Glad you're still working so hard to disinform. I did enjoy the high quality of your video, wish I had the folks available to me that you have.
You said the columns at the upper floors wre only 1/4" thick. You were kind enuff to show the 14" square box columns with the 1/4" walls.
Had there been a plane, tip to tip, its 1/8th" aluminum alloy skin would have had to slice thru about 100 (2 walls for 50), 14" wide, 1/4" structural steel walls and 100 14" knives (2 other walls of box). No way.
Great video.. indeed showing evidence of something entirely else demolishing the steel.. time to resolve your 10 year long conditioning.. >> watch?v=pZ6vgo11Sto
You can't have a striking object destroying itself against the same object that it is decisively punching through.
Take a car colliding with a brick garden wall. Both objects suffer some damage and the car pretty much stops. The possible graduations of how the damage is shared are infinite, but what you cannot have is the car decisively punching through the wall leaving a cartoon type shape of itself, completely going through and THEN suddenly disintegrating beyond recognition.
It's a good idea to explain it with the failed bolts. But we can clearly see on the impact area photo the right wing sliced the column. Aluminium hollow wing sliced the metal column like a knife. I have hard time believing this.
lmao. So what if it was only a quarter inch thick steel? A jet plane (if that is even what hit) is just a thin, hollow aluminum tube. Still no match for the steel beams and concrete. And the fires could never cause the buildings to collapse anyway. Demolition companies would go out of business if all the owner's had to do to demolish them was light a damn match. This is how absurd and foolish all these would-be debunkers are.
@73849309378 Okay then how does a full metal jacket round fired from a .50 cal sniper rifle penetrate TWO solid steel body armor plates as seen in this video: watch?v=RGhIfTAcOgI - ??? The 50 cal round is soft left incased in a cupronickel shell. Hardly any match for steel, right? Now take a look at the mass/speed of an aluminum jet versus the mass/speed of a copper 50 caliber bullet. The amount of energy behind the plane (plus 24k gallons of jet fuel) is too much for a bolted steel structure.
@NowKillYourself Apples and oranges. Unlike a plane, a 50 cal. round is solid, it's mass concentrated to small size instead of being 156 ft. across, and travels around 1800 MPH vs the plane's probable speed of only a few hundred at most.
@73849309378 So tell me, how did the Titanic sink? Ice couldn't possibly penetrate a steel ship traveling at 30 knots Right? Anyway, it all comes down to KE (kinetic energy) not necessarily the type of material. Heck, even water can cut through steel if it's under enough pressure. i.e: K.E = 1/2mv2. A Boeing 767-200 weighs 181,436 kg, which were estimated to be traveling 223 meters/sec. Using these stats, calculate the kinetic energy. Then tell me they couldn't penetrate steel. lol!
@NowKillYourself That's right, ice couldn't penetrate steel. Rivets and plates were probably ripped apart when the Titanic hit the iceberg. Still impossible for a plane to penetrate WTC's columns, even though they were hollow steel tubes. Maybe a missile, but not a plane.
What utter drivel - Just how can a plane "hitting" a building cause the Earth's Magnetic Field to drop thousands of miles away at the exact same time as that impact. That is what happened for both buildings at 911. Exactly the same thing happened at the "collapse" of Tower 1 and 2 and Building 7.
Also there was NO siesmic footprints for these impacts or ANY explosions or "collapse".
SORRY, THIS VIDEO IS TOO STRAIGHT FORWARD AND HAS TOO MUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT I CAN SEE AND RATIONALIZE WITH MY OWN MIND, SO I CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE I MUST STAY VIGILANT IN THE QUESTIONING OF MY GOVERNMENT.
i liked this video.. but it seems to pick and choose it's battles... What about the eutectic formations? what about the rivers of molten iron? what about the nano-thermate found in the dust? it seems to address the arguments of the most moronic within the "TM." I don't believe in conspiracy theories, so i demand a more concise investigation. I simply cannot buy into the conspiracy theories that the news media is pushing (al-qaeda)
Your vid. is 100% correct!..you can clearly see that the connections failed....and there is no sign of CD....h1wayman's comment ( the only bolt failure I can see in your video is the ones missing in your brian) did he wach this with his eye's closed!!! Typical troofer when shown the truth they resort to insults....A comenation of low IQ and misinformation site's have turned these drone's into babling idiot's!!!!
You still don't get it, huh? Concrete does not turn to dust before hitting the ground, dumbass. GO OUTSIDE AND THROW A BLOCK OF CONCRETE IN THE AIR, AND THEN SEE IF IT TURNS TO DUST BEFORE HITTING THE GROUND! You have got to be the stupidest motherfucker on youtube. I never asked you what was in the dust, you stupid mother fucker. GET LOST, you damned idiot.
@Born2Flesh So what turns the concrete to dust? If you are one of those "TM" people who scream that it was explosives i got this to say to you.
The truck bomb in 93 was the equivalent of 1000 pounds of high explosives. It produced an overpressure on the order of.. 150,000 PSI (Simply enormous pressures!!) a suitcase full of C4 is maybe 50 psi.
The bomb put a 4 story hole through the parking garage. The concrete was not pulverized but chunked and not ONE column broken.
9/11 was not an inside job? LMAO ...maybe you can explain how both buildings turn to dust? How did all the concrete turn to dust? There was no large pieces of concrete at ground zero.....go check the videos....and then, stfu!
You dumb bitch, No steel structure has ever collapse due to fire, you fucking monkey. PROVE IT BITCH! ...AND CONCRETE DOES NOT TURN TO DUST JUST BECAUSE IT IS FALLING! ...AND SAVE THE REST OF YOUR BULLSHIT FOR YO MAMMA, you fucking monkey.
@Born2Flesh Who do you choose to listen to? Numbskulls in the "TM" who jerk each other off on a daily basis with brain addled videos pushing their uneducated nonsense. Or people like Les Robertson? (the man who designed the WTC). On a radio program and said.. (Quote) "There is no way one floor is going to hold the weight of 14 or more floors landing on it... No way!!".
14 years education? DESIGNED THE BUILDING!! UNDERSTANDS THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVED IN THE LOAD DISTRIBUTION?
Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire, and concrete doesn't turn to dust before hitting the ground. Maybe you need to do the research, and not rely on one video on Youtube. So as for now, KISS MY ASS, YOU SMALL-MINDED DUMBASS. ...and yes, IT IS A LIE
I just came up with a new conspiracy, the towers were never bolted together, they were just a jigsaw puzzle, and when the plane crashed they actually fell immediately, but the video was slowmo-ed so it would look like they stood for 56+ minutes.
Now lets watch the plane enter the building like hot knife through butter and see if those columns just snapped away. Look at the plane enter the building and this vid is automatically DEFLUNKED.
The critical velocity to pierce the exterior was 150 m/s. The planes came in at well over 200 m/s, with twice the required kinetic energy to pierce the steel, and a lot more than what was required to sever the bolts. In fact the impact with the wall only reduced the initial kinetic energy by 6.3%. No camera in the area had a great enough resolution to see the deformations.
@Weirdo10o4 What does it matter? I won't be quoting wiki or the government so you won't believe it anyways or will you won't research it. Just keep squawking the same ole rhetoric that your TV feeds you, that's what parrots do. Hey, have you learned how to mimic the doorbell yet?
@Weirdo10o4 ...The government awards 30 to 40 biotechnology patents to MIT each year...The federal government is the largest source of funding for biotechnology-related research at MIT...Of the approximately $85 million in research that is conducted annually in the life sciences at MIT, about $75 million, or 88%, is federally sponsored... Of MIT’s roughly $600M in annual research volume, about 70% comes from the U.S. Federal Government...looks like someone is on the payroll.
@Weirdo10o4 NIST reports are available for review, does that make them legit? HARDLY. Any org on the Gov dole is not trusted. Those "advisories and subcontractors" are connected to gov funding, The Gov knew the attacks were coming and did nothing, I'm not going to listen to anything the gov or anyone on it's payroll, says about 9/11. It is way too obvious the the Fed gov is on full coverup mode about 9/11. Now if you think it isn't possible.....you need to turn off your TV, it's lying to you.
I take it you're very fond of Truther rule 4, if it's applicable to everyone else, it's applicable to you.
The government had a massive amount of intel pointing towards an attack on US interests outside the US and acted accordingly. The embassy in Yemen was shut. Threat level for US troops was elevated, US ships moved out of foreign ports in critical areas. They launched disruption ops in 20 countries. Nothing indicated a coming hijacking for use as a missile.
@Weirdo10o4 Rule 4? Condi Rice, GWB both said "how were we to know they would fly planes into buildings". Check out SEADS CONCEPT PURPOSAL AMALGAM VIRGO 1..SCENARIO COUNTER TERRORISM JUNE 1-2 2001. It has a picture of Bin Ladin and airliners. NORAD drills 2 years earlier simulated airliners crashing into targets that INCLUDED the towers. Fema training manual had the image of a scopesight on the towers.
Islamic terrorists are probably most renowned for multiple plane hijackings. AFR 8969, Dawson's Field, 9/11, etc.
As for the NORAD drills, their scenario involved a plane coming from over seas, with a mere handful of other targets. Over continental United States, in the area the planes could have been, before they surfaced in NYC, Washington, there were statistically over three hundred other targets (no transponder)
The only previous intercept in 10 years over C-US took 70+m (with transponder)
@Weirdo10o4 BLAH BLAH BLAH, suicide attack was unimaginable? Are you kidding? I don't care if the planes would come from oversea's, your statement that the towers not being a target of airliners used as missles contradicts what you just wrote. You will talk in circles, it's all you have to do all day, sorry, I'm all out of crackers.
Oh well, maybe I shouldn't be doing this at 00:55.
I said that most didn't think of such a scenario and it wasn't indicated by anything for the 9/11 plots. In fact the FAA sent out a warning that there might be hijackings to secure the release of Islamic prisoners such as the Blind Sheikh.
So you don't care if NORAD has 300 or 4 targets to check. It's all the same.
Truther Rule 4: do whatever needs to be done to hold down a job.
@Weirdo10o4 BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, you defend them, you defend lies, you defend murder, you defend the destruction of America. I have no more time for you. You are just another UK shill, why do all you shills come from the UK?
@Weirdo10o4 April 3, 1995 edition of Time Magazine ran a cover story in which Senator Sam Nunn described a scenario in which terrorists crashed a radio-controlled airplane into the U.S. Capitol building.... Very obvious that the gov knew and stood down, I don't say this was an American gov job, they took orders that day and helped it along, no question. BUT, this was ordered and carried by those who OWN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. For you to defend them and cover for them, puts blood on your hands.
So one person had thought of it. This means they should have dropped all the thousands of issues they deal with every day. And a suicide attack was apparently unimaginable for him.
The towers had been a target for other attacks before, and they received threats continuously. Again, even the people who worked at WTC security remarked that they never thought they'd come in by air.
I never said "no one died at the pentagon.....I said no 767 hit the pentagon.....I said there are 6 cameras on the attack side of the pentagon, but the government won't release the footage......I said there were no bodies in front of the crash site....I said there is no luggage visible at the crash site......I said....lol You are soooo full of shit.
@911TRUTHINATOR So was the steel structure at the pentagon thicker than the steel structure of the twin towers? because the plane simply glided through the twin towers with no effort but when a "plane" impacted the pentagon it totally disintegrated in fact it did so in a way as to leave no tail section or wing prints on the pentagon walls which means it in fact disintegrated before it hit the building obviously because the size of the hole wouldn't allow it. you'll have an explanation i'm sure
@pearcey03 Yes, actually. The Pentagon was a concrete building, the WTC was not. Are you this uninformed about the facts behind 911? I bet you only read Truther websites.
@NowKillYourself I wouldn't know what a truther website looked like so no I don't go to them and I think you have me confused with being a sympathiser, I couldn't care if the United states accidentally turned all of their nuclear weapons on themselves and scrapped your entire country and everyone in it. I just get annoyed my people like you who are so completely blind and don' think that your shady ass government or a few people behind the scenes could do something like 9/11.
Good points however if true why hasnt' there been a complete overhaul of building design codes ..world wide based in this incident ? There was when Piper alpha blew up !
@klnine If you knew anything, you would know that there hasn't been a naked steel structure built since 2001. They're all incased in [rebar] reinforced concrete. If the WTC was incased in concrete like most buildings, it probably wouldn't have collapsed. Anyway, this is hardly any point to solidify the inside job theory. The whole "it was an inside job" claim is ridiculous. Only complete retards think this bullshit.
@klnine Ahh yes the Petronas Towers, construction started in 1992 and completed in 1998. I've been there in 06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Beautiful towers and amazing place. But really, what does this have to do with towers being built since 2001? Petronas were started and complete BEFORE the collapse of the WTC you fucking moron. Please don't post unless you know what you're talking about. Thanks, dipshit.
A plane hitting the upper floor is NOT going to break ALL the bolts on the tower, and weaken the entire structure. Your explantaion ignores all the singed burned, flipped cars in the aftermath. I don't see how a plane went through at the impact zone. How could a plane fit through that whole? The film of the plane shows it went all the way into the building without anything breaking off. Can't have it both ways. I don't believe a aluminum plane wing is going to cut high strength industial steel
I clicked on your channel, to find the USS Hinsdale-photo's/images could not find them, looked on google-images, and I see an image of it, but the wings did not penetrate...or?
Yeah but what about the nano thermite detected by alot of scientists? If you believe these massive solid structures were brought down completely and perfectly from fire and plane strike you need to be deprogramed also tell us about wtc 7? You ppl are retarded with zero qualifications zero experience in detecting nano particles and just basically unintelligent plebs, crawl away and die please for the sake of the worlds gene pool you are defective
The planes, according to the "official story" would have hit 45 of those 1/4" box columns, along with 6 spandrel belts and at least 6 floor pans on steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete each. The plane would lose this battle if it had really happened. It is the strength of the structure as a whole that is resisting the plane, not just the 45 columns. Planes are made of lightweight aluminum and just enough steel to hold together during the normal stresses of flight, or else they would not fly.
the saddest TRUTH is the rampant lack of intellect and higher education coming from many who comment. Americans have been "dumbed down!" We no longer compete in the world academically especially in the Applied Arts like Physics, chemistry and Common sense! The 911 Saga has more holes than a brick of Swiss Cheese! And any sane person would have questions. it's the Nimrod who bites a story; hook, line and sinker! regarding the Pentagon; "If the glove doesn't fit...."
@jengagirl1 I completely agree with almost everything you say. Except that, I would have inserted the word conspiracy between 911 and saga. And there are myriad truther theories that could have replaced the word Pentagon. But you might be on to something. Maybe OJ was behind 911.
@tumac66 I chose not use the would "conspiracy," as people tend to attack that word and the people using it in regard to sept 11. As for the O.J reference; he was aquitted in large part due to the fact that the bloody glove didn't fit. We'll the plane at the Pentagon doesn't fit the size of the hole in the wall so the "Official story," doesn't fit.
It's funny to hear YOU say that Americans have been "dumbed down" when it is YOU that is making the dumbest comments of all. You clearly are not qualified to be calling others dumb when you make comments about 9/11 being an inside job. The plane clearly fits in the hole, plane debris is everywhere, hundreds of eyewitnesses, dna was identified.
As for your OJ comparison, no the glove didn't fit, but that doesn't mean it wasn't his glove now does it.
FEMA and NIST dismissed the "jet fuel" and "pancacke" hypothesis themselfs.
They think it was office fires. I think it possible for WTC2 because it was hit much lower than WTC1.
But WTC1 & WTC7? Ridiculous. How can 1/10 of a building (top of wtc1) "crashing" from a height difference of 4 to 8 floors destroy 9/10 that are increasingly stronger?
The potential energy + kinetic energy is not enough to do that in 11 secs.
The pancaking would have needed at least 20 sec. But there was no pancaking.
Yeah...thickness reduced and easy for a plane to crash through it. GOSH, I WONDER WHO HAD THAT KNOWLEDGE? Surely NOT come guy in a cave!! It was the INNER CORE COLUMNS THAT WERE SLICED ON AN ANGLE...not the outer steel.
Great video man! I cant believe you still have idiots saying "but jet fuel isnt hot enough to damage steel! The fires were more than sufficient to weaken the steel. It was the unique design of these buildings that sealed their fates. And what the hell does the fact that the "beams were five inches thick at the lower floors have to do with this video. The impacts and fires werent on the lower floors. And much of the lower part of the outer columns were still standing after the collapse anyway.
@tumac66 Think about it. 200000 tons of steel Countless tons of concrete . Only ten thousand gallons of gasoline. Do the numbers. How many gallons of fuel for how many tons of steel? Thinking you are defending the indefencable.
@tumac66 What the hell tumac , you brain dead? Five inches thick steel you aren't going to touch that except with thermite or thermat or something that would burn at 3000 plus degrees, ...... which sure as hell isn't jet fuel.
Think, I know it is hard, if jet fuel burned that hot wouldn't it destroy the engines.
@usd25674 The plane impacts and fires were high on the buildings. Where the steel in the outer box columns was only a quarter inch thick. The fire weakened and warped the joints that held the floor trusses to the outer frame and the core. Nothing was melted or cut you cretinous idiot.
@tumac66 What a crock , you vapid moron. You only had one plane and 10000 gallons of fuel. How you going to heat up 200,000 tons of steel. Do the math one gallon for how many tons of steel ?
Keep on believing that NIST bullshit. Oh and if nothing melted how come the molten metal at bottom ? Thermite perhaps.
@usd25674 You dont need to heat up 200,000 tons of steel ! Only key joints in enough of the floor trusses. Jet fuel wasnt the only thing burning. Who says there was molten steel? Youtube? See it with your own eyes did you? In a photo could you tell molten steel from aluminum or melted plastic. At least one alleged photo of molten steel is a complete fraud. Its rescue workers search light colored orange. Dont believe evrything you hear on the Internet. The Government isnt the only one who lies.
@tumac66 Please read "The Atlantic" Article from William Langewiesche (not a truther). Do some research.
-> He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. He interviewed hundreds of people, from ironworkers and city managers to architects and doctors. What he witnessed in his reporting, Langewiesche says, was "uniquely American improvisation on an enormous scale."
@tumac66 when are YOU going to PROPERLY explain how the 30 foot short alleged plastic tipped hollow 1/13th inch aluminium tube F11 plane silhouette formed SIX SECONDS + after alleged F11 melded into the north tower without resistance or any bits breaking off in the Naudet film 9/11??? (he really rationalised to me it was caused by film frame speed folks ☺)
@MarkB1ngham I have answered all of MarkB1nghams Questions on my channel. He may not agree with my answers but that doesnt give him the right to spam my channel relentlessly. So I blocked him. But I see that he just cant let it go. If he has a new and valid question, I may reply. Otherwise I have nothing to say to him. Cheerio!
@tumac66@tumac66 Please read "The Atlantic" Article from William Langewiesche (not a truther). Do some research.
-> He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. He interviewed hundreds of people, from ironworkers and city managers to architects and doctors. What he witnessed in his reporting, Langewiesche says, was "uniquely American improvisation on an enormous scale."
Damn lie !!!! I have never heard anyone say they thought the steel was solid. I have yet to see any consturction steel whether it be "I " beam , H beam , square tube etc.... that was solid steel. Have yet to hear that from a "truther".
HOWEVER THE BEAMS WERE FIVE INCHES THICK AT THE LOWER FLOORS. TRY BURING THROUGH THAT WITH YOUR JETTTT FUEL.
What a crock , at 53 "The floor slabs were only 4 inches thick" Well yea ! 4 inches of concrete laid on corroagated steel AND TRUSSES. No mention of this here. Could we call this lying by omission ? Perhaps.
@911TRUTHINATOR Oh really will you shut up already . Why do you defend these people. 3000 people murdered that day, and you want to slide it under the rug.
@911TRUTHINATOR " So youthink the 4inch concrete slab could support the top of the buildin?" No , moron you had 4 inches on each floor. This added to the mass of the building. This would be that much that the plane fuel would have to burn through. Not POSSIBLE !!!
Just thought I'd point out something about the Kamikaze attack you refer to at the end of the video,
The only penetration of the ships hull is from the planes engine and mounted guns (iron/steel alloy). the wings (aluminum) leave only marks and minor dents.
You might want to look over your "proof" a little harder before you discredit yourself.
@spacemonk420 search google images for uss sterett and you will see where a kamikaze penetrated the hull. re. the uss hinsdale it does look like parts of the wings went thru the hull, this video shows that the planes punched the column sections inwards more like a car going thru a gate by breaking bolts and locks and pushing the gate out of the way.
google b767 and go to janes all the worlds aircraft and find out about a b767 wings leading edges.
kind of an interetsting point you make truthinator. At 2:20 beams on ground show one bent bolt. Also if the bolts failed you would think some warpage would occur on the mounting plates. Also funny all the bolts in the building failed at one time .
I guess that was from the extreme heat .... But wait notice the people crowding at the windows (steel beams) If it was that hot why weren't they burned?
@911TRUTHINATOR Good point truthinator. If people were standing by beams the steel was cooling. IF there was any strength lost to heating the strength would have returned.
Also remember there was atleast 200,000 tons of steel. Only 10000 gallons of fuel.
That is pretty bad ratio for one to believe that, that small amount of fuel could have weakened that MUCH steel.
@911TRUTHINATOR Yea truth thinking you are right there. But jet fuel not hot enough to damage the steel in the building. And the material such as books , office supplies etc. ... surely isn't. So where did you get sooooo much heat ?
@usd25674 There are more than a few pics of bent bolts and stretched-out bolt holes. They didn't all fail at once. One floor at a time, except where the planes hit.
As for people standing in the gaps, they were up-wind of the fire. In-coming air kept them cool for a while. NOBODY stood in a down-wind gap.
FACT: A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of AIR DENSITY and structural integrity.
FACT: An aluminum, hollow tube cannot penetrate a steel framed/reinforced concrete wall, explode, fly through steel core columns, and penetrate and exit out another steel framed/reinforced wall with its nosecone intact.
There was no deceleration or impact. Instead, the "plane" passes through the tower as if it wasn't there.
@lmfecher I said JUST hollow, Fucktard. Obviously they have a reinforced airframe which is made of hardened titanium. The wing tanks go no further than the engines.
Research this Shitfobrains: "During a static test of the 767 airframe, a load test was conducted. The wing tips were pulled up 15.5 feet from normal position over the top of the fuselage at a pressure of 1,200,000 pounds. The wings did not break."
Now tell me..,What hit the towers if it wasn't an aircraft? A cruise missile? LOL.
"Obviously they have a reinforced airframe which is made of hardened titanium"...
REALLY? If the wings are that strong, why the "NO STEP" stencils all over the wings, particularly on the fragile ailerons and wing tips? Even the wingtips sliced steel beams like butter. Impossible. And a 767 cannot fly at 500mph at 800ft because of AIR DENSITY and structural integrity. Research JASSM, asswipe.
@lmfecher You understand what an airframe is right? You understand that the airframe needs to be strong to support tons of weight right? You should also understand that they wrap lightweight material such as aluminum and in some cases a graphite/kevlar composite around the hardened skeleton.That's why the "no step." Also, a 767 CAN safely fly at 360 knots or 414 mph at that altitude..more than fast enough. A JASSM would've made a MUCH smaller hole AND a larger explosion.
For your information, Skippy, I was an aircraft mechanic in the US Navy for six years. So, it's pointless for you to even attempt to school me on Newtonian Laws, crash physics or aircraft structures. I'm interested in knowing just how many aircraft you've turned a wrench on or how many aircraft crashes you've recovered the pieces from.
And the "official story" states that UAL 175 was flying at 500mph plus, depending on the source. 414mph was pulled out of your ass.
@lmfecher LOL...And I was the President of the USA....You wait til now to mention it. LOL.. to think those poor pilots who had to fly something you laid your hands on. No wonder there were so many crashes.
You pulled that B.S. "I'm an expert cuz I turned a wrench on Naval aircraft" outta YOUR ass.
Anywho, try to enjoy your weekend. Maybe they'll let you out so you can do your walk around the duck pond.
I am a former US Navy aircraft mechanic. If a SOLID bullet going 2,000 mph can't penetrate the thin piece of steel in a bullet-proof vest, only a lying degenerate retarded cocksucking evil motherfucker like you would ever try to spewing the ludicrious bullshit that a HOLLOW aluminum airplane fuselage, that goddamn birds punch holes through, would be able to totally penetrate 1/4" STEEL BOX COLUMNS without ever breaking into pieces when it hit the motherfuckers!
@lmfecher "Bla, bla bla.. retarded cocksucking evil motherfucker like you.. bla bla ...spewing the ludicrious bullshit.. bla bla bla... airplane fuselage, that goddamn birds... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.. the motherfuckers!"
@lmfecher danged Imfecher, appreciat e your points, brought a few to light for me also. Especially the part about the aileron and wingtips. Makes you go hmmm when they slice through stell . LOL
@usd25674 ooooohhhhh did i hurt your bumboy leftyseargents feelings,,,,,,,so sorry you faggot,,,,,,,and i am not talking about the chopper 5 footage,,,,,,dummy,,,,,,,i am talking about the cnn footage,,,,,,that was supposedly taken by some bitch on a boat,,,,,,there is no fucking way on earth,,,,,,that there is a real 767 crashing into a massive steel tower,,,,,,,,in that bullshit,,,,,,,fake ass video,,,,,,do you know what crash physics are you fucking moron,,,,,idiots the lot of you sheep!!!
