If anyone can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as the "experts" claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
To insure there was a giant fireball for the whole world to see.Which would have burned off quickly.But thick black smoke poured out,Thermite melting the core columns .110 stories,5inch thick floor slabs stacked neatly would be 4 stories tall of solid concrete.Loosely stacked much taller .The concrete is missing,pulverized,We have been lied to by many to benefit the FEW.
Yup we are all sheep. we use logic and reason to debunk conspiracy theorists that would normally be called crazy. and because our government did something about it, it must have been a ploy to get us to do what they want. get a grip folks, theyre easier ways to convince the people to do something, look at the man made church for instance.
@SteveMHN If you can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as some claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
If you think that everything the government tells you about 911, you are a fool. I am no muslim, I am a christian. Dont believe this idiot! Watch In Plane Sight yourself. The host is not trying to fool you. Do your own research. This was a ploy by the US government to fight a against a nameless faceless enemy. WAR MEANS MONEY for a small group of filthy rich people.
If it were a reflection in the case of the North Tower, it wouldnt flash for a split second and disappear, it would stay lit until the plane connected.
@yesiamawizardjonny If you can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as the "experts" claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
this video is stupid. He showed it from 5 angles and it is obvious that reflections only happen at 1 angle. Debri??? From WHAT? you r a dumbass you stupid government lacky!
I will make this simple for all the tec's and average alike... take a thin pen or that lamp pole in your room, take it outside, stand it on its end, first on the earth, take a piece of brick or concrete and drop it on top of it.. what happens? It goes into the earth. Now do it again on concrete, the brick will bounce off and fall. Now the ratio of the thickness of that compared to the steal center support beams is about 10,000/1 !! The beams were 16" thick. They do not crush, break into pieces
the flashes, from both planes, prior to both impacts, on both towers, is obviously something to be considered...
im hating how people always are using the word "physics" as if they know what they are talking about...
and considering light travels at 186,000 miles per second:
how the fuck is steel bending going to make light hit the camera faster than the planes hit the buildings, producing the effect of the flashes before the planes hit?
This is so stupid.......How does an aluminum plane show no impact from hitting a concrete, steel frame building. Check out how the plane cuts through the building like it's made of butter. Have you notice how NOTHING even falls off the plane upon impact with the building? Normally, Concrete and Steel kicks Aluminum's ass every time.
Isn't the flash simply caused by aluminium striking the iron in the steel frame..a simple matter of physics.Personally I feel there's more than a few suspicious stuff with911 but these flashes aren't one of them.Talk of missiles is nonsense and distracts from the real cover up...which incidently is probably quite simply a cover up of US government incompetence.As hard as it is to stomach,bin laden was responsible and what bush,the cia et al. want to hide is that they were too stupid to stop it.
World trade centre steel was heat treated to 2000F for a minimum of 2 hours before weakening. many debunkers say the steel was weakened by the plane yes it was but it was not weakened due to fire. Its was bent by plane some of it snapped but again it would lose none of its fire resistant properties. But remember debunkers use nist report only as there facts, every thing else like this video is there own take based on there own knowledge !
Yah a flash occurred which was the start of the explosion then a fake plane was added to the film footage to appear as though a plane hit the towers. But if you slow the footage down you see the plane go in wings, tail and all. The only way the plane could do this is if the building was made out of margerine butter. PTFO
Steve Anderson worked on the 19th floor of the USA Today building. "I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11...as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. I watched as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball."
In both cases the flash occurs below the nose of the plane and before the nose touches the building. The planes entered the buildings from completely opposite sides, so if it was the sun, then it could have been one or another, but not both.
The 2nd plane clearly has extra equipment under the same side as the flash occuring. If you want to say "Maybe it was the moon reflecting, or Santa Claus, or maybe it was an optical illusion" then you are just desperate to sustain the government story.
@dracul4u I can see the flash but it didn't shoot. when something going that fast is going to create a flash, there is always a transfer of Kinetic Energy to Heat
@dracul4u If you look closely at the video, you'll see that the spark is at the exact moment that the nose of the plane hits the building, Look closely at the video i sent you and you'll notice that the Wings also create a smaller Spark.
Claiming that this was an inside job is claiming that terrorist don't exist.
BTW, the towers didn't fall because of fire melting steel, they fell because the fire weakened the steel enough that it gave way. At 1800 Degrees the Fire lost 50% of its strength.
@fidelamaya26 The spark is orange and away from the impact of the nose. And where is the supposed 'line of orange' when the wings hit then?
The towers fell because their entire structural integrity had been compromised at the same time. The columns 'failed' on 2 floors ONLY! The rest were supposed to be intact!
Can you recreate the 'official story' by using ANY objects you want? You drop 1 brick on 3 bricks, they're going to be OBLITERATED, right?
@fidelamaya26, the quality of the first video of the tower being hit is much lower than on other copies I have seen in which it is obvious that the flash occurred PRIOR to the plane striking the building as the shadow of the plane was not in synch with the actual plane, i.e. they hadn't met on the building's surface. The maximum temperature detected in the steel was 1800deg, how long was steel subjected to that heat? Long enough to cause the collapse we saw? I seriously doubt it.
@arisuta2 Dude if it really was a missile, it would have rip right through the tower at that close range. The firefighters were pulled about an hour before the collapse, they knew the building was coming down, btw do u even know how WTC 7 was built.
@fidelamaya26, yes I do and it should never have fallen in a symmetrical, global collapse, part of which was at freefall speed. Even NIST admitted being dumbfounded as to how the collapse occurred so they had to make up a story that you duhbunkernuts would swallow whole.
@arisuta2 First of all idk who the hell that is, i made this account so i could watch videos, there are some that need to verify your over 18 to view, second i never upload anything because all i do is watch videos!
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
@dracul4u Also the black smoke is never a sign of a oxygen starved fire, its actually the opposite, the fires were fueled by Carpet, Computer Monitors, Furniture, and Paper. WTC 7 was not brought down by the way. The chief did say "Pull It" but "Pull It" is not a demolishing term. He clearly ment to pull the firefighters from the building because they knew if was at brink of collapse. That Entire Building was on Fire, and when the towers Collapse and good 25Flrs were Scooped from the bottom of
If you already have a jet with many tons of fuel, why would you bother to attach a missile with warhead of couple hundred pounds at best onto it!? By the way, in Belgrade 1999 a lot smaller building (google for Usce Tower if you like, it was built in somehow same fashion as WTC, but lot, lot smaller) withstood multiple direct Tomahawk hits, so even those missiles are not so powerful. I doubt they would make even larger hole on WTC Towers.
@aleksandarrudic The missile was there to cut the steel on that level. The demolition charges that had been set up in the buildings was what actually brought the WTCs down. There were bombs in the basement/subway level that went off BEFORE the plane hit. This is extensively documented, so no 'conspiracies' here. The Commission simply chose to ignore testimony about this, as well as the collapse of WTC7.
Can't have bothersome counterpoints in their neat little 'official' story, ya know?
Remember ENRON. How many people could $1.2 Trillion shut up? D Rumsfeld annopunced pentagon can not account for over $1.2 Trillion on sept 10. That could easily pay for a couple dozen remote controlled planes repainted.
Now, I don't believe the official story, I like to think for myself and look for the facts, not just what people tell me. But really, whoever believes that the planes were strapped with missiles and they shot off in literally a quarter of a tenth of a second before the planes hit the towers, is a fucking moron. I mean really, its called science people, its not that hard to understand that its the plane causing that, its just about to hit a surface at an excess of over 500 mph, its energy.
what a lame ass video,,,,,,,are u fucking kidding me,,,,,,,,you should worry a little more about how aluminum,,,,can slide right throw steel with no fucking rection to it at all,,,,,,,what a fucking joke,,,,,who gives a shit about the flashes,,,,,,they mean nothing,,,,,the absolute lack of any crash physics in any of the impact videos should be the publics main concern,,,,,,,,there was no missiles attached to the planes,,,,,,,,cuz there was no fucking planes u meathead,,,,,they fooled u again
jake... remember the "nuhremberg defense" didn't work in nuhremberg and it won't work in new york. You're obviously either brainwashed or complicit. this is the biggest sham of a hit piece i've ever seen. Your videos contain no factual arguments, just shock and awe and demonization... known mind-control techniques... if you don't believe me, pick up ANY "how to play poker" book and you'll start realizing how real brainwashing is.
well, the plane does displace "air" and probably the flash we see is a "shattered" window actually .. from all the mass of the plane, and the air that is being moved as the plane approaches...can cause it to shatter. Where everyone has questions however and (I agree) is, "y not analize and publicize what the debris was composed of?" Why did they scoop it all up and deported it? it is common CSI...u do not touch the evidence till u have all the answers. I am disapointed in our gvt.
It's well known that airplanes build static charges from friction as they fly (that's why refueling crews ground them before touching nozzle to tank). It stands to reason that a jetliner doing over 400mph at low altitude on a clear, dry day would build up an immense charge. And those towers? Giant lightning rods.
Well anyone who passed the sixth grade would know that it is a simple transfer of kinetic energy. And the nose of that plane clearly meets well before that flash occurs. If your in that cockpit you would be dead before you have time to blink, much less fire a missile.
I don't really have a stand on either side of this argument, but I have to say that the "flash" isn't the only reason that dude concluded that it was a missile, he also shows pictures of the underside of the plane which appears to have a long object attached to one side of it. You are right though, if the flash was the only evidence it wouldn't mean anything, any number of things could have caused that flash.
