9/11 South Tower Strike - Black Coverup From The East Zoomed (CNN-FOX)

[Xendrius]

Exactly what they planned in operation northwoods, to take a military 767 and paint hte tail section to resemple a commercial plane and then use it in a false flag attack.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock Listen, you blocked me .... I gotta respond in kind. Sorry, I already made my point go back to sleep.

[FromBabelToIreland]

@IranContraScumDid911.. no man.. you better wake up from your sleep.. yes I blocked you.. comments like "the music sucks" and "alien stories" are the last sign of intelligence I need as comment on my video.. you probably will understand.. if not.. too bad.. :)

[IranContraScumDid911]

@FromBabelToIreland The music did suck, and holograms are easily disproven with real verifiable observable evidence. In science, no matter how much you love the idea, if the evidence says otherwise you throw out the theory. Holograms, bigfoot, aliens, directed energy weapons, nukes ... its all diversion and making up stories that directly prevent real justice. If they can make the truth look like a bunch of quacks with tinfoil hats, real factual justice can be clowned. Thanks

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 I enjoy your channel and have for the last year, but these are hologram planes.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MissKatrina2010 I can scientifically prove otherwise, but believe anything you like.

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 As someone who is in the process of finishing their Ph. D. I am more than open to scientific proof - please comment here or message me. I will be waiting.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MissKatrina2010 Observation is one of sciences greatest tools. Start with the most likely. Proof the plane videos, looking for individual flaws tested with the rest of the sample. The pooled ABC shot we all saw live came in LEVEL at an oblique angle to the south face from the south-south-west (statue of liberty) in a 30 degree banked turn to port (with no parabolic depth perspective). This video conflicts in small detail. 15 degree decent or level? I have videos of both.

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 I have concluded some of the video is fake. I confimed this in 2008 (sept clues). But trust me, it would be way too risky for there to be NO plane at all - to easy to crack the story - that's why holograms were used. There HAD to be a plane for the story to work, nobody said this plane had to be real. I do not disregard anyones observations over the past 10 years. It is through these previous observations that we can rule things out and continue to find the truth.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MissKatrina2010 FDNY Victim and Equipment Recovery Maps ..... only 5 plane parts found at the WTC site by the firefighters. There is a physics issue with the planes. In every collision there is an equal and opposite force reaction on both objects equally in time. The detachable cantalevered weaker hollow wings failed to recieve the same force they delivered that made a hole. The energy available to make a hole is velocity and mass, neither lost the first instant of impact

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 So you're saying it's a hologram then..

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Katrina NO this video is a clip zoom edit of the Park Foreman video. The videos are all fake. Hologram? Is that the most likely? Thats science fiction. Test the videos with each other, you will see there are many different plane shots. The level from the south (like this), 15 degree decent from SSW (NBC and NY1), and a banked parabolic trurn oblique to the face (ABC). Were there three different planes and multiple holograms? The videos are fake, altered. What is your PHD in?

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 I am familiar with all of this and was a "no-planer". I agree, most of the footage is fake. But I continue to develop the idea that holograms were used, and are seen in SOME of the shots. A few shots we see the hologram, but most of what we see is fake video. A lot of times, you see the same plane problems (no wing, morph, upside down engines) in different shots - these are holograms. Don't bet 100% on one single truth breaking 9/11. My Ph. D. is in clinical psych.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MissKatrina Which shots are holograms? Not this shot, its an altered version of another shot. Sure looks like a hologram or a Boeing .... but its not. The missing wings, funny shape, engines sideways are video error. Somebody told you those were holograms, without any evidence to prove the technology was used or exists. I recommend thinking for yourself, prove everything you hear, everything. There are many bunk diversions, as you might have figured out. The live images were pooled, FBI fed

[MissKatrina2010]

@IranContraScumDid911 OK So you are saying no planes at all - nothing flew through the air on 911? Seems kind of risky and stupid to not have anything fly through the air and hit the tower, whether plane, missile or drone hologram.. Why does 1 wing disapear in several shots at the same precise time (all black plane shots).

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MissKatrina I am not drawing a final hologram conclusion. I dont know what flew through the air, or if something did. I do know for a fact it was not a Boeing size plane. The South Tower impact looks like a missile strike, no wake turbulance and at least 200 yards of powdered blasted concrete comes out the entry hole. Exit face explosion wrong for SSW approaches. The videos are all edited and come from the source that is feeding you a cavemen theory. Whoever tampered vids was a wing idiot?

[alexis19866]

we will never find the truth, there is no point, its useless.and even if we find a reliable truth,it 'll never be the real complete and absolute truth.its useless.what we need to understand is what happened afterwards. we need to understand what came next and how the event itself (9/11) legitimised policy making and conduct. how 9/11 was used to legitimise decisions, actions, and how the memory of the event was used as the excuse, as the underlying reason to take on those decisions and actions

[nibirushock]

@alexis19866.. I say.. we are VERY close to the truth.. the cat is out of the bag with regards to the kind of technology used on that specific day.. soon the right and enough people will pick up on this.. >> watch?v=pZ6vgo11Sto

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock No holograms or energy weapons, more like photoshop and a pooled news feed from a single source.

[nibirushock]

@IranContraScumDid911.. if you watch my latest video properly, you simply cannot deny the technology in use.. there's no photoshop at all.. all is visual evidence.. I thought you were seeking truth.. apparently you don't.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock I have watched your vids, I keep abreast. I dont deny the technology might even exist, but it was not used on 9/11. The videos show a conflicting decent rate, parabolic banked turn and angle, and flight heading. Must have been 5 or 6 holograms to fit your theory. I will stick to the available evidence, scientific observation, case study, and scientific law. I can PROVE for a fact what happened, without theory. Nice fictional theory though. Apparently ... I dont? LOL.

[nibirushock]

@IranContraScumDid911.. all the "conflicts" you just mentioned are in your mind.. not in the video.. all the videos are perfectly clear.. so that's not an excuse man.. your comment about 5 to 6 holograms is ludicrous and you know it.. what you especially missed is the comprehension of it all.. what you are doing is indeed sticking to old paths of pseudoscience and long gone debunked theories.. like the CGI or photoshop fairytales as if every amateur video is edited.. that's simply impossible..:)

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock You missed the most important clue, so cannot understand. It is not your video that has a problem, its all the plane videos when unified and examined as one, since they are all of the same event. This video here is a zoomed crop of the Park Foreman shot. I am sticking to REAL verifiable scientific observation without making up what I cannot confirm. I can confirm with a map it is the videos, not a hologram that decieved you ... and still does. Your close, but far.

[nibirushock]

@IranContraScumDid911.. also, why are you falsely accusing me of "alien stories" with regards to my 9/11 videos.. whilst that is never discussed in that way.. in fact it is clear to everyone that I do not believe in aliens.. so why bringing that up?.. you are deliberately spreading disinformation.. you must really explain that to the audience man.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock Boeings, Hijackers, Holograms, Cavemen, Directed Energy Weapons, Bigfoot, and Aliens ..... its all fiction, without solid verifiable evidence that can be recreated here in our reality. A hologram is among the least likely probabilities, so it should be the last considered after all more realistic options or possibilities have been tested and disproven. There was no need for a hologram. The images, script, and the eyewitnesses were controlled and pooled from one source.

[nibirushock]

@IranContraScumDid911..loose the concept of the conventional hologram.. these are as illustrated advanced holographic plasma projections operating within a geometrical implosive light bending black body field -as in Gustav Kirchhoff- It's wise not let the rational mind ignore the logical mind.. all the visual evidence is in the last video and I am working on one more which elaborates to illustrate how this technology is used.. not just that day but in the present moment as well.. till then.. :)

[IranContraScumDid911]

@nibirushock So if the videos how different flight paths, different parabolic turns and banked wing angle, different magnetic heading, different decent rates, and different objects how did they do it with a single hologram? I ask you to closely examine the plane videos you use for context, many have some serious issues. I would be curious to see the technology. This shot and the ABC shot from the statue of liberty we saw live conflict, as well as many other conflict with both.

[nibirushock]

@IranContraScumDid911.. all the fictious "errors" you mention are a direct result of the kind of light bending/absorbing technology used. This has caused all the confusion and presumed errors of which the brilliant minds picked up on them sharply, but they all will have to reconsider their opinion. There are indeed clear indications of manipulated live shots.. but they were able to do that already in the Ramstein Airshow disaster in 1988. I am curious about the conflicting St.of Liberty shots.

[voodoowichdoctor]

hologram or CGI

=k3AE0PyEHB4&feature=relmfu

[Zelle10]

@voodoowichdoctor There never were twin towers or even america. It's all cg reality.