Looks like you forgot to show the pictures of the core columns that were cut at an angle. You know what I mean, cut at an angle in exactly the same way used in demolition
Interesting reading peoples views on this subject. The fact that the building is stationary and the plane has a high speed is irrelevant, what is important is the point of impact where the planes inertia is absorbed by the building. So the moving mass creating the inertia is an extremely lightweight manganese and titanium airframe covered in extremely thin and again lightweight aluminum sheet. The inertia was absorbed by steel reinforced concrete, the same stuff artillery bunkers are made from.
Also steel box section beams about an inch thick and 12 inches across. Steel has a much higher 'density' than either titanium, magnesium or aluminum, around 3.5 times the density. This is why aircraft aluminum is said to be stronger than steel "weight for weight" in other words the same mass which means 3.5 times the amount of aluminum to attain the same strength as steel used for the same purpose. Hence aluminum cycle frames are very fat and aluminum motorcycle frames very chunky in design.
A bird strike will smash a hole in the nose of a large airliner and that's just a couple of pounds of feathers and muscle. Imagine what would happen if an airliner hit a steel bird at say 350 knots. This is why aluminum is not used for artillery shells but steel and uranium are, because they are dense and deliver a high energy into the target, which is very often a reinforced concrete building. Lead is little use at high velocity because although it has high mass and therefore inertia,....
....it is also soft and on impact loses its energy by pancaking and melting similar to aluminum. Aircraft parts are designed to be as light as possible while remaining strong enough to withstand thousands of hours of flight. A steel framed building is exceptionally strong and has a very high mass and in this case was designed specifically to withstand an impact by large jet airliners. A high speed aluminum tube with wings, hitting a wall of steel beams seems to me like a very unfair fight to me.
I've read this story from every angle and from lots of different sources, some official and some not. Most accounts seem plausible but they can't all be right.
It would help matters if the official story wasn't full of errors like stating that the plane that hit tower one was doing an EVA (equivalent air speed) of Mach 1.3 which is impossible for a 767 even in a vertical dive!
I say a 767 couldn't do that to a steel structure of that design but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
This is such a crock those exterior coloumns werent just bolted down they where also welded too.And you notice how they dont say the tonage of these absolute huge peices of steel if im not mistaken just those exterior peices alone where it least 4 to 5 tons!! and those interiors colums where 50 to 65 tons like wow huge.
This is known as disinformation. Where is the plane wreckage? Were the bolts so weak that the impact knocked down building 7 too? Birds can damage 80 planes but 500,000 ton buildings cannot? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Reverse the situation with the plane standing still and the towers moving toward it @ 500 mph and the plane wins by slicing through, burning it and triturating it into fine dust??? Dude, you got jokes! LMAO
That's as good as what I said a while back.. People of the rich world so innocent should rebuild them in the desert and Crash 2 more into them. I bet they don't fall down.
People don't have to be inside of any of them of course.
And they must be done exactly the same way. Built & destroyed.
u tube jesse ventura 9*/11 .. get lots of ones and with a black marker put U tube jesse ventura 9/11 on all your money .. low bills work the best they move. And yes your goverment has a room full of people and all they do is post stupid shit on U tube and make comments.
you seem to think that the strongest towers ever built were simply paper machier and absolutely no match,,,,,,,,for an aluminum fliying beercan,,,,,,,,,,please tell me you are not that fucking dumb,,,,,,,,,,the assumption that an aluminum plane can seemlessly glide through steel is fucking absurd you mindless dolt,,,,,,,,,wake the fuck up
you do understand the plane was hollow and not a solid projectile the walls of the planes were thin aluminum
poznanski666 1 month ago
Good video. What's the name of that funky song playing?
mikebeange 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glad you're still working so hard to disinform. I did enjoy the high quality of your video, wish I had the folks available to me that you have.
You said the columns at the upper floors wre only 1/4" thick. You were kind enuff to show the 14" square box columns with the 1/4" walls.
Had there been a plane, tip to tip, its 1/8th" aluminum alloy skin would have had to slice thru about 100 (2 walls for 50), 14" wide, 1/4" structural steel walls and 100 14" knives (2 other walls of box). No way.
CNN911Fakes 4 months ago
Great video.. indeed showing evidence of something entirely else demolishing the steel.. time to resolve your 10 year long conditioning.. >> watch?v=pZ6vgo11Sto
earthbeautiful 4 months ago
Finally! A fresh blast of common sense!
ironkladkast 4 months ago
You can't have a striking object destroying itself against the same object that it is decisively punching through.
Take a car colliding with a brick garden wall. Both objects suffer some damage and the car pretty much stops. The possible graduations of how the damage is shared are infinite, but what you cannot have is the car decisively punching through the wall leaving a cartoon type shape of itself, completely going through and THEN suddenly disintegrating beyond recognition.
Physics 101.
911Sceptic 4 months ago
It's a good idea to explain it with the failed bolts. But we can clearly see on the impact area photo the right wing sliced the column. Aluminium hollow wing sliced the metal column like a knife. I have hard time believing this.
yasenpen 5 months ago
lmao. So what if it was only a quarter inch thick steel? A jet plane (if that is even what hit) is just a thin, hollow aluminum tube. Still no match for the steel beams and concrete. And the fires could never cause the buildings to collapse anyway. Demolition companies would go out of business if all the owner's had to do to demolish them was light a damn match. This is how absurd and foolish all these would-be debunkers are.
73849309378 6 months ago
@73849309378 Okay then how does a full metal jacket round fired from a .50 cal sniper rifle penetrate TWO solid steel body armor plates as seen in this video: watch?v=RGhIfTAcOgI - ??? The 50 cal round is soft left incased in a cupronickel shell. Hardly any match for steel, right? Now take a look at the mass/speed of an aluminum jet versus the mass/speed of a copper 50 caliber bullet. The amount of energy behind the plane (plus 24k gallons of jet fuel) is too much for a bolted steel structure.
NowKillYourself 4 months ago
@NowKillYourself Apples and oranges. Unlike a plane, a 50 cal. round is solid, it's mass concentrated to small size instead of being 156 ft. across, and travels around 1800 MPH vs the plane's probable speed of only a few hundred at most.
73849309378 4 months ago
@73849309378 So tell me, how did the Titanic sink? Ice couldn't possibly penetrate a steel ship traveling at 30 knots Right? Anyway, it all comes down to KE (kinetic energy) not necessarily the type of material. Heck, even water can cut through steel if it's under enough pressure. i.e: K.E = 1/2mv2. A Boeing 767-200 weighs 181,436 kg, which were estimated to be traveling 223 meters/sec. Using these stats, calculate the kinetic energy. Then tell me they couldn't penetrate steel. lol!
NowKillYourself 4 months ago
@NowKillYourself That's right, ice couldn't penetrate steel. Rivets and plates were probably ripped apart when the Titanic hit the iceberg. Still impossible for a plane to penetrate WTC's columns, even though they were hollow steel tubes. Maybe a missile, but not a plane.
73849309378 4 months ago
Comment removed
jerjr49 6 months ago
Comment removed
jerjr49 6 months ago
What utter drivel - Just how can a plane "hitting" a building cause the Earth's Magnetic Field to drop thousands of miles away at the exact same time as that impact. That is what happened for both buildings at 911. Exactly the same thing happened at the "collapse" of Tower 1 and 2 and Building 7.
Also there was NO siesmic footprints for these impacts or ANY explosions or "collapse".
billycarlin 6 months ago
SORRY, THIS VIDEO IS TOO STRAIGHT FORWARD AND HAS TOO MUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT I CAN SEE AND RATIONALIZE WITH MY OWN MIND, SO I CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE I MUST STAY VIGILANT IN THE QUESTIONING OF MY GOVERNMENT.
taylort123 6 months ago
i liked this video.. but it seems to pick and choose it's battles... What about the eutectic formations? what about the rivers of molten iron? what about the nano-thermate found in the dust? it seems to address the arguments of the most moronic within the "TM." I don't believe in conspiracy theories, so i demand a more concise investigation. I simply cannot buy into the conspiracy theories that the news media is pushing (al-qaeda)
zakquack 8 months ago 6
awesome music!
zakquack 8 months ago
2:01 HANDHOLE COMPARED TO 2:16 LOOKS LIKE A BOMB WENT OFF
way2easy2love 9 months ago
Your vid. is 100% correct!..you can clearly see that the connections failed....and there is no sign of CD....h1wayman's comment ( the only bolt failure I can see in your video is the ones missing in your brian) did he wach this with his eye's closed!!! Typical troofer when shown the truth they resort to insults....A comenation of low IQ and misinformation site's have turned these drone's into babling idiot's!!!!
buck65100 9 months ago
You still don't get it, huh? Concrete does not turn to dust before hitting the ground, dumbass. GO OUTSIDE AND THROW A BLOCK OF CONCRETE IN THE AIR, AND THEN SEE IF IT TURNS TO DUST BEFORE HITTING THE GROUND! You have got to be the stupidest motherfucker on youtube. I never asked you what was in the dust, you stupid mother fucker. GET LOST, you damned idiot.
