As a 9/11 World Trade Center Survivor from 1 WTC (25th floor), I can honestly say this is one of the best and most informative videos I've ever seen since that tragic day - thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU - #GeoPop
It's amazing she survived that blast as long as she did when her floor and the others were destroyed. It must've been so loud for her up there with the winds and subsequent explosions when the South Tower was hit and collapsed. She must've been terrified
I stayed for the smug sarcasm of those who automatically believe authority figures who are paid by those who stood to gain the most from this calamity... and who have lied to us many times before and since.
you dont need to be a engineer to see the building got out of the way and fell with the acceleration of gravity, nothing like anything they suggest here.
I would way rather hear you dub yourself with your Italian accent. Or read subtitles and listen to you speak Italian. I really respect that you are upfront about the ai. And the video itself is great.
I genuinely don’t see an issue here. It’s somewhat noticeable but it’s not bad at all. You better enjoy the videos that aren’t AI currently because in a few years the tech is going improve to where you’re not even going to know/be able to tell.
@@TitaniumTurbine for me it’s more preference than issue. The video is solid regardless and you are so right, it’s going to be all ai all the time soon enough.
Im glad he was up front with the AI and the switch from Italian to English. If he wasn’t I’d be totally freaked out by how much he uses his hands while speaking, more than any English speaking person I’ve ever seen in my life. But since its originally Italian, makes perfect sense!😅
Nanothermite glows orange, gives off sparks and has white smoke - have a good look before twin towers collapse; plus the explosions as the towers collapse.
History should never be censored except in the case of certain people who want to erase America’s bloody history of slavery, the KKK, throwing Native Americans off their land and butchering buffalo for sport. For some reason Germans have been able to recognize the horrors of the Third Reich and have taken steps to atone and remember in terms of memorials and teaching. If our ancestors did horrible things it doesn’t mean we personally are responsible for them. But what is the point of pretending it never happened?
All these years listening to idiots claim the fire couldn't melt steel beams, when common sense should've told them the steel didn't need to melt, it just needed to be weakened and gravity, pressure, and stress would do the rest. You don't need to melt metal to make it bend, and everyone should know metal gets weaker when you add heat.
Problem is there is molten steel running in streams like at a forge. Melted steel from office fires shouldn't be ignored. It just can't be conveniently explained by the NIST report.
@@TVfunhouseGAMESwait so there was melted steel? That’s a new one. All the comments I’ve been hearing about 9/11 inside jobs was that it was explosives that brought the building down.
I'm a mechanical engineer and a complete science nerd that studies every single scrap of material I can find on our world's knowledge of science. I fell in love with Geopop from the first video the produced. No hype, no spin no tinfoil hat explanations. They've done it again. Every metallurgist I know is in total agreement that is exactly what happened. Steel don't need to melt to cause catastrophe it just needs heat capable of deforming it to a point where it will no longer return to its original shape and load bearing properties. GREAT WORK AS ALWAYS GEOPOP.
Then why hasn't the predominant professional organisation of metallurgists released a report saying so? And why has NIST released one when structural engineering is not even their purview?
@@rowanwilliams7441because they were the government agency to investigate it? In a normal plane crash in the US the NTSB does the investigation. They are not experts for every single engineering field but they release a final report including everything found by experts in each field. The NIST probably has some experts that did that part of the investigation and they summarized it in the final report
You must have missed some classes, such as how steel box sections act when they undergo compression and bending moments. Hint: They don't cut themselves into convenient truck-length sections with sharp ends.
@dark-horse8784 Let's correct your claim. It should read "...cannot use logic with debunkers." Had any of you read NIST's reports, you'd not be so smug.
I came for the conspiracy comments from the armchair structural engineers. Massively impressed, keep it up so long as it stops you all from doing something really important.
@steviesteve750 I'm a armchair forensic scientist. In fact I don't think I know how to spell that word. The map showing the DNA collection locations would suggest the towers were blown to bits by demolition. (DNA of people not on plane or where "plane" struck tower). Get some!
@@seedplanter7173 congratulations on being able to deduce conclusions much more effectively than so many folk who have spent a lifetime studying their subject. Amazing.
No, they're not. A lot of debris survived the impacts. What you want to pretend is "impossible" is entirely normal, but you're so desperate to cling to your debunked delusions you will bend your brain into a pretzel to make your insanity less insane.
@@doomdoomtv316 Well paper passports were the only things to survive that day, make of that what you will. Or better yet seek out the documentary called September clues, because the fist 5 or 6 minutes of that is earth shattering and every single US citizen needs to see that.
There is little logic in the official 9/11 narrative. It's illogical to believe it. I know this sucks. I love my country (USA) and don't like, at all, what this has done to us, and the world.
You explain WTC 7's collapse complete with an animation showing a cascading failure starting at one end of the building, then immediately cut to footage of the actual collapse which went straight down from the centre. So, which was it? Also, no mention of the fact the building was reported to have already collapsed over an hour before it happened. There is footage of reporters saying wtc7 had collapsed, while it was still clearly visible standing in the background.
That's what I noticed immediately. The claimed weak point that supposedly started the "progressive collapse" is the opposite of what we see in the video. Anyone who doesn't question why this is is a cowardly simpleton.
Leslie Robertson who designed the steel frame of WTC 1 & 2 said that without the hat truss each building would have collapsed immediately after impact.
yes, i’ve heard before that the hat truss was integral to redistribution of failing columns throughout the duration of the fires, until the failure of the floor brackets, due to the sagging floor trusses became too much for even the hat truss to save the entire system. I wonder, would there have been an alternative model where the hat truss wouldn’t have been used, ie “not required”? the situation would have been catastrophic without it.
@@josephbeierschmitt A hat truss would not have been required on a rigid frame tower like Empire State or Chrysler Bldg. 9/11 demonstrated the difference between lightweight tube frame towers which sway in the wind and heavy rigid frame towers which don't.
@@stevelandry6825 That he does says much more about the level of his intelligence vs yours. If only you had played with Lincoln Logs and TinkerToys as a kid instead of Barbies. You would then have a baseline to understand all of this ..
In the workshop, when I need to easily bend a piece of steel, I heat it to glowing orange (1800 F - 990 C). At that temperature, it holds its shape well, but will bend if you get some leverage on it. It will also deform when you hammer it. Just at the point it cools to not glowing, it gets very stiff, and you can't bend it, nor will a hammer move it.
