This video is very intense and emotional; gave me chills. But I can't help but think that this was a moment where us as Americans got to experience a horrible act of violence and terrorism, much like what we have done to numerous countries, especially in Iraq. We got a taste of our own medicine. I don't mean any disrespect..
I really feel bad for 9/11, but the people of USA don't know what their government is doing around the world. I'm from Serbia and i was 8 year old boy when USA bombed my hometown of Belgrade.At first they bombed only army targets but after a week or so they started bombing almost everything, national TV station, government buildings, even a hospital, bridges, they did not care just like these terrorists on 9/11. Of course American public was unaware of this,I just felt you should know some this.
@AirplaneSpottingTV Sadly most of the "no planers" never took a physics course. force and energy against an object = destruction, no matter what the it is made out of. It's sad they dishonor the victims and victims families. I don't really have an issue with people who believe in the conspiracy, but the people who believe no planes were used are just incredible assholes.
as much as i hated what happened here.. and as much as i miss my uncle, i hate the reputation that middle eastern people got from this. i myself am middle eastern and when im caleld a terrorist, it hurts because it indirectly is like someone is accusing me of killing the uncle who i loved dearly. RIP uncle Ramzi, i miss you man
@BLAZIKEN90000000 Disgusting. You are a miserable excuse for a person. That you feel the need to attract attention to yourself even in the face of the most suffering that we Americans have ever experienced in order to fulfill your egocentric desires is deplorable.
I reckon half of the population of New York City said "Holy shit!" when they saw the second impact. And another thing that i would have loved to known; Who were the Devils that were flying the planes.
@xXDinoman1997Xx holograms, some of the angles shown you can see the right wing disappears before impact, never believed it myself but we are dealing with evil scientific tyrants.
@xXDinoman1997Xx dont listen to that shit face smokeweedalldaycuz hes a fucking peice of unpatriotic shit. the real devils were the fuckfaces that were at war with and will continue to be at war with them until every one of them is wiped out.
@techgeek97 Yeah. Don't worry. I didn't. Holograms? That's just really stupid. And I agree with you. For too long those evil people have been killing good soldiers, whether it be Americans or British or anyone who's against them, and giving the Muslims a very bad name. Terrorists are scum, and deserve to be annihilated.
I think the title of this video isn't correct. We can't see any "impact" of a plane. We see planes going though a wall without any collision (no resistance at all) and allegedly exploding inside a building.
So no impact at all. "Penetration" would be correct.
@escalopin2 Man come on... quit trying to be smart and think for a second. If there was no impact the plane would have came out the other side unharmed...
I'm not trying to be smart. If there was an impact the whole plane would'nt have penetrated the building. There is no collision against the wall, so no "impact against": penetration through.
A bullet that penetrates the chest of a man doesn't "impact" against the chest . In fact, the planes that we see are like penetration bullets creating an internal explosion. There's a piercing of the wall and after that an explosion. Before the explosion there is no resistance.
When two objects hit each other, it is called impact. The results of that impact do not matter. It doesn't matter if the plane keeps moving, it doesn't matter if the plane disintegrates. It wouldn't have mattered if the tower had blown up immediately on impact.
It is still an impact regardless of whatever happens after it.
So, there can be an "impact" wiithout any resistance, nor force applied by one of the objects. You see in TV an aluminium plane going through a skyscraper and exploding inside, and that's an "impact". The result of the "impact", especially if we see the "impact" in TV, doesn't matter. Like in the movies with special effects.
@escalopin2 You cannot assume there was no force applied without any proof of your assertion. It is a logical fallacy to base your argument on something that may not be true.
Prove to me there was no force, and then we can have an actual argument. At the moment it's just you spouting pointless bullcrap.
Last words: if you say that there was a force applied YOU should prove it. Do the images that we saw on TV show us that there was a force applied by the steel framed building to the aluminium plane? If the force was applied, why the plane went through the wall whitout losing a screw instead of crashing against it? No crash = no deceleration = no resistance. Special effects.
I asume that no force was applied basically because the images show that no force was applied.
I only have one question. how come the military didn't intercept the planes the second they went off their flight plans. All planes fly on a specific flight plan or line that they have to follow. The only way f-16 weren't deployed is because they were told not to.
@DrNoth wow try using common sense. Hijackings happened before 911 and the hijackers took the plane off path until they said they would have their demands met they didnt know it was going to be a suicide attack and if the government shot down the planes you conspiracy theorists would say its some other kind of " world take over plot" no matter what happens you will always bash the government
dunno how you guys feel about it but this footage gives me some kind of cloverfield feeling - i mean the people on the street basically don't know what's going on and then WHAM a second plane comes crashing in and i mean nobody knew at this point how many more attacks there would be... that's dense!
Story of Islam: A crazy, insecure and horny man named muhammed created 'allah', an imaginary friend. His imaginary friend tells him it's OK to murder people that make fun of him, marry & fuck a little 9 year old girl, have sex slaves, steal, demand submission and kill the Jews/infidels. Muhammed preached this evil and gathered up some other asswipes and started 'islam', where crazy, insecure and horny men use the excuse of 'allah' to fuck children, rape, beat, terrorize & murder the infidel.
And if anybody else would like the full explanation of how I calculated the force exerted on the tower, feel free to message me, I'll be happy to provide you with it.
It's surprisingly simple. I hope lmfecher can understand it from under his bridge.
@ymechaie thats the kind of thinking that needs to be changed, its the rulers of america and not its citizens that are to blame, its the same in every single country in the world, every colour every religion, the powerfull dont bat an eyelid at sacrificing the powerless , even if its thier own.
I dont get how the fuck a plane could bring down an entire building?! I believe that it hit it, I see it but how in the world did a jet plane bring down a strong building made of steel?!
@weppi91 Well the corners of such a tall bulding are needed to keep the structure from falling, and that plane hit the tower really close to the corner. That caused it to topple and then come crashing down.
@Shadrulez Even if it did hit the corner, how about the other building? Two large buildings? Really? The engineering behind it was so complicated and made to build it really strong that its fishy that two small planes destroyed it all. I strongly do not believe that by hitting the corners of the building the entire building topples down. There had to be explosives from within to have caused it to collapse in such a short amount of time.
@weppi91 Do you have any idea about engineering whatsoever?
No. You don't. If you take out one support for a building, the rest receive more of the load. As more and more supports failed in the fire, the building came closer and closer to collapsing.
These were not "small" planes. They were wide-body 767 jets, laden with over 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel.
You call it "fishy" that two large airplanes were able to take down the towers? I call it logical.
@DaWolf805 You dont need to be an engineer to know that! Why did the building collapse inwardly? I still believe there were explosives inside the building as many people who were in and around the buildings heard it. But on the jets issue, those were not regular passenger jets! They freakin looked like missiles! the entire thing was FISHY!
@weppi91 They looked like missiles? Did you even watch the video you are commenting on? There are plenty of shots in which it is clearly apparent that is is a plane that you see.
The cracking people would have heard is perfectly explainable - you see, when tons of steel collapse, it tends to snap, rather than bend. Hence loud cracking noises that sound much like explosions.
It collapsed straight down because that is the direction of gravity and hence the direction of the force on the building.
@DaWolf805 Before the planes hit, people heard explosions! And Yes, missiles disguised to look like a jet plane. Thats what it looked like, there are videos that show that the plane looked odd and similar to a military air craft. Im no expert on this, but I do believe the government was def in on this.
@weppi91 Why would the government blow up the Twin Towers? I doubt Bush was even intelligent enough to be able to decipher a plan like that.
Missiles disguised to look like a plane. I have never heard such a ridiculous thing in my life. A missile that large would most likely have demo'ed both the Twin Towers on the first impact.
And explain where the planes went, and the air traffic controllers who saw them disappear over Manhattan.
You don't have any real proof, yet you continue to believe.
@DaWolf805 its true go to 850 and watch ill bet you'll see 2 planes one alot fast than the other stealth F-117 Stealth Fighter EPS or a similar model shot the WTC with a missile disguising it to general news casts some show no 2nd plane show proof i see 2 planes at 850 you wouldnt barely see that jet from the ground that thing moves thats why its meant for stealth,and its potential explosive rate
@MrSimpleplain I suggest you get glasses. That "second plane" is actually a bird. It looks like it's moving faster than the plane because it's relatively very close to the camera.
@DaWolf805 I think the government twisted the evidence. We definitely don't know what really happened. And yea its obvious our government didn't blow the towers.
If UA 175 was a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, there would have been an explosion when it crashed AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2. Instead, the ENTIRE airliner passes THROUGH the outer steel framed wall without crashing against it and explodes INSIDE the tower.
This is impossible feat for an airliner, but it's exactly what a JASSM missile is designed to do.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
"what bout the missing people on the flights retard"....
I didn't ask "bout the missing people".. I asked, "How is it possible that a 767 loaded with fuel doesn't crash against and explode when it impacts the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2?" Why doesn't the explosion occur until AFTER the ENTIRE AIRLINER passes THROUGH the outer wall and is INSIDE the tower?
Because momentum applies to jet fuel the same as it does all other forms of matter. This is like asking why a victim of a head on collision's brain doesn't splatter _precisely_ at the point of impact between the two cars.
You _do_ know the building had windows, right? That it _wasn't a a solid column of steel? The "outer wall" was made of 1/4 inch steel columns, and glass. That's 0.25 inches thick. Kamikaze pilots in WW2 had _no_ trouble breaching much, much thicker stuff.
F=MA when FORCE is applied. However, in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the force applied would be the IMPACT of UA 175 AGAINST tower 2. No impact=no applied force.
The windows were 18 inches apart, separated by load bearing steel columns. How could an airliner loaded with fuel pass THROUGH those steel columns without CRASHING and EXPLODING AGAINST them?
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
Since I wasn't invited to the planning stages meeting for the "attacks" on 9/11, I can only speculate on what they used for the initial shock and awe, but I do know what they didn't use and that was hijacked commercial airliners.
The videos were faked.
Planes crash and explode AGAINST steel framed buildings, they do not fly THROUGH them.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
@lmfecher dont start the wake up shit with me!! the day it happend i said it was a demolition so dont try and school me... planes where used, the government new it was happening and planted explosives when they did the work in the elevator shafts in march.. the holographic plane theory spits in the face of the truth movement!! the only thing that wasnt a plane is the thing that hit the pentagon!
And don't start your arrogant shit with me, dick! I never said it was a hologram, EVER. You said planes were used, then please explain how a commercial airliner loaded with fuel can pass through the outer steel framed wall without FIRST crashing and exploding AGAINST it.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11. They did not hit the towers, the Pent-a-con OR crash in Shanksville.
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
I accept your apology because I know we're both on the same page. Commercial airliners are made up of lightweight aluminum alloys strong enough for the stressors of flight, take offs and landings, but not strong enough to slice through the outer steel framed, load bearing wall. The videos show even the WINGTIPS slicing through steel beams. And where does UA 175 SLAM AGAINST the outer wall? It doesn't. It passes right THROUGH it.
@lmfecher I don't really think you understand the concept of force. For everybody else's benefit, I'll point out that according to my calculations, using accepted or easily observable values, 3,394,787 pounds of force were exerted on the South Tower by Flight 175 during impact.
That is astronomical. There is no way the plane could NOT slice through the tower with that kind of force.
As for you, lmfecher, since you don't seem to quite understand physics I've messaged you the full explanation.
In order for force to be applied, there has to be crash or an impact. In the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the airliner does NOT crash AGAINST the outer steel framed wall, it flies right through it. Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer wall of WTC 2.
@lmfecher To be more exact - I divided the change in momentum by the change in time to get the force. A collision does not have to be instantaneous for that to apply - in fact, if it is instantaneous the calculation would be invalid as you'd be dividing by zero.
The fact that there was no instantaneous impact proves my point rather than debunking it.
And you imagine a cheese grater effect because that's what the COMPUTER simulations show! The simulations, just like the faked videos, don't show IMPACT either. Had UA 175 been a REAL airliner loaded with fuel, it would have CRASHED and EXPLODED AGAINST the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2.
I can only speculate on what hit the towers, but I know it wasn't commercial airliners.
@lmfecher What about the people that saw it tho? and how could all the footage be faked? what about the amature footage? you telling me there in on it to....
@lmfecher What about the people that saw it tho? and how could all the footage be faked? what about the amature footage? you telling me there in on it to....
What about the people who saw no planes, small planes, military planes, and missiles? The ONLY place people saw commercial airliners "hit" the towers was on TELEVISION. Take a closer look at those "amateur" videos. The people that shot those videos are professionals, not some random person on the street. Even the Bri and Bob "amateur" video (confiscated by the FBI) was edited.
@lmfecher Yes, congratulations, you can write a formula. Do you even know what it means?
Force has nothing to do with the ignition of fuel. You compress that shit all you want, it's not going to blow up.
The sparking created by the severing of the support columns is what ignited the fuel. Not the force of impact.
Perhaps you should go back to high school physics. Or maybe try a class that teaches you logic, reasoning, or general common sense. I think it would help.
"The sparking created by the severing of the support columns"...."Not the force of impact".
IMPACT? WHAT IMPACT?
Congrats to you, for avoiding the elephant in the room. Please explain to the class how an ENTIRE 767 can fly THROUGH a steel framed wall without first CRASHING AGAINST it?
