You couldn't be on of those plants who travels to multiple pages related to YT defending 911, could ya? So, I'm sure you are unbiased and we should believe you?
Yes let's compare car crashes into 4 foot concrete walls at 40 mph to an airliner hitting relatively thin steel with nothing but glass in between at 450 mph, I mean it just makes perfect sense doesn't it???
So you have never addressed this. How about the IRS building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
so point 1 fragility of the airframes? Then explain these two cases of tiny single engine planes slicing through steel buildings? Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
Many examples of planes cutting through steel buildings. How about the irs building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
Wait. You are using other videos of the 911 planes and its planted debris to prove that the 911 planes were real? Uhh, what? How about any other plane crash where the plane enters a hard surface with no damage to the plane or surface? B-25 bomber VS. Empire State building=engines enter, majority of debris rains down onto the street. Or how about this clip below? Plane hits building and the majority of the debris is OUTSIDE the building...
So, there is NO other example of a plane striking a hard surface as if it were a hot knife cutting thru butter? Really? Catch up on Newton's Third Law of Motion illustrated in frame 2:23 of the video clip. To summarize, if we had a parked plane and slammed a steel wall into it at 500 mph, I hope we both can agree that the plane would be crushed. It would not enter the wall as if Wile E. Coyote was flying it.
@muzicmaker2001 3rd law is for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction (in inelastic collisions). Unless you are talking about the energy imparting the beams after the collision happened? So the beams should have flown out at ~600MPH?
So by that Newton's law you agree (F=M*A) 880fps x 400,000lbs 352,000,000 foot/pounds of energy.
A Howitzer has 6,410,000 ftpounds so a 767 has 54 times more energy than a howitzer. You saying a howitzer won't penetrate a building?
@muzicmaker2001 I routinely shoot a flimsy soft lead .308 round through stainless steel like a hot knife through butter. Is the lead bullet harder than stainless? of course not. Its physics. Do the math and you'll get there.
I have a cure for troother logic. Its easy. Let me hit you will a FULL flimsy beer can going 600 MPH. It would go right through you without even crushing the can.
@muzicmaker2001 Many examples. How about the irs building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
@jeremyelliott1 Show me where they were "designed" to withstand planes crashing into them? Skilling made an *estimation* they would withstand the initial impact (a 220,000LB 707 going 250KTS) but couldn't estimate the fuel burn damage.
The 767 is 400,000 LBS and the planes were going 600 MPH with almost full 30,000 gal. tanks of fuel.
No need to explain the real evidence away. Its real.
Show your evidence it was any other cause than planes/fires.. Oh right you don't have any..
@MrRexquando Uhh the architects that designed it said this. Do you really think 2 big sky scrapers would not be built to with stand such things. They are high up in the air. What else would hit them. Use your common knowledge. You think the architects would make them weak so planes could bring them down. Come on man. use your common sense. I suppose they cant withstand an earthquake either. You really think they wouldn't have been fore thinking before they built the twin towers.
@muzicmaker2001 Where is your source for this data? Cause Some is right some is wrong. Please site your source :) wi ki / Boeing_767 395,000 LBS radar speed of 540KTS before impact
"airliners . ne t / aircraft-data / s tats.main ?id = 87" 257,000 LBS
@muzicmaker2001 But I did. Line for line just like "heafers84 " did and all the rest. names/interviews you just deny it. Why?
Do you agree a fully loaded 767 has the same energy as 54 howitzer rounds? Do you want me to prove that again? Prove me wrong.
Melting? Everyone saw the debris plums after impact. The pieces you would expect to survive like the main shafts of the engine (titanium) continued on and landed in the street. I'll show you a pic and you say it was planted..
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably COULD SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS of jet liners.." Frank DeMartini, WTC Construction Manager
@muzicmaker2001 Here is what you were looking for watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU. Remember he was NOT the engineer! He was speculating how strong the building was. And he is correct WTC could withstand probably 2 but it couldn't handle the fires+impact damage as we all saw. He never mentioned fires did he? John Skilling was the chief engineer just so you can be accurate next time.
"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry" Skyscraper . o r g
Great. Can you post just 15 witnesses that saw the plane that were recorded live on 911? The reality is there are more witnesses of the WTC explosions recorded live on 911 than people who saw the planes. This is just another blind assumption with no backing evidence at all.
@muzicmaker2001 "Can you post just 15 witnesses that saw the plane " REALLY just 15, i expected you'd ask for the THOUSANDS i mentioned, 15 is easy!! Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William Walsh, Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, Daniel Nigro, Brian Olauherty, Mark Stone, Jarjean Felton. Also, of course there were explosions, there was fire, explosions are expected!
Let's try this again. Just 15 witnesses (out of thousands) recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. And any "amateur" that captured the planes on video is eliminated for obvious reasons. Just your average folks walking by..thanx
@muzicmaker2001 I don't understand why the 15 witnesses I gave you don't count? They were mostly FF and EMTs, some were everday people. Are you wanting live tv crews interviewing people in the street??? I thought we didn't trust the media? So why would you trust those interviews, you'd just call them shills b/c it doesn't jive with your fantasy. So, i'm not going to play the game with you, apparently NO eyewitnesses will do. I'm sure for you FF and EMTs are ALL in on it right? Fing moonbats.
You removed your comment? You didn't read the request correctly. 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911. This means on video or audio, not just posted here on YT. Again, this should be easy with the supposed THOUSANDS that saw the planes, right? But, most debunkers dedicated to defending the 911 lie follow this same MO. First, they state the thousands even millions saw the planes. But, when asked to produce just 15 ordinary witnesses, they flee..see ya
@muzicmaker2001 "You removed your comment?" No....it's still there.
"This means on video or audio, not just posted here on YT."
So.....you want video or audio of eyewitnesses but they can't come from a professional media source or amateur video. That pretty much eliminates EVERYONE. Again, if it doesn't fit your fantasy then it's just cast aside as disinfo. Face it, i could build a time machine and take you back to the day, and you'd say i faked it somehow.
No, I think you are misunderstanding this. The witnesses themselves can not be someone who captured the planes on video or related to the media or government. And this is for obvious reasons. Just something like this...
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
Its not that hard...if there are really thousands as you claimed
Uhh, no. The interviewer is telling them that a plane hit. They didn't see it. And no media or government employees please...Just average folks of the "thousands" that saw the planes.
@muzicmaker2001 No, at 1:15 he says and I quote "As WE watched the buildings, I saw a black, very large airplane fly right into the second building" Unless intervieweres that day were wearing FF uniforms with FDNY on them I'd say that is a FF saying he and other firefighters watched an airplane crash into the building
So....you're not taking the witness testimony from FF b/c their paid by tax dollars? Which means....you think the FF are in on it. You sir are a piece of shit, goodbye.
Did you actually read the original request? I've seen many "defenders of the 911 lie" just like you. You all first claim that hundreds, thousands, millions have seen the planes but when you can't even produce 15 ordinary witnesses, you run away crying like a little girl..take care
@muzicmaker2001 "when you can't even produce 15 ordinary witnesses" You can go an read 100s of oral histories of people seeing planes. I can produce 100+ for the pentagon alone, but they're not credible according to you. Why???? The only reason I can think of is b/c it doesn't fit the imaginary world you've created. First testimony given aftwerwards is not good enough, i guess you think they're all paid off, then FF moments aftwerward are not good enough.
Witnesses recorded live on 911 reduces or even eliminates the chance for the media machine to alter the message. As I said before, there are more witnesses reorded live on 911 of explosions in the Towers than people who saw the planes...
@muzicmaker2001 When we say that thousands saw it, we don't mean they were all individually interviewed, we mean there were thousands in the streets, don't you think if they didn't see a plane they would speak up and say something? I guess all of NY just got one fat check!
So, when you say thousands, you are only assuming this based on absolutely no evdience whatsoever, correct? Otherwise, you compiled a list of these thousands on the streets that saw the planes?
@muzicmaker2001 The thousands are a logical assumption based on the MILLIONS of people living in the city, it doesn't matter if it were thousands, even if it were dozens. But we can logically assume that there were thousands of people on the streets or in offices that viewed the event. I personally have family that watched the 2nd plane hit from their office building. But of course they don't count b/c i'm a shill
But, if no plane ht the WTCs, what did the thousands see? Here lies the problem and why it is very difficult to produce even 15 ordinary witnesses recorded live on 911 out of millions of people. Assumptions can't be used as evidence.
@muzicmaker2001 I'm not using assumptions i'm using fing eyewitness testimony. When they ask for eyewitness testimony in a court room concerning murders, they don't just throw the testimony out if there's not a video documenting their claim 30 seconds after the murder. None of the thousands of people in NY have come forward and claimed anything besides a plane. Hundreds have given testimony to seeing planes hit the WTC and pentagon.
This is been going for a couple of days now and it could've ended if you posted just 15 witnesses recorded live on 911. You originally stated that THOUSANDS saw the planes and have no evidence to back any of that up. If you are going to dedicate your time on YT to defending 911, come with some real evidence and facts, not BS assumptions..
@muzicmaker2001 Way to clip so many of these as Jennifer Oberstein didn't catch the 1st plane, but did see the 2nd plane. She comes back from break, and confirms a 2nd plane hit the towers.
Karrim Arraki- he sees a plane, so i'm not sure why you put him in there??