Except that quote is not accurate, Building 6 (where the firefighter you are grossly misquoting was actually located) had no basement and why does this even matter even if it were accurate?
@@ulrichkristensen4087No one brings up the air flowing through the building from all the heat rising. If you've ever ran a forge you know how much of a difference that air makes.
The fact that they both fell in the exact same way, blows my mind. The top of each tower didn’t fall over to one side…..the middle of the building didn’t give out…….just fell straight down…both of them
There's no reason they should fall anyway BUT straight down. The lateral force from the plane was absorbed by the buildings mass. After that, all potential kinetic energy was pointing straight down. As the top collapsed, it went downward with a force the structure couldn't resist. It literally couldn't "fall over".
I think they did a good job explaining that. The shock of multiple stories falling onto the remaining stories, caused the structural elements holding the most weight (the columns at the bottom) to fail.
Because they were designed like that wiseguy. The towers could fall from other causes, like earthquakes. You don't want skyscrapers falling like domino pieces in middle of Manhattan.
Actually if you really pay attention, the upper portion of both buildings begin to tip over before disappearing into the dust cloud. Neither building truly came down into its footprint, but travelled across the plaza and surrounding streets causing severe damage to the surrounding buildings
I you hadn't have mentioned the AI translation and re lip-sync, I probably wouldn't have noticed. lol It's already very good. I just assumed the audio was slightly out-of-sync, tbh.
In the first minutes I found something odd. I didn't know why or what seemed odd, but I had a strange feeling about him talking. When he explained that it was AI it made more sense haha
There are just too many convenient coincidental events that took place during this period. It was an inside job between bush Chaney and Israel to start a war against radical Islam. The towers were condemned prior fault geo etc engineering and asbestos insulation. Vacancy was high. The towers were loosing money. Lots of Colombian drug cartel us investment brokers got zero that day. All the Enron court evidence got destroyed. All the Austrian nazi gold in the basement of 7 got recovered by Israel. The list goes on
Incorrect. Plenty of steel and steel-frame buildings and structures have collapsed: Plasco Building (Steel) Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida (Steel & Steel-reinforced concrete) Windsor Tower (All of the top 11 steel floors) McCormick Place Mumbai High North Platform Architecture building at Delft University Sight and Sound Theater Highway 580 in Oakland Kader Toy Factory Dogwood Elementary School Just to name a few.
Pay no attention to the folks bitching and complaining about the voice over. Something kindly clarified in the beginning of the video. After the very many 9/11 docs Ive seen, this was a solid one thoroughly covering this specific conspiracy I myself was a believer of. Good job buddy!!
There is a kind of material called "thermites" (thermos, in Greek means temperature). This matter uses the metal to increase the temperature in reaction until it turns into liquid metal.
Likely aluminium from the plane. It was coming from the opposite corner from the impact. It likely melted and was then tipped into that corner as the floor gave way and poured out as a liquid
@@oneandonlyjaybee Why have i never heard of liquid aluminum in a plane crash ever? and a google search doesnt find anything close to that. Every crash with a massive fire, theres never molten metal.
Greatly appreciate about the AI disclosure in the beginning. I respect that and still manage to watch through the entire video as it is informative and still engaging
Please go to 3:40 and tell me that is actually real footage and not AI. If real, I'd like to learn about the day that ominous black streaks appeared over NYC while gigantic shifting holes raced across the city's skyline. The man is LYING TO YOU from the start.
This is the same bs they have been saying for years. I can believe the tower sagging and weakening at the point of impact with a burning fire but to believe that neither the cold center columns or the cold supporting perimeter offered any resistance and allowed the towers to fall at freefall is ridiculous to me. Then tower 7 falls at the same freefall speed because of a fire, is again ridiculous. Plenty of people claim to hear explosions right after one another but those claims are denied because windows are still intact? That logic is ubsurd. Yet I'm suppose to believe a fire could bring down a building, a building that was reported to be destroyed while it still stood behind a reporter on live tv.
well yeah, i mean look at all the other buildings that have collapsed due to a fire since 9/11.......how may has it been......oh yeah none, the same amount that fell before 9/11 happened. crazy how that worked
The core columns did offer resistance though, they remained standing for a few seconds after the collapse. You can see this in multiple videos, from multiple angles, especially with the North Tower. The core collapsed soon after, because as can be seen clearly in the videos, it had nothing left to support it. This is the exact opposite of what happens in a controlled demolition btw, you'd never do a controlled demolition and leave the core columns intact after the demolition. Also the towers did not fall at freefall speed, you can easily prove this by just looking at the videos. You can see debris falling at *actual* freefall speed below the main building. Building 7 also did not fall at freefall speed, only its curtain wall did, because the collapse was a progressive one. "Plenty of people claim to hear explosions right after one another but those claims are denied because windows are still intact? That logic is ubsurd" I agree, that logic is pretty absurd. I think it's more compelling to point out that if there was supposedly so many explosions, why can't you hear any explosions in any videos of the collapses? Not a single one? "Yet I'm suppose to believe a fire could bring down a building, a building that was reported to be destroyed while it still stood behind a reporter on live tv." Doesn't that fly in the face of your argument? If people were reporting it was already destroyed before it was, does that not imply that it collapsing wasn't this shocking, totally unexpected event?