0.25 inches thick. Glass. I oon't know how to make this clearer to you. Steel is not a super substance from the planet krypton. It can break. If steel really worked the way you seem to think it does, all we'd need to do to stop all automobile fatalities for good would be to put a steel cage around all cars and trucks. Well, that and seatbelt wearing.
@lmfecher Contrary to popular belief, aviation fuel, or really any fuel, does not ignite immediately. It takes a short time to ignite. In this case that was only about an eighth of a second, which is conveniently about half the distance across the WTC at 600 mph.
As for what about the people on the missing flights, I will ask that question again, since you seem incapable of answering it. What do you presume happened to them - what about the thousands of witnesses who saw it with their own eyes?
"As for what about the people on the missing flights....what about the thousands of witnesses who saw it with their own eyes?"....
Do you personally know anyone who was a passenger on those "flights"? How do you know anyone died on those "flights"? Because you saw it on TV, the same place those "thousands of witnesses" saw a commercial airliner fly THROUGH a steel framed building without crashing against it.
The videos were faked and so were most of the victims.
My uncle was on Flight 175. Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
As for exploding against the building, I believe I already pointed out earlier that aviation fuel does not ignite immediately. The plane was traveling at somewhere in the general range of 600-700 feet per second on impact. A delay of a little over an eighth of a second would have been enough for it to explode halfway through the trade center.
Got any other stupidity that I can debunk for ya?
No he wasn't. Why do you have to resort to lying Skippy? Playing the sympathy card because all you can do is parrot the official lie of 9/11? And I'll point out to you again that a 767 cannot travel that fast at low altitudes because of air density and structual integrity. As far as impact? What IMPACT? ALL of the faked videos show an airliner flying right through the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2 without crashing AGAINST it.
@lmfecher The only thing you have pointed out is that you are a complete idiot. I think that I would know far better than you what happened to my uncle that day. I watched him get on the plane. So shut up about things you know nothing about.
Likewise, stop spouting complete nonsense about "impact". It flies through the wall of the tower because the wall was not infinitely strong. Steel bends, steel breaks, and in this case there were the enormous amounts of force required to do that.
Your FAKE uncle got on a FAKE airliner Skippy. You insist that "steel bends, steel breaks"... if that's the case, then why would the WTC designers and builders use such inferior materials to erect two towers that stood as symbols of Amercian power and wealth? How could the building inspectors let them get away with that? And if steel bends and breaks, perhaps ALL steel framed skyscrapers should be taken down immediately because they aren't safe, right fool?
@lmfecher 3 million pounds of force will break anything regardless of how strong it is. That's just common sense.
Also, my calculation of force did not depend on there being an impact. The only thing is relied upon was the momentum becoming 0, which is obviously the case as the plane did not exit the other side of the building. The calculation is still valid, now stop doing an end run around the science and prove your own damn side for us.
"3 million pounds of force will break anything"....
Uh-huh...but first it has to CRASH INTO something to break it. Show me ONE video of UA 175 (that your fake uncle was on) CRASHING AGAINST the outer wall of WTC 2.
@lmfecher Read my damn response before replying to it why don't you?
I did not say there was no impact - if I did, I misspoke. I am talking about instantaneous impact - i.e, the notion that the plane would have been the only thing to disintegrate.
Now, if you don't mind, actually read my argument and reply to that rather than putting words in my mouth.
LOL! Tell me the difference between an "impact" and an "instantaneous impact". Regardless of how you say it, there was NO IMPACT. Again I will ask you to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
@lmfecher Certainly. You are looking at a lot if you scroll up and watch what you are commenting on. It crashes against the outer wall then passes through it.
An impact is when an object hits another. The plane would not have to stop immediately for it to be an impact.
That is what I mean by 'instantaneous impact' and 'impact'. An instantaneous impact would be if the plane stopped immediately on impacting the tower. I call it an 'impact' because the plane took some time to cease forward motion.
Oh, I see. So now there is a difference between impact and instantaneous impact. hehehehe..
Impact and crash are the same thing, no? When a car impacts a tree, it stops abruptly. Yet, when UA 175 "crashes" into WTC 2, it sails right through without deceleration, impact, crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing section or tail section.
Give it up. You bought the psyops hook, line and sinker.
"notice it not coming out the other side...I would call that deceleration"...
Seriously? The plane flies THROUGH the outer wall without CRASHING against it! There is no crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing or tail sections! No part of that airliner crashes INTO the tower. It doesn't stop abruptly like a REAL crash would.
Look up the definition of deceleration, Skippy and make that your NEW word of the day.
@lmfecher Why don't you actually bother paying attention to what I'm saying, rather than I go look up words I know the definition of?
I am talking about the tower. The tower as a whole. Not just one wall of it.
When the plane goes in one side of the tower at 542 mph, and does not come out the other side, logically, it reaches 0 mph somewhere in the middle. Thus, deceleration.
It is sad that I should have to explain something so simple to you.
@lmfecher I have told you numerous times that neither deceleration nor impact is instantaneous. Are you able to comprehend that?
It's quite simple.
The plane takes a second to decelerate. So the impact takes a second from start to finish. Big whoop. It's not instantaneous, I've been telling you that for days straight now and you're still too dumb to understand it.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much from someone dumb enough to think this never happened anyway.
OMG! IMPACT is NOT instantaneous? Really? If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat, are you telling me that it would take a second or so for IMPACT to happen? Are you saying that the bat would travel THROUGH your head without bashing your brains out?
@lmfecher Please explain to me how, exactly, me being hit in the head with a baseball bat has ANY similarity whatsoever to a plane slamming into a building at 500 mph.
It doesn't.
Impact lasts as long as it takes to transfer momentum between two objects. In the case of me being hit with a baseball bat, that would be quite fast.
In the case of a plane hitting the WTC, it's not that fast, as there is more momentum to transfer.
The IMPACT of the bat against your head would cause the bat to decelerate. The IMPACT of the airliner against a steel framed wall would cause the airliner to decelerate.
@lmfecher And, sir idiot, that deceleration would take longer in the case of the plane because there is more momentum to get rid of. How many times do I have to explain things to you before you understand them?
What I am explaining to you is also basic crash physics. It's not really that hard to understand.
And how many times do I have to explain to you that...
1. A 767 cannot travel 500mph at 800ft in a controlled flight situation because of air density and structural integrity.
2. If UA 175 had been a REAL airliner loaded with fuel, there would have been a crash and explosion on the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2 when it CRASHED AGAINST it. Instead, all of the videos show UA 175 sailing THROUGH the outer wall without crashing INTO it. IMPOSSIBLE.
Hypothetical: If a rifle is fired at a stack of 20 phonebooks.....what do you believe it is that happens? Just answer the question, please. I've no interest in how this relates to anything else. Just answer a simple question about phonebooks and a rifle. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just the fact that you would even compare a stack of 20 phonebooks to a 110 storey, steel framed building shows just what a moron you are. What would happen if I fired a bullet into an engine block, would it pass through it?