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
@Born2Flesh So what turns the concrete to dust? If you are one of those "TM" people who scream that it was explosives i got this to say to you.
The truck bomb in 93 was the equivalent of 1000 pounds of high explosives. It produced an overpressure on the order of.. 150,000 PSI (Simply enormous pressures!!) a suitcase full of C4 is maybe 50 psi.
The bomb put a 4 story hole through the parking garage. The concrete was not pulverized but chunked and not ONE column broken.
You were saying?
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
9/11 was not an inside job? LMAO ...maybe you can explain how both buildings turn to dust? How did all the concrete turn to dust? There was no large pieces of concrete at ground zero.....go check the videos....and then, stfu!
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
You dumb bitch, No steel structure has ever collapse due to fire, you fucking monkey. PROVE IT BITCH! ...AND CONCRETE DOES NOT TURN TO DUST JUST BECAUSE IT IS FALLING! ...AND SAVE THE REST OF YOUR BULLSHIT FOR YO MAMMA, you fucking monkey.
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
@Born2Flesh Who do you choose to listen to? Numbskulls in the "TM" who jerk each other off on a daily basis with brain addled videos pushing their uneducated nonsense. Or people like Les Robertson? (the man who designed the WTC). On a radio program and said.. (Quote) "There is no way one floor is going to hold the weight of 14 or more floors landing on it... No way!!".
14 years education? DESIGNED THE BUILDING!! UNDERSTANDS THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVED IN THE LOAD DISTRIBUTION?
HELLO!!
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire, and concrete doesn't turn to dust before hitting the ground. Maybe you need to do the research, and not rely on one video on Youtube. So as for now, KISS MY ASS, YOU SMALL-MINDED DUMBASS. ...and yes, IT IS A LIE
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
I just came up with a new conspiracy, the towers were never bolted together, they were just a jigsaw puzzle, and when the plane crashed they actually fell immediately, but the video was slowmo-ed so it would look like they stood for 56+ minutes.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
Now lets watch the plane enter the building like hot knife through butter and see if those columns just snapped away. Look at the plane enter the building and this vid is automatically DEFLUNKED.
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
The critical velocity to pierce the exterior was 150 m/s. The planes came in at well over 200 m/s, with twice the required kinetic energy to pierce the steel, and a lot more than what was required to sever the bolts. In fact the impact with the wall only reduced the initial kinetic energy by 6.3%. No camera in the area had a great enough resolution to see the deformations.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Another wiki parrot......wanna cracker?
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
Wiki? A cracker? Yes please!
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Sorry, I'm all out, had to give them away to all the other wiki parrots. Maybe they will give you some crumbs?
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
A proper response will do.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 What does it matter? I won't be quoting wiki or the government so you won't believe it anyways or will you won't research it. Just keep squawking the same ole rhetoric that your TV feeds you, that's what parrots do. Hey, have you learned how to mimic the doorbell yet?
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
Oh, good, maybe you've gotten to where I am and quote MIT.
* Ding dong!
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 ...The government awards 30 to 40 biotechnology patents to MIT each year...The federal government is the largest source of funding for biotechnology-related research at MIT...Of the approximately $85 million in research that is conducted annually in the life sciences at MIT, about $75 million, or 88%, is federally sponsored... Of MIT’s roughly $600M in annual research volume, about 70% comes from the U.S. Federal Government...looks like someone is on the payroll.
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
The MIT is not a collective. And 'its' tests, methods and conclusions, are available for review.
Not to mention hundreds of advisories and subcontractors who were involved in the NIST investigation.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 NIST reports are available for review, does that make them legit? HARDLY. Any org on the Gov dole is not trusted. Those "advisories and subcontractors" are connected to gov funding, The Gov knew the attacks were coming and did nothing, I'm not going to listen to anything the gov or anyone on it's payroll, says about 9/11. It is way too obvious the the Fed gov is on full coverup mode about 9/11. Now if you think it isn't possible.....you need to turn off your TV, it's lying to you.
blite13 10 months ago
Comment removed
blite13 10 months ago
I take it you're very fond of Truther rule 4, if it's applicable to everyone else, it's applicable to you.
The government had a massive amount of intel pointing towards an attack on US interests outside the US and acted accordingly. The embassy in Yemen was shut. Threat level for US troops was elevated, US ships moved out of foreign ports in critical areas. They launched disruption ops in 20 countries. Nothing indicated a coming hijacking for use as a missile.
There was a shitload done.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 Rule 4? Condi Rice, GWB both said "how were we to know they would fly planes into buildings". Check out SEADS CONCEPT PURPOSAL AMALGAM VIRGO 1..SCENARIO COUNTER TERRORISM JUNE 1-2 2001. It has a picture of Bin Ladin and airliners. NORAD drills 2 years earlier simulated airliners crashing into targets that INCLUDED the towers. Fema training manual had the image of a scopesight on the towers.
blite13 10 months ago
Islamic terrorists are probably most renowned for multiple plane hijackings. AFR 8969, Dawson's Field, 9/11, etc.
As for the NORAD drills, their scenario involved a plane coming from over seas, with a mere handful of other targets. Over continental United States, in the area the planes could have been, before they surfaced in NYC, Washington, there were statistically over three hundred other targets (no transponder)
The only previous intercept in 10 years over C-US took 70+m (with transponder)
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 BLAH BLAH BLAH, suicide attack was unimaginable? Are you kidding? I don't care if the planes would come from oversea's, your statement that the towers not being a target of airliners used as missles contradicts what you just wrote. You will talk in circles, it's all you have to do all day, sorry, I'm all out of crackers.
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
Oh well, maybe I shouldn't be doing this at 00:55.
I said that most didn't think of such a scenario and it wasn't indicated by anything for the 9/11 plots. In fact the FAA sent out a warning that there might be hijackings to secure the release of Islamic prisoners such as the Blind Sheikh.
So you don't care if NORAD has 300 or 4 targets to check. It's all the same.
Truther Rule 4: do whatever needs to be done to hold down a job.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, you defend them, you defend lies, you defend murder, you defend the destruction of America. I have no more time for you. You are just another UK shill, why do all you shills come from the UK?
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
Well imho: YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FOR COVERING THE REAL MOTIVE.
I'm Finnish.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well imho: YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FOR COVERING THE REAL MOTIVE.
I'm Finnish.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
@Weirdo10o4 April 3, 1995 edition of Time Magazine ran a cover story in which Senator Sam Nunn described a scenario in which terrorists crashed a radio-controlled airplane into the U.S. Capitol building.... Very obvious that the gov knew and stood down, I don't say this was an American gov job, they took orders that day and helped it along, no question. BUT, this was ordered and carried by those who OWN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. For you to defend them and cover for them, puts blood on your hands.
blite13 10 months ago
@blite13
Continued.
So one person had thought of it. This means they should have dropped all the thousands of issues they deal with every day. And a suicide attack was apparently unimaginable for him.
The towers had been a target for other attacks before, and they received threats continuously. Again, even the people who worked at WTC security remarked that they never thought they'd come in by air.
Weirdo10o4 10 months ago
Comment removed
blite13 10 months ago
you moron. I can't believe you made a whole video about the perimeter columns which weren't even major load bearing parts of the building.
zppz 10 months ago
isnt it just a shame... asshole.
17soulable 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Federal Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma that McVeigh blew up had a massive explosion that rip most of the building away, but it never collapsed.....
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@h1wayman TYPICAL STUPID TWOOFER LOGIC.
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
...and you're a typical ass kissing liar.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
This is a lie.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh "This is a lie" this coming from a retard who thinks no one died at the pentagon
get a life!.
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
I never said "no one died at the pentagon.....I said no 767 hit the pentagon.....I said there are 6 cameras on the attack side of the pentagon, but the government won't release the footage......I said there were no bodies in front of the crash site....I said there is no luggage visible at the crash site......I said....lol You are soooo full of shit.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@911TRUTHINATOR So was the steel structure at the pentagon thicker than the steel structure of the twin towers? because the plane simply glided through the twin towers with no effort but when a "plane" impacted the pentagon it totally disintegrated in fact it did so in a way as to leave no tail section or wing prints on the pentagon walls which means it in fact disintegrated before it hit the building obviously because the size of the hole wouldn't allow it. you'll have an explanation i'm sure
pearcey03 6 months ago
@pearcey03 Yes, actually. The Pentagon was a concrete building, the WTC was not. Are you this uninformed about the facts behind 911? I bet you only read Truther websites.
