Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "This 9-11 Remember Government is the Problem" video.

germany did not control the middle east or other energy rich areas despite their best efforts. in fact lack of oil was one of germanys biggest issue only made worse by our intense bombing campaign. theres a reason why german divisions of 1944 used more horse than german divisions of 1939. no oil and german synthetic oil programs just werent up to the task of replacing it.
30
was it bad we excused a bunch of nazis and shipped them over here? yes. but would you have rathered the soviets hoovered them all up instead? and when operation paperclip was being carried out we had no concept of going to the moon. not sure why im having to say this.
6
the mujahadin did not 1 to 1 become the taliban, there were elements, particularly in norther afganistan that remianed quite loyal to the usa for our help in their fight against the russians. however our ham handed foreign policy and lack of government will, offered them no protection and they were taken out by the taliban and al quaida (intentionally on the deep states part?).
3
@brendanroberts1310 yep. which we bombed a few times.
3
@Right-Is-Right nope. debris from the north tower hit center part of the side facing the towers and collapsed that. then it was left to burn for hours. have you ever touched a piece of metal thats been sitting out in the sun for awhile? go try it and see what happens.
2
@malthus101 youd be surprised. spent a lot of time learning about such from a lot of different sources. not an expert by far, but enough to make up my own mind.
2
@Right-Is-Right no, tower 7 was different from tower 1 and 2 in that falling debris from the north tower fell on the side facing the towers and took a central chunk out of the building. an overhead view would look like something took a bite out of the front of the footprint. if you watch video from that side you see it started to slomo fall in on itself at 1st until it all lets go. seek out video from that side and youll see what i mean. as far as burning jet fuel weakening the steel, thats exactly what happened. you have to remember each tower had about 500,000 tons of materials with many hundred above the areas affected. it didnt take much weakening before it simply could not bear the overburden above it and it collapsed.
2
true. im getting sick and tired of people saying the government is responsible for 9/11. its not. bin laden is. the government was just too incompetent to avoid it.
1
@BobbyHiII elements of our government let it happen (ie deep state military industrial complex [gotta have an excuse for another round of forever wars]).
1
@fledglingbodhisatva4821 wtf are you talking about, the jet was turned into high speed flow of metallic bits like sandblasting media. same principal as a shaped charge cutting through tank armor.
1
no. parts of the north tower fell on it.
1
@davebarrowcliffe1289 it didnt. go look at overhead pics of the plaza after to collapse. you can see debris in the street to the south. too late, i already sold it repeatedly to leftists who think trumps going to jail.
1
@Right-Is-Right sssoooo copy and paste where i said any such thing. ill wait. you said did i believe metal was a heat conductor. i told you to go touch a piece thats been sitting in the sun to find out. nope. but ive got a buddy who has. that shit doesnt have hundred of thousands of tons of steel and concrete depending on it not to fall. hell, you dont even need to heat up steel to make a building collapse. just remove enough support and gravity will do the rest. the steel of the towers didnt collapse into goo either. nor sideways, nor all the same along huge length. nor would it need to. nor was it anywhere near melting point, nor would it need be with that much overbudren above it just waiting to fall.
1
@davebarrowcliffe1289 uuuhhhhh no. not so much. a 3 story tall pile of debris over 3 blocks would cost controlled det companies extra millions.
1
@malthus101 and it didnt need to melt to collapse with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete overburden. just no longer be able to bear all that immense weight.
1
@BobbyHiII wrong. theres footage showing the south face at an angle where damage can be seen. it also makes it clear that it just didnt suddenly let go, but start to fold in on itself slowly at 1st. and the steel didnt need to melt. just get weakened enough to not be able to support the overburden. crushed by the collapse.
1
@BobbyHiII are you talking about building 7 or the towers? the towers pancaked because the way they were designed, with most of the support in the central core, the floors pancaked into one another downward. if you watch the column of smoke closely though you will see parts of the central core fall over once the floors have pancaked away.