Dan Dahler- hears something similar to jet "I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet"
Jim Friedl - same program later describing the 2nd plane "You know, I don't know if I can say that, but it was a very odd type of turn. It was headed directly, directly, at the building"
So Jennifer doesn't see first but sees 2nd, Dan doesn't see the plane but hears it, and Jim sees the 2nd plane,
That's an amazing FAIL there muzicmaker, now i have another 3 people that saw or heard the planes on 911, thanks!!!
Uhh, re-read what you wrote. "Dan doesn't see the plane" So, is he a witness? Nope. He is actual a witnesses to seeing NO PLANE. And he's media. You're gtting pretty desperate considering you stated thousands saw the planes. Now, you have to use my own video of people that didn't see a plane and reverse it? Funny. And here's what Jennifer Oberstein stated..she didn't even know a plane crashed. Nice witness..keep trying.
You have to ask yourself this eventually. Why is it so hard to produce just 15 witnesses? I thought thousands saw the planes. Keep shoveling the BS dude..
Here's what has been said about Jim Friedl. Check out the entire clip of his account below. His account ends at frame 05:20 but there's no click as if he hung up? The second plane crashes and Jim is still apparently on the line. At frame 05:51, he says, “Was that a plane?” Frame, 06:04 he says, “Oh, my God!” And at frame 06:22, he says, “Grade 9, Chopper 5, Is anybody on?” where he is faded out immediately. How can he be in a news chopper?
@muzicmaker2001 I agree that he says "Was that a plane?" and "Oh, my God", but the "Grade 9, chopper 5 doesn't sound like him at all. Plus again, he's in your video also, so that makes you a hypocrite if you don't think his voice is credible don't splice and dice his quotes truther style to fit your fantasy. Yet.....even though all the people in your video you "claim" only saw an explosion, actually all saw a plane, you still keep it up, i can't be the only one to ever point out the flaw!!
And how many people just call the news station to report something? The overall point? There are not even 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 and the ones that are seem a little suspicious. Sum it all up and equals NO PLANE and obviously THOUSANDS of people did not see the planes.
@muzicmaker2001 You can also add Cardonna Rivera to that list, same video with Jim Friedl describing the 2nd plane impact. Probably a shill though, right? I mean it doesn't fit your story, so she MUST be a shill, only logical explanation.
@muzicmaker2001 Why are you spreading this misinformation? What is your motive? Here they are for the pentagon. "criticalthrash. com/terror/identification. ht m l" (remove spaces)
There is my evidence. You show yours. Prove planes didn't hit those buildings.
@muzicmaker2001 Your a joke. People have been posting these lists and you ignore it. Reading past comments you make people jump through hoops and provide facts.. then you deny/ignore/disqualify it for your own silly reasons.
Fred Eichler saw the plane and gave his account on the history channel (not youtube). The planes were going 600 MPH. You could blink and miss he impact. The burden is on you to show what we all saw that day didn't happen.
So, that's a "NO" on providing real evidence? I expected the usual denial, avoidance or rationalization so here's a simple question. Why do you think a FOIA act request for the wreckage serial numbers from ANY plane was denied nearly 7 yrs after 911 if this is common knowledge? Your thoughts? And its funny how "you could blink and miss he impact" but so many people caught the impact with rock solid detail?
@muzicmaker2001 The wreckage is all photographed and cataloged. All public records dude. The identified compressor rotors, landing gear, power supplies, and 2 out of 4 black boxes. Why do you spread this paranoid disinformation?
Let me rephrase that. Post any evidence connecting any of the wreckage to the registered flights. A photograph of a part is not that evidence. These parts could've come from any plane. One way to connect the wreckage to the flights is by comparing the serial numbers stamped on the wreckage to the maintenance records. Do you have any evidence of this? If not, don't assume that it was done just by looking at logged photos.
@muzicmaker2001 Melt into buildings. Did you read what I wrote about the energy involved? a 767 has 54 times a 204mm howitzer round. You can't conceive how that would simply punch through hollow steel frame members?
Your turn. What happened to the planes/bodies? What did we see that day? What caused the massive structural damage and fires? Why did the buildings come down. We know what MIT/NIST and the scientists say happened. What do you say and why should anyone believe you?
Did you read what I wrote about the energy involved?
And did you watch frame 2:29 about Newton's Third law of Motion?
What happened to the planes/bodies?
No planes=no bodies, right?
What did we see that day?
A lie sold to the American public.
Why did the buildings come down?
A combination of pre-planted explosives and nano-thermite. FYI: The nano-thermite paper has yet to be refuted by anyone because it is solid science....
@muzicmaker2001 You don't understand Newton at all do you? F=MA is the law in his case not equal and opposite reaction. 54x a Howitzer! explain that away.
Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles (fact). Just like Value-jet crash.
Nano-thermite paper has been refuted by 1000's it was NOT peer reviewed (fact) and published on a "pay to publish" journal. Why was Jones fired? Oh right he wasn't following ethics guidelines for publishing.
@muzicmaker2001 You can Google like the rest of us or maybe not.
“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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Why is it you can post certain videos to prove your case, but in other situations, I must google it myself? I didn't ask for a quote from BYU. No idea what the relevance here is for that? So, speaking of lies, I'm still waiting for proof of:
1. Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles in NYC
2. Nano-thermite paper refuted by 1000's
3. Nano-thermite paper not peer reviewed
4. Nano-thermite paper not following ethics guidelines for publishing.
Still, no proof of the paper not being peer reviewed, refuted by thousands or not following the guidelines for publishing?This is the normal MO for debunkers. You make statements. You are asked to back up these statements and then you make excuses like, "Why can't you google it?" or " I am done providing links" or my favorite, " the burden of proof is on you" even though you made the statement. You have been posting links for a good week now, but you conveniently stop now? Ok...
@muzicmaker2001 Just keep denying it. See how for you get. I have sent you dozens of fact points you dismiss with no fact rebuttal. How is your 250C problem going? How hot is thermite again? I'll stop when you either prove your assertions or admit your full of it.
Again the "OS" is published public record. Show me your facts/evidence.
Show me how you are smarter than MIT with no evidence to back yourself up.
Disprove my energy calculations. 54x greater than a howitzer.
@muzicmaker2001 I proved a flimsy aluminum airplane can pierce steel buildings (IRS Building/Pierelli building) little single engine planes going far less than 200MPH and then everyone gets quiet.
Your not seeking truth are you?
You have a hidden agenda. Your paranoid anti-govt. delusions have far out-run your intellect and knowledge of this crime.
@muzicmaker2001 Do you want me to just copy-paste from below? Your being a clown.
You need to post some evidence it wasn't airplanes / fires. Because MIT says it was. You better have some strong evidence to outweigh one of the most prestigious universities in America. What do you have?
"You need to post some evidence it wasn't airplanes / fires"
If there were planes in NYC (population: approx 8-9 million) you (and the other horde of plants) would be able to produce the 15 witnesses. There also would be no need to deny a request for the wreckage serial numbers.
If fires were hot enough to weaken steel to failure, there wouldn't be people walking directly on top of the steel. This is very simple and you can put your howitzer away now...
"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26)."-Dr. Steven Jones
Google: "A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself"
@muzicmaker2001 Well looks like he lied. Did you look at the links I sent from BYU.
We was fired for this behavior. Look it up. His science was flawed. If it was true don't you think someone would have sued over this or killed him to be quiet.
@muzicmaker2001 So get your lies straight if people heard explosions it couldn't have been thermite. Thermite is almost silent.
Did you even watch your own video. It fails at the end! Seriously! No one has ever cut a beam with thermite. No evidence on the beams/columns showed heat above 1000C or explosive scars. I won't address the hand-picked witness accounts again for the 5th time.
Explain this one video. watch?v=bpHLC6yGqpI no thermite! No explosions!
CD explosives used in conjunction with nano-thermite explains the explosions heard. if someone using readily available ingredients can melt and cut steel with ease using just thermAte, imagine what can be accomplished with some of the world's most advanced technology at their fingertips? In clip you posted, the reporter actually states, "A huge EXPLOSION now raining debris on all of us." Did you watch the clip before posting it?
@muzicmaker2001 Yes the reporter does say huge explosion doesn't he. But you notice you don't hear one? You hear a "ROAR" of debris. Look a the building. No thermite, no charges going off.. Explain that watch?v=aJD7LaUKEAM
Show me ANYONE who can cut steel with thermite. It won't work. Hence people don't use it in demolition..
Can you admit Richard Gage said on his website ae911truth he was wrong and they don't exist? Why do you persist with lies?
The reporter (that was there) states he heard an explosion and you (from behind your computer) states he didn't. Who should we believe? And its funny that you use this clip as evidence of no explosions.
Once again, thermAte cutting steel: did you miss it the first time? watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q
If this can be accomplished easily from this guy's back yard, just imagine what the military has...
watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q (13:05) it FAILED even when he made pipe bombs it FAILED
On WTC2 You are missing the point. The witnesses (as addressed earlier) say all kinds of things. It was traumatic. But tell me what you heard? Not explosions huh?
NO Flashes
NO explosions
No puffs of smoke
NO SQUIBS
Looks like again we are back to Planes/Fires because you can't show me any prove (on 9/11) of anything else..
Its like a broken record. You keep stating that noone heard explosions, noone saw flashes, etc, and this is even after you get bombarded with witness account after account of explosions and flashes. One part denial and two parts delusion, huh?