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
The thing about these videos, you start one and you cant stop. Ive been watching 9/11 videos for 4 hours now. Every time the plane hits your heart stops
the middle east should know by now not to mess with america..... our armed forces have taken out sudam husane and bin laden.... whos next? there shouldnt be a next. :)
Why would we want to go to war? Oil maybe? Then why havent gas prices gone down. Going to war costs billons. No country would do that unless they have to and not for money gains. If you think 9/11 was set up by the US your just reaching for somthing to fill your empty lives. I think the goverment is evil as hell but not enough to kill thousands of its own people. Our goverment is too retarded to pull off somthing like that anyway. Your giving them way more credit than they deserve..
One thing for sure...they will neverrrrrrrrrrrrr get another chance to do what they did...in the manner that they did...Because we all know now...what has to be done!
@damon184 Maybe america might have been trying to frame osama. There are so many different conspiracies, so I don't really care who did it. I just feel sorry for the people caught up in it
Midgetman8888 yeah I'm not muslim but theirs always an asshole who makes fun of a Jew
Thecoinvideos 1 week ago
in 1 second hundreds were killed
davidruthdiaz 1 week ago
@davidruthdiaz think about all the people in that plane a split second before it hit. so sad man :(
Gtslmfa0 1 week ago
Why is the sound ALWAYS missing from the ground shot when the 2nd place goes in? Every video I've seen has the sound missing
talaxian1 1 week ago
Where's Waldo? Can "you" find the laser mark @ 4:34? Was "that" also done with boxcutters?
mikesglider 2 weeks ago
they didnt just hijack some planes, they hijacked my religion
midgetman8888 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is very intense and emotional; gave me chills. But I can't help but think that this was a moment where us as Americans got to experience a horrible act of violence and terrorism, much like what we have done to numerous countries, especially in Iraq. We got a taste of our own medicine. I don't mean any disrespect..
RabiaEx 1 month ago
sad that the american government did this to us
haz464 1 month ago
"And I should point out it was provided to ABC for free" lolwut? what scumbag would make money off people dieing?
vedderfan94 1 month ago
DONT FORGET SATAN HIS FACE IS ON THE SMOKE HI CONTROL ZEKROM AND RESHIRAME
BLAZIKEN90000000 1 month ago
I really feel bad for 9/11, but the people of USA don't know what their government is doing around the world. I'm from Serbia and i was 8 year old boy when USA bombed my hometown of Belgrade.At first they bombed only army targets but after a week or so they started bombing almost everything, national TV station, government buildings, even a hospital, bridges, they did not care just like these terrorists on 9/11. Of course American public was unaware of this,I just felt you should know some this.
opoooshteno 1 month ago 11
@opoooshteno I'me English and it makes me ashamed to be associated and/or helping America.
chrisshorenumber1 1 month ago
@opoooshteno yea. the same people that bombed your town, let it happen, or orchestrated the 9/11 attacks
TheMegaghost85 2 weeks ago
Why is it black from every angle?
hamptonbay100 1 month ago
@hamptonbay100 THAT WAS NOT A JET THAT WAS ZEKROM THAT USE BOLT STREAK ON THE BULDING 01:33 AND JET 2 THAT WAS RESHIRAME
BLAZIKEN90000000 1 month ago
@hamptonbay100 United airlines. Blue and Grey.
HartsfieldSpotting 1 month ago
wow i can't believe i bought into the conspiracy theories saying no planes actually hit, that it was some sort of missile...
clearly a plane hit the freaking building
poor americans
lickmetender 2 months ago
@lickmetender yes a US plane by the government.
haz464 1 month ago
that plane was going fast holy shit
Skyrex93 2 months ago
I think everyone is judging that airplane aluminum is like the foil. It's really thick and at that speed and size, It would in fact crash.
AirplaneSpottingTV 2 months ago
@AirplaneSpottingTV Sadly most of the "no planers" never took a physics course. force and energy against an object = destruction, no matter what the it is made out of. It's sad they dishonor the victims and victims families. I don't really have an issue with people who believe in the conspiracy, but the people who believe no planes were used are just incredible assholes.
Ryan198416 2 weeks ago
I can't comprehend how these terrorists actually got these planes into buildings. And how big and loud these planes are.
AirplaneSpottingTV 2 months ago
as much as i hated what happened here.. and as much as i miss my uncle, i hate the reputation that middle eastern people got from this. i myself am middle eastern and when im caleld a terrorist, it hurts because it indirectly is like someone is accusing me of killing the uncle who i loved dearly. RIP uncle Ramzi, i miss you man
jrazzam 2 months ago 17
@jrazzam i'm sorry to hear that
niblocorn1993 1 month ago
@jrazzam ITS NOT A JET ITS ZEKROM THAT USE BOLT STREAK ON THE TOWER 01:33 AND JET 2 THAT WAS RESHIRAME
BLAZIKEN90000000 1 month ago
@BLAZIKEN90000000 Disgusting. You are a miserable excuse for a person. That you feel the need to attract attention to yourself even in the face of the most suffering that we Americans have ever experienced in order to fulfill your egocentric desires is deplorable.
You shameless, faceless scum.
aleafonthewind117 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pause at 1:33 . Where did the plane go?
Pause at 3:59 and look closely at the smoke.
Pause at 6:02. The plane suddenly vanishes after successfully 'breaking' through to the other side of the building?
And from 9:02-9:05. Black tail? Sure isn't a contrail.
Gotta love deception sometimes, right guys?
Xolin11 3 months ago
Comment removed
Xolin11 3 months ago
240p sucks.
FLICKtheUSA 3 months ago in playlist 9-11
I reckon half of the population of New York City said "Holy shit!" when they saw the second impact. And another thing that i would have loved to known; Who were the Devils that were flying the planes.
xXDinoman1997Xx 4 months ago
@xXDinoman1997Xx holograms, some of the angles shown you can see the right wing disappears before impact, never believed it myself but we are dealing with evil scientific tyrants.
smokeweedalldaycuz 3 months ago
@xXDinoman1997Xx dont listen to that shit face smokeweedalldaycuz hes a fucking peice of unpatriotic shit. the real devils were the fuckfaces that were at war with and will continue to be at war with them until every one of them is wiped out.
techgeek97 2 months ago
@techgeek97 Yeah. Don't worry. I didn't. Holograms? That's just really stupid. And I agree with you. For too long those evil people have been killing good soldiers, whether it be Americans or British or anyone who's against them, and giving the Muslims a very bad name. Terrorists are scum, and deserve to be annihilated.
xXDinoman1997Xx 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB INSIDE JOB
voltage997 5 months ago
there has been more footage released since
drifter402 5 months ago
Does anyone know what the link is to the one that starts at 1:43 ?
dirtymonkey3850 5 months ago
@dirtymonkey3850
watch?v=sXcQWaTRPbQ
escalopin2 5 months ago
4:19. Plane nearly missed.
