Home » 9/11 » Smiling Dave Learns About 9/11.

Smiling Dave Learns About 9/11.

If you have 15 minutes to invest in learning what happened, have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

Ultra short summary: Putting aside the twin towers themselves, there was a third building, 47 stories high, called Building 7, that also imploded on 9/11 [in seven seconds]. No plane hit that building, everyone agrees. So why did it collapse?

NIST, the agency paid 16 million dollars by the US Govt to find out what happened on 9/11, says the building collapsed because of fire, caused by burning office furniture.

Over 2,500 architects and engineers beg to disagree, and in fact have an online petition going round to investigate the whole ugly business independently.

The video shows many buildings collapsing in the exact same manner the twin towers and Building 7 did. It happens routinely all around the world. It’s called “planned demolition.” It takes many months to prepare, and it involves putting explosives inside the building and blowing it up. Experts who saw the 9/11 videos say that what happened, the flattening like a pancake, the incredible speed of the collapse, could only happen if there was a planned demolition, planned months in advance.

No fire could ever do it. Modern buildings have caught fire, at much hotter heat, and they did not collapse. It’s like saying Hiroshima happened because somebody lit a match. Plenty of clips showing those fires, too.

I am totally convinced. These are not kooks by any definition, but serious people, such as the manager of Underwriter Laboratories, technical experts with degrees, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, high rise architects, materials scientists, chemists, metallurgists, physicists, explosive experts, demolitions experts, fire protection experts, winners of science medals in their fields, and on and on.

There are many more suspicious happenings that the video points out. Have a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. guest says:

    Some of the “free fall” videos start the collapse of Building 7 at a conveniently late point.

    Check the videos you’ve already seen against this video that shows the collapse of stuff on the roof [I think it’s the East Penthouse] approximately 7 seconds before the building falls:

    [Note: Links removed by Smiling Dave. Not here to give publicity to nameless people.See my reply to this comment below.]

    So, this was not a free fall.

    Here’s a playlist of videos I’ve found helpful, if you’re interested:
    [Link removed by Smiling Dave]

    Some of the videos have corrections listed in the description, so you’ll have to take a look at those, too (I believe the one on WTC7 is one of them).

    Like

  2. Smiling Dave says:

    Could you please explain why you are qualified to have an opinion on these highly technical matters? Who are you, meaning name, occupation, cv, facebook page, the works.

    I mean, if Albert Einstein had something to say about quantum mechanics, he would make sure to actually sign his name to his opinion, right?

    Same goes for that list of videos I refuse to link to. All anonymous. Contrast this with the one I did link to, full of names, impressive qualifications, everything.

    So you know what to do now. Have at it.

    Like

  3. guest says:

    This is not something I am willing to do. Even if you’re not willing to post the videos, go through some of them, yourself.

    As to the Albert Einstein analogy, his signature would not make what he had to say any more or less true.

    Great blog, though. Keep up the good work.

    Like

  4. Smiling Dave says:

    But it would make us consider his opinion worth reading, as opposed to that of an anonymous internet person.
    Put another way, if you had to risk all your money, whose investment advice would you take, that of Mr A, a total unknown who refuses to identify himself, or of a famous wealthy investment professional with an impressive track record? Agreed, Mr A’s anonymity and lack of any credentials does not make his opinion more or less true, but it casts doubt in our minds, and correctly so.
    Thank you for the kind words.

    Like

  5. guest says:

    You’re very welcome.

    Do videos which, for example, point out the misquotes of eyewitnesses, count as a track record – perhaps one that has yet to be perused?

    (They’re not my videos, by the way.)

    Like

  6. Smiling Dave says:

    The way I see it, we have over 2,000 professionals, architects, demolitions experts, etc, who all give their name and credentials and claim that, given their knowledge of these matters, it had to be a planned demolition. And an unsigned video which points out some distinctions, that none but an expert can say if they are nitpicks or not, does not, in my mind, invalidate what those 2,000 have stated for the record.

    For instance, it was really really hot, a video claims, proof supposedly that it was not a planned demolition. I would need someone with expertise to validate that really hot demolitions are impossible, given govt resources to exclusive materials. Or that the roof took seven seconds to collapse before the rest of the building went into free fall. I would need an expert to come forth and state his name and CV, and then explain why such a delay proves it was not a planned demolition. Otherwise, as far as I know, it might be a nitpick.

    Same thing with misquotes from eyewitnesses. I would need an expert to show his credentials and then explain why those misquotes, if they are indeed misquotes, are germane, and not nitpicks that make no difference.

    Like

  7. guest says:

    “”The iron and steel in the structure was warped and twisted by the heat and the fireproofing material served no better purpose than paper. In a short time this costly building was nothing but a pile of twisted steel.” –The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 9, 1900.”

    The story was called “Disastrous Fire in Greenpoint.” Here is the link to page 2 (“Continued From Page 1”) of the newspaper from where the quote comes:

    [The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. New York, Monday, April 9, 1900.-Vol. 60. No. 98.]
    http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/50386915

    I learned about this story from the following page, which claims to list other such examples of steel bending due to heat:

    Fire Safety Engineering & the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst

    Like

  8. Smiling Dave says:

    Funny how the picture in that 1900 newspaper depicting the wreck is not of a pile of rubble, but of a standing building.

    Steel bends due to heat, but we need an expert to tell us at what heat, how bent it gets, what heat will happen from a plane crashing into a modern building built to survive a plane crashing into it, what the crashed into building will look like, etc etc. A load of technical details that only experts can tell us. Not to mention that there is testimony from people there that the steel melted. Melted, not just twisted. Melted. It looked like a flow of lava in that basement, they said.

    Luckily, we have the expert testimony of over 2,000 experts who say that what happened could have happened only one way. Planned demolition. No plane could put the buildings into free fall, crushing them into powder. Physically impossible, 2,000 of them say, and stake their reputations on it, giving their full names and CV’s.

    I’m sorry, but to keep some semblance of quality here, until you state your name, qualifications, CV, formal conclusions and how arrived at, I won’t be able to post your further comments.

    Like

  9. epgre says:

    I read the excellent book, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7 by David Ray Griffin. Even if the temperatures would have been hot enough to melt steel, you would have the difficulty of explaining how the key beams would have melted at the same time giving an entire collapse of the building in just 6.5 seconds. Then you have the testimony of Barry Jennings who was trapped in that tower that morning and reported explosions. He could not escape WTC 7 because the stairwell gave way and exploded. Jennings died of mysterious circumstance in 2008, just days before the NIST Final Report was supposed to be released.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: