9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert
Why can't the experts get their stories straight?
Uploaded by physicsandreason on Nov 1, 2011
This definitely accords with my understanding of the conflicting information between the ever-changing official explanations. And this is important information to get out, as there is still much confusion and blurry thinking as to what the official collapse explanation(s) are. This clearly shows that there is no angle of the fire and gravity premise that has so far credibly explained the collapses.
I find Jon Cole's presentations (among several others) to be very clear and concise for a lay audience. Thanks.
This is both very informative and very very funny. One of the best 911 truth videos ever!
Thank you so much Jon!
loved how you nailed Retard Kay. Brilliant.
I will be linking to this whenever someone challenges the CD explanations.
Thank you very much for a fast-paced and easily understood video.
Kudos again, Jon. The conflicting official stories are diversions and obfuscation to hide the explosive truth about what brought down the towers. The murder weapon is found in both the dust and lungs of first responders. (April '09 bombshell + April '10 bombshell.) This might be the first video to mention both. ***nanothermite in dust / nanotubes in lungs***
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs of World Trade Center First Responders
*Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 118/ Number 4/ April 2010
Great punch line on those last two minutes!!
Another great video Jon, I really liked how you mentioned the nano tube structures found in the first responders lungs Mark Haynes commentary is spot on. Outstanding, two thumbs up!! A must see.
Very clear, funny, easy to get, very nice. Will pass this along and remember the contents of it.
Very instructive and helpful. An excellent approach.
As much as I like this video, I don't wish to sound negative by making some constructive comments: The clips regarding thermate and what it does to steel--rather than just show images of white hot sparks flying from a piece of steel to which thermate has been applied, don't we have images showing that the steel really was burnt through afterwards? The 'debunker' clips show close-ups of the steel that have not been burnt through after thermate has been applied. Don't we have images to show steel that has been burnt through? And can we explain why it is that the results differ?
Something else: I think it's also good to mention how much of what remained of the beams and columns found in the wreckage of the towers were in segments that could be neatly stacked--consistent with the results of controlled demolitions. Have the 'debunkers' even attempted to account for that?
Regarding your suggestion about thermate and the damage done to steel, I was thinking the same thing. Good suggestion in my opinion.
Excellent video, however. I've shared it via email with friends.
I struggled with the time constraints of this video, understanding that when it comes to YouTube videos, in general less is more. I had to do some cutting. However I referred to an earlier video I did called the Great Thermate Debate, and in that video there are close ups of what Thermate ( thermite with sulfur) will do to steel.
Plus, I did show what 4 pounds of it will do to the web of a wide flange, using an American standard regulation carrot to test for razor sharpness, in accordance with ASTM procedures.
Well done again.
That elephant in the room image at the end is a GREAT piece of work. Congrats the artist.
. would look great in times square at 30feet.