LilMessi123456789 5 months ago
I think the title of this video isn't correct. We can't see any "impact" of a plane. We see planes going though a wall without any collision (no resistance at all) and allegedly exploding inside a building.
So no impact at all. "Penetration" would be correct.
escalopin2 5 months ago
@escalopin2 Man come on... quit trying to be smart and think for a second. If there was no impact the plane would have came out the other side unharmed...
BoysIncorporated101 5 months ago
@BoysIncorporated101
I'm not trying to be smart. If there was an impact the whole plane would'nt have penetrated the building. There is no collision against the wall, so no "impact against": penetration through.
A bullet that penetrates the chest of a man doesn't "impact" against the chest . In fact, the planes that we see are like penetration bullets creating an internal explosion. There's a piercing of the wall and after that an explosion. Before the explosion there is no resistance.
escalopin2 5 months ago
@escalopin2 *facepalm*
When two objects hit each other, it is called impact. The results of that impact do not matter. It doesn't matter if the plane keeps moving, it doesn't matter if the plane disintegrates. It wouldn't have mattered if the tower had blown up immediately on impact.
It is still an impact regardless of whatever happens after it.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
So, there can be an "impact" wiithout any resistance, nor force applied by one of the objects. You see in TV an aluminium plane going through a skyscraper and exploding inside, and that's an "impact". The result of the "impact", especially if we see the "impact" in TV, doesn't matter. Like in the movies with special effects.
Thanks for your pshysic's lesson.
escalopin2 5 months ago
@escalopin2 You cannot assume there was no force applied without any proof of your assertion. It is a logical fallacy to base your argument on something that may not be true.
Prove to me there was no force, and then we can have an actual argument. At the moment it's just you spouting pointless bullcrap.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
Last words: if you say that there was a force applied YOU should prove it. Do the images that we saw on TV show us that there was a force applied by the steel framed building to the aluminium plane? If the force was applied, why the plane went through the wall whitout losing a screw instead of crashing against it? No crash = no deceleration = no resistance. Special effects.
I asume that no force was applied basically because the images show that no force was applied.
escalopin2 5 months ago
@escalopin2 pshysic's :-D
faulknmd 4 months ago
@DaWolf805
"When two objects hit each other, it is called impact"....
That is a TRUE statement. Now, show me ONE video where UA 175 HITS/IMPACTS/CRASHES AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 4 months ago
I only have one question. how come the military didn't intercept the planes the second they went off their flight plans. All planes fly on a specific flight plan or line that they have to follow. The only way f-16 weren't deployed is because they were told not to.
DrNoth 5 months ago
@DrNoth wow try using common sense. Hijackings happened before 911 and the hijackers took the plane off path until they said they would have their demands met they didnt know it was going to be a suicide attack and if the government shot down the planes you conspiracy theorists would say its some other kind of " world take over plot" no matter what happens you will always bash the government
Mikester1200 5 months ago
5:51 : purple flames????
TheMeatEaterShoots 5 months ago
dunno how you guys feel about it but this footage gives me some kind of cloverfield feeling - i mean the people on the street basically don't know what's going on and then WHAM a second plane comes crashing in and i mean nobody knew at this point how many more attacks there would be... that's dense!
Igelior 5 months ago
@Igelior
Godzilla (and maybe Mothra and King Ghidora too) at work, obviously. I mean, these attacks BROKE STEEL for chrissakes.
Eldeecue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Story of Islam: A crazy, insecure and horny man named muhammed created 'allah', an imaginary friend. His imaginary friend tells him it's OK to murder people that make fun of him, marry & fuck a little 9 year old girl, have sex slaves, steal, demand submission and kill the Jews/infidels. Muhammed preached this evil and gathered up some other asswipes and started 'islam', where crazy, insecure and horny men use the excuse of 'allah' to fuck children, rape, beat, terrorize & murder the infidel.
dominiquehoward 5 months ago
And if anybody else would like the full explanation of how I calculated the force exerted on the tower, feel free to message me, I'll be happy to provide you with it.
It's surprisingly simple. I hope lmfecher can understand it from under his bridge.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
1:00
infokrieger23 5 months ago
Comment removed
infokrieger23 5 months ago
humans.
thebitmovies 5 months ago
"Perhaps purposely." Gee, ya THINK? How could a jet fly straight into a building ACCIDENTILLY?!
UnofficialHFReviews 5 months ago
i have to say i find it hard to sympathies with americans when they literally do this every day
ymechaie 5 months ago
@ymechaie thats the kind of thinking that needs to be changed, its the rulers of america and not its citizens that are to blame, its the same in every single country in the world, every colour every religion, the powerfull dont bat an eyelid at sacrificing the powerless , even if its thier own.
joiganja 5 months ago
The plane at 3:53 looks like it was computer animated.
iRideThePinkPony69 5 months ago
im sorry but the one at 4:36 looks fake because how can the right wing go in the building and the building still not damaged.
quez76 5 months ago
God I can't believe it's been over 10 years now...
Evin07 5 months ago
I dont get how the fuck a plane could bring down an entire building?! I believe that it hit it, I see it but how in the world did a jet plane bring down a strong building made of steel?!
weppi91 5 months ago
@weppi91 Well the corners of such a tall bulding are needed to keep the structure from falling, and that plane hit the tower really close to the corner. That caused it to topple and then come crashing down.
It's not rocket science. (no offense)
R.I.P people of 9/11
Shadrulez 5 months ago
@Shadrulez Even if it did hit the corner, how about the other building? Two large buildings? Really? The engineering behind it was so complicated and made to build it really strong that its fishy that two small planes destroyed it all. I strongly do not believe that by hitting the corners of the building the entire building topples down. There had to be explosives from within to have caused it to collapse in such a short amount of time.
weppi91 5 months ago
@weppi91 Do you have any idea about engineering whatsoever?
No. You don't. If you take out one support for a building, the rest receive more of the load. As more and more supports failed in the fire, the building came closer and closer to collapsing.
These were not "small" planes. They were wide-body 767 jets, laden with over 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel.
You call it "fishy" that two large airplanes were able to take down the towers? I call it logical.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805 You dont need to be an engineer to know that! Why did the building collapse inwardly? I still believe there were explosives inside the building as many people who were in and around the buildings heard it. But on the jets issue, those were not regular passenger jets! They freakin looked like missiles! the entire thing was FISHY!
weppi91 5 months ago
@weppi91 They looked like missiles? Did you even watch the video you are commenting on? There are plenty of shots in which it is clearly apparent that is is a plane that you see.
The cracking people would have heard is perfectly explainable - you see, when tons of steel collapse, it tends to snap, rather than bend. Hence loud cracking noises that sound much like explosions.