[SpardaKaze]

Idk about you but are you sure that's GOD talking?

[SpardaKaze]

Btw I wouldn't be looking to the bible or any religion for guidance in these dark times. Look to each other for love and mentorship.

Don't forget that Christianity is big today because of the Crusades, and they took power over countless deaths for their so called GOD. That GOD has many enemies and must be smiten? That the priest calling the shots tells the Paladins to kill GOD's blasphemers for he can hear his voice? To me GOD is benevolent and would not ask for death.

[SpardaKaze]

Not just that but the physics is all wrong mind you. The "plane" goes into the building like a hot knife through butter. There is no crumpling of the "plane" when it hits and the building is made quite durable and strong and the "plane" never receives a equal and opposite reaction? Sketchy indeed. Red flags shouldve gone up for the citizens when the government kept delaying investigations and what not.

[tony0379]

If you to the right of the sky as soon as the missle hits there is a whit plane flying

[Zelle10]

MAYBE THE PLANE IS DARK BECAUSE IT'S FLYING IN THE SHADOW OF THE BUILDING ??? EVER THOUGHT OF THAT ?

IF I WOULD FLY INTO A BUILDING WITH THE SUN IN MY EYES I WOULD MAKE IT LIKE THAT. YOU HAVE JUST A BLACK COLUMN TO HIT, NOT SOMETHING REFLECTING BEING AS BRIGHT AS THE SKY AS WHEN YOU APPOACH FROM ANOTHER ANGLE AND YOU DON'T GET BLIND BY THE SUN CAUSE YOU FLY COMPLETELY IN THE SHADOW.

"Of course, who did this and why is still up for speculation."

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Zell Its not in the shadow of the building. The sun is behind the camera, the plane is frontlit by 9:00 am rising fall clear sunshine. It does fly under the smoke which shadows it. But that is far from why this plane is suspicious. There is much more to it than this video. ALL the evidence must be unified. It was all one event, and disunifying or isolating any evidence is unscientific and irresponsible. Forget this video. What does Isaac Newton say and why is he correct when no planes found?

[Zelle10]

@IranContraScumDid911 Thanks for pointing out it was the smoke. (shouldn't have written in big letters but i was angry about people writing the plane was drawn in)

Did you ever hear about the psychological evidence that they've chosen 911 their emergency call number of which you will always think of the state as your saviour but hardly as of the traitor. Who would have benefit of that choice? Someone real brazen i think. Since I never heard of anyone else about it so far I'm asking now.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Zelle10 The numbers cannot be missed. Your idea makes alot of subliminal psycholigical sense, fear and emotion are the vector for 9/11, the diversion from facts. Seems the weather was good that day, which would have been essential to stage the show and get the full effect they were looking for, rained before and a few days later. There was alot of economic issues and problems that were solved. It made the new age of global war possible. Pretty crazy show, still have not figured it all out yet

[zenoist2]

@Zelle10  theres no shadow you dunce it its a silver plane in broad daylight.

Somehow appearing black.

Go away and think about it like we all have.

[Zelle10]

@zenoist2 I was told It's wasn't the shadow of the building like i first said but the shadow of the smoke through wich it flew. You go and first learn how to think before you draw conclusions. I'm sure physics and logic is not one of your best skills.

To know there is something unbelievibly wrom with the official version is one thing but taking shit for evidence knocks your opinion out right away. There's by far enough real evidence so look for it!

[zenoist2]

@Zelle10 maybe its dark because its false?

This is a sliver plane in broad daylight remember

theres no shadow hitting it at all.

So why doesnt it look silver?

[zenoist2]

How can it possibly get black anyway without seriously altering the video?

Tampering with evidence.

faking 9 /11

It cant. and its just another part of the 911 hoax.

[1971SuperLead]

I see nothing unreal about this video. I was an aerospace repair technician for 21 years and I don't doubt for a second that this jet crashed into the WTC just as this video clearly shows.

Of course, who did this and why is still up for speculation.

[buixrule]

How strong do you think the wall of the WTC was? It would take nothing for that plane to enter through like it did then just scrap on the way through. Even if the exterior of the WTC was stronger material; Ever seen a tornado take a 2x4 and impale a concrete wall? I have. Because of that this whole thread is invalid. Come on folks. What's next, martians from the 3rd moon of Pluto are running all the the Burger Kings in Manhattan?

