NON-conspiracy wtc attack video chronicle - runtime 130 minuntes. upload is on my channel. Something NEW from that day. 130 minutes of NEW footage that is a continuous running account. authentic; pristine; uncensored. It is 9/11 as it was that day for most everyone outside of Ground Zero. Please take the time to listen/watch the over two hour authentic rarity. It will be one of the most prevalently known reference points for that day going forward. *****
who benefited from 911? why didn't anyone claim responsibility? why is it seen as an attack against america? is america all of a sudden a communist country that this attack was against everyone combined? i thought the slogan of the USA was "sucks to be you" when the shit hits the fan... 911 could have been a communist plot of some sort.
Fuck i loved the Twin Towers. It was what MADE the New York skyline. I wish they had rebuilt them and painted them gold and taller im not a fan of the freedom tower and surrounding buildings they look like theyve already been half destroyed!!
By posting this video and all the people who truly believe this is what happened, you are just disgracing the victims who were on those planes and their families. Over 3000 people died on that day, which means there were thousands more family and friends that are still suffering. If they weren't commercial flights than what happened to all the people who were on the flights.
@HockeyKilla73 Thanks for the nice reply. But just take a look at where the sun is coming from, how it hits the buildings. Then add logic to the equation. And you should have a plane that is white.
is that because all governments are benevolent entities? bit of a generalisation that isnt it? this video is clearly nuts i agree but judging everything by this crap doesnt do your argument any justice.
If you are tiring and losing focus l understand as many people do when they are asked to consider these events in terms of logical probability. Most go for the simple explanation provided by media and govt. Anything more demands the participant allow for the perceived impossible participation of the US govt and corporate media in the execution of the events of 911.
@SkulICrusherGhost HA HA! Losing focus? You allege that the (entire) news media likely colluded with the government on 9/11 to commit some major democide against it's citizens. What's your evidence? The only evidence you have provided is the early report by the BBC of WTC7--which--can be reasonably explained as having received a mistaken report. Perhaps its questionable, perhaps suspicious, but t in no way proves complicity and is at most very tenuous evidence.What else U got?
@SkulICrusherGhost Did you lose focus? We were talking about the NEWS MEDIA and their involvement in a conspiracy with respect to the way they covered the events of 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and the govt's cover-story are different subjects. Do you have ANY evidence that directly implicates the news media as collusive or complicit in the attacks on 9/11? Clearly you do not.
@saultrain l didnt lose focus l may have got to thinking about other things while l was waiting for you to get back on point but no lam well focused thankyou.
@saultrain Media involvement is a possibility based on such things as the highly suspicious report of WTC7's collapse which could not have been forecast even by qualified structural engineers, since NIST took well over 2years to give its theory of why it collapsed.
You might start opening your mind by asking yourself one very important question.
Is it at all possible that the US govt was technologically capable of pulling 9/11.
Morals and flags have nothing to do with the answer.
1) Any qualified building engineer on site would be aware of the history of fire in high rise and would never predict such a first time ever event.
2) If unqualified observers predicted this, the likelyhood of a major news org reporting it as a possibility let alone as a past event is remote and extremely unlikely.
So far you have addressed the first part of point 2
@SkulICrusherGhost So far as l said you have addressed the first part of point 2 and l will conceed that an unqualified opinion of an imminent collapsed forecast by firefighters is indeed newsworthy.
However, the report of this forecast as a transpired event is extremely unlikely to the point of being suspicious since this building is the first to have collapsed due to fire alone in the modern history of highrise construction, consider also WTC 6 was in far worse shape.
"NO WING HOLOGRAM": This is what happens when ignorance and arrogance collide--the propagation of misinformation to more gullible, ignorant people. Or, perhaps its disinformation, intentional BS just to elicit controversy and high viewing numbers. Either way, it's nonsense.
@saultrain It's what happens when people have already formed a conclusion before investigating and researching what happened. In doing so; they seek only to look for information that will support their conclusions; while ignoring all other facts. A shining example of the delusion of conspiracism.
@xFogxofxWarx You're talking about "confirmation bias". I'm talking about ignorance and the "overconfidence effect", which results in the kind of BS presented in this video.
My god...it's like the light was refracting off the wing and caused it to become barely visible...why this only happens with holograms!! Well....other than when it happens to damn near every plane you see in the air too...but other than that...only in holograms!
Hmm... So it was a hologram wich flew into the wtc?
Well, this would be secret technology. We dont know much about it either. Have you ever seen a 100% hologram?
You probably think that thermite was used in the wtc. How enormously dumb can you be, that you think to know all about holograms, but you think ancient cheap thermite was used???
The "possible" explosives on 9/11 are probably unknown to mankind. Thermite doesnt melt cars and let the building windows intact, on the same street!!!
@zumobster Not to mention even the most sophisticated holographic technology requires a surface to project the light off of. Without refracting the light off of a surface; it will not return to be seen.
@zumobster Yet truthers that push this theory overlook the basic logics of it. Truther movements are based not on logical analysis. Conspiracy theories in general are straw-man arguments made on misconceptions of understanding; and exploiting details that seem odd to common people; which is why the only experts consulted by conspiracists are done so out of their field of expertise (i.e asking architects about demolitions; and demolitions experts about politics, etc.).
"Truther movements are based not on logical analysis"
Well, reality is based on logics. The official logical analysis always sucks.
"Conspiracy theories in general are straw-man arguments made on misconceptions of understanding"
Everything is a conspiracy! It really doesnt matter if you believe in God, aliens, UFOs or evolution because 1 is truth. There are many socalled scientist on these subjects. Are they just misunderstood or is it a conspiracy?
You can not trust any scientist. You can not know if they have an agenda. Lets pick a dinosaur expert as an example. I am sure this expert can tell you all about dinosaur but it doesnt mean its true. An expert will have to answer everything. A truther will question everything instead.
What did dinos eat? How did they sleep? What were their colors?
I am sure the expert will answer everything because otherwise it will not make him an expert!!! Scientists need respect with NO Mistakes.
Three facts. 1. Hologram based on light. Light beam can not be stopped in mid-air without any kind of screen. (Hologram theory debunked) 2. Tons of amateur vids and photos cant be all faked. (media can broadcast fake material, but the lie will be revealed) 3. The jet planes were real but the belly of the plane tells that the plane is not a commercial jet plane. (Now let's hear how gay and wrong I am lol)
@jjmstick Never claim about anything what can be faked. It's easy to spread "evidences" all over the place (or plane) and hope some of them will be found:) And stop calling ppl with names. Try civilized way. U will be heard anyway.
you two need to realize that there isn't enough evidence to support either argument, you both obviously want the truth wich is awesome, but come on realy...redirect your energies to work together and find the reality of the situation
The arrogance of the DeBunker personality will invariably lead him to fabricate evidence. Liars always fall victim to falsehoods because they dont deal exclusively in truth.
You have to deal exclusively in Truth to recognize falsehood.
DeBunkers are happy to engage on a subject like WTC aircraft damage etc as long as they are able to have you standown with insults about your knowlege base.
As soon as their fragile egos encounter points they cannot rebutt they will routinley ask you what the point of the discussion is..
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo This is the Naudet film of alleged flight 11 impacting the north tower highlighting the six second late impact silhouette formation in unmarked WTC1 fascia.
ok... a secret society builds a missile launcher on the belly of the jet plane. Then they launch it just when the jetplane is about to hit. What's the point? And what kind of missile produces relatively slow and soft fireball and hardly gives any extra power? I think missile explosion is quite difference. But seemly it was a special missile. But isnt it easier to get the explosive material along the plane, in case it's planned to use them?