It collapsed straight down because that is the direction of gravity and hence the direction of the force on the building.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805 Before the planes hit, people heard explosions! And Yes, missiles disguised to look like a jet plane. Thats what it looked like, there are videos that show that the plane looked odd and similar to a military air craft. Im no expert on this, but I do believe the government was def in on this.
weppi91 5 months ago
@weppi91 Why would the government blow up the Twin Towers? I doubt Bush was even intelligent enough to be able to decipher a plan like that.
Missiles disguised to look like a plane. I have never heard such a ridiculous thing in my life. A missile that large would most likely have demo'ed both the Twin Towers on the first impact.
And explain where the planes went, and the air traffic controllers who saw them disappear over Manhattan.
You don't have any real proof, yet you continue to believe.
DaWolf805 5 months ago 7
@DaWolf805 its true go to 850 and watch ill bet you'll see 2 planes one alot fast than the other stealth F-117 Stealth Fighter EPS or a similar model shot the WTC with a missile disguising it to general news casts some show no 2nd plane show proof i see 2 planes at 850 you wouldnt barely see that jet from the ground that thing moves thats why its meant for stealth,and its potential explosive rate
MrSimpleplain 5 months ago
@MrSimpleplain I suggest you get glasses. That "second plane" is actually a bird. It looks like it's moving faster than the plane because it's relatively very close to the camera.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
Government conspiracy
MrSimpleplain 5 months ago
@DaWolf805 I think the government twisted the evidence. We definitely don't know what really happened. And yea its obvious our government didn't blow the towers.
JHipHopLee 4 months ago
@DaWolf805
If UA 175 was a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, there would have been an explosion when it crashed AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2. Instead, the ENTIRE airliner passes THROUGH the outer steel framed wall without crashing against it and explodes INSIDE the tower.
This is impossible feat for an airliner, but it's exactly what a JASSM missile is designed to do.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher what bout the missing people on the flights retard
sean35wild 5 months ago
@sean35wild
"what bout the missing people on the flights retard"....
I didn't ask "bout the missing people".. I asked, "How is it possible that a 767 loaded with fuel doesn't crash against and explode when it impacts the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2?" Why doesn't the explosion occur until AFTER the ENTIRE AIRLINER passes THROUGH the outer wall and is INSIDE the tower?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher
Because momentum applies to jet fuel the same as it does all other forms of matter. This is like asking why a victim of a head on collision's brain doesn't splatter _precisely_ at the point of impact between the two cars.
You _do_ know the building had windows, right? That it _wasn't a a solid column of steel? The "outer wall" was made of 1/4 inch steel columns, and glass. That's 0.25 inches thick. Kamikaze pilots in WW2 had _no_ trouble breaching much, much thicker stuff.
Eldeecue 5 months ago
@Eldeecue
F=MA when FORCE is applied. However, in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the force applied would be the IMPACT of UA 175 AGAINST tower 2. No impact=no applied force.
The windows were 18 inches apart, separated by load bearing steel columns. How could an airliner loaded with fuel pass THROUGH those steel columns without CRASHING and EXPLODING AGAINST them?
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
WAKE UP!
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher What was used then?
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@DICTATExTHExPACE
"What was used then?"...
Since I wasn't invited to the planning stages meeting for the "attacks" on 9/11, I can only speculate on what they used for the initial shock and awe, but I do know what they didn't use and that was hijacked commercial airliners.
The videos were faked.
Planes crash and explode AGAINST steel framed buildings, they do not fly THROUGH them.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11.
WAKE UP!
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher dont start the wake up shit with me!! the day it happend i said it was a demolition so dont try and school me... planes where used, the government new it was happening and planted explosives when they did the work in the elevator shafts in march.. the holographic plane theory spits in the face of the truth movement!! the only thing that wasnt a plane is the thing that hit the pentagon!
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@DICTATExTHExPACE
And don't start your arrogant shit with me, dick! I never said it was a hologram, EVER. You said planes were used, then please explain how a commercial airliner loaded with fuel can pass through the outer steel framed wall without FIRST crashing and exploding AGAINST it.
No commercial airliners were used as weapons on 9/11. They did not hit the towers, the Pent-a-con OR crash in Shanksville.
9/11 was a state run media controlled pysops.
WAKE UP SKIPPY!
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
peace
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
peace
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@lmfecher Im not here for a arguement .... but, planes are made from a weak alloy... i can only imagine that it was like a cheese grater effect!! as for the pent-a-con there was no plane and shanksville i think it was shot down hence the wreckage being over such a distance... Whats your opinion on it all? sorry for jumping the gun and thinking you was a hologram nut job lol
peace
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@DICTATExTHExPACE
I accept your apology because I know we're both on the same page. Commercial airliners are made up of lightweight aluminum alloys strong enough for the stressors of flight, take offs and landings, but not strong enough to slice through the outer steel framed, load bearing wall. The videos show even the WINGTIPS slicing through steel beams. And where does UA 175 SLAM AGAINST the outer wall? It doesn't. It passes right THROUGH it.
The videos were FAKED.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher I don't really think you understand the concept of force. For everybody else's benefit, I'll point out that according to my calculations, using accepted or easily observable values, 3,394,787 pounds of force were exerted on the South Tower by Flight 175 during impact.
That is astronomical. There is no way the plane could NOT slice through the tower with that kind of force.
As for you, lmfecher, since you don't seem to quite understand physics I've messaged you the full explanation.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
In order for force to be applied, there has to be crash or an impact. In the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, the airliner does NOT crash AGAINST the outer steel framed wall, it flies right through it. Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer wall of WTC 2.
How much do they pay you to be a shill, anyway?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher To be more exact - I divided the change in momentum by the change in time to get the force. A collision does not have to be instantaneous for that to apply - in fact, if it is instantaneous the calculation would be invalid as you'd be dividing by zero.
The fact that there was no instantaneous impact proves my point rather than debunking it.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"The fact that there was no instantaneous impact"....
BINGO! There WAS NO IMPACT! UA 175 sailed right through the outer steel framed wall without CRASHING AGAINST IT!
Proof positive that those videos were FAKED.
lmfecher 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaWolf805
DECELERATION, IMPACT AND BASIC CRASH PHYSICS...
Watch and learn, Skippy.
/watch?v=P0P2NWSc7-0
lmfecher 5 months ago
@DICTATExTHExPACE
And you imagine a cheese grater effect because that's what the COMPUTER simulations show! The simulations, just like the faked videos, don't show IMPACT either. Had UA 175 been a REAL airliner loaded with fuel, it would have CRASHED and EXPLODED AGAINST the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2.
I can only speculate on what hit the towers, but I know it wasn't commercial airliners.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher What about the people that saw it tho? and how could all the footage be faked? what about the amature footage? you telling me there in on it to....