@muzicmaker2001 Do you admit the two examples of little planes slicing through buildings is true? Looks like your information isn't entirely correct: watch?v=QbdfwRGFN9c watch?v=lSHm6_FuAFI watch?v=te6ncYbiQH0 Eye witnesses watch?v=gkQU3eJvXMY watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho watch?v=sOoiekDOx2g no explosions watch?v=ulniDaaOx8A no explosions WTC1 impact watch?v=f4I_uuU4N6E Audio from edit radio clip watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0 proves what? didn't hear booms.. watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Yk ONE Boom??
@muzicmaker2001 watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Yk was WTC7 and you think I don't know what video I am commenting on? The One BOOM was dubbed and repeated according to my audio analyzer. So no edited and doctored videos don't impress me..
@muzicmaker2001 You never answer.. What about the Pierreli building? the IRS Building? Can you be man enough to admit little planes carved right through steel buildings? watch?v=zxn9pE7OAW0 single engine plane going 120MPH upload.wikimedia. org /wikipedia/en/7/7b/PirelliBuildingAfterPlaneCrash .j pg WTC impacts you can't deny watch?v=QbdfwRGFN9c watch?v=lSHm6_FuAFI watch?v=te6ncYbiQH0 watch?v=gkQU3eJvXMY WTC1 impact watch?v=f4I_uuU4N6E
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William Walsh, Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, Daniel Nigro, Brian Olauherty, Mark Stone, Jarjean Felton.
So witnesses backup the video.. Can you prove it wasn't airplanes?
@muzicmaker2001 So picture this. You go to court. A witness say "I heard a boom" then 100's of videos are shown that clearly indicate no explosions. Who would a jury believe?
So the official version is out there. Planes+Fires. What do you have beyond a few people saying they heard things that proves it was something else?
Why would MIT and Sydney university lie and say it was planes+fires? Do you want the number to the MIT researchers too?
It's high school physics that F=ma (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion). If acceleration is high, the Force is high even if the mass is low. That's how you get pencils embedded in telephone poles after a tornado. The jet had the force to cut through the building's columns even as it broke up.
For a look at what probably happened to the plane, go here: /watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
It's disingenuous to cite Newton's Third Law and not the Second. And all your 'experts' aren't Physicists nor Engineers!
I read comments sometimes about people who say:"oh,but the speed of the planes were enormous,that's why,it cut threw steel and concrete like butter....!!",well,an advice,pick up you phone,call up boeing(do not say,it is about 911,they'llbe embarrassed...!!and ask them if a 767or any boeing airliner,is capable of 540 miles/hour.....at sea level...they will crack up......this was another arrogant GOV lie....and remember airplane do not vaporise......
I read comments sometimes about people who say:"oh,but the speed of the planes were enormous,that's why,it cut threw steel and concrete like butter....!!",well,an advice,pick up you phone,call up boeing(do not say,it is about 911,they'llbe embarrassed...!!and ask them if a 767or any boeing airliner,is capable of 540 miles/hour.....at sea level...they will crack up......this was another arrogant GOV lie....and remember airplane do not vaporise......
@MrPhattdirty Well, we know the planes were going that fast from films and, in the case of Flight 93, from the flight data recorder. Perhaps your sources at Boeing were thinking they couldn't *safely* go that fast. That's true, but the hijackers weren't concerned with safety.
None of the airplanes vaporized. Where did you get that idea?
if you want to see a no plane video its here make of it what you will but there is no airplane sound and no explosion sound either. theres also no plane BTW
just imagine the wtc front steel walling and the wings tips made of aluminum was swiftly cut-through with no resistance to the building, just like a cartoon movie. there should be at least we can see from the clip that wing tips will not go inside the building and will bounce to the air some parts of it. man this is absurd really absurd!! there no such in this world an aluminum wing tip to cut thick metal frame even you fired it with cannon!!!
Even if the plane can penetrate the bldg. Parts of the plane will make it and others NOT. This thing whips through the tower like its made out of kite paper. Man; I wasn't there I dont know what happened. But 3 towers disintegrating into almost dust, exactly alike? And 7 NOT even hit by a plane? And you guys buy it hook, line, and WMDs. Where is that 6' 4" cave man, w/walking stick now? MI6, CIA, DI, ONI, cant find em. send in the crips/bloods/Hells Angels. THey'll get em.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
ur just repeating what everyone else has said lol. debunk this then... if a missile hit them towers.. did the missile crumble against the wall with decelaration or did it go straight through? it would go straight through yes? with speeds of 500mph I bet a plane could do the same thing.. only explosives would have to be placed so the wings could get sucked in. planes hit them towers.. just not hijacked ones.
On first i got to say that muzicmaker2001 is doing the same thing that in he's opinion the goverment/media are doing to all people... telling a lot of BS about 911.
I got only 1 question: how is it possible that 9mm bullet which weight 10-12g and is made from LEAD can pierce steel plate, wood board or flesh?? Isn't it strange?
P.S. I got to say that i don't believe that 911 was a terrorist attack, espacially after i saw what happened to pentagon.
@feluke A BULLET IS A SOLID OBJECT...... WITH ALOT MORE VELOCITY... and lead cant pentrate armor grade steel. AND LEAD IS MORE DENSSEEE... so IT CARRIES MORE KENETIC energy you ignorant fuck.... Bullets dont have wings either. You can stop the video and see the wind has made a clean slice though the STEEL WALL... with NO sign of damage. Then is explodes from the inside out.
It's funny how you show all those crash videos with cars and planes crashing into solid blocks of concrete and expect a building, which needs to have open space in it so people can be in it, to be just as strong. And about the part of Newtons third law of motion: did you expect the building to fall over?
I love how this video thinks it's making a point by showing car crashes at 30-50MPH. Yeah it really compares to something with exponentially more mass, and traveling at 10x the speed. retards
If you don't think that steel can be penetrated by weaker meterials then you're an idiot. Lead bullets penetrate steel. And if you want a plane to steel example, there's always ww2 and kamakazee pilots. And the empire state building. It's force, not the material used, the material is part of the equation (mass), the other part is velocity. Given the bullet shaped front, and the titanium engines on the wings, it did nothing out of the ordinary
@heafers84 bell end ,zip it ,what are you talking about.,kamakazee planes making holes i dont think so, only the engines of these planes penetrated not the plane fusilage,same in empire state,you talk about mass a plane is hollow alluminuim and for it to penetrate the wtc buildings would have to be doing a speed its not capable of,give your head a good shake and stop talking shit
@joiganja actually if you go to google images and look at kamikaze pictures you can see many pics where the wing goes through. They traveled at a much lower speed than a 767. The 767 would have hit the tower with the equvalent of about 1800 pounds of TNT. Also you have to remember they were spot welded and bolted not continuous, so all that is needed is enough pressure to break the joints, and only part of the exterior was steel
@heafers84 goes through where,not the side of the ship,if your talking about the deck then american air craft carriers decks were made of wood,only engine holes on the side eugene
@joiganja It's all about force, which comes from velocity and mass. The plane tears apart on impact but since their so much energy and the building is motionless and unable to absorb the impact the outer layers give way fairly easily. Again, bullets through steel. Much softer metal, yet penetrates steel. If anyone needs a lesson it's you in physics. The material has nothing to do with the force it applies. Density is constant, so material has no game here.
@heafers84 don,t think i need a lesson in fuck all ,for the plane to do what your saying would require a speed its not capable off plus it would fall apart before impact if it even got near the speed required as its not solid object,its hollow tube of alluminuim.
so they think that airplanes behave like a paper plane and just crumples up? look at the dammage that was done to the empire state building its its collison. almost identacak damage as far as the impact went (on a smaller scale). includeing ahveing the engins pass though the building and out the other side
Yo dudes you can clearly see a black drone fly across the screen at like 49 secs. Its hard to get it just right but you can see it clear as day. So obviously a missle guiding drone.
WOW THERE IS THE CLEAREST SHOT OF A DRONE I HAVE EVER SEEN at like at the very start of 49 secs. Man thats crazy. And as for a water, if it has enough psi behind it, it will cut just about anything. Water and aluminum shouldnt even be compared.
I think you sort of left out that the water is at a ultra high velocity and it is laced with garnet that acts as an abrasive force to cut thru the very thin stainless steel..
The point is that saying 'it's aluminum (soft metal) against steel' is not really an arguments... You'd have to do some complex calculations to show that what you see in the videos is impossible. I just did a quick calculation, and I think the energy being released on that specific part of the building is in the range of about 10 tons of TNT, using conservative values... Compare to a MOAB´s 11 tons. But don´t trust me, ask someone who does physics ;).
It's funny how complex calculations are needed for something as simple as a aluminum plane hitting a steel framed building. It's also interesting how we are expected to believe that the majority of Flight 77 disintegrated when impacting the Pentagon (concrete), but these planes freely entered the WTCs with no noticeable damage at impact. And complex equations are needed here also? No, I think I will trust simple logic...
In the same respect as you might be redneck; you might be a disinfo agent, if you dedicate your name and entire existence on YT to proving something that is supposed to be the acepted truth.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
Also the dependency on the reference frame is very relevant. But obviously misunderstood by the makers of the video, and most individuals making comments. Learn physics before you argue physics. Beyond that this video is a novelty piece for stupidity.
Does anyone here actually understand basic physics. I have read so many comments about the plane hitting the building at 500 is = to the building hitting the plane at 500. If you believe this then maybe you should go back to grade school. The important thing here is kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a product of mass and acceleration. It is also frame dependant. A planes KE is much less at 500 than the buildings at 500 simply due to the huge difference in mass.