More interesting, I think, is the Naudet film of alleged flight 11 impacting the north tower. You can see in plain sight the impact silhouette forming from the right wing tip in unmarked WTC1 facia a full six seconds after alleged flight 11 completely passed through all that steel and concrete as if passing through air! Smoking gun proof of fakery.
@TODB0AMER Cameras were not as good back then as they are now man...If they were using a digital camera to film it then you would expect to see minor delays like that because the camera, with it's crappy frame rate and horrible automatic adjustment features, would take a moment to register the change.
@MrAwsome514 The Naudet brother camera showed the timeline of events frame by frame (1)alleged flight11 melds into north tower without deceleration(2)CGI looking explosion forms at impact point(3) left side explosion(4)right side explosion(5)smoke from top floor(6)explosion opposite side 20 floors down?(7)six seconds after f11 total immersion smoke clears to show small fire forming in unmarked facia(8)second fire forms to its lower left, upright steel still intact between both fires(9) impact...
@TODB0AMER ...silhouette forms right to left. "Frame speed" has nothing to do with this anomaly, how could the six second late silhouette formation register later than stages (1) to (6) listed above in the 2001 Naudet camera? MAGIC??
@TODB0AMER Are you familliar with the automatic features on digital cameras from the time period? Auto focusing with digital cameras was not just an optical feature there was also a digital alteration taking place. When ever something changes rapidly it confuses the auto focus and can cause distortions and even delay the appearance of new objects in the image. It can account for allmost everything you just mentioned.
@MrAwsome514 hmmm? can you show us any EXAMPLES of 2001 and pre 2001 camera technology producing this anomaly? namely events registering from light images six seconds later than they occured in real time?
@TODB0AMER You can see the same thing occuring in just about any video from that time period. People just notice it in the WTC videos because they ritualistically examin them much too intensely. If you stare into something long enough trying to find something you will find it... Weather or not it is actually there on the other hand is the real question. When examining other videos from the time period I suggest making just as intense an examination as you would the WTC footage. You will see it.
"If you stare into something long enough trying to find something you will find it"....
Really? I've seen every single video of UA 175 and WTC 2 and no matter how long or often I "stare" at them, not ONE video shows that airliner crashing & exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall. You have repeatedly failed to produce any video showing impact, instead you babble on about how it's possible for an entire airliner to magically pass through steel. REALLY?
@MrAwsome514 show me just ONE video where the 2001 or pre 2001 camera records a light image in time THEN records ANOTHER light image that occurs directly after it BUT six seconds+ after on the film ...like alleged flight 11 melding into the north tower and its 30ft short impact silhouette forming right to left in unmarked WTC1 fascia six seconds+ after flight11 impact/melding into the north tower ...JUST ONE!
All this proves is that this person had a crappy camera. It was likely a handy cam that had 1990's technology. Tons of other videos exist from different sides that show the entire event. You truther nuts need to stop chasing your own tales.
This, even traumatizing event + the unknown and the fear, can cause delusions and masshystery. Ur brains begin to produce "explanations" that fit better with ill mind. U start to see aliens, ufo's, orbs, and flying beer cans. Same time the old teachings colorize ur mind. Bad communism, bad islam, bad govt, bad illuminati, bad this and bad that. Soon u wake up, fart twice, and go to ur morning jerk.
the government / secret government is at least 40 yrs plus ahead of us humans they are getting this knowledge & help from spiritual forces & evil entities.
Is the beer can comparison a new trend in the camp of conspiracy theorists?:P So u have a giant beer can and if u throw it at the speed of 450 mph has same energy as 300,000 pounds jet plane? Something doesnt make sense. Even the landing gears of a jet plane can weigh up to 7% of the whole weigh. If only they hit the wall at the speed of 450 mph it causes bad damages. The kinetic energy is something u should learn. We are not experienced scientist so we cant say what really happens.
Gov to media: We need you to play this video so everyone will believe it's a jet crashing into a building. Media: Okay we will agree to do that and ignore the biggest news scoop ever. Gov to NYC people: We need for you tell others that you saw the jet with your own eyes. NYC people: Yes even when 1000s of our loved one died in that fake crash. Gov to all agents: Tell no one what happened here. Agents: We won't even though we would have a million dollar book deal. Sure this makes sense. NOT!!!
@guysmileytoo Honestly the only people who deserve to die are those who can actually be happy about the deaths of others... They are just too fucked up in the head to be allowed to pass on those defective genes.
.First, I want to say that I am very sad for what happened on 9/11 and I spend many time watching videos about conspiracies and stuff, and this is the first one where THE MUSIC has overshadowed the video. I dont want to be rude,but could anybody tell me the name of or link for this song please!I am a big music lover and thats all.Sorry if I insulted anyone, thats not my intention.Much respect for all victims and their loved ones.God bless all good people and give us strenght to resist the NWO!!!
come on, i believe that it was an inside job 100% but holograms i mean wtf are you gonna think up next!!??that the towers actually never existed too!!??
@plavins1 Actually as sad as it is... There are a small handfull that do believe that. It is mostly just a bunch of kids who were too young to remember the incident though.
@MrAwsome514 exactly i do not remember the incident too, but either way it is impossible for wtc7 to fall from a little fire right in its footprint, the same with WTC 1,2,it is just impossible, but if someone says that there were no planes but holograms thats just too far fetched, the same with people who believe every single UFO video that is posted on youtube, i believe ufo's that they are up with goverment and all, but if someone believes such fakery as billy mayer thats just sad
@plavins1 Actually a collapse of a steel building from fire is not unprecidented though it is uncommon and generally happens only in cases where the fires are allowed to burn for an extended period of time. Also even though most buildings don't collapse straight down like that you do have to also consider most buildings that collapse have their structural failure occure near their base while the towers had theirs much higher up which could actually be why they fell as they did.
One New York Plaza and Alexis Nihon Plaza...both PARTIAL collapses.
WTC 1,2 and 7 were COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. I asked you for examples of steel framed buildings collapsing because of fire, not PARTIAL collapses, shit stain.
@lmfecher A collapse is a collapse man... Hey here is a thought... if those partial collapses had been in towers as tall as the trade center with as many floors above them as the ones in the trade center had maybe just maybe that weight crashing down might have made a bit of a difference huh? You also have to remember those 4 buildings didn't have a mother fucking 757 jammed up their ass. Pretty sure that makes a significant difference.
There's a big difference between a partial collapse and obliteration, fucktard. You claimed that four buildings had collapsed from fire when obviously they did not. Get your facts straight, shit stain.
@lmfecher You were saying that it is impossible for a steel building to collapse at all due to fire. Even just a partial collapse is proof that fire can cause a steel building to collapse.
@lmfecher Yea... FIRE and a FUCKING 200,000 POUND JET FOLLOWED BY FIRE are two different things too. This is like comparing throwing a molotov coctail at a car with shooting a flaming cannonball at it.
@plavins1 Also you do have to remember it was not just the fires. All 3 buildings were severely damaged structurally. 1 and 2 had about 15% or so of their supports wiped out by the planes and several of the other buildings (including tower 7) were struck by falling debris from 1 and 2. Honestly I am amazed tower 7 was the only other one that fell considering how much debris struck some of the others.
@MrAwsome514 no i dont believe that wtc7 fell because of fires or debris, because if you have seen the plans of wtc7 you can see that the columns are placed asymmetrically so if even it fell down from fires it would be impossible for it to fall down with freefall accelerator in to its footprint, it would tipped over or something, and what are the chances that two towers hit by planes in different places fall down exactly the same way? it denies common sense.