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@lmfecher What about the people that saw it tho? and how could all the footage be faked? what about the amature footage? you telling me there in on it to....
DICTATExTHExPACE 5 months ago
@DICTATExTHExPACE
What about the people who saw no planes, small planes, military planes, and missiles? The ONLY place people saw commercial airliners "hit" the towers was on TELEVISION. Take a closer look at those "amateur" videos. The people that shot those videos are professionals, not some random person on the street. Even the Bri and Bob "amateur" video (confiscated by the FBI) was edited.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Yes, congratulations, you can write a formula. Do you even know what it means?
Force has nothing to do with the ignition of fuel. You compress that shit all you want, it's not going to blow up.
The sparking created by the severing of the support columns is what ignited the fuel. Not the force of impact.
Perhaps you should go back to high school physics. Or maybe try a class that teaches you logic, reasoning, or general common sense. I think it would help.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"The sparking created by the severing of the support columns"...."Not the force of impact".
IMPACT? WHAT IMPACT?
Congrats to you, for avoiding the elephant in the room. Please explain to the class how an ENTIRE 767 can fly THROUGH a steel framed wall without first CRASHING AGAINST it?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher
0.25 inches thick. Glass. I oon't know how to make this clearer to you. Steel is not a super substance from the planet krypton. It can break. If steel really worked the way you seem to think it does, all we'd need to do to stop all automobile fatalities for good would be to put a steel cage around all cars and trucks. Well, that and seatbelt wearing.
Eldeecue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eldeecue
"Steel is not a super substance"....
That statement in itself is enough to tell me that you're one of the brain dead zombies too, Skippy.
Go back to sleep, there's nothing to see here.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@sean35wild
STOP ASKING PERFECTLY LOGICAL QUESTIONS!
Buzzkill, bro. Buzzkill. : )
Eldeecue 5 months ago
@Eldeecue :P
sean35wild 5 months ago
@lmfecher Contrary to popular belief, aviation fuel, or really any fuel, does not ignite immediately. It takes a short time to ignite. In this case that was only about an eighth of a second, which is conveniently about half the distance across the WTC at 600 mph.
As for what about the people on the missing flights, I will ask that question again, since you seem incapable of answering it. What do you presume happened to them - what about the thousands of witnesses who saw it with their own eyes?
DaWolf805 5 months ago
Comment removed
lmfecher 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"As for what about the people on the missing flights....what about the thousands of witnesses who saw it with their own eyes?"....
Do you personally know anyone who was a passenger on those "flights"? How do you know anyone died on those "flights"? Because you saw it on TV, the same place those "thousands of witnesses" saw a commercial airliner fly THROUGH a steel framed building without crashing against it.
The videos were faked and so were most of the victims.
WAKE UP!
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher You sir, are an idiot.
My uncle was on Flight 175. Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
As for exploding against the building, I believe I already pointed out earlier that aviation fuel does not ignite immediately. The plane was traveling at somewhere in the general range of 600-700 feet per second on impact. A delay of a little over an eighth of a second would have been enough for it to explode halfway through the trade center.
Got any other stupidity that I can debunk for ya?
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"My uncle was on Flight 175"...
No he wasn't. Why do you have to resort to lying Skippy? Playing the sympathy card because all you can do is parrot the official lie of 9/11? And I'll point out to you again that a 767 cannot travel that fast at low altitudes because of air density and structual integrity. As far as impact? What IMPACT? ALL of the faked videos show an airliner flying right through the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2 without crashing AGAINST it.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher The only thing you have pointed out is that you are a complete idiot. I think that I would know far better than you what happened to my uncle that day. I watched him get on the plane. So shut up about things you know nothing about.
Likewise, stop spouting complete nonsense about "impact". It flies through the wall of the tower because the wall was not infinitely strong. Steel bends, steel breaks, and in this case there were the enormous amounts of force required to do that.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
Your FAKE uncle got on a FAKE airliner Skippy. You insist that "steel bends, steel breaks"... if that's the case, then why would the WTC designers and builders use such inferior materials to erect two towers that stood as symbols of Amercian power and wealth? How could the building inspectors let them get away with that? And if steel bends and breaks, perhaps ALL steel framed skyscrapers should be taken down immediately because they aren't safe, right fool?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher 3 million pounds of force will break anything regardless of how strong it is. That's just common sense.
Also, my calculation of force did not depend on there being an impact. The only thing is relied upon was the momentum becoming 0, which is obviously the case as the plane did not exit the other side of the building. The calculation is still valid, now stop doing an end run around the science and prove your own damn side for us.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"3 million pounds of force will break anything"....
Uh-huh...but first it has to CRASH INTO something to break it. Show me ONE video of UA 175 (that your fake uncle was on) CRASHING AGAINST the outer wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"Also, my calculation of force did not depend on there being an impact".....
How can there be applied force if there was NO impact?
How can a 767 fly INSIDE a steel framed building without CRASHING into it first?
Your "calculations" are bullshit, Skippy.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Read my damn response before replying to it why don't you?
I did not say there was no impact - if I did, I misspoke. I am talking about instantaneous impact - i.e, the notion that the plane would have been the only thing to disintegrate.
Now, if you don't mind, actually read my argument and reply to that rather than putting words in my mouth.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
LOL! Tell me the difference between an "impact" and an "instantaneous impact". Regardless of how you say it, there was NO IMPACT. Again I will ask you to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Certainly. You are looking at a lot if you scroll up and watch what you are commenting on. It crashes against the outer wall then passes through it.
An impact is when an object hits another. The plane would not have to stop immediately for it to be an impact.
That is what I mean by 'instantaneous impact' and 'impact'. An instantaneous impact would be if the plane stopped immediately on impacting the tower. I call it an 'impact' because the plane took some time to cease forward motion.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
Oh, I see. So now there is a difference between impact and instantaneous impact. hehehehe..
Impact and crash are the same thing, no? When a car impacts a tree, it stops abruptly. Yet, when UA 175 "crashes" into WTC 2, it sails right through without deceleration, impact, crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing section or tail section.
Give it up. You bought the psyops hook, line and sinker.
Next?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher It obviously does not sail right through... notice it not coming out the other side... I would call that deceleration.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805 go turorrist we rule =D
HaloReachVEVO1 5 months ago
@DaWolf805 go turorrist we rule =D
HaloReachVEVO1 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
"notice it not coming out the other side...I would call that deceleration"...
Seriously? The plane flies THROUGH the outer wall without CRASHING against it! There is no crumpling of the nosecone, fuselage, wing or tail sections! No part of that airliner crashes INTO the tower. It doesn't stop abruptly like a REAL crash would.
Look up the definition of deceleration, Skippy and make that your NEW word of the day.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Why don't you actually bother paying attention to what I'm saying, rather than I go look up words I know the definition of?