NowKillYourself 4 months ago
@NowKillYourself I wouldn't know what a truther website looked like so no I don't go to them and I think you have me confused with being a sympathiser, I couldn't care if the United states accidentally turned all of their nuclear weapons on themselves and scrapped your entire country and everyone in it. I just get annoyed my people like you who are so completely blind and don' think that your shady ass government or a few people behind the scenes could do something like 9/11.
pearcey03 4 months ago
@NowKillYourself oh one more thing, what was the wtc building made out of?? paper???
pearcey03 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pearcey03 What the fuck are you talking about? Stupid fucking queer.
NowKillYourself 3 months ago
Lie at impact the column walls were 2 inches not 1/4 inch !!!!!!!!!! Thicker than tank armour !
klnine 11 months ago
@klnine PROVE IT!
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
Lie at impact the column walls were 2 inches not 1/4 inch !!!!!!!!!! Thicker than tank armour !
klnine 11 months ago
The bolts failed. That proves they were loosened by an airplane collision. No bomb in the world could cause that.
glipzik 1 year ago
The Federal Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma that McVeigh blew up had a massive explosion that rip most of the building away, but it never collapsed.....
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh YOUR COMPARING TO VASTLY DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, UTTER FAILURE.
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
What the FRICK is with this music? >_<
13linkinparkluver13 1 year ago
Good points however if true why hasnt' there been a complete overhaul of building design codes ..world wide based in this incident ? There was when Piper alpha blew up !
klnine 1 year ago 2
@klnine show me a skyscraper built since 2001 or is going to be builtt that has a steel core protected by drywall/plaster and not concrete.
911TRUTHINATOR 11 months ago
@klnine If you knew anything, you would know that there hasn't been a naked steel structure built since 2001. They're all incased in [rebar] reinforced concrete. If the WTC was incased in concrete like most buildings, it probably wouldn't have collapsed. Anyway, this is hardly any point to solidify the inside job theory. The whole "it was an inside job" claim is ridiculous. Only complete retards think this bullshit.
NowKillYourself 4 months ago
@NowKillYourself Er what ? I hope you don't google "KL Twin towers !" Idiot comments !
klnine 4 months ago
@klnine Ahh yes the Petronas Towers, construction started in 1992 and completed in 1998. I've been there in 06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Beautiful towers and amazing place. But really, what does this have to do with towers being built since 2001? Petronas were started and complete BEFORE the collapse of the WTC you fucking moron. Please don't post unless you know what you're talking about. Thanks, dipshit.
NowKillYourself 4 months ago
Major fail. A pop can can't pass through concrete and steel, sorry. Tell it to people stupid enough to believe it and the 9/11 Coverup Commission.
73849309378 1 year ago
A plane hitting the upper floor is NOT going to break ALL the bolts on the tower, and weaken the entire structure. Your explantaion ignores all the singed burned, flipped cars in the aftermath. I don't see how a plane went through at the impact zone. How could a plane fit through that whole? The film of the plane shows it went all the way into the building without anything breaking off. Can't have it both ways. I don't believe a aluminum plane wing is going to cut high strength industial steel
katlovesall 1 year ago
I clicked on your channel, to find the USS Hinsdale-photo's/images could not find them, looked on google-images, and I see an image of it, but the wings did not penetrate...or?
giampow1 1 year ago
so where is the evidence of plane parts scattered at?
Why was there melted steel and molten iron?
Why is there no picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?
Why is there no evidence of a flight 93 from its crash?
Is easy to adress the things in this video. Now please answer these questions. Thank You
MILLSTREETMED 1 year ago
@MILLSTREETMED
Wow where have you been? Are you new? All of those questions were answered 5 yrs ago. You must be new to the movement
jeffmay1 1 year ago
@jeffmay1 get fkn real When I saw the buildings fall I knew it was false. These questions have never been answered truthfully.
MILLSTREETMED 1 year ago
Yeah but what about the nano thermite detected by alot of scientists? If you believe these massive solid structures were brought down completely and perfectly from fire and plane strike you need to be deprogramed also tell us about wtc 7? You ppl are retarded with zero qualifications zero experience in detecting nano particles and just basically unintelligent plebs, crawl away and die please for the sake of the worlds gene pool you are defective
73mandala 1 year ago
The planes, according to the "official story" would have hit 45 of those 1/4" box columns, along with 6 spandrel belts and at least 6 floor pans on steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete each. The plane would lose this battle if it had really happened. It is the strength of the structure as a whole that is resisting the plane, not just the 45 columns. Planes are made of lightweight aluminum and just enough steel to hold together during the normal stresses of flight, or else they would not fly.
flowingeddie 1 year ago
the saddest TRUTH is the rampant lack of intellect and higher education coming from many who comment. Americans have been "dumbed down!" We no longer compete in the world academically especially in the Applied Arts like Physics, chemistry and Common sense! The 911 Saga has more holes than a brick of Swiss Cheese! And any sane person would have questions. it's the Nimrod who bites a story; hook, line and sinker! regarding the Pentagon; "If the glove doesn't fit...."
jengagirl1 1 year ago
@jengagirl1 I completely agree with almost everything you say. Except that, I would have inserted the word conspiracy between 911 and saga. And there are myriad truther theories that could have replaced the word Pentagon. But you might be on to something. Maybe OJ was behind 911.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 I chose not use the would "conspiracy," as people tend to attack that word and the people using it in regard to sept 11. As for the O.J reference; he was aquitted in large part due to the fact that the bloody glove didn't fit. We'll the plane at the Pentagon doesn't fit the size of the hole in the wall so the "Official story," doesn't fit.
jengagirl1 1 year ago
@jengagirl1
It's funny to hear YOU say that Americans have been "dumbed down" when it is YOU that is making the dumbest comments of all. You clearly are not qualified to be calling others dumb when you make comments about 9/11 being an inside job. The plane clearly fits in the hole, plane debris is everywhere, hundreds of eyewitnesses, dna was identified.
As for your OJ comparison, no the glove didn't fit, but that doesn't mean it wasn't his glove now does it.
jeffmay1 1 year ago
@jeffmay1 Is a moron.
jengagirl1 1 year ago
@jengagirl1
Great Answer! I see you like to debate facts!
jeffmay1 1 year ago
FEMA and NIST dismissed the "jet fuel" and "pancacke" hypothesis themselfs.
They think it was office fires. I think it possible for WTC2 because it was hit much lower than WTC1.
But WTC1 & WTC7? Ridiculous. How can 1/10 of a building (top of wtc1) "crashing" from a height difference of 4 to 8 floors destroy 9/10 that are increasingly stronger?
The potential energy + kinetic energy is not enough to do that in 11 secs.
The pancaking would have needed at least 20 sec. But there was no pancaking.
pcuimac 1 year ago
Yeah...thickness reduced and easy for a plane to crash through it. GOSH, I WONDER WHO HAD THAT KNOWLEDGE? Surely NOT come guy in a cave!! It was the INNER CORE COLUMNS THAT WERE SLICED ON AN ANGLE...not the outer steel.
leahanna412003 1 year ago
Great video man! I cant believe you still have idiots saying "but jet fuel isnt hot enough to damage steel! The fires were more than sufficient to weaken the steel. It was the unique design of these buildings that sealed their fates. And what the hell does the fact that the "beams were five inches thick at the lower floors have to do with this video. The impacts and fires werent on the lower floors. And much of the lower part of the outer columns were still standing after the collapse anyway.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 Bulll shittt
usd25674 1 year ago
@tumac66 Think about it. 200000 tons of steel Countless tons of concrete . Only ten thousand gallons of gasoline. Do the numbers. How many gallons of fuel for how many tons of steel? Thinking you are defending the indefencable.
usd25674 1 year ago
@tumac66 What the hell tumac , you brain dead? Five inches thick steel you aren't going to touch that except with thermite or thermat or something that would burn at 3000 plus degrees, ...... which sure as hell isn't jet fuel.
Think, I know it is hard, if jet fuel burned that hot wouldn't it destroy the engines.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 The plane impacts and fires were high on the buildings. Where the steel in the outer box columns was only a quarter inch thick. The fire weakened and warped the joints that held the floor trusses to the outer frame and the core. Nothing was melted or cut you cretinous idiot.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 What a crock , you vapid moron. You only had one plane and 10000 gallons of fuel. How you going to heat up 200,000 tons of steel. Do the math one gallon for how many tons of steel ?