Well I might bring you some information which the video wasn’t super clear on. Now if the government did it or not I don’t care you can still believe that, I won’t try to change your mind on that. What I do want to do is maybe make you believe that planes in fact took the towers down. Even WTC7, now wouldn’t it be easier for the state to have let the hijackers fly the planes into the buildings and they brought it down. Now to the technical stuff. Lets start with the towers, yes the cold beams did indeed keep the towers up. They provided structural supports when the hot ones didn’t bear as much. But the buildings burned for about one hour for the south tower and almost two for the north. So the hottest columbs probably lost indeed 95% of their structural stength. But even most of the colder ones had lost a lot of structural stength as they would heat up a lot aswell. South tower had 22 floors above the impact of weight to hold up. Now as one side totaly collapsed the compromised parts couldn’t hold the weight and they collapsed aswell. And even tough there were very cold columbs most were heated. All weren’t 1000 degrees celcius but they were still hot and had lost a lot of structural integrety. But building seven has a lot of questions and you talk about people hearing explosions. Thoose weren’t about building seven but about the twin towers. Now some might have been of molten almuninium falling into water. That creates explosions, and some are from when it collapsed and it was floors being compressed. Floor after floor, but I’ve never heard explosions about building seven. And even if you think it would have been explosives it couldn’t be. Because everyone would hear it, if you have ever heard a demolition of a building its loud, its really loud. Like being to close you go deaf. You hear it kilometers away. But some people think it just collapsed all in one peice but it didn’t. As you see in the technical analysis the inner core collapsed first which you can’t really see from the outside photage. But you can at one point see it, if you look at the photage of the collapse you can see about 20 seconds before the outside shell collapses if you look at the top you see the penthouse fall into the building. Which is on the side that the collapse started. And its about 20 seconds or so before the whole thing goes down. Now did the government plan to do this with a thing probably no one would see collapse before but they explode that part to bring the little penthouse down a 20 seconds before? I think if you want to believe the government did indeed do 9/11 why wouldn’t it be just that they allowed the planes to be hijacked. They hired the terrorists and they drove the planes into the buildings. Doesn’t that make more sence?
As an engineer, I find it difficult to believe that the building would continue to collapse at a steady and constant as well as controlled rate. The video of the collapse gives me the impression of a calculated and timed building demolition. The collapse looks to controlled and precise, as if it were prearranged to do as little damage to the surrounding areas of the building collapse as possible. The whole incident was just a little too controlled and unrealistic, and just a little too similar to a precision skyscraper demolition effort. The incident was a little too well timed politically as it gave the US an excuse to start a war in the middle east and establish a permanent military presence in the middle east, where crude oil interests could be protected. Case in point: the US military is still got it's feet planted in Afghanistan right now. Anyway, just thought I'd share some thoughts. Jason Wampler
I fully agree, all floors not involved would support floors falling from above, regardless of the fire. What else could allow floors to collapse below the damaged floors??
@@DRpokeme no chance, you obviously never Seen even a small bit of concrete fall. Concrete is mega heavy, I was near a few feet of concrete falling 6 feet.. The whole ground shook around me,and that was solid.. Your talking hundreds or thousands of tones falling perhaps 8 to 10 feet onto another floor.!!! Am over 40 years constructing high rise buildings 🧐
Why have no other steel- framed buildings collapsed due to fire 🔥 before in history?- world trade centre 7 is the only one? I understand your explanation, but why has it happened to no other buildings - Grenfell Tower, for example, remained standing? Also, why did the BBC report it having collapsed around 15mins before it had collapsed?
@@FilipCodesThe BBC did investigate this, they even produced a short documentary on it. In the end, they concluded that the “mistake” wasn’t theirs, that they got the erroneous info from the news wire from New York. …and they left it at that, instead of trying to find out the source of this “mistake”.
Other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire: Plasco Building (Steel) Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida (Steel & Steel-reinforced concrete) Windsor Tower (All of the top 11 steel floors) McCormick Place Mumbai High North Platform Architecture building at Delft University Sight and Sound Theater Fire Highway 580 in Oakland Kader Toy Factory Dogwood Elementary School
1:38 what??? It’s not the big bang. I’m sure hundreds of people know exactly what happened that day. It’s just a matter of who they are that holds significance.
I want to apologize for my initial posts. Starting a conversation with an insult isn't a conversation. There are obviously people with polar opposite views in this chat. Let's us calmly explain why we do or don't believe the NIST explanation. Free fall speed was what raised my eyebrows. NIST agreed that free fall did indeed happen. But they don't explain why. There needs to be more of an investigation to explain it. Am I wrong?
NIST didn't agree to free fall speeds because it wasn't free fall speeds lol. C'mon man. You can take a stopwatch out yourself and make that determination for yourself. 9.8 m/s^2 brah.
I think a lot of why it collapsed was the fuel for the generators located in the lower levels of WTC7… diesel. Diesel burns really hot is is hard to put out once a large volume of it is ignited. The fact that it lasted for hours under such extreme heat, and with all the carnage and destruction around it, speaks volume to the engineers who designed it, and the NYFD who were trying to save it with minimal working resources.
Tower 3 was Marriott hotel which was completely destroyed. You're probably referring to building 7 which was hit by a building 1. Flight 93 wasn't even hitting towards New York City. The 20th hijacker has already said it was heading towards the capitol
Doesnt make sence what he explain about tower 7. Tower 7 did not collaps as seen in his computer simulation that said it started at colum 89. The whole building was falling without any resistance and did not start at colum 89.
I’m one of those who actually DO think Towers 1 &2 collapsed due to planes and the fires, especially when you go back and look at videos of WTC 2 (south) is slowly leaning slightly. This said, WTC 7 is totally sus.
@colin-nekritz Go back and look at WTC 2 again. You will note that while the upper forty or so floor are leaning approximately 4 degrees, the bottom 60 pluse floors uniformly collapse much like that seen in WTC 1 a later. This begs the question, what caused a uniform collapse of the lower portion?
Starting at 14:47 If the floors collapse and outside walls collapse what causes the center core, either the 47 columns, to just give up and come down at the same speed and at g to he same time as the exterior walls?
Nothing, as it didn't. The core standed seconds longer than floors and outer walls, but did also eventually collapse. Some of it was standing even after otherwise complete collapse.
@@wallyllaw So, there was enough friction from the connections of where the collapsing surrounding office shell connected to the inner elevator core to pull it down; but, there wasn't enough friction where the floors connected with the offset three story sectional column to slow down the collapse.
The only evidence you need to know it was an inside job and the official explanation is nothing but a cover up, is to look at what they do when they see alternative theories. They don't listen, they just try to ban you from speaking. If you do the math yourself, it is obvious the towers should never have fallen. They also didn't design the towers to withstand a strike from just the largest commercial airplane used at the time, they applied a safety factor of 4, and they took into account the amount of fuel used on a plane that is 4 times larger than the largest commercial plane used at the time. Which means including considering the fuel of the plane the towers were designed to withstand the impact and fuel of a plane a bit larger than a 747. There is no reason they should have collapsed.
"they just try to ban you from speaking" He wrote in a RU-vid-Comment that is publicly shown and not being deleted. If the CIA would be competent enough to create such a massive inside-Job, they surely would be competent enough to delete Conspiracy comments as well as videos.