So, you are basically stating that Newton's Third Law is wrong? Is that right? Can we apply your theory to other events on 911? Where was this frame dependent KE at the Pentagon when the majority of Flight 77 disintegrated upon impacting concrete? And, when do the densities of the material being impacted (steel vs. concrete??) come into play? Just curious...
The Pentagon had a completely different construction than the WTC so an object impacting it will react differently. As you may have noticed in several pictures that there was still a pretty big hole.
Why do assume A) the plane disintegrated on impact when there is no clear footage and B) the planes hitting the WTC remained intact?
A-There is no sign of 80 tons of plane from Flight 77. Where else did it go?
B-Watch any video of the impacts slowed down, The entire plane entered the building. There's no damage, no bending, no breaking, no debris falling and no immediate hole created in the building. Here's an example..
A) I have no doubt it was torn to shreds and then exploded. That's the sort of thing that is logical to happen.
B) They weren't filmed on high-speed cameras. You may get 7 frames between the moment of impact and the moment it's in the building. In each one of those frames anything with a high velocity will be blurry because the cameras aperture is moving to slow comparatively. You won't see details of the wreckage, which is why even car crash tests are filmed on high speed cameras.
A- Flight 77 was torn to shreds at the Pentagon when impacting concrete, but both Flights 11 and 175 freely enter steel? Not likely..
B-You can clearly see the supposed 500+ mph approaching plane, the impact, and the entrance into the building. Not blurry at all..You can also see debris falling after the impact.
A) They didn't freely enter steel. Stop trying to pretend they did. They were also torn to shreds.
B) Yes, and you're trying to view something going 500mph in a period of .25 seconds. In those 7 frames of impact you aren't going to be able to see the plane being shredded. That is why we use high-speed cameras during crash tests.
A- You keep making statements (assumptions) without any backing evidence. Where is the evidence that the planes were turned to shreds directly at impact? You can't use the only real evidence, the video. That would refute your own theory (B). So basically, there is no evidence, correct?
B-Again, I can clearly see that there's no damage to the planes (nose compression, wings/tail falling off, etc) , no debris and no hole formed.
A) Pot meet kettle. Without high-speed camera footage you can't say there wasn't compression. Where's the compression here?
watch?v=LVmRXAPeN-0
B) No you can't for the reason I've been stating. You also said you can see debris a couple posts ago. It also could be that you don't see the hole because a giant cloud from an explosion is blocking the view.
A) So it impacts and the explodes and you can't see anything definite. Weird. It sure would be useful if that were taken on a high-speed camera. I mean, the nose was pretty much the first thing to hit though.
B) And you're seeing it on a standard camera from far away with shitty resolution. Kinda hard to say anything definite about what occurred at impact, don't you think?
@voodoowichdoctor "according to american airlines flight 77 did not take off that day" yes it did??? Please prove otherwise, please shut the case on 911 for good. According to AA and the BTS Flight 77 took off that day.
Also saying:
"thats why the video mentions newtons third law
a 90,000 ton steel building hit the aluminium plane at 500 mph.
by the way
"
is the equivalent of thinking a 2.6g .22 bullet can't hurt me b/c i'm a 91600g man. LEARN SCIENCE PEOPLE
I no where even mentioned newtons third law, because from what i saw you have no idea how to apply newtons 3rd law.
Also if you really had any physics knowledge you would not ask such stupid questions. Maybe you should actually learn physics first before attempting to apply your faulty physics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That is not how N3L is applied, and a grade 6 understanding of the law. It is also incorrect. This is why I say I did not mention N3L Perhaps again a little bit of education is in order.
Ok, I'm sure you will tell me how it's applied...Ok, back to reality. Simply, two objects collide. The end result should be the same and is independent on which object is in motion. You act like this is brain surgery...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No the end results do not necessarily have to be the same. Kinetic energy. Learn it.
And if you truly want to know how to apply it properly, you have to learn it. It is not something that one teaches on 500 letter posts.
And brain surgery, it is not, but it is not as simple as most of these pseudo scientists seems to believe either. Similar to simplifying building a ship as making a dish that floats. Not that simple. This is what you and the no plane people are attempting.
"like a beer can"? deceptive gibberish. A 400,000 LB beer can going 600 MPH. Wow who's stupid now?
"images.usatoday. com /news/_photos/2002/04/18plane-inside. jp g"
Its called physics. Look into it. Planes have crashed in to iron buildings before and at much slower speeds and punched straight in. Look at the pics.
beccabratlust 1 month ago
@beccabratlust
You couldn't be on of those plants who travels to multiple pages related to YT defending 911, could ya? So, I'm sure you are unbiased and we should believe you?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago 3
Yes let's compare car crashes into 4 foot concrete walls at 40 mph to an airliner hitting relatively thin steel with nothing but glass in between at 450 mph, I mean it just makes perfect sense doesn't it???
RAFARO1986 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RAFARO1986 Amen! but it was a 380,000 pound car and it was actually closer to 590 MPH.
(F=M*A) 880fps x 380,000lbs 352,000,000 foot/pounds of energy.
A 204mm Howitzer has only 6,410,000 ftpounds
** so a 767 has 54 times more energy than a howitzer. **
I just can't figure out how people compare this to an aluminum can. How stupid is that?
MrRexquando 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk
Wow no witness saw it?
your either lying or been listening to liars.. Call Doug Eisler from Philly.. (2;01)
How about this piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
"farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/4368278387_58428ff65b.jpg"
Or this even worse "news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938236_tower2ap300.jpg" with a plane 3000 LBS going 180 MPH.
Proves my point extremely well no? Makes this video look pretty silly.
MrRexquando 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
So you have never addressed this. How about the IRS building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
"farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/4368278387_58428ff65b.jpg"
Or this even worse "news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938236_tower2ap300.jpg" with a plane 3000 LBS going 180 MPH.
Proves my point extremely well no? Makes this video look pretty silly.
MrRexquando 1 month ago 5
So by that Newton's law (F=M*A) 880fps x 400,000lbs 352,000,000 foot/pounds of energy.
A Howitzer has 6,410,000 ftpounds
** so a 767 has 54 times more energy than a howitzer. **
You saying a howitzer won't penetrate a building?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so point 1 fragility of the airframes? Then explain these two cases of tiny single engine planes slicing through steel buildings? Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
"farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/4368278387_58428ff65b.jpg"
Or this even worse "news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938236_tower2ap300.jpg" with a plane 3000 LBS going 180 MPH.
Proves my point extremely well no? Makes this video look pretty silly.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many examples of planes cutting through steel buildings. How about the irs building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
"farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/4368278387_58428ff65b.jpg"
Or this even worse "news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938236_tower2ap300.jpg" with a plane 3000 LBS going 180 MPH.
Proves my point extremely well no? Makes this video look pretty silly.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
Seriously? watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs
watch?v=xZSQWis66wI plane debris
watch?v=f-lc34jqDS0
You seriously don't understand the concept of momentum do you? 300,000 LBS going 600 MPH is going to shear through anything.
MrRexquando 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@MrRexquando
Wait. You are using other videos of the 911 planes and its planted debris to prove that the 911 planes were real? Uhh, what? How about any other plane crash where the plane enters a hard surface with no damage to the plane or surface? B-25 bomber VS. Empire State building=engines enter, majority of debris rains down onto the street. Or how about this clip below? Plane hits building and the majority of the debris is OUTSIDE the building...
watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Thanks for the civil debate and thinking through "like cases".
So this is pretty simple.
B-25 was flying less than 200MPH weighed less than 27000 LBS and was lost in the fog running out of gas (estimated less than 100 gallons)
As you know he empire is re-enforced concrete not steel.
767-222 weighs 395,000lbs and was flying at 600MPH and carrying 30,000 gallons of slower burning jet fuel.
Do the math on the energy (F=M*V) and you can see huge energy difference.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
So, there is NO other example of a plane striking a hard surface as if it were a hot knife cutting thru butter? Really? Catch up on Newton's Third Law of Motion illustrated in frame 2:23 of the video clip. To summarize, if we had a parked plane and slammed a steel wall into it at 500 mph, I hope we both can agree that the plane would be crushed. It would not enter the wall as if Wile E. Coyote was flying it.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 3rd law is for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction (in inelastic collisions). Unless you are talking about the energy imparting the beams after the collision happened? So the beams should have flown out at ~600MPH?
So by that Newton's law you agree (F=M*A) 880fps x 400,000lbs 352,000,000 foot/pounds of energy.
A Howitzer has 6,410,000 ftpounds so a 767 has 54 times more energy than a howitzer. You saying a howitzer won't penetrate a building?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 I routinely shoot a flimsy soft lead .308 round through stainless steel like a hot knife through butter. Is the lead bullet harder than stainless? of course not. Its physics. Do the math and you'll get there.
I have a cure for troother logic. Its easy. Let me hit you will a FULL flimsy beer can going 600 MPH. It would go right through you without even crushing the can.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Many examples. How about the irs building. Tiny piper cut right through steel frame only going 120MPH and weighing less than 2000 lbs.
"farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/4368278387_58428ff65b.jpg"
Or this even worse "news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938236_tower2ap300.jpg" with a plane 3000 LBS going 180 MPH.
Proves my point extremely well no? Time for you to prove it couldn't.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando the twin towers were made to withstand planes crashing into it. It's hard to explain that away.
jeremyelliott1 1 month ago
@jeremyelliott1 Show me where they were "designed" to withstand planes crashing into them? Skilling made an *estimation* they would withstand the initial impact (a 220,000LB 707 going 250KTS) but couldn't estimate the fuel burn damage.
