there are some sick people who use the U.S for their wicked purposes. Do you truly believe you have a choice when you elect candidates for office? LOL. Republicans vs. Democrats....divide and conquer. Food for thought: The big corporations and Banks contribute to both parties in equally massive amounts.
@rckbttm14 Of course blame the Jews no offense but you sound like Hitler you sound like a Nazi you see the Jewish people as different so you have to blame them for a tragedy that was the result an attack on our country by Al Queda so don't even bother blaming the Jewish people for 9/11
@batman4498 The government did this because it was an easy way to convince the American public, that war is necessary. Every time we go to war, the government gets money from the Federal Reserve. The government's main goal is to pass the New World Order, and form a one world government for control of the entire world. They don't care who dies in the process, as long as they get what they want. That's all the U.S government is about.
@LxE100 I'd hate to tell you this but the government was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks so pull your head out of your ass and realize it .. oh just in case your going to respond to this i am going to let you know right here im just expressing my opinion
@TheNight12100 Take my head out of my ass? Al Queda doesn't even exist, and your telling me to take my head out of my ass? I'm sorry, but there is too much evidence that leads me to believe the government was behind these attacks. The evidence wouldn't be there if they weren't guilty. Your opinion means literally nothing to me, nothing.
@LxE100 What fucking evidence is there that the Government what evidence do you have that proves the government was behind the attacks and yes Al Queda does exist its a radical Muslim terrorist group that was lead by Osama Bin Ladden.. So when you can physically prove that the Government was responsible for the attack then don't talk shit cause with out the government this country of ours would fall apart
@TheNight12100 Go to google or the youtube search bar, and type in "Jesse Ventura 9/11 attacks." He'll show you clear evidence that the government was behind these attacks. If you can't find any evidence off of those videos that points directly to the government, then you're being dishonest. Watch Alex Jones videos on 9/11 too. 9/11 was a false flag operation, and the U.S government has had other false flag operations in the past. Read a history book.
@LxE100 Tha'ts a complete and utter lie to say that every piece of evidence put foward by conspiracy theorists has been debunked. You don't even know that, yet you're stating it. Hey moron, building 7 fell at the speed of free fall. The only way that's possible is if it was a demolition. You can't debunk that, it's impossible so get over it. Many news companies already had the cover stories' scripts written before the 9/11 attacks even started. It's admitted! Let me give you more evidence.
@TheNight12100 To be honest these people are idiots and no matter what is said they simply can't see the truth, even when everything they say has been disproved. Frankly i think its pathetic that people believe the government would do that.
@cup1966wow Thank you finally someone agrees with me.. If this was the result of the Government it would taken 100s of people and and none of them talked about it but some how the info got out umm that doesn't make sense to me.. so the obvious conclusion is what has been proven already is that Al Queada was all to blame for the tragdies of 9/11
@LxE100 Sorry i saw what you put before and it just made me laugh. A new world order? How to suppose they would do this? I doubt other countries are really up for this. I fail to see how there going to control any of the world. Please enlighten me.
@batman4498 okay believe what u want but the government did not orchestrate the attacks on the world trade center towers 1 and 2, the pentagon, and the flight that went down in the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania . The people on Flight 93 who stormed the cockpit of the aircraft are the true definition of American heroes.. So in my opinion get your head out of your ass and realize sometimes the simplest explanation is the answer
Yo whats up chad!? anyways I can seen JZJYRWO's arguement which does seem more likely due to the structure of both the plane and the towers, but regardless we lost 3,000 lives and Osama has now paid for it. Also the eye blinking was to prove he was a reptilian by the shape, glisten, and the sound. probably going to be more views now since bin Laden's death. lets see 10,000. This movie was pretty fun to make. 125/100 ftw.
does it matter wat religion the terrorists were? your profiling by saying "muslim terrorists" tryna sound smart for a school project. cool theories and cool video but c'mon dude becareful watcha say
the foam sprayed on the building was cheap it couldn't take the heat it burned off then the heat burned at a high temp. until it melted building collapsed.