@@alicem2103 If there was an answer that every major scientific organization agreed on, the government wouldn't have to pull funding from universities with professors in physics and several other relevant fields until the professors get fired. That is the only reason they can say everyone agrees. Do some research.
@MegaLokopo Logical fallacies galore. Are you suggesting the "government" is "pulling funding" from major institutions with the sole purpose of suppressing dissenting voices coming from individual academics and professors? "If there were A, then tHe gOvErNmEnT wouldn't be doing B." Lol, is that how that works? Apparently, the GovErnMenT is doing this to suppress educated people disagreeing, which you've provided no actual examples of, number one. Number two, even if you COULD provide those examples- you have 0 reliable evidence to demonstrate that they are "pulling funding" for that reason, specifically. Because that's the thing about conspiracies.. they involve powerful entities secretly conspiring to do something. Most major institutions aren't even primarily funded by "the government" and haven't been for quite a long time. Hence, the public debate about student loan debt forgiveness. Whatever funding you are referring to "being pulled" has very little impact on individual dissenting opinions - and there's been centuries of dissenting opinions on major issues from academics.. there'd be no reason to pull funding from an institution to accomplish what threatening someone's tenure at the faculty level could easily do- should an institution feel one of their payroll recipients is affecting their public image. Not everything you gather in your "research" can be attributed to any one belief you happen to harbor. You don't do research if you aren't being objective. There are centuries of precedent concerning dissenting opinions on major issues from academics.. there'd be no reason to pull funding from an institution to accomplish what threatening someone's tenure at the faculty level could easily do- should an institution feel one of their payroll recipients is affecting their public image. Not everything you gather in your "research" can be attributed to any one belief you happen to harbor. You don't do research if you aren't being objective. You are on a search to confirm your pre existing narrative. That isn't research. That's confirmation bias. Valid hypothesis must be falsifiable.
The only conspiracy theory that would make sense is that they used cheap materials during construction so that some parts didn't fulfill the specifications.
I moved a piece of telephone equipment from tower 2 to tower 7 in the summer before the attack. I was impressed by the tonnage of paper. Every floor I saw had row upon row of filing cabinets, full and boxes on tops to the ceiling. The towers burned many forests of paper, lit on fire with the match. No one is figuring in the shear tonnage of the paper.
A. That's not true. Do some research. B. None of those buildings were hit by big planes causing massive structural damage. C. Don't skip school/learning.
Let me emphasize several facts your video got wrong: 9:13 - steel does not loose, but INCREASE strength when increasing temperatures from 20°C up to 250°C. It weakens to the same strenght as on room temperature when heated to about 400°C. This means that parts of the structure that weren't heated much were actually STRONGER than cold parts of the building! 11:47 the higher the temperature, steel deformes more easily, but its breaking point extends, up to the point where very hot steel doesn't break at all! Very hot steel can be elongated more than HUNDRED of times without breaking (remember steel mills?). Cold steel breaks, hot steel bends! Therefore, very hot beams of the WTC surely didn't break, but rather BENT, FLEXED or BUCKLED! 12:30 even your animation does not match the "as seen on TV" videos: your simulation shows some parts of an airplane (e.g. wingtips) bouncing off the outer walls of the building and falling down outside (as it would be expected). However, there were NO parts of the airplane "as seen on TV" that fell down outside, i.e., whole of both airplanes entered the buildings. It was only the explosion (of what*) that ejected parts of those airplanes outside of the buildings. * - jet fuel in an airplane cannot explode, that's simple physics. If it did explode, the blast would break liquid fuel into mist that cannot form ponds on the floor and therefore couldn't have burned long enough to heat up the concrete/steel enough to cause a collapse. We know it didn't happen because there were testimonies from survivors who claimed that jet fuel seeped down the stairwells and elevator shafts. 13:38 how do you know that impact severed exactly ten core columns? Were there any survivors to examine/witness that? Yes, the outer columns can be easily counted from the videos/pictures filmed from the outside. But who filmed the interior of the building after the impact?
13:27 - the fire proofing materials were applied on the bottom side of the floor, right? However, the animation shows that airplane entered the WTC in downward direction, therefore concrete slabs of the floor were preventing airplane parts touching steel trusses, thus protecting fire protection coatings from being removed. Your animation (and post-impact pictures too) shows that floors survived initial impact more or less intact. Right? 14:11 + 3:25 - if WTC had 250.000 tons of steel and 250.000 tons of concrete, and it had total of 110 floors, it means that one floor had about 2300 tons of steel and 2300 tons of concrete. Your chart shows something called "burner" with 10500 kilowatts of power, did you ever try to calculate how high temperature such a burner can heat up 2300 t + 2300 t of steel + concrete in 78 minutes*? Well, my calculations give MERE 8°C !!! (assuming efficiency of heat transfer was 50%) * - I was working in ironworks and I know for a fact that it takes 10-megawatt furnace one hour to melt mere 30 tons of steel. 2300 tons would take more than three days of round-the-clock operation. That 10-megawatt furnace would burn about 400 tons of coal in three days (a B767 had only about 21,5 tons of fuel onboard - as said in 12:55). And let's NOT forget concrete that wasn't even mentioned in this note. Furthermore, an airplane struck at least THREE consecutive floors (meaning the same fuel actually had to heat up at least three times more mass).
It's takes x amount of energy to destroy 3 buildings to dust, the airplanes and its fuel would never produce enough energy for that, it's mathematically impossible! Let's talks about the other 100 coincidences that day tho since you are a little dense
Doesn't matter how they fell. 24 years and we still go on and on about it. Why is there no effert put into who was in on it? Seems like that part might be just a tad more important.
So if I understand correctly according to official story, at Pentagon site some flimsy street lamps caused plane's wings to fold up on themselves... where in the case of the twin towers hollow aluminum wings with almost no mass slice through enormous steel perimetre columns? Take your pick
I grew up in NYC and spent more time than I can count in the Twin Towers. There isn’t a day I don’t think about 9/11 and I don’t get emotional. God bless everyone affected by this act of incredible evil.
Or the million innocent men, women, & children America genocided in the illegal "Operation Shock & Awe". Everyone in the world including the UN said stop but Americans wouldn't listen to sense.