[IranContraScumDid911]

@buixrule In every collision, even planes and buildings, there is an equal and opposite force pair reaction. The building hit the plane with the same force the plane delivered. How strong do you think those hollow light weaker detachable cantalevered wings were? Did the building hit the wings? Since you do not know how to measure crashes or even how they work, this video easily dupes you. Tests this collison with physics that cant be faked, because, real or not, this video is EASILY faked.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@buixrule Yes, aliens and bigfoot helped your cavemen, thats what is next. You are just dumb enough to be fooled by the theory.

[buixrule]

@IranContraScumDid911 I'm not fooled by any theory. I do not know what the hell you are talking about. You make no sense.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@buixrule You do not know what the laws of motion say, thats why it makes no sense to you. You can proof all collisions, just you dont know it

[MrSlippy007]

@IranContraScumDid911 The push and pull factor was easily described. I cant understand why you deny the physics in this legit explanation.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MrSlippy007 Please explain the second and third law in this collision. This should be good.

[MrSlippy007]

@IranContraScumDid911 I'm just mumbling words so please ignore me. But i do know this was prophecized in the bible...

[IranContraScumDid911]

@MrSlippy007 Yes, the bible warned us there would be deception and war together. Hint from Jesus "The root of ALL evil is ....." Muslims? Where is spiritual Sodom and Egypt? Abbadon will rise to power in which city? The people that are hiding all the facts are the liars and killers. No secrets in truth, nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. Man cannot cheat the laws of GODs universe, thats how we know. Isaac Newton gave definition you can measure these collisions with, and the collapses.

[zenoist2]

@buixrule

considering the plane is silver in broad daylight a tornado makes more sense than it somewhow becoming black.

Apart from the obvious explanation that its a cover up please explain how a silver plane beocmes black?

[Sacofmentos]

I've also spent time analyzing car crashes through different situations and collisions to help test safety ratings for many car makers. I've had my share of surprises of what I saw, but going through results and observations can solve it. I've seen "stronger" and thicker metal alloys receive more damage from "weaker" metals due to design flaws and angle of impact. If the stronger metal does not have enough shock absorbance, it can fail and buckle before the weaker metal. IE a Jap Katana sword

[Sacofmentos]

The exterior of the building is not extremely reinforced with steel. It's like hurling a metal beam into a glass shower door. The mass and velocity of the plane will continue the inertia until enough resistance is able to stop it. The plane is not going to buckle and tear apart during initial impact because the building is hollow and not a completely steel wall. A good reason why the south tower fell first is because there was more weight and solid fuel above the impact point of the support.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Sacofmentos YYou disunify the laws. The building is denser, stronger, heavier, and better connecetd than the hollow light weak detachable cantalevered wings. The weaker lighter hollow material is not going to truncate or recieve greater damage in a collision? What does the third law of motion say? In EVERY collision there is an EQUAL and opposing force on both objects. The force pair is equal. Since it is equal, we can proof it. Did the building hit the plane with the same force it recieved?

[Sacofmentos]

@IranContraScumDid911

Are you an expert on the design of the WTC towers or the Boeing 767s? Are you suggesting that the exterior of the WTC towers are more durable and stronger than the wings of those planes designed to handle atmospheric pressure stress at high velocity and wind turbulance? I don't get your reasoning, you seem to think that the WTC is a completely solid block of steel and thus reinforcing your argument. I've watched the second tower hit from many angles and perspectives.

[Sacofmentos]

The colorization of the plane is due to aerial perspective of depth perception. It has a bluish black tint to it because the plane is far away. If you look at mountains far away, they tend to have the same tint. If you had a closer perspective of the plane, your color perception of the plane would change. The impact of the plane and the building is due to terminal ballistics. It looks like the plane just disappears into the building and explodes in it. This is how it's supposed to be. Cont

[greatgatsb9o921o]

it was really a missile, cloaked in an airplane hologram, that was projected by white orbs surrounding the WTC. this is the only explanation that explains the following: the nose-out, the black plane, the 3 different angles the plane hit the 2nd tower, the melting of the plane into the building, the fact that no part of the plane bounced off of the steel outer shell of the WTC.