Saying that a flash was caused by energy transfer or by a missile or by anything else - however you look at it - that's not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is something that implicates PEOPLE, that CONSPIRED to do something, in a THEORETICAL context, it's a hypothesis. Talking about what caused a flash in a video is a lot different than talking about who is guilty. Also, the missile thing is kind of a stupid idea I agree, it's unprovable, but it's still a theory you can't disprove.
This is pretty simple physics really. Force equals mass times acceleration. The plane weighs 100 tons going 500 mph. Of course it would go straight through the outer wall. The building is 70% air inside.
Why would you "fire" a missile when it's attached to a plane that's going to drive into the building anyway? Wouldn't that kind of be like shooting a missile at a target that also shoots a missile at the target?
My amateur opinion is that a 500,000 lb aluminum tube going mach 0.7 hitting a massive steel structure might cause a small flash. There's just a tiny bit of kinetic energy involved there.
Can't you kooks come up with a theory that makes sense?
LOL yes they are kooks. Actually YOUR theory is corroborated. A body in motion builds up kinetic energy. When it comes in contact with a surface that energy is released. It is a law of physics. It is also demonstrated on a video here on YT which i have seen. And it ALWAYS happens so the flash is nothing out of the ordinary. But these kooks pass it off as a missile.
If airliners hit the towers, we would see some sort of deceleration or crumpling of the nose, fuselage, wings and tail section. The engines would probably break from their mounts upon impact. Instead, these "aircraft" slice right through the concrete and steel and THEN explode. There is another weapon that is designed to penetrate concrete and steel and THEN explode. That is a JASSM bunker buster missile. Therefore, I contend the towers were hit with missiles and NOT airliners.
The flash could be produced by de high velocity impact from metal to metal, notice that the impact speed is aproximatly 250 m/s ! a flash could be occoured
the nose cone is not metal, I bet you hadn't noticed that the engine is more metal than the cone, and these no flash there, bombs were used face it, your Govenment got you all to go to war, and there smiling all the way to the bank, when the innocent and poor are still dying
The "pod" on the underbelly is a custom build DU penetrator - do you research.
Also no one seems to have noted how the plane penetrated right down to the wing tip. When computer models dictate that the wings should have been torn off.
The "pod" on the underbelly is a custom built DU penetrator - do you research.
Also no one seems to have noted how the plane penetrated right down to the wing tip. When computer models dictate that the wings should have been torn off.
"spread the 911 truth"??? then please tell me..how in hell can the airplanes just vaporise and dissapear after the impact? if they did.then what did they store in those floors of WTC to cause that to happen,cause only jetfuel cant accomplished that..
@7211woodie The falsh is heat and light generated by the steel of the plane and the building bending and in fact vaporising. you say a plane can't vaporise and dissapear after an impact. let me assure you, it can. a high velocity bullet fired at a peice of paper will hit the paper and disapear. the plane would have generated such an impact, so much heat, so much force that the plane would have blown it'self apart to literaly nothing. a fighter jet crashes into earth, you'll only find allfoil.
If the plane was "High-Jacked" then how and why would there be a missile on the plane, unless it was planned, im from london so i havnt heard every conspiracy but if u say its a missile.... Work it out.
The government and air traffic control could not locate the second plane because the terrorists disengaged the jet's locating device. Unfortunately, they could not get a location of the jet until it was too late.
Why would you need a missile when your flying a 161 tonne aircraft at 450 mph into it?? personally i dont think the government planned it or had anything to do with it but i do think they knew it was gonna happen an they let it happen!
The best point of this video was to begunk one aspect of Conspiracy, and that is the Missile. However, as good conspiracies are alway that, Theories, there is a lot of evidence that would point at motivation and means, coverups and mis-information by the Government that leads one to wonder what really is the truth. After looking into a lot of these vids, pro and con, I lean to the side of Conspiracy, but not blindly. The best lie is the truth.
fuckin hell fire. Planes hit the bastard building, it fell down, the end. fuckin missile strapped on planes, fuckin holograms, fuckin explosives. what a load of shite. what is it with fuckin conspiracy theories in america. fuckin roswell and now this. they should stick to skateboardin and eating fuckin burgers
Excellent video. Unfortunately the conspriacy nutters will never accept it - they simply ignore inconvenient facts that get in the way of their idiotic and obscene theories. What possible reason would there be to fire a missile into a building micro-seconds before crashing a plane into it? The plane itself was practically a missile which means that this tinfoil hat theory (one of the worst/dumbest of the lot) makes absolutely no sense. Of course the nutters will deny that.
webstermr is absolutely, totally, and undeniably 100% correct, and good GOD it's about time someone here on YouTube voiced a little sense with regard to these twin tower videos. Thank you webstermr, and to everyone else tired of hearing these conspiracy theories don't worry - their creators have dead end F2's, so with patience these nonsense ideas will be burried soon enough. And to ANY conspiracy theorist - Provide us with ONE answer to any of your boneheaded questions... Go ahead, dazzle us...
Ha its suckers like you that beleive 2 110 story skyscrapers can fall down in 2 hours coz 2 planes hit!! LMFAO at you you idiot! do some fucking research. you only need eyes and a brain to know the whole 911 was set up by the US Gov. steel bending making reflections eh?! what are your explanations on pentagon, pennsylvania and wtc 7? or do you just beleive all the bullshit youve been fed by the media? so your a fuckn nutcase for beleiving lies. u 2 hotmoffitt. FAGS
It's asshats like you who, despite all the evidence, despite logic and despite common sense actually believe that some mythical explosives were somehow installed without any of the thousands of people in the buildings knowing. I'd tell you to read the reports but it's doubtful that a fucking moron like you can read. Trying to convince idiot conspriacy nutters like you with facts is about as productive as trying to nail Jello to a wall. Grow up and get a grip on reality.
@webstermr i love this. you never miss an oppurtunity to insult people who ask questios. by your logic, every detective on the planet is a nutter, they ask questions, so theyre crazy right?? maybe, this constant dismissal of an alternative theory of what happened and insults of people who ask questions is a sign of your own fear that the government do know more than they are letting on. its so damn obvious.
@sr19 Nothing wrong with asking questions but there is plenty wrong with spreading false information and lies that don't conform to the facts and the evidence. There is no credible evidence to support any nutbar conspiracy theory and there are mountains of evidence to back up the official version put forward not only by the government but also by many independent sources including Popular Mechanics magazine who assembled a group of independent experts to examine the evidence.
@webstermr ohh yes, well the governments response to the fact that there was no plane at the pentagon.............plan accidents usually have planes present........they claimed it was vapourized. this is scientifically impossible. so why would they give us an explanation that is clearly false? if it is so simple what happened that day, why are they lying and giving us explanations that cannot possibly be true?
@sr19 You really are one of those conspiracy theory nutbars. THERE WAS A PLANE AT THE PENTAGON. How do you explain: eyewitness reports of the plane, surveilance video footage of the plane, chunks of plane wreckage all over the site including tail section and engines, the fact that AA flight 77 took off with dozens of passengers and crew, was tracked to the vincinity of Washington DC and NEVER LANDED ANYWHERE? I can't believe the utter stupidity of you conspriacy nutters.
btw im not a conspiracy theorist, and i do believe that it is highly unlikely that these were military aircraft, but im not going to be a pathetic little sheep brain moron who just accepts the governmenst bullshit explanations and refuses to think for themselves. im sure youll reply with a load of insults and name calling towards me, after all, thats a sure sign that youre right and your argument is solid, calling people names is really grown up. youd make a good defense attourney.
@sr19 Try looking at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE - something that conspiracy nutbars fail to do. If you look at the facts and you use your brain, you can see how patently absurd the conspiracy theories are. Check out the Debunking 9/11 website - they demolish each and every single claim by the conspiracy nutters.
@webstermr well, when someone tells me that an aircraft has crashed into a building, and i then see that building with a tiny hole that a plane could not possibly fit in, and absolutely no evidence of a plane, that to me is very suspicious. and it is also very suspicious that wtc7 collapsed apparantly purely due to relatively small fires, completely into its own footstep. i fin it suspicious that 9 out of 19 hijackers have been proven to be alive. the list goes on.
@sr19 Not sure what buulding you're referring to but both Tower 1 and Tower 2 had gaping holes in them where the planes hit and disintegrated on impact with the steel beams. The whole crash sequence on both towers has been completely reconstructed USING EVIDENCE and computer modelled and it fits PERFECTLY. There is nothing suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7 either - it was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of tower 1 and allowed to burn for more than 8 hours.
@webstermr horseshit. wtc7 had a puny little fire in it. some structures have been completely engulfed in fires for 24 hours plus and did not collapse. and plane debris was found in the rubble of towers 1 and 2 so you are wrong
No it did not. it had a huge fire fed by diesel storage tanks that were there to power emergency generators and it was allowed to burn for at least 8 hours. It was also severely structurally damaged by the collapse of tower 1. There were in fact steel beams and girders from tower 1 embedded in WTC 7. Go to the debunking 911 website - it's all covered there in great detail.
@webstermr so i should believe 1 set of internet theories, but not the other? poeple on the internet who believe the same as you are right, but sceptics, people who disagree with you are wrong? wow. thats fair.
fact is i believe no one. im am not a conspiracy theorist. i am a skeptic. i wont just roll over and let your government tell me what to believe. its a shame that you will. im not asking you to believe that was an inside job, i dont believe it, i suspect it. think for yourself.