The first shot we see if the ol' knife through butter. If you can believe that's what happens when an the pressurized fiberglass nosecone of an aluminum plane hits several box steel columns with steel supports holding up a concrete floor directly behind those steel columns, then perhaps you should enlist for the War On Terror
@JZJYRWO if the plane was composed of aluminum and cheap pressurized fiberglass, then wouldn't it be possible for plane to be crumbling apart upon impact and then the fuels igniting once it is inside the building? If we look at 0:18, we see the plane hitting the building and exploding later on (possibly the fuel igniting)
@CheapChad No chance, the plane hitting the wall creates the same resultant damage as the wall hitting the plane. That's Newtonian law. Check to see how solid those buildings were constructed. They were built to withstand a jetliner crash because there was a military plane that crashed into the Empire State Building 1945. The WTC tower walls were lined with heavy steel columns backed by concrete. The plane would have hit 20 steel columns and at least 4 of the concrete floors at their solid edges
@JZJYRWO I see your point, but are you suggesting that the thousands of video clips showing flight 75 are fake? Or are you trying to imply that the plane that hit the WTC tower was specially built to withstand the crash, or it was some kind of military plane?
@CheapChad No the buildings were specifically built to keep planes out. There are many video clips on the subject that are highlighted here and many of them contradict each other. My channel features a video that indicates the female reporter knows that the building will fall. Notice how quickly she reacts and think about this. You know what you are going to say before you speak. So how does she know the building will "come down" at the time that she begins to speak? She had to be expecting it
@LxE100 When you talk about the newtonian law, it doesn't mean that the plane is just going to bounce straight off. If a plane went into any buiulding its going to go through it. No metal would be strong enough to take the blow.
@cup1966wow That doesn't mean anything. Obviously a plane is going to go through metal flying at those speeds. That doesn't mean it's going to bring a building of that size and structure down, does it?
@LxE100 Okay but i will tell you what will. When the plane hit the building it burst into flames. This may not be hot enough to melt the steel but was enough for the metal to weaken and bend. It could no longer hold the weight of the floors above it, then when that falls it will cause all the floors below to fail cause of the sudden weight and force that is applied on it. There simply is no definitive evidence to say it was a demolition. Show me some actual proof?
@cup1966wow You're completely blind to truth. Watch some Alex Jones, and maybe you can learn what common sense is. He has all the documented evidence you could wish for that proves the government is bunch of sick twisted freaks. Watch some Jesse Ventura too, and you'll see why 9/11 was clearly a government false flag operation. You're going to be laughing at yourself when you find out the reality of the U.S government.
@LxE100 You do realise every piece of evidence been put forward by conspiracy theorists have been debunked. Actually wait a sec that had no evidence it was just theories. Well all them were proved wrong. The thing is i know people like you just don't listen even when there is nothing that backs up your theories.
@cup1966wow Why did Dick Cheney order NORAD to stand down? It was so the hijacked planes could reach their targets. Not even one single person in the U.S was held accountable for allowing these attacks to happen. You're stupid to believe that the air force had no way of shooting the planes down before they reached the world trade center. It's because it was all part of the plan. Seriously, wake the hell up.
@LxE100 One he didn't. There was a military training exercise at the military defence command happening on that day. Also there was confusion and lack of communication between the civilian air traffic defence and the military. By the way you saying that isn't evidence anyway, so it doesn't really help your argument. I said give me evidence and you still fail to.
@cup1966wow You're stupid. It's documented evidence. There was confusion and lack of communication by air force proffesionals that have been doing training like that their whole lives on the one day we need them? Please, listen to yourself. You believe in pure bullshit, and suprisingly you don't even know it. You're so gullible that you fail to even reason with common sense. Stop thinking like a biased government pet. Look at what they're doing to you and your family. They don't care about you.
@LxE100 Sorry anyone who believes in that is a retard. You say im following the government, well actually i look at the facts. I have looked at all the theories that have been put forward and not one piece of evidence supports them. Even your statement its just a statement as was mine with no evidence backing it up. Until you can give real proof then i may think differently.
@cup1966wow Haha, you sound like a lawyer defending something they know is wrong. Every rational, knowledgeable, and honest American knows what 9/11 was really all about. I don't know if I can say there is literal proof that 9/11 was an inside job, but the evidence is so overwhelming that I'd be lying to myself if I said 9/11 wasn't an inside job. You're one of those guys that would defend a killer just because there is no literal proof they murdered someone even though you know they did kill.
@LxE100 Why is that almost all engineers and scientists say that there is no evidence supporting your theories, and that in fact some of the theories can't work, such as the bomb or missile of the pentagon. The damage caused is nothing like the one caused by an explosion. I look at evidence simple as, there is more evidence supporting me than you. Face facts.