[gim10003]

If you look for "irregularities" in a complex event you will always find them. If you take witness accounts, official reports, and physical evidence from a car crash, you find contradictions and things you can not explain. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy or cover-up. An event with many "moving parts" is impossile to piece together perfectly. If you're lucky, you get the big picture, but with lots of loose ends. The events of 9/11 are as complex as they get, so expect countless mini-mysteries.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim If you take science and test everything that occurred in the day and unify it, you will know exactly what happened. Your wasting your time, Gim, you have had ten years to discuss all this and present evidence. You have none. Just holes. Excuses for why science is not a valid benchmark are a joke. After 50 excuses for serious facts concerning this event, your statistical probability becomes a 1 with 30 zeros behind it to 1 odds. Stick to science, evidence, and facts ... forget this video

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim You are wasting my time. I have had this discussion for years. I am not going to tell you how the 2nd and 3rd law of motion are violated in this plane crash, figure it out. If you do not know how to scientifically test this collision, thats on you. Cars and planes truncate and cantalevered parts break off in high speed collisions, walls and larger stronger denser static impacted objects have inward deflection, recieving less damage than they deliver to the weaker lighter moving object, wing

[quedorf]

@IranContraScumDid911 You are not telling this guy how the laws of motion are violated, because you clearly do not understand it yourself. A whole team of students and professors at MIT (sure you have heard of it) would tell you that you are full of it, if they thought you were doing anything more than amusing yourself with ridiculous hypothesis (not theories, because a theory needs actual evidence).

[IranContraScumDid911]

@quedorf There is not one team of experts that would disagree with my comment. I undersatnd what I am saying like you understand washing the dishes. Yours was a very unscientific reply, how would you know if I am telling the truth? Prove me wrong, I bet you cannot use the laws of motion and prove me wrong. You can test this, run at a tree and head butt it as hard as you can with your face. The tree will deliver the SAME force you delivered to it, in opposition right back into your face.

[stainlesssteelprat]

REEEEAAAALLY dark Silver!!! Usually the Colour is Known As Black,but for disinformation purposes they have pronounced that the Plane  is in shadow and that we should just accept it!!

[gim10003]

100s of people died on those two planes. I know some of their families. You people are ignoring TONS of evidence that these were real planes, with real people on them, hitting real buildings, causing real explosions. Do you think there are 1000s of people covering up this fact, and that the dead passengers are really alive, or were killed some other way? Do you realize how impossible it its to coordinate and keep secret the kinds of conspiracies you people fabricate?

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim "I know some of their families" ...... conspiracies you people fabricate. The fabricated conspiracy is that there is a caveman that had never sat in a jet flying this one at top speed, manuvering, and hitting a bullseye ..... THREE Times. Do a probability analysis. WTC 7 fell 570 feet in under 6.5 seconds turning into a highly energetic heated dust flow, with every news source telling you an hour before that it will happen, never happened ever before. Unify that in your probabilitiy too.

[gim10003]

@IranContraScumDid911, Set WTC 7 aside for a second and admit that WTC 1 and 2 where hit by real commercial airplanes carrying real passengers. The evidence for that, even if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, is truly insurmountable.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim What does the Laws of Motion say about a weaker hollow lighter less dense material doing more damage to a denser stronger heavier material while reciving the EXACT same force from the denser stronger heavier material but reciving less damage? If this were a real passenger anything, the cantalevered detachable wings and tail section would have come off for one, for two millions of parts would have been found. Understand, the building hit the plane ..... EQUALLY.

[gim10003]

@IranContraScumDid911, Wow. This is why they say a little bit of knowlege is a dangerous thing. So, tell me, what are we looking at? Is it a hologram that can be seen from every angle (projected from some place) and perfectly coordinated with two massive explosions, for which nobody claims to have seen the necessary demolition preparation, all done in concert with the disappearance of two commercial flights, their passengers and crew? Is that your genius theory?

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim10003 I dont have a "theory", strictly scientific observation based upon LAW and the facts ten years later. The physical evidence for these planes does not exist, there was not a standard plane crash investigation, not one part has ever been matched with the parts maintenance log for that tailnumber, there are at least 50 videos where the plane, especially the wings in question disappear. Look at the perspective in this video, when is the black plane shape largest?