@plavins1 Actually if you watch the video of tower 7 falling closely you can see the potion on top caves in first. Actually the collapse occured from the inside out originating at one of it's 3 main supports
@lmfecher But seriously... are you really this fucking stupid? I mean to believe the government was behind it is one thing but to believe that despite the fact that they could easily just fucking get a few 757s to use for it they would go to the trouble of faking it is just rediculus... Especially considering it would require them having hologram technology which is still a good half a century from being developed.
@lmfecher Oh hey here is another interesting thought... even if they did have holograms that they could pull this off with how the fuck is an abscence of video proof of it? A hologram would show up in a video so... yea... you would actually expect to see just as many videos either way dumb ass. So please... please do try to explain the "Logic" behind your reasoning.
I never said the planes were holograms, fucktard. The evidence is clear that the "planes" were CGI. Real aluminum airliners loaded with fuel would crash and explode upon impact AGAINST an outer steel framed wall. ALL of the videos show an airliner passing THROUGH the outer wall without first crashing AGAINST it.
@lmfecher CGI... Are you fucking retarded? Holograms make even more sense then CGI and they don't even fucking exist. Do you even know what CGI is? It means computer generated image. CGI is added to a video AFTER it has been filmed. You can't fool eyewitnesses with CGI and this happened in one of our most populated cities right infront of hundreds of thousands of people.
I know what CGI is, shit stain. How do you know the planes were added AFTER it had been filmed? Have you ever worked at a network? Know what program directors do? Ever see the movie, "Wag the Dog"? So it happened in front of "eye witnesses"...what about those eye witnesses who saw no planes, small planes, military planes and missiles? The only fucktard here is you, Polly. Got crackers?
@lmfecher hey dumb ass... editing a live feed still counts as editing after it was filmed. The camera films it and then transmits it to the station. Ever noticed how live feed allways seems a little delayed? That is because radio transmittion of the footage still takes a moment to reach the station from the location. And by the way... give me 3 days in new york... I swear I can come back with some one who was so wasted that day that he swears up and down he saw nyan cat do it.
@lmfecher You are a fucking moron... If it was CGI the entire city would have knowen it right away. Hundreds of thousands of people in the area would have seen what hit... and if they then turned on the news and saw something completely different they would have knowen right away something was up and started a fucking city wide riot... so tell me... were was the riot dumb ass? Oh wait... there wasn't one... BECAUSE THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS THAT SAW IT SAW EXACTLY WHAT WAS AIRED.
Who's the fucking moron? Hundreds of people DID see what hit. Some said nothing hit, some said a small plane, some said a military plane and some said missiles. But EVERYONE who saw it on TV, agrees it was a 767. So which "eye witnesses" got it right, shit stain?
@lmfecher Actually how about you take another look at what the witnesses ACTUALLY said. A lot of truthers have been misquoting them, taking parts of what they said out of context, and even a few have outright fabricated entire qoutes. The one you are reffering to that you say claimed it was a missile for example actually said quite specifically that it was a plane and then he said it came zooming across the sky LIKE a missle. This is called a simile... A comparison of two UNLIKE things.
@lmfecher And so your only proof is a quote where some one else talks about other people he says said it? When you start posting quotes from the witnesses themselves... mind you I mean full quotes because I will have no misrepresentation here... then I might be able to take you seriously.
@lmfecher Look man... you keep saying there are witnesses who saw a missle and yet you have sofar been unable to post a single quote from one of those witnesses. Your argument is simply laughable.
Since the state run media propaganda machine only showed some eye witness reports once (only those reports of "planes" were shown endlessly) what Suriya Santhoron saw was only aired once. He saw and heard a missile.
Now, be a good boy and show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
I didn't pretend, shit stain. The links you posted take me right to Haitian music videos and nothing even close to being a video showing UA 175 crashing AGAINST WTC 2. Now stop fooling around, be a good boy and find me a video showing what I asked for....a fully loaded airliner crashing and exploding AGAINST WTC 2.
As per your request, I typed in "AGAINST WTC 2" and ALL of those videos show the same thing, an ENTIRE airliner flying THROUGH the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2 without first crashing AGAINST it. There is no impact, no deceleration, no crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing or tail sections. Even the explosion doesn't occur until AFTER the entire airliner is INSIDE the tower. How does a plane pass through a steel framed wall without FIRST crashing & exploding AGAINST it?
@lmfecher When the plane hit the force of the impact was distributed evenly across the impacting surfaces of both the building and the plane. Put simply the plane was damaged AS it was passing into the building. It does not magically stop, break apart, and then pass through the wall...
F=MA. This is a fact. However, in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the applied force would be the IMPACT of the airliner AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of the tower. But UA 175 did NOT impact/crash AGAINST the wall, so no force was applied. The wings were full of fuel. Had UA 175 been a REAL airliner, the crash and explosion would have occurred at the point of impact AGAINST the outer wall.
@lmfecher You do realize you are trying to argue that a crash that hundreds of thousands of people witnessed first hand never happened right? Sorry but CGI can't fool the human eye once... let alone hundreds of thousands of times. If there had been no plane then the entire city would have knowen it before they even turned the news on...
Hundreds of thousands of people? After the first "hit" on tower 1, most of lower Manhattan was evacuated. The ONLY place people saw UA 175 "hit" tower 2 was on television. Even the news reporters on scene did NOT see UA 175 "hit" WTC 2. And where did the "eye witnesses" in mid town Manhattan see a plane? On the fucking JUMBOTRON in Times Square.
@lmfecher There are thousands of appartment buildings outside of the evacuation zone that had a birds eye view of the whole event... By the way you are looking into videos taken from insane distances with crappy cameras and are zoomed in ultra close... It is amazing you can even see the wing tips at all. The simple fact is the plane likely did get severely damaged upon impact but the video is too crappy for you to see it... I mean hell in this one here the shitty quality made a WING vanish.
"Crappy cameras" is your reasoning? LMAO! That's proof positive of your cognitive dissonance. When shown the truth, people will CHOOSE to remain in denial because the truth is too painful to accept. That's YOU Polly.
@lmfecher I happen to have worked as a professional photographer for a number of years man... The damage you would expect to see here would be breaks in the skin of the craft roughly the size of it's windows or smaller scattered across it's surface... Notice how the crappy resolution is too pathetic to even show the windows of the plane... let alone breaks in the plane's outer shell...
And I am a former US Navy aircraft mechanic, Gulf War vet and spent two years on the crash and recovery team. I know what aircraft can and cannot do and I certainly know what a plane crash looks like. I say again, had UA 175 been a REAL airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, it would have crashed and exploded AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2. Instead, it flew THROUGH the outer wall unimpeded. IMPOSSIBLE.
WTF? Since when does one have to post their resume on their you tube channel? I'm a Gulf War vet and spent six years in the US Navy working on several types of aircraft. I served my country Polly, did you?
@lmfecher Oh you don't have to post your resume on there... But you might want to take the little bit of info off that is contradicting your little lie...
@lmfecher Are you being serious? You don't even know which bit of info on your own channel is contradicting your little story? Well actually it is 3 pieces of info on there but I think I will just spend a little more time laughing my ass off at your futile attempts to find them before I tell you.
Laugh away, douchebag. I've got NOTHING to hide or lie about. I'm a decorated Gulf War vet and proud of my accomplishments. I've done things many men dream of doing and most women wouldn't even attempt. Case in point, I worked the roof on five different carriers and I was the first female EVER to be final checker qualified on the USS Ranger back in '88.
How about you, Skippy? Ever been in the military? My guess is no.
@lmfecher You really have not figured out which bit of info you have left up on your channel that is contradicting you yet have you? Here is a little hint... When you find it you will be embarrased as hell.
@lmfecher Well actually I am claiming it is information that you have sitting out in plain sight for all to see... and it would actually be you embarrassing yourself.