The 767 is 400,000 LBS and the planes were going 600 MPH with almost full 30,000 gal. tanks of fuel.
No need to explain the real evidence away. Its real.
Show your evidence it was any other cause than planes/fires.. Oh right you don't have any..
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando Uhh the architects that designed it said this. Do you really think 2 big sky scrapers would not be built to with stand such things. They are high up in the air. What else would hit them. Use your common knowledge. You think the architects would make them weak so planes could bring them down. Come on man. use your common sense. I suppose they cant withstand an earthquake either. You really think they wouldn't have been fore thinking before they built the twin towers.
jeremyelliott1 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrRexquando 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeremyelliott1 You are dodging the question. Show me where they were "designed" to withstand the impact of a 400,000 LB plane going 600 MPH.
Common knowledge? How about show some evidence to the facts.
We all saw planes hit. The burden of proof is on you to prove they didn't.
Engineers don't design buildings to be bullet proof. Show me where there are engineering guidelines or codes for aircraft impacts.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
707 767 Comparison:
A 707's max takeoff weight=336,000 pounds. 767's =395,000 pounds.
707's fuel capacity= 23,000 gallons. 767s=23,980 gals.
707's length=153 feet. 767's=159 feet.
707's wingspan=146 feet, 767's=156 feet.
A 707's cruise speed=607 mph, 767's=530 mph.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Where is your source for this data? Cause Some is right some is wrong. Please site your source :) wi ki / Boeing_767 395,000 LBS radar speed of 540KTS before impact
"airliners . ne t / aircraft-data / s tats.main ?id = 87" 257,000 LBS
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Or address this?
1. Simple physics. Planes don't melt into buildings when impacting them with no damage to the plane or building
watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
2. Post just 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 of the WTC planes. Just your ordinary folks with no connection tot he media or government.
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
3. Post any evidence connecting ANY of the wreckage (engine??) from ANY of the four planes to the registered flights.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
It seems you continue to ask for evidence but never respond to it?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 But I did. Line for line just like "heafers84 " did and all the rest. names/interviews you just deny it. Why?
Do you agree a fully loaded 767 has the same energy as 54 howitzer rounds? Do you want me to prove that again? Prove me wrong.
Melting? Everyone saw the debris plums after impact. The pieces you would expect to survive like the main shafts of the engine (titanium) continued on and landed in the street. I'll show you a pic and you say it was planted..
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably COULD SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS of jet liners.." Frank DeMartini, WTC Construction Manager
watch?v=64W8bzXfGCA
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Here is what you were looking for watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU. Remember he was NOT the engineer! He was speculating how strong the building was. And he is correct WTC could withstand probably 2 but it couldn't handle the fires+impact damage as we all saw. He never mentioned fires did he? John Skilling was the chief engineer just so you can be accurate next time.
"The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry" Skyscraper . o r g
MrRexquando 1 month ago
You realize that were literally THOUSANDS of people who heard and had seen the plane right???
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Great. Can you post just 15 witnesses that saw the plane that were recorded live on 911? The reality is there are more witnesses of the WTC explosions recorded live on 911 than people who saw the planes. This is just another blind assumption with no backing evidence at all.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
Comment removed
heafers84 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Can you post just 15 witnesses that saw the plane " REALLY just 15, i expected you'd ask for the THOUSANDS i mentioned, 15 is easy!! Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William Walsh, Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, Daniel Nigro, Brian Olauherty, Mark Stone, Jarjean Felton. Also, of course there were explosions, there was fire, explosions are expected!
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Let's try this again. Just 15 witnesses (out of thousands) recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. And any "amateur" that captured the planes on video is eliminated for obvious reasons. Just your average folks walking by..thanx
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I don't understand why the 15 witnesses I gave you don't count? They were mostly FF and EMTs, some were everday people. Are you wanting live tv crews interviewing people in the street??? I thought we didn't trust the media? So why would you trust those interviews, you'd just call them shills b/c it doesn't jive with your fantasy. So, i'm not going to play the game with you, apparently NO eyewitnesses will do. I'm sure for you FF and EMTs are ALL in on it right? Fing moonbats.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
You removed your comment? You didn't read the request correctly. 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911. This means on video or audio, not just posted here on YT. Again, this should be easy with the supposed THOUSANDS that saw the planes, right? But, most debunkers dedicated to defending the 911 lie follow this same MO. First, they state the thousands even millions saw the planes. But, when asked to produce just 15 ordinary witnesses, they flee..see ya
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "You removed your comment?" No....it's still there.
"This means on video or audio, not just posted here on YT."
So.....you want video or audio of eyewitnesses but they can't come from a professional media source or amateur video. That pretty much eliminates EVERYONE. Again, if it doesn't fit your fantasy then it's just cast aside as disinfo. Face it, i could build a time machine and take you back to the day, and you'd say i faked it somehow.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
No, I think you are misunderstanding this. The witnesses themselves can not be someone who captured the planes on video or related to the media or government. And this is for obvious reasons. Just something like this...
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
Its not that hard...if there are really thousands as you claimed
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 so something like these 3 will do? Guys with ladder 24. On their way they see the 2nd plane hit the building
/watch?v=VPhTJjXyLpU
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Uhh, no. The interviewer is telling them that a plane hit. They didn't see it. And no media or government employees please...Just average folks of the "thousands" that saw the planes.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 No, at 1:15 he says and I quote "As WE watched the buildings, I saw a black, very large airplane fly right into the second building" Unless intervieweres that day were wearing FF uniforms with FDNY on them I'd say that is a FF saying he and other firefighters watched an airplane crash into the building
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Flight 175 was black? As stated before, no media or government employees..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "no media or government employees"
So....you're not taking the witness testimony from FF b/c their paid by tax dollars? Which means....you think the FF are in on it. You sir are a piece of shit, goodbye.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Did you actually read the original request? I've seen many "defenders of the 911 lie" just like you. You all first claim that hundreds, thousands, millions have seen the planes but when you can't even produce 15 ordinary witnesses, you run away crying like a little girl..take care
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "when you can't even produce 15 ordinary witnesses" You can go an read 100s of oral histories of people seeing planes. I can produce 100+ for the pentagon alone, but they're not credible according to you. Why???? The only reason I can think of is b/c it doesn't fit the imaginary world you've created. First testimony given aftwerwards is not good enough, i guess you think they're all paid off, then FF moments aftwerward are not good enough.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Witnesses recorded live on 911 reduces or even eliminates the chance for the media machine to alter the message. As I said before, there are more witnesses reorded live on 911 of explosions in the Towers than people who saw the planes...
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
...where are these THOUSANDS again?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 When we say that thousands saw it, we don't mean they were all individually interviewed, we mean there were thousands in the streets, don't you think if they didn't see a plane they would speak up and say something? I guess all of NY just got one fat check!
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
So, when you say thousands, you are only assuming this based on absolutely no evdience whatsoever, correct? Otherwise, you compiled a list of these thousands on the streets that saw the planes?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 The thousands are a logical assumption based on the MILLIONS of people living in the city, it doesn't matter if it were thousands, even if it were dozens. But we can logically assume that there were thousands of people on the streets or in offices that viewed the event. I personally have family that watched the 2nd plane hit from their office building. But of course they don't count b/c i'm a shill
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
But, if no plane ht the WTCs, what did the thousands see? Here lies the problem and why it is very difficult to produce even 15 ordinary witnesses recorded live on 911 out of millions of people. Assumptions can't be used as evidence.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I'm not using assumptions i'm using fing eyewitness testimony. When they ask for eyewitness testimony in a court room concerning murders, they don't just throw the testimony out if there's not a video documenting their claim 30 seconds after the murder. None of the thousands of people in NY have come forward and claimed anything besides a plane. Hundreds have given testimony to seeing planes hit the WTC and pentagon.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
This is been going for a couple of days now and it could've ended if you posted just 15 witnesses recorded live on 911. You originally stated that THOUSANDS saw the planes and have no evidence to back any of that up. If you are going to dedicate your time on YT to defending 911, come with some real evidence and facts, not BS assumptions..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@heafers84
"None of the thousands of people in NY have come forward and claimed anything besides a plane"
well..except for these people
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Way to clip so many of these as Jennifer Oberstein didn't catch the 1st plane, but did see the 2nd plane. She comes back from break, and confirms a 2nd plane hit the towers.
Karrim Arraki- he sees a plane, so i'm not sure why you put him in there??
Dan Dahler- hears something similar to jet "I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet"
cont.
heafers84 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
Jim Friedl - same program later describing the 2nd plane "You know, I don't know if I can say that, but it was a very odd type of turn. It was headed directly, directly, at the building"
So Jennifer doesn't see first but sees 2nd, Dan doesn't see the plane but hears it, and Jim sees the 2nd plane,
That's an amazing FAIL there muzicmaker, now i have another 3 people that saw or heard the planes on 911, thanks!!!
