This vid is not suitable to make conclusions what happened to the jet plane that hit the Pentagon. If that would've happened to 757 there wouldn't be any piece of fuselages on the grass nor dead passengers, nor parts of the engine etc.
Apparently the CCTV cameras around the pentagon weren't working that day..... well at least the ones that would have captured the incoming missile, sorry I mean aircraft.
They had concreate floors in 911 and the towers could sway in the wind. Isn't however steel stronger than aluminium.A lot of weight is lost as fuel turns to gas. Crumple zones absorb impact., the plane crumples on impact. Just thinking of how 911 building should have stood against the plane.They were designed to do it and even on video from empire state building, they designed all future buildings for impacts. Makes you wonder doesn't it ?
And we were fed the lie that a medium sized passenger plane bore a large hole through not one, but three reinforced walls of the Pentagon. Many of us know it must have been a cruise missile.
Google search "My thoughts on 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism"
@flygirlmigs I can't stand how all these 'debunkers' can come up with the logic and physics defying excuses that they do. theuy should really get a life and STFU.
@merkinmuffleypotus You ready for the bombarama in the land of Osama(Israel vs. Iran)?Well sheeple 9/11 was the trigger used by PNAC(READ THERE MISSION STATEMENT OFF OF THERE WEBSITE)to cause all of the sh*t you see in camel country today. Your defense of these neocons and your belief doesn't counter act the physics and the hard, cold science. DEBUNKERS, what the fuc*ing excuse do you have for one PENTAGON video, huh? I hope this country collapses soon so 9/11 finally gets exposed!
You're an idiot... If you had at least some knowledge on the dmg the Pentagon took from American 77 you would notice that the fucking plane had went true 6 WALLS ! "The American 77" was a fucking tomahawk !!
I don't get this talk of debris fields. Most aircraft either come apart in the air or crash into, or along, the ground. The 9/11 planes crashed INTO a building. Therefore the debris from them would be inside the buildings as they came down. How can they be compared in any way to 'debris fields' that are results of regular crashes ?
Surely the only rational thing is to compare that happens to planes that fly into structures and then add in what happens to building contents in a collapse.
I don't get this talk of debris fields. Most aircraft either come apart in the air or crash into, or along, the ground. The 9/11 planes crashed INTO a building. Therefore the debris from them would be inside the buildings as they came down. How can they be compared in any way to 'debris fields' that are results of regular crashes ?
Surely the only rational thing is to compare that happens to planes that fly into structures and then add in what happens to building contents in a collapse.
I'm willing to bet there was no engine, or landing gear on this plane during the test. .They're too expensive to sacrifice. it's an impressive video none the less.
@WillieG1951 that may be, but to make the test as realistic as possible, i would imagine that they had objects of similar size and weight, installed instead. but if there is no engine... why is there jet flames coming out behind the plane?
@WillieG1951 good thinking willie.they be way spensive to waste.what proppelled it into the wall? a baking soda vinegar fueled missle?with soem red wagon tires (inflatable type) thrown on?it doesnt matter if the specifics of the event are,the facts are ,controlled demolition,israelis arrested and released,passports were stolen,men still alive.mossad with amelikan/dual traitorsresult,nothing but war amelikans be dumbest cattle on earth.
Nobody on the "outside" of the 911 conspiracy knows exactly how the events occurred or where carried out . Preplaced explosives ? maybe remote controlled aircraft ? maybe
what we do know is we need a real investigation and to stop trying to guess how it happened .
u cant have it both ways, either a plane cuts a hole and must have lots of planeparts or it disapears with no hole outside, but it certainly does not disapear only AFTER cutting holes :)
It is disingenuous to compare a fully laden Airliner with over 150 seats, Hundreds of Miles of wiring and baggage cargo etc... with that of a sleek ultra fast fighterjet.
Totally disingenuous.
Like comparing a Greyhound bus crash scene to a Volkswagon crash scene ....
ALL that is acheived by using this as a 9-11 comparison is to question WHO THE FUCK is pushing this bullshit as proof of a plane? WTF?
@StopFundingIsrael This is a common situation. The impactors rigidity is crucial to the object struck. The absorption potential of the structure as well is critical. This may not be a fair comparison and I hate to erect a straw man argument, but it does lend credence to the demolition hypothesis and against the structural damage then fire hypothesis. Since no theories have been scientifically tested, one only has circumstance and conjecture, with warrant for a trial or investigation.
Did you notice that what you saw was shades of concrete blasting up and out with a little bit of red glow towards the end??? The Pentagon was hit with something and then there was a gigantic red fireball.
Doubt anyone that opposes a world class forensic investigation of the events leading up to ,occurring on and after 911.
Truth loves the light of day , liars hide . The findings of the 911 Commission were reduce to writing ,covering over 545 pages and NO MENTION OF WTC 7 . And N.I.S.T. did no better ,WHY ?
Comparing apples and oranges has no bearing on the events of 911 .
Only a moron would think Philip Zelikows job on the 911 Commission was to find the truth about the events of that day.
Only a moron would think a 47 story skyscraper can collapse symmetrically at near free fall speed from fire and minor asymmetrically damage. Look at pictures of WTC6 that didn't collapse but was damaged beyond recognition.
911 wasn't an "inside job" and it wasn't the work of pork eating Muslims..investigate
What fools that want to connect this jet to the SUPPOSED planes hitting the Penty'gone and WTC1/2.First the towers were not solid concrete blocks but glass windows and steel frames and concrete facing. Did any moron notice the concrete block turn into dust as did WTC towers? No stupids because the concrete block was NOT PER LOADED with Israel Explosives . What's with the conspiracy bullsh!t talk--facts are--perplanned bombing to put the fear in stupids:^/
Good food for thought for the no-planers, though how anyone can beLIEve that those 3 buildings come down without any help is beyond me.WTC-7 came down in its own footprint, it fell into itself FFS!!! only by having certain supporting beams cut at the exact same time could that have happened.
ON top of this, what alot of you "Truthers" keep forgetting is that the outer skin of WTC twin towers was actually part of its superstructure. Simply damaging it (as shown clearly in many photos an videos) would have heavily degraded its stability. The loss of any interior supports (for whatever reason) would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
@razorfett147 How do you figure this about its Structure? Did you design it? Maybe you should go about finding your own info on how the towers were constructed, since your ...."what alot of you "Truthers" keep forgetting is that the outer skin of WTC twin towers was actually part of its superstructure. Simply damaging it (as shown clearly in many photos an videos) would have heavily degraded its stability." This part of your argument is false information.
@bkayganich So its your "opinion" that knocking out sections of the outer wall supports and then kicking out numerous inner support beams would STILL not be enough to collapse these structures? WTF do you think these buildings were....military bunkers? Tell you what, why don't you tell ME why damaging the outer walls to such degree would have no bearing on the fate of such a structure.
Doofus haha look in the mirror, Go head back to your gay poetry readings in abandon coffee shops and cry about racism when your a chubby white guy. The Pentagon was strong the Official story was weak & you are a brain dead troll
rike, and each floor was too much for the building to handle. I have a f****** Master's Degree in Structual Engineering, with two minors in Mechanical Engineering and Thermodynamics. My final question to you; What is your degree in?
°C. The jet fuel would have taken about 37% of the structure's strenght away. Then there's the matter of the way in which the towers were built. They basically built the structures, then "hung" each floor in between the supports. When the floors that the jet hit gave out, the began to freefall. 767s are 18 ft tall, making them tall enough to hit three floors. Three floors free falling would have been like dropping a small ship down the middle of the tower. The building was rated for a single st
This doesn't prove the pentagon was terrorist, yeah OK there was no plane at the site but it went threw 3 of these walls and left a perfect punch out hole it didn't just turn into dust.