Face it Skippy, you've got NOTHING, NADA, ZIP. I've got nothing to hide or lie about. And there is certainly NOTHING on my channel or in my life I'd be embarrassed of. Are you sure you're not just projecting? Are you embarrassed that your ex girlfriend said she'd seen more meat on a cheese pizza? Just asking....
Try concentrating on the task at hand. I asked you to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of tower 2 and you sent me a link to a Haitian V video. Would you like to try again, Skippy?
The video i sent you does have the plane crashing in to the building. Why wouldn't it? Its hitting columns that are all of 6mm thick. If you scaled the tower to 2 feet tall the ext columns would be no thicker than paper. After that its wide open space.
Like honestly. How does one watch this plane video taped from 40 or 50 different angles and make arguments like you do?
The link to the video that you claim shows an actual impact takes me to a Haitian V video. I didn't request a Haitian video. I asked you to provide me with a video showing UA 175 crashing AGAINST the tower. What's the problem, can't you find one? After all, you're claiming it was shot from "40 or 50 different angles".
You said you were going to show me a video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST WTC 2. The video you linked me to does NOT show that. You work in graphics, right? Ever play "ghost mode" on video games? UA 175 flies THROUGH a load bearing, steel framed wall much like a ghost mode setting. Care to try again?
@lmfecher How do you drone on and on about this? We already have the example of a plane punching through a building in the Empire State building with the B25. Doing it at 1/10th the mass and flying about 4x slower. The ESB is an example of old school construction. They were running away from this design in the WTC. Which is a VERY light building. The ESB is very similar to the Pentagon and look what that plane did. 3 rings in.
@roquefortfiles Holding the Pentagon crash up as an example of how a plane can dissapear into a building supposes that a plane actually struck the Pentagon when no plane was found and no video exists of a 757 in arlington.
What you contend is like saying we will never run out of cheese because we can mine the moon for it.
@SkulICrusherGhost Another 911 glue sniffer? No plane at the Pentagon? Except for ... Oh..? Landing gear. Engine heat exchangers, the tires, shattered remnants of the cockpit. And enough "BOEING GREEN" to paint the Jolly Green Giant.
Boeing Green btw is a paint primer ONLY used on the back of commercial airliner parts.
It is everywhere at the P including all over the street in front.
@roquefortfiles None of that so "debri" has been positively identified by any government agency as having come from a B757... and if all you have left from a 300.000lb jet is a truck load of scrap then buddy....better stop sniffin that 911 glue !
@SkulICrusherGhost and if all you have left from a 300.000lb jet is a truck load of scrap then buddy.better stop sniffin that 911 glue !
What were you expecting? A Warner Bros style cut out with the plane sitting on the other side? Its hitting a 3 foot thick reinforced masonry wall at 500mph.
So I am guessing you'll say this guy is lying then?
And type in B25 empire state building. You get your question answered by rocket scientists. They explain the very thing we are talking about here. Well..what "I AM" talking about.. What you don't understand.
Go check it out. They're smart people. Kind of like the Purdue crew.
You know!! Aerospace guys, mathematicians, physics people.
People able to understand force and applied force that kinda stuff.
@lmfecher Case in point, I worked the roof on five different carriers and I was the first female EVER to be final checker qualified on the USS Ranger back in '88.
Go to flight school then I'll be impressed. While your at it maybe an education in Physics ??
how do you fake sound with a hologram? just curious..
Dankstankk 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NON-conspiracy wtc attack video chronicle - runtime 130 minuntes. upload is on my channel. Something NEW from that day. 130 minutes of NEW footage that is a continuous running account. authentic; pristine; uncensored. It is 9/11 as it was that day for most everyone outside of Ground Zero. Please take the time to listen/watch the over two hour authentic rarity. It will be one of the most prevalently known reference points for that day going forward. *****
TuesdayMorningInSept 2 days ago
who benefited from 911? why didn't anyone claim responsibility? why is it seen as an attack against america? is america all of a sudden a communist country that this attack was against everyone combined? i thought the slogan of the USA was "sucks to be you" when the shit hits the fan... 911 could have been a communist plot of some sort.
joshgura 3 days ago
@joshgura
The owners of the building wanted to knock the building down, but it would cost to much, this ended up being cheaper.
FACT.
Whiting1289 3 days ago
I don't even think these morons themselves believe all this loony 9/11 bullshit.
deq3er3 4 days ago
The video is not fake, it's not photoshopped, it's not CGI, and it's not a hologram. To see the answer, watch this:
watch?v=5cdqGte0488
saultrain 5 days ago 5
Fuck i loved the Twin Towers. It was what MADE the New York skyline. I wish they had rebuilt them and painted them gold and taller im not a fan of the freedom tower and surrounding buildings they look like theyve already been half destroyed!!
bjm351 6 days ago
Great research here, thank you!
We come closer to the truth, the victims of 9/11 deserve a new investigation.
deq3er3 6 days ago
@deq3er3 Do you think you would know "great research" if you saw it? Seems not.
saultrain 5 days ago
@saultrain
Dude, take it easy. I was just being sarcastic...well I tried to be. lol
deq3er3 4 days ago
@deq3er3 Sorry, but you know how gullible people can be. Peace.
saultrain 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By posting this video and all the people who truly believe this is what happened, you are just disgracing the victims who were on those planes and their families. Over 3000 people died on that day, which means there were thousands more family and friends that are still suffering. If they weren't commercial flights than what happened to all the people who were on the flights.
GeminiSon 1 week ago
The image was DOCTORED. Look BELOW the plane when the wing disappears - the grainy.blue.
Nonetheless, it was a false flag op, by a small country bordering the Eastern side of the Mediterranean sea.
jazzbanjobanjoman 2 weeks ago
Looks like someones been watching to much star trek and playing to many roll playing in mommy's basement.
keenanorourke0310 2 weeks ago
the birds are just like "FUCK THAT SHIT"
baconANDwaffels 2 weeks ago
DIMITRI KHALEZOV
Inigo37 2 weeks ago
@scatteredmist...yeah..dope not good....try weed :D
wietze23 2 weeks ago
y was there so many planes
MsQueensofqueens 2 weeks ago
So you're saying that the government's super-intricate web of intrigue was thwarted by a bad animator ... ? OH BROTHER!
Johnnysynth 2 weeks ago
Nice black plane on a beautiful sunny day. Thought the planes were white?
Izahdnb 2 weeks ago
@Izahdnb are u retarded or just trolling?
An2quamaraN 2 weeks ago
@An2quamaraN Retarded.. writing this from a mental hospital. Please come visit me some time.
Izahdnb 2 weeks ago
@Izahdnb its a shadow stupid ass mother fucker
HockeyKilla73 2 weeks ago
@HockeyKilla73 Thanks for the nice reply. But just take a look at where the sun is coming from, how it hits the buildings. Then add logic to the equation. And you should have a plane that is white.
Izahdnb 2 weeks ago
The wing is still there knobhead
scatteredmist 3 weeks ago
All conspiracy believers are smoking too much dope!
scatteredmist 3 weeks ago
is that because all governments are benevolent entities? bit of a generalisation that isnt it? this video is clearly nuts i agree but judging everything by this crap doesnt do your argument any justice.
S1elmx 3 weeks ago
Well its time for bed here so will pick up your responses tomorrow.
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
If you are tiring and losing focus l understand as many people do when they are asked to consider these events in terms of logical probability. Most go for the simple explanation provided by media and govt. Anything more demands the participant allow for the perceived impossible participation of the US govt and corporate media in the execution of the events of 911.