I get the heat and the obvious structural damage to the floor(s) that the planes hit, I understand that in some areas there would be heat transfer and I understand that these locations would be under extreme conditions that would lead to catastrophic failure. What doesn't make sense is that there is absolutely no way the heat transferred over 90 floors for the entire building(s) to collapse the way they did, especially with the building having the early stages of post tension engineering, where the building core carries the slab and envelope loads, as well as the steel loaded curtain wall envelope, if anything the core would have remained in tact and the slabs would have broken off from the collapse of the upper floors. There has never been any reasonable explanation about this. I have witnessed and been a part of several destructive testing on some of North Americas largest structures and even under the most extreme conditions, the testing mockup structure(s) never collapses like this. Only in demolition destructive testing do they collapse like the trade center towers.
If you do a little research it turns out constantly dousing the rubble with water was causing the evaporated hydrogen to react with the hot metal and increasing the temperature.
@@Apodalont Yes, a 'little' research causes such bullshit statements. Learn some chemistry. When water evaporates, individual WATER molecules separate from other neighbouring water molecules. The ATOMS of hydrogen and oxygen don't break free of each other, so there is no "evaporated hydrogen". Even if there was, hydrogen wouldn't be reacting with the metal since both types of atom want to lose electrons to bond. Why 6 people 'liked' your comment, I have no idea, unless they are dumb.
@@Steve52344 Now there is hydrogen, and its evaporated... and its now the fuel of some underground fire...for two months???, how i dont know. There is no science or logic in America, apply logic at your own risk.
I remember listening to music on the radio and they broke in on the radio and reached it reported. I don't know if schools still can do this today but we got brought in from recess and we got to watch It unfold on TV. What a horrible day that was we were in los angeles, when we got to see that's where I lived
I don’t get how the bottom of the tower crumpled inwards from your animation. How were they “colder” do you mean thermal expansion wise? Or load bearing? Because you said at the start the towers were designed with 33% load bearing redundancy. The bottom part of the tower couldn’t take the slack off of the hit portion of the tower with this redundancy? I don’t get it. Seems like you were clear up to this point. I get if the entire top 3rd of the tower became dead weight this could stress the whole tower overall but that wasn’t made clear.
First of all, flying an aircraft into a tall slim building is hard to believe. It's very very difficult to do it. Then, the way the buildings collapsed, now that's unbelievable. I have no doubt, it was an inside job.
@@seanrrr I'd like to add, WTC 63 meters wide. Runway 40 to 60 meters wide and they generally land "perfectly" in the middle. Ofcourse there is a speed difference, but indeed, saying it's very difficult to hit a 63 meter wide tower, doesn't make sense.
Photographs were analyzed by former army intelligence and the small pod ojn bottom of the planes indicates a device used to fly planes remotely, flight termination systems to be exact, a military report came out the day before stating that 1 country has the ability to attack America and make it look like a false flag, Israel
Same thing as all the other conspiracy nuts: Has no knowledge and no experience at all, but knows with certainty how it is. The Dunning-Kruger Club seems to be recruiting and expanding ambitiously... 🙄
@@cafl9844 Did you not watch the video? The fire inside the towers reached 1000C. That's more than enough to cause the steel to bend so far that it breaks.
@@Black-Swan-007 I am not doubting that, but the steel underneath the impact area was totally intact and not effected by heat at all and yet somehow however I'd didn't just bend, it literally evaporated!
6 floors removed by impact and structural components damaged. Of course that wouldn’t cause the structure above to fall. It’s like this whole comment section hasn’t played Jenga
we did play jenga and the tower never crumbled in of itself, which is why people demolishing real towers go to great length to make sure they do. Even a slight variance would make the whole thing tip to one side, yet none of them did. All that just to avoid facing the reality that this is a set up that made a lot of people rich
Does the sound on this video have a small delay, or am I slowly losing my hearing? Something is wrong with the sound?! I have a feeling that it is late or going a bit forward, in front of video, and several times for no reason it switched from left to right channel and vice versa and lost stereo for a short time?!?
A tower in Sao Paulo burned for 90 minutes and collapsed. One in Tehran burned for 3 hours and collapsed. Unlike your UK building (which was made of concrete) those were steel and collapsed even without being hit by giant airliners with the force of a ton of TNT. You should be less picky with your evidence or you will get burned every time.
@@razorsharp8549 you cannot fly over 500mph with a commercial airplane at a height of 200m over ground. This is physically not possible. The airplanes had a maximum speed of 180mph, 330km/h.
Questions I have that has never been answered are; the tower were 110 story buildings and when they started to collapse debris was ejected outwards as this was happening the total load on the lower levels was obviously less and less, so why did they collapse all the way to the basement level? I mean the last 10 floors had almost 100 floors less of load over them so why couldn't they handle this now extremely light load?
There was no “extremely light load”. The reason the bottom 10 floors collapsed was because they had the weight of 100 floors fall directly on top them.
I thought you inserting yourself talking about this is a bit annoying. Just narrate the rest of the way. We dont need to see you talk about it tbh lol.
@18:09 this is the most horseshit explanation ever for "favorable conditions". Office desks or printers, on fire would not cause a steel farmed building to collapse. and The fires would not have been hot enough to weaken the steel. Furthermore, even if the fires were hot enough, the building 7 would not have collapsed perfectly straight down in a free fall at almost the speed of gravity. It would have tilted to the side of the original debris damage and cave in to one side. ( not perfectly symmetrical) this looks like it was controlled demolition.
@@Jnoooooo well, I don't know more than the experts, but I do know that a printer and an office desk on fire does not melt steel! But you can go ahead and believe that if you like, your choice.
You are appreciated for making this much more easily consumed. Not that you have a bad accent. This just helps ppl relax , understand without deciphering your accent. Great thinking and great work.
😂😂😂😂😂 Sure and what are the explosions clearly visable on the side of the tower when it collapsed in free fall. Also WTC7 only fools believe official story😊
Compressed air from the falling floors. All that air goes somewhere, and the weakest point is the windows and down the stairwells, air conditioner ducts, and elevator shafts. It looks like explosives because the air is being forced at tremendous volume and cocusive force.
If you really want to know what happened on the 11day of September 2001, then follow the money, who gained the most from this horrendous experience. That’s all you have to do??
If you follow the money (which I advise to do as well) you come to the conclusion that entire populations all over the globe have been given, decades upon decades, every possible reason to so profoundly hate the USA up to the point that some are ready to sacrifice their lives commiting a significant act of terrorism. That is what brought the towers down.