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
Uhh, re-read what you wrote. "Dan doesn't see the plane" So, is he a witness? Nope. He is actual a witnesses to seeing NO PLANE. And he's media. You're gtting pretty desperate considering you stated thousands saw the planes. Now, you have to use my own video of people that didn't see a plane and reverse it? Funny. And here's what Jennifer Oberstein stated..she didn't even know a plane crashed. Nice witness..keep trying.
watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@heafers84
You have to ask yourself this eventually. Why is it so hard to produce just 15 witnesses? I thought thousands saw the planes. Keep shoveling the BS dude..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@heafers84
Here's what has been said about Jim Friedl. Check out the entire clip of his account below. His account ends at frame 05:20 but there's no click as if he hung up? The second plane crashes and Jim is still apparently on the line. At frame 05:51, he says, “Was that a plane?” Frame, 06:04 he says, “Oh, my God!” And at frame 06:22, he says, “Grade 9, Chopper 5, Is anybody on?” where he is faded out immediately. How can he be in a news chopper?
watch?v=A_SGGwR4GiU
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I agree that he says "Was that a plane?" and "Oh, my God", but the "Grade 9, chopper 5 doesn't sound like him at all. Plus again, he's in your video also, so that makes you a hypocrite if you don't think his voice is credible don't splice and dice his quotes truther style to fit your fantasy. Yet.....even though all the people in your video you "claim" only saw an explosion, actually all saw a plane, you still keep it up, i can't be the only one to ever point out the flaw!!
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84
And how many people just call the news station to report something? The overall point? There are not even 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 and the ones that are seem a little suspicious. Sum it all up and equals NO PLANE and obviously THOUSANDS of people did not see the planes.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001
you keep telling yourself that boss, hahaha
heafers84 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You can also add Cardonna Rivera to that list, same video with Jim Friedl describing the 2nd plane impact. Probably a shill though, right? I mean it doesn't fit your story, so she MUST be a shill, only logical explanation.
heafers84 3 months ago
@heafers84 actually, mistake they were both describing the 1st impact.
heafers84 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Why are you spreading this misinformation? What is your motive? Here they are for the pentagon. "criticalthrash. com/terror/identification. ht m l" (remove spaces)
There is my evidence. You show yours. Prove planes didn't hit those buildings.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Here's some starters:
1. Simple physics. Planes don't melt into buildings when impacting them with no damage to the plane or building
watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
2. Post just 15 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 of the WTC planes. Just your ordinary folks with no connection tot he media or government.
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
3. Post any evidence connecting ANY of the wreckage (engine??) from ANY of the four planes to the registered flights.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Your a joke. People have been posting these lists and you ignore it. Reading past comments you make people jump through hoops and provide facts.. then you deny/ignore/disqualify it for your own silly reasons.
Fred Eichler saw the plane and gave his account on the history channel (not youtube). The planes were going 600 MPH. You could blink and miss he impact. The burden is on you to show what we all saw that day didn't happen.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
So, that's a "NO" on providing real evidence? I expected the usual denial, avoidance or rationalization so here's a simple question. Why do you think a FOIA act request for the wreckage serial numbers from ANY plane was denied nearly 7 yrs after 911 if this is common knowledge? Your thoughts? And its funny how "you could blink and miss he impact" but so many people caught the impact with rock solid detail?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 The wreckage is all photographed and cataloged. All public records dude. The identified compressor rotors, landing gear, power supplies, and 2 out of 4 black boxes. Why do you spread this paranoid disinformation?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Let me rephrase that. Post any evidence connecting any of the wreckage to the registered flights. A photograph of a part is not that evidence. These parts could've come from any plane. One way to connect the wreckage to the flights is by comparing the serial numbers stamped on the wreckage to the maintenance records. Do you have any evidence of this? If not, don't assume that it was done just by looking at logged photos.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Melt into buildings. Did you read what I wrote about the energy involved? a 767 has 54 times a 204mm howitzer round. You can't conceive how that would simply punch through hollow steel frame members?
Your turn. What happened to the planes/bodies? What did we see that day? What caused the massive structural damage and fires? Why did the buildings come down. We know what MIT/NIST and the scientists say happened. What do you say and why should anyone believe you?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Did you read what I wrote about the energy involved?
And did you watch frame 2:29 about Newton's Third law of Motion?
What happened to the planes/bodies?
No planes=no bodies, right?
What did we see that day?
A lie sold to the American public.
Why did the buildings come down?
A combination of pre-planted explosives and nano-thermite. FYI: The nano-thermite paper has yet to be refuted by anyone because it is solid science....
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 You don't understand Newton at all do you? F=MA is the law in his case not equal and opposite reaction. 54x a Howitzer! explain that away.
Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles (fact). Just like Value-jet crash.
Nano-thermite paper has been refuted by 1000's it was NOT peer reviewed (fact) and published on a "pay to publish" journal. Why was Jones fired? Oh right he wasn't following ethics guidelines for publishing.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
"Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles "
Do you mean in NYC? If so, proof?
"Nano-thermite paper has been refuted by 1000's"
proof?
"it was NOT peer reviewed (fact)"
proof?
Oh right he wasn't following ethics guidelines for publishing.
proof?
I wait patiently...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 You can Google like the rest of us or maybe not.
“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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Why is it you can post certain videos to prove your case, but in other situations, I must google it myself? I didn't ask for a quote from BYU. No idea what the relevance here is for that? So, speaking of lies, I'm still waiting for proof of:
1. Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles in NYC
2. Nano-thermite paper refuted by 1000's
3. Nano-thermite paper not peer reviewed
4. Nano-thermite paper not following ethics guidelines for publishing.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
He was fired you nit-wit for publishing outside of university ethics (not peer reviewed). Do you understand how the scientific community works?
I am done providing links/evidence/math/facts.
This is your case to lose.
The story we all saw is backed up by science and investigations.
Where is your proof it was anything other than airplanes and fires.
Proof. Physical evidence.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Still, no proof of the paper not being peer reviewed, refuted by thousands or not following the guidelines for publishing?This is the normal MO for debunkers. You make statements. You are asked to back up these statements and then you make excuses like, "Why can't you google it?" or " I am done providing links" or my favorite, " the burden of proof is on you" even though you made the statement. You have been posting links for a good week now, but you conveniently stop now? Ok...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Just keep denying it. See how for you get. I have sent you dozens of fact points you dismiss with no fact rebuttal. How is your 250C problem going? How hot is thermite again? I'll stop when you either prove your assertions or admit your full of it.
Again the "OS" is published public record. Show me your facts/evidence.
Show me how you are smarter than MIT with no evidence to back yourself up.
Disprove my energy calculations. 54x greater than a howitzer.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 I proved a flimsy aluminum airplane can pierce steel buildings (IRS Building/Pierelli building) little single engine planes going far less than 200MPH and then everyone gets quiet.
Your not seeking truth are you?
You have a hidden agenda. Your paranoid anti-govt. delusions have far out-run your intellect and knowledge of this crime.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Try again..
1. Body parts and plane parts were littered for miles in NYC
2. Nano-thermite paper refuted by 1000's
3. Nano-thermite paper not peer reviewed
4. Nano-thermite paper not following ethics guidelines for publishing.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Do you want me to just copy-paste from below? Your being a clown.
You need to post some evidence it wasn't airplanes / fires. Because MIT says it was. You better have some strong evidence to outweigh one of the most prestigious universities in America. What do you have?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
"You need to post some evidence it wasn't airplanes / fires"
If there were planes in NYC (population: approx 8-9 million) you (and the other horde of plants) would be able to produce the 15 witnesses. There also would be no need to deny a request for the wreckage serial numbers.
If fires were hot enough to weaken steel to failure, there wouldn't be people walking directly on top of the steel. This is very simple and you can put your howitzer away now...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Evidence doesn't equal a question to me to provide witnesses does it?
Evidence (once again) is something you could bring to court.
Look in our comments. Others have provided you witnesses. You ignored it.
So if nothing got hot then how do you explain thermite which burns at 3500C Thats pretty freekin hot. You talk in circles.
So do agree (I showed my math) that a 767 has the energy of 54 howitzers and could easily punch through steel beams? If not show your work
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26)."-Dr. Steven Jones
Google: "A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself"
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Well looks like he lied. Did you look at the links I sent from BYU.
We was fired for this behavior. Look it up. His science was flawed. If it was true don't you think someone would have sued over this or killed him to be quiet.
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Sorry for "nit-wit" :)
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 "en.wikipedia. org /wiki/Steven_E._Jones"
He published on a pay-to-publish site "jcp.aip. org /authors/open_access_publication"
They pulled the article and the editor resigned when it was discovered it wasn't peer reviewed
Long list of physicists disagreeing with him.
"drjudywood. com /articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.h tml"
NASA scientist Ryan Mackey
Frank Greening
"veteranstoday. com /2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/"
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 You were sold from David Ray Griffin school of brainwashing and won't even consider looking at any other sources.
Explosives get 5000C explain that? None heard/seen. Nanonthermite gets 3500C burns/smokes/sparks for hours explain why his wasn't seen?
Explain why you can't provide evidence of anyone cutting with thermite?
Explain how you with no evidence can claim MIT/Purdue/Georgia tech/ASCE/NIST are all wrong?
What is your motive for spreading these lies?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Explosives get 5000C explain that? uhh, what? nano-thermite?
None heard/seen
Refer to the other page in which I littered the page with witness accounts of explosions. I think you truly might be delusional.
Explain why you can't provide evidence of anyone cutting with thermite?
watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 So get your lies straight if people heard explosions it couldn't have been thermite. Thermite is almost silent.
Did you even watch your own video. It fails at the end! Seriously! No one has ever cut a beam with thermite. No evidence on the beams/columns showed heat above 1000C or explosive scars. I won't address the hand-picked witness accounts again for the 5th time.
Explain this one video. watch?v=bpHLC6yGqpI no thermite! No explosions!