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
@SkulICrusherGhost HA HA! Losing focus? You allege that the (entire) news media likely colluded with the government on 9/11 to commit some major democide against it's citizens. What's your evidence? The only evidence you have provided is the early report by the BBC of WTC7--which--can be reasonably explained as having received a mistaken report. Perhaps its questionable, perhaps suspicious, but t in no way proves complicity and is at most very tenuous evidence.What else U got?
saultrain 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
@SkulICrusherGhost Did you lose focus? We were talking about the NEWS MEDIA and their involvement in a conspiracy with respect to the way they covered the events of 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and the govt's cover-story are different subjects. Do you have ANY evidence that directly implicates the news media as collusive or complicit in the attacks on 9/11? Clearly you do not.
saultrain 4 weeks ago
@saultrain l didnt lose focus l may have got to thinking about other things while l was waiting for you to get back on point but no lam well focused thankyou.
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
@SkulICrusherGhost Re-read my post which begins "your theory sucks". It's directly on point. Your response?
saultrain 4 weeks ago
@saultrain Media involvement is a possibility based on such things as the highly suspicious report of WTC7's collapse which could not have been forecast even by qualified structural engineers, since NIST took well over 2years to give its theory of why it collapsed.
You might start opening your mind by asking yourself one very important question.
Is it at all possible that the US govt was technologically capable of pulling 9/11.
Morals and flags have nothing to do with the answer.
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me repost if l may,
1) Any qualified building engineer on site would be aware of the history of fire in high rise and would never predict such a first time ever event.
2) If unqualified observers predicted this, the likelyhood of a major news org reporting it as a possibility let alone as a past event is remote and extremely unlikely.
So far you have addressed the first part of point 2
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
@SkulICrusherGhost So far as l said you have addressed the first part of point 2 and l will conceed that an unqualified opinion of an imminent collapsed forecast by firefighters is indeed newsworthy.
However, the report of this forecast as a transpired event is extremely unlikely to the point of being suspicious since this building is the first to have collapsed due to fire alone in the modern history of highrise construction, consider also WTC 6 was in far worse shape.
You may proceed..
SkulICrusherGhost 4 weeks ago
this is fake cleary. who tv station publish it first this movie?
MrVander78alex 1 month ago
@MrVander78alex Are you sure about that? The truth shall set you free:
watch?v=5cdqGte0488
saultrain 1 month ago
A normal human will not believe in conspiracies. In what time did you question the official answers? What happened for you to believe the opposite?
Are we all failures of society? Are we just jealoush on rich people? Is it personal hatred wich turns to others?
Conspiracies is BAD information. Normal people will seek for positivity instead of negativity.
(would you suspect something if your partner tells you: "i love you"... Its an answer to the thing you hope for)
zumobster 1 month ago
this music is not good for such a sad video like this fuck you
papercut1111f 1 month ago
"NO WING HOLOGRAM": This is what happens when ignorance and arrogance collide--the propagation of misinformation to more gullible, ignorant people. Or, perhaps its disinformation, intentional BS just to elicit controversy and high viewing numbers. Either way, it's nonsense.
saultrain 1 month ago
@saultrain It's what happens when people have already formed a conclusion before investigating and researching what happened. In doing so; they seek only to look for information that will support their conclusions; while ignoring all other facts. A shining example of the delusion of conspiracism.
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
@xFogxofxWarx You're talking about "confirmation bias". I'm talking about ignorance and the "overconfidence effect", which results in the kind of BS presented in this video.
saultrain 1 month ago
@saultrain I think the two tend to overlap. Nothing rational exists about conspiracism.
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
@xFogxofxWarx Yes, you're right. No need to split hairs here. Such biases typically function hand in hand.
saultrain 1 month ago
@saultrain ...and bias is the only thing conspirators can get right.
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
My god...it's like the light was refracting off the wing and caused it to become barely visible...why this only happens with holograms!! Well....other than when it happens to damn near every plane you see in the air too...but other than that...only in holograms!
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
Наебали вас америкосов, как ягнят, а вы гамбургеры свои развесили и верите всему подряд ))))
MrVELIMOR 1 month ago
Hmm... So it was a hologram wich flew into the wtc?
Well, this would be secret technology. We dont know much about it either. Have you ever seen a 100% hologram?
You probably think that thermite was used in the wtc. How enormously dumb can you be, that you think to know all about holograms, but you think ancient cheap thermite was used???
The "possible" explosives on 9/11 are probably unknown to mankind. Thermite doesnt melt cars and let the building windows intact, on the same street!!!
zumobster 1 month ago
@zumobster Not to mention even the most sophisticated holographic technology requires a surface to project the light off of. Without refracting the light off of a surface; it will not return to be seen.
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
@xFogxofxWarx
Thats a good point!
More videos have the same wingproblem, just like this one. Why would the wing disappear if it was a hologram? Maybe its cheap holographic.
Why would "they" use a hologram if its not trustworthy?
If the wing was intact, then what leads to the hologram theory? Are there any leads?
A hologram, or the missile theory, doesnt make any sense at all.
zumobster 1 month ago
@zumobster Yet truthers that push this theory overlook the basic logics of it. Truther movements are based not on logical analysis. Conspiracy theories in general are straw-man arguments made on misconceptions of understanding; and exploiting details that seem odd to common people; which is why the only experts consulted by conspiracists are done so out of their field of expertise (i.e asking architects about demolitions; and demolitions experts about politics, etc.).
xFogxofxWarx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xFogxofxWarx
"Truther movements are based not on logical analysis"
Well, reality is based on logics. The official logical analysis always sucks.
"Conspiracy theories in general are straw-man arguments made on misconceptions of understanding"
Everything is a conspiracy! It really doesnt matter if you believe in God, aliens, UFOs or evolution because 1 is truth. There are many socalled scientist on these subjects. Are they just misunderstood or is it a conspiracy?
zumobster 1 month ago
Truth?
You can not trust any scientist. You can not know if they have an agenda. Lets pick a dinosaur expert as an example. I am sure this expert can tell you all about dinosaur but it doesnt mean its true. An expert will have to answer everything. A truther will question everything instead.
What did dinos eat? How did they sleep? What were their colors?
I am sure the expert will answer everything because otherwise it will not make him an expert!!! Scientists need respect with NO Mistakes.
zumobster 1 month ago
Three facts. 1. Hologram based on light. Light beam can not be stopped in mid-air without any kind of screen. (Hologram theory debunked) 2. Tons of amateur vids and photos cant be all faked. (media can broadcast fake material, but the lie will be revealed) 3. The jet planes were real but the belly of the plane tells that the plane is not a commercial jet plane. (Now let's hear how gay and wrong I am lol)
Scumbot404 1 month ago
Shut up Skull Fukr
Explain how they found 2 of the Hijackers passports that day ?
In all of the debris of 2 towers pulverized, no chunks?
You must love the endless war on terrorism.
Go ahead and sacrifice more liberty and rip the Constitution in our face jerk...
Dimwit!
jjmstick 1 month ago
@jjmstick Never claim about anything what can be faked. It's easy to spread "evidences" all over the place (or plane) and hope some of them will be found:) And stop calling ppl with names. Try civilized way. U will be heard anyway.
Scumbot404 1 month ago
for god sakes the video has techno in the background
MrMetta4oricle 1 month ago
you two need to realize that there isn't enough evidence to support either argument, you both obviously want the truth wich is awesome, but come on realy...redirect your energies to work together and find the reality of the situation
MrMetta4oricle 1 month ago
The arrogance of the DeBunker personality will invariably lead him to fabricate evidence. Liars always fall victim to falsehoods because they dont deal exclusively in truth.
You have to deal exclusively in Truth to recognize falsehood.
SkulICrusherGhost 1 month ago
DeBunkers are happy to engage on a subject like WTC aircraft damage etc as long as they are able to have you standown with insults about your knowlege base.
