@nameofthepen Thanks for the heads up. I was really confused by your comment until I went into edit mode; the tags are gone! You are seeing the faux tags in the video description.
@nameofthepen wow, thanks. Put tags, including the stretch command and got a great result. Perhaps I need to start putting the stretch in all the old videos!
ps, please look at the NY firefighter again.
Is that flat, empty hose behind the truck the one that is delivering his water?
@CNN911Fakes - before I respond, since YT deliberately misrepresents the comment/answer sequences, I'm not sure to which of your comments you self-correcting "I'm wrong" is aimed?
@nameofthepen Sincerely sorry. I thought the white line behind the truck was the water hose. It appears the guy near the front of the truck is supposed to be holding it up.
At 2:20 you can plainly see that the Roof has not yet collapsed,and Notice how very very clean the Grass is out the front no scorch marks no luggage no bodied no seats NO ENGINES and were meant to believe a plane hit this building NOT A CHANCE IN HELL..Same place Those Bastards who did this terrible act Should be Thx again CNN911Fakes never stop what your doing Friend Much respect to you for all the B/S you put up with yet still keep your cool and continue to open eyes to this DOWN RIGHT LIE
LOL on certain "truthseekers" here who come here, watch a video about how real firefighting and water cannons actually appear, and see shots of real ones vs. CGI ones.
Yet suddenly they start asking instead about: a) debris fake? b) fire engine = studio prop? c) firefighters = Disney actors? LOL...where in the vid do any of those subjects come up?
Focus, people. Focus. One thing at a time. Geez, and I thought I was a scatterbrain. :D
@nameofthepen Well, at :20 seconds into this video the following statement appears: "These Images Show That Faked 911 Images Have Been Propagated. Examine Each And Note The Contradictions And Differences." So, I'm examining the image that appears in the video at 3:47 and I see some potential contradictions which I raised here. Should I act as a researcher, or as an audience member at an infomercial?
@CNN911Fakes Well, I am doing research. And some, but by no means all, of my source materials are your vast collection of 9/11 related videos. So, not surprisingly, I need to carefully examine the data presented and determine what is valid and what is not. That's why I ask for clarification. To make sure that I don't misrepresent your position when I weight it against the many other theories. One must put theories to a test to determine their validity, don't you think so?
Nothing matters as long as the general public continues to accept the OCT. If you follow me carefully, you will know that I have no theories - I have merely disproved the OCT over 231 videos. I have made assertions occassionally, but they are opinions.
I keep working because people won't believe what the truth is unless it hits them where they think. I think the most persuasive material is the collection of caricatures; few others see them.
@nameofthepen The video addresses a very limited topic? Hmm, Like Birmingham Alabama in the 1960's? Just kidding! I understand that it's placed here as a frame of reference. Accepted & understood! But at 3:40 he states: "Firefighting Image Fakery Confined to The Pentagon? He then shows an image of an FDNY fire engine and firefighters. So how is "examining" that NOT part of the topic? BTW, would you like to be in an infomercial audience? I think that you might be an excellent candidate.
"Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it, and are often used to express irony." - wiki/Quotation_mark
@nameofthepen I'll STILL take it as a compliment! You say I made no comment on the subject of the video & your comment? I was quite clear what aspect I was discussing & time frame. Maybe you've missed one of my responses to CNN911. What do mean, I waste comment space? You mean because I persist on asking pointed questions that no one will answer but instead, will dodge, deflect, & ignore? Well, perhaps you're right, it feels as if I'm speaking into a void. Care to send me another URL?
@nameofthepen The very part that I raised issue with CNN911Fakes on. And I've already furnished the time frame in a previous exchange with you, as well. What more information do you require?
@azul8811 Round and round, eh? Correct me if I misinterpretted our conversation, but I thought you agreed the fireman standing on his truck could not have been spraying any water in that image; the image was faked.
When a person expresses the possibility they misinterpretted what you said, you clarify. Unless of course, you are merely spreading disinformation and wasting time, in which case, you tell thew person to reread what they may have already misinterpretted.
Tell us your opinion of the NYC image; is that image of a fireman a true image?
@CNN911Fakes Previously, I raised 8 interrelated points to consider if one felt this photo was faked. They went unanswered. My take: Seagrave Rig, 1 length of 1 3/4" hose line taken off the 1 1/2" gated wye. On booster water, not hooked up. Adjustable fog/straight stream nozzle. Engine 9 from Canal Street. But who is the guy in civvies, w/ no handie-talkie, standing I.FO. the gate? Off duty? Retired? Vollie? Buff? Probably out of line of sight from the guy on the nozzle. I say real.
basicly what a1bfd said with the exception of the upsid down spray , yes it was spray and if you look at the smoke directly behind that its traveling in the same direction , but next you will say that was thought of by the pentagon just in case someone like me pointed that out fuck your a dill ,,, next
@CNN911Fakes This video is about the 9/11 Pentagon Firefighting. And as you've told me, you only stick to the topic of the particular video. So, why do you show a NYC fire engine and NYC firefighters then? That has nothing to do with the Pentagon. Correct? So what does that prove about the Pentagon? Thank you in advance for clearing this up.
@CNN911Fakes Oh, I see, now. You're saying that the water coming out of the hose being used to wash off debris from the roof of the fire engine is faked. Just like the fake water they used at the Pentagon. So that's the tie in. Ah, Okay. And what about the debris? Faked too? And the Fire Engine? Disney owned? And the Firemen? Actors?
@CNN911Fakes I'll sure look at your latest upload, but first I need to make sure that I understand what you are actually stating in this video. Are you saying, regarding the NYC photo at 3:47 here: 1. The debris are fake? 2. The water is faked? 3. The fire engine is a studio prop? 4. The firefighters are Disney actors? I'm not asking you for proof, I just want to make sure that I understand your position on these specific points. Then I'll know where next to proceed on this complex issue.
@CNN911Fakes You ask, “How much of the rest of it is faked? Who cares?” Well, any researcher that is genuinely serious about understanding the events on 9/11, that‘s who. Research involves questions, does it not? There are many different theories about that day, and some in contradiction. Hence, the need for detailed critical analysis, or “examination“, as your intro at 00:20 seconds instructs us. And this is a problem?
@CNN911Fakes I’m surprised that you didn’t grasp the point of my previous questions as I’m “examining for contradictions”, as you suggest. If the water is faked, one must consider the following: a) was a real firefighter directed to pose holding a dry empty hose? b) wouldn’t it been easier to briefly just shoot real water instead? c) if they are actors, did they tell the real firemen to step aside while we use your fire engine as a prop? d) was this photo actually taken at “Ground Zero”?
so yeah lets make the comparison between an f4 phantom II crashing in to a solid block of concrete with a steel plate infront of it testing what would happen to a march2 fighter when it hits a solid object as aposed to what happens to the object it hits and something 150tons heavier hitting something weaker yeah hmmm good point there ,,,,,, not ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh yeah fuck cunt shit bollock barsterd nipple wank turd
I really hope you are joking. first off the "upside down gravity spray" all they are doing is taking the nozzle and sweeping downward. also fdny spaying water on the truck, first they literally just opened the bale and just started spraying water. secong with the shit they had been through that day i dont really think he cared about being wet!