[gim10003]

@IranContraScumDid911, Sorry, you need a theory of what happened on 9/11. If you don't believe those were planes in the video, you MUST explain your theory of what happened. You can't just say, I see things in the video that I can't understand, therefore, it was an inside job. So, go ahead, what is your theory of what we're seeing in these videos? If its a fake crash, explain how all the things that make it seem real were faked.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim10003 This video is not even my evidence, nor does it have much to do with it. I can tell you there is science and hard factual evidence that this was not a hijacked Boeing. I did not say anything is fake, I applied scientific observation which said the possiblity that this is a large passenger plane is so improbable, in our numbers we can just call it impossible. The laws of motion apply to all collisions, use them as your verified benchmark tests to proof this the opposite way. No theory.

[gim10003]

@IranContraScumDid911, Your are avoiding my question. Two things that look like passenger planes hit things that look like the twin towers, follwed by what looks like two huge explosions....etc. What is your interpretation of what we've been looking at for the past 10 years?

[IranContraScumDid911]

@gim I am still investigating. You cannot say there was two plane crashes when this video and 'Harley guy' is the only evidence that was ever presented. How much does one of these planes weigh? Where did all that mass go? There was never one plane part identified and cataloged with tail records per NTSB investigation procedure, and by Nov 12, 2001 five plane parts (5) had been recovered at the WTC site by the FDNY Pheonix team, while 1/3 of the debris had been removed. What am I looking at?

[pkmusicproject]

@IranContraScumDid911 I just wanted to inform you, the folks that are questioning 9-11 facts are payed to do so. Before responding check their account page, ( check gim10003's account page) it's easy to tell. Then just block them. I wasted ten minutes reading comments here that are better off erased, not any of your of coarse. It is clear the only jobs added to our economy lately are those of internet shill's. Paid for by our taxes. I read comments to learn, they write them to distract.

[nebulasxtv]

only reason it changes colour is to hide something on that plane .

[peterp21]

I have problems with the plane being black. I live in the suburbs just north of NYC and my house happens to be under the flight path for incoming planes to Laguardia. The planes are I guess 3 or 4 thousand feet above ground. I've yet to see an utterly black plane fly over my head. Everyone of them has been silver.

[zenoist2]

its pretty obvious a silver plane in direct sunlight will appear black to a debunker no questions asked if the government says so.

Its a purely natural phenonom called lack of a brain.

[StandNTrade]

@zenoist2 it's pretty obvious the plane is in direct sunlight until it goes behind the shadow of the twin towers

you're the one that lacks a brain if you can not see that lol

[IranContraScumDid911]

@StandNTrade The shadow of the towers? The plane is coming from the south and the sun is to the east. Lacks a brain ..... "the plane" is black, not silver

[zenoist2]

@StandNTrade I couldnt see it actually.

The plane is black right from the start Must be all that sunlight hitting it.

[Tobious3000]

I was watching live TV after the first plane hit, and there was a live camera in the sky that captured the 2nd plane crashing into the other building, live as it happened. And it was clearly a huge Airplane. There is no conspiracy, or nothing else here to see.

[lilgrip404]

millions of eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the tower irancontra is what i meant as for the secondary explosions that cab be explained by the terrorists having (A) planted explosive devices before the attack or(B) suicide bombers in the building or(C) this building had hundreds of pressurized extinguishers in it.have you ever seen a fire extinguisher that has been in a fire that gets over pressurized till it explodes?and the maintainence shops had oxy/acetelanine rigs in it that exploded too.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@lilgrip404 OK, all theory without any evidence or science to back it. Suicide bombers in the building? That is a first ....... Pressurized extinguishers? Excuses, excuses to explain away basic scientific observation. There was not a plane cerash at the Pentagon or Shanksville, and there were no black boxes recovered from the planes you and your millionm friends saw on FOX and CNN. As a matter of fact, not one wing or tailsection was recovered from all four plane crashes. You have no evidence

[tinmanforever1966]

geez you guys are such idiots..the plane is flying under the huge smoke plume from the first tower fire and second there is more than 1 angle that shows plane hitting the second tower and 3rd how do you explain the millions of eye witness who live and work in ny that watched the plane hit with their own eyes ?

[IranContraScumDid911]

@tinmanforever1966 Millions of eyewitnesses? Half of the NYPD firefighters and first responders report explosions or demolition characteristics. The news all report explosions and demolition looks. I have lots of videos with explosions. The same ones that would make a 1/4 mile tall building turn into blasted ejecta and heated energetic cauliflower formation, turbidity flow type dust clouds in 11 seconds. What made you comment on this video? What linked you here?

[zenoist2]

Its a better job than the one winged plane anyway. That one looks really awful and an obvious fake. This one is merely a slighly less obvious fake.