As soon as their fragile egos encounter points they cannot rebutt they will routinley ask you what the point of the discussion is..
My question is why did they enter it?
SkulICrusherGhost 1 month ago
@SkulICrusherGhost As soon as their fragile egos encounter points they cannot rebutt
Like what?
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
is this bulding made by butter or something
Amer300986 1 month ago
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo This is the Naudet film of alleged flight 11 impacting the north tower highlighting the six second late impact silhouette formation in unmarked WTC1 fascia.
TODB0AMER 1 month ago
You can easily fool human eye (or more like brain that is responsible for processing what we see) but you can't fool the camera.
Spativm 1 month ago
No Plane wreckage at the PENTAGON. No Plane wreckage at the TWIN TOWERS.
The2012Eclipse 2 months ago
ok... a secret society builds a missile launcher on the belly of the jet plane. Then they launch it just when the jetplane is about to hit. What's the point? And what kind of missile produces relatively slow and soft fireball and hardly gives any extra power? I think missile explosion is quite difference. But seemly it was a special missile. But isnt it easier to get the explosive material along the plane, in case it's planned to use them?
Scumbot404 2 months ago
More interesting, I think, is the Naudet film of alleged flight 11 impacting the north tower. You can see in plain sight the impact silhouette forming from the right wing tip in unmarked WTC1 facia a full six seconds after alleged flight 11 completely passed through all that steel and concrete as if passing through air! Smoking gun proof of fakery.
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER Cameras were not as good back then as they are now man...If they were using a digital camera to film it then you would expect to see minor delays like that because the camera, with it's crappy frame rate and horrible automatic adjustment features, would take a moment to register the change.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514 The Naudet brother camera showed the timeline of events frame by frame (1)alleged flight11 melds into north tower without deceleration(2)CGI looking explosion forms at impact point(3) left side explosion(4)right side explosion(5)smoke from top floor(6)explosion opposite side 20 floors down?(7)six seconds after f11 total immersion smoke clears to show small fire forming in unmarked facia(8)second fire forms to its lower left, upright steel still intact between both fires(9) impact...
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER ...silhouette forms right to left. "Frame speed" has nothing to do with this anomaly, how could the six second late silhouette formation register later than stages (1) to (6) listed above in the 2001 Naudet camera? MAGIC??
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER Are you familliar with the automatic features on digital cameras from the time period? Auto focusing with digital cameras was not just an optical feature there was also a digital alteration taking place. When ever something changes rapidly it confuses the auto focus and can cause distortions and even delay the appearance of new objects in the image. It can account for allmost everything you just mentioned.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514 hmmm? can you show us any EXAMPLES of 2001 and pre 2001 camera technology producing this anomaly? namely events registering from light images six seconds later than they occured in real time?
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER (clumsy question)...OTHER than the Naudet alleged flight 11 impact into the north tower 9/11 example MRAwsome514?
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
@TODB0AMER You can see the same thing occuring in just about any video from that time period. People just notice it in the WTC videos because they ritualistically examin them much too intensely. If you stare into something long enough trying to find something you will find it... Weather or not it is actually there on the other hand is the real question. When examining other videos from the time period I suggest making just as intense an examination as you would the WTC footage. You will see it.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
"If you stare into something long enough trying to find something you will find it"....
Really? I've seen every single video of UA 175 and WTC 2 and no matter how long or often I "stare" at them, not ONE video shows that airliner crashing & exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall. You have repeatedly failed to produce any video showing impact, instead you babble on about how it's possible for an entire airliner to magically pass through steel. REALLY?
lmfecher 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514 show me just ONE video where the 2001 or pre 2001 camera records a light image in time THEN records ANOTHER light image that occurs directly after it BUT six seconds+ after on the film ...like alleged flight 11 melding into the north tower and its 30ft short impact silhouette forming right to left in unmarked WTC1 fascia six seconds+ after flight11 impact/melding into the north tower ...JUST ONE!
TODB0AMER 1 month ago
All this proves is that this person had a crappy camera. It was likely a handy cam that had 1990's technology. Tons of other videos exist from different sides that show the entire event. You truther nuts need to stop chasing your own tales.
HaIoedG 2 months ago
This, even traumatizing event + the unknown and the fear, can cause delusions and masshystery. Ur brains begin to produce "explanations" that fit better with ill mind. U start to see aliens, ufo's, orbs, and flying beer cans. Same time the old teachings colorize ur mind. Bad communism, bad islam, bad govt, bad illuminati, bad this and bad that. Soon u wake up, fart twice, and go to ur morning jerk.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
@Scumbot404
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
okay are you all listening to yourselves?
the government / secret government is at least 40 yrs plus ahead of us humans they are getting this knowledge & help from spiritual forces & evil entities.
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
NAVYWIFEONE 2 months ago
Is the beer can comparison a new trend in the camp of conspiracy theorists?:P So u have a giant beer can and if u throw it at the speed of 450 mph has same energy as 300,000 pounds jet plane? Something doesnt make sense. Even the landing gears of a jet plane can weigh up to 7% of the whole weigh. If only they hit the wall at the speed of 450 mph it causes bad damages. The kinetic energy is something u should learn. We are not experienced scientist so we cant say what really happens.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
If it was a hologram where did the sound of the plane come from????
dtowntexg 2 months ago
maybe it was one of those pentagon folding wings?
TODB0AMER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gov to media: We need you to play this video so everyone will believe it's a jet crashing into a building. Media: Okay we will agree to do that and ignore the biggest news scoop ever. Gov to NYC people: We need for you tell others that you saw the jet with your own eyes. NYC people: Yes even when 1000s of our loved one died in that fake crash. Gov to all agents: Tell no one what happened here. Agents: We won't even though we would have a million dollar book deal. Sure this makes sense. NOT!!!
Versul1 2 months ago
omg noobie :))
maxhasis 2 months ago
it is so good to see americans dying.
guysmileytoo 2 months ago
@guysmileytoo Honestly the only people who deserve to die are those who can actually be happy about the deaths of others... They are just too fucked up in the head to be allowed to pass on those defective genes.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
.First, I want to say that I am very sad for what happened on 9/11 and I spend many time watching videos about conspiracies and stuff, and this is the first one where THE MUSIC has overshadowed the video. I dont want to be rude,but could anybody tell me the name of or link for this song please!I am a big music lover and thats all.Sorry if I insulted anyone, thats not my intention.Much respect for all victims and their loved ones.God bless all good people and give us strenght to resist the NWO!!!
CROpiate 2 months ago
@CROpiate You can not resist it. It has already started.
jonthedit 2 months ago
It is simply a reflection, and this music is insulting.
stuartreilly96 2 months ago 2
that music is soooooo inappropriate
TheJRJimmyRecard 2 months ago
come on, i believe that it was an inside job 100% but holograms i mean wtf are you gonna think up next!!??that the towers actually never existed too!!??
plavins1 2 months ago 6
@plavins1 Actually as sad as it is... There are a small handfull that do believe that. It is mostly just a bunch of kids who were too young to remember the incident though.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514 exactly i do not remember the incident too, but either way it is impossible for wtc7 to fall from a little fire right in its footprint, the same with WTC 1,2,it is just impossible, but if someone says that there were no planes but holograms thats just too far fetched, the same with people who believe every single UFO video that is posted on youtube, i believe ufo's that they are up with goverment and all, but if someone believes such fakery as billy mayer thats just sad
plavins1 2 months ago
@plavins1 Actually a collapse of a steel building from fire is not unprecidented though it is uncommon and generally happens only in cases where the fires are allowed to burn for an extended period of time. Also even though most buildings don't collapse straight down like that you do have to also consider most buildings that collapse have their structural failure occure near their base while the towers had theirs much higher up which could actually be why they fell as they did.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Please share with the class ONE example of a steel framed building collapsing because of fire.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher
The McCormick Center in Chicago
The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania
One New York Plaza (partial collapse)
Alexis Nihon Plaza (partial collapse)
Suck it.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
McCormick Center fire...PARTIAL roof collapse.