@leftysergeant haha Idiot? Have you seen the Pentagon? The plane took out light poles in the parking lot, hit the ground just outside the outermost ring of the Pentagon, turned up on its wing, penetrated the E ring (outermost) midway between corridors 4 and 5, It then traveled through the D ring and into the C ring. Now shit the Pentagon Walls were built strong as fuck. There's no way in hell this magical plane went threw light poles, skimmed off the ground destroying 3 rings. IDIOT! hahah
@JGH8sDaDebunkerz The walls were not that strong, dopey boy. And the stuff only had to go through one wall and knock out a small hole in a far weaker one on the other side. Are all twoofers as stupid as you?
@leftysergeant Ok man your right. The headquarters of the most powerful military force in the world is made of gingerbread. I'm not trying to fight with you & you look a little old to be name calling on YouTube. The fact remains 9/11 is shrouded in mystery. Three buildings in NYC turning into dust from 2 planes & kerosene is impossible. Knowing the air was unsafe to breath and sending good Americans to breath it by saying its safe is despicable blocking care for those people for 10 yrs is worse
"The plane" caused damage to 3 rings after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. The section of the Pentagon had just been reinforced during renovation. Through the light poles bouncing off the ground then through 24 inch thick reinforced steel, Kevlar mesh, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars & office contents of 3 rings leaving a perfect exit hole pulled off by a shitty pilot traveling at impossible speeds in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world?
@JGH8sDaDebunkerz Look, doofus, the interior walls were sheetrock, where they existed at all. I think there was one small office enclosure. No concrete walls inside. The supposed Army intel officer who claims there were has a neurological problem that you can see when he talks. The facade was not steel reinforced. Just masonry with a couple steel columns where the fuselage enteredand a couple for each wing out to the engines. Not that strong. It's an office building, not a bloody tank.
HOLY FUCK SHIT COCK!!!!!! Why compare this to the WTC? If you ask me, it only supports the fact that it was done by terrorists. Think of the Pentagon, the defcon that was hit was made of bomb proof materials mad to move when hit just like this wall. Why was there no plane? Rewind the video you just watched.
Why are people comparing this wall, which was built for the sole purpose of taking the most incredible force you can throw at it, to the World Trade Centers?
Also, if you look at how the WTCs went down, they did pancake. That is due to the structure of the buildings. All it takes is a couple floors to go down and then the rest go with them.
"All it takes is a couple floors to go down and then the rest go with them." - yes in larry silverstein's, dick cheney;'s and george bush's dreamland.
@zumosmorph the empire state building was built in 1931 and took a B72 plane crash on it's 70th floor, that building wasn't designed to withstand plane crashes and yet it did and it never even showed a sign of it collapsing, the WTCs were built to withstand hurricane force winds, earthquakes of up to magnitude 7 and terrorist attacks, so i highly doubt that a fire on a couple of floors is going to make a whole building collapse in freefall, watch videos of it collapse and other collapses.
@Vulcaneagle It's hollow. It's got glass and concrete but it's got enough empty space to keep going till it gets fucked up on the inside. Sadly if this thing was surrounded by 100's of feet of concrete I guarantee you can sit with popcorn and watch the fuckers try to get through it.
@Robsshot It actually explains why the pentagon 911 site had hardly any debris left over. Its not at all comparable to the wtc which were basically hollow structures.
@Sunamer1 The WTC did not have walls like this. This wall was made to withstand a nuclear blast... Of course it can withstand ALUMINUM and light metals.
lol did they really need to test this?? i mean it looks sweet but it doesnt take a genius to tell you whats going to happen when a jet hits a concrete wall...
@dallasgoldbug You see the support structure for the concrete, and the wingtips continue forward. You don't see the plane come through the other side. At those speeds the wall would be blowing apart if it was penetrating through it.
@manaman70 No you can see the tip com through before they cut the clip. Plus the plane does not get vaporized. If they would have let the clip play you would see the hunk left over. Now also the 9/11 Cruz missile that hit the towers (thats why we only see 2 motors one each) and is much smaller than a 4 Titanium 11' minsters. Titanium is some crazy stuff no one wants to work with it because its got crazy strength.
@dallasgoldbug0:27 seconds in you can clearly see from a profile shot that your full of shit. What else would I expect from a conspiracy loon through, a realistic balanced non biased outlook? Yeah, in my dreams.
at 27 second in only the tail of the plane is visible on a profile shot and you can clearly see the plane is not cutting through
The wings are also not "slicing" through by any stretch of the imagination.
@h1wayman What in gods name are you talking about? That made no sense at all. It was perfectly spelled, prosed well and yet bears no point other than to decry American ...something.
The WTC did collapse, it pancaked straight down. You can watch the videos here on YouTube. No matter what anybody says, striking a tower at the top, does not mean the hundreds of floors beneath are going to be structurally affected. Not even slightly.
The building dropped. Without explosives, that's impossible.
@cr9527 First off, the twin towers don't compare to this structure. It doesn't have a steel exo and inner column support. It's made of plaster rock and is rotted through.
Secondly, the apparatus in that video is attached by engineers, making those hundreds upon thousands I talked about earlier.
The second video almost has me convinced, but again it's a perfectly even distribution of weight vs the towers being a one sided impact, where there was extra support to maintain structural integrity.
Think of it this way, the weight of the top floors was so great that it overwhelmed any possible extra support. Look at say Mythbuster's car sled demo, where they had a steel slab traveling at near the speed of sound, crashing into a car. The force of the slab was so great that despite the slab hitting the cars front at an uneven location, the slab did not tilt in any noticeable way.
The top floors acted the same way. The sheer momentum would've been enough to overwhelm any support
I'm not sure if this counts as anything, but if you examine all of the explosive demolitions of tall buildings, you'd see a few things
1. Explosive charges would be seen at almost every floor. This was not seen on the WTC
2. The building always collapses from bottom up, not from top bottom.
If you suggest that they planted explosives at the floors the plane hit, then wouldn't the official story be equally if not more valid as the same principle applies.
@cr9527@cr9527 Given the sheer height of the structure, on top of the other variables (winds, extra weight from airplane fuselage, moon gravity, etc), I can't believe there wouldn't be a great deal of variance in the drop pattern.
I mean, evidentially a handful of explosives could do a small job for big results.
At the end of the day you've made good points that could explain how it happened the way it did, but the whole ordeal was too perfectly timed to be anything but a political crime.
Winds? Yes but wind didn't change, so there was no reason for the building to topple
Weight of the fuselage would've helped(not much) in a vertical collapse, not a horizontal force.
It was a political crime, just not done by the US government. The Al Qaeda are not a bunch of ex-farmers who picked up an AK-47. Many of them has taken university, has degrees, and very intelligent.
@cr9527 I want to avoid going into the conspiracy theory therein.
There is enough evidence against the concept of a 747 causing the collapse of two buildings with solid steel exos and steel/concrete centre supports, and enough evidence showing that the government had interest in inciting a war.
People Want to be lied to. Look at what's happening to Assange! Nobody cares that the US is committing crimes, just that their 'secrets' have been 'leaked.'
There is no evidence supporting this, the American Society of Civil Engineers have already "concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."
Assange was charged with rape, not leaking of government info.
@cr9527 Regarding Assange, no, he wasn't charged with rape.
In the end, he wasn't charged with anything, he turned himself into with no charges officially filed, to the UK police.
Now the USA wants to extradite him, and to do so they need a crime, so they're writing new laws. How nice and democratic.
Regarding 9/11, the American Society of Civil Engineers says it did happen after so many other organizations said it didn't happen. Well.. people want closure, and anything can be explained away.
Yes, Assange charges were dropped, but again, no new laws.
If US wants to make up a new law to charge him, it will have to go through the congress. Making it democratic.
This is nothing surprising, since the law that prevented the arrest of Assange was made back in 1917, and in no way did it expect the power of the internet.
If you don't trust a group like ASCE on analyzing the WTCs, then there is no point for me to argue with you.
@cr9527 Hey, I'm agreeing with what the ASCE is saying. People wanted an explanation, and they got an explanation.
Governments fast track bills quite often, and people do Not vote on a thing in these cases. Don't be blind to that fact. Farmers got their vote refused here in BC!
What government wants, government gets. Then we end up in a foreign country for ten years plus.
Our soldiers are not coming home anytime soon.
With all the video games, movies and sweet machines, nobody's going home.
You don't trust ASCE's word as true, instead you claim another story.
Politics work differently here in Canada than it does in the States. The US Federal Government has far less power, and the president even less so. They MUST pass congress in order to pass a bill.
Person X is a psycho path, he has been convicted but not charged with murder in the past.
Person A died when a car hit him, but despite the evidence that person X has nothing to do with the car that hit him, due to Person X's past, person X must be responsible.
I don't know much about him, but I got 1 sentence for you.
The past actions, regardless of how incriminating, is not in anyway evidence for a claim of a present action.
You try to go to court by saying your Bob killing Sam, and the only thing you bring up is that Bob killed another before, the court will throw you out for being an idiot.
Government knew WTC would have been a likely target for terrorism via either truck bombs or hijacked aircraft. This is a no brainer. But this doesn't mean the government plotted this.
Unless you have evidence showing government PLOTTED this, everything you say is speculation.
@cr9527 Hey Einstein spend a few hours watching Richard Gage's videos and actually watch statements of fireman that day. Study, study sheeple..because if your blind like you..sure, it looks like the good ole' terrrorrst did it! BUT when you study the science and the incriminating statements of Bush(VID ON MY CHANNEL) there's enough evidence for a prosecution!
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
As many times as it takes to get the story correct. Conspiracies are hidden truths. They can be difficult to prove either way
The country is not stable enough to start construction - never has been. They went into Afghanistan to gain control of the opium trade. The opium / heroin is paying for the off-balance-sheet secret Ops
Call it what you will Barry Jennings gave interviews on 9/11 explaining what he saw and what he heard. The information refuted the official story
This sh*t wouldn't even drop a Days Inn hotel and you sheeple expect me to believe a passenger jet filled with kerosene can drop a massive skyscraper with a steel core into it's own footprint at freefall speed the exact same way(TWICE). My god you debunkers are all idiots. Just like today Boomberg said ALL 9/11 first responders can't come to there luciferian celebration next month on ground zero. How much more can all of you idiots take before you realise Paul is the only answer for president!
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How much of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's budget constitutes Richard gage's salary?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
How can Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth be considered a professional organization when over 80% of its members are students?
@sixerjones Well put! Let's not forget building 7....it wasn't even struck by aircraft! but the sold out renfield Class want you to believe, (in my opinion), that 7 simply couldn't take the stress of losing it's sister buildings and simply spontaneously collapsed from steel shattering sorrow. Which, (apparently), was more than enough reason for the general public to keep swallowing in silence like good little fools.
@gucker07 Your comment got removed sweet cheeks..clean your mouth out and big bad Mr.Youtube wont ground you..you are fuc**g beautiful even though your a sheeple debunker!
lolol, i removed it myself because of a word mixup, then reposted and it's still here. also, what makes you think i'm the person in my user-pic? oh right, you're a gullible moron. i mentioned that already. again: lol. you people are a joke.
you're a fucking moron. actually this video explains pretty well what happened to that plane that crashed into the pentagon: it was basically atomized. you truthers are a sad joke. guess you like to feel superior when in fact you're the dumbest, most gullible people around.
@sixerjones sheesh, you're dumber than a sack of hammers. the world trade center went down because the steel structure was weakened by the huge fires caused by tens of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel. steel gets soft when you heat it, numbskull.
and skyscapers are anything BUT massive. the pyramids are massive. skyscrapers are delicate steel skeletons.
@aseglkj You ready for the upcoming bombarama(Israel vs. Iran) in the land of Osama clown? Well, those fuc*ing towers being blown down were the beginning of PNAC's and the neocons mission to try to bring on Jesus. I hope and pray Russia steps in soon to tell our weak as* country and our 51st state(Israel)it's time to chill the fuc* out! Moron, read 9/11 the simple facts by Arthur Naiman, it's 100 pages long and can be found on Amazon.By the way, why is there only 1 pentagon video!Your a sheeple!
@tantoedge the only thing the gov should have done in order to bring down population is, remarkably, -- ban immigrants, 'cause immigrants make 97% of population increase. So, it is much easier and cheaper way than you suggested.
BUT, your version is good too - for some American hollywoody-movie! ha ha
@tantoedge because there is no evidence to support goverment-create-9/11 theory! EVIDENCE, stupid people! WHY! WHY you always make things more complicated?
@tantoedge Are you just speaking without reading anything or are you insane? You do know that the fires inside the towers CAUSED by the crash made the trusses inside the towers bend and sag? This caused the perimeter columns to bend inwards and eventually break causing the top part of the tower to fall into the bottom, this combined weight is far too much for the structure of the towers to hold. This means that each level fell onto the other level, making the towers collapse. Buffoon.
@jcboston69 Seeing as there's a birth announcement in the local paper, either he was born in HI, or someone invested in a long distance phone call from Kenya on the off chance that he might run for president and some blind hope that it would convincing evidence.
Oh, yeah, and both State Dept and Election Commission saw his birth certificate. He doesn't have to show it to you, anymore than I have to show you mine.
The man's a statist shithead, but he is, unfortunately, an American.
@Taldoable A flammable, not an explosive, but it has about 30% more chemical energy than TNT per mass. Add a nice bit of wind and it's an industrial sized blast furnace.
@Taldoable and i think you're a dumbarse for believing 2 buildings built to withstand a single plane crash each is going to send the two 100 floor buildings down freefall to the very bottom, watch videos of crappy buildings on fire and even after 20 hours they don't collapse, i'd have thought to build massive fuck off towers would make you think about fire protection and structure it to make sure that it is impossible to collapse the buildings unless you obliterate all of the columns.
@LeHylton Ok, let's look at the facts: A Boeing 767-200 weighs in at 315000lbs; that's 157 tons. When the jet hit the tower, it would have stuck with a force its weight multiplied by its maximum speed of 568mph. Let's see if you can do the math. Also, it's maximum fuel capacity 16,700 gallons. To be fair, we'll assume the tank was only half full, since the plane had been flying for some time. Standard jet fuel has a burining temp of 1796°F or 980°C. the melting point of structural steel is 2100
@Taldoable a fuel that would have been used up completely within a few seconds yes. As you have just proved yourself a fire that can't melt structural steel would not make it collapse, yes i'm more than sure the plane would have caused some serious damage but we're talking about a building twice the width of a boeing 747, and the plane itself only took out a corner, which would mean it'd still have 3/4 of it's columns standing. if you do the maths too, 9 seconds to collapse is freefall
@Taldoable which also reminds me AGAIN, two towers falling at identical time but from two different crash zones, one lasting longer than the other, not possible because they're identical towers unless ofcourse it was set for demolition. argue this with me in my private inbox, there's not enough space per message for this
@LeHylton The fact that one building was hit low (with more weight bearing down on the damaged section) while the other was hit near the top obviously has NOTHING to do with it, huh? And what TV network were YOU watching that day, dude? I didn't see both towers go down at the same time. You realize also, that the plane impacts themselves where tens of minutes apart?
@razorfett147 i think as an arguer that 9 11 was a conspiracy i'd have done my homework yes. I know all about the damaging of a superstructure like the WTCs, however, would not have thought that two massive towers were going to be known to be in threat of terrorism? it's of everyone's interest as to why silverstein got insurance for terrorism only two weeks before 9/11. obviously until someone actually says they plotted it, the conspiracy and terrorism thing is just an arguement.
