overstated what I meant. My real point is that they shouldn't overstate their evidence like this. Pointing out that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire sounds really dramatic but there's a lot of important reasons that 911 is different. Similarly, establishing that the building fell at near free fall speed again sounds like a damning piece of evidence but there's a lot of good reasons why that would be expected. They don't have to accept the explanations against these pieces of evidence, but they're being disingenuous by not at least mentioning them. The lay person may accept these as much more powerful facts than they really are as a result and that's the bulk of my complaint.

The real reason for my comment is that I'd like to see a video like this done professionally without a lot of whiny finger pointing at the established explanation. It makes it hard to believe you're getting an unbiased account of the facts. If they started the video with a presentation of the accepted explanation in a way that demonstrated their understanding of it and from there presented evidence for a different conclusion then I'd be more likely to take it seriously. They must show that they can see the value in the standard explanation but believe the alternative better accounts for the facts; otherwise they get mired in conspiratorial thinking relying on hidden evidence which can be difficult to take seriously. As it is, I'm only left with a vague feeling that there may be things I should research on my own to make a conclusion but that I can't take anything from this video without a grain of salt.

Sorry for the rant.

>> ^ShakyJake:
...I can't imagine how a project of this size could be pulled off without being leaked.


There were 130,000 people involved in the secret Manhattan Project in the 1940's.

It does seem like an amazing coincidence that all 3 buildings fell with perfect symmetry....not conclusive of course, but enough to warrant a closer look I'd say.

These are engineers and architects who witness compelling evidence of one thing, and are told something utterly different. Those types of people tend to be very emotionally invested in their areas of expertise. I can understand their fervor...especially considering the events occurring in the wake of 9/11.

I don't see any outlandish claims being made....definitely worth investigation.

I now this comment is like a month late to the party but great post EndAll..... You know what they say common sense really isn't all that common. What I can't understand is watching this video that you have people who are still against the theory or are on the fence probably because they don't want to be labeled as a nut or whatever other fucking belittle or condensing comment you can make some up about some one for thinking out side of the box. Can't have critical thinking... hey for all those that want to debunk the video, produce a video and ill sit down and watch. then assert my two cents on it. stop letting your mouth run; prove it that you have the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of you were government paid Internet trolls but whoa i might being going to far with that one...Ill were my tin hat...thanks.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Hello hornet's nest, let me give you a little kick.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 15th, 2009 8:07pm PDT - doublepromote requested by blankfist.