Sight and Sound theater fire...PARTIAL collapse.
One New York Plaza and Alexis Nihon Plaza...both PARTIAL collapses.
WTC 1,2 and 7 were COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. I asked you for examples of steel framed buildings collapsing because of fire, not PARTIAL collapses, shit stain.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher A collapse is a collapse man... Hey here is a thought... if those partial collapses had been in towers as tall as the trade center with as many floors above them as the ones in the trade center had maybe just maybe that weight crashing down might have made a bit of a difference huh? You also have to remember those 4 buildings didn't have a mother fucking 757 jammed up their ass. Pretty sure that makes a significant difference.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
"A collapse is a collapse man"...
There's a big difference between a partial collapse and obliteration, fucktard. You claimed that four buildings had collapsed from fire when obviously they did not. Get your facts straight, shit stain.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher You were saying that it is impossible for a steel building to collapse at all due to fire. Even just a partial collapse is proof that fire can cause a steel building to collapse.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Partial collapse and OBLITERATION are two different things, shit stain.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher Yea... FIRE and a FUCKING 200,000 POUND JET FOLLOWED BY FIRE are two different things too. This is like comparing throwing a molotov coctail at a car with shooting a flaming cannonball at it.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@plavins1 Also you do have to remember it was not just the fires. All 3 buildings were severely damaged structurally. 1 and 2 had about 15% or so of their supports wiped out by the planes and several of the other buildings (including tower 7) were struck by falling debris from 1 and 2. Honestly I am amazed tower 7 was the only other one that fell considering how much debris struck some of the others.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514 no i dont believe that wtc7 fell because of fires or debris, because if you have seen the plans of wtc7 you can see that the columns are placed asymmetrically so if even it fell down from fires it would be impossible for it to fall down with freefall accelerator in to its footprint, it would tipped over or something, and what are the chances that two towers hit by planes in different places fall down exactly the same way? it denies common sense.
plavins1 2 months ago
@plavins1 Actually if you watch the video of tower 7 falling closely you can see the potion on top caves in first. Actually the collapse occured from the inside out originating at one of it's 3 main supports
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
"their supports wiped out by the planes"...
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher But seriously... are you really this fucking stupid? I mean to believe the government was behind it is one thing but to believe that despite the fact that they could easily just fucking get a few 757s to use for it they would go to the trouble of faking it is just rediculus... Especially considering it would require them having hologram technology which is still a good half a century from being developed.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@lmfecher Oh hey here is another interesting thought... even if they did have holograms that they could pull this off with how the fuck is an abscence of video proof of it? A hologram would show up in a video so... yea... you would actually expect to see just as many videos either way dumb ass. So please... please do try to explain the "Logic" behind your reasoning.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
I never said the planes were holograms, fucktard. The evidence is clear that the "planes" were CGI. Real aluminum airliners loaded with fuel would crash and explode upon impact AGAINST an outer steel framed wall. ALL of the videos show an airliner passing THROUGH the outer wall without first crashing AGAINST it.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher CGI... Are you fucking retarded? Holograms make even more sense then CGI and they don't even fucking exist. Do you even know what CGI is? It means computer generated image. CGI is added to a video AFTER it has been filmed. You can't fool eyewitnesses with CGI and this happened in one of our most populated cities right infront of hundreds of thousands of people.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
I know what CGI is, shit stain. How do you know the planes were added AFTER it had been filmed? Have you ever worked at a network? Know what program directors do? Ever see the movie, "Wag the Dog"? So it happened in front of "eye witnesses"...what about those eye witnesses who saw no planes, small planes, military planes and missiles? The only fucktard here is you, Polly. Got crackers?
btw moron, holograms do exist.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher hey dumb ass... editing a live feed still counts as editing after it was filmed. The camera films it and then transmits it to the station. Ever noticed how live feed allways seems a little delayed? That is because radio transmittion of the footage still takes a moment to reach the station from the location. And by the way... give me 3 days in new york... I swear I can come back with some one who was so wasted that day that he swears up and down he saw nyan cat do it.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
How do you know it was a "live feed" that day from the networks? Just because it says "live" on your TV screen, doesn't make it so.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher You are a fucking moron... If it was CGI the entire city would have knowen it right away. Hundreds of thousands of people in the area would have seen what hit... and if they then turned on the news and saw something completely different they would have knowen right away something was up and started a fucking city wide riot... so tell me... were was the riot dumb ass? Oh wait... there wasn't one... BECAUSE THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS THAT SAW IT SAW EXACTLY WHAT WAS AIRED.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Who's the fucking moron? Hundreds of people DID see what hit. Some said nothing hit, some said a small plane, some said a military plane and some said missiles. But EVERYONE who saw it on TV, agrees it was a 767. So which "eye witnesses" got it right, shit stain?
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher Actually how about you take another look at what the witnesses ACTUALLY said. A lot of truthers have been misquoting them, taking parts of what they said out of context, and even a few have outright fabricated entire qoutes. The one you are reffering to that you say claimed it was a missile for example actually said quite specifically that it was a plane and then he said it came zooming across the sky LIKE a missle. This is called a simile... A comparison of two UNLIKE things.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
"some people said they thought they saw a missle" Dan Dahler, ABC news.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher And so your only proof is a quote where some one else talks about other people he says said it? When you start posting quotes from the witnesses themselves... mind you I mean full quotes because I will have no misrepresentation here... then I might be able to take you seriously.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Take me seriously? You're stuck on stupid shit stain, and I could care less what you think.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher Look man... you keep saying there are witnesses who saw a missle and yet you have sofar been unable to post a single quote from one of those witnesses. Your argument is simply laughable.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Since the state run media propaganda machine only showed some eye witness reports once (only those reports of "planes" were shown endlessly) what Suriya Santhoron saw was only aired once. He saw and heard a missile.
Now, be a good boy and show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher I allready did that... You pretended the link was broken remember.
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
I didn't pretend, shit stain. The links you posted take me right to Haitian music videos and nothing even close to being a video showing UA 175 crashing AGAINST WTC 2. Now stop fooling around, be a good boy and find me a video showing what I asked for....a fully loaded airliner crashing and exploding AGAINST WTC 2.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher Here is a thought... how about you just type it into the search bar dumb ass. There are like 25 of them posted...
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Since your links don't work, I typed "dumb ass" into the search bar and the first link was to YOUR channel. Imagine that!
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher If you just type "AGAINST WTC 2" there is a plane impact video just 7 videos down in the list... Are you really this retarded?
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
As per your request, I typed in "AGAINST WTC 2" and ALL of those videos show the same thing, an ENTIRE airliner flying THROUGH the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2 without first crashing AGAINST it. There is no impact, no deceleration, no crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing or tail sections. Even the explosion doesn't occur until AFTER the entire airliner is INSIDE the tower. How does a plane pass through a steel framed wall without FIRST crashing & exploding AGAINST it?
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher When the plane hit the force of the impact was distributed evenly across the impacting surfaces of both the building and the plane. Put simply the plane was damaged AS it was passing into the building. It does not magically stop, break apart, and then pass through the wall...