@Taldoable photography and media, and i do quarrying as a caver, so i know how easily it is to take down chucks of rock, to which it's pretty easy to take down concrete with abit of tnt
@LeHylton And let's not even get started on the retardness of using aircraft impacts to disguise a controlled demolition when a simple bomb attack on the basement of both buildings (like in '93) would have had the same effect.....and with a much higher casualty tally. And again, why WAIT nearly an hour after the impacts to set off the charges? Please........GIVE me some sound logic as to why this whole conspiracy theory makes more sense than the generally accepted sequence of events?
@LeHylton which would mean that the building had no support whatsoever, which is impossible because the building wasn't affected below the crash zone, which would mean the majority of it would still be able to withstand the fall of anything from above it, and not be completely flattened to ground zero.
@bkayganich most people will presume that it's similar to that of fuel you put into a car. and if you ever lit petrol before even a substantial amount won't melt re-enforced steel
lol random shoe lift add at the end
mellomanis16 1 week ago
This vid is not suitable to make conclusions what happened to the jet plane that hit the Pentagon. If that would've happened to 757 there wouldn't be any piece of fuselages on the grass nor dead passengers, nor parts of the engine etc.
Scumbot404 1 week ago
Las torres gemelas debiesen haber sido construidas como ese muro...¬¬
orlandojavier23 1 month ago
Like sperm in a condom.
Minute158 1 month ago
and now for my next trick, ill make a plane disappear!
tada!!!
22JRDN55 1 month ago
Marshawn Lynch VS 49ers Defence
cookieman04 1 month ago
Apparently the CCTV cameras around the pentagon weren't working that day..... well at least the ones that would have captured the incoming missile, sorry I mean aircraft.
arjoj10 1 month ago
They had concreate floors in 911 and the towers could sway in the wind. Isn't however steel stronger than aluminium.A lot of weight is lost as fuel turns to gas. Crumple zones absorb impact., the plane crumples on impact. Just thinking of how 911 building should have stood against the plane.They were designed to do it and even on video from empire state building, they designed all future buildings for impacts. Makes you wonder doesn't it ?
benjyboba 1 month ago
Stop hating eachother
bandita1408 1 month ago
And we were fed the lie that a medium sized passenger plane bore a large hole through not one, but three reinforced walls of the Pentagon. Many of us know it must have been a cruise missile.
Google search "My thoughts on 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism"
Chidanandaji 1 month ago
But the FBI is so GODDAMN GOOD at their jobs they managed to find one of the terrorists passports.
husayn1972 2 months ago
Oh look, hundreds of comments that have very little if at all to do with the f***ing video.
Takeshi357 2 months ago 8
@Takeshi357 so true...i mean i wish some of these conspiracy theorist would just shut up already. i mean they sound neurotic.
flygirlmigs 1 month ago
@flygirlmigs WTC 7
arjoj10 1 month ago
@arjoj10 i see you are one of them...Obessed with 9/11! Move on. You people weren't even there. Bunch of 'know-it-alls'!
flygirlmigs 1 month ago
@flygirlmigs WTC7
arjoj10 1 month ago
@flygirlmigs I can't stand how all these 'debunkers' can come up with the logic and physics defying excuses that they do. theuy should really get a life and STFU.
arjoj10 1 month ago 2
@arjoj10 yeah, *yawn* whatever you say... "these 'debunkers' should go get a life too...
ya looney... :-s
flygirlmigs 1 month ago
thats amazing!!!! your telling me.. that.. I could be taller for only $9.99?!?!?
AngryAtTechnology75 4 months ago
That's what happened to American 77, you fucking nuts. It disintegrated.
merkinmuffleypotus 4 months ago 12
@merkinmuffleypotus You ready for the bombarama in the land of Osama(Israel vs. Iran)?Well sheeple 9/11 was the trigger used by PNAC(READ THERE MISSION STATEMENT OFF OF THERE WEBSITE)to cause all of the sh*t you see in camel country today. Your defense of these neocons and your belief doesn't counter act the physics and the hard, cold science. DEBUNKERS, what the fuc*ing excuse do you have for one PENTAGON video, huh? I hope this country collapses soon so 9/11 finally gets exposed!
sixerjones 2 months ago
You're an idiot... If you had at least some knowledge on the dmg the Pentagon took from American 77 you would notice that the fucking plane had went true 6 WALLS ! "The American 77" was a fucking tomahawk !!
Cnupoc 1 week ago
@merkinmuffleypotus yea but hows that wall doing smarty pants?
Psy0psAgent 2 days ago in playlist IX-XI
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't get this talk of debris fields. Most aircraft either come apart in the air or crash into, or along, the ground. The 9/11 planes crashed INTO a building. Therefore the debris from them would be inside the buildings as they came down. How can they be compared in any way to 'debris fields' that are results of regular crashes ?
Surely the only rational thing is to compare that happens to planes that fly into structures and then add in what happens to building contents in a collapse.
SarthorS 4 months ago
I don't get this talk of debris fields. Most aircraft either come apart in the air or crash into, or along, the ground. The 9/11 planes crashed INTO a building. Therefore the debris from them would be inside the buildings as they came down. How can they be compared in any way to 'debris fields' that are results of regular crashes ?
Surely the only rational thing is to compare that happens to planes that fly into structures and then add in what happens to building contents in a collapse.
SarthorS 4 months ago
I'm willing to bet there was no engine, or landing gear on this plane during the test. .They're too expensive to sacrifice. it's an impressive video none the less.
WillieG1951 4 months ago
@WillieG1951 that may be, but to make the test as realistic as possible, i would imagine that they had objects of similar size and weight, installed instead. but if there is no engine... why is there jet flames coming out behind the plane?
tomj85 4 months ago
@WillieG1951 good thinking willie.they be way spensive to waste.what proppelled it into the wall? a baking soda vinegar fueled missle?with soem red wagon tires (inflatable type) thrown on?it doesnt matter if the specifics of the event are,the facts are ,controlled demolition,israelis arrested and released,passports were stolen,men still alive.mossad with amelikan/dual traitorsresult,nothing but war amelikans be dumbest cattle on earth.
xtiml 4 months ago
Comment removed
NG737Driver 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WillieG1951www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPe-bKIid8w
you need to fact check before you start putting your money
where you uneducated mouth is
NG737Driver 4 months ago
the US Gov. chopped up 1000s of WWII aircraft at a cost of billions
what makes you think that they wouldn't use one tired old F4 for
this test!!!!! look at the back of the block in the test. Nothing comes
through the concrete block at all!!!!!! The plane simply vaporized!!!!!
NG737Driver 4 months ago 2
8/10, I nearly raged.
eaglesblades 4 months ago
What we are seeing is a carefully controlled experiment in a rigidly controlled environment. IE: Results are already predicted before impact.
9-11 was no such experiment. There were no seats at ANY 9-11 plane crash.
ASK ANY F.A.A. investigator if this is normal of a plane crash scene. Research plane crash scenes. Look at the debris field.
Sept 11 is the odd one out. NO SUCH CRASHES as postulated by the 9-11 Commission ever took place.
Only stupid people reference this video as proof.
StopFundingIsrael 5 months ago
This is bullshit. This a military jet. Totally built for defense and rapid deployment purposes. Not built to seat hundreds of people.
An FA-18 or even a tornado Fighter WOULD disintegrate into small particles.
A fully burdened 767 However would leave a much scattered debris field in its wake.
ON Sept 11 2001 WE SAW NO SUCH DEBRIS PATTERNS FOR U93, FLIGHT 11, FLIGHT 175 NOR FOR FLIGHT 77.
The official versionists have been pushing that a plane hit However sadly today so are 9-11 truthers.
StopFundingIsrael 5 months ago
Nobody on the "outside" of the 911 conspiracy knows exactly how the events occurred or where carried out . Preplaced explosives ? maybe remote controlled aircraft ? maybe
what we do know is we need a real investigation and to stop trying to guess how it happened .