It's a relief to find a video on this topic which is handled with scientific rigor. Thank you for showing how the stress train curve of steel changes with temperature, because the fact that the steel didn't melt is a "white hot" herring
22:10 Then, the 4,000 people who worked in building 7 evacuated the tower (WTC 7) but those who worked in tower 1 and tower 2 (WTC 1, 2) were advised to return to their workplaces and not leave the tower, through the emergency system speakers!? Who did this, the different programming for one and the other, for one tower and for the others, why!? Some were advised to flee as soon as the accident occurred, others were advised to die sitting at their desk!?
Lucky Larry "telling" the port authority to "pull it" when they asked what he thought ""they should do"" regarding WTC 7. Larry sure tried to sound like empathetic and and noble in telling the PA to "pull it, we've had such a tremendous loss of life already". Dude is so out of touch he couldn't even see how ultra disgusting his virtue signaling was and how it did nothing to cover his blatant self promotion.
You have tens of thousands of people in a narrow stairway, plus jumpers and debris. I personally would go out the other side and risk it, but that's just me. Be damned if a rental cop is going to "help" me.
I always laughed at the conspiracy theorists who would insist on using the "steel melts at 1,500 degrees" point... it's like these people have lived on their computers for so long they've never seen something in real life that's bearing weight get weakened by the elements. Everyone's been to the supermarket and had a leak, a puncture or a burn in a compressed bag, and then the pressure of the goods inside gets too much for it... then RIP. There were thousands of tonnes of pressure from the floors above pressing down on those heated and weakening beams... it's not a conspiracy that they eventually gave way and created a chain reaction collapse.
@@WorldwideDarts Apart from thousands of tonnes of weight crashing down on the overall structure at speed from above? You do realise mass + acceleration = force? Not to mention all that shaking and rattling of the structure as it fell would separate some of those beams from each other which would also weaken the structure
At 17:57 According to the official conspiracy theory pieces of the North Tower, weighing several tons, traveled laterally 355 feet with enough force to penetrate the outer wall of WTC 7, while remaining hot enough to start a fire. That’s one magnificent theory! 😳
2:50 Now that you told me it's really uncanny seeing your lips moving like that. I just thought the audio was not synced to the video which happens a lot and would be fine. But altering your mouth movements by AI for syncing up the dub is unsettling! Your English with Italian accent sounds amazing. You should have gone with that. That would have been authentic.
Building seven came down in a perfect straight line. All those columns had to be compromised at the base, not around the fire. And at the exact same time. This is ridiculous. Look at the video. I’m not 100% so please check me but I don’t believe a steel building has ever come down from fire before. Except for three times on Sept 11.
Someday in the future, engineers will look back and marvel at how obvious the controlled demolition was right in front of our faces. We will be laughed at for the stubbornness of our resolve to protect the projected story.
What about the molten steel even though the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt steel. Molten steel was found all over the place at ground zero and thermite was found in the dust
There has never been proof that it was molten steel that was found. And thermite was very likely used during construction of the building, mainly in welding. So it's no surprise that residue of thermite was found.
The AI's delivery gives me the chills. It's definitely in the uncanny valley. Also its accent seems all over the place. I'd much rather hear you speak with your natural Italian accent. Otherwise the video is good and informative.
A slower plane strike (landing speeds since they would be approaching the ground) that they assumed would be an accident, and the plane much smaller than a 767 (a 707, and not one full of fuel either).
@@pierricclot6544 ok so we’ve got the bigger faster planes full of fuel, there seems to be some knowledgeable people on here, might be able to help me, next thing I wonder about is how novice terrorist pilots managed to manoeuvre a plane of that size and speed into the buildings, that experienced pilots would be stretched to achieve,and how were people making phone calls from planes
@@brendantindall805 If the Seattle Sky King could fly loop de loops in a stolen plane with no flight training than the terrorists who had training could do simple pilot maneuvers like steering and acceleration.
Idk why this was such a debate. Thank you so much for this video. Whether any of the conspiracies are true, why can’t we just accept that for some things they happen just as they appear? Why does everything have to be perceived as a conspiracy? My own dad went on such a rabbit hole dive that he was convinced for a while that there weren’t actual planes that hit. The conspiracies get exhausting. Even if some of them are true they’re gosh darn draining.
It’s a debate because you don’t know or understand steel and what it take to melt steel. I’m a welding engineer and have been for 15 years. I know how steel acts.
@larrytemen4789 so obviously YOU dont understand, because NOBODY is saying that it MELTED the steel... these are tube buildings/truss style.. all it too was for the weight plus heat to even SLIGHTLY bend the steel on floors, and boom, the pancake begins. Simple physics my guy. Almost every credible scientist agrees with the official story
"20 tons of thermite" is a great example how 9/11 conspiracy theories exist absent any reality. Some dodgy MF's "analysis" concludes there's trace amounts of thermite (but also a super special 'nano thermite'!) and by starting with a conclusion works backwords to determine they must have had 20 tons of it. Or, like, the obvious answer that a building filled with steel and aluminum *MIGHT LEAVE BEHIND SOME STEEL AND ALUMINUM DUST* when it collapses is just ridiculous (because it doesn't support the preconceived conclusion) Nah, must have been 20 tons of nanothermite literally nobody in the building happened to notice people drilling holes all over the central support columns to fit it for demolition.
If you do not specify the raw data, such simulations are worthless. Why weren't the planes intercepted beforehand? How could Atta and others fly so precisely if he only flew small planes before? What about the sprinkler system in the buildings? Why was the building virtually pulverized and in an almost free fall? The clean-up work was started too quickly and the steel was then sold to China. Many questions remain unanswered and these are just the ones that come to mind spontaneously. That's why there is still a bad aftertaste when you think back on it.
I do wonder why it took so long for the Air Force to get on it. Of course, the first plane was only flying from JFK airport which is only fifteen miles away. The hijacker had control of the airplane in the first half hour after take off, so he had time to swing it around and get it up to speed.
They learned to fly the big planes using flight simulators. One simulator actually had them "fly" into mid-town Manhattan right by the Twin Towers. They could run the simulations as often as they wanted.
The sprinkler system would not have made much of a difference at those temperatures. Plus, once the pipes to the sprinklers were cut by the impact, no water is coming out.
@@Tim22222Molecular Disassociation. Iron was deatomized at the molecular level, causing the concrete that was embedded into the steel floor pans to pulverize. That's why there was so much dust in the plumes along with loose paper from the filing cabinets.
The conspiracy theorists love to hit me with the "temperature at which steel breaks" information. Though I knew that the heat, the time, and the continuous forces pushing down on the damaged sections of the buildings, I never had a science-based explanation to counter their singular factor. I also didn't have any good information beyond a hypothesis about WTC-7. Thank you for giving me a better understanding of what might have happened and a better way to counter the myth that the government was the culprit in this multiple-site tragedy, 23 years ago.
This video fails to mention why many floors of intact structure unaffected by fires on floors above was displaced and suffered total failure at roughly the rate of free fall. So all three buildings completely and utterly failed at the rate of free fall. From fires. Steel reinforced buildings. This is the only time in history a metal building completely collapsed due to fire. Where did all that building material go to allow complete collapse?
When people doubt an “official narrative” it doesn’t qualify them as conspiracy theorists. People that study these kinds of things can find inconsistencies and outright misinformation. That doesn’t mean I believe a conspiracy theory. I just don’t believe fires had anything to do with steel reinforced buildings completely structurally failing.
Dude if anything that you we're saying was true the towers would have fallen within a short period of time let's say 15 Minutes after the impact.yes the gasoline is flammable and it would have been a flash ignition but also this is airplane fuel and high octane content, Where is the calculation for the fuel that didn't ignite.Another but more important point only two walls on each building was damaged not all 4,this by itself prohibits the collapse as it happened,the 2 buildings were hit at different areas and hights.... which impossibility the fall of both buildings in the same manner. Then you trying to explain the fall of WTC7 believe me is laughable..... I did work in demolition and I did study mechanical engineering this is the the best example of control demolition that I have ever witnessed. Besides don't forget that the ramifications of this happening took us into 20 years of war..... just to take a pause to try for a bigger war now against Russia. You belong to the dark forces of this world.
I'm going to disagree with your analysis and offer one of my own because I find Twin Towers collapses intellectually fascinating, my interest being _understanding the actual mechanisms_ of collapse - what failed, when, how & why and discussing those mechanisms with others who share a similar _genuine interest_ in understanding _what really happened_ instead of rationalizing some political agenda. So let's talk about it. If at the end you disagree with anything, please let me know what you object to and why. Make it good. I don’t suffer fools. This will take just a few minutes. This is *my summary explanation* of Twin Towers collapses of the Twin Towers, start-to-finish, based on _my_ observations without appeal to, or reliance on any authority. No politics or ideology, just what actually happened, which is agnostic to who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why. It has the benefit of *not requiring Rube Goldberg levels of complexity* and it makes logical sense. Each step in the process flows naturally from the one before AND is chock full of critical details _the conspiracy oriented internet tends to leave out_ with no whataboutisms. My hope is this will *dispel many common myths and answer most if not all questions you may have* about the Twin Towers collapses. While complex, most of the Twin Towers collapse mechanisms can be seen with the naked eye and easily discerned and understood by the layperson if sufficient time is taken to understand. The worlds engineering community had already largely sorted them out at least as early as October/November 2001. Still, there are many who can’t be bothered to look or perhaps work hard not to see, being more concerned about advancing political/ideological agendas (which is exciting) than science and engineering (which is boring). 1. The Twin Towers consisted of 4 primary structural elements that together _formed an integrated system_ where each relied on the others. 47 hollow box-section steel *Core Columns* carry the majority of the gravity loads. The 236 hollow box-section steel *Perimeter Columns* carry the remainder and ALL of the lateral (wind) loads. Long-span *Lightweight Steel Trusses* connect the core and perimeter column together at each floor with a *Hat Truss* on top to tie the structure together as an integrated unit where no element can survive without the others 2. The impact of 117 tons of airplane (= to about 12 dump trucks) at speeds up to 590 mph completely destroys the aircraft. This in no way implies the Towers come out unscathed. Some folks don’t get that. Hitting with *the energy of up to a ton of TNT* the impact damages or destroys many perimeter and some core columns (33 of 59 perimeter and 20 core columns destroyed at the impact floors in the North Tower), primarily through _bolt-shearing failures_ at the end connecting flanges, as well as _bending, twisting and fracturing_ of weld seams. There was *no cutting or slicing* - the reality was far more violent and messy. 3. The impacts destroy or damage fire insulation, fire breaks and sprinkler systems on multiple floors. Huge fires are started across _multiple floors simultaneously_ and allowed to spread rapidly with no effective firefighting or fire suppression. This was an _unprecedented fire event_ . All of this was observed and recorded. 4. The *hotter steel gets the weaker it gets* . With fire insulation stripped away and no sprinklers the survival time of the steel greatly reduced. Gradually over time heat causes the lightweight steel Floor Trusses at the impact damaged floors to sag, which was observed and recorded. No steel melted nor did it need to. Structural steel will fail long before it turns to a puddle. It just needs to _bend_ 5. Sagging floor trusses pull on the increasingly weak and overloaded Perimeter Columns, causing *some* of them (NOT on the sides that were hit) to bow inward by up to 5 feet. This was observed and recorded. A straight column is up to 4 times stronger than a bent column. 6. The bowed Perimeter Columns buckle and fail, initiating collapse. This was observed and recorded. The formerly static mass above which the structure below could easily support is now converted into a dynamic mass up to 30 times greater. Because they have buckled, the *Columns above and below the failure point are no longer aligned* . The load bearing structure below no longer bears any load as it falls _past_ the lower columns, NOT onto them. 7. Thousands of tons of debris fall within the four outer walls, down through the open office space, crashing onto the first intact floor it encounters. This massive impact immediately breaks the bolted connections to the columns as the amount of resistance the Floor Trusses can offer is negligible. The falling debris slows only marginally and briefly. Note: 7a. This is NOT a _solid top block crashing into and “crushing” a solid bottom block_ . 7b. The debris *falls past the columns* not onto them. The columns provide no resistance to the falling debris. 7c. Only the bolted connections of the floor trusses to the core and perimeter columns can offer any resistance. A pair of 5/8” bolts at each end of each truss vs. thousands of tons of falling debris. 