@sr19 Because the official version is not a set of Internet theories, it is based on solid facts, scientific analysis and EVIDENCE. The conspiracy nutbar version plays fast and lose with facts, ignores contradictory evidence or tries to explain it away with ever more idiotic unsubstnatiated theories. Clearly you are a conspiracy theorist - you are parroting some of the worst of the discredited conspiracy theories put forward by those dolts and you refuse to let the facts get in the way.
@webstermr anyway, its been shown that the fires were neither hot enough or burned long enough to signinficantly weaken steel.
and i have read plenty of debunkers articles. some of them do answer questions. plenty of them dont. why is a debunker any more credible than a skeptic?
@sr19 On the contrary, scientific analysis has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel structure of all three buildings that collapsed. A debunker is more credible than a wackjob conspriacy theorist because the debunkers, as I have already said, are universally professionals involved in the field looking at REAL EVIDENCE while the conspriacy wackjobs ignore and distort facts and invent wild fantasies to suppor their theories.
there you go again. you are the worst debater, insulting the person you are debating against is pathetic and shows weakness. just because they agree with your view, does not mean that it is true. and you dont need to be an aviation accident expert to understand that planes do not dissapear into 5 metre holes. and, as i mentioned before but you have convenianlty ignored, there are meny groups of experts in the field who ask questions. oh wait , people who ask questions are nutjobs arent they
@sr19 It's impossible to debate nutjobs such as you because, as with all conspiracy theoritsts, you will never, under any circrumstances or for any reason allow facts to get in the way of your opinions. The planes that hit those buildings did NOT "disappear" into "5 meter holes" take a look at the video footage - there were gaping holes in the buildings and if you watch the scientifically created reconstructions of the crashes (also on this site) you'll see precisely what happend.
@webstermr for the last funking time you dense moron, i have not once mentioned the terms 'controlled demolition', 'cruise missile', 'inside job'. i have not even mentioned what may have happened, just what may not have happened. i am asking you questions, you wont answer them because they are 'nonsensical', well if they are so stupid, why wont you answer them?
but oohhh waaait right i forgot, people who ask questions are nutjobs arent they. God forbid someone challenegs your precious believes,
@sr19 When did I say anything about controlled demolition....you keep parroting the nonsnese of the conspiracy wackjobs and I keep responding with the actual facts of the case. Unfortunately, like all conspiracy theorists, you're not bright enough to grasp the truth that is right in front of you.
@webstermr i was using it as an example to show that i have not presented any speculatve theories. and youre one to talk about parroting. youre just sitting there feedin me the same shit that the government is, youre the one who is too stupid and spineless to look at things for yourself.
@sr19 What the government and other independent experts are saying is logical, verifiable, matches the evidence and is scientifically sound. The garbage that you're purveying is not logical, runs contrary to the evidence, is not based on any replicatable and provable scientific theories and runs contrary to common sense.
@webstermr verifiable by who? you? oh ok, i dont even see why the us needs the fbi in, they can just call you, after all you have an intuitive knowledge of these things, anyone who asks questions are whackjobs. (btw, nice usage of a word that most people stop using when they are 10).
you are one very naive person. COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT A PLANE WILL BE PRESENT AT A PLANE CRASH SITE. IT ALSO DICTATES THAT STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPERS DONT IMPLODE DUE TO FIRE.
@sr19 Verifiable by anyone who cares to look at ACTUAL FACTS. Arseholes such as you who have your head up your anus simply refuse to see facts. For the UMPTEENTH TIME there WAS aircraft debris at ALL FOUR CRASH SITES. End of story, full stop. Also, the steel frammed skyscrapers DID NOT IMPLODE. They collapsed just as they would be expected to do when impacted at high speed by fully fueled jetliners carrying tons of fuel.
@webstermr and i was taling about wtc7. if perhaps you took your head out of your arse and read my comments properly. it may come as a surprise to you......but surey the very fact that i am asking questions means that i have not made my mind up. you sir are the one who has his mind made up. i am very open minded about the affair.....if i see some real evidence i will embrace, otherwise i will keep asking. PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP DONT ASK QUSTIONS
@sr19 Why would there be any aircraft debris at WTC7? It wasn't bit by a plane - it was hit by the remains of tower 1. Having an open mind is one thing but opening your mind to the kind of garbage spewed by the asshats and assorted morons coming up with these conspiracy theories is quite another. Try applying a little bit of critical thinking to these idiotic claims you'll see pretty quickly just how utterly ridiculous they are.
@webstermr did i say aircraft debris would be found at wtc7? now whos pulling things out of their arse. all i want is a plausible explanation as to why a modern steel framed skyscraper was the first one in history to collapse to dues relatively small fire and damage. other buildings were far worsely damaged.......they didnt collapse
@sr19 You keep flipping and flopping all over the place who even knows what you're referring to? if you want a plausible explanation, read the NIST report. It clearly and in no uncertain terms uses EVIDENCE, SCIENTFIC ANALYSIS and direct observation through experimentation to explain precisely what happened. In a nutshell, the upper 40 floors were supported by three main trusses which were severely damaged by debris impact and fire and they gave out after 8 hours of abuse. Simple.
i will ask questions, if that makes me a nutbar, fine. i guess all detectives are nutbars, cause they ask questions. i could say that you are just a spineless pathetic sheep who is too dense to ask questions and doesnt care about his country, but i dont think name calling is appropriate. and so far, i have not proposed any theories as to what happened, i have just pointed out the inconsistencies os the official stories. how can i be a conspiracy theorist if i dont propose theories?
@sr19 "Questions" that you're asking that have no basis in fact or evidence do indeed make you a nutbar. You conspriacy nutters are all to dense to let the facts get in the way of your opinions. You have posted plenty of conspiracy theories today on this very page. That makes you a conspiracy nutbar.
@webstermr a) at least vary your fucking vocabulary, nutbar is getting quite boring.
b) trust me, i am looking at facts. im british and have never stepped foot on american soil, its your government. im interested only in the facts, and they do not add up. no plane present at the site of an alleged plane crash. FACT. onlu building in history to come down due to fires. FACT. all cctv from the pentagon classified. FACT. i want to know why.
c) read you moron, i have not speculated anything.
@sr19 Ok how about Dumbass You are not looking at facts and I don't care what nationality you are. I'm Canadian, what's the difference? It's not my government. The facts and evidence DO add up you're ignoring both. There was plenty of aircraft debris at ALL crash sites. These buildings were the only buildings in history slammed intentionally by fully loaded jetliners past their redline speed. There is widely available footage from the pentagon. Your posts are pure speculation.
@webstermr dont even try and tell me that that bullshit footage from the pentagon shows anything. the most protected building in the world has only 2 pieces of footage in existence of a massive 757, both of which show nothing? hah!
i have given you a list of facts, and you, predictably, have ingored all of them. why wont you, like the american government, answer these questions?
@sr19 Regardless of what you think - the video footage CLEARLY SHOWS an aircraft impact, eyewitnesses ON THE SCENE reported a plane impact. the area was littered with aircraft debris. The flight took off with dozens of people on board and was tracked to that vincinity and it never landed. How do you explain all that?
@webstermr if your defintion of a video showing a clear impact is showing a milimeter slither of silver and then an explosion, fair enough.
and if it was tracked at all times, why wasnt it brought down? it was well know at that point what had happened to the twin towers, and hijacked planes were flyng around the most protected airspace in the world. why wasnt anything done about it? surely if it really was there it would have been scrambled of shot down by the pentagons defence systems?
@sr19 It wasn't brought down because there were no fighters there to bring it down. In fact, NORAD didn't even get authorization to shoot down anything until after flight 93 had crashed. Communications between the FAA, command and NORAD was a mess. Even in "the most protected airspace", they don't shoot down civilian aircraft without clear authorization to do so - authorization that they did not have. Read the report - it's all there in black and white.
@sr19 It was given ultimately. At 10:18 the president authorized the shoot down of hijacked aircraft but that ended up being 17 minutes after flight 93 crashed. At the time of the crash, the nearest fighter jets were 100 miles away from flight 93 and NORAD, fearing an accidental shootdown of a non-hijacked civilian aircraft did NOT pass the authorization on to the pilots. Again....it's in the report in clear black and white print.
@webstermr and what if im not convinced by the report? any report that tries to tell me that a modern sky scraper collapsed due to a few small fires is one that i will not be convinced by. try talking for yourself, instead of wanking over george bush and memorizing his bullshit claims.
@sr19 I know that you'll never allow yourself to be convinced by the report or by any facts presented by any experts. Like all conspiracy nutjobs, you've made up your mind that the facts and evidence are wrong and that your idiotic and unsubstantiated and illogical ideas are the truth and you won't let anything get in the way of that. That is the true hallmark of all conspriacy theory wackjobs.
you really are a thicko. you just dont get it. i have never once claimed to know what happened, you keep telling me that i am claiming so. well then youre argument is pointless, because you wont allow yourself to even understand what im saying. in your mind, im trying to tell you what happened. well, im glad that simpletons of your kind are not that common in my country. the explanations that the official stories give are very questionable, and i want to know why, some of them are clearly false.
@sr19 Bullshit. You keep constantly pulling all these idiotic conspiracy theories out of you backside and then claim not to have done so. Either you belive the truth or you believe these idiotic theories that YOU keep carting out. Which is it? Fortuantely for your country idiots such as yourself are not common. Most Brits that I know have a degree of critical thinking ability that you sorely lack if you buy into that conspriacy nutcase horseshit.