MMIIXX 5 months ago
well there is no hole.
u cant have it both ways, either a plane cuts a hole and must have lots of planeparts or it disapears with no hole outside, but it certainly does not disapear only AFTER cutting holes :)
horror11 5 months ago 2
It is disingenuous to compare a fully laden Airliner with over 150 seats, Hundreds of Miles of wiring and baggage cargo etc... with that of a sleek ultra fast fighterjet.
Totally disingenuous.
Like comparing a Greyhound bus crash scene to a Volkswagon crash scene ....
ALL that is acheived by using this as a 9-11 comparison is to question WHO THE FUCK is pushing this bullshit as proof of a plane? WTF?
StopFundingIsrael 5 months ago
@StopFundingIsrael This is a common situation. The impactors rigidity is crucial to the object struck. The absorption potential of the structure as well is critical. This may not be a fair comparison and I hate to erect a straw man argument, but it does lend credence to the demolition hypothesis and against the structural damage then fire hypothesis. Since no theories have been scientifically tested, one only has circumstance and conjecture, with warrant for a trial or investigation.
Krackonis 5 months ago
@StopFundingIsrael both greyhound and volkswagon would crash against the wall, just the same silly.
u need one of numerous links for that? lol. try using math instead of lazy yet foxy crafty disinfo tactics.
Psy0psAgent 4 months ago
@StopFundingIsrael IF There are no seats..
IF There are no engines,...
IF there are no luggage piles of bad cheap Bali clothing or Target luggage ...
THEN THERE WAS NO PLANE.... simple stupid.
StopFundingIsrael 4 months ago
@StopFundingIsrael Except they did find all of those. DIAF.
KillerFreya 3 months ago
Did you notice that what you saw was shades of concrete blasting up and out with a little bit of red glow towards the end??? The Pentagon was hit with something and then there was a gigantic red fireball.
LibertyTreeBud 5 months ago
@LibertyTreeBud In addition the nosecone went through 5 of those walls at the pentagon....
Krackonis 5 months ago
How did some of the "alleged" suicide hijackers turn up alive after 911 ?
How come no Arabic named passengers appear on the planes passenger lists ?
Why was Mohammed Atta on Jack Abramoff's Casino Ship as a guest of Abramoff in the weeks before 911 ?
Why would an "alleged" MUSLIM suicide hijackers date a American stripper and hang out at night clubs and do drugs and alcohol ?
MMIIXX 5 months ago
Doubt anyone that opposes a world class forensic investigation of the events leading up to ,occurring on and after 911.
Truth loves the light of day , liars hide . The findings of the 911 Commission were reduce to writing ,covering over 545 pages and NO MENTION OF WTC 7 . And N.I.S.T. did no better ,WHY ?
Who benefits ?
MMIIXX 5 months ago
Comparing apples and oranges has no bearing on the events of 911 .
Only a moron would think Philip Zelikows job on the 911 Commission was to find the truth about the events of that day.
Only a moron would think a 47 story skyscraper can collapse symmetrically at near free fall speed from fire and minor asymmetrically damage. Look at pictures of WTC6 that didn't collapse but was damaged beyond recognition.
911 wasn't an "inside job" and it wasn't the work of pork eating Muslims..investigate
MMIIXX 5 months ago
What fools that want to connect this jet to the SUPPOSED planes hitting the Penty'gone and WTC1/2.First the towers were not solid concrete blocks but glass windows and steel frames and concrete facing. Did any moron notice the concrete block turn into dust as did WTC towers? No stupids because the concrete block was NOT PER LOADED with Israel Explosives . What's with the conspiracy bullsh!t talk--facts are--perplanned bombing to put the fear in stupids:^/
geo1671 5 months ago
Good food for thought for the no-planers, though how anyone can beLIEve that those 3 buildings come down without any help is beyond me.WTC-7 came down in its own footprint, it fell into itself FFS!!! only by having certain supporting beams cut at the exact same time could that have happened.
offwiththefairies77 5 months ago
ON top of this, what alot of you "Truthers" keep forgetting is that the outer skin of WTC twin towers was actually part of its superstructure. Simply damaging it (as shown clearly in many photos an videos) would have heavily degraded its stability. The loss of any interior supports (for whatever reason) would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
razorfett147 5 months ago
Comment removed
bkayganich 5 months ago
@razorfett147 How do you figure this about its Structure? Did you design it? Maybe you should go about finding your own info on how the towers were constructed, since your ...."what alot of you "Truthers" keep forgetting is that the outer skin of WTC twin towers was actually part of its superstructure. Simply damaging it (as shown clearly in many photos an videos) would have heavily degraded its stability." This part of your argument is false information.
bkayganich 5 months ago
@bkayganich So its your "opinion" that knocking out sections of the outer wall supports and then kicking out numerous inner support beams would STILL not be enough to collapse these structures? WTF do you think these buildings were....military bunkers? Tell you what, why don't you tell ME why damaging the outer walls to such degree would have no bearing on the fate of such a structure.
razorfett147 5 months ago
Youtube is such a shitty place to talk about things exploding.
dowmein 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doofus haha look in the mirror, Go head back to your gay poetry readings in abandon coffee shops and cry about racism when your a chubby white guy. The Pentagon was strong the Official story was weak & you are a brain dead troll
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
Anyone know how thick the wall in this video is?
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
rike, and each floor was too much for the building to handle. I have a f****** Master's Degree in Structual Engineering, with two minors in Mechanical Engineering and Thermodynamics. My final question to you; What is your degree in?
Taldoable 6 months ago
°C. The jet fuel would have taken about 37% of the structure's strenght away. Then there's the matter of the way in which the towers were built. They basically built the structures, then "hung" each floor in between the supports. When the floors that the jet hit gave out, the began to freefall. 767s are 18 ft tall, making them tall enough to hit three floors. Three floors free falling would have been like dropping a small ship down the middle of the tower. The building was rated for a single st
Taldoable 6 months ago
@Taldoable I apologize. This should read "2100°F" not 2100°C
Taldoable 6 months ago
@Taldoable I apologize. This should read "2100°F" not 2100°C
Taldoable 6 months ago
This doesn't prove the pentagon was terrorist, yeah OK there was no plane at the site but it went threw 3 of these walls and left a perfect punch out hole it didn't just turn into dust.
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
@JGH8sDaDebunkerz No, idiot, it went through one rather strong BRICK wall. Get some facts before you debate this stuff.
leftysergeant 6 months ago
@leftysergeant haha Idiot? Have you seen the Pentagon? The plane took out light poles in the parking lot, hit the ground just outside the outermost ring of the Pentagon, turned up on its wing, penetrated the E ring (outermost) midway between corridors 4 and 5, It then traveled through the D ring and into the C ring. Now shit the Pentagon Walls were built strong as fuck. There's no way in hell this magical plane went threw light poles, skimmed off the ground destroying 3 rings. IDIOT! hahah
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
@JGH8sDaDebunkerz The walls were not that strong, dopey boy. And the stuff only had to go through one wall and knock out a small hole in a far weaker one on the other side. Are all twoofers as stupid as you?
leftysergeant 6 months ago
@leftysergeant Ok man your right. The headquarters of the most powerful military force in the world is made of gingerbread. I'm not trying to fight with you & you look a little old to be name calling on YouTube. The fact remains 9/11 is shrouded in mystery. Three buildings in NYC turning into dust from 2 planes & kerosene is impossible. Knowing the air was unsafe to breath and sending good Americans to breath it by saying its safe is despicable blocking care for those people for 10 yrs is worse
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
"The plane" caused damage to 3 rings after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. The section of the Pentagon had just been reinforced during renovation. Through the light poles bouncing off the ground then through 24 inch thick reinforced steel, Kevlar mesh, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars & office contents of 3 rings leaving a perfect exit hole pulled off by a shitty pilot traveling at impossible speeds in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world?
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
@JGH8sDaDebunkerz Look, doofus, the interior walls were sheetrock, where they existed at all. I think there was one small office enclosure. No concrete walls inside. The supposed Army intel officer who claims there were has a neurological problem that you can see when he talks. The facade was not steel reinforced. Just masonry with a couple steel columns where the fuselage enteredand a couple for each wing out to the engines. Not that strong. It's an office building, not a bloody tank.
leftysergeant 6 months ago
Comment removed
JGH8sDaDebunkerz 6 months ago
HOLY FUCK SHIT COCK!!!!!! Why compare this to the WTC? If you ask me, it only supports the fact that it was done by terrorists. Think of the Pentagon, the defcon that was hit was made of bomb proof materials mad to move when hit just like this wall. Why was there no plane? Rewind the video you just watched.
ConeTyson 6 months ago
what about the pentagon walls? are they similar?
olddouchebag 6 months ago
Why are people comparing this wall, which was built for the sole purpose of taking the most incredible force you can throw at it, to the World Trade Centers?
Also, if you look at how the WTCs went down, they did pancake. That is due to the structure of the buildings. All it takes is a couple floors to go down and then the rest go with them.
zumosmorph 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zumosmorph
"All it takes is a couple floors to go down and then the rest go with them." - yes in larry silverstein's, dick cheney;'s and george bush's dreamland.
KeepHimAtBay 7 months ago
@zumosmorph the empire state building was built in 1931 and took a B72 plane crash on it's 70th floor, that building wasn't designed to withstand plane crashes and yet it did and it never even showed a sign of it collapsing, the WTCs were built to withstand hurricane force winds, earthquakes of up to magnitude 7 and terrorist attacks, so i highly doubt that a fire on a couple of floors is going to make a whole building collapse in freefall, watch videos of it collapse and other collapses.
LeHylton 6 months ago
Thats what shouldve happened on 9/11 with the planes. No explosives=no penetration.
moviemaker1004 9 months ago
So if that plane crumbled to bits against a concrete wall, why didn't the airliner crumble against the wtc?
Vulcaneagle 9 months ago
@Vulcaneagle It's hollow. It's got glass and concrete but it's got enough empty space to keep going till it gets fucked up on the inside. Sadly if this thing was surrounded by 100's of feet of concrete I guarantee you can sit with popcorn and watch the fuckers try to get through it.
SuperSirius11 8 months ago
Please watch the destruction of the WTC after you watched this video. Then THINK !
Robsshot 11 months ago
@Robsshot Think what? That WTC1&2 were very large blocks of reinforced concrete, & not"see-thru" meshes of hollow tubes and lightweight floors?
Repeat what you've just written to yourself in the morning in front of your mirror - for ever...
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@Robsshot I did. It makes perfect sense. But then, I'm a retired military engineer, not a shithead.
Smack a third of a million pounds of flammables (Aluminum burns) at 500 mph and building catch fire, weaken, collapse, fawdowngoboom.
mzmadmike 9 months ago
@Robsshot It actually explains why the pentagon 911 site had hardly any debris left over. Its not at all comparable to the wtc which were basically hollow structures.
stevepwnz 9 months ago
No building exists with walls like this.
This is scientists wasting money and have a laugh
krackfoxtube 1 year ago
@krackfoxtube Seriously? The whole point is to see how to stop a plane from penetrating through a structure, aka a bunker.
weazal4645 10 months ago
@krackfoxtube dude - who told you there is no building with walls like in the video? you so called knowledge is pathetic!
Just start reading 5th grade physics book, ok? Everything will be fine! In time!
Sunamer1 8 months ago
@Sunamer1 The WTC did not have walls like this. This wall was made to withstand a nuclear blast... Of course it can withstand ALUMINUM and light metals.
corruptedsilence 7 months ago
if the wall where chuck norriss the plane would have stopped and turned around before crashing
bombindahcity 1 year ago
nice, swedish subtiltes, win win.
MrRomer0 1 year ago
They only tested the plane with no bombs! Add bombs next time and we'll see if the walls will survive that! :D
wowdude999 1 year ago
lol did they really need to test this?? i mean it looks sweet but it doesnt take a genius to tell you whats going to happen when a jet hits a concrete wall...
cooptroop123 1 year ago
bullshit i see plane go through the other side
dallasgoldbug 1 year ago
@dallasgoldbug You see the support structure for the concrete, and the wingtips continue forward. You don't see the plane come through the other side. At those speeds the wall would be blowing apart if it was penetrating through it.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 No you can see the tip com through before they cut the clip. Plus the plane does not get vaporized. If they would have let the clip play you would see the hunk left over. Now also the 9/11 Cruz missile that hit the towers (thats why we only see 2 motors one each) and is much smaller than a 4 Titanium 11' minsters. Titanium is some crazy stuff no one wants to work with it because its got crazy strength.
dallasgoldbug 1 year ago
@dallasgoldbug 0:27 seconds in you can clearly see from a profile shot that your full of shit. What else would I expect from a conspiracy loon through, a realistic balanced non biased outlook? Yeah, in my dreams.
at 27 second in only the tail of the plane is visible on a profile shot and you can clearly see the plane is not cutting through
The wings are also not "slicing" through by any stretch of the imagination.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 I have two words for you "bunker buster"
dallasgoldbug 1 year ago
@h1wayman What in gods name are you talking about? That made no sense at all. It was perfectly spelled, prosed well and yet bears no point other than to decry American ...something.
The WTC did collapse, it pancaked straight down. You can watch the videos here on YouTube. No matter what anybody says, striking a tower at the top, does not mean the hundreds of floors beneath are going to be structurally affected. Not even slightly.
The building dropped. Without explosives, that's impossible.
tantoedge 1 year ago 39
@tantoedge
Momentum of the falling 10 floors could collapse the building.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 Not in a perfect stack, all the way down.
That is called a controlled demolition and people are paid hundred upon thousands of dollars a year to ensure that it's done right the first time.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Why not? What force is there to push the buildings sideways?
Look at this watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
No explosives. The momentum of top floors forces it to collapse straight down in a near perfect stack.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 First off, the twin towers don't compare to this structure. It doesn't have a steel exo and inner column support. It's made of plaster rock and is rotted through.
Secondly, the apparatus in that video is attached by engineers, making those hundreds upon thousands I talked about earlier.
The second video almost has me convinced, but again it's a perfectly even distribution of weight vs the towers being a one sided impact, where there was extra support to maintain structural integrity.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Think of it this way, the weight of the top floors was so great that it overwhelmed any possible extra support. Look at say Mythbuster's car sled demo, where they had a steel slab traveling at near the speed of sound, crashing into a car. The force of the slab was so great that despite the slab hitting the cars front at an uneven location, the slab did not tilt in any noticeable way.
The top floors acted the same way. The sheer momentum would've been enough to overwhelm any support
cr9527 1 year ago
@tantoedge
I'm not sure if this counts as anything, but if you examine all of the explosive demolitions of tall buildings, you'd see a few things
1. Explosive charges would be seen at almost every floor. This was not seen on the WTC
2. The building always collapses from bottom up, not from top bottom.
If you suggest that they planted explosives at the floors the plane hit, then wouldn't the official story be equally if not more valid as the same principle applies.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 @cr9527 Given the sheer height of the structure, on top of the other variables (winds, extra weight from airplane fuselage, moon gravity, etc), I can't believe there wouldn't be a great deal of variance in the drop pattern.
I mean, evidentially a handful of explosives could do a small job for big results.
At the end of the day you've made good points that could explain how it happened the way it did, but the whole ordeal was too perfectly timed to be anything but a political crime.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Moon gravity?
Winds? Yes but wind didn't change, so there was no reason for the building to topple
Weight of the fuselage would've helped(not much) in a vertical collapse, not a horizontal force.
It was a political crime, just not done by the US government. The Al Qaeda are not a bunch of ex-farmers who picked up an AK-47. Many of them has taken university, has degrees, and very intelligent.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 I want to avoid going into the conspiracy theory therein.
There is enough evidence against the concept of a 747 causing the collapse of two buildings with solid steel exos and steel/concrete centre supports, and enough evidence showing that the government had interest in inciting a war.
People Want to be lied to. Look at what's happening to Assange! Nobody cares that the US is committing crimes, just that their 'secrets' have been 'leaked.'
They're 'writing new laws' to charge Assange!
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
There is no evidence supporting this, the American Society of Civil Engineers have already "concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."
Assange was charged with rape, not leaking of government info.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 Regarding Assange, no, he wasn't charged with rape.
In the end, he wasn't charged with anything, he turned himself into with no charges officially filed, to the UK police.
Now the USA wants to extradite him, and to do so they need a crime, so they're writing new laws. How nice and democratic.
Regarding 9/11, the American Society of Civil Engineers says it did happen after so many other organizations said it didn't happen. Well.. people want closure, and anything can be explained away.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Yes, Assange charges were dropped, but again, no new laws.
If US wants to make up a new law to charge him, it will have to go through the congress. Making it democratic.
This is nothing surprising, since the law that prevented the arrest of Assange was made back in 1917, and in no way did it expect the power of the internet.
If you don't trust a group like ASCE on analyzing the WTCs, then there is no point for me to argue with you.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 Hey, I'm agreeing with what the ASCE is saying. People wanted an explanation, and they got an explanation.
Governments fast track bills quite often, and people do Not vote on a thing in these cases. Don't be blind to that fact. Farmers got their vote refused here in BC!
What government wants, government gets. Then we end up in a foreign country for ten years plus.
Our soldiers are not coming home anytime soon.
With all the video games, movies and sweet machines, nobody's going home.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@cr9527 Let me clarify the farmer thing, you'll love this.
The farmers vote, got voted out, by the constituency made of parliament members.
The farmers. They never got a vote. It was voted out.
How fucked up can politics get?
The vote incidentally was against GMO foods.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
You don't trust ASCE's word as true, instead you claim another story.
Politics work differently here in Canada than it does in the States. The US Federal Government has far less power, and the president even less so. They MUST pass congress in order to pass a bill.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 I believe that it definitely could have happened as the ASCE explains.
I also believe that interested parties wanted to ensure their investments returned dividends.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
So it very well could have happened, but you just don't believe it. Great
We are done talking.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 Why are you so against the idea that there was a conspiracy involved?
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Lack of empirical evidence.
cr9527 1 year ago 2
@cr9527 Please tell me you're joking. You don't see the fundamental glitch in that logic?
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Planes hits towers, towers collapse, according to experts, there is no reason why the towers wouldn't collapse from the planes crashing into it.
Reasonable conclusion: Planes caused towers to collapse.
Evidence: Planes crashing into it
Unreasonable conclusion: Government demolished the towers.
Evidence: None
cr9527 1 year ago 2
@cr9527 Well if we're going that route:
Government(s) have been seeking a means to reduce population. War is a great method. Makes jobs and science too.
GMO products (read: corn), claim to help sustain, but are now being imbued with spermicides. Scary.
The USA came from surplus and a balanced budget to complete social and financial ruin not a decade later because of fossil fuels?
War, reduces population, and secures fossil fuels. Just need to get into a war.
Multi prong strategy/conspiracy.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Your argument is like this:
Person X is a psycho path, he has been convicted but not charged with murder in the past.
Person A died when a car hit him, but despite the evidence that person X has nothing to do with the car that hit him, due to Person X's past, person X must be responsible.
cr9527 1 year ago 2
@cr9527 Three words: Charles Milles Manson.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
I don't know much about him, but I got 1 sentence for you.
The past actions, regardless of how incriminating, is not in anyway evidence for a claim of a present action.
You try to go to court by saying your Bob killing Sam, and the only thing you bring up is that Bob killed another before, the court will throw you out for being an idiot.
cr9527 1 year ago 2
@cr9527 If Farenheight 9/11 and all the evidence Michael Moore piled up can so easily be ignored/explained away, than what else could I expect.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Michael Moore is an idiot, he brings up circumstantial fishy findings, nothing more.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 It's not his fault he's making connections that other people are trying to hide. Don't hate the messenger.
The truth is out there and folks like you are willing to buy the official story and I'll assume, never question it.
Moore publicized documents and links that clinched the government involvement and knowledge of 9/11 prior to its occurrence.
Towers dropped cause of jets? Fine.. why those jets were there, different story.
Did the jets get some explosive help, maybe.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Government knew WTC would have been a likely target for terrorism via either truck bombs or hijacked aircraft. This is a no brainer. But this doesn't mean the government plotted this.
Unless you have evidence showing government PLOTTED this, everything you say is speculation.
cr9527 1 year ago 2
@cr9527 More like, if someone could make it stick, we could blame them for not doing anything about it. Preventative measures weren't taken.
Lack of action is as good as instigating it.
This is the argument governments are facing now with Wikileaks.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge
If I say I might punch you in your face sometime, then I punch you in your face. But you failed to take action to prevent it.
Should I assume you deliberately wanted to be hit in the face?
Or should I assume you made a mistake.
cr9527 1 year ago
@cr9527 crazier things have been argued, and won.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@cr9527 Hey Einstein spend a few hours watching Richard Gage's videos and actually watch statements of fireman that day. Study, study sheeple..because if your blind like you..sure, it looks like the good ole' terrrorrst did it! BUT when you study the science and the incriminating statements of Bush(VID ON MY CHANNEL) there's enough evidence for a prosecution!
sixerjones 5 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 5 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How many times has Loose Change been edited for errors and re-released?
If the US invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, please explain why there has been absolutely no construction on it in almost ten years?
How could Barry Jennings be murdered if he died of leukemia in a hospital?
ctcole77 5 months ago
@ctcole77
As many times as it takes to get the story correct. Conspiracies are hidden truths. They can be difficult to prove either way
The country is not stable enough to start construction - never has been. They went into Afghanistan to gain control of the opium trade. The opium / heroin is paying for the off-balance-sheet secret Ops
Call it what you will Barry Jennings gave interviews on 9/11 explaining what he saw and what he heard. The information refuted the official story
puppetjaw 5 months ago
Comment removed
sixerjones 5 months ago
This sh*t wouldn't even drop a Days Inn hotel and you sheeple expect me to believe a passenger jet filled with kerosene can drop a massive skyscraper with a steel core into it's own footprint at freefall speed the exact same way(TWICE). My god you debunkers are all idiots. Just like today Boomberg said ALL 9/11 first responders can't come to there luciferian celebration next month on ground zero. How much more can all of you idiots take before you realise Paul is the only answer for president!
sixerjones 5 months ago 2
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How much of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's budget constitutes Richard gage's salary?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
How can Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth be considered a professional organization when over 80% of its members are students?
ctcole77 5 months ago
@sixerjones Well put! Let's not forget building 7....it wasn't even struck by aircraft! but the sold out renfield Class want you to believe, (in my opinion), that 7 simply couldn't take the stress of losing it's sister buildings and simply spontaneously collapsed from steel shattering sorrow. Which, (apparently), was more than enough reason for the general public to keep swallowing in silence like good little fools.
paschnn1 4 months ago
@sixerjones And when will you realize that Paul is just another smiley face placed there to win the "other" part of voters? ;)
KoljiSK 4 months ago
Comment removed
gucker07 4 months ago
Comment removed
gucker07 4 months ago
@gucker07 Your comment got removed sweet cheeks..clean your mouth out and big bad Mr.Youtube wont ground you..you are fuc**g beautiful even though your a sheeple debunker!
sixerjones 4 months ago
@sixerjones
lolol, i removed it myself because of a word mixup, then reposted and it's still here. also, what makes you think i'm the person in my user-pic? oh right, you're a gullible moron. i mentioned that already. again: lol. you people are a joke.
gucker07 4 months ago
@gucker07 Thats alizee in your profile pic, right?
midakassi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sixerjones
you're a fucking moron. actually this video explains pretty well what happened to that plane that crashed into the pentagon: it was basically atomized. you truthers are a sad joke. guess you like to feel superior when in fact you're the dumbest, most gullible people around.
gucker07 4 months ago
@sixerjones sheesh, you're dumber than a sack of hammers. the world trade center went down because the steel structure was weakened by the huge fires caused by tens of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel. steel gets soft when you heat it, numbskull.
and skyscapers are anything BUT massive. the pyramids are massive. skyscrapers are delicate steel skeletons.
aseglkj 2 months ago
@aseglkj You ready for the upcoming bombarama(Israel vs. Iran) in the land of Osama clown? Well, those fuc*ing towers being blown down were the beginning of PNAC's and the neocons mission to try to bring on Jesus. I hope and pray Russia steps in soon to tell our weak as* country and our 51st state(Israel)it's time to chill the fuc* out! Moron, read 9/11 the simple facts by Arthur Naiman, it's 100 pages long and can be found on Amazon.By the way, why is there only 1 pentagon video!Your a sheeple!
sixerjones 2 months ago
@sixerjones ok, I see you did your homework, I can't fool you. but you only know half the story. the illuminati are on this, trust me.
23 /*\ 17
aseglkj 2 months ago
@aseglkj on 9/11 the only thing what weakened is the ability of people to think logically
footyclub1 2 months ago
@tantoedge the only thing the gov should have done in order to bring down population is, remarkably, -- ban immigrants, 'cause immigrants make 97% of population increase. So, it is much easier and cheaper way than you suggested.
BUT, your version is good too - for some American hollywoody-movie! ha ha
Sunamer1 8 months ago
@tantoedge because there is no evidence to support goverment-create-9/11 theory! EVIDENCE, stupid people! WHY! WHY you always make things more complicated?
Sunamer1 8 months ago
@Sunamer1
no evidence? you are either stupid or brainwashed.
KeepHimAtBay 7 months ago
Comment removed
8triagrammer 1 year ago
@tantoedge
Here is another, of a taller building.
All it takes is collapsing of the top floors
watch?v=EY3nj728WPY&feature=related
cr9527 1 year ago
@tantoedge Are you just speaking without reading anything or are you insane? You do know that the fires inside the towers CAUSED by the crash made the trusses inside the towers bend and sag? This caused the perimeter columns to bend inwards and eventually break causing the top part of the tower to fall into the bottom, this combined weight is far too much for the structure of the towers to hold. This means that each level fell onto the other level, making the towers collapse. Buffoon.
Sobersnowman 1 year ago
@Sobersnowman Yeah I did. Y'know what's funny about pissant know it alls who always ask "Don't / didn't you read blah blah blah"?
They never read the whole thread, or complete discussions/debates before cramming their two cents in like an unwelcome penis at a gang bang.
I've argued this point repeatedly on this video alone, never mind elsewhere. Go fence with someone else. I'm tired of this pointless shit.
Baboon.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge Haha, you're a moron. But thanks for the entertainment you just gave me.
Sobersnowman 1 year ago
@Sobersnowman Anytime, loser. Glad I could be service. I see by your channel comments that you're quite the charmer.
'Sobersnowman' and a big A, eh? Hey want some Rye? Course ya do.
tantoedge 1 year ago
@tantoedge Fuck, I forgot to delete those. Well the cat's out of the bag now I suppose. Have a good night.
Sobersnowman 1 year ago
@tantoedge *facepalm*
Wintersun562 1 year ago
Right...and I'll bet you totally believe that Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii.
jcboston69 1 year ago
@jcboston69 Seeing as there's a birth announcement in the local paper, either he was born in HI, or someone invested in a long distance phone call from Kenya on the off chance that he might run for president and some blind hope that it would convincing evidence.
Oh, yeah, and both State Dept and Election Commission saw his birth certificate. He doesn't have to show it to you, anymore than I have to show you mine.
The man's a statist shithead, but he is, unfortunately, an American.
mzmadmike 9 months ago
@tantoedge: I think most people would rate jet-fuel as an explosive...
Taldoable 11 months ago 13
@Taldoable A flammable, not an explosive, but it has about 30% more chemical energy than TNT per mass. Add a nice bit of wind and it's an industrial sized blast furnace.
mzmadmike 9 months ago
@Taldoable and i think you're a dumbarse for believing 2 buildings built to withstand a single plane crash each is going to send the two 100 floor buildings down freefall to the very bottom, watch videos of crappy buildings on fire and even after 20 hours they don't collapse, i'd have thought to build massive fuck off towers would make you think about fire protection and structure it to make sure that it is impossible to collapse the buildings unless you obliterate all of the columns.
LeHylton 6 months ago
@LeHylton Ok, let's look at the facts: A Boeing 767-200 weighs in at 315000lbs; that's 157 tons. When the jet hit the tower, it would have stuck with a force its weight multiplied by its maximum speed of 568mph. Let's see if you can do the math. Also, it's maximum fuel capacity 16,700 gallons. To be fair, we'll assume the tank was only half full, since the plane had been flying for some time. Standard jet fuel has a burining temp of 1796°F or 980°C. the melting point of structural steel is 2100
Taldoable 6 months ago
@Taldoable a fuel that would have been used up completely within a few seconds yes. As you have just proved yourself a fire that can't melt structural steel would not make it collapse, yes i'm more than sure the plane would have caused some serious damage but we're talking about a building twice the width of a boeing 747, and the plane itself only took out a corner, which would mean it'd still have 3/4 of it's columns standing. if you do the maths too, 9 seconds to collapse is freefall
LeHylton 6 months ago
@Taldoable which also reminds me AGAIN, two towers falling at identical time but from two different crash zones, one lasting longer than the other, not possible because they're identical towers unless ofcourse it was set for demolition. argue this with me in my private inbox, there's not enough space per message for this
LeHylton 6 months ago
@LeHylton The fact that one building was hit low (with more weight bearing down on the damaged section) while the other was hit near the top obviously has NOTHING to do with it, huh? And what TV network were YOU watching that day, dude? I didn't see both towers go down at the same time. You realize also, that the plane impacts themselves where tens of minutes apart?
razorfett147 5 months ago
@razorfett147 i think as an arguer that 9 11 was a conspiracy i'd have done my homework yes. I know all about the damaging of a superstructure like the WTCs, however, would not have thought that two massive towers were going to be known to be in threat of terrorism? it's of everyone's interest as to why silverstein got insurance for terrorism only two weeks before 9/11. obviously until someone actually says they plotted it, the conspiracy and terrorism thing is just an arguement.
LeHylton 5 months ago
@LeHylton You have neglected to mention what your degree is in...
Taldoable 5 months ago
@Taldoable photography and media, and i do quarrying as a caver, so i know how easily it is to take down chucks of rock, to which it's pretty easy to take down concrete with abit of tnt
LeHylton 5 months ago
@LeHylton And let's not even get started on the retardness of using aircraft impacts to disguise a controlled demolition when a simple bomb attack on the basement of both buildings (like in '93) would have had the same effect.....and with a much higher casualty tally. And again, why WAIT nearly an hour after the impacts to set off the charges? Please........GIVE me some sound logic as to why this whole conspiracy theory makes more sense than the generally accepted sequence of events?
razorfett147 5 months ago
@LeHylton which would mean that the building had no support whatsoever, which is impossible because the building wasn't affected below the crash zone, which would mean the majority of it would still be able to withstand the fall of anything from above it, and not be completely flattened to ground zero.
LeHylton 6 months ago
@Taldoable Most people don't know what jet fuel is.
bkayganich 5 months ago
@bkayganich most people will presume that it's similar to that of fuel you put into a car. and if you ever lit petrol before even a substantial amount won't melt re-enforced steel