@cup1966wow "Almost all engineers and scientists say that there is no evidence supporting your theories." - No, actually there are tons of engineers and scientists supporting these theories. Even if a bomb or a missile couldn't work (which one of them did) a plane couldn't work either, and that's what your government is telling you caused the hole. They're lying right to your face, but yet you still believe them. You need to do more research. You look at evidence? You're obviously biased.
@LxE100 Actually the damage caused is that of an aeroplane. An outside experiment was done to test it and the damage was very similar, almost identical to that of the pentagon. Also why were there plane parts found at the site and all the passengers and crew member of the flight found there. Are you trying to say they were just placed there? Also you say one of them did. But neither does work. As I said before the damage was nothing like one of a bomb or missile. However was just like a plane.
@cup1966wow First of all, you still didn't explain building 7 falling in free fall. An outside experiment? Where can I see this experiment? "Neither does work?" Nice half ass explanation. Explain yourself. You simply side step all this evidence with stupid statements, and no evidence to back up your explanations. Of course the pieces were placed down. There isn't any official proof these pieces belong to flight 77.
@LxE100 Well WTC 7 caught fire cause of the collapse of the other buildings, the fire spread across the whole floor and caused the steel to weaken, this caused it to fail. Thousands of tonnes then fell on the floor below causing it collapse. This acted like a pile driver, the rest of the floors collapsed under the weight. Why they couldn't work? Well a missile to penetrate so deep would have to be massive but would destroy that whole side of the pentagon, the damage would of been a 1000 x worse.
@cup1966wow Fire from diesel fuel and building debris does not remotely approach the necessary temperature required to weaken and melt steel. The owner of the WTC (Larry Silverstein) admitted they pulled building 7 down. You realise no other building in modern day history collapsed by fires? Building 7 was made to take fires for 6 days before falling, but yet building 7 fell in just a few hours. If you watch the way the building collapsed, you'll notice buildings were barely touched next to it.
@LxE100 Its not diesel its kerosene, that what aeroplane fuel is. It doesn't hot enough to melt it, but burns at around 1000-1400 F which is enough to weaken the steel and cause it to bend. Why thats never happened? Okay no building in history has the same sort of fire, they have always been in a small isolated area, only affecting one area. With the WTC buildings the fires covered whole floors affecting all the supporting steel there. It was not made to built fires like the ones that occured.
@cup1966wow Already, in the first comment you failed. Diesel is used in many aircraft engines. Well, the steel becomes weak at 2,500 F, so 1000-1400 F wouldn't be a valid number to bring building 7 down. Were you in the WTC buildings when they were on fire? No, so you wouldn't know if whole floors were covered in fire. Wrong. These buildings were made to last fires on whole floors for days.
@LxE100 Actually no your wrong. Diesel can't be used as it just doesn't produce as much energy and the engine must be heavier than the ones that are used. Also that is the melting point for steel. And sorry I got it wrong before it burns at 1400 C so certainly enough to weaken it.Also you show me where they said it could hold fires like that
@cup1966wow Your explanation to how building 7 collapsed doesn't compare to the actual footage whatsoever. The building's bottum floor (support beams) actually fell first causing the entire building to fall. Secondly, even if fire did cause the necessary weakening of the buildings' steel support beams, each of those more than 50 beams would have had to weaken and fail at the exact same time to account for the symmetrical downward trajectory of the collapse. This kills your explanation.
@LxE100 Sorry not made to stand fires like that one. Its designed to withstand isolated fires. Actually no they didnt, seeing as the collapse started near the top. Actually no it doesn't first the fire covered the whole floor as i said , so all the beams would be affected roughly equally, and would be about the same weakness. So when a few fail it acts as a chain reaction causing the others to fail as the weakened steel is now holding extra weight.
@cup1966wow The collapse started at the top? Rewatch the video, because you obviously weren't paying attention. The building clearly falls from the bottum, and then the rest of the building falls in on itself, just like a controlled demolition. The beams on the outside would have stayed standing being that all the weight fell to the center. They weren't standing after the fall, which means unfortunately, they were blown up. Debris left over was heated at 2500 F, also points to bombs.