My last comment to you is this you are delusional about me about what happened and also about get my arse kicked you on the other hand have come up with nothing but lame reply's half baked rants and self congratulatory rhetoric
dont take this as a cop out as i would dearly love to show you the truth trouble is you could not handle the truth also i really don't want to play your retarded games any longer get lost and by all means pipe up after im gone that you won as m sure this will give you great please as for me i dont play games especially when many people died because of something this tragic
Denierbud11 i cant see your comment to reply to it so i will do so here Quote by you "YOu have to identify witnesses, names and what they said, Statements by you are not fact. "
Answer i do not have to show YOU anything why should i ,this testimony is out there on the the web in papers around the time do some research your self im not your gimp pal,i do not need to show shills anything it stands by its own validation like or lump it
Witnesses said they thought explosive charges were set off inside the Pentagon 'impact area' to make it appear that the aircraft actually passed the front wall when it really didn't. That would explain large fire development even outside the impact area.
The 'construction trailer', actually a large generator trailer with its own 500 gallon diesel tank, was not used but kept for an emergency. As there was no need for the large extra tank nearby, the tank apparently was filled with a crude oil-diesel oil mixture, similar to an orchard smudge pot, and remotely ignited to create the enormous smoke plume . Note that the smoke from the burning trailer is whitish.
Firefighter Russell Dodge said. "There were two vehicles burning, along with a construction trailer - we didn't know at the time, but that trailer was the main producer of smoke on the outside of the building. He said the foam units got there and concentrated on the area of the construction trailer, which was producing some severe fires and subsequent mini explosions due to highly flammable chemicals in it THAN on the actual point of impact from the hijacked aircraft.
September 12-14, 2001: Apparently Fake Military Official Helps with Pentagon Recovery, then Disappears
A mysterious man, who is initially assumed to be working for the military, assists firefighters involved in the Pentagon recovery efforts, but then disappears without trace and is thought to have been an impostor who had managed to slip inside the Pentagon grounds.
"Johnny" - Arlington firefighter Bob Gray is introduced by his colleague Bobby Beer to a man wearing a hard hat. Beer introduces the man only as "Johnny," and adds, "He's our go-between with PenRen [the Pentagon Renovation Program], and he knows some of the military guys too." Although "Johnny" is not wearing any identifying badge or ID,
he seems knowledgeable, appears "taut and serious, with a purposeful military stance," and even introduces Gray and Beer to a couple of friends of his who say they work for Special Forces. Johnny says if Gray and Beer need anything from the military, he can help. As a security perimeter has now been set up around the crash site, Gray assumes Johnny must be there officially. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 367-368]
Disappears - Johnny turns out to be very helpful and assists Gray and Beer repeatedly. But, on the evening of September 14, he suddenly disappears. Gray and Beer ask around, but no one at the Pentagon seems to know exactly who Johnny is or what his last name is, and none of the agencies involved in the recovery effort say he worked for them.
Johnny's disappearance appears to follow an error he had made after firefighters discovered two bodies inside the Pentagon's E Ring. Johnny mistakenly called the truck used to remove bodies to the temporary morgue prematurely, before FBI agents had the chance to photograph and document the remains
. Gray and Beer start to wonder if Johnny in fact had no official standing, and was an impostor.
Clearance - According to authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, "It wasn't unusual at high-profile crime scenes for law-enforcement pretenders to show up and insinuate themselves into the work."
Johnny would have required "some kind of clearance to get through the concentric security perimeters that sprung up around the building--unless he'd been inside the wire before security tightened. It was possible that he had wandered in at the very beginning and simply stayed--there was enough food, water, and basic support on the scene to survive for days. Somebody who was determined enough to sleep inside one of the tents, or even on the grass, could easily have bypassed security."
Tighter Security - However, the FBI has now become stricter about security, and is ushering out volunteers and scrutinizing anyone without airtight credentials. Gray and Beer conclude that Johnny may have come to the attention of the FBI when he called the body truck, leading agents to inquire who he was, and this could have prompted his disappearance from the Pentagon. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 416-418]
September 12, 2001: People Disguised as Firefighters Arrested at Pentagon
The Defense Protective Service (DPS)--the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon--arrests three people at the Pentagon who are dressed in firefighting gear but are not firefighters.
Don't worry about me-already a full member of the choir
Need to think about the ignorant coming to this video to learn something. YOu may be overdoing it as they probably won't read more than the front page
But, on the good side, it appears you have, at least temporarily, chased away our shills
And, the comments are searchable on google (although they block certain inquiries - google "by stealth make war" and noice what famous war mongers, who coined the expression, don't show up!)
Further details of who these people are and why they are at the Pentagon are unstated. John Jester, the chief of the DPS, later reflects: "When you have a major event, certain people are like moths around a light bulb. They come to the scene as thrill seekers.
Reportedly, incident command, DPS, and FBI officials are worried by the "absence of an effective identification system to control the large number of people that [are passing] through the outer perimeter fence to support firefighting and recovery operations" at the Pentagon. [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]
(Between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Mystery Firefighters Seen Behaving Oddly inside Pentagon
A mysterious fire crew is witnessed inside the Pentagon, behaving completely at odds with how firefighters are trained to act. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137]
Chad Stamps is a firefighter with Rescue 104 of the Arlington County Fire Department. [National Fire and Rescue, 5/2002] Along with his crew, he has been fighting fires on the second floor of the Pentagon's outer E Ring. With fires burning around him, he is astonished to see another crew walk past, carrying two packs of hose line, apparently on its way to fight fires elsewhere in the Pentagon.
Describing this incident, authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will point out: "Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you. Yet there they went." Seeing the crew passing by, Stamps thinks, "This is totally disjointed."
[Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137] The odd behavior of this crew is perhaps notable because there is at least one reported incident of fake firefighters being caught at the Pentagon following the attack there: On September 12, three people will be arrested who are not firefighters, yet who are dressed in firefighting gear (see September 12, 2001). [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]
The presence of these fake personnel raises the question of why they were at the Pentagon. Were these men just "thrill seekers," as the chief of the DPS has claimed, there for their own misguided reasons? Or could they have been at the site for a more sinister purpose, perhaps as part of a coordinated operation to plant or remove evidence from the crime scene?
This latter possibility has some evidence to support it. Shortly after the attack occurred, DPS officer Lt. Robbie Turner saw people apparently stealing plane debris from the road in front of the Pentagon. Turner has recalled,
"We had to try to stop other people from pilfering the wreckage because, believe it or not, there were people--military personnel involved--you know, included, rather, that was picking up the wreckage of the plane from off the highway." Another DPS officer, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., worked during the afternoon and evening of 9/11 at the heliport near where the Pentagon was hit. He has recalled that, in that time, "We had a lot of people vandalizing, stealing evidence."
Beginning that same day, a couple of firefighters involved in the recovery effort were repeatedly assisted by a mysterious man who appeared to work for the military, but who wore no identifying badge and was known to them only as "Johnny." This man said if the firefighters needed anything from the military, he could help them, and even introduced them to some friends of his who said they worked for Special Forces. But on the evening of
September 14, Johnny suddenly disappeared. When the two firefighters asked around, they found that no one at the Pentagon knew who "Johnny" was, and none of the agencies involved in the recovery effort said he worked for them. The two firefighters started to wonder if he'd been an imposter who'd perhaps managed to gain access to the site before security had been tightened there.
Then, on September 12, the Defense Protective Service (DPS), which guards the Pentagon, arrested three people at the Pentagon who were dressed as firefighters, but were not firefighters.
Fairly early on in the firefighting operation at the Pentagon, what appeared to be a crew of firefighters was seen behaving completely at odds with how firefighters are trained to act.
An Arlington County firefighter working on the building's second floor witnessed the crew walking past burning fires, apparently to get to fires elsewhere in the building. But, as authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman have pointed out: "Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you."
Several entries in the Complete 9/11 Timeline (copied below) describe what appear to have been individuals disguised as firefighters or military personnel, who were involved in the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon following the attack there on September 11, 2001.
What these individuals were doing is unknown, but possibilities need to be investigated, such as whether they were there to tamper with, plant, or remove evidence. That this may have been the case is given weight by the fact that some people who appeared to be members of the military were witnessed stealing crash debris from in front of the Pentagon.
"CNNFAKES is a troll makeing the rest of the truthers look even more stupid."
So, that should be good for your side, right? I mean, if I am an obvious plant whose videos and comments hurt truth, you should be spreading my videos far and wide and telling people I am the truth, so they will see what a monster I really am and hang their hats on your peg.
Look Denierbud11 you been cracking on about this video for over a month now i thought i recognized your snide comments why the hang up with one video is the truth to much for you to handle is that why you come back here to stir the hornets nest sure must pay well denouncing truth videos can you sleep at night knowing your actions make you just as culpable how do you live with that as i sure couldent.!
Rubbish if you commented a month ago like i did also to counter your lame comments then how come your back ..? and also it is not typical truth **** as you put it it just seems to any intelligent person that this is the obvious answer to why "YOU" keep returning
OH YEA NICE DUCK OUT OF THE QUESTION BET YOUR GOOD AT DOING THAT YOU KNOW ANSWERING INSTEAD OF CRITICISM
"Rubbish if you commented a month ago like i did also to counter your lame comments then how come your back ..? "
Because someone replied to my comment ...
How about this, I'll go against you on any 911 subject, you bring your best EVIDENCE and I'll bring mine.
Disbelief without factual foundation is not evidence, neither are your cries of indignation. You do not get to label witnesses liars without foundation.
Pick a topic, pick your best and I'll kick your ass.
Do you have any audible evidence of explosions? Any flashes of light from the base of the towers? Any witnesses to these explosions occurring at the TIME of the collapse in the basement? Any physical evidence?
The damn building fell, 110 stories, a dust cloud is typical in any large building collapse - including but not limited to a controlled demolition.
Your suspicion and statement that it looks like a pyroclastic cloud is not evidence.
your such a looser how you gonna explain building 7 collapse also the squibs witness testimony's of hearing explosions in the basement over 500 architects and scientist air plane pilots and lots more who im sure have got a better understanding of this then a muppet with an axe to grind
Photographs show that the maximum extent of impact damage consisting of broken-away walls is about 96 feet wide on the first floor, 18 feet wide on the second floor, and about 26 feet high. This contrasts with an impact profile of a 757 at a 45-degree angle to the wall of 177 feet wide and 40 feet tall.
pathetic you better come up with something better then that for a answer or you aint gonna get paid come on im sure you full of answers i would love to hear your side of the story of what actually took place go on let us in on the wonders of Aptitude this i got to hear..
You figure that' why I delete so many of your comments and ignore even more?
Nah, you contribute nothing. All facts support me, so you can never raise any. The rest of your comments, the trolling, the spamming and the just plain noise shine a bright light on who you are and what you are doing.
For istance, the items you claim did not get wet. When and who took those still pictures? Was it that same day? Days later? Did anyone disturb of move items before the pictures were taken?
Its your assertion, its your burden to demonstrate this.
Deleted your other empty comment as being repetitive.
Nope, I don't need to do that. I proved the image is false because real spraying makes real stuff real wet.
You can debunk the image by showing it was faked by other than military authority (meaning commander in chief) or showing it is not a 911 image, etc. etc.
Once you do that, I have an obligation to prove you wrong or something else to preserve the image credibility.
What you moron cant you see the roof had collapsed by then dont tell me they were not there before that happen do try to use some grey matter unless of course you been sucking on your lead toys again
Hey i tell you what why don't you go bury your head in the sand ,as that seem to be where you have your head or is it up your A**** the later i think get lost fool you aint worth my time or concideration
Why would they fake firefighting activaties? Since the firefighters are not federal employees, how could the be sure they would cooperate with the fake.
Why are there no photos or videos of firefighters NOT fighting the fire - just pointing a fire hose in the air and making woshing sounds I guess, right?
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day?
It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the governments account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesnt know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?
International investigation of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. They are used as the central justification for the "War on Terror", but well documented evidence shows that the official explanation of 9/11 cannot be correct. International personalities in science, politics, and culture, including high-ranking military veterans, have called for a new investigation.
The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best.
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion)
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say thats much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."
I thought they fired a missle at the Pentagon, now they just stood aside? Is that another part of your paranoid brain talking, or was that a brain fart?
DO try to make seance when posing a question Denierbud11.! It would make things a lot easier to understand about your childish drivel,otherwise don't bother to ask.! I know it must be difficult for you in your present mental state i will try to read your moronic crap regardless
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that its highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
there was no way that the tower would have pancaked onto its own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
NO fuckwit they landed in there own footprint, proving a controlled demolition..!!! the shear size of the building the amount of materials falling in too such a small area proves inside job, the parts that hit building 7 were thrown out due to the EXPLOSIVES Used as photographs show of huge metal tiers sticking out of opposite buildings by there very angle of direction prove EXPLOSIONS as it could not have just fell that way.!
why did the military fail to intercept any of the airplanes on 9/11? Was this failure the result of gross incompetence, or was there a stand down order in place?
The US military does not respond to FAA orders. The FAA requests military help, the chain of command is long and combersome - it was that way well before 911.
B/S if it takes so long to go through the chain of command, it would serve no purpose of having a fucking intercept plan, in the first place, your LOGIC comes from you ARSE i take it. It would of taken four minutes to intercept those planes and still would had the decision been made
NORAD functions for external threats, internal domestic flights were never envisioned or planned for such extreme circumstances. Check their former rules of engagement if you disagree.
I have uploaded 131 videos that have attracted nearly a quarter million views and no one has found an error; nearly every video, independently, proves TV fakery.
You may not post another comment disagreeing with TV fakery until you prove an error in my videos or prove there were airplane crashes anywhere on 911.
TV fakery generally is totally proven - CBS took out the NBC background in NY city new year's eve 1999. CNN faked live baghdad reports in 1993, etc, ad nauseum.
I don't debate liars and unresearched, ignorant people.
I have 131 videos presenting tons of info including, typically, my sources where I used original material. You present info, not opinions (1 well-mannered opinion is always permitted) and proofs and your comments are welcome as long as they don't cross "living room" manners.
I use the deleted button to prevent clutter and garbage from building up and preventing honest seekers from reading honest opinions.
there's no possibility of an airplane penetrating very far into the Pentagon. Whereas whatever entered actually punched a hole three rings into the Pentagon, so it had been through six reinforced ground floor walls of the Pentagon as well as all these columns. And it's impossible. So, I think the only thing which might conceivably do that is a hardened missile.
There is no possibility that a missle knocked down light pools and there is no possibility that witnesses saw a missle and mistook it for a Boeing jet.
What witnesses.?saw was a Global Hawk" which could have quite easily knocked down poles,look "Asshole" where is the wreckage on the lawn like the TAIL FIN, THE SEATS, THE LUGGAGE, THE WINGS,THE WHEELS.? wheres the damage to the lawn,? the scorching from the leaked fuel that did not burn in the initial explosion,because if there aint any, explain why the fuel in the planes brought down the towers according to your theory.!
I love the image of the woman in white standing there while fires blaze and water being sprayed everywhere, lol...
Soulfree2008 6 months ago
@Soulfree2008 Indeed
CNN911Fakes 6 months ago
@C9F - just curious - why do your tags not look like links here?
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen Thanks for the heads up. I was really confused by your comment until I went into edit mode; the tags are gone! You are seeing the faux tags in the video description.
Guess we've got some work to do!
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@nameofthepen wow, thanks. Put tags, including the stretch command and got a great result. Perhaps I need to start putting the stretch in all the old videos!
ps, please look at the NY firefighter again.
Is that flat, empty hose behind the truck the one that is delivering his water?
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes I'm wrong,
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes - before I respond, since YT deliberately misrepresents the comment/answer sequences, I'm not sure to which of your comments you self-correcting "I'm wrong" is aimed?
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen Sincerely sorry. I thought the white line behind the truck was the water hose. It appears the guy near the front of the truck is supposed to be holding it up.
Jumped the gun!
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes - Son of a gun! :D
nameofthepen 7 months ago
Busted again by CNN911Fakes . They must had big 55 gallon smoke bombs
going off . One lady who was there said there was no airplane just a bomb .
She is suing the gubermint . Good work more people are waking up to the obvious facts .
SAYYOURROSARY 7 months ago
Shared and playlisted thumbed up and commented on
Quandary121 7 months ago
At 2:20 you can plainly see that the Roof has not yet collapsed,and Notice how very very clean the Grass is out the front no scorch marks no luggage no bodied no seats NO ENGINES and were meant to believe a plane hit this building NOT A CHANCE IN HELL..Same place Those Bastards who did this terrible act Should be Thx again CNN911Fakes never stop what your doing Friend Much respect to you for all the B/S you put up with yet still keep your cool and continue to open eyes to this DOWN RIGHT LIE
Quandary121 7 months ago
LOL on certain "truthseekers" here who come here, watch a video about how real firefighting and water cannons actually appear, and see shots of real ones vs. CGI ones.
Yet suddenly they start asking instead about: a) debris fake? b) fire engine = studio prop? c) firefighters = Disney actors? LOL...where in the vid do any of those subjects come up?
Focus, people. Focus. One thing at a time. Geez, and I thought I was a scatterbrain. :D
nameofthepen 7 months ago 2
@nameofthepen Well, at :20 seconds into this video the following statement appears: "These Images Show That Faked 911 Images Have Been Propagated. Examine Each And Note The Contradictions And Differences." So, I'm examining the image that appears in the video at 3:47 and I see some potential contradictions which I raised here. Should I act as a researcher, or as an audience member at an infomercial?
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 Thanks for coming by again.
I can't run my own life, I'll be damned if I'll run yours.
Research, then
Make your own choices.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes Well, I am doing research. And some, but by no means all, of my source materials are your vast collection of 9/11 related videos. So, not surprisingly, I need to carefully examine the data presented and determine what is valid and what is not. That's why I ask for clarification. To make sure that I don't misrepresent your position when I weight it against the many other theories. One must put theories to a test to determine their validity, don't you think so?
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 Thanks for your comments.
Nothing matters as long as the general public continues to accept the OCT. If you follow me carefully, you will know that I have no theories - I have merely disproved the OCT over 231 videos. I have made assertions occassionally, but they are opinions.
I keep working because people won't believe what the truth is unless it hits them where they think. I think the most persuasive material is the collection of caricatures; few others see them.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@azul8811 - this particular video addresses a very limited topic. You didn't.
This uploader has over 200 videos. Most address a particular topic specifically.
As for the other, well...act like whatever you really are.
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen The video addresses a very limited topic? Hmm, Like Birmingham Alabama in the 1960's? Just kidding! I understand that it's placed here as a frame of reference. Accepted & understood! But at 3:40 he states: "Firefighting Image Fakery Confined to The Pentagon? He then shows an image of an FDNY fire engine and firefighters. So how is "examining" that NOT part of the topic? BTW, would you like to be in an infomercial audience? I think that you might be an excellent candidate.
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 - no comment yet on the subject of the video, or even on my prior comment?
The way you waste comment space, I guess it's a good thing it's free, eh?
But, stick around, kiddo. Publicity is publicity. :-)
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen BTW, thank you for referring to me as a "truthseeker". I consider that a compliment.
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 - ha ha...you would. :D
"Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it, and are often used to express irony." - wiki/Quotation_mark
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen I'll STILL take it as a compliment! You say I made no comment on the subject of the video & your comment? I was quite clear what aspect I was discussing & time frame. Maybe you've missed one of my responses to CNN911. What do mean, I waste comment space? You mean because I persist on asking pointed questions that no one will answer but instead, will dodge, deflect, & ignore? Well, perhaps you're right, it feels as if I'm speaking into a void. Care to send me another URL?
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 - OK. Let's try this: Tell us what in this video appears not fake to you.
nameofthepen 7 months ago
@nameofthepen The very part that I raised issue with CNN911Fakes on. And I've already furnished the time frame in a previous exchange with you, as well. What more information do you require?
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 Round and round, eh? Correct me if I misinterpretted our conversation, but I thought you agreed the fireman standing on his truck could not have been spraying any water in that image; the image was faked.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes Hey wait a minute!! Are you and nameofthepen are one in the same?
azul8811 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes Thank you for your comments. Please see my previous post on this topic. My opinions are as stated. They speak for themselves.
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 The conversation is nearly over.
When a person expresses the possibility they misinterpretted what you said, you clarify. Unless of course, you are merely spreading disinformation and wasting time, in which case, you tell thew person to reread what they may have already misinterpretted.
Tell us your opinion of the NYC image; is that image of a fireman a true image?
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes Previously, I raised 8 interrelated points to consider if one felt this photo was faked. They went unanswered. My take: Seagrave Rig, 1 length of 1 3/4" hose line taken off the 1 1/2" gated wye. On booster water, not hooked up. Adjustable fog/straight stream nozzle. Engine 9 from Canal Street. But who is the guy in civvies, w/ no handie-talkie, standing I.FO. the gate? Off duty? Retired? Vollie? Buff? Probably out of line of sight from the guy on the nozzle. I say real.
azul8811 7 months ago
basicly what a1bfd said with the exception of the upsid down spray , yes it was spray and if you look at the smoke directly behind that its traveling in the same direction , but next you will say that was thought of by the pentagon just in case someone like me pointed that out fuck your a dill ,,, next
imbetterthanyouis 10 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis Thanks for visiting and commenting.
Your depth of analysis and understanding are truly awesome. Roughly on the same level as your language skills.
CNN911Fakes 10 months ago
@CNN911Fakes well all i know is you have 190 videos of utter shit and nonsence ,, are you up morning your hero quaker boy?
imbetterthanyouis 10 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis Too bad the US government doesn't agree with you; my life would be much easier.
Work thru them all. YOu are welcome here.
CNN911Fakes 9 months ago
@CNN911Fakes This video is about the 9/11 Pentagon Firefighting. And as you've told me, you only stick to the topic of the particular video. So, why do you show a NYC fire engine and NYC firefighters then? That has nothing to do with the Pentagon. Correct? So what does that prove about the Pentagon? Thank you in advance for clearing this up.
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 If you wish to say somethig about that image, please feel free.
The text introducing the image is quite clear.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes Oh, I see, now. You're saying that the water coming out of the hose being used to wash off debris from the roof of the fire engine is faked. Just like the fake water they used at the Pentagon. So that's the tie in. Ah, Okay. And what about the debris? Faked too? And the Fire Engine? Disney owned? And the Firemen? Actors?
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 Thanks for your comment.
I always wonder why, having proved that what we were shown was faked, I have to explain everything else?
Indict and arrest the perps, investigate, try and execute the worst of them that we can get our hands on. Run the others out of town.
I have lots of videos proving many of the things you mention. Happy to discuss those issues on the appropriate videos.
I suggest you see my latest upload; it screams at us.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes I'll sure look at your latest upload, but first I need to make sure that I understand what you are actually stating in this video. Are you saying, regarding the NYC photo at 3:47 here: 1. The debris are fake? 2. The water is faked? 3. The fire engine is a studio prop? 4. The firefighters are Disney actors? I'm not asking you for proof, I just want to make sure that I understand your position on these specific points. Then I'll know where next to proceed on this complex issue.
azul8811 7 months ago
@azul8811 Thanks for your comment.
The video deals with fake firefighting; specifically what looks like water being sprayed on objects that is not. I am content to leave it at that.
No water is being sprayed on that truck. How much of the rest of it is faked? Who cares? It is faked.
CNN911Fakes 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes You ask, “How much of the rest of it is faked? Who cares?” Well, any researcher that is genuinely serious about understanding the events on 9/11, that‘s who. Research involves questions, does it not? There are many different theories about that day, and some in contradiction. Hence, the need for detailed critical analysis, or “examination“, as your intro at 00:20 seconds instructs us. And this is a problem?
azul8811 7 months ago
@CNN911Fakes I’m surprised that you didn’t grasp the point of my previous questions as I’m “examining for contradictions”, as you suggest. If the water is faked, one must consider the following: a) was a real firefighter directed to pose holding a dry empty hose? b) wouldn’t it been easier to briefly just shoot real water instead? c) if they are actors, did they tell the real firemen to step aside while we use your fire engine as a prop? d) was this photo actually taken at “Ground Zero”?
azul8811 7 months ago
so yeah lets make the comparison between an f4 phantom II crashing in to a solid block of concrete with a steel plate infront of it testing what would happen to a march2 fighter when it hits a solid object as aposed to what happens to the object it hits and something 150tons heavier hitting something weaker yeah hmmm good point there ,,,,,, not ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh yeah fuck cunt shit bollock barsterd nipple wank turd
imbetterthanyouis 10 months ago
you fuckin paranoid schizos are a bunch of weirdos
wakeoforion999 2 years ago
I really hope you are joking. first off the "upside down gravity spray" all they are doing is taking the nozzle and sweeping downward. also fdny spaying water on the truck, first they literally just opened the bale and just started spraying water. secong with the shit they had been through that day i dont really think he cared about being wet!
a1bfd 2 years ago
A missile ?
"It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War - a that killed a Marine in my unit"Phillip Thompson
missile strike
"For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a going 2000lb bomb off"Terry Morin
"A bomb had gone off. I could smell the . cordite I knew explosives had
been set off somewhere"Don Perkal
" "John Bowman
Most people knew it was a bomb "It smelled like , or gun smoke"
Quandary121 3 years ago
Gilah Goldsmith
"cordite or something
"Mike Slater
I knew it was a bomb
Quandary121 3 years ago
My last comment to you is this you are delusional about me about what happened and also about get my arse kicked you on the other hand have come up with nothing but lame reply's half baked rants and self congratulatory rhetoric
Quandary121 3 years ago
dont take this as a cop out as i would dearly love to show you the truth trouble is you could not handle the truth also i really don't want to play your retarded games any longer get lost and by all means pipe up after im gone that you won as m sure this will give you great please as for me i dont play games especially when many people died because of something this tragic
Quandary121 3 years ago
Denierbud11 i cant see your comment to reply to it so i will do so here Quote by you "YOu have to identify witnesses, names and what they said, Statements by you are not fact. "
Answer i do not have to show YOU anything why should i ,this testimony is out there on the the web in papers around the time do some research your self im not your gimp pal,i do not need to show shills anything it stands by its own validation like or lump it
Quandary121 3 years ago
Witnesses said they thought explosive charges were set off inside the Pentagon 'impact area' to make it appear that the aircraft actually passed the front wall when it really didn't. That would explain large fire development even outside the impact area.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Witnesses said the aircraft hardly penetrated the brick Pentagon wall before an explosion blew it to bits.
Quandary121 3 years ago
The 'construction trailer', actually a large generator trailer with its own 500 gallon diesel tank, was not used but kept for an emergency. As there was no need for the large extra tank nearby, the tank apparently was filled with a crude oil-diesel oil mixture, similar to an orchard smudge pot, and remotely ignited to create the enormous smoke plume . Note that the smoke from the burning trailer is whitish.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Firefighter Russell Dodge said. "There were two vehicles burning, along with a construction trailer - we didn't know at the time, but that trailer was the main producer of smoke on the outside of the building. He said the foam units got there and concentrated on the area of the construction trailer, which was producing some severe fires and subsequent mini explosions due to highly flammable chemicals in it THAN on the actual point of impact from the hijacked aircraft.
Quandary121 3 years ago
MILITARY IMPOSTER
September 12-14, 2001: Apparently Fake Military Official Helps with Pentagon Recovery, then Disappears
A mysterious man, who is initially assumed to be working for the military, assists firefighters involved in the Pentagon recovery efforts, but then disappears without trace and is thought to have been an impostor who had managed to slip inside the Pentagon grounds.
Quandary121 3 years ago
"Johnny" - Arlington firefighter Bob Gray is introduced by his colleague Bobby Beer to a man wearing a hard hat. Beer introduces the man only as "Johnny," and adds, "He's our go-between with PenRen [the Pentagon Renovation Program], and he knows some of the military guys too." Although "Johnny" is not wearing any identifying badge or ID,
Quandary121 3 years ago
he seems knowledgeable, appears "taut and serious, with a purposeful military stance," and even introduces Gray and Beer to a couple of friends of his who say they work for Special Forces. Johnny says if Gray and Beer need anything from the military, he can help. As a security perimeter has now been set up around the crash site, Gray assumes Johnny must be there officially. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 367-368]
Quandary121 3 years ago
Disappears - Johnny turns out to be very helpful and assists Gray and Beer repeatedly. But, on the evening of September 14, he suddenly disappears. Gray and Beer ask around, but no one at the Pentagon seems to know exactly who Johnny is or what his last name is, and none of the agencies involved in the recovery effort say he worked for them.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Johnny's disappearance appears to follow an error he had made after firefighters discovered two bodies inside the Pentagon's E Ring. Johnny mistakenly called the truck used to remove bodies to the temporary morgue prematurely, before FBI agents had the chance to photograph and document the remains
Quandary121 3 years ago
. Gray and Beer start to wonder if Johnny in fact had no official standing, and was an impostor.
Clearance - According to authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, "It wasn't unusual at high-profile crime scenes for law-enforcement pretenders to show up and insinuate themselves into the work."
Quandary121 3 years ago
Johnny would have required "some kind of clearance to get through the concentric security perimeters that sprung up around the building--unless he'd been inside the wire before security tightened. It was possible that he had wandered in at the very beginning and simply stayed--there was enough food, water, and basic support on the scene to survive for days. Somebody who was determined enough to sleep inside one of the tents, or even on the grass, could easily have bypassed security."
Quandary121 3 years ago
Tighter Security - However, the FBI has now become stricter about security, and is ushering out volunteers and scrutinizing anyone without airtight credentials. Gray and Beer conclude that Johnny may have come to the attention of the FBI when he called the body truck, leading agents to inquire who he was, and this could have prompted his disappearance from the Pentagon. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 416-418]
Source
Quandary121 3 years ago
September 12, 2001: People Disguised as Firefighters Arrested at Pentagon
The Defense Protective Service (DPS)--the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon--arrests three people at the Pentagon who are dressed in firefighting gear but are not firefighters.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Quandary121
Cool, so they were already setting the scene for spinning the fact that no image of a firefighter at the pentagon shows an identifiable face.
Thanks!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Hope that all helps you bud sorry for the mix up earlier
Q121
Quandary121 3 years ago
Don't worry about me-already a full member of the choir
Need to think about the ignorant coming to this video to learn something. YOu may be overdoing it as they probably won't read more than the front page
But, on the good side, it appears you have, at least temporarily, chased away our shills
And, the comments are searchable on google (although they block certain inquiries - google "by stealth make war" and noice what famous war mongers, who coined the expression, don't show up!)
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
5* by the way rofl
Quandary121 3 years ago
Further details of who these people are and why they are at the Pentagon are unstated. John Jester, the chief of the DPS, later reflects: "When you have a major event, certain people are like moths around a light bulb. They come to the scene as thrill seekers.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Reportedly, incident command, DPS, and FBI officials are worried by the "absence of an effective identification system to control the large number of people that [are passing] through the outer perimeter fence to support firefighting and recovery operations" at the Pentagon. [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]
Source
Quandary121 3 years ago
FAKE FIREFIGHTERS
(Between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Mystery Firefighters Seen Behaving Oddly inside Pentagon
A mysterious fire crew is witnessed inside the Pentagon, behaving completely at odds with how firefighters are trained to act. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137]
Quandary121 3 years ago
Chad Stamps is a firefighter with Rescue 104 of the Arlington County Fire Department. [National Fire and Rescue, 5/2002] Along with his crew, he has been fighting fires on the second floor of the Pentagon's outer E Ring. With fires burning around him, he is astonished to see another crew walk past, carrying two packs of hose line, apparently on its way to fight fires elsewhere in the Pentagon.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Describing this incident, authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will point out: "Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you. Yet there they went." Seeing the crew passing by, Stamps thinks, "This is totally disjointed."
Quandary121 3 years ago
[Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137] The odd behavior of this crew is perhaps notable because there is at least one reported incident of fake firefighters being caught at the Pentagon following the attack there: On September 12, three people will be arrested who are not firefighters, yet who are dressed in firefighting gear (see September 12, 2001). [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]
Source
Quandary121 3 years ago
The presence of these fake personnel raises the question of why they were at the Pentagon. Were these men just "thrill seekers," as the chief of the DPS has claimed, there for their own misguided reasons? Or could they have been at the site for a more sinister purpose, perhaps as part of a coordinated operation to plant or remove evidence from the crime scene?
Quandary121 3 years ago
This latter possibility has some evidence to support it. Shortly after the attack occurred, DPS officer Lt. Robbie Turner saw people apparently stealing plane debris from the road in front of the Pentagon. Turner has recalled,
Quandary121 3 years ago
"We had to try to stop other people from pilfering the wreckage because, believe it or not, there were people--military personnel involved--you know, included, rather, that was picking up the wreckage of the plane from off the highway." Another DPS officer, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., worked during the afternoon and evening of 9/11 at the heliport near where the Pentagon was hit. He has recalled that, in that time, "We had a lot of people vandalizing, stealing evidence."
Quandary121 3 years ago
Beginning that same day, a couple of firefighters involved in the recovery effort were repeatedly assisted by a mysterious man who appeared to work for the military, but who wore no identifying badge and was known to them only as "Johnny." This man said if the firefighters needed anything from the military, he could help them, and even introduced them to some friends of his who said they worked for Special Forces. But on the evening of
Quandary121 3 years ago
September 14, Johnny suddenly disappeared. When the two firefighters asked around, they found that no one at the Pentagon knew who "Johnny" was, and none of the agencies involved in the recovery effort said he worked for them. The two firefighters started to wonder if he'd been an imposter who'd perhaps managed to gain access to the site before security had been tightened there.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Then, on September 12, the Defense Protective Service (DPS), which guards the Pentagon, arrested three people at the Pentagon who were dressed as firefighters, but were not firefighters.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Fairly early on in the firefighting operation at the Pentagon, what appeared to be a crew of firefighters was seen behaving completely at odds with how firefighters are trained to act.
Quandary121 3 years ago
An Arlington County firefighter working on the building's second floor witnessed the crew walking past burning fires, apparently to get to fires elsewhere in the building. But, as authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman have pointed out: "Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you."
Quandary121 3 years ago
Several entries in the Complete 9/11 Timeline (copied below) describe what appear to have been individuals disguised as firefighters or military personnel, who were involved in the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon following the attack there on September 11, 2001.
Quandary121 3 years ago
What these individuals were doing is unknown, but possibilities need to be investigated, such as whether they were there to tamper with, plant, or remove evidence. That this may have been the case is given weight by the fact that some people who appeared to be members of the military were witnessed stealing crash debris from in front of the Pentagon.
Quandary121 3 years ago
No amount of spin can realistically explain away the absence of commercial jetliner wreckage at the Pentagon.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Quandary121
But. some was planted and I have a video covering that topic. Please take it there.
This one deals with the faked firefighting images.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Ok np i can handle that
Quandary121 3 years ago
I love this kind of comment from a shill...
Denierbud11 said
"CNNFAKES is a troll makeing the rest of the truthers look even more stupid."
So, that should be good for your side, right? I mean, if I am an obvious plant whose videos and comments hurt truth, you should be spreading my videos far and wide and telling people I am the truth, so they will see what a monster I really am and hang their hats on your peg.
Nah, all the shills and infiltrators hate me.
Wonderful recommendation
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
This was dust retarding mist not firefighting equipment. From the ahem, "renovations" that were taking place.
PollenB 3 years ago
So they were spraying dust retarding mist from the hoses?
LOL
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Are you saying they were spraying WATER on an airplane crash??
PollenB 3 years ago
Did you see the building fire?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
You didnt answer my question!
PollenB 3 years ago
They used water to fight the building fire - the Pentagon.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
What there was no airplane then? Water is not used on fuel fires. Don't you know that?
PollenB 3 years ago
Google Arlington Virginia After-Action Report Released
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Look Denierbud11 you been cracking on about this video for over a month now i thought i recognized your snide comments why the hang up with one video is the truth to much for you to handle is that why you come back here to stir the hornets nest sure must pay well denouncing truth videos can you sleep at night knowing your actions make you just as culpable how do you live with that as i sure couldent.!
Quandary121 3 years ago
"Look Denierbud11 you been cracking on about this video for over a month "
I commented a month ago and haven't been back since. CNNFAKES is a troll makeing the rest of the truthers look even more stupid.
And the, must be a paid shill comment is typical truth crap, is there a play book you guys follow?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Rubbish if you commented a month ago like i did also to counter your lame comments then how come your back ..? and also it is not typical truth **** as you put it it just seems to any intelligent person that this is the obvious answer to why "YOU" keep returning
OH YEA NICE DUCK OUT OF THE QUESTION BET YOUR GOOD AT DOING THAT YOU KNOW ANSWERING INSTEAD OF CRITICISM
Quandary121 3 years ago
"Rubbish if you commented a month ago like i did also to counter your lame comments then how come your back ..? "
Because someone replied to my comment ...
How about this, I'll go against you on any 911 subject, you bring your best EVIDENCE and I'll bring mine.
Disbelief without factual foundation is not evidence, neither are your cries of indignation. You do not get to label witnesses liars without foundation.
Pick a topic, pick your best and I'll kick your ass.
Got any balls?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
cool i got just the thing
/watch?v=OZU-1V7gHTw
Quandary121 3 years ago
pyroclastic dust cloud?
Do you have any audible evidence of explosions? Any flashes of light from the base of the towers? Any witnesses to these explosions occurring at the TIME of the collapse in the basement? Any physical evidence?
The damn building fell, 110 stories, a dust cloud is typical in any large building collapse - including but not limited to a controlled demolition.
Your suspicion and statement that it looks like a pyroclastic cloud is not evidence.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Quandary121
Please get you and the shill back onto this video.
Please discuss the contents of other videos on those videos.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
ok sorry bud
Quandary121 3 years ago
your such a looser how you gonna explain building 7 collapse also the squibs witness testimony's of hearing explosions in the basement over 500 architects and scientist air plane pilots and lots more who im sure have got a better understanding of this then a muppet with an axe to grind
Quandary121 3 years ago
Photographs show that the maximum extent of impact damage consisting of broken-away walls is about 96 feet wide on the first floor, 18 feet wide on the second floor, and about 26 feet high. This contrasts with an impact profile of a 757 at a 45-degree angle to the wall of 177 feet wide and 40 feet tall.
Quandary121 3 years ago
dernierbud11
Please get back onto this video.
Please discuss the contents of other videos on those videos.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
pathetic you better come up with something better then that for a answer or you aint gonna get paid come on im sure you full of answers i would love to hear your side of the story of what actually took place go on let us in on the wonders of Aptitude this i got to hear..
Quandary121 3 years ago
"or you aint gonna get paid"
More of the paid shill shit from a troll.
Why not make an attempt at an intelligent post?
CNNFAKES loves this shit, comments and hits, it just makes his day.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Oh i see im a troll now and so is CNN911Fakes and about a million others with there eyes open
but you not oh i see
ROFL if im a troll your this A pillack
A pillack is someone who is greatly dumb, and less superior to your normal everyday person.
Quandary121 3 years ago
dernierbud,
You figure that' why I delete so many of your comments and ignore even more?
Nah, you contribute nothing. All facts support me, so you can never raise any. The rest of your comments, the trolling, the spamming and the just plain noise shine a bright light on who you are and what you are doing.
.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
I'm sorry, what is the motivation to fake firefighting activities and why would the fireman take part in it?
Do you need witnesses to confirm the images?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
vashwc
did you check out the image?
freewebs. com/ giuliani08/ P200040-1.jpg
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
One of my favorites!
@1:32, the total absence of splashback once again proves obvious fakery for me, but the non-watered items @3:01 are the coup de grâce.
Means, motive, opportunity, guilty demeanor, and a rising mountain of evidence.
Great upload. Thanks so much for posting.
nameofthepen 3 years ago
For some fun, take a look at this high res copy of the moussaoui image
freewebs. com/ giuliani08/ P200040-1.jpg
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
For istance, the items you claim did not get wet. When and who took those still pictures? Was it that same day? Days later? Did anyone disturb of move items before the pictures were taken?
Its your assertion, its your burden to demonstrate this.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
Deleted your other empty comment as being repetitive.
Nope, I don't need to do that. I proved the image is false because real spraying makes real stuff real wet.
You can debunk the image by showing it was faked by other than military authority (meaning commander in chief) or showing it is not a 911 image, etc. etc.
Once you do that, I have an obligation to prove you wrong or something else to preserve the image credibility.
You won't. You can't.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
"Deleted "
Debate over ... delete key wins ...
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
Great, you never said anything anyway.
I hate spam.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
What you moron cant you see the roof had collapsed by then dont tell me they were not there before that happen do try to use some grey matter unless of course you been sucking on your lead toys again
Quandary121 3 years ago
Could you try that again in English and without pronouns.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Hey i tell you what why don't you go bury your head in the sand ,as that seem to be where you have your head or is it up your A**** the later i think get lost fool you aint worth my time or concideration
Quandary121 3 years ago
Quandary
When did logic and reason and the examination of evidence become your enemy?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Why would they fake firefighting activaties? Since the firefighters are not federal employees, how could the be sure they would cooperate with the fake.
Why are there no photos or videos of firefighters NOT fighting the fire - just pointing a fire hose in the air and making woshing sounds I guess, right?
LOL
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
See, that comment will stick around.
you asked a good question, BTW...
"Why would they fake firefighting activaties?"
What would be your opinion in answer to that question?
ps - don't ask the question again. Just answer it.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Its not mine to answer, I don't believe they would or even could fake this activty. This is your theory, not mine.
No civil fire department will take part in a conspiracy that saw the murder of 300 brothers in New York.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
You see, that is the kind of comment that gets deleted (I won't this time). My video is not thoeretical at all; it is factual.
I don't need to ask why - I don't care why. The firefighting images at the pentagon were faked. 100% proven by this video and others.
This video concerns the pentagon. There are videos rpoviding a basis of discussion for NY. Go to one if you wish to discuss the criminal FDNY.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
Quandary121 3 years ago
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!
Quandary121 3 years ago
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
Quandary121 3 years ago
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day?
Quandary121 3 years ago
It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
Quandary121 3 years ago
Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the governments account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
Quandary121 3 years ago
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
Quandary121 3 years ago
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesnt know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?
Quandary121 3 years ago
International investigation of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. They are used as the central justification for the "War on Terror", but well documented evidence shows that the official explanation of 9/11 cannot be correct. International personalities in science, politics, and culture, including high-ranking military veterans, have called for a new investigation.
Quandary121 3 years ago
International investigation? Now you are calling for a NWO investigation? Who should conduct the investigation, the UN?
LOL
Denierbud11 3 years ago
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 are increasingly used to justify systematic surveillance and the dismantling of constitutional rights.
Quandary121 3 years ago
Must be the NWO - same guys that brought us global warming.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best.
Quandary121 3 years ago
The official version does not allege that steel melted - you are getting worse Quandry.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion)
Quandary121 3 years ago
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say thats much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."
Quandary121 3 years ago
I thought they fired a missle at the Pentagon, now they just stood aside? Is that another part of your paranoid brain talking, or was that a brain fart?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
The brain fart is YOU.!!!!!!!!!!!
DO try to make seance when posing a question Denierbud11.! It would make things a lot easier to understand about your childish drivel,otherwise don't bother to ask.! I know it must be difficult for you in your present mental state i will try to read your moronic crap regardless
Quandary121 3 years ago
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that its highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
Quandary121 3 years ago
When did "Who gained" become criminal? Why not tell us who gained?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
there was no way that the tower would have pancaked onto its own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
Quandary121 3 years ago
They did topple outwards, that is why debri fell and hit WTC 7 - you are not very good at this are you dick head?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
NO fuckwit they landed in there own footprint, proving a controlled demolition..!!! the shear size of the building the amount of materials falling in too such a small area proves inside job, the parts that hit building 7 were thrown out due to the EXPLOSIVES Used as photographs show of huge metal tiers sticking out of opposite buildings by there very angle of direction prove EXPLOSIONS as it could not have just fell that way.!
Quandary121 3 years ago
why did the military fail to intercept any of the airplanes on 9/11? Was this failure the result of gross incompetence, or was there a stand down order in place?
Quandary121 3 years ago
The US military does not respond to FAA orders. The FAA requests military help, the chain of command is long and combersome - it was that way well before 911.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
B/S if it takes so long to go through the chain of command, it would serve no purpose of having a fucking intercept plan, in the first place, your LOGIC comes from you ARSE i take it. It would of taken four minutes to intercept those planes and still would had the decision been made
Quandary121 3 years ago
NORAD functions for external threats, internal domestic flights were never envisioned or planned for such extreme circumstances. Check their former rules of engagement if you disagree.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
And WHO had control over NORAD at the time of the attacks (FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS)
Quandary121 3 years ago
The Department of Defense had control of NORAD, as it always had - do you have a point?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
You already know hispoint, that is why you respond with empty attacks.
NORAD was not needed on 911, who cares what they did?
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
I think the point needs to be defined, so I can tell him how wrong he is.
YOU do know the rules of engagement and the means of operations were do diffrent in 2001 than the were in the 1990's. This is important.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
Why not read what I said
"NORAD was not needed on 911, who cares what they did?"
Not important at all. TV fakery is important; it is everything.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
"TV fakery is important; it is everything"
The no plane theory is alleged to be a false flag operation against the truther movement.
Are you aware of this?
TV Fakery is absurd, the complexity of the required deception is absurd. EVERY media outlet the the free world would have to be privy to it.
The same media that slams our government for Iraq. The same government that was not able to plant WMD in Iraq.
LOL You guys kill me with this shit.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
I have uploaded 131 videos that have attracted nearly a quarter million views and no one has found an error; nearly every video, independently, proves TV fakery.
You may not post another comment disagreeing with TV fakery until you prove an error in my videos or prove there were airplane crashes anywhere on 911.
TV fakery generally is totally proven - CBS took out the NBC background in NY city new year's eve 1999. CNN faked live baghdad reports in 1993, etc, ad nauseum.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
How about you debate me on a forum, where you do not control the delete button?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
denierbud11
I don't debate liars and unresearched, ignorant people.
I have 131 videos presenting tons of info including, typically, my sources where I used original material. You present info, not opinions (1 well-mannered opinion is always permitted) and proofs and your comments are welcome as long as they don't cross "living room" manners.
I use the deleted button to prevent clutter and garbage from building up and preventing honest seekers from reading honest opinions.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
there's no possibility of an airplane penetrating very far into the Pentagon. Whereas whatever entered actually punched a hole three rings into the Pentagon, so it had been through six reinforced ground floor walls of the Pentagon as well as all these columns. And it's impossible. So, I think the only thing which might conceivably do that is a hardened missile.
Quandary121 3 years ago
There is no possibility that a missle knocked down light pools and there is no possibility that witnesses saw a missle and mistook it for a Boeing jet.
Who do you think has the bigger obstacle?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
What witnesses.?saw was a Global Hawk" which could have quite easily knocked down poles,look "Asshole" where is the wreckage on the lawn like the TAIL FIN, THE SEATS, THE LUGGAGE, THE WINGS,THE WHEELS.? wheres the damage to the lawn,? the scorching from the leaked fuel that did not burn in the initial explosion,because if there aint any, explain why the fuel in the planes brought down the towers according to your theory.!
Quandary121 3 years ago