[zenoist2]

First thing I noticed was it was black when it should be silver.

2nd thing anyone notices is that the plane has very pixellated edges.

Ive been looking at a few of these 2nd impact planes now and they nearly ALL have pixellated edges, wings missing ,tailplanes missing then reappearing you name it.

This video is a FAKE.

I think some sort of planes did hit the buildings but they werent the official theory ones hence all the altered video footage.

[threepercenter03]

At this point in time, anyone who doesn't believe it's a cover up deserves to be left behind when the SHTF.

[threepercenter03]

The more we wake up, the harder they fight to keep us ignorant... full scale info wars online between truthers and debunkers; which always comes down to mud slinging; a political tactic... never proves right or wrong, just changes the subject.

[luke94123]

It's a hologram of a plane over a missile.

[NewBlueSon]

@luke94123 that is more feasible than it being an actual plane.

[goodnoah]

@luke94123 NO! thats silly!

[IranContraScumDid911]

@goodnoah However crazy it might seem, it is more plausible than a Boeing flown by arabs according to physics. In every collision there will be an equal and opposite force reaction. The SAME force the plane hit the building with, was also the same force the building delivered to the plane. The plane is hollow and aluminum, the building exterior is 100 kpsi steel. Whatever hit the buildings was denser than the steel buildings according to classical mechanics and the laws of motion, period.

[mattxr2i]

@IranContraScumDid911 THANK YOU! I have been arguing that point for longer than I care to think of! An Aluminum shell (which is basically what an airliner is) against a grid of steel I-beams??? And somehow this shell penetrated completely? So what is this? The straw in a tree tornado theory?

[Coolrockndad]

@mattxr2i At that speed ... YES!

The vertical i-beams are all around the middle of the building. The outer perimeter is not fulled with heavy i-beams. That's what was so interesting about the design of this building.

I worked on this building as it came out of the ground and was topped off as well as the springer system that was added years later! This was not an inside job. It was pure terrorism nothing more nothing less.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Coolrockndad LOL, Two 1/4 mile high steel structures failed in roughly 10 seconds turning into highly energetic cauliflower formed turbidity dust flows. Then a 47 story building failed completely in 6.5 seconds, also turning into a hot dust flow. That is less than 1/100 of a second of resistance per floor. Millions of connections, welds, and fasteners failed in 1 second flat faster than gravity, for three buildings in one day. The buildings were graduated 32 times stronger at the bottom floor.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 Every scientific test using physics, fire science, chemistry, metallurgy, thermodynamics, classical mechanics etc ..... 9/11 fails to be accurate. When a theory does not meet scientific benchmarks, no matter how hard you want to believe, it MUST be discarded. Period. The basic fire triangle and chemistry prove, as well as NISTs freeburn tests, firefighter accounts, flame color, smoke vs. flame combustion efficiency, and entropy prove your fire theory is BUNK!!!

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 The molecular phase change of basic steel, just Fe-Fe-C, is 1330 degrees. That means that it retains its molecular form that gives it strength and its other properties until 1330 degrees. The steel in the WTC buildings was alloyed with more than just carbon, thus had even higher heat resistance properties per engineering specs. Steel has a very thermally conductive, and heat ALWAYS transferrs from a hotter object to a colder object. The building exterior was mean 59 degrees

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 I have hundreds of videos that we hear explosions, and I have hundreds of videos where witnesses claim to hear or experience explosions. Do not work on buildings anymore, your work sucked ..... literally into itself in 10 seconds, as if it were made of leaves and twigs, which might have provided more resistance than that even.

[Coolrockndad]

@IranContraScumDid911 It's called gravity adding to a domino effect.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Coolrockndad Really, explain since you have it figured out. Conservation of energy/motion says you are wrong. The crushing and breaking because it uses energy comes at a cost, the cost in this case is resistance, which can be measured in comparative time delay. The lower building was much stronger than the upper part that fell on it, I beams above the 77th, box beams below. You really think all that upward force and strength, at least 5 times redundant overengineered, failed in 1 second. LOW IQ

[Coolrockndad]

@IranContraScumDid911 Are you telling me you have a low IQ?

Get off your high horse for a moment and think about all that kinetic energy .... once the integrity of the vertical i-beams succumbed to the heat forced on them by all that jet fuel as well as everything else that was set on fire, once softened there goes the house of cards. Don't make it more then what it is.