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
F=MA. This is a fact. However, in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the applied force would be the IMPACT of the airliner AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of the tower. But UA 175 did NOT impact/crash AGAINST the wall, so no force was applied. The wings were full of fuel. Had UA 175 been a REAL airliner, the crash and explosion would have occurred at the point of impact AGAINST the outer wall.
lmfecher 2 months ago
@lmfecher You do realize you are trying to argue that a crash that hundreds of thousands of people witnessed first hand never happened right? Sorry but CGI can't fool the human eye once... let alone hundreds of thousands of times. If there had been no plane then the entire city would have knowen it before they even turned the news on...
MrAwsome514 2 months ago
@MrAwsome514
Hundreds of thousands of people? After the first "hit" on tower 1, most of lower Manhattan was evacuated. The ONLY place people saw UA 175 "hit" tower 2 was on television. Even the news reporters on scene did NOT see UA 175 "hit" WTC 2. And where did the "eye witnesses" in mid town Manhattan see a plane? On the fucking JUMBOTRON in Times Square.
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher There are thousands of appartment buildings outside of the evacuation zone that had a birds eye view of the whole event... By the way you are looking into videos taken from insane distances with crappy cameras and are zoomed in ultra close... It is amazing you can even see the wing tips at all. The simple fact is the plane likely did get severely damaged upon impact but the video is too crappy for you to see it... I mean hell in this one here the shitty quality made a WING vanish.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
"Crappy cameras" is your reasoning? LMAO! That's proof positive of your cognitive dissonance. When shown the truth, people will CHOOSE to remain in denial because the truth is too painful to accept. That's YOU Polly.
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher I happen to have worked as a professional photographer for a number of years man... The damage you would expect to see here would be breaks in the skin of the craft roughly the size of it's windows or smaller scattered across it's surface... Notice how the crappy resolution is too pathetic to even show the windows of the plane... let alone breaks in the plane's outer shell...
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
And I am a former US Navy aircraft mechanic, Gulf War vet and spent two years on the crash and recovery team. I know what aircraft can and cannot do and I certainly know what a plane crash looks like. I say again, had UA 175 been a REAL airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, it would have crashed and exploded AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2. Instead, it flew THROUGH the outer wall unimpeded. IMPOSSIBLE.
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher What a pathetic lie... If you are going to lie to me the least you could do is TRY to have your info on your channel match up with it.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
WTF? Since when does one have to post their resume on their you tube channel? I'm a Gulf War vet and spent six years in the US Navy working on several types of aircraft. I served my country Polly, did you?
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher Oh you don't have to post your resume on there... But you might want to take the little bit of info off that is contradicting your little lie...
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
And what info is that exactly, Skippy? I was an aircraft mechanic in the US Navy from '86-'92. That's a fact.
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher Are you being serious? You don't even know which bit of info on your own channel is contradicting your little story? Well actually it is 3 pieces of info on there but I think I will just spend a little more time laughing my ass off at your futile attempts to find them before I tell you.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
Laugh away, douchebag. I've got NOTHING to hide or lie about. I'm a decorated Gulf War vet and proud of my accomplishments. I've done things many men dream of doing and most women wouldn't even attempt. Case in point, I worked the roof on five different carriers and I was the first female EVER to be final checker qualified on the USS Ranger back in '88.
How about you, Skippy? Ever been in the military? My guess is no.
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher You really have not figured out which bit of info you have left up on your channel that is contradicting you yet have you? Here is a little hint... When you find it you will be embarrased as hell.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
Embarrased about what? Once again, I have nothing to hide or lie about. Why play games, Skippy?
lmfecher 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
I'm still waiting to be "embarrased as hell". What tidbit of information on my channel did you come up with, Skippy?
lmfecher 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
"bit of info you have left up on your channel"...
Damn Skippy, where's the information that you claim you have? I'm patiently waiting for you to embarrass me. heheheh!
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher Well actually I am claiming it is information that you have sitting out in plain sight for all to see... and it would actually be you embarrassing yourself.
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
@MrAwsome514
Face it Skippy, you've got NOTHING, NADA, ZIP. I've got nothing to hide or lie about. And there is certainly NOTHING on my channel or in my life I'd be embarrassed of. Are you sure you're not just projecting? Are you embarrassed that your ex girlfriend said she'd seen more meat on a cheese pizza? Just asking....
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher Penis size and Sept 11th?
That's a new one.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles
Try concentrating on the task at hand. I asked you to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of tower 2 and you sent me a link to a Haitian V video. Would you like to try again, Skippy?
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher I prefer Jiff myself. Its creamier.
The video i sent you does have the plane crashing in to the building. Why wouldn't it? Its hitting columns that are all of 6mm thick. If you scaled the tower to 2 feet tall the ext columns would be no thicker than paper. After that its wide open space.
Like honestly. How does one watch this plane video taped from 40 or 50 different angles and make arguments like you do?
That's a bit goofy.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles
The link to the video that you claim shows an actual impact takes me to a Haitian V video. I didn't request a Haitian video. I asked you to provide me with a video showing UA 175 crashing AGAINST the tower. What's the problem, can't you find one? After all, you're claiming it was shot from "40 or 50 different angles".
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher There you go!! More angles than you can shake a stick at.
watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k
This is VERY well put together. I work in graphics!! this takes time!!
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles
You said you were going to show me a video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST WTC 2. The video you linked me to does NOT show that. You work in graphics, right? Ever play "ghost mode" on video games? UA 175 flies THROUGH a load bearing, steel framed wall much like a ghost mode setting. Care to try again?
lmfecher 1 month ago
@lmfecher How do you drone on and on about this? We already have the example of a plane punching through a building in the Empire State building with the B25. Doing it at 1/10th the mass and flying about 4x slower. The ESB is an example of old school construction. They were running away from this design in the WTC. Which is a VERY light building. The ESB is very similar to the Pentagon and look what that plane did. 3 rings in.
WTC?
Ffffft!! Easy!!
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Holding the Pentagon crash up as an example of how a plane can dissapear into a building supposes that a plane actually struck the Pentagon when no plane was found and no video exists of a 757 in arlington.
What you contend is like saying we will never run out of cheese because we can mine the moon for it.
SkulICrusherGhost 1 month ago
@SkulICrusherGhost Another 911 glue sniffer? No plane at the Pentagon? Except for ... Oh..? Landing gear. Engine heat exchangers, the tires, shattered remnants of the cockpit. And enough "BOEING GREEN" to paint the Jolly Green Giant.
Boeing Green btw is a paint primer ONLY used on the back of commercial airliner parts.
It is everywhere at the P including all over the street in front.
Time to wake up?
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles None of that so "debri" has been positively identified by any government agency as having come from a B757... and if all you have left from a 300.000lb jet is a truck load of scrap then buddy....better stop sniffin that 911 glue !
SkulICrusherGhost 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkulICrusherGhost and if all you have left from a 300.000lb jet is a truck load of scrap then buddy.better stop sniffin that 911 glue !
What were you expecting? A Warner Bros style cut out with the plane sitting on the other side? Its hitting a 3 foot thick reinforced masonry wall at 500mph.
So I am guessing you'll say this guy is lying then?
watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk
Seems to be the pat answer from you nuts.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@lmfecher Hey. search
Aerospaceweb dot URG
And type in B25 empire state building. You get your question answered by rocket scientists. They explain the very thing we are talking about here. Well..what "I AM" talking about.. What you don't understand.
Go check it out. They're smart people. Kind of like the Purdue crew.
You know!! Aerospace guys, mathematicians, physics people.
People able to understand force and applied force that kinda stuff.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@lmfecher And yet you are the only one here who is incapable of providing evidence to support their story...
MrAwsome514 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lmfecher Case in point, I worked the roof on five different carriers and I was the first female EVER to be final checker qualified on the USS Ranger back in '88.
Go to flight school then I'll be impressed. While your at it maybe an education in Physics ??
Just a thought.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago