"Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
"Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
"How is it possible that witnesses heard explosions below them and before the impact? Were there two impacts?" A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion. The crack of a supersonic bullet passing overhead is an example of a sonic boom in miniature.
Hi, can we have a debate? Planes are made out of Aluminium, correct? The twin towers were solely made up out of steel. Most of the plane would have been pulverized into pieces before entering the building. The video clearly shows the engines (the most explosive and the sturdiest part of the plane) hit the building, they explode and this is what would make the worst of the damage to the building. If you were expecting a plane like shape in the building, you have been watching too many cartoons.
In all of the plane vs buildings/hard surfaces I've seen, aluminum planes don't enter buildings. Yes, they are pulverized at impact but they rain down below without entering. I agree about the cartoon shaped hole. Check out the North Tower impact hole. Apparently, Wile E Coyote was flying that plane??
@muzicmaker2001 "In all of the plane vs buildings/hard surfaces I've seen". When is the last time you seen a passenger Jet fly into a high rise building, like the twin towers, just for refference?? No, it would not fall to the ground lol, part of the plane would slive through the windows which were massive, you couldn't answer the elevator question and now your having trouble answering this one. I asked a "9/11 truther, science major" to comment on this video, he said it was BS.
So, for a plane crash to a valid example, it has to be a pasenger plane flying into a high rise? Interesting logic. Einstein, these are aluminum planes. The wings and fuselage are basically hollow tubes. Educate yourself on plane crashes outside of 911, ok? And I'm not interested in how any movement views these videos and I consider myself a truther. But, if you watched this video and still think a plane entered, you are either a moron or someone with an agenda to defend 911.
Correction to me: I DON'Tt consider myself a truther..whatever that means. I just have a brain. For example, find 20 witnesses of WTC planes recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. Easy enough with 8 million people, huh? Why has several FOIA requests been denied for the wreckage serial numbers and process of identfying the wreckage in 2007 and 2008? Why the mystery? Any ideas?
@muzicmaker2001 I think we all know that your the brainless idiot. For starters,the elevator comment, you said how could the fireball reach the basement if the elevators are cut off every 40 floors and don't go right to the bottom,"are not connected in one straight line, theirs freight elevators from top to bottom lol, prooved you wrong with that already. Second, the wings are hollow? that means they would burn up even faster moron, corrects my story of the plane disinegrating.
@86Blessed86 One more thing, you fire a bullet at a piece of glass and the breakage is going to be different from one, to the other. No firefighters are saying that their was no planes, no architects, no PHD majors in anything, all the people that are saying that there was no plane, are people on youtube with video's that have shit blurry vision, why don't you do everyone a favour and find a video that isn't blurry.
Boy, you are really dedicated to proving this wrong, huh? What I don't get is this. While having an agenda to defend 911, why do you assume anyone will listen to your biased opinion? And your opinion is not proving anything wrong, ok? Its just your opinion. Welcome back to reality. Your posts have become more and more desperate that its almost as if you have money invested in this or something? Maybe somebody out there actually thinks you're smart. I would stick with them...
@muzicmaker2001 The funny thing is, you think i'm trying to prove this wrong, i know it's wrong, so does everyone with a brain, i'm just trying to make you see what an idiot you are, this isn't seriouse to me or anyone, you dumb beyond belief about this and it's funny proving you wrong so easily.
I thought that it was pretty obvious that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests here or following what the majority thinks. I'm here to spread the truth. That's it. I'm not part of some organized movement or part of some club.
@muzicmaker2001 You misunderstand. That debunker was trying to explain the presence of the abundant Fe-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (found by USGS, RJLee as well as Harrit et al). He claimed that the spherules in the dust originated from distant volcanic activity, were brought to GZ by a river and then somehow entered the WTC dust in quantities that make their abundance characteristic of WTC dust. That is EVERY BIT as insane as the no-plane "theories".
@muzicmaker2001 Also, this is what you have said, "and I consider myself a truther" and then your next comment "I DON'Tt consider myself a truther" hahahahahahah i think your half a retard sitting at home trying to act smart.
@muzicmaker2001 The smoking gun of 9/11 is WTC7, and why it collapsed. What you are claiming, it just shits on all the other 9/11 truth movements hard work, because it gives peole ammo to use against truthers, only idiots believe there was no planes. The actuall top players in the 9/11 truth movement are focused on, thermite found at ground zero and WTC7, a no plane theory is ludacris and idiotic and who ever believes it is silly, i just asked you about the elevator and your stuk
This video has been altered. There is no bright flash from the nose cone when the plane enters the building. There is no visible indication of the POD's penetration damage to the building, such as was visible from the engines.
Great videos all of them! Have not watched them in awhile. Still makes me wonder how people think that this was a terrorist attack. So many tv zombies out there. Thanks for your work.
There are 118 accounts of explosions in the Towers from first resposnders alone. All liars? Wait, all are taken out of context? Thats a favorite. Wait, they are not experts on explosions? Wait, it is common for a plane impact 1000 ft up to cause explosions all throughout the building including the sub-basement areas? Wait, explosions BEFORE the impact are common also? Kinda weird when your crazy shill logic boomerangs you back in the face, huh?
Timing might be off? Wait a sec. So, you think all explosions heard were just due to the impact? You do know the first responders were called in because of the impact/fire so they all arrived after it occured.
no, I expect things to explode during the course of an uncontrolled office fire? do you think things would not explode/
do you have any bomb fragments or anyone claim they actually saw a bomb? if not, then explosions are NOT evidence of bombs - they are only evidence that something exploded
I thought you stated that don't dispute the witnesses of explosions? Or is it just the explosions that don't fit into the BS that a plane impact 1000 ft up created every explosion? And again, these were explosions only minutes after and BEFORE the impact. Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line? Please explain how this is possible? Are they all liars?
And you still have not addressed this question asked several times now. One more time. How is it possible that witnesses heard explosions below them and before the impact? Were there two impacts? You don't dispute these explosions, correct?
@muzicmaker2001 "Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
"I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors. –Nicholas Scinicariello, 86th floor
There was no plane because there are no witnesses. The witnesses are liars because there was no plane.
Yep, the truther montage
"We just got relieved after 0900, Fireman Escofrery and myself. We saw the plane coming over, sort of over quarters and then the initial crash. We heard the initial crash." FDNY firefighter George Kozlowski
I thought you were going "move on" because you couldn't produce even 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 but you continue post random quotes? Remember, just ordinary folks with no connection ot the media or government.
Please concentrate. 15-20 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. This should be an easy task considering the population of NYC. Try again...
This is not a court of law. If you can't produce the 15 witnesses, just say so. And this is some very weird logic. You don't dispute the accounts of explosions because of the plane impacts, but can't even produce witness accounts of the planes?? WT??
There is no requirement that a witness be recorded live the day of the event and certainly no requirement that they not have a "connection" can you get any more obscure? -- yes, time for you to move on, no one cares what your threshold of evidence may be
See, that is the problem with truthers, you refuse to actually examine evidence and would rather waive it away for some illogical reason that fits in your paranoid life
Four posts now with nothing but excuses? But first, it's a simple comparison of logic. There are more witnesses recorded live on 911 of explosions than witnesses of the planes. Was the main event here planes crashing into the Towers or explosions in the Towers? Next, since this is a lie, there would be no REAL LIVE witnesses of the planes unless they were planted and obviously fake. This is also the case with the Pentagon strike.
Here's your meter. Here are many witnesses recorded live on 911 of explosions in the Towers. Now, how about some just like this? And I hope we both agree that the witnesses can not be someone who captured direct footage of the planes (fake) for obvious reasons.
A. I saw it hit. Within about ten seconds after that or so I gave the first report on the radio and transmitted a second alarm for a plane into the Trade Center... FDNY Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer
"Can you show me where the Moussari trial proved there were planes "
count four
unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed to use weapons of mass destruction, namely, airplanes intended for use as missiles, bombs, and similar devices, without lawful authority against persons within the United States
A simple, "No, I can't show you where the Moussari trial proved that there were real planes and/or traced any of the wreckage back to the registered flights" would've been easier, right? But, thanks anyway...
it proved their were real planes, he is held to be guilty of piracy, every court will now take judicial notice, == so yes, it has been legaly proved in a court of law
I'm not trying to overturn any guilt. I was just looking for ANY evidence of real planes. And looking for ANY evidence linking ANY of the wreckage to ANY of the four planes. I fgured since you dedicate so much time on here defending 911, you might have something? So, do you see how this is not really helping your case and how intelligent people are now opening their eyes wider?
how is a finding of guilt by a court of a law governed by US jurisprudence not helping? every court of law will now take judicial notice, no further proof is needed when this threshold is met
it is now your burden to disprove -- you may think it is not fair, but it does not matter what you think, all that matters is what you can prove
Yes, that makes perfect sense. You have dedicated alot of your time on here defending 911 but can't over any evidence to prove your case? I can't see why more people believe you? Sometimes I think you are only here as a joke. Maybe, you lost a bet?
3) there are hundreds of witnesses, your desire for specifics and limitations to an unknown definition (normal citzens - what's abnormal?) are not required
4) Flight 77 did not disitegrate, the planes entering the WTC's had significant damage
I actually expected more from someone dedicated to defending 911, but...
1. Proof?
2. Not an answer
3. Proof of witnesses please. Not excuses
4. For Flight 77, there was no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board (aka: the majority of the plane) or even one body identified as a passenger.
And was Flight 1549 one of the most photographed events in history? No? See the difference?
3. If you can't answer the question, just say so and save us all some time here, ok? 8 million people in NYC, but you can't produce even 15 witnesses of the WTC planes. That says it all
4. Once again, there is no photographic evidence of even ONE body identified as a passenger, but there were photos of bodies presented at the Moussaoui Trial. None of the wreckage was confirmed to be from the registered flight. Engines? Post a photo?
more attention does not equal on air live interviews of witnesses, if anything, since there was no live video bordcast, one would expect more witnesses to be sought, not less
Interesting theory. It doesn't make too much sense, but interesting. Simple math. Less attention=less cameras=less footage=less interviews. But, once again, there are more witnesses of explosions in the Towers recorded live on 911 than there are witnesses of the planes. But, here are some witnesses recorded live on 911 that did not see a plane..
Nicholas Scinicariello, 62, of Yorktown Heights, worked for the Port Authority on the 86th floor of Tower One.
"I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors
Can you show me where the Moussari trial proved there were planes and traced ANY of the wreckage to the registered flights? Wait a sec.Every major peer reviewed scientific, Maybe angineering journal, major university history department, engineering department and physics department proved planes were used on 911? A better choice for a name should be delusionalBud? Happy hunting? A debunker's favorite; "Yes, twoofer. I have tons of evidence but you should find it yourself?"
Legal theory? Rule of law? This is not a court of law. This is YT. Witnesses recorded live on 911 reduces or even eliminates the effects of the media machine to distort the truth. But, I don't understand why this would be a problem with nearly 9 million people in NYC?
so there is no basis to meet this demand, other than your artificial evidence threshold
Can I demand that the no plane theory must be supported by one legged midgets wearing green hats and recorded live on 9/11 by an impartial native american reporter?
or, perhaps you can show me 15-20 eyewitnesses recorded live on December 7, 1941 -- you see, I deny that the Japs acutally attacked Pearl Harbor with planes
Was Pearl Harbor considered to be one of the most photographed events ever? No? But this is very weird. It seems it is easier to find many more than 15-20 witnesses (recorded LIVE on 911) of explosions in the WTCs than people who actually saw the planes. Kinda makes ya think. huh? Well, not you.....but other people not dedicated to defending 911.
two planes hit the largest buildings in America's biggest city in broad daylight, thousands were at street level watching, there are video's from every conceivable source, there are witness statements from every walk of life from fireman and police to Mohawk Iron workers a few blocks away
every conceivable source of evidence and you want to ignore all those items and ask for something you know no one conceived of that day -- no plane deniers!
Outside of this strange debunker logic, usually both sides have to prove their sides with evidence, facts, etc in a debate. And since you are obviously here to defend 911, that burden also lies with you. The excuses are very entertaining though..
Its been proven in every conceivagle way -- its been accepted as evidence in criminal proceedings, its accepted by the scientific and historical community, its published in peer reviewed journals -- any Western court of law would take judicial notice of it
so no, you are wrong its proven -- let's see YOU disprove planes crashed into the towers -- demanding answers to self designated standards (witnesses recorded live, etc.) will never disprove a damn thng
Proven? Where? Please list references. And there are peer reviewed journals published validating that real planes were used? Can you post a link to this information? I've never seen it. There also MUST be an official report confirming that the wreckage belonged to and is traceable to the registered flights. Can you post that also? Thanx..
And just a quick debunk for the damage to the building re: 75%. If you count the columns across the face there are 19 undamaged to the left of the impact and ~38 damaged columns out of a total of 58 columns. Do the math, that's about 60% damaged columns. Not far from 75%. And the plane was on an angle, reducing the number of columns it would contact.
No need to do any math here. Its simple common sense. Can a massive 767 fit into the hole created at frame 1:33? Obviously not. Also, where's the damage and debris from the plane and building. When was the last time an aluminum plane melted into a building when impacting? The planes images look cartoon like to anyone who has really examined them.
@muzicmaker2001 It'll fit in the hole at 2:37. It only looks like it wont fit in your poor quality zoomed in segment. Get a better shot and you'll see the hole is made by the jet. See, you've used a super crappy shot and made it worse by zooming it in until the plane looks like a grey blob against a grey blurry background.
Again, its simple physics..look for the immediate damage to the plane or building. There is none. The nose and fuselage compressing? Wings bending back? The engines falling off? Zippo. Also, look for any debris falling off from the plane or building. Nada..There is no damage because it is a CGI plane image.
@muzicmaker2001 Again, you're using poor quality video. There is insufficient detail to prove what you claim. Even that other video, your no plane #5, has better detail regarding the damage to the building before the explosion. It actually debunks this video. You can see the detail in the damage much better than the shot you used in this video.
There is no evidence to support the theory that real planes were used. To start off, simple physics. No damage to the plane or building at impact and no visible debris falling off. No verification of any of the wreckage from any of the planes. Different flight paths for the same plane. Impossible speeds at sea level. To help your point, find any HIGH QUALITY video that shows damage to the plane/building or falling debris at impact. Good luck
@muzicmaker2001 You're getting off topic. The trouble you are having proving the plane is fake is that you are using the deficiencies of the video quality as evidence. I've already pointed to a better clip in one of your previous vids (#5) where you can see clearly the initial damage is consistent with the damage from the plane impact.
Let me know when you can provide the evidence in my last post, including the high quality video showing damage/debris and good luck defending 911 on the next YT page you visit..
@muzicmaker2001 I already pointed you to a better image in one of your own videos. If you choose to ignore it, well that your problem, not mine. Remember, you're the one trying to prove the plane fake, and I've clearly demonstrated that your evidence is incorrect.
Incorrect. The evidence proves that the planes were faked. You came to this page attempting to disprove the evidence, but you only offer my own video as evidence??? Not very encouraging...
@muzicmaker2001 You are not debating in good faith. Please have the decency to actually read my posts. There is a clip in one of your videos that clearly shows damage consistent with an aircraft before the explosion, contrary to the premise of this video. I'd say that proves this video incorrect.
Please use your own advice. I disagree with you that a clip that shows a close up of an aluminum plane crashing into the Towers with nothing breaking off (including the engines which are designed to separate at impact), no damage to the plane or building, also demonstrates damage consistent with an aircraft. And could you please break down how it is consistent and post your credentials to make this assessment? Thanks
@muzicmaker2001 What exactly are your credentials? Let me make my point perfectly clear so as to minimize your dodging. This video uses a poor quality clip to try to prove that the damage to the building could not have been cased by an aircraft. This is demonstrably incorrect simply by looking at other evidence, other clips.
Just for kicks, I'll address the "nothing breaking off" in another post, but that doesn't absolve you of responding to this post.
My only credentials here are my eyes looking at raw video of the impacts. I have made no assessment as to what is "consistent" or expected for this crash. You continue to point to poor quality of the video clip as the excuse, but offer no high quality showing damage or debris. You only offer your opinion which is just as good as any random guy on YT, correct? All debunkers just happen to be experts when defending 911.
@muzicmaker2001 Its simple physics, to use a phrase you are so fond of, and what physics is simpler that Newton's first Law of Motion: "An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." That's a big, heavy plane going very fast. It has a lot of momentum. The wall it crashes into was not designed to repel such forces. The jet will slice right through it. Nothing strange about it.
Instead of just your opinion, why not use other examples of plane vs. hard surfaces as a reference? For example, the B25 bomber that struck the Empire State building where only the engines entered while the majority of the plane rained down onto the streets? Or this clip below of a C130 that crashed into a building and the wreckage piled up in front of the building on the ground. I'm sure you have MANY example to prove your case that we have yet to see??
How about Newton's Third Law of motion for collisions where the outcome should be the same no matter the direction or momentum of the object? Meaning that we have had a parked airplane and slammed a steel wall into it at 500 mph, I hope we both can agree that the plane would be smashed into bits and wouldn't melt into the steel wall. Or maybe not? Bit, I agree...its very simple...throw in the lack of verification of the wreckage, lack of live witnesses and its game over.
@muzicmaker2001 You can set up that experiment and tell us what happens. Make sure to build the wall exactly like the twin towers.
Both your aircraft examples are comparing too many different variables to be considered similar. There is also a case of a small Cessna crashing into concrete apartment tower in Richmond, BC. The plane fully lodged in the building.
And those are hardly credentials, watching videos. By that logic, we're all experts.
I have a simple task here, so no credentials are needed. The videos show that there is no damage or debris falling off from the plane or building at impact. You stated this is due to poor quality but have yet to provide any clip showing this damage/debris to prove your case. Then, you state the plane wouldn't crumble at impact?? You also stated that the plane behaved in a manner that is consistent with other plane crashes and offer no credentials to make this statement??
@muzicmaker2001 You contradict yourself in one post. You say no credentials needed, then criticize me for not posting any. Way to go.
I only commented on the damage to the building. It is not visible before the explosion due to poor video quality. It is clear in other videos. I made no mention of debris or damage to the plane. I also made no mention of this being consistent with other plane crashes. I said that the damage to the building is consistent with a plane.
No ceredentials are needed to just use your eyes to view video clips (no damage/debris), but credentials are needed to establish what is "consistent with the damage from the plane impact." I can only point to (2) other plane crashes as a reference. You have referenced none. And are you ever going to post these other videos where damage to the building is clear to actually prove your case? Its been two days now ranting about these clips. I'm very interested in seeing them?
@muzicmaker2001 If I need credentials to point out what is consistent, you need them to point out what is inconsistent.
This will be the third time I point you to the clip. I'll make it very clear for you. In your video no planes #5, at 0:50, the damage done to the building is by the plane is consistent with the damage after the explosion. In this video, the video is of such poor quality, one can't tell either way, therefore it in inconclusive.
I didn't state anything wasn't consistent. I just stated there's no damage or debris and offered two real-life references of plane vs building crashes. You only offer your opinion which is about as good as any other random person on YT. And yes, this makes perfect sense. A clip where the main point of it is to show that there is no damage to the building and plane definitely shows damage to the building and plane. That's actually pretty funny.
The point of the video is that the wings (and majority of the plane) do not create any visible damage to the building immediately at impact, ok? And here's some very easy math for your "easy" question: One fairly intact engine was found (after blasting thru two steel walls, traveling 3 blocks and falling 800-1000ft), but four engines were involved in crashes?? Was it magic, voodoo, or Osama that made the other 3 engines disappear? No whammies...
My bad. I was just stating the facts of the event and using simple logic. Again, instead of my opinion (or yours), we can look at other plane vs. building crashes like the B-25 bomber/Empire State Building where both engines separated and entered the building.
Empire state Building: One plane crashed, two engines were found. NYC: Two planes crash, one engine was found. 3 engine MIA? And the original point? We have video showing that the engines (and entire plane) entered the building with absolutely no impact damage as if Wile E. Coyote was the pilot.
@muzicmaker2001 So what is your point about the engines separating? What would that have looked like in the video? When exactly should they have separated?
Where are the other three engines? Remember Flight 1549 that crashed into the Hudson River? One of its engines separated when striking the Hudson, ya know, water? So, you can answer your own question as to when the engines should've separated. Do you think the nose and fuselage should've compressed at impact? No? The hollow aluminum wings breaking off? Flight 77 completely disintegrated against the Pentagon, but these planes enter the building with no damage? Really?
I still to this day have no idea what a truther is? I have not paid any membership dues, attended any meetings or planted any bumber stickers. I just have a brain...and can see where the evidence leads and can also recognize people like yourself who are desperately trying to distort and cover up the truth.
By your own admission you don't have any credentials apart from having watched some youtube videos. While I don't have any to speak of either, what I do have is a good bullshit detector. how can you discredit anyone who disagrees with you for having no credentials when you have none of your own? How can you know one way or the other what a plane crashing into a building should look like? Cont...
@muzicmaker2001 You're not a CGI expert, so why should anyone listen to your claims that the planes weren't real? You are not a professional videographer, so how can you know anything about what a plane crash would look like to a video camera? You are not a structural engineer, so how can you claim one plane crashing into a building should be anything at all like another? You are not an aviation expert, so how can you know anything about the behavior of aircraft in any situation?
You don't have to be a CGI expert, professional videographer, structural engineer, etc to see right thru the lies. You just have to have a working set of eyes and a functional brain. But, this is some interesting logic you have here. You came to this page making claims about what is consistent for this plane crash and then state that I'm not an expert? A trip to the mirror might suit you well. So, any idea why anyone should listen to you over the evidence?
But, you have failed to address any of my questions? Here's a few:
1. Where are the other 3 engines?
2. Why was a FOIA request denied for the wreckage serial numbers 7 yrs after 911?
3. Can you produce 15-20 witnesses (normal citizens) of WTC planes recorded live on 911?
4. Why did Flight 77 completely disintegrate against the Pentagon, but these planes freely entered the WTCs with no apparent damage?. I guess you can put away the straw and potato BS there, huh?
Hmmm. "Make sure to build the wall EXACTLY like the twin towers"......but you were using a straw and a potato to illustrate your point? Really? Ok. Is this a joke? Is this my cousin?
@muzicmaker2001 You can try an experiment if you like. Take a straw from your favourite fast food joint and hold it vertically. Take a raw potato and drop it on the end of the straw. The straw will bite right into the potato. You'd think it would just crumple and let the potato fall to the floor, but it doesn't.
@TheHungrySnail - Muzic doesn't really have an answer for this, I've asked him. He has to acknowledge that something about the size and shape of a plane hit, because the columns in the plane hole are obviously pushed in by something.
So basically his point is, even though something identical to a plane hit, the videos show a plane hit, the witnesses saw a plane hit, numerous plane parts were found, & the ATC controllers tracked the plane, but it's impossible that a plane hit.
All you have to do is look at frame 1:26 in the above video and anyone with "half a brain" would know that the object that struck the WTC was not even close to the same size as a real 767.
@muzicmaker2001 "All you have to do is look at frame 1:26 in the above video"
It's not frame 1:26 in the video, it's one minute and 26 seconds in. Frame 126 would be 4 seconds in at 30fps, retard. The 1:26 mark is text, so you cant see anything about the plane.
If you're talking about the next clip, measuring from low quality footage such as that is pointless, the resolution is so low that you can't even see the WTC has windows. Compare the quality of 1:49 to 2:04.
Thanx for the frames 101 lesson. So, I guess the same clip in HD quality would show a big azz gaping hole the size of a 767 directly after impact, huh? Soo, where's the damage to the plane at impact? Got an HD video for that?
No problem, pretty big difference there, you should really be more careful so you don't sound so ignorant about video considering it's the base of your argument.
"So, I guess the same clip in HD"
There isn't one, but the video you used isn't even close. Why did you use digital zoom for the impact, when it obviously obscured any detail, then claim to take a measurement from it?
If you want me to explain another video, link to it.
Just an explanation as to why there isn't any damage shown to the plane (or building) at impact in ANY video. If you have one showing this damage, please link it in your next post Thanx..
Respond to this video... "Just an explanation as to why there isn't any damage shown to the plane (or building) at impact in ANY video."
Because there is no high speed HD closeup footage in existence. Most of the videos don't even have the resolution to show windows on the WTC. The plane is traveling 500 mph, being filmed from a mile away, in 640x480 resolution. Since you don't understand the difference between frames and minutes, I don't expect you to understand any of this.
All clips of the plane were shot a mile away...even the one above?? Wow!! That's a new one. And isn't it a miracle how these ordinary folks captured this 500 mph rocket with such precision? Does the BS ever stop?
@muzicmaker2001 - I'm just not going to act like I know every answer to your minutia. You, on the other hand, will never say 'I don't know' even though every single thing you say is speculation because you weren't there.
My bad. I read your statement, "If you want me to explain another video, link to it" and I thought when I linked the video, you were actually going to explain it..
@muzicmaker2001 - Right, but you linked to a video that shows the engine, then asked me three questions that only an eyewitness would know. You certainly don't know the answers, though you will act like you do.
You insinuated the ground isn't damaged though you have no idea, you claimed the engine was fairly intact, though it's a small part of a huge engine, your post was full of assumptions positioned as firsthand knowledge.
@muzicmaker2001 How do you think the engine piece got there? Did they just roll up in the middle of thousands of folks and load it out of a van? Are the people that saw debris fall all agents?
Enter logic: Since there's no apparent damage to the street or debris seen from the engine around it, the engine didn't fall 1000 ft from the sky. And many experts have said that is not even an engine from a 767. Game over. That's all folks...
@muzicmaker2001 "Since there's no apparent damage to the street or debris seen from the engine around it, the engine didn't fall 1000 ft from the sky."
Again, that's not answering my question, you've avoided it three times now. You twoofers are such pussies about answering questions. HOW DO YOU THINK THE ENGINE GOT THERE?
The same place as the parts on the Pentagon lawn. It was planted. This is why NONE of the wreckage from ANY plane has ben officially verified. Yes, a massive engine drops from the sky, but the scaffolding surrounding it is not damaged? It only takes a brain and the perps were counting on the public\ not having one. Congrats!!
Riiiight. So, during the attack, a cargo truck pulled up and guys loaded a big smoking hot engine onto the sidewalk? Of course people had to see this, but no one thought it was the least bit suspicious, and till this day they haven't come forward because they don't think it's related to 911?
I love you you retarded twoofers have to ignore every piece of evidence to play your twoof-games. What is the object that we can see shooting out of the building at impact?
This has been flagged as spam show
"Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
86Blessed86 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
86Blessed86 3 days ago
I'm not sure where you are saying the other expolsion came from though, so if you could let me know.
86Blessed86 5 days ago
"How is it possible that witnesses heard explosions below them and before the impact? Were there two impacts?" A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion. The crack of a supersonic bullet passing overhead is an example of a sonic boom in miniature.
86Blessed86 5 days ago
Hi, can we have a debate? Planes are made out of Aluminium, correct? The twin towers were solely made up out of steel. Most of the plane would have been pulverized into pieces before entering the building. The video clearly shows the engines (the most explosive and the sturdiest part of the plane) hit the building, they explode and this is what would make the worst of the damage to the building. If you were expecting a plane like shape in the building, you have been watching too many cartoons.
86Blessed86 5 days ago
@86Blessed86
In all of the plane vs buildings/hard surfaces I've seen, aluminum planes don't enter buildings. Yes, they are pulverized at impact but they rain down below without entering. I agree about the cartoon shaped hole. Check out the North Tower impact hole. Apparently, Wile E Coyote was flying that plane??
watch?v=tRLBvPMyDSQ
muzicmaker2001 5 days ago 5
@muzicmaker2001 "In all of the plane vs buildings/hard surfaces I've seen". When is the last time you seen a passenger Jet fly into a high rise building, like the twin towers, just for refference?? No, it would not fall to the ground lol, part of the plane would slive through the windows which were massive, you couldn't answer the elevator question and now your having trouble answering this one. I asked a "9/11 truther, science major" to comment on this video, he said it was BS.
86Blessed86 4 days ago
@86Blessed86
So, for a plane crash to a valid example, it has to be a pasenger plane flying into a high rise? Interesting logic. Einstein, these are aluminum planes. The wings and fuselage are basically hollow tubes. Educate yourself on plane crashes outside of 911, ok? And I'm not interested in how any movement views these videos and I consider myself a truther. But, if you watched this video and still think a plane entered, you are either a moron or someone with an agenda to defend 911.
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001
Correction to me: I DON'Tt consider myself a truther..whatever that means. I just have a brain. For example, find 20 witnesses of WTC planes recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. Easy enough with 8 million people, huh? Why has several FOIA requests been denied for the wreckage serial numbers and process of identfying the wreckage in 2007 and 2008? Why the mystery? Any ideas?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I think we all know that your the brainless idiot. For starters,the elevator comment, you said how could the fireball reach the basement if the elevators are cut off every 40 floors and don't go right to the bottom,"are not connected in one straight line, theirs freight elevators from top to bottom lol, prooved you wrong with that already. Second, the wings are hollow? that means they would burn up even faster moron, corrects my story of the plane disinegrating.
86Blessed86 3 days ago
@86Blessed86 One more thing, you fire a bullet at a piece of glass and the breakage is going to be different from one, to the other. No firefighters are saying that their was no planes, no architects, no PHD majors in anything, all the people that are saying that there was no plane, are people on youtube with video's that have shit blurry vision, why don't you do everyone a favour and find a video that isn't blurry.
86Blessed86 3 days ago
@86Blessed86
Boy, you are really dedicated to proving this wrong, huh? What I don't get is this. While having an agenda to defend 911, why do you assume anyone will listen to your biased opinion? And your opinion is not proving anything wrong, ok? Its just your opinion. Welcome back to reality. Your posts have become more and more desperate that its almost as if you have money invested in this or something? Maybe somebody out there actually thinks you're smart. I would stick with them...
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 The funny thing is, you think i'm trying to prove this wrong, i know it's wrong, so does everyone with a brain, i'm just trying to make you see what an idiot you are, this isn't seriouse to me or anyone, you dumb beyond belief about this and it's funny proving you wrong so easily.
86Blessed86 3 days ago
@86Blessed86
What I find entertaining is the fantasy inside your head of how you think you proved anyone wrong. As you were...
muzicmaker2001 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 "this comment is from a scientist inside the 9/11 truthmovemnt"
86Blessed86 1 day ago
@86Blessed86
I thought that it was pretty obvious that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests here or following what the majority thinks. I'm here to spread the truth. That's it. I'm not part of some organized movement or part of some club.
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 You misunderstand. That debunker was trying to explain the presence of the abundant Fe-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (found by USGS, RJLee as well as Harrit et al). He claimed that the spherules in the dust originated from distant volcanic activity, were brought to GZ by a river and then somehow entered the WTC dust in quantities that make their abundance characteristic of WTC dust. That is EVERY BIT as insane as the no-plane "theories".
86Blessed86 1 day ago
@muzicmaker2001 Also, this is what you have said, "and I consider myself a truther" and then your next comment "I DON'Tt consider myself a truther" hahahahahahah i think your half a retard sitting at home trying to act smart.
86Blessed86 3 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 The smoking gun of 9/11 is WTC7, and why it collapsed. What you are claiming, it just shits on all the other 9/11 truth movements hard work, because it gives peole ammo to use against truthers, only idiots believe there was no planes. The actuall top players in the 9/11 truth movement are focused on, thermite found at ground zero and WTC7, a no plane theory is ludacris and idiotic and who ever believes it is silly, i just asked you about the elevator and your stuk
86Blessed86 4 days ago
@86Blessed86
And I have no idea what you're talking about in reference to the elevators? I think you might be in blind debunking mode?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
This video has been altered. There is no bright flash from the nose cone when the plane enters the building. There is no visible indication of the POD's penetration damage to the building, such as was visible from the engines.
gauzeandchess 1 week ago
@gauzeandchess
This video was taken straight from this “stock” (Courchesn) footage. No editing..
watch?v=QO6od1Tvpvg
You might be thinking of Herzakhani’s footage?
watch?v=7l_c1gJEpJE
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
Great videos all of them! Have not watched them in awhile. Still makes me wonder how people think that this was a terrorist attack. So many tv zombies out there. Thanks for your work.
JSillynutz 1 month ago 20
and yes, things will explode below the fire
" was waiting for an elevator on the ground floor when he heard the screams of the two girls as their elevator car hurtled past."
explosions travel down elevator shafts
Denierbud11 1 month ago
all liars right?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
There are 118 accounts of explosions in the Towers from first resposnders alone. All liars? Wait, all are taken out of context? Thats a favorite. Wait, they are not experts on explosions? Wait, it is common for a plane impact 1000 ft up to cause explosions all throughout the building including the sub-basement areas? Wait, explosions BEFORE the impact are common also? Kinda weird when your crazy shill logic boomerangs you back in the face, huh?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
I in no way dispute there were explosions and I agree that every witness that claims the heard an explosion did in fact hear an explosion
the timing may be off, but they certainly heard explosions -- I would not expect there to not be explosions when a plane strikes a building
there were many explosions when a B-25 struck the Empire State Building
nothing unusual, wierd or improbable
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Timing might be off? Wait a sec. So, you think all explosions heard were just due to the impact? You do know the first responders were called in because of the impact/fire so they all arrived after it occured.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
no, I expect things to explode during the course of an uncontrolled office fire? do you think things would not explode/
do you have any bomb fragments or anyone claim they actually saw a bomb? if not, then explosions are NOT evidence of bombs - they are only evidence that something exploded
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Do you expect many things to explode a 1000 ft below the fire? How about before the impact?
watch?v=fqaQELT24RA
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
so why do you trust these witnesses but not the witnesses that saw a plane?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I thought you stated that don't dispute the witnesses of explosions? Or is it just the explosions that don't fit into the BS that a plane impact 1000 ft up created every explosion? And again, these were explosions only minutes after and BEFORE the impact. Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line? Please explain how this is possible? Are they all liars?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
you did not answer my question, let me repeat it for you
so why do you trust these witnesses (to explosions) but not the witnesses that saw a plane?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
And you still have not addressed this question asked several times now. One more time. How is it possible that witnesses heard explosions below them and before the impact? Were there two impacts? You don't dispute these explosions, correct?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001
so why do you trust these witnesses (to explosions) but not the witnesses that saw a plane?
balls in your court
Denierbud11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Did the elevators fall 1000 ft in just minutes even though all of the elevators were even connected in a straight line?" The Twin Towers were the first buildings in the world with an express elevator system. Much like the New York City subway, elevators made express stops at "skylobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors. Here passengers transferred to local elevators which brought them to their offices. The express elevator does actually run from top to bottom, 1line
86Blessed86 5 days ago
"I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors. –Nicholas Scinicariello, 86th floor
Denierbud11 1 month ago
There was no plane because there are no witnesses. The witnesses are liars because there was no plane.
Yep, the truther montage
"We just got relieved after 0900, Fireman Escofrery and myself. We saw the plane coming over, sort of over quarters and then the initial crash. We heard the initial crash." FDNY firefighter George Kozlowski
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I thought you were going "move on" because you couldn't produce even 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 but you continue post random quotes? Remember, just ordinary folks with no connection ot the media or government.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And I hope we both agree that the witnesses can not be someone who captured direct footage of the planes (fake) for obvious reasons."
why the hell not? you can't prove the planes were fake, so you don't get this presumption
Denierbud11 1 month ago
got about a hundred others, should I post them and we can discuss how each is a liar
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Please concentrate. 15-20 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government. This should be an easy task considering the population of NYC. Try again...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
the recorded live is your artificial requirement -- witnesses are witnesses, you must address the evidence that exists
you do NOT get to dictate evidence standards
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
This is not a court of law. If you can't produce the 15 witnesses, just say so. And this is some very weird logic. You don't dispute the accounts of explosions because of the plane impacts, but can't even produce witness accounts of the planes?? WT??
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
I can produce hundreds of witness accounts -- do you want a link to the first responder transcripts, or perhaps the audio files?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Once again, witnesses recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government. If you can't produce this, just move on..
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
There is no requirement that a witness be recorded live the day of the event and certainly no requirement that they not have a "connection" can you get any more obscure? -- yes, time for you to move on, no one cares what your threshold of evidence may be
See, that is the problem with truthers, you refuse to actually examine evidence and would rather waive it away for some illogical reason that fits in your paranoid life
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Four posts now with nothing but excuses? But first, it's a simple comparison of logic. There are more witnesses recorded live on 911 of explosions than witnesses of the planes. Was the main event here planes crashing into the Towers or explosions in the Towers? Next, since this is a lie, there would be no REAL LIVE witnesses of the planes unless they were planted and obviously fake. This is also the case with the Pentagon strike.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Here's your meter. Here are many witnesses recorded live on 911 of explosions in the Towers. Now, how about some just like this? And I hope we both agree that the witnesses can not be someone who captured direct footage of the planes (fake) for obvious reasons.
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
I do not dispute witness statements regarding explosions -- planes cannot hit buildings without there being explosions
Denierbud11 1 month ago
Q. You actually saw it hit?
A. I saw it hit. Within about ten seconds after that or so I gave the first report on the radio and transmitted a second alarm for a plane into the Trade Center... FDNY Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer
Denierbud11 1 month ago
"Can you show me where the Moussari trial proved there were planes "
count four
unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed to use weapons of mass destruction, namely, airplanes intended for use as missiles, bombs, and similar devices, without lawful authority against persons within the United States
Guilty
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
A simple, "No, I can't show you where the Moussari trial proved that there were real planes and/or traced any of the wreckage back to the registered flights" would've been easier, right? But, thanks anyway...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
it proved their were real planes, he is held to be guilty of piracy, every court will now take judicial notice, == so yes, it has been legaly proved in a court of law
good luck trying to overturn the guilt
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I'm not trying to overturn any guilt. I was just looking for ANY evidence of real planes. And looking for ANY evidence linking ANY of the wreckage to ANY of the four planes. I fgured since you dedicate so much time on here defending 911, you might have something? So, do you see how this is not really helping your case and how intelligent people are now opening their eyes wider?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
how is a finding of guilt by a court of a law governed by US jurisprudence not helping? every court of law will now take judicial notice, no further proof is needed when this threshold is met
it is now your burden to disprove -- you may think it is not fair, but it does not matter what you think, all that matters is what you can prove
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Yes, that makes perfect sense. You have dedicated alot of your time on here defending 911 but can't over any evidence to prove your case? I can't see why more people believe you? Sometimes I think you are only here as a joke. Maybe, you lost a bet?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
you spend a lot of time on this no plane stuff -- almost fanatical or a religous, unshakeable in your conviction
are you on a quest?
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Again, please take a good look in the mirror. You are obviously here to defend 911 at all costs with no doubts.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
just as you are here to defend islamic terrorists at all costs
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Should we have asked the islamic terrorists these questions?
1. Where are the other 3 engines?
2. Why was a FOIA request denied for the wreckage serial numbers 7 yrs after 911?
3. Can you produce 15-20 witnesses (normal citizens) of WTC planes recorded live on 911?
4. Why did Flight 77 completely disintegrate against the Pentagon, but these planes freely entered the WTCs with no apparent damage?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
1) in the debri
2) appeal the FOIA if you do not like it
3) there are hundreds of witnesses, your desire for specifics and limitations to an unknown definition (normal citzens - what's abnormal?) are not required
4) Flight 77 did not disitegrate, the planes entering the WTC's had significant damage
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
US Airways Flight 1549 crashed in the Hudson
Produce 15-20 witnesses, normal or otherwise, recorded live on the day of the crash
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I actually expected more from someone dedicated to defending 911, but...
1. Proof?
2. Not an answer
3. Proof of witnesses please. Not excuses
4. For Flight 77, there was no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board (aka: the majority of the plane) or even one body identified as a passenger.
And was Flight 1549 one of the most photographed events in history? No? See the difference?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
1 - not my burden
2 - not my burden
3 - read the NY police report, the transcribed history of 533 first responders, etc
4 - all bodies were identified through DNA, there is a photo of a chared body in a chair - engines and other debris found
- no, the point is the same, you must address the evidence available, you do not get to dictiate the evidence you want
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
1-2. Cope out
3. If you can't answer the question, just say so and save us all some time here, ok? 8 million people in NYC, but you can't produce even 15 witnesses of the WTC planes. That says it all
4. Once again, there is no photographic evidence of even ONE body identified as a passenger, but there were photos of bodies presented at the Moussaoui Trial. None of the wreckage was confirmed to be from the registered flight. Engines? Post a photo?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
US Airways Flight 1549-If there is more attention brought to an event (911), there will be more evidence available. This is not brain surgery
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
more attention does not equal on air live interviews of witnesses, if anything, since there was no live video bordcast, one would expect more witnesses to be sought, not less
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Interesting theory. It doesn't make too much sense, but interesting. Simple math. Less attention=less cameras=less footage=less interviews. But, once again, there are more witnesses of explosions in the Towers recorded live on 911 than there are witnesses of the planes. But, here are some witnesses recorded live on 911 that did not see a plane..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
witness statement (is this a liar?)
Nicholas Scinicariello, 62, of Yorktown Heights, worked for the Port Authority on the 86th floor of Tower One.
"I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors
Denierbud11 1 month ago
Moussari trial
any highschool text book published in the western world after 2001
every major peer reviewed scientific and engineering journal
every major university history department, engineering department and physics department
happy hunting
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Can you show me where the Moussari trial proved there were planes and traced ANY of the wreckage to the registered flights? Wait a sec.Every major peer reviewed scientific, Maybe angineering journal, major university history department, engineering department and physics department proved planes were used on 911? A better choice for a name should be delusionalBud? Happy hunting? A debunker's favorite; "Yes, twoofer. I have tons of evidence but you should find it yourself?"
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
"Can you produce 15-20 witnesses (normal citizens) of WTC planes recorded live on 911?"
Under what legal theory does a witness have to give a recorded statement on the day of the event? please cite a rule of law in which this is required
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
Legal theory? Rule of law? This is not a court of law. This is YT. Witnesses recorded live on 911 reduces or even eliminates the effects of the media machine to distort the truth. But, I don't understand why this would be a problem with nearly 9 million people in NYC?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
so there is no basis to meet this demand, other than your artificial evidence threshold
Can I demand that the no plane theory must be supported by one legged midgets wearing green hats and recorded live on 9/11 by an impartial native american reporter?
or, perhaps you can show me 15-20 eyewitnesses recorded live on December 7, 1941 -- you see, I deny that the Japs acutally attacked Pearl Harbor with planes
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Was Pearl Harbor considered to be one of the most photographed events ever? No? But this is very weird. It seems it is easier to find many more than 15-20 witnesses (recorded LIVE on 911) of explosions in the WTCs than people who actually saw the planes. Kinda makes ya think. huh? Well, not you.....but other people not dedicated to defending 911.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
two planes hit the largest buildings in America's biggest city in broad daylight, thousands were at street level watching, there are video's from every conceivable source, there are witness statements from every walk of life from fireman and police to Mohawk Iron workers a few blocks away
every conceivable source of evidence and you want to ignore all those items and ask for something you know no one conceived of that day -- no plane deniers!
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
I do appreciate your opinion of what happened, but that's not exactly the evidence of 15-20 witnesses recorded LIVE on 911 I was looking for.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
does not matter what your artifical evidence standards prescribe
its not opinion, its historical fact - accepted in courts of law, written and taught in history classes
feel free to try to revise history, burden is on you - ask the Holocaust deniers how its going for them
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Ok, great. Look at the questions I asked fellow "protecter of the truth" KidMeatball and let me know when you can answer any of them.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
no, its your burden to prove, not mine
make your argument and present your evidence
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Outside of this strange debunker logic, usually both sides have to prove their sides with evidence, facts, etc in a debate. And since you are obviously here to defend 911, that burden also lies with you. The excuses are very entertaining though..
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001
Its been proven in every conceivagle way -- its been accepted as evidence in criminal proceedings, its accepted by the scientific and historical community, its published in peer reviewed journals -- any Western court of law would take judicial notice of it
so no, you are wrong its proven -- let's see YOU disprove planes crashed into the towers -- demanding answers to self designated standards (witnesses recorded live, etc.) will never disprove a damn thng
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11
Proven? Where? Please list references. And there are peer reviewed journals published validating that real planes were used? Can you post a link to this information? I've never seen it. There also MUST be an official report confirming that the wreckage belonged to and is traceable to the registered flights. Can you post that also? Thanx..
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
And just a quick debunk for the damage to the building re: 75%. If you count the columns across the face there are 19 undamaged to the left of the impact and ~38 damaged columns out of a total of 58 columns. Do the math, that's about 60% damaged columns. Not far from 75%. And the plane was on an angle, reducing the number of columns it would contact.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
No need to do any math here. Its simple common sense. Can a massive 767 fit into the hole created at frame 1:33? Obviously not. Also, where's the damage and debris from the plane and building. When was the last time an aluminum plane melted into a building when impacting? The planes images look cartoon like to anyone who has really examined them.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 It'll fit in the hole at 2:37. It only looks like it wont fit in your poor quality zoomed in segment. Get a better shot and you'll see the hole is made by the jet. See, you've used a super crappy shot and made it worse by zooming it in until the plane looks like a grey blob against a grey blurry background.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Again, its simple physics..look for the immediate damage to the plane or building. There is none. The nose and fuselage compressing? Wings bending back? The engines falling off? Zippo. Also, look for any debris falling off from the plane or building. Nada..There is no damage because it is a CGI plane image.
watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Again, you're using poor quality video. There is insufficient detail to prove what you claim. Even that other video, your no plane #5, has better detail regarding the damage to the building before the explosion. It actually debunks this video. You can see the detail in the damage much better than the shot you used in this video.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
There is no evidence to support the theory that real planes were used. To start off, simple physics. No damage to the plane or building at impact and no visible debris falling off. No verification of any of the wreckage from any of the planes. Different flight paths for the same plane. Impossible speeds at sea level. To help your point, find any HIGH QUALITY video that shows damage to the plane/building or falling debris at impact. Good luck
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You're getting off topic. The trouble you are having proving the plane is fake is that you are using the deficiencies of the video quality as evidence. I've already pointed to a better clip in one of your previous vids (#5) where you can see clearly the initial damage is consistent with the damage from the plane impact.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Let me know when you can provide the evidence in my last post, including the high quality video showing damage/debris and good luck defending 911 on the next YT page you visit..
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I already pointed you to a better image in one of your own videos. If you choose to ignore it, well that your problem, not mine. Remember, you're the one trying to prove the plane fake, and I've clearly demonstrated that your evidence is incorrect.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Incorrect. The evidence proves that the planes were faked. You came to this page attempting to disprove the evidence, but you only offer my own video as evidence??? Not very encouraging...
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You are not debating in good faith. Please have the decency to actually read my posts. There is a clip in one of your videos that clearly shows damage consistent with an aircraft before the explosion, contrary to the premise of this video. I'd say that proves this video incorrect.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Please use your own advice. I disagree with you that a clip that shows a close up of an aluminum plane crashing into the Towers with nothing breaking off (including the engines which are designed to separate at impact), no damage to the plane or building, also demonstrates damage consistent with an aircraft. And could you please break down how it is consistent and post your credentials to make this assessment? Thanks
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 What exactly are your credentials? Let me make my point perfectly clear so as to minimize your dodging. This video uses a poor quality clip to try to prove that the damage to the building could not have been cased by an aircraft. This is demonstrably incorrect simply by looking at other evidence, other clips.
Just for kicks, I'll address the "nothing breaking off" in another post, but that doesn't absolve you of responding to this post.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
My only credentials here are my eyes looking at raw video of the impacts. I have made no assessment as to what is "consistent" or expected for this crash. You continue to point to poor quality of the video clip as the excuse, but offer no high quality showing damage or debris. You only offer your opinion which is just as good as any random guy on YT, correct? All debunkers just happen to be experts when defending 911.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Its simple physics, to use a phrase you are so fond of, and what physics is simpler that Newton's first Law of Motion: "An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." That's a big, heavy plane going very fast. It has a lot of momentum. The wall it crashes into was not designed to repel such forces. The jet will slice right through it. Nothing strange about it.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Instead of just your opinion, why not use other examples of plane vs. hard surfaces as a reference? For example, the B25 bomber that struck the Empire State building where only the engines entered while the majority of the plane rained down onto the streets? Or this clip below of a C130 that crashed into a building and the wreckage piled up in front of the building on the ground. I'm sure you have MANY example to prove your case that we have yet to see??
watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
How about Newton's Third Law of motion for collisions where the outcome should be the same no matter the direction or momentum of the object? Meaning that we have had a parked airplane and slammed a steel wall into it at 500 mph, I hope we both can agree that the plane would be smashed into bits and wouldn't melt into the steel wall. Or maybe not? Bit, I agree...its very simple...throw in the lack of verification of the wreckage, lack of live witnesses and its game over.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You can set up that experiment and tell us what happens. Make sure to build the wall exactly like the twin towers.
Both your aircraft examples are comparing too many different variables to be considered similar. There is also a case of a small Cessna crashing into concrete apartment tower in Richmond, BC. The plane fully lodged in the building.
And those are hardly credentials, watching videos. By that logic, we're all experts.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
I have a simple task here, so no credentials are needed. The videos show that there is no damage or debris falling off from the plane or building at impact. You stated this is due to poor quality but have yet to provide any clip showing this damage/debris to prove your case. Then, you state the plane wouldn't crumble at impact?? You also stated that the plane behaved in a manner that is consistent with other plane crashes and offer no credentials to make this statement??
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You contradict yourself in one post. You say no credentials needed, then criticize me for not posting any. Way to go.
I only commented on the damage to the building. It is not visible before the explosion due to poor video quality. It is clear in other videos. I made no mention of debris or damage to the plane. I also made no mention of this being consistent with other plane crashes. I said that the damage to the building is consistent with a plane.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
No ceredentials are needed to just use your eyes to view video clips (no damage/debris), but credentials are needed to establish what is "consistent with the damage from the plane impact." I can only point to (2) other plane crashes as a reference. You have referenced none. And are you ever going to post these other videos where damage to the building is clear to actually prove your case? Its been two days now ranting about these clips. I'm very interested in seeing them?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 If I need credentials to point out what is consistent, you need them to point out what is inconsistent.
This will be the third time I point you to the clip. I'll make it very clear for you. In your video no planes #5, at 0:50, the damage done to the building is by the plane is consistent with the damage after the explosion. In this video, the video is of such poor quality, one can't tell either way, therefore it in inconclusive.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
I didn't state anything wasn't consistent. I just stated there's no damage or debris and offered two real-life references of plane vs building crashes. You only offer your opinion which is about as good as any other random person on YT. And yes, this makes perfect sense. A clip where the main point of it is to show that there is no damage to the building and plane definitely shows damage to the building and plane. That's actually pretty funny.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You're digging yourself quite the hole here. This video claims the damage is inconsistent with a 767 wingspan. That's got you.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
The point of the video is that the wings (and majority of the plane) do not create any visible damage to the building immediately at impact, ok? And here's some very easy math for your "easy" question: One fairly intact engine was found (after blasting thru two steel walls, traveling 3 blocks and falling 800-1000ft), but four engines were involved in crashes?? Was it magic, voodoo, or Osama that made the other 3 engines disappear? No whammies...
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You didn't answer my question.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
My bad. I was just stating the facts of the event and using simple logic. Again, instead of my opinion (or yours), we can look at other plane vs. building crashes like the B-25 bomber/Empire State Building where both engines separated and entered the building.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 How is that any different than what happened at WTC?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Empire state Building: One plane crashed, two engines were found. NYC: Two planes crash, one engine was found. 3 engine MIA? And the original point? We have video showing that the engines (and entire plane) entered the building with absolutely no impact damage as if Wile E. Coyote was the pilot.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 So what is your point about the engines separating? What would that have looked like in the video? When exactly should they have separated?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Where are the other three engines? Remember Flight 1549 that crashed into the Hudson River? One of its engines separated when striking the Hudson, ya know, water? So, you can answer your own question as to when the engines should've separated. Do you think the nose and fuselage should've compressed at impact? No? The hollow aluminum wings breaking off? Flight 77 completely disintegrated against the Pentagon, but these planes enter the building with no damage? Really?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
he never does answer question -- that the life of a truther
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11
I still to this day have no idea what a truther is? I have not paid any membership dues, attended any meetings or planted any bumber stickers. I just have a brain...and can see where the evidence leads and can also recognize people like yourself who are desperately trying to distort and cover up the truth.
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I think I've got enough to finish this off.
By your own admission you don't have any credentials apart from having watched some youtube videos. While I don't have any to speak of either, what I do have is a good bullshit detector. how can you discredit anyone who disagrees with you for having no credentials when you have none of your own? How can you know one way or the other what a plane crashing into a building should look like? Cont...
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You're not a CGI expert, so why should anyone listen to your claims that the planes weren't real? You are not a professional videographer, so how can you know anything about what a plane crash would look like to a video camera? You are not a structural engineer, so how can you claim one plane crashing into a building should be anything at all like another? You are not an aviation expert, so how can you know anything about the behavior of aircraft in any situation?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
You don't have to be a CGI expert, professional videographer, structural engineer, etc to see right thru the lies. You just have to have a working set of eyes and a functional brain. But, this is some interesting logic you have here. You came to this page making claims about what is consistent for this plane crash and then state that I'm not an expert? A trip to the mirror might suit you well. So, any idea why anyone should listen to you over the evidence?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
what have i distorted in any way?
Denierbud11 2 months ago
@Denierbud11 He's answered a few, which gives me a bit of ammo. Stay tuned:)
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
But, you have failed to address any of my questions? Here's a few:
1. Where are the other 3 engines?
2. Why was a FOIA request denied for the wreckage serial numbers 7 yrs after 911?
3. Can you produce 15-20 witnesses (normal citizens) of WTC planes recorded live on 911?
4. Why did Flight 77 completely disintegrate against the Pentagon, but these planes freely entered the WTCs with no apparent damage?. I guess you can put away the straw and potato BS there, huh?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
So, in #5, which of the points made sold it for you?
1. The butter plane paradox, meaning that the plane "melted" into the building with no visible sign of damage to the plane or building
2. The nose does not compress
3. The plane doesn't decelerate and building shows no buckling
4. The engines, which are designed to separate at impact, do not
And you ready for last one? This clip above was made directly from that clip..funny stuff
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 #4 Where should the engines go if they separate? Easy question.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 I want to repeat this question because you seemed to just skip right over it.
Let me ask you this, what debris do expect should have fallen from the plane or building?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Let me ask you this, what debris do expect should have fallen from the plane or building?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
@KidMeatball
Hmmm. "Make sure to build the wall EXACTLY like the twin towers"......but you were using a straw and a potato to illustrate your point? Really? Ok. Is this a joke? Is this my cousin?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You can try an experiment if you like. Take a straw from your favourite fast food joint and hold it vertically. Take a raw potato and drop it on the end of the straw. The straw will bite right into the potato. You'd think it would just crumple and let the potato fall to the floor, but it doesn't.
KidMeatball 2 months ago
Why do you use such poor quality videos to try to validate your theory?
KidMeatball 2 months ago
the only real videos of people who were there none of them mention a second plane but hear the explosion just in enough time to turn to see it.
machinehead110 2 months ago 2
all these videos are fake
machinehead110 2 months ago
@TheHungrySnail - Muzic doesn't really have an answer for this, I've asked him. He has to acknowledge that something about the size and shape of a plane hit, because the columns in the plane hole are obviously pushed in by something.
So basically his point is, even though something identical to a plane hit, the videos show a plane hit, the witnesses saw a plane hit, numerous plane parts were found, & the ATC controllers tracked the plane, but it's impossible that a plane hit.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
All you have to do is look at frame 1:26 in the above video and anyone with "half a brain" would know that the object that struck the WTC was not even close to the same size as a real 767.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "All you have to do is look at frame 1:26 in the above video"
It's not frame 1:26 in the video, it's one minute and 26 seconds in. Frame 126 would be 4 seconds in at 30fps, retard. The 1:26 mark is text, so you cant see anything about the plane.
If you're talking about the next clip, measuring from low quality footage such as that is pointless, the resolution is so low that you can't even see the WTC has windows. Compare the quality of 1:49 to 2:04.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Thanx for the frames 101 lesson. So, I guess the same clip in HD quality would show a big azz gaping hole the size of a 767 directly after impact, huh? Soo, where's the damage to the plane at impact? Got an HD video for that?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "Thanx for the frames 101 lesson."
No problem, pretty big difference there, you should really be more careful so you don't sound so ignorant about video considering it's the base of your argument.
"So, I guess the same clip in HD"
There isn't one, but the video you used isn't even close. Why did you use digital zoom for the impact, when it obviously obscured any detail, then claim to take a measurement from it?
If you want me to explain another video, link to it.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Just an explanation as to why there isn't any damage shown to the plane (or building) at impact in ANY video. If you have one showing this damage, please link it in your next post Thanx..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
Respond to this video... "Just an explanation as to why there isn't any damage shown to the plane (or building) at impact in ANY video."
Because there is no high speed HD closeup footage in existence. Most of the videos don't even have the resolution to show windows on the WTC. The plane is traveling 500 mph, being filmed from a mile away, in 640x480 resolution. Since you don't understand the difference between frames and minutes, I don't expect you to understand any of this.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
All clips of the plane were shot a mile away...even the one above?? Wow!! That's a new one. And isn't it a miracle how these ordinary folks captured this 500 mph rocket with such precision? Does the BS ever stop?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "All clips of the plane were shot a mile away...even the one above??"
None closer than thousands of feet, considering it happened nearly a thousand feet in the air, and everybody was on the ground.
"And isn't it a miracle how these ordinary folks captured this 500 mph rocket with such precision?"
No, it's really easy to point cameras at stuff, people do it every day. It's not surprising at all.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "All clips of the plane were shot a mile away...even the one above??"
None closer than thousands of feet, considering it happened nearly a thousand feet in the air, and everybody was on the ground.
"And isn't it a miracle how these ordinary folks captured this 500 mph rocket with such precision?"
No, it's really easy to point cameras at stuff, people do it every day. It's not surprising at all.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
"If you want me to explain another video, link to it."
To add to the engine question. Here's a link:
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Some obvious questions.
1. As mentioned by kansas, why isn't any of the scaffolding damaged? Did it roll into its location?
2. Why isn't the ground damaged from the impact considering that it traveled about 3 blocks and fell about 800-1000 ft.
3. If it survived fairly intact, where are the other 3 engines?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
"why isn't any of the scaffolding damaged? Did it roll into its location?"
I don't know, it looks like it.
"Why isn't the ground damaged from the impact considering that it traveled about 3 blocks and fell about 800-1000 ft."
I don't know, but I can't see much of the ground in that video, and there is definitely damage present.
"If it survived fairly intact, where are the other 3 engines?"
I don't know, but it isn't fairly intact. The whole engine is huge.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
""If you want me to explain another video, link to it.""
(and)
"I don't know, it looks like it...I don't know..I don't know,"
LOL. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Now, do you see why noone takes you seriously?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - I'm just not going to act like I know every answer to your minutia. You, on the other hand, will never say 'I don't know' even though every single thing you say is speculation because you weren't there.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
My bad. I read your statement, "If you want me to explain another video, link to it" and I thought when I linked the video, you were actually going to explain it..
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - Right, but you linked to a video that shows the engine, then asked me three questions that only an eyewitness would know. You certainly don't know the answers, though you will act like you do.
You insinuated the ground isn't damaged though you have no idea, you claimed the engine was fairly intact, though it's a small part of a huge engine, your post was full of assumptions positioned as firsthand knowledge.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Yes, I know about assumptions..
"The plane is traveling 500 mph, being filmed from a mile away, in 640x480 resolution"
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 - ""The plane is traveling 500 mph, being filmed from a mile away, in 640x480 resolution""
Do you have any 911 footage in any better resolution than 640x480? No you don't. Thanks for coming out.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - Now, I answered your three questions, will you answer one of mine? How do you think the engine piece got there?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Wait. You just answered my questions? Did you remove the comment? Funny. But, go ahead. What's your questions?
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 How do you think the engine piece got there? Did they just roll up in the middle of thousands of folks and load it out of a van? Are the people that saw debris fall all agents?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Enter logic: Since there's no apparent damage to the street or debris seen from the engine around it, the engine didn't fall 1000 ft from the sky. And many experts have said that is not even an engine from a 767. Game over. That's all folks...
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Since there's no apparent damage to the street or debris seen from the engine around it, the engine didn't fall 1000 ft from the sky."
Again, that's not answering my question, you've avoided it three times now. You twoofers are such pussies about answering questions. HOW DO YOU THINK THE ENGINE GOT THERE?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "the engine didn't fall 1000 ft from the sky."
How did it get there then, tard?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
The same place as the parts on the Pentagon lawn. It was planted. This is why NONE of the wreckage from ANY plane has ben officially verified. Yes, a massive engine drops from the sky, but the scaffolding surrounding it is not damaged? It only takes a brain and the perps were counting on the public\ not having one. Congrats!!
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "planted."
Riiiight. So, during the attack, a cargo truck pulled up and guys loaded a big smoking hot engine onto the sidewalk? Of course people had to see this, but no one thought it was the least bit suspicious, and till this day they haven't come forward because they don't think it's related to 911?
I love you you retarded twoofers have to ignore every piece of evidence to play your twoof-games. What is the object that we can see shooting out of the building at impact?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - While you're in the mood to answer questions, do you think it was a lol-o-gram that hit the building, or a missile?
nobraintheory 3 months ago