@webstermr ive had enough of you. im sick of telling you in each comment that i am not making theories. how much of a retard can you be to accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist who hasnt made any theories? i have not said anything about what i think happened. you find me one quote, just one, that shows me making a claim as to what happened that day. just one. i beg of you. then come back to me, because all i am doing is asking why there are so many anomalies in the official stories.
@sr19 I've had more than enough of you....arguing with conspriacy theorists is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Osama Bin Laden could show up at your door and tell you in no uncertain terms that the official version of events is 100% correct and you'd stil refuse to believe it. Look back at all your posts - you've made all sorts of ridiculous claims such as suggesting that there was no aircraft debris at one or more of the crash sites.
@webstermr mutual. im sick of being called a conspiracy theorist when all i do s ask questions. if they are sooooo ridiculous, why wont you answer them?
@sr19 You are a conspiracy theorist plain and simple because as your posts CLEARLY demonstrate, you've guzzled the conspiracy theorist Kool-Aid. Are your reading skills impaired in some way? I've repeatedly refuted every single solitary conspriacy theory (what you call questions) that you've put forward. The real question is why won't you answer me when I issue those challenges?
@webstermr ok whatever. im a conspiracy theorist even though ive made no claims or suggestions as to what happened. im a conspiracy thoerist that doesnt propose theories. i guess your little brain doesnt know what the word 'skeptic' means but whatever. im glad that i dont know anyone personally as judgemental and as ass arrogant as you, that they think that they can tell me what i believe.
@sr19 If you're not a conspiracy theorist then why do you keep parroting conspiracy theories? Your little brain is incapable of any the kind of logical and rational critical thinking that is required to see just how utterly ridiculous those conspiracy theories are. Foolish ideas are deserving of scorn and there are few ideas as foolish as the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.
@webstermr no plane was seen and the pentagon. FACT. wtc 7 was the only steel framed structure to collapse due to fire. FACT. the hole in the pentagon was not large enough to fit a plane. FACT. the cctv that the pentagon has released shows nothing. FACT.
would you like me to provide a definition of what a fact is?
@sr19 FACT: A plane was clearly seen by countless witnesses and by security cameras. FACT: WTC 7 was the only building of it's type ever subjected to that kin d of structural damage and left to burn for more than 8 hours. FACT: The damage done to the pentagon - a highly reinforced structure was exactly what was to be expected. FACT: The footage released shows a plane hitting the building. FACT: Flight 177 took off with REAL PEOPLE on board, was tracked to Washington and it didn't land.
those my friend are just as debatable as the facts i presented. no one really knows what happened, just that what was likely to have happened. those could just be the opinions of your precious debunkers on the internet, who are too scared to say anything against the us government, i dont know who is really credbile, and neither do you.
@sr19 You didn't present any facts. You presented the unsubstantiated and utterly ridiculous claims of the conspiracy wackjobs. What I posted was cold hard facts that are indisputable by any rational thinking person who looks at the actual evidence.
@webstermr i was talking about wtc7 actually. but the twin towers still shouldnt have collapsed.
please, i beg of you, show me a post in which i put foward a theory of what happened. and speculation is when i suggest what may have happened. all i have said is what does not appear to have happened. not what didnt happen, what appears not to have happened.
@sr19 Collapse was inevitable in any case for all three once the planes hit - no fucking missiles or explosives needed or even present. Read the REAL reports on the subject - not the conspiracy nutter crap and you'll learn all about it. Also read your own posts - you've put parroted and defended conspiracy theories in every one of them.
ive not defended anything. i am asking you questions about the occurences on that day which you have not and will not answer, all you do is point to a load of 'debunkers' who could be as nutty as many conspiracy theorists.
once again, if you read my posts, all i have done ism pointed out the inconsistencies in the official stories. but hey if youre so insecure, then you will see me as a theorist, but ive not put foward any theories, u kow that because you have no pointed any out to me
@sr19 Clearly you were asking those nonsensical questions because you believe them to be legitimate. I've repeatedly told you that it's all a load of horseshit and I've told you why. You haven't pointed out actual inconsistencies - you've parroted the idiotic claims of your fellow conspriacy nutbars.
@sr19 Your "questions" which are really just parroted conspiracy theories defy logic, they run contrary to the available evidence and they run counter to common sense. I notice that you still have yet to refute or even attempt to refute the facts that I presented which completely obliterated your conspiracy theories about the Pentagon.
@webstermr and your responses are just parroted shite from the government. the pentagon had no visible debris. a few phots that the government released does not mean much, they could be from anyway. you dont know, neither do i. eyewitnesses are unreliable, plenty of people could not say what hit the pentagon, and the fbi went around convisgating cctv. why is that?
and go one then, what are my theories about the pentagon. i just love it when people who tell me what i believe.
@sr19 No, my posts contain 100% verifiable facts. Nothing less. As I expected, you simply parroted more conspiracy nonsense to backup your earlier conspiracy nonsense. Why did the FBI confiscate CCTV? perhaps because THAT'S THEIR JOB - TO GATHER EVIDENCE! Get a clue and wake up to REALITY.
@webstermr oohhhhhhh i get it now. it was convisgated for americas benefit. and i suppose you have contacted the fbi this is what you have been told. well done.
@webstermr pleeeaaase. you keep accusing me of making conspiracy thoeries. last time i checked........asking a question does not constitute as a theory. RETARD
@sr19 You're not making up the theories but you are spreading them and you clearly believe in them you a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that make sense. That's not what you've been doing. You've been presenting widely discredited claims as fact. MORON.
@webstermr btw, whackjobs are not open minded people. if someone presents some actual proof that a 757 crashed into the pentagon, i will accept it. none has been shown to me, so im going to ask questions.
@sr19 Read the report. There is plenty of proof. There was video evidence, eye witness reports AND WRECKAGE including engines, a tail section wih the airline logo clearly visible and other debris.
If anyone can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as the "experts" claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
spidermancereal 3 weeks ago
Speak out loudly or stay silent in shame.
MrTurkeywild101 1 month ago
To insure there was a giant fireball for the whole world to see.Which would have burned off quickly.But thick black smoke poured out,Thermite melting the core columns .110 stories,5inch thick floor slabs stacked neatly would be 4 stories tall of solid concrete.Loosely stacked much taller .The concrete is missing,pulverized,We have been lied to by many to benefit the FEW.
MrTurkeywild101 1 month ago
that was a charge to trigger the explosives in the basement
mako757 2 months ago
Yup we are all sheep. we use logic and reason to debunk conspiracy theorists that would normally be called crazy. and because our government did something about it, it must have been a ploy to get us to do what they want. get a grip folks, theyre easier ways to convince the people to do something, look at the man made church for instance.
gadzoke 2 months ago
this video was terrible
PJunkEye 4 months ago
What would be the point in firing a small missile at the building just before a fully fueled 767 hits it???
Why don't we see the glow of the missiles rocket motor???
Why are 9/11 truthers so gullible???
SteveMHN 5 months ago in playlist More videos from iamthejake2000
This has been flagged as spam show
@SteveMHN If you can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as some claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
spidermancereal 3 weeks ago
If you think that everything the government tells you about 911, you are a fool. I am no muslim, I am a christian. Dont believe this idiot! Watch In Plane Sight yourself. The host is not trying to fool you. Do your own research. This was a ploy by the US government to fight a against a nameless faceless enemy. WAR MEANS MONEY for a small group of filthy rich people.
loupac1 5 months ago
BEWARE OF ANGRY MUSLIMS POSTING CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT 9/11 TO GET MY FELLOW AMERICANS ON THEIR DARK SIDE!
fukinwithIslam 7 months ago
@fukinwithIslam your an idiot. Just one of the many US Sheeple. Go watch Jersey Shore.
loupac1 5 months ago
i am a robot. i believe the government beep boop.bush is god .beep boop
hoopla660 7 months ago
@hoopla660 Agreed Sir
loupac1 5 months ago
If it were a reflection in the case of the North Tower, it wouldnt flash for a split second and disappear, it would stay lit until the plane connected.
splendid1000 9 months ago
It's hydrostatic charge from the momentum being transfered so quickly into the building. If WE DIDN'T see a flash THAT WOULD BE STRANGE!
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@yesiamawizardjonny If you can find another example of this Aluminium vaporization flash effect or hydrostatic charge to cause this as the "experts" claim, I would love to see it. Because untill we see another example of this It will be suspect.
spidermancereal 3 weeks ago
wow look how much different the impacts are for both towers. One is real and the other is not.
omfugger 10 months ago
this video is stupid. He showed it from 5 angles and it is obvious that reflections only happen at 1 angle. Debri??? From WHAT? you r a dumbass you stupid government lacky!
8secRide1 11 months ago
I will make this simple for all the tec's and average alike... take a thin pen or that lamp pole in your room, take it outside, stand it on its end, first on the earth, take a piece of brick or concrete and drop it on top of it.. what happens? It goes into the earth. Now do it again on concrete, the brick will bounce off and fall. Now the ratio of the thickness of that compared to the steal center support beams is about 10,000/1 !! The beams were 16" thick. They do not crush, break into pieces
youarecretorcreating 11 months ago
anything huh? like flying pigs?
the flashes, from both planes, prior to both impacts, on both towers, is obviously something to be considered...
im hating how people always are using the word "physics" as if they know what they are talking about...
and considering light travels at 186,000 miles per second:
how the fuck is steel bending going to make light hit the camera faster than the planes hit the buildings, producing the effect of the flashes before the planes hit?
RequiemForChange 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is so stupid.......How does an aluminum plane show no impact from hitting a concrete, steel frame building. Check out how the plane cuts through the building like it's made of butter. Have you notice how NOTHING even falls off the plane upon impact with the building? Normally, Concrete and Steel kicks Aluminum's ass every time.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
Isn't the flash simply caused by aluminium striking the iron in the steel frame..a simple matter of physics.Personally I feel there's more than a few suspicious stuff with911 but these flashes aren't one of them.Talk of missiles is nonsense and distracts from the real cover up...which incidently is probably quite simply a cover up of US government incompetence.As hard as it is to stomach,bin laden was responsible and what bush,the cia et al. want to hide is that they were too stupid to stop it.
superste66 1 year ago
lol @ 1:25 !!
Kauwhaka 1 year ago
World trade centre steel was heat treated to 2000F for a minimum of 2 hours before weakening. many debunkers say the steel was weakened by the plane yes it was but it was not weakened due to fire. Its was bent by plane some of it snapped but again it would lose none of its fire resistant properties. But remember debunkers use nist report only as there facts, every thing else like this video is there own take based on there own knowledge !
BrotherGiles 1 year ago
Yah a flash occurred which was the start of the explosion then a fake plane was added to the film footage to appear as though a plane hit the towers. But if you slow the footage down you see the plane go in wings, tail and all. The only way the plane could do this is if the building was made out of margerine butter. PTFO
livnletdi 1 year ago
Steve Anderson worked on the 19th floor of the USA Today building. "I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11...as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. I watched as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball."
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@livnletdi Thanks for your in-depth expert analysis, fucktard.
fuzzmaniac 11 months ago
In both cases the flash occurs below the nose of the plane and before the nose touches the building. The planes entered the buildings from completely opposite sides, so if it was the sun, then it could have been one or another, but not both.
The 2nd plane clearly has extra equipment under the same side as the flash occuring. If you want to say "Maybe it was the moon reflecting, or Santa Claus, or maybe it was an optical illusion" then you are just desperate to sustain the government story.
dracul4u 1 year ago
@dracul4u dude look up pictures of a united airlines plane and you'll that almost all of them have that stuff under them, its for the landing gear
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26 Except that in this case, the 'landing gear' shoots something from itself into the WTC
dracul4u 1 year ago
@dracul4u I can see the flash but it didn't shoot. when something going that fast is going to create a flash, there is always a transfer of Kinetic Energy to Heat
watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26 So why does this flash occur at a distance from the nose of the plane? Why didn't the wings of the plane create a flash?
dracul4u 1 year ago
@dracul4u If you look closely at the video, you'll see that the spark is at the exact moment that the nose of the plane hits the building, Look closely at the video i sent you and you'll notice that the Wings also create a smaller Spark.
Claiming that this was an inside job is claiming that terrorist don't exist.
BTW, the towers didn't fall because of fire melting steel, they fell because the fire weakened the steel enough that it gave way. At 1800 Degrees the Fire lost 50% of its strength.
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26 The spark is orange and away from the impact of the nose. And where is the supposed 'line of orange' when the wings hit then?
The towers fell because their entire structural integrity had been compromised at the same time. The columns 'failed' on 2 floors ONLY! The rest were supposed to be intact!
Can you recreate the 'official story' by using ANY objects you want? You drop 1 brick on 3 bricks, they're going to be OBLITERATED, right?
Prove me wrong: film that and post it.
dracul4u 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26, the quality of the first video of the tower being hit is much lower than on other copies I have seen in which it is obvious that the flash occurred PRIOR to the plane striking the building as the shadow of the plane was not in synch with the actual plane, i.e. they hadn't met on the building's surface. The maximum temperature detected in the steel was 1800deg, how long was steel subjected to that heat? Long enough to cause the collapse we saw? I seriously doubt it.
arisuta2 1 year ago
@arisuta2 Dude if it really was a missile, it would have rip right through the tower at that close range. The firefighters were pulled about an hour before the collapse, they knew the building was coming down, btw do u even know how WTC 7 was built.
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26, yes I do and it should never have fallen in a symmetrical, global collapse, part of which was at freefall speed. Even NIST admitted being dumbfounded as to how the collapse occurred so they had to make up a story that you duhbunkernuts would swallow whole.
arisuta2 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26, p.s. I like your other sockpuppet accounts at fidelmaya and fidelmaya1. Troll much?
arisuta2 1 year ago
@arisuta2 First of all idk who the hell that is, i made this account so i could watch videos, there are some that need to verify your over 18 to view, second i never upload anything because all i do is watch videos!
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
Woodruff Miller, Dept Chair, BYU Engineering
ctcole77 1 year ago
@dracul4u Also the black smoke is never a sign of a oxygen starved fire, its actually the opposite, the fires were fueled by Carpet, Computer Monitors, Furniture, and Paper. WTC 7 was not brought down by the way. The chief did say "Pull It" but "Pull It" is not a demolishing term. He clearly ment to pull the firefighters from the building because they knew if was at brink of collapse. That Entire Building was on Fire, and when the towers Collapse and good 25Flrs were Scooped from the bottom of
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
@fidelamaya26, but the firefighters had been 'pulled' from the building hours before, there was no one to 'pull'!
arisuta2 1 year ago
@dracul4u the building!
fidelamaya26 1 year ago
If you already have a jet with many tons of fuel, why would you bother to attach a missile with warhead of couple hundred pounds at best onto it!? By the way, in Belgrade 1999 a lot smaller building (google for Usce Tower if you like, it was built in somehow same fashion as WTC, but lot, lot smaller) withstood multiple direct Tomahawk hits, so even those missiles are not so powerful. I doubt they would make even larger hole on WTC Towers.
aleksandarrudic 1 year ago
@aleksandarrudic The missile was there to cut the steel on that level. The demolition charges that had been set up in the buildings was what actually brought the WTCs down. There were bombs in the basement/subway level that went off BEFORE the plane hit. This is extensively documented, so no 'conspiracies' here. The Commission simply chose to ignore testimony about this, as well as the collapse of WTC7.
Can't have bothersome counterpoints in their neat little 'official' story, ya know?
dracul4u 1 year ago
Remember ENRON. How many people could $1.2 Trillion shut up? D Rumsfeld annopunced pentagon can not account for over $1.2 Trillion on sept 10. That could easily pay for a couple dozen remote controlled planes repainted.
mskydolphin 1 year ago
thier was no missiles wtf? thats ridiculous. where do they come from then? cuz nothing leaves the plane
toscana1995 1 year ago
HARTZ-IV-666//13/66/18/911/14/88/723//666-200499-GER-230-510-30//231242-10-77-22844-24558
Mann1979HH 1 year ago
Now, I don't believe the official story, I like to think for myself and look for the facts, not just what people tell me. But really, whoever believes that the planes were strapped with missiles and they shot off in literally a quarter of a tenth of a second before the planes hit the towers, is a fucking moron. I mean really, its called science people, its not that hard to understand that its the plane causing that, its just about to hit a surface at an excess of over 500 mph, its energy.
jayblob716 1 year ago
what a lame ass video,,,,,,,are u fucking kidding me,,,,,,,,you should worry a little more about how aluminum,,,,can slide right throw steel with no fucking rection to it at all,,,,,,,what a fucking joke,,,,,who gives a shit about the flashes,,,,,,they mean nothing,,,,,the absolute lack of any crash physics in any of the impact videos should be the publics main concern,,,,,,,,there was no missiles attached to the planes,,,,,,,,cuz there was no fucking planes u meathead,,,,,they fooled u again
bigbopper993 1 year ago
jake... remember the "nuhremberg defense" didn't work in nuhremberg and it won't work in new york. You're obviously either brainwashed or complicit. this is the biggest sham of a hit piece i've ever seen. Your videos contain no factual arguments, just shock and awe and demonization... known mind-control techniques... if you don't believe me, pick up ANY "how to play poker" book and you'll start realizing how real brainwashing is.
zakquack 1 year ago
well, the plane does displace "air" and probably the flash we see is a "shattered" window actually .. from all the mass of the plane, and the air that is being moved as the plane approaches...can cause it to shatter. Where everyone has questions however and (I agree) is, "y not analize and publicize what the debris was composed of?" Why did they scoop it all up and deported it? it is common CSI...u do not touch the evidence till u have all the answers. I am disapointed in our gvt.
takesgut 1 year ago
maybe its the little light on the bottom of the plane...you know at night you see the little flashes in the sky from the planes...yeah...that =P
XdethxklokX 1 year ago
I think those flashes are lightning.
It's well known that airplanes build static charges from friction as they fly (that's why refueling crews ground them before touching nozzle to tank). It stands to reason that a jetliner doing over 400mph at low altitude on a clear, dry day would build up an immense charge. And those towers? Giant lightning rods.
Anyway that's my $.02 & I'm sticking to it!
Either way, the missile theory is baseless.
TimReed22222 1 year ago
take this off you stupid retarded assholes
kayshkorn 1 year ago
Well anyone who passed the sixth grade would know that it is a simple transfer of kinetic energy. And the nose of that plane clearly meets well before that flash occurs. If your in that cockpit you would be dead before you have time to blink, much less fire a missile.
BeyondTheGovernment 1 year ago
Anybody who believes that this didn't happen EXACTLY as it was shown to us is a complete idiot and needs mental help!
arthurkitchen 1 year ago
@arthurkitchen --robot
blunted15 1 year ago
@blunted15 Idiot!
arthurkitchen 1 year ago
I don't really have a stand on either side of this argument, but I have to say that the "flash" isn't the only reason that dude concluded that it was a missile, he also shows pictures of the underside of the plane which appears to have a long object attached to one side of it. You are right though, if the flash was the only evidence it wouldn't mean anything, any number of things could have caused that flash.
ThMaleAlwaysGoesThru 2 years ago
Comment removed
marcstinebaugh 2 years ago
watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0
just watch, it states out clearly that conspiracy is bullshit
Hubieee 2 years ago
Saying that a flash was caused by energy transfer or by a missile or by anything else - however you look at it - that's not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is something that implicates PEOPLE, that CONSPIRED to do something, in a THEORETICAL context, it's a hypothesis. Talking about what caused a flash in a video is a lot different than talking about who is guilty. Also, the missile thing is kind of a stupid idea I agree, it's unprovable, but it's still a theory you can't disprove.
marcstinebaugh 2 years ago
friction, lol composite material?
NrKoo 2 years ago
This is pretty simple physics really. Force equals mass times acceleration. The plane weighs 100 tons going 500 mph. Of course it would go straight through the outer wall. The building is 70% air inside.
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
Why would you "fire" a missile when it's attached to a plane that's going to drive into the building anyway? Wouldn't that kind of be like shooting a missile at a target that also shoots a missile at the target?
My amateur opinion is that a 500,000 lb aluminum tube going mach 0.7 hitting a massive steel structure might cause a small flash. There's just a tiny bit of kinetic energy involved there.
Can't you kooks come up with a theory that makes sense?
bfdorau 2 years ago
LOL yes they are kooks. Actually YOUR theory is corroborated. A body in motion builds up kinetic energy. When it comes in contact with a surface that energy is released. It is a law of physics. It is also demonstrated on a video here on YT which i have seen. And it ALWAYS happens so the flash is nothing out of the ordinary. But these kooks pass it off as a missile.
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
Comment removed
marcstinebaugh 2 years ago
Hey iamthejack2000,
you're wrong...
A missile on board would not be so unnecessary...
You just quickly forget that it could help to bring the towers down (with help of thermite too).
Too much lies kill the Lie...
And oh, by the way, you know what?
I'm not american.
But i do feel concern by the whole shit.
piquesegue 2 years ago
Who ever made this video is a moron.
Disinfo agents everywhere
JASONANDTRACI 2 years ago
If airliners hit the towers, we would see some sort of deceleration or crumpling of the nose, fuselage, wings and tail section. The engines would probably break from their mounts upon impact. Instead, these "aircraft" slice right through the concrete and steel and THEN explode. There is another weapon that is designed to penetrate concrete and steel and THEN explode. That is a JASSM bunker buster missile. Therefore, I contend the towers were hit with missiles and NOT airliners.
lmfecher 2 years ago
nice dis-information piece.
brokencasket 2 years ago
The flash could be produced by de high velocity impact from metal to metal, notice that the impact speed is aproximatly 250 m/s ! a flash could be occoured
mdomanska 2 years ago
the nose cone is not metal, I bet you hadn't noticed that the engine is more metal than the cone, and these no flash there, bombs were used face it, your Govenment got you all to go to war, and there smiling all the way to the bank, when the innocent and poor are still dying
bushkilledtowers 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "pod" on the underbelly is a custom build DU penetrator - do you research.
Also no one seems to have noted how the plane penetrated right down to the wing tip. When computer models dictate that the wings should have been torn off.
blackArt2000 2 years ago
The "pod" on the underbelly is a custom built DU penetrator - do you research.
Also no one seems to have noted how the plane penetrated right down to the wing tip. When computer models dictate that the wings should have been torn off.
blackArt2000 2 years ago
"spread the 911 truth"??? then please tell me..how in hell can the airplanes just vaporise and dissapear after the impact? if they did.then what did they store in those floors of WTC to cause that to happen,cause only jetfuel cant accomplished that..
7211woodie 2 years ago
hmm, i don't know, steel girders maybe?
iamthejake2000 2 years ago
@7211woodie The falsh is heat and light generated by the steel of the plane and the building bending and in fact vaporising. you say a plane can't vaporise and dissapear after an impact. let me assure you, it can. a high velocity bullet fired at a peice of paper will hit the paper and disapear. the plane would have generated such an impact, so much heat, so much force that the plane would have blown it'self apart to literaly nothing. a fighter jet crashes into earth, you'll only find allfoil.
shootphotosnotarabs 1 year ago
P.S. Shit Music, not really suitable for the event either.
xK2Thom 2 years ago
If the plane was "High-Jacked" then how and why would there be a missile on the plane, unless it was planned, im from london so i havnt heard every conspiracy but if u say its a missile.... Work it out.
xK2Thom 2 years ago
The flash was not a missile, it was just one of many thermite and thermate charges that were detonated by the plane's impact.
Piscivorus 2 years ago 2
femr2 - You a dangerous dude - dangerous as cracking me up to death with yo foolishness!!
kangtimelord 2 years ago
You're right about a lot of things. There is no reason for the government to risk firing missles from the planes. They didn't.
But what you're not understanding is that no planes were even flown into the towers. That's right. They were holograms. I'm not kidding.
rebdomine 3 years ago
Oi shitbag, your theory is just garbage, no imagination what so ever.
You are a fucking moron.
The flashes are a separate event, MORON!!!
Loose change prove it and everybody on the planet know, MORON!
Holysmoke2007 3 years ago
The second aircraft transponder frequency switched, but was NOT off.
The video author knows NOTHING about the construction of the building, suggesting the external facade contained concrete. lol.
The 'flash' occurs just PRIOR to impact.
I could go on, but just....
watch?v=op7iCrJ5ns8
femr2 3 years ago 2
The government and air traffic control could not locate the second plane because the terrorists disengaged the jet's locating device. Unfortunately, they could not get a location of the jet until it was too late.
MustangMalone 3 years ago
Why would you need a missile when your flying a 161 tonne aircraft at 450 mph into it?? personally i dont think the government planned it or had anything to do with it but i do think they knew it was gonna happen an they let it happen!
daveyh21 3 years ago
maybe there was no missles but did the government do anything to stop the second plane?
nickmoranzo 3 years ago
The best point of this video was to begunk one aspect of Conspiracy, and that is the Missile. However, as good conspiracies are alway that, Theories, there is a lot of evidence that would point at motivation and means, coverups and mis-information by the Government that leads one to wonder what really is the truth. After looking into a lot of these vids, pro and con, I lean to the side of Conspiracy, but not blindly. The best lie is the truth.
ChiefOren 3 years ago
fuckin hell fire. Planes hit the bastard building, it fell down, the end. fuckin missile strapped on planes, fuckin holograms, fuckin explosives. what a load of shite. what is it with fuckin conspiracy theories in america. fuckin roswell and now this. they should stick to skateboardin and eating fuckin burgers
jonahmoffatt 3 years ago 2
So then why was this same "flash" also filmed when the first plane hit???
crossroader 3 years ago
Excellent video. Unfortunately the conspriacy nutters will never accept it - they simply ignore inconvenient facts that get in the way of their idiotic and obscene theories. What possible reason would there be to fire a missile into a building micro-seconds before crashing a plane into it? The plane itself was practically a missile which means that this tinfoil hat theory (one of the worst/dumbest of the lot) makes absolutely no sense. Of course the nutters will deny that.
webstermr 3 years ago 5
i've noticed....
iamthejake2000 3 years ago
webstermr is absolutely, totally, and undeniably 100% correct, and good GOD it's about time someone here on YouTube voiced a little sense with regard to these twin tower videos. Thank you webstermr, and to everyone else tired of hearing these conspiracy theories don't worry - their creators have dead end F2's, so with patience these nonsense ideas will be burried soon enough. And to ANY conspiracy theorist - Provide us with ONE answer to any of your boneheaded questions... Go ahead, dazzle us...
hotmoffitt 3 years ago
Thank-you!
webstermr 3 years ago
Ha its suckers like you that beleive 2 110 story skyscrapers can fall down in 2 hours coz 2 planes hit!! LMFAO at you you idiot! do some fucking research. you only need eyes and a brain to know the whole 911 was set up by the US Gov. steel bending making reflections eh?! what are your explanations on pentagon, pennsylvania and wtc 7? or do you just beleive all the bullshit youve been fed by the media? so your a fuckn nutcase for beleiving lies. u 2 hotmoffitt. FAGS
bjm351 3 years ago
It's asshats like you who, despite all the evidence, despite logic and despite common sense actually believe that some mythical explosives were somehow installed without any of the thousands of people in the buildings knowing. I'd tell you to read the reports but it's doubtful that a fucking moron like you can read. Trying to convince idiot conspriacy nutters like you with facts is about as productive as trying to nail Jello to a wall. Grow up and get a grip on reality.
webstermr 3 years ago
@webstermr i love this. you never miss an oppurtunity to insult people who ask questios. by your logic, every detective on the planet is a nutter, they ask questions, so theyre crazy right?? maybe, this constant dismissal of an alternative theory of what happened and insults of people who ask questions is a sign of your own fear that the government do know more than they are letting on. its so damn obvious.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Nothing wrong with asking questions but there is plenty wrong with spreading false information and lies that don't conform to the facts and the evidence. There is no credible evidence to support any nutbar conspiracy theory and there are mountains of evidence to back up the official version put forward not only by the government but also by many independent sources including Popular Mechanics magazine who assembled a group of independent experts to examine the evidence.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr ohh yes, well the governments response to the fact that there was no plane at the pentagon.............plan accidents usually have planes present........they claimed it was vapourized. this is scientifically impossible. so why would they give us an explanation that is clearly false? if it is so simple what happened that day, why are they lying and giving us explanations that cannot possibly be true?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 You really are one of those conspiracy theory nutbars. THERE WAS A PLANE AT THE PENTAGON. How do you explain: eyewitness reports of the plane, surveilance video footage of the plane, chunks of plane wreckage all over the site including tail section and engines, the fact that AA flight 77 took off with dozens of passengers and crew, was tracked to the vincinity of Washington DC and NEVER LANDED ANYWHERE? I can't believe the utter stupidity of you conspriacy nutters.
webstermr 1 year ago
btw im not a conspiracy theorist, and i do believe that it is highly unlikely that these were military aircraft, but im not going to be a pathetic little sheep brain moron who just accepts the governmenst bullshit explanations and refuses to think for themselves. im sure youll reply with a load of insults and name calling towards me, after all, thats a sure sign that youre right and your argument is solid, calling people names is really grown up. youd make a good defense attourney.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Try looking at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE - something that conspiracy nutbars fail to do. If you look at the facts and you use your brain, you can see how patently absurd the conspiracy theories are. Check out the Debunking 9/11 website - they demolish each and every single claim by the conspiracy nutters.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr well, when someone tells me that an aircraft has crashed into a building, and i then see that building with a tiny hole that a plane could not possibly fit in, and absolutely no evidence of a plane, that to me is very suspicious. and it is also very suspicious that wtc7 collapsed apparantly purely due to relatively small fires, completely into its own footstep. i fin it suspicious that 9 out of 19 hijackers have been proven to be alive. the list goes on.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Not sure what buulding you're referring to but both Tower 1 and Tower 2 had gaping holes in them where the planes hit and disintegrated on impact with the steel beams. The whole crash sequence on both towers has been completely reconstructed USING EVIDENCE and computer modelled and it fits PERFECTLY. There is nothing suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7 either - it was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of tower 1 and allowed to burn for more than 8 hours.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr horseshit. wtc7 had a puny little fire in it. some structures have been completely engulfed in fires for 24 hours plus and did not collapse. and plane debris was found in the rubble of towers 1 and 2 so you are wrong
sr19 1 year ago
No it did not. it had a huge fire fed by diesel storage tanks that were there to power emergency generators and it was allowed to burn for at least 8 hours. It was also severely structurally damaged by the collapse of tower 1. There were in fact steel beams and girders from tower 1 embedded in WTC 7. Go to the debunking 911 website - it's all covered there in great detail.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr so i should believe 1 set of internet theories, but not the other? poeple on the internet who believe the same as you are right, but sceptics, people who disagree with you are wrong? wow. thats fair.
fact is i believe no one. im am not a conspiracy theorist. i am a skeptic. i wont just roll over and let your government tell me what to believe. its a shame that you will. im not asking you to believe that was an inside job, i dont believe it, i suspect it. think for yourself.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Because the official version is not a set of Internet theories, it is based on solid facts, scientific analysis and EVIDENCE. The conspiracy nutbar version plays fast and lose with facts, ignores contradictory evidence or tries to explain it away with ever more idiotic unsubstnatiated theories. Clearly you are a conspiracy theorist - you are parroting some of the worst of the discredited conspiracy theories put forward by those dolts and you refuse to let the facts get in the way.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr anyway, its been shown that the fires were neither hot enough or burned long enough to signinficantly weaken steel.
and i have read plenty of debunkers articles. some of them do answer questions. plenty of them dont. why is a debunker any more credible than a skeptic?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 On the contrary, scientific analysis has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel structure of all three buildings that collapsed. A debunker is more credible than a wackjob conspriacy theorist because the debunkers, as I have already said, are universally professionals involved in the field looking at REAL EVIDENCE while the conspriacy wackjobs ignore and distort facts and invent wild fantasies to suppor their theories.
webstermr 1 year ago
there you go again. you are the worst debater, insulting the person you are debating against is pathetic and shows weakness. just because they agree with your view, does not mean that it is true. and you dont need to be an aviation accident expert to understand that planes do not dissapear into 5 metre holes. and, as i mentioned before but you have convenianlty ignored, there are meny groups of experts in the field who ask questions. oh wait , people who ask questions are nutjobs arent they
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 It's impossible to debate nutjobs such as you because, as with all conspiracy theoritsts, you will never, under any circrumstances or for any reason allow facts to get in the way of your opinions. The planes that hit those buildings did NOT "disappear" into "5 meter holes" take a look at the video footage - there were gaping holes in the buildings and if you watch the scientifically created reconstructions of the crashes (also on this site) you'll see precisely what happend.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr for the last funking time you dense moron, i have not once mentioned the terms 'controlled demolition', 'cruise missile', 'inside job'. i have not even mentioned what may have happened, just what may not have happened. i am asking you questions, you wont answer them because they are 'nonsensical', well if they are so stupid, why wont you answer them?
but oohhh waaait right i forgot, people who ask questions are nutjobs arent they. God forbid someone challenegs your precious believes,
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 When did I say anything about controlled demolition....you keep parroting the nonsnese of the conspiracy wackjobs and I keep responding with the actual facts of the case. Unfortunately, like all conspiracy theorists, you're not bright enough to grasp the truth that is right in front of you.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr i was using it as an example to show that i have not presented any speculatve theories. and youre one to talk about parroting. youre just sitting there feedin me the same shit that the government is, youre the one who is too stupid and spineless to look at things for yourself.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 What the government and other independent experts are saying is logical, verifiable, matches the evidence and is scientifically sound. The garbage that you're purveying is not logical, runs contrary to the evidence, is not based on any replicatable and provable scientific theories and runs contrary to common sense.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr verifiable by who? you? oh ok, i dont even see why the us needs the fbi in, they can just call you, after all you have an intuitive knowledge of these things, anyone who asks questions are whackjobs. (btw, nice usage of a word that most people stop using when they are 10).
you are one very naive person. COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT A PLANE WILL BE PRESENT AT A PLANE CRASH SITE. IT ALSO DICTATES THAT STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPERS DONT IMPLODE DUE TO FIRE.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Verifiable by anyone who cares to look at ACTUAL FACTS. Arseholes such as you who have your head up your anus simply refuse to see facts. For the UMPTEENTH TIME there WAS aircraft debris at ALL FOUR CRASH SITES. End of story, full stop. Also, the steel frammed skyscrapers DID NOT IMPLODE. They collapsed just as they would be expected to do when impacted at high speed by fully fueled jetliners carrying tons of fuel.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr and i was taling about wtc7. if perhaps you took your head out of your arse and read my comments properly. it may come as a surprise to you......but surey the very fact that i am asking questions means that i have not made my mind up. you sir are the one who has his mind made up. i am very open minded about the affair.....if i see some real evidence i will embrace, otherwise i will keep asking. PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP DONT ASK QUSTIONS
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Why would there be any aircraft debris at WTC7? It wasn't bit by a plane - it was hit by the remains of tower 1. Having an open mind is one thing but opening your mind to the kind of garbage spewed by the asshats and assorted morons coming up with these conspiracy theories is quite another. Try applying a little bit of critical thinking to these idiotic claims you'll see pretty quickly just how utterly ridiculous they are.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr did i say aircraft debris would be found at wtc7? now whos pulling things out of their arse. all i want is a plausible explanation as to why a modern steel framed skyscraper was the first one in history to collapse to dues relatively small fire and damage. other buildings were far worsely damaged.......they didnt collapse
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 You keep flipping and flopping all over the place who even knows what you're referring to? if you want a plausible explanation, read the NIST report. It clearly and in no uncertain terms uses EVIDENCE, SCIENTFIC ANALYSIS and direct observation through experimentation to explain precisely what happened. In a nutshell, the upper 40 floors were supported by three main trusses which were severely damaged by debris impact and fire and they gave out after 8 hours of abuse. Simple.
webstermr 1 year ago
i will ask questions, if that makes me a nutbar, fine. i guess all detectives are nutbars, cause they ask questions. i could say that you are just a spineless pathetic sheep who is too dense to ask questions and doesnt care about his country, but i dont think name calling is appropriate. and so far, i have not proposed any theories as to what happened, i have just pointed out the inconsistencies os the official stories. how can i be a conspiracy theorist if i dont propose theories?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 "Questions" that you're asking that have no basis in fact or evidence do indeed make you a nutbar. You conspriacy nutters are all to dense to let the facts get in the way of your opinions. You have posted plenty of conspiracy theories today on this very page. That makes you a conspiracy nutbar.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr a) at least vary your fucking vocabulary, nutbar is getting quite boring.
b) trust me, i am looking at facts. im british and have never stepped foot on american soil, its your government. im interested only in the facts, and they do not add up. no plane present at the site of an alleged plane crash. FACT. onlu building in history to come down due to fires. FACT. all cctv from the pentagon classified. FACT. i want to know why.
c) read you moron, i have not speculated anything.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Ok how about Dumbass You are not looking at facts and I don't care what nationality you are. I'm Canadian, what's the difference? It's not my government. The facts and evidence DO add up you're ignoring both. There was plenty of aircraft debris at ALL crash sites. These buildings were the only buildings in history slammed intentionally by fully loaded jetliners past their redline speed. There is widely available footage from the pentagon. Your posts are pure speculation.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr dont even try and tell me that that bullshit footage from the pentagon shows anything. the most protected building in the world has only 2 pieces of footage in existence of a massive 757, both of which show nothing? hah!
i have given you a list of facts, and you, predictably, have ingored all of them. why wont you, like the american government, answer these questions?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Regardless of what you think - the video footage CLEARLY SHOWS an aircraft impact, eyewitnesses ON THE SCENE reported a plane impact. the area was littered with aircraft debris. The flight took off with dozens of people on board and was tracked to that vincinity and it never landed. How do you explain all that?