I hope you're not one of those moon landing truthers too.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@Coolrockndad I made my point with known verifiable scientific benchmarks. This is my last point, then you are blocked. You must be stupid, this is fact not conspiracy. Galileo and Newton are LAW, thr basis of every movement in the universe. You debate them, LOL.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 A World Trade Center Tower was capable of Top-Loading more that 100 times it own 110 Floor-Steel-Block of Gravitational-weight According to Publicly Available Dead-Load, Live-Load, & Collapse-Load Data. Mr. Ronald Hamburger ","before being damaged, the Towers could support 5 times their own weights." = Live Load of one WTC or LL(110) = 5 times the Dead Load of one WTC (DL(110)). This statement was made on Dec 3, 2006"

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 John Skilling , Redundent-Structural-Support Force Factor quoted by the WTC Chief Engineer, Mr. John Skilling and as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964: "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000 % before failure occurs."

(2000 % means 20 time greater or to muultiply the Live Load (LL = 5*(DL)) by a factor of 20.)

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 Collapse Load for Total Collapse or Failure of one WTC of 110 Floors = 20*(LL) live Load(110)) = 20*(5*(dead load(110))) = 100*DL(110).

(Means that vertical Stacking of 100 WTCs may induce total-collapse.)

[IranContraScumDid911]

DL(15) = (Dead-Load weight of one upper 15-Floor-Steel-Block of a WTC Tower) = 1 Force-Unit (FU) , (in Pounds or Newtons).

DL(95) = (Dead-Load weight of one Lower 95-Floor-Steel-Block of a WTC Tower) = (95/15)(DL(15)) = 6.33*(DL(15))

LL(95) = 5*(DL(95)) = 5*(6.33*(DL(15)) = 30.65(DL(15)) = 31(1 FU = 31 (FU)

CL(95) = 20*LL(95) = 20*(5*(6.33*(DL(15))) = 633*DL(15)= 633 FU (of anti-collapse upward Force-Resistance or Total Collapse-Load, in Force Units, in multiples of a 15-Floor-Block)

[IranContraScumDid911]

@IranContraScumDid911 THUS ...... Stacking (633*DL15) on top of the 95-Floor-Steel-Block may induce Collapse.

The lower 95-Floor-Steel-Block was capable of Top-Loading more than 633 upper 15-Floor-Steel-Blocls before Total Collapse-Load Failure was possible!!!!

All that provided less than 1 second of resistance above freefall in 110 floors? Really? You should read a book, sometime, it might help.

[peterp21]

@Coolrockndad Coolrockndad = paid disinfo agent.

[LylythTV]

✫✫✫✫✫

Something NOT right there... jet fuel is from high distillate crude like glycols and it can NOT burn like that impact. Besides needing to be 600 degrees hotter to melt all that steel in pools the authorities got out of there fast in aftermath

[BroBroDude]

AGM-86B cruise missile (or something like it)

google it and see. it's less far fetched than an airliner

[TheyDidThis]

More likely a cruise missile to me.

[FreedumbFighter28]

In the slow mo zoom, it is painfully obvious its obscured. Objects farther are out have better clarity. Pixels are pixels, blurs are blurs. I am not an expert at all in visual manipulation.Take it for what its worth. I think its pretty plain to see

[IonicStormFront]

@FreedumbFighter28

What does it for me is watching this video on full screen at around 0:56

on until the plane hits the building(allegedly). The plane doesn't slow down one bit when it hits the building, and the tail section doesn't slow down or change position at all, it just keeps moving forward at the same speed with no resistance. These events are contrary to anything ever learned in a physics class.

Totally, totally fake.

[FreedumbFighter28]

@IonicStormFront <---It looks as though the programmer of said shadow/sun ran the deception backwards.Then the FBI blurred the whole thing.No need to take a risk. In the ole days, we could get the real film and see through there deception. Not with this digital format......

it is what it is...:-(

[FreedumbFighter28]

First thing I noticed, now that you metion it, was....if the plane flies into a shadowed area, then sunlight hits it, wouldnt the light travel down the plane because the plane is flying...so the reflection would move down the plane or illuminate the whole plane in a fraction of a second? Not light it up go dark and light the whole plane.Like the effect was reversed.

[TheyDidThis]

The damn engine looks out of place to me.

[LFCsoldier]

Nice one!