@LxE100 What you just don't know how structures work do you? It wouldn't collapse to the centre. The whole collapsed cause it was all being weakened not the centre ones. If anything the beams on the outside would be be the weakest. Also its just not possible for it to collapse and the outside to be standing. Also the plane wingspan was bigger than hole, the many body of the plane was smaller. If there was a bomb was is there no reported explosions. And don't even try to say there was cause
@cup1966wow A missile, a bomb, it doesn't matter how big it had to be. I'm sure you don't have any experience in that field anyway to provide scientific facts. That damage would have to be 1000 times worse? Really? Well who made that rule? Show me the evidence that the missile would have to be 1,000 times bigger because that's a massive claim. That isn't a valid statement, and you know it. Please explain it and back it up with actual info.
@LxE100 Well first do you know how a missile works. Clearly not. They can punch through material then have a delayed explosion. But they push everything away from the point of explosion. They don't just cause the explosion to go forward. So if the damage went so deep, then it should be like that in all other direction. Yeah it may have been an exaggeration but i'm trying to point out to you that this damage would be caused in all direction.
@LxE100 The reason is cause missiles and bombs push everything away from the point of the explosion. Now to the bomb. The bomb would also create a much wider hole than than the one that was created. And the damage would be very different, with the plane it punches through the wall, as you can see the damage didn't go much further than where the plane entered, a bomb would blow up the whole face. Also the hole was very circular and not much wider than the diameter of the plane.
@LxE100 I also love how your theory is that thousands of people came in and put aeroplane parts down, which frankly on that scale would be impossible. Also the passengers and pilots must of been put there after in your theory. Don't you think people would of noticed. I also forgot to mention with WTC 7, if it was a controlled demolition, then wires and the explosives used would be left in the rubble after, which was would be impossible to be done, as tonne's of explosive would be required.
@cup1966wow Why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner that supposedly came in on a flat trajectory? Why did the detachable wings and tail section of the plane not sheer off upon impact at 400 mph? Why is the impact hole so small? Why in the 1500 reviewed photos of the accident scene is not one seat, cushion, or piece of luggage visible?
@LxE100 First the wings are detachable but they have so much bolts and parts holding them in place that they don't just detach, wouldn't be very safe to fly would it. Also do you expect the whole engine just to be left outside? There would be none of that left because they are very weak materials. The aluminium and other metals of the plane can't torn apart. Those materials would be pretty much turned into dust in a collision of that force. The whole is small, because it punches through the wall
@cup1966wow Duh the wings don't just detach...but when you hit a building going 400 mph, then the wings should have detached. The hole shouldn't be that small. The plane was much bigger than the hole, end of story. "This isn't like cartoons..." I'm not 10 years old, obviously there isn't going to an exact outline of the plane. It doesn't matter regardless. The rest of your comments was all opinionated bullshit. I'd love the website.
@cup1966wow Many things weren't reported by the "media" that should have been. I guess you haven't seen the videos of firefighters inside building 7 just before it came down hearing massive explosions. The only reason they left the building was because they felt random explosions, not fire. Many killers get away with murder in court, but there is enough evidence out there for anyone involved to be convicted.
@LxE100 You show me a report of someone saying there was explosions. Also as I have said many times when there is a controlled demolition that is left over that can't be hidden such as the wires and the explosives them self. Also the reason they would your case wouldn't hold up in court is that there is not enough evidence.
@cup1966wow Watch some alex jones 9 11 inside job videos. In one of his videos, he shows clips of firefighters saying there were explosions in the buildings. You aren't making sense about the controlled demolitions. Please make more sense so we can communicate. There isn't enough evidence to you because you haven't seen all of the evidence. There's surely enough evidence. Let me get this straight; you know our government already admitted they do false flag operations right?
@LxE100 I don't get what your not understanding about the controlled demolition. Well i will give it another try. When they place the explosives on the wires in the explosives themselves are left over after the demolition, but none were found at the site. Also the amount of explosives needed is just not possible without being noticed.
@cup1966wow Did you watch the videos I showed you? "Also the amount of explosives needed is just not possible without being noticed." - Have you worked in demolition to even know this? Jesse Ventura worked in demolition for 6 years and he said that building 7 was obviously a controlled demoltion being that it fell at the speed of free fall. I'll look into this placing explosives on wires thing. I'm sure many things in the debris were covered up from by insiders so no one would find the evidence
@LxE100 This isn't like cartoons where it does an imprint of itself with the wings, There is also not explosion causing the whole to be bigger. I can't find any videos but show me there was no damage on the lawn. Also here is one for you show me proof of bombs or missiles.