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
CD explosives used in conjunction with nano-thermite explains the explosions heard. if someone using readily available ingredients can melt and cut steel with ease using just thermAte, imagine what can be accomplished with some of the world's most advanced technology at their fingertips? In clip you posted, the reporter actually states, "A huge EXPLOSION now raining debris on all of us." Did you watch the clip before posting it?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes the reporter does say huge explosion doesn't he. But you notice you don't hear one? You hear a "ROAR" of debris. Look a the building. No thermite, no charges going off.. Explain that watch?v=aJD7LaUKEAM
Show me ANYONE who can cut steel with thermite. It won't work. Hence people don't use it in demolition..
Can you admit Richard Gage said on his website ae911truth he was wrong and they don't exist? Why do you persist with lies?
I can re-send you the link..
MrRexquando 1 month ago 2
@MrRexquando
The reporter (that was there) states he heard an explosion and you (from behind your computer) states he didn't. Who should we believe? And its funny that you use this clip as evidence of no explosions.
Once again, thermAte cutting steel: did you miss it the first time? watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q
If this can be accomplished easily from this guy's back yard, just imagine what the military has...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 So are you watching these?
watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q (13:05) it FAILED even when he made pipe bombs it FAILED
On WTC2 You are missing the point. The witnesses (as addressed earlier) say all kinds of things. It was traumatic. But tell me what you heard? Not explosions huh?
NO Flashes
NO explosions
No puffs of smoke
NO SQUIBS
Looks like again we are back to Planes/Fires because you can't show me any prove (on 9/11) of anything else..
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Its like a broken record. You keep stating that noone heard explosions, noone saw flashes, etc, and this is even after you get bombarded with witness account after account of explosions and flashes. One part denial and two parts delusion, huh?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 So you give me a guy in his back yard that can't make thermite cut.
You send me traumatized/shocked victims saying I hear explosions. And I agreed things were on fire/popping/collapsing making all kinds of noise.
Yet no EXPLOSIONS are heard on ANY of the video tapes.
* So is it explosives or thermite?
* Why are none caught on tape?
Do you admit the plane can penetrate a steel building? Do you have math that proves me wrong?
Have you seen demolition in person?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Google "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers"
Or, if you like video, watch these clips...
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 So all the cameras that day and NONE capture any explosions? All you can give me is 2nd-hand after the fact "pop pop pop". Wow..
watch?v=mHS46q59820 Did you hear anything while it was collapsing LIVE?
Dude your paranoid govt. conspiracy has outrun your evidence.
Explain debris from WTC7 across streets and into other buildings.
watch?v=-UuXFHoX9oQ
Explain how you can't produce a "thermite cutter" that works anywhere in the world?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
This video is about the No Plane Truth, ok? but, here ya go..
Audio of Tower explosions: watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0
Audio of WTC7 explosions: watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Yk
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Yk was WTC7 and you think I don't know what video I am commenting on? The One BOOM was dubbed and repeated according to my audio analyzer. So no edited and doctored videos don't impress me..
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Try sticking to the no plane truth here, ok? You were suppose to produce just these two items:
1. Just 15 witnesses of the planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government
2. Any evidence tracing ANY of the wreckage to the registered flights
Good luck..I smell excuses?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago 4
MrRexquando 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Yep. Those were the excuses I was counting on. Address my previous post...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@MrRexquando
Yep. Those were the excuses I was counting on. Address my previous post...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk doug eisler
watch?v=glFk-JjFaT8 Jules Naudet
watch?v=qhfHFDPE1Sg Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi
watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho Kathlene
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William Walsh, Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, Daniel Nigro, Brian Olauherty, Mark Stone, Jarjean Felton.
So witnesses backup the video.. Can you prove it wasn't airplanes?
MrRexquando 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@muzicmaker2001 So picture this. You go to court. A witness say "I heard a boom" then 100's of videos are shown that clearly indicate no explosions. Who would a jury believe?
So the official version is out there. Planes+Fires. What do you have beyond a few people saying they heard things that proves it was something else?
Why would MIT and Sydney university lie and say it was planes+fires? Do you want the number to the MIT researchers too?
MrRexquando 1 month ago
why the doomsday plane took off
watch this
9/11 the third truth
voodoowichdoctor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's high school physics that F=ma (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion). If acceleration is high, the Force is high even if the mass is low. That's how you get pencils embedded in telephone poles after a tornado. The jet had the force to cut through the building's columns even as it broke up.
For a look at what probably happened to the plane, go here: /watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
It's disingenuous to cite Newton's Third Law and not the Second. And all your 'experts' aren't Physicists nor Engineers!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from muzicmaker2001
This has been flagged as spam show
I read comments sometimes about people who say:"oh,but the speed of the planes were enormous,that's why,it cut threw steel and concrete like butter....!!",well,an advice,pick up you phone,call up boeing(do not say,it is about 911,they'llbe embarrassed...!!and ask them if a 767or any boeing airliner,is capable of 540 miles/hour.....at sea level...they will crack up......this was another arrogant GOV lie....and remember airplane do not vaporise......
MrPhattdirty 7 months ago
I read comments sometimes about people who say:"oh,but the speed of the planes were enormous,that's why,it cut threw steel and concrete like butter....!!",well,an advice,pick up you phone,call up boeing(do not say,it is about 911,they'llbe embarrassed...!!and ask them if a 767or any boeing airliner,is capable of 540 miles/hour.....at sea level...they will crack up......this was another arrogant GOV lie....and remember airplane do not vaporise......
MrPhattdirty 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPhattdirty Well, we know the planes were going that fast from films and, in the case of Flight 93, from the flight data recorder. Perhaps your sources at Boeing were thinking they couldn't *safely* go that fast. That's true, but the hijackers weren't concerned with safety.
None of the airplanes vaporized. Where did you get that idea?
NonnyMus1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from muzicmaker2001
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You clowns are idiots. Maybe the B-25 plane that hit the Empire State building was a inside job. YEAH RIGHT
9-11 was a terrorist attack on America.
You clowns still thinking that multiple shooters killed Kennedy?
America did also land on the moon.
cbarsonfire 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cbarsonfire _clowns do not fart.....???
MrPhattdirty 7 months ago
if you want to see a no plane video its here make of it what you will but there is no airplane sound and no explosion sound either. theres also no plane BTW
watch?v=OuidyNA_PwE
this is a newly released video..
zenoist2 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
just imagine the wtc front steel walling and the wings tips made of aluminum was swiftly cut-through with no resistance to the building, just like a cartoon movie. there should be at least we can see from the clip that wing tips will not go inside the building and will bounce to the air some parts of it. man this is absurd really absurd!! there no such in this world an aluminum wing tip to cut thick metal frame even you fired it with cannon!!!
KelvongKlein 1 year ago
Even if the plane can penetrate the bldg. Parts of the plane will make it and others NOT. This thing whips through the tower like its made out of kite paper. Man; I wasn't there I dont know what happened. But 3 towers disintegrating into almost dust, exactly alike? And 7 NOT even hit by a plane? And you guys buy it hook, line, and WMDs. Where is that 6' 4" cave man, w/walking stick now? MI6, CIA, DI, ONI, cant find em. send in the crips/bloods/Hells Angels. THey'll get em.
I Cant sleep now.
translationwiz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
ctcole77 1 year ago
ur just repeating what everyone else has said lol. debunk this then... if a missile hit them towers.. did the missile crumble against the wall with decelaration or did it go straight through? it would go straight through yes? with speeds of 500mph I bet a plane could do the same thing.. only explosives would have to be placed so the wings could get sucked in. planes hit them towers.. just not hijacked ones.
ChristianHolloway 1 year ago
WOW!!!! Thanks guys!! lol
I guess anyone who is in a tank crew has no worries about small high velocity projectiles penetrating their heavily armored vehicles....
justin39640 1 year ago
On first i got to say that muzicmaker2001 is doing the same thing that in he's opinion the goverment/media are doing to all people... telling a lot of BS about 911.
I got only 1 question: how is it possible that 9mm bullet which weight 10-12g and is made from LEAD can pierce steel plate, wood board or flesh?? Isn't it strange?
P.S. I got to say that i don't believe that 911 was a terrorist attack, espacially after i saw what happened to pentagon.
feluke 1 year ago
@feluke A BULLET IS A SOLID OBJECT...... WITH ALOT MORE VELOCITY... and lead cant pentrate armor grade steel. AND LEAD IS MORE DENSSEEE... so IT CARRIES MORE KENETIC energy you ignorant fuck.... Bullets dont have wings either. You can stop the video and see the wind has made a clean slice though the STEEL WALL... with NO sign of damage. Then is explodes from the inside out.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
It's funny how you show all those crash videos with cars and planes crashing into solid blocks of concrete and expect a building, which needs to have open space in it so people can be in it, to be just as strong. And about the part of Newtons third law of motion: did you expect the building to fall over?
faraga1 1 year ago
I love how this video thinks it's making a point by showing car crashes at 30-50MPH. Yeah it really compares to something with exponentially more mass, and traveling at 10x the speed. retards
heafers84 1 year ago
@heafers84 ahhh, aluminum striking steel. yes, a retard
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@heafers84 thats why the video mentions newtons third law
a 90,000 ton steel building hit the aluminium plane at 500 mph.
by the way, if it wasn't for isaac newton, america would not have put a man on the moon.