Keep on believing that NIST bullshit. Oh and if nothing melted how come the molten metal at bottom ? Thermite perhaps.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 You dont need to heat up 200,000 tons of steel ! Only key joints in enough of the floor trusses. Jet fuel wasnt the only thing burning. Who says there was molten steel? Youtube? See it with your own eyes did you? In a photo could you tell molten steel from aluminum or melted plastic. At least one alleged photo of molten steel is a complete fraud. Its rescue workers search light colored orange. Dont believe evrything you hear on the Internet. The Government isnt the only one who lies.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 Hello Tum, at least you know the government lies !
I have been told by debunkers that the paper in the office added to the heat as it burned. I mean come on really ????
So here is suggestion. Don't feed off the tripe as the likes of this video. Just go to the web at several sights. Look at pictures.
Ask yourself some key questions.
If it so hot how come Edna Crinton is there leaning on the steel where the plane alledged came in? continued....
usd25674 1 year ago
@tumac66 If there was so much heat and Edna and her friend weren't destroyed from the heat why did all the pins let loose and one instant?
Why did the building fall in it's own footprint?
Why did the building fall at near free fall speed?
If the fires burned so hot why so much particulate matter (smoke)?
What is the burning temp of basically kereosen.
What is the burning temp if not properly sustained with o2?
Why was the concrete turned to powder?
These are some of questions to answer.
usd25674 1 year ago
@tumac66 Also check all sources. The computer models are gigo
(garbage in garbage out ) .. Notice debunkers use a lot of computer models because you can make them do what ever you like.
usd25674 1 year ago
@tumac66 Please read "The Atlantic" Article from William Langewiesche (not a truther). Do some research.
-> He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. He interviewed hundreds of people, from ironworkers and city managers to architects and doctors. What he witnessed in his reporting, Langewiesche says, was "uniquely American improvisation on an enormous scale."
pcuimac 1 year ago
@pcuimac Are there photos or videos to corroborate these claims? Thermite would not explain this. There are all kinds of bogus claims Internet.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 when are YOU going to PROPERLY explain how the 30 foot short alleged plastic tipped hollow 1/13th inch aluminium tube F11 plane silhouette formed SIX SECONDS + after alleged F11 melded into the north tower without resistance or any bits breaking off in the Naudet film 9/11??? (he really rationalised to me it was caused by film frame speed folks ☺)
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
@MarkB1ngham I have answered all of MarkB1nghams Questions on my channel. He may not agree with my answers but that doesnt give him the right to spam my channel relentlessly. So I blocked him. But I see that he just cant let it go. If he has a new and valid question, I may reply. Otherwise I have nothing to say to him. Cheerio!
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 lost the arguement and did a RUNNER !! Frame speed? bwahahahaha☺
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarkB1ngham Everything is still on my channel. Check and see who the loser is.
tumac66 1 year ago
@tumac66 @tumac66 Please read "The Atlantic" Article from William Langewiesche (not a truther). Do some research.
-> He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. He interviewed hundreds of people, from ironworkers and city managers to architects and doctors. What he witnessed in his reporting, Langewiesche says, was "uniquely American improvisation on an enormous scale."
pcuimac 1 year ago
Wow truth looks like nobody believes your little film.
usd25674 1 year ago
Damn lie !!!! I have never heard anyone say they thought the steel was solid. I have yet to see any consturction steel whether it be "I " beam , H beam , square tube etc.... that was solid steel. Have yet to hear that from a "truther".
HOWEVER THE BEAMS WERE FIVE INCHES THICK AT THE LOWER FLOORS. TRY BURING THROUGH THAT WITH YOUR JETTTT FUEL.
YOU ARE SUCH A MORON
usd25674 1 year ago
Yeah! Lets look at where the plane "WENT THRU" (?).
The hole is smaller then the plane ...
That s crap ; far from an impartial investigation !
MrPierrePhilippe 1 year ago
What a crock , at 53 "The floor slabs were only 4 inches thick" Well yea ! 4 inches of concrete laid on corroagated steel AND TRUSSES. No mention of this here. Could we call this lying by omission ? Perhaps.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 so you think the 4inch concrete slab could support the top of the building?
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Oh really will you shut up already . Why do you defend these people. 3000 people murdered that day, and you want to slide it under the rug.
usd25674 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR " So youthink the 4inch concrete slab could support the top of the buildin?" No , moron you had 4 inches on each floor. This added to the mass of the building. This would be that much that the plane fuel would have to burn through. Not POSSIBLE !!!
usd25674 1 year ago
@ 911TRUTHINATOR
Just thought I'd point out something about the Kamikaze attack you refer to at the end of the video,
The only penetration of the ships hull is from the planes engine and mounted guns (iron/steel alloy). the wings (aluminum) leave only marks and minor dents.
You might want to look over your "proof" a little harder before you discredit yourself.
spacemonk420 1 year ago
@spacemonk420 search google images for uss sterett and you will see where a kamikaze penetrated the hull. re. the uss hinsdale it does look like parts of the wings went thru the hull, this video shows that the planes punched the column sections inwards more like a car going thru a gate by breaking bolts and locks and pushing the gate out of the way.
google b767 and go to janes all the worlds aircraft and find out about a b767 wings leading edges.
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
your all of bunch of jerk offs. The muslim islamonazis did it so stop trying to make up the conspiracy.
oldskool359 1 year ago
the wings would have fallen off.
this is pure propaganda.
DSCW33 1 year ago
kind of an interetsting point you make truthinator. At 2:20 beams on ground show one bent bolt. Also if the bolts failed you would think some warpage would occur on the mounting plates. Also funny all the bolts in the building failed at one time .
I guess that was from the extreme heat .... But wait notice the people crowding at the windows (steel beams) If it was that hot why weren't they burned?
Good job truhinator!!!
From
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 the bolts failed when the collapsing debris pounded each floor and bent the columns over until the bolts and welds broke 1 floor at a time.
there are photos of burnt people who jumped, seriously why do you think they jumped?
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Good point truthinator. If people were standing by beams the steel was cooling. IF there was any strength lost to heating the strength would have returned.
Also remember there was atleast 200,000 tons of steel. Only 10000 gallons of fuel.
That is pretty bad ratio for one to believe that, that small amount of fuel could have weakened that MUCH steel.
Looks more like thermite coupled with exposives.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 jet fuel just started the fire, check out my latest video.
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Yea truth thinking you are right there. But jet fuel not hot enough to damage the steel in the building. And the material such as books , office supplies etc. ... surely isn't. So where did you get sooooo much heat ?
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 contents of planes.
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Hey Truth, you must have an alias ?.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 There are more than a few pics of bent bolts and stretched-out bolt holes. They didn't all fail at once. One floor at a time, except where the planes hit.
As for people standing in the gaps, they were up-wind of the fire. In-coming air kept them cool for a while. NOBODY stood in a down-wind gap.
leftysergeant 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal
FACT: A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of AIR DENSITY and structural integrity.
FACT: An aluminum, hollow tube cannot penetrate a steel framed/reinforced concrete wall, explode, fly through steel core columns, and penetrate and exit out another steel framed/reinforced wall with its nosecone intact.
There was no deceleration or impact. Instead, the "plane" passes through the tower as if it wasn't there.
You're the retarded bastard, Skippy.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher The walls of the wtc towers were not reinforced with concrete. Concrete was used on the floors only.
A 400,000lb "Beer can" Travelling in excess of 450 mph CAN penetrate a steel wall just bolted together that has no support behind it..
You think the wings are just hollow?
They have to support 6 tons of engine hanging underneath.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
@gimme2utah1
"You think the wings are just hollow"?
Yes, Skippy, the wings ARE hollow. The wings store fuel.
Did you know you could use your computer for research besides just watching porn and playing video games?
You might want to do that before you comment.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher I said JUST hollow, Fucktard. Obviously they have a reinforced airframe which is made of hardened titanium. The wing tanks go no further than the engines.
Research this Shitfobrains: "During a static test of the 767 airframe, a load test was conducted. The wing tips were pulled up 15.5 feet from normal position over the top of the fuselage at a pressure of 1,200,000 pounds. The wings did not break."
Now tell me..,What hit the towers if it wasn't an aircraft? A cruise missile? LOL.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
@gimme2utah1
"Obviously they have a reinforced airframe which is made of hardened titanium"...