I am talking about the tower. The tower as a whole. Not just one wall of it.
When the plane goes in one side of the tower at 542 mph, and does not come out the other side, logically, it reaches 0 mph somewhere in the middle. Thus, deceleration.
It is sad that I should have to explain something so simple to you.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
Deceleration would occur at IMPACT, Skippy. Where does UA 175 IMPACT (crash into) WTC 2?
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher I have told you numerous times that neither deceleration nor impact is instantaneous. Are you able to comprehend that?
It's quite simple.
The plane takes a second to decelerate. So the impact takes a second from start to finish. Big whoop. It's not instantaneous, I've been telling you that for days straight now and you're still too dumb to understand it.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much from someone dumb enough to think this never happened anyway.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
OMG! IMPACT is NOT instantaneous? Really? If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat, are you telling me that it would take a second or so for IMPACT to happen? Are you saying that the bat would travel THROUGH your head without bashing your brains out?
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher Please explain to me how, exactly, me being hit in the head with a baseball bat has ANY similarity whatsoever to a plane slamming into a building at 500 mph.
It doesn't.
Impact lasts as long as it takes to transfer momentum between two objects. In the case of me being hit with a baseball bat, that would be quite fast.
In the case of a plane hitting the WTC, it's not that fast, as there is more momentum to transfer.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
@DaWolf805
The IMPACT of the bat against your head would cause the bat to decelerate. The IMPACT of the airliner against a steel framed wall would cause the airliner to decelerate.
Basic crash physics, Skippy.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher And, sir idiot, that deceleration would take longer in the case of the plane because there is more momentum to get rid of. How many times do I have to explain things to you before you understand them?
What I am explaining to you is also basic crash physics. It's not really that hard to understand.
DaWolf805 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaWolf805
And how many times do I have to explain to you that...
1. A 767 cannot travel 500mph at 800ft in a controlled flight situation because of air density and structural integrity.
2. If UA 175 had been a REAL airliner loaded with fuel, there would have been a crash and explosion on the OUTER steel framed wall of WTC 2 when it CRASHED AGAINST it. Instead, all of the videos show UA 175 sailing THROUGH the outer wall without crashing INTO it. IMPOSSIBLE.
The videos were faked.
lmfecher 5 months ago
@lmfecher
Hypothetical: If a rifle is fired at a stack of 20 phonebooks.....what do you believe it is that happens? Just answer the question, please. I've no interest in how this relates to anything else. Just answer a simple question about phonebooks and a rifle. Nothing more, nothing less.
Eldeecue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eldeecue
Just the fact that you would even compare a stack of 20 phonebooks to a 110 storey, steel framed building shows just what a moron you are. What would happen if I fired a bullet into an engine block, would it pass through it?
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing and exploding AGAINST the outer steel framed wall of WTC 2.
lmfecher 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eldeecue
IMPACT, DECELERATION and BASIC CRASH PHYSICS...
Watch and learn, Skippy.
/watch?v=P0P2NWSc7-0
lmfecher 5 months ago
Comment removed
DaWolf805 5 months ago
Comment removed
DaWolf805 5 months ago
Are people seriously trying to affirm it as an inside job because of all the angles? Are you fucking kidding me? I
eXclusiveSupastar 5 months ago
great video... about makes me sick to watch it. God bless the victims and all families affected
Acon1392 5 months ago
f-terrorism
ilovekartheek 5 months ago
f-terrorism
ilovekartheek 5 months ago
The thing about these videos, you start one and you cant stop. Ive been watching 9/11 videos for 4 hours now. Every time the plane hits your heart stops
MrFat1722 5 months ago 13
@MrFat1722 I know what you mean, you get sick to your stomach just thinking about it
Acon1392 5 months ago
the middle east should know by now not to mess with america..... our armed forces have taken out sudam husane and bin laden.... whos next? there shouldnt be a next. :)
jackganastan 5 months ago
Why would we want to go to war? Oil maybe? Then why havent gas prices gone down. Going to war costs billons. No country would do that unless they have to and not for money gains. If you think 9/11 was set up by the US your just reaching for somthing to fill your empty lives. I think the goverment is evil as hell but not enough to kill thousands of its own people. Our goverment is too retarded to pull off somthing like that anyway. Your giving them way more credit than they deserve..
damon184 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America! Fuck Yeah!
mehtaalihkuh 5 months ago
Comment removed
mehtaalihkuh 5 months ago
Makes me hate Islam, not the muslims, just the religion, because it teaches people to hate and kill anyone who doesn't believe in the Qu'ran.
TheWickerMan1995 5 months ago
...Why would this even be ALLOWED on youtube...living through it was bad enough....
parakiss22 5 months ago
@parakiss22 how are trolls allowed on youtube...living through hell was bad enough...
Brennan204 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Over 130.000 innocent victims in Iraq, Afghanistan an Pakistan killed by U.S. bombs and missiles. Who ist your terrorist now?
RamboJohnnyJ 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This makes me wanna go out and kill some muslams.
bucko06 5 months ago
Im not even american... and this makes me so sad! This is a crime against life....
AdrianAquino22 5 months ago 19
@AdrianAquino22 same im british and it makes me cry.
hariupad007 5 months ago
@hariupad007 =/
AdrianAquino22 4 months ago
This is extreemly disturbing =/ they're NEVER forgotten <3
extasygorgeous 5 months ago
One thing for sure...they will neverrrrrrrrrrrrr get another chance to do what they did...in the manner that they did...Because we all know now...what has to be done!
Bastards!
CTJusticeofthePeace 5 months ago
There's another existing one on youtube somewhere. ;D
everybodylovesdonuts 5 months ago
This video is a horrible. I hate how this happened. I wish i could have switched places with anyone on one of those planes. Anyone else?
N3oNPREDATOR69 5 months ago
I was 4 when the twin towers fell and i told my mom when the second plane hit "Plane go boom."
pagiebaby2315 5 months ago
Especially the one that hit the pentagon... what a low pass flyby...
RamboJohnnyJ 5 months ago
3:53 was the most chilling of all the angles, to me at least.
BobbyBigTruck85 5 months ago
Great pilot skills!
RamboJohnnyJ 5 months ago
@RamboJohnnyJ FUCK YOU how could u say something like tht about one of the worst days in american history!
XxFALL3NProductionXx 5 months ago
@XxFALL3NProductionXx quite easy he just did
rodgetaylorjnr 5 months ago in playlist 9/11
@RamboJohnnyJ fuck you. youre an asshole.
cjarrell99able 5 months ago
1 in 3 people are retarded and 1 in 3 people beleave its a conspiracy. Why would we blow our own buildings up?
damon184 5 months ago
@damon184 Maybe america might have been trying to frame osama. There are so many different conspiracies, so I don't really care who did it. I just feel sorry for the people caught up in it