voodoowichdoctor 3 months ago
If you don't think that steel can be penetrated by weaker meterials then you're an idiot. Lead bullets penetrate steel. And if you want a plane to steel example, there's always ww2 and kamakazee pilots. And the empire state building. It's force, not the material used, the material is part of the equation (mass), the other part is velocity. Given the bullet shaped front, and the titanium engines on the wings, it did nothing out of the ordinary
heafers84 1 year ago
@heafers84 bell end ,zip it ,what are you talking about.,kamakazee planes making holes i dont think so, only the engines of these planes penetrated not the plane fusilage,same in empire state,you talk about mass a plane is hollow alluminuim and for it to penetrate the wtc buildings would have to be doing a speed its not capable of,give your head a good shake and stop talking shit
joiganja 1 year ago
@joiganja actually if you go to google images and look at kamikaze pictures you can see many pics where the wing goes through. They traveled at a much lower speed than a 767. The 767 would have hit the tower with the equvalent of about 1800 pounds of TNT. Also you have to remember they were spot welded and bolted not continuous, so all that is needed is enough pressure to break the joints, and only part of the exterior was steel
heafers84 1 year ago
@heafers84 goes through where,not the side of the ship,if your talking about the deck then american air craft carriers decks were made of wood,only engine holes on the side eugene
joiganja 1 year ago
@joiganja It's all about force, which comes from velocity and mass. The plane tears apart on impact but since their so much energy and the building is motionless and unable to absorb the impact the outer layers give way fairly easily. Again, bullets through steel. Much softer metal, yet penetrates steel. If anyone needs a lesson it's you in physics. The material has nothing to do with the force it applies. Density is constant, so material has no game here.
heafers84 1 year ago
@heafers84 don,t think i need a lesson in fuck all ,for the plane to do what your saying would require a speed its not capable off plus it would fall apart before impact if it even got near the speed required as its not solid object,its hollow tube of alluminuim.
joiganja 1 year ago
so they think that airplanes behave like a paper plane and just crumples up? look at the dammage that was done to the empire state building its its collison. almost identacak damage as far as the impact went (on a smaller scale). includeing ahveing the engins pass though the building and out the other side
spcantwell 1 year ago
Yo dudes you can clearly see a black drone fly across the screen at like 49 secs. Its hard to get it just right but you can see it clear as day. So obviously a missle guiding drone.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
WOW THERE IS THE CLEAREST SHOT OF A DRONE I HAVE EVER SEEN at like at the very start of 49 secs. Man thats crazy. And as for a water, if it has enough psi behind it, it will cut just about anything. Water and aluminum shouldnt even be compared.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With enough force, water can even be used to cut through steel. watch?v=wPYwrFwQrN4
Idiots.
jnoort 2 years ago
I think you sort of left out that the water is at a ultra high velocity and it is laced with garnet that acts as an abrasive force to cut thru the very thin stainless steel..
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
The point is that saying 'it's aluminum (soft metal) against steel' is not really an arguments... You'd have to do some complex calculations to show that what you see in the videos is impossible. I just did a quick calculation, and I think the energy being released on that specific part of the building is in the range of about 10 tons of TNT, using conservative values... Compare to a MOAB´s 11 tons. But don´t trust me, ask someone who does physics ;).
jnoort 2 years ago
It's funny how complex calculations are needed for something as simple as a aluminum plane hitting a steel framed building. It's also interesting how we are expected to believe that the majority of Flight 77 disintegrated when impacting the Pentagon (concrete), but these planes freely entered the WTCs with no noticeable damage at impact. And complex equations are needed here also? No, I think I will trust simple logic...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
I use simple logic too; 10 tons of TNT can create a lot of damage.
jnoort 2 years ago
The 911 Truth Movement's mission statement - "If you got the times, we got the lies".
smartasa911twoofer 1 year ago
@smartasa911twoofer
In the same respect as you might be redneck; you might be a disinfo agent, if you dedicate your name and entire existence on YT to proving something that is supposed to be the acepted truth.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@smartasa911twoofer u don't know much about metallurgy, do u?
cheerdiver 6 months ago
Also a good vid: watch?v=L978nIT-AY4
jnoort 2 years ago
"10 tons of TNT can create a lot of damage"
In just one scenario (WTCs) or both (Pentagon)?? And, your link did not work..
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
Also the dependency on the reference frame is very relevant. But obviously misunderstood by the makers of the video, and most individuals making comments. Learn physics before you argue physics. Beyond that this video is a novelty piece for stupidity.
quedorf 2 years ago
Does anyone here actually understand basic physics. I have read so many comments about the plane hitting the building at 500 is = to the building hitting the plane at 500. If you believe this then maybe you should go back to grade school. The important thing here is kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a product of mass and acceleration. It is also frame dependant. A planes KE is much less at 500 than the buildings at 500 simply due to the huge difference in mass.
quedorf 2 years ago
So, you are basically stating that Newton's Third Law is wrong? Is that right? Can we apply your theory to other events on 911? Where was this frame dependent KE at the Pentagon when the majority of Flight 77 disintegrated upon impacting concrete? And, when do the densities of the material being impacted (steel vs. concrete??) come into play? Just curious...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
The Pentagon had a completely different construction than the WTC so an object impacting it will react differently. As you may have noticed in several pictures that there was still a pretty big hole.
Why do assume A) the plane disintegrated on impact when there is no clear footage and B) the planes hitting the WTC remained intact?
ZombieLifeStomp 2 years ago
That is my point.
A-There is no sign of 80 tons of plane from Flight 77. Where else did it go?
B-Watch any video of the impacts slowed down, The entire plane entered the building. There's no damage, no bending, no breaking, no debris falling and no immediate hole created in the building. Here's an example..
watch?v=IObpyT4oRKk
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
A) I have no doubt it was torn to shreds and then exploded. That's the sort of thing that is logical to happen.
B) They weren't filmed on high-speed cameras. You may get 7 frames between the moment of impact and the moment it's in the building. In each one of those frames anything with a high velocity will be blurry because the cameras aperture is moving to slow comparatively. You won't see details of the wreckage, which is why even car crash tests are filmed on high speed cameras.
ZombieLifeStomp 2 years ago
A- Flight 77 was torn to shreds at the Pentagon when impacting concrete, but both Flights 11 and 175 freely enter steel? Not likely..
B-You can clearly see the supposed 500+ mph approaching plane, the impact, and the entrance into the building. Not blurry at all..You can also see debris falling after the impact.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
A) They didn't freely enter steel. Stop trying to pretend they did. They were also torn to shreds.
B) Yes, and you're trying to view something going 500mph in a period of .25 seconds. In those 7 frames of impact you aren't going to be able to see the plane being shredded. That is why we use high-speed cameras during crash tests.
ZombieLifeStomp 2 years ago
A- You keep making statements (assumptions) without any backing evidence. Where is the evidence that the planes were turned to shreds directly at impact? You can't use the only real evidence, the video. That would refute your own theory (B). So basically, there is no evidence, correct?
B-Again, I can clearly see that there's no damage to the planes (nose compression, wings/tail falling off, etc) , no debris and no hole formed.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
A) Pot meet kettle. Without high-speed camera footage you can't say there wasn't compression. Where's the compression here?
watch?v=LVmRXAPeN-0
B) No you can't for the reason I've been stating. You also said you can see debris a couple posts ago. It also could be that you don't see the hole because a giant cloud from an explosion is blocking the view.
ZombieLifeStomp 2 years ago
A- Zombie, the whole plane basically erupts in a fire ball. Was that a serious example? Also, it's not a head on collsion????
B-I see what I see. Thanks though...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
A) So it impacts and the explodes and you can't see anything definite. Weird. It sure would be useful if that were taken on a high-speed camera. I mean, the nose was pretty much the first thing to hit though.
B) And you're seeing it on a standard camera from far away with shitty resolution. Kinda hard to say anything definite about what occurred at impact, don't you think?
ZombieLifeStomp 2 years ago
@muzicmaker2001 according to american airlines flight 77 did not take off that day
voodoowichdoctor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@voodoowichdoctor "according to american airlines flight 77 did not take off that day" yes it did??? Please prove otherwise, please shut the case on 911 for good. According to AA and the BTS Flight 77 took off that day.
Also saying:
"thats why the video mentions newtons third law
a 90,000 ton steel building hit the aluminium plane at 500 mph.
by the way
"
is the equivalent of thinking a 2.6g .22 bullet can't hurt me b/c i'm a 91600g man. LEARN SCIENCE PEOPLE
heafers84 3 months ago
I no where even mentioned newtons third law, because from what i saw you have no idea how to apply newtons 3rd law.
Also if you really had any physics knowledge you would not ask such stupid questions. Maybe you should actually learn physics first before attempting to apply your faulty physics.
quedorf 2 years ago
"I no where even mentioned newtons third law"
Basically right here. " I have read so many comments about the plane hitting the building at 500 is = to the building hitting the plane at 500."
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Sound familiar? My physics knowledge? Hmmmm..
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is not how N3L is applied, and a grade 6 understanding of the law. It is also incorrect. This is why I say I did not mention N3L Perhaps again a little bit of education is in order.
quedorf 2 years ago
Ok, I'm sure you will tell me how it's applied...Ok, back to reality. Simply, two objects collide. The end result should be the same and is independent on which object is in motion. You act like this is brain surgery...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No the end results do not necessarily have to be the same. Kinetic energy. Learn it.
And if you truly want to know how to apply it properly, you have to learn it. It is not something that one teaches on 500 letter posts.
And brain surgery, it is not, but it is not as simple as most of these pseudo scientists seems to believe either. Similar to simplifying building a ship as making a dish that floats. Not that simple. This is what you and the no plane people are attempting.
quedorf 2 years ago