8. This floor-led collapse progression _within the four outer walls_ can _only_ go straight down. Note: 8a. This process is often incorrectly referred to as “pancaking” which actually refers to a completely different process rejected at an early stage. The catchy name stuck but nobody knows what it is supposed to mean. Pancaking is too simplistic and inaccurate anyway. More like Kaiserschmarrn. 9. Collapse progresses through the _floor systems_ and *not* down the columns. Rate of floor assembly failures increases with each successive floor as momentum increases, reaching an average acceleration of 0.65 of GA, or 35% slower than true free fall. Bam, bam, bam down the building until there are no more floors to fail. The resistance offered by each successive floor is always the same. The mass and velocity and thus the energy of the falling debris are constantly increasing. The falling mass increases with every floor it destroys as new falling mass is added. Some falls to the sides, but most falls down. More mass, more velocity, same resistance with each floor. The above is unquestionably the _path of least resistance_ 10. The Towers were 95% air by volume and as that air was compressed inside the building it is forced down the tower and blown out the sides *in reaction to the building collapsing* not causing the collapse. Those were not “explosions”, it was _expulsions_ of compressed air. 11. Perimeter Columns become detached and peel away like a banana _behind_ the collapse front, playing out to the four points of the compass extending to more than 600 feet from the base of the towers. This was observed and recorded, the results quite obvious from examination of the debris pile. 12. Core Columns fail last as their internal beam bracing is stripped away and lateral support from the floor to perimeter columns is lost. This was observed and recorded and is most obvious in the North Tower. 13. For those who care about how long this took, the whole process took 31-34 seconds from the moment the perimeter columns buckled until the last core columns hit the pile, or 1/3 the rate of true free fall. Don’t believe me? Just watch any video of the collapses and note all the loose _and truly free falling debris_ dropping much faster than the towers themselves. 14. What was NOT observed and recorded were the 180-190 dB bangs of high explosives or the blinding bright flashes of burning thermite. Of course, neither could have caused the (silent) Perimeter Column buckling that was observed. Neither explosives or thermite could have survived the impacts and subsequent fires either. Cherry-picking a casual comment from someone who heard a loud noise in an event like 9/11 is not exactly “proof” of _anything_ and the _pre-planned_ demolition case relies entirely on that. There is zero physical evidence to support either conjecture. It would be technically impossible, totally impractical and completely unnecessary. No one would bother. 15. The Twin Towers were perfectly safe within their design envelope. They only collapsed when taken far outside design parameters by an extraordinary and unprecedented event. *Impact + Fire (heat) + Time + Gravity = Collapse* . Remove any one of those four elements and there is no collapse. Ignore any of those elements (as many do) and you will never understand the collapses. The Twin Towers were an _integrated system_ in which no one component could survive without the others. One fails, the rest follow, through the _path of least resistance_ - DOWN - through the open space, bypassing the path of greatest resistance - the columns. Don’t get stuck on the _but the lower floors weren’t on fire_ nonsense. I hope you found this helpful. It is meant to be informative, not adversarial, posted with the objective of soliciting informed critical comment, positive or negative. If I made any errors of fact, logic or reason or left anything critical out, please let me know so I can fix it. One topic at a time, on topic only please to stay focused, no word-salads of Gish Gallop. IF you can offer a more plausible alternative be my guest. So far no one has even tried. Please start any reply with the words “Tits McGee” or I will know you didn’t actually read it, are not serious and just wasting my time.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4flamazingly said. Glad someone with an actual brain is setting these conspiracy theorists on a more educated path. My adolescent cousin learned about 911 in school and even he understood how the planes lead to the tower falling. When a fire rages, beams soften, weight can't be held, it's built to go down straight specifically so it doesn't fall into another building. Debris still can fall, which lead to tower 7. Really east stuff to get, yet some grown adults who likely watched it happen on TV still cannot grasp it. Keep doing amazing work.
I'm curious about how much of this was foreseeable. When the terrorists planned this, did they know or expect the buildings to collapse? I'm also interested in how repair work would've been done if the buildings did not collapse. Would they not have been compromised to the point where they would've had to be demolished anyway?
Our intelligence services (CIA and FBI) knew that something was going to happen. We were also warned by multiple foreign intelligence agencies including England, France, Germany and even Russia. The reports said that Bin Laden was planning something in the US involving planes. Ahmad Shah Massoud warned us as well. He was a US ally and the leader of the resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan until he was killed by Al-Qaeda assassins. The FBI knew that arabs were taking flying lessons but they were not interested in learning to land. The CIA knew the hijackers were in the US, but didn't share the info with the FBI. Richard Clarke (NSC) kept warning Condoleezza Rice that was something was going to happen but she never did anything about it. Bush was briefed as well and did nothing. Read the book the Looming Tower. It has all of this in detail plus you can find it in other sources as well. Basically we knew something was going to happen but the CIA and FBI didn't share info and our leaders did nothing about it. And our government has never released info regarding Saudi involvement. They were involved somehow, but the government refuses to tell us because we need their oil and our military bases there.
It’s a difficult question. The US KNEW of a possible attack and the possible affiliates being in the country however the chain of command and inner and outer branches of the FBI and CIA. It was a complete and utter failure on their behalves. It sounds like they were complacent together at face value by conspiracy theorists. However the intelligence between the CIA and the FBI wasn’t shared between each other
So, building 7 fell because of office fire? How on earth did a building that could collapse only due to fire pass all the approvals to be built? What other buildings made this way are at risk of collapse should they catch fire? Why does every other building fire not end in collapse? I really don’t want to believe the conspiracies, but debunk videos like this aren’t helping. I’m always left with so many questions, and so few answers.
It’s cause it was planned…likely from the start….The collapse looks like free fall to me….and what about building 6? Look at those pics..what about all those dump trucks ready to go…so many lose ends..
Thank you for having an open mind despite the unnerving nature of your curiosity- the biggest challenge in discovering the truth (of anything) is the challenge of overcoming cognitive dissonance- the challenge of getting people to admit that their preconceived idea is actually incorrect enough to warrant a reevaluation. Nobody wants to realize they were wrong about what they thought was “right”, it’s a scary feeling.
It wasn't just fire. It was tons of concrete and metal that fell on it plus fire that wasn't subject to any suppression. The sprinkler system was disabled by the falling debris and firefighters were pulled from the building.