1
@BobbyHiII how am i supposed to replicate hundred os thousands of tons of overburden exactly? there was no simultaneously structural failure in any building on 9/11. they were built to withstand the hit from a 707 flying at cruise speed with fuel enough for a domestic flight, not 737, 747 etc at full speed with enough fuel for an international flight. they also overestimated fds ability to fight a fire caused by such an impact. buildings rarely just tip over. ive seen a few videos of shorter solidly constructed concrete ones do so because of foundation issues. but most buildings collapse in some fashion. but no other building of the towers size has ever had such an incident so theres nothing to compare them to, and hopefully never will be either.
1
@BobbyHiII no. gravity did. fire just weakened an already compromised structure to the point where it could no longer support the hundreds of thousands of tons of overburden. uuhhhhhh bridge construction is largely horizontal, high rise buildings are vertical , not the same thing.
1
@malthus101 nothing melted away. wtf are you talking about? elements of the core did remain standing for a few seconds after the floors pancaked away. then they collapsed as well, because netiher element could support itself without the other. there have never been any building like the towers to have any incident occurred like what occurred on 9/11. hell, im not even sure there are other buildings like the towers. their design was very much non standard.
1
@davebarrowcliffe1289 you dont have to believe the official narrative, to not buy into the controlled demo theory. we never got the whole story what happened on and before 9/11, but that doesnt mean "duh gubermint" controlled demoed the buildings either.
1
@malthus101 they were designed to withstand a 707 going at cruise speed with a standard domestic load of fuel. and no way to test the premise mind you. they were not designed to withstand more modern aircraft (737, 747, 777, etc) going full speed with an international load of fuel. there were elements of the core jutting up into the sky 5-10 stories after the floor pancaked for a few seconds until they too fell. go watch the footage in slomo. its a bit hard to see because of all the smoke but once you spot it, you cant miss it. wtf are you talking about??? the debris pile WAS huge. it took months to clear. nothing like wtcs. as i said, im not ever sure there are other structures like wtc. what youre not mentioning after massive structural damage from 2 high speed jetliners with massive amounts of fuel burning, that further compromised the structure so that it could no longer support the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel overburden.
1
@malthus101 but everything else flammable that the burning jet fuel alights burns at whatever temperature it burns at. never after having a fully loaded jetliner slam into at 500-600 mph. and never with such a design. and never with hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel overburden on them. yes, gravity will do that. debris from the north tower fell on if along with burning jet fuel. it was left to burn for hours unattended because they had other things to attend to.
1
@malthus101 never said 7 was hit by a jet.
1
@malthus101 how many times do i have to say it. it was hit by flaming debris from the north tower. it was hit be flaming debris from the north tower. it was hit be flaming debris from the north tower.
1
no, the north tower did.
1
i think most of our foreign policy blunders could probably be traced back to the deep state military industrial complex. just remember that foreigners. their actions do not reflect the will of the american people. they treat us almost as bad as they treat you. go ahead and kill them. not us.
1
no, the government didnt cause 9/11. bin laden caused 9/11. our deep state may have behaved badly overseas, but that didnt cause 9/11/ bin laden did. plenty of other governments did things equally bad or worse without triggering a 9/11.
1
eeeexxxccceeeppptttt it didnt.
1
@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz i mean, yes, theres an argument for that. but suppose wed let the russians have all the scientists and captured tech, think how much worse the world wouldve been.
1
nope. nether. watch more videos from more angles, particularly the south side. you can see it slowly start to fold in on itself until it lets go.
1
@Right-Is-Right cant see the internals because of the fire. but you can see the center of the roof start to fall inward before the exterior does.
1
@Right-Is-Right yes, a natural collapse because loss of structural support.
1
@Right-Is-Right structural damage, fire unattended for hours, and gravity.
1
@Right-Is-Right there wasnt just furniture. everything flammable burned. and it doesnt have to melt the steel. just weaken it enough so it can support the weight it was intended to support.
1
theres pics of airlpane parts strewn across the lawn right in front of where it hit. and engine parts pulled form the building.
1