@cup1966wow Why did the US Postal Service not receive one complaint about missing goods and mail known to be carried on Flight 77? Why did the Secretary of Defense of the United States run out onto the Pentagon lawn after the crash for a rescue photo-op when a fourth known hijacked airplane was still airborne and the morning still wholly chaotic? Why did a construction generator trailer create such a massive explosion and fire when struck?
@LxE100 Well first all the passengers on the flight where killed. They won't be making complaints and do you think the families care that there lost I wouldnt if some of my family just died. Cause those people still need to be rescued in it the building. Thee SOD doesnt handle stuff like hijacking himself, it will usually be put over to other people in charge that is how it works. What the hell is this construction generator?
@cup1966wow The questions go on and on. It's also incomprehensible to believe that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. Are you that gullible, that you actually believe that?
@LxE100 Its not cause of the fire, its because the whole plane got completely destroyed that is what happens in a large collision. Resulting in no big parts being left over.
@cup1966wow "Thousands of people came in and put aeroplane parts down, which frankly on that scale would be impossible." - Who said there were thousands of people? You realise these airplane parts weren't even idnetified as belonging to flight 77? That alone should make you suspicious, but yet you totally except that. People did notice it was a government cover up. I never said they didn't, that's why the information is out there.
@LxE100 Well 1000's of people would of had to be involved to put down the parts and also in your theory collect all the bomb cables and put the pilots and passengers in the building. Or in your theory was is it one person just running backwards and forwards. I think people would have noticed if someone was doing that.
@cup1966wow Read all my comments I left you so far, and I want an explanation to everyone or that in itself shows you can't answer them therefore explaining you can't prove 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Go to 9/11hardfacts. c 0 m and you'll be kicking yourself. They have so many facts you won't be able to believe you're that ignorant into believing the government's bullshit non-factual evidence to back up their ridiculous fantasy stories.
@LxE100 Okay you want a website that destroys every single one of your theories then I will give one to you. Also why are you not giving me any proof, your asking me to prove there innocence which is what i'm doing. Now its your time to start explaining. Also i'm pretty sure more people are on my side then yours. In fact I don't know anyone who believes in the conspiracy theory. Fankly they all think people like you are retards. Remember your innocent be proven guilty, and you havent done that.
@cup1966wow Also, go to Google and type "9 11 hole in the pentagon conspiracy." There is a good Youtube video on freedomfiles. 0 r g you can watch for yourself. You'll have a heard time debunking that, I'm sure.
@LxE100 I don't think I need to watch it i'm pretty sure I know what its about . Is it that an aeroplane didn't hit the building and in fact was a bomb or a missile. Well if it is that is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact the conspiracy theories have no evidence supporting them. But if there is anything else tell me. I will also happily tell you why the pentagon was hit by a plane and not a missile or bomb if you want?
@CheapChad Additionally, I can suppose for a moment that your suggestion is correct, but then we can evaluate what might have happened if the big soft fiberglass nose of the plane hit against the columns and concrete.... Immediately the pressurized nosecone erupts and the plane would inevitably continue exploding now with less force exactly like the test plane.
The actual reason for the buildings destruction was nuclear demolition and there is clear indisputable evidence.
it just happened
KING99GAMER 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Tuesday Morning in September'. Available on DVD. Runtime 130 minutes.
Pure, unfiltered, authentic, and being released in such a way to keep its integrity. Available on DVD, now.
Project is not affiliated and or connected to, working for any organization,
putting forth propaganda and or slant perspectives of the events on 9/11.
It is the most complete chronicle in real time of the wtc attacks.
tusmorninginsept911 3 months ago
there are some sick people who use the U.S for their wicked purposes. Do you truly believe you have a choice when you elect candidates for office? LOL. Republicans vs. Democrats....divide and conquer. Food for thought: The big corporations and Banks contribute to both parties in equally massive amounts.