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr if your defintion of a video showing a clear impact is showing a milimeter slither of silver and then an explosion, fair enough.
and if it was tracked at all times, why wasnt it brought down? it was well know at that point what had happened to the twin towers, and hijacked planes were flyng around the most protected airspace in the world. why wasnt anything done about it? surely if it really was there it would have been scrambled of shot down by the pentagons defence systems?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 It wasn't brought down because there were no fighters there to bring it down. In fact, NORAD didn't even get authorization to shoot down anything until after flight 93 had crashed. Communications between the FAA, command and NORAD was a mess. Even in "the most protected airspace", they don't shoot down civilian aircraft without clear authorization to do so - authorization that they did not have. Read the report - it's all there in black and white.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr so why wasnt authorization given? the planes were clearly high risk
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 It was given ultimately. At 10:18 the president authorized the shoot down of hijacked aircraft but that ended up being 17 minutes after flight 93 crashed. At the time of the crash, the nearest fighter jets were 100 miles away from flight 93 and NORAD, fearing an accidental shootdown of a non-hijacked civilian aircraft did NOT pass the authorization on to the pilots. Again....it's in the report in clear black and white print.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr and what if im not convinced by the report? any report that tries to tell me that a modern sky scraper collapsed due to a few small fires is one that i will not be convinced by. try talking for yourself, instead of wanking over george bush and memorizing his bullshit claims.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 I know that you'll never allow yourself to be convinced by the report or by any facts presented by any experts. Like all conspiracy nutjobs, you've made up your mind that the facts and evidence are wrong and that your idiotic and unsubstantiated and illogical ideas are the truth and you won't let anything get in the way of that. That is the true hallmark of all conspriacy theory wackjobs.
webstermr 1 year ago
you really are a thicko. you just dont get it. i have never once claimed to know what happened, you keep telling me that i am claiming so. well then youre argument is pointless, because you wont allow yourself to even understand what im saying. in your mind, im trying to tell you what happened. well, im glad that simpletons of your kind are not that common in my country. the explanations that the official stories give are very questionable, and i want to know why, some of them are clearly false.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Bullshit. You keep constantly pulling all these idiotic conspiracy theories out of you backside and then claim not to have done so. Either you belive the truth or you believe these idiotic theories that YOU keep carting out. Which is it? Fortuantely for your country idiots such as yourself are not common. Most Brits that I know have a degree of critical thinking ability that you sorely lack if you buy into that conspriacy nutcase horseshit.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr ive had enough of you. im sick of telling you in each comment that i am not making theories. how much of a retard can you be to accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist who hasnt made any theories? i have not said anything about what i think happened. you find me one quote, just one, that shows me making a claim as to what happened that day. just one. i beg of you. then come back to me, because all i am doing is asking why there are so many anomalies in the official stories.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 I've had more than enough of you....arguing with conspriacy theorists is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Osama Bin Laden could show up at your door and tell you in no uncertain terms that the official version of events is 100% correct and you'd stil refuse to believe it. Look back at all your posts - you've made all sorts of ridiculous claims such as suggesting that there was no aircraft debris at one or more of the crash sites.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr mutual. im sick of being called a conspiracy theorist when all i do s ask questions. if they are sooooo ridiculous, why wont you answer them?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 You are a conspiracy theorist plain and simple because as your posts CLEARLY demonstrate, you've guzzled the conspiracy theorist Kool-Aid. Are your reading skills impaired in some way? I've repeatedly refuted every single solitary conspriacy theory (what you call questions) that you've put forward. The real question is why won't you answer me when I issue those challenges?
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr ok whatever. im a conspiracy theorist even though ive made no claims or suggestions as to what happened. im a conspiracy thoerist that doesnt propose theories. i guess your little brain doesnt know what the word 'skeptic' means but whatever. im glad that i dont know anyone personally as judgemental and as ass arrogant as you, that they think that they can tell me what i believe.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 If you're not a conspiracy theorist then why do you keep parroting conspiracy theories? Your little brain is incapable of any the kind of logical and rational critical thinking that is required to see just how utterly ridiculous those conspiracy theories are. Foolish ideas are deserving of scorn and there are few ideas as foolish as the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.
webstermr 1 year ago
@sr19 You have not posted a single solitary fact. Not one. You're mistaking conspiracy theories as fact.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr no plane was seen and the pentagon. FACT. wtc 7 was the only steel framed structure to collapse due to fire. FACT. the hole in the pentagon was not large enough to fit a plane. FACT. the cctv that the pentagon has released shows nothing. FACT.
would you like me to provide a definition of what a fact is?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 FACT: A plane was clearly seen by countless witnesses and by security cameras. FACT: WTC 7 was the only building of it's type ever subjected to that kin d of structural damage and left to burn for more than 8 hours. FACT: The damage done to the pentagon - a highly reinforced structure was exactly what was to be expected. FACT: The footage released shows a plane hitting the building. FACT: Flight 177 took off with REAL PEOPLE on board, was tracked to Washington and it didn't land.
webstermr 1 year ago
those my friend are just as debatable as the facts i presented. no one really knows what happened, just that what was likely to have happened. those could just be the opinions of your precious debunkers on the internet, who are too scared to say anything against the us government, i dont know who is really credbile, and neither do you.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 You didn't present any facts. You presented the unsubstantiated and utterly ridiculous claims of the conspiracy wackjobs. What I posted was cold hard facts that are indisputable by any rational thinking person who looks at the actual evidence.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr i was talking about wtc7 actually. but the twin towers still shouldnt have collapsed.
please, i beg of you, show me a post in which i put foward a theory of what happened. and speculation is when i suggest what may have happened. all i have said is what does not appear to have happened. not what didnt happen, what appears not to have happened.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Collapse was inevitable in any case for all three once the planes hit - no fucking missiles or explosives needed or even present. Read the REAL reports on the subject - not the conspiracy nutter crap and you'll learn all about it. Also read your own posts - you've put parroted and defended conspiracy theories in every one of them.
webstermr 1 year ago
ive not defended anything. i am asking you questions about the occurences on that day which you have not and will not answer, all you do is point to a load of 'debunkers' who could be as nutty as many conspiracy theorists.
once again, if you read my posts, all i have done ism pointed out the inconsistencies in the official stories. but hey if youre so insecure, then you will see me as a theorist, but ive not put foward any theories, u kow that because you have no pointed any out to me
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Clearly you were asking those nonsensical questions because you believe them to be legitimate. I've repeatedly told you that it's all a load of horseshit and I've told you why. You haven't pointed out actual inconsistencies - you've parroted the idiotic claims of your fellow conspriacy nutbars.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr oh sorry, any questions that dont fit in with what you believe is nosensical. fair enough.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Your "questions" which are really just parroted conspiracy theories defy logic, they run contrary to the available evidence and they run counter to common sense. I notice that you still have yet to refute or even attempt to refute the facts that I presented which completely obliterated your conspiracy theories about the Pentagon.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr and your responses are just parroted shite from the government. the pentagon had no visible debris. a few phots that the government released does not mean much, they could be from anyway. you dont know, neither do i. eyewitnesses are unreliable, plenty of people could not say what hit the pentagon, and the fbi went around convisgating cctv. why is that?
and go one then, what are my theories about the pentagon. i just love it when people who tell me what i believe.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 No, my posts contain 100% verifiable facts. Nothing less. As I expected, you simply parroted more conspiracy nonsense to backup your earlier conspiracy nonsense. Why did the FBI confiscate CCTV? perhaps because THAT'S THEIR JOB - TO GATHER EVIDENCE! Get a clue and wake up to REALITY.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr oohhhhhhh i get it now. it was convisgated for americas benefit. and i suppose you have contacted the fbi this is what you have been told. well done.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 No, it was evidence collected to aid in the investigation. use you head.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr pleeeaaase. you keep accusing me of making conspiracy thoeries. last time i checked........asking a question does not constitute as a theory. RETARD
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 You're not making up the theories but you are spreading them and you clearly believe in them you a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that make sense. That's not what you've been doing. You've been presenting widely discredited claims as fact. MORON.
webstermr 1 year ago
@webstermr btw, whackjobs are not open minded people. if someone presents some actual proof that a 757 crashed into the pentagon, i will accept it. none has been shown to me, so im going to ask questions.
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 Read the report. There is plenty of proof. There was video evidence, eye witness reports AND WRECKAGE including engines, a tail section wih the airline logo clearly visible and other debris.
webstermr 1 year ago