REALLY? If the wings are that strong, why the "NO STEP" stencils all over the wings, particularly on the fragile ailerons and wing tips? Even the wingtips sliced steel beams like butter. Impossible. And a 767 cannot fly at 500mph at 800ft because of AIR DENSITY and structural integrity. Research JASSM, asswipe.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher You understand what an airframe is right? You understand that the airframe needs to be strong to support tons of weight right? You should also understand that they wrap lightweight material such as aluminum and in some cases a graphite/kevlar composite around the hardened skeleton.That's why the "no step." Also, a 767 CAN safely fly at 360 knots or 414 mph at that altitude..more than fast enough. A JASSM would've made a MUCH smaller hole AND a larger explosion.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
@gimme2utah1
For your information, Skippy, I was an aircraft mechanic in the US Navy for six years. So, it's pointless for you to even attempt to school me on Newtonian Laws, crash physics or aircraft structures. I'm interested in knowing just how many aircraft you've turned a wrench on or how many aircraft crashes you've recovered the pieces from.
And the "official story" states that UAL 175 was flying at 500mph plus, depending on the source. 414mph was pulled out of your ass.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher LOL...And I was the President of the USA....You wait til now to mention it. LOL.. to think those poor pilots who had to fly something you laid your hands on. No wonder there were so many crashes.
You pulled that B.S. "I'm an expert cuz I turned a wrench on Naval aircraft" outta YOUR ass.
Anywho, try to enjoy your weekend. Maybe they'll let you out so you can do your walk around the duck pond.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
@gimme2utah1
I am a former US Navy aircraft mechanic. If a SOLID bullet going 2,000 mph can't penetrate the thin piece of steel in a bullet-proof vest, only a lying degenerate retarded cocksucking evil motherfucker like you would ever try to spewing the ludicrious bullshit that a HOLLOW aluminum airplane fuselage, that goddamn birds punch holes through, would be able to totally penetrate 1/4" STEEL BOX COLUMNS without ever breaking into pieces when it hit the motherfuckers!
lmfecher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lmfecher "Bla, bla bla.. retarded cocksucking evil motherfucker like you.. bla bla ...spewing the ludicrious bullshit.. bla bla bla... airplane fuselage, that goddamn birds... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.. the motherfuckers!"
the power of christ compels you!...
The Power of Christ Compels you!!...
The Power oF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!!...
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!!!...
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
@lmfecher A little salty but I applaud your message.
usd25674 1 year ago
@lmfecher danged Imfecher, appreciat e your points, brought a few to light for me also. Especially the part about the aileron and wingtips. Makes you go hmmm when they slice through stell . LOL
usd25674 1 year ago
Come on I counted roughly 40 beams cut by the plane. No part of the plane was stopped and fell to the sidewalk. Please !!!
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 if the plane was only doing 180 mph it might have ended up on the ground,
what do you think would happen if a harley davidson ran into a school bus at 500 mph?
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Never seen a Harley do 500 . Thinking the Harley would wrinkle a bit. The planes didin't.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 look at this F4 hit the concrete wall at 500 mph
watch?v=gaXgR7a68vE
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Good link , thanks
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 ooooohhhhh did i hurt your bumboy leftyseargents feelings,,,,,,,so sorry you faggot,,,,,,,and i am not talking about the chopper 5 footage,,,,,,dummy,,,,,,,i am talking about the cnn footage,,,,,,that was supposedly taken by some bitch on a boat,,,,,,there is no fucking way on earth,,,,,,that there is a real 767 crashing into a massive steel tower,,,,,,,,in that bullshit,,,,,,,fake ass video,,,,,,do you know what crash physics are you fucking moron,,,,,idiots the lot of you sheep!!!
bigbopper993 1 year ago
@bigbopper993 your blocked ,you are too stupid to see how stupid you are and should be put to sleep like the rabid dog you are.
shut the door on your way out.
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@bigbopper993 Who you talkng to? Would you go away please.
usd25674 1 year ago
what a shill but I ain't buying. Tell me how a flying beer can goes through structure steel.
usd25674 1 year ago
@usd25674 why do you think beer cans can fly?
do they talk to you?
911TRUTHINATOR 1 year ago
@911TRUTHINATOR Beer can maybe soda can. Plane made of aluminium. The point being notice on the wings "NO STEP" meaning as can be damaged , fragile .
NO way the wings sheared 40 pieces of steel. Look at the photo straight lines on the steel. Not mangled as would be expected. Yea that talks.
usd25674 1 year ago
10CC eh? I love the song, but not really appropriate for the subject matter.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
note to scy-scraper designers:
ensure buildings are able to withstand the impact of speeding trucks.
note to aeroplane designers:
don't make aeroplane wings heavy and strong enough to tear through steel and concrete (even if it's 'only' 4 inches thick.)
don't forget - the TIPS of the wings and the tail disappeared into that gate-like steel and concrete structure.
MustafaBiggun 1 year ago
Looks like you forgot to show the pictures of the core columns that were cut at an angle. You know what I mean, cut at an angle in exactly the same way used in demolition
Enferushostis 1 year ago
Interesting reading peoples views on this subject. The fact that the building is stationary and the plane has a high speed is irrelevant, what is important is the point of impact where the planes inertia is absorbed by the building. So the moving mass creating the inertia is an extremely lightweight manganese and titanium airframe covered in extremely thin and again lightweight aluminum sheet. The inertia was absorbed by steel reinforced concrete, the same stuff artillery bunkers are made from.
RythymJunkie 1 year ago
Also steel box section beams about an inch thick and 12 inches across. Steel has a much higher 'density' than either titanium, magnesium or aluminum, around 3.5 times the density. This is why aircraft aluminum is said to be stronger than steel "weight for weight" in other words the same mass which means 3.5 times the amount of aluminum to attain the same strength as steel used for the same purpose. Hence aluminum cycle frames are very fat and aluminum motorcycle frames very chunky in design.
RythymJunkie 1 year ago
A bird strike will smash a hole in the nose of a large airliner and that's just a couple of pounds of feathers and muscle. Imagine what would happen if an airliner hit a steel bird at say 350 knots. This is why aluminum is not used for artillery shells but steel and uranium are, because they are dense and deliver a high energy into the target, which is very often a reinforced concrete building. Lead is little use at high velocity because although it has high mass and therefore inertia,....
RythymJunkie 1 year ago
....it is also soft and on impact loses its energy by pancaking and melting similar to aluminum. Aircraft parts are designed to be as light as possible while remaining strong enough to withstand thousands of hours of flight. A steel framed building is exceptionally strong and has a very high mass and in this case was designed specifically to withstand an impact by large jet airliners. A high speed aluminum tube with wings, hitting a wall of steel beams seems to me like a very unfair fight to me.
RythymJunkie 1 year ago
I've read this story from every angle and from lots of different sources, some official and some not. Most accounts seem plausible but they can't all be right.
It would help matters if the official story wasn't full of errors like stating that the plane that hit tower one was doing an EVA (equivalent air speed) of Mach 1.3 which is impossible for a 767 even in a vertical dive!
I say a 767 couldn't do that to a steel structure of that design but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
RythymJunkie 1 year ago
This is such a crock those exterior coloumns werent just bolted down they where also welded too.And you notice how they dont say the tonage of these absolute huge peices of steel if im not mistaken just those exterior peices alone where it least 4 to 5 tons!! and those interiors colums where 50 to 65 tons like wow huge.
boskey10 2 years ago
This is known as disinformation. Where is the plane wreckage? Were the bolts so weak that the impact knocked down building 7 too? Birds can damage 80 planes but 500,000 ton buildings cannot? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Reverse the situation with the plane standing still and the towers moving toward it @ 500 mph and the plane wins by slicing through, burning it and triturating it into fine dust??? Dude, you got jokes! LMAO
flyingshrapnel09 2 years ago 2
Flyingsh
That's as good as what I said a while back.. People of the rich world so innocent should rebuild them in the desert and Crash 2 more into them. I bet they don't fall down.
People don't have to be inside of any of them of course.
And they must be done exactly the same way. Built & destroyed.
Snowman374th 2 years ago
u tube jesse ventura 9*/11 .. get lots of ones and with a black marker put U tube jesse ventura 9/11 on all your money .. low bills work the best they move. And yes your goverment has a room full of people and all they do is post stupid shit on U tube and make comments.
2009wildmonkey1 2 years ago
you seem to think that the strongest towers ever built were simply paper machier and absolutely no match,,,,,,,,for an aluminum fliying beercan,,,,,,,,,,please tell me you are not that fucking dumb,,,,,,,,,,the assumption that an aluminum plane can seemlessly glide through steel is fucking absurd you mindless dolt,,,,,,,,,wake the fuck up
bigbopper993 2 years ago
@bigbopper993 Another truther goofball who knows nothing about mass and inertia.
Synthetrix 1 year ago