AutomatedForexRobots 4 months ago
I hate these stupid tin-foil-hat theories. Nevertheless, it was a well made home video.
titans091052 5 months ago
aliens? are u fucking kidding me
BlOoDyHeAdSh0tz 5 months ago
ask the jewish ppl...by the way jews are from ethiopia and are black blue
rckbttm14 6 months ago
@rckbttm14 Of course blame the Jews no offense but you sound like Hitler you sound like a Nazi you see the Jewish people as different so you have to blame them for a tragedy that was the result an attack on our country by Al Queda so don't even bother blaming the Jewish people for 9/11
TheNight12100 3 months ago
WHAT ABOUT THE FAGGOT ASSHOLES WHO CLAIMED THIS SHIT?
BIN LADEN WONDERED WHY AMERICANSDIDNT BELIEVE!
DAMN HE WORKED FOR 6 YRS...
bluegrassreb1 9 months ago
Why would the government do that
batman4498 9 months ago
@batman4498 The government did this because it was an easy way to convince the American public, that war is necessary. Every time we go to war, the government gets money from the Federal Reserve. The government's main goal is to pass the New World Order, and form a one world government for control of the entire world. They don't care who dies in the process, as long as they get what they want. That's all the U.S government is about.
LxE100 4 months ago
@LxE100 I'd hate to tell you this but the government was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks so pull your head out of your ass and realize it .. oh just in case your going to respond to this i am going to let you know right here im just expressing my opinion
TheNight12100 3 months ago
@TheNight12100 Take my head out of my ass? Al Queda doesn't even exist, and your telling me to take my head out of my ass? I'm sorry, but there is too much evidence that leads me to believe the government was behind these attacks. The evidence wouldn't be there if they weren't guilty. Your opinion means literally nothing to me, nothing.
LxE100 3 months ago
@LxE100 What fucking evidence is there that the Government what evidence do you have that proves the government was behind the attacks and yes Al Queda does exist its a radical Muslim terrorist group that was lead by Osama Bin Ladden.. So when you can physically prove that the Government was responsible for the attack then don't talk shit cause with out the government this country of ours would fall apart
TheNight12100 2 months ago
@TheNight12100 Go to google or the youtube search bar, and type in "Jesse Ventura 9/11 attacks." He'll show you clear evidence that the government was behind these attacks. If you can't find any evidence off of those videos that points directly to the government, then you're being dishonest. Watch Alex Jones videos on 9/11 too. 9/11 was a false flag operation, and the U.S government has had other false flag operations in the past. Read a history book.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Tha'ts a complete and utter lie to say that every piece of evidence put foward by conspiracy theorists has been debunked. You don't even know that, yet you're stating it. Hey moron, building 7 fell at the speed of free fall. The only way that's possible is if it was a demolition. You can't debunk that, it's impossible so get over it. Many news companies already had the cover stories' scripts written before the 9/11 attacks even started. It's admitted! Let me give you more evidence.
LxE100 2 months ago
@TheNight12100 To be honest these people are idiots and no matter what is said they simply can't see the truth, even when everything they say has been disproved. Frankly i think its pathetic that people believe the government would do that.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Thank you finally someone agrees with me.. If this was the result of the Government it would taken 100s of people and and none of them talked about it but some how the info got out umm that doesn't make sense to me.. so the obvious conclusion is what has been proven already is that Al Queada was all to blame for the tragdies of 9/11
TheNight12100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Sorry i saw what you put before and it just made me laugh. A new world order? How to suppose they would do this? I doubt other countries are really up for this. I fail to see how there going to control any of the world. Please enlighten me.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@batman4498 okay believe what u want but the government did not orchestrate the attacks on the world trade center towers 1 and 2, the pentagon, and the flight that went down in the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania . The people on Flight 93 who stormed the cockpit of the aircraft are the true definition of American heroes.. So in my opinion get your head out of your ass and realize sometimes the simplest explanation is the answer
TheNight12100 3 months ago
Yo whats up chad!? anyways I can seen JZJYRWO's arguement which does seem more likely due to the structure of both the plane and the towers, but regardless we lost 3,000 lives and Osama has now paid for it. Also the eye blinking was to prove he was a reptilian by the shape, glisten, and the sound. probably going to be more views now since bin Laden's death. lets see 10,000. This movie was pretty fun to make. 125/100 ftw.
jimpenguino 10 months ago
does it matter wat religion the terrorists were? your profiling by saying "muslim terrorists" tryna sound smart for a school project. cool theories and cool video but c'mon dude becareful watcha say
beanershot2007 1 year ago
the foam sprayed on the building was cheap it couldn't take the heat it burned off then the heat burned at a high temp. until it melted building collapsed.
JAYGOHARDER 1 year ago
just a question, what was the part about his eye about?
DnBNIK 1 year ago
hey chad its jimmy hola!!!on cousins account. i llok fly
paulpenguino 1 year ago
@paulpenguino paulpenguino?? lol u penguin
CheapChad 1 year ago
The first shot we see if the ol' knife through butter. If you can believe that's what happens when an the pressurized fiberglass nosecone of an aluminum plane hits several box steel columns with steel supports holding up a concrete floor directly behind those steel columns, then perhaps you should enlist for the War On Terror
watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO if the plane was composed of aluminum and cheap pressurized fiberglass, then wouldn't it be possible for plane to be crumbling apart upon impact and then the fuels igniting once it is inside the building? If we look at 0:18, we see the plane hitting the building and exploding later on (possibly the fuel igniting)
CheapChad 1 year ago
@CheapChad No chance, the plane hitting the wall creates the same resultant damage as the wall hitting the plane. That's Newtonian law. Check to see how solid those buildings were constructed. They were built to withstand a jetliner crash because there was a military plane that crashed into the Empire State Building 1945. The WTC tower walls were lined with heavy steel columns backed by concrete. The plane would have hit 20 steel columns and at least 4 of the concrete floors at their solid edges
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@JZJYRWO I see your point, but are you suggesting that the thousands of video clips showing flight 75 are fake? Or are you trying to imply that the plane that hit the WTC tower was specially built to withstand the crash, or it was some kind of military plane?
CheapChad 1 year ago
@CheapChad No the buildings were specifically built to keep planes out. There are many video clips on the subject that are highlighted here and many of them contradict each other. My channel features a video that indicates the female reporter knows that the building will fall. Notice how quickly she reacts and think about this. You know what you are going to say before you speak. So how does she know the building will "come down" at the time that she begins to speak? She had to be expecting it
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@CheapChad There is a movie that highlights certain variations and similarities in the news clips. The first part is here watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@CheapChad Variations and similarties in news clips part C watch?v=KfacCQj_mlI
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
@CheapChad I think the plane had explosives attached to it. On top of that, I believe there were bombs placed inside the buildings.
LxE100 4 months ago
@LxE100 When you talk about the newtonian law, it doesn't mean that the plane is just going to bounce straight off. If a plane went into any buiulding its going to go through it. No metal would be strong enough to take the blow.
cup1966wow 3 months ago
@cup1966wow That doesn't mean anything. Obviously a plane is going to go through metal flying at those speeds. That doesn't mean it's going to bring a building of that size and structure down, does it?
LxE100 3 months ago
@LxE100 Okay but i will tell you what will. When the plane hit the building it burst into flames. This may not be hot enough to melt the steel but was enough for the metal to weaken and bend. It could no longer hold the weight of the floors above it, then when that falls it will cause all the floors below to fail cause of the sudden weight and force that is applied on it. There simply is no definitive evidence to say it was a demolition. Show me some actual proof?
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow You're completely blind to truth. Watch some Alex Jones, and maybe you can learn what common sense is. He has all the documented evidence you could wish for that proves the government is bunch of sick twisted freaks. Watch some Jesse Ventura too, and you'll see why 9/11 was clearly a government false flag operation. You're going to be laughing at yourself when you find out the reality of the U.S government.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 You do realise every piece of evidence been put forward by conspiracy theorists have been debunked. Actually wait a sec that had no evidence it was just theories. Well all them were proved wrong. The thing is i know people like you just don't listen even when there is nothing that backs up your theories.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Why did Dick Cheney order NORAD to stand down? It was so the hijacked planes could reach their targets. Not even one single person in the U.S was held accountable for allowing these attacks to happen. You're stupid to believe that the air force had no way of shooting the planes down before they reached the world trade center. It's because it was all part of the plan. Seriously, wake the hell up.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 One he didn't. There was a military training exercise at the military defence command happening on that day. Also there was confusion and lack of communication between the civilian air traffic defence and the military. By the way you saying that isn't evidence anyway, so it doesn't really help your argument. I said give me evidence and you still fail to.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow You're stupid. It's documented evidence. There was confusion and lack of communication by air force proffesionals that have been doing training like that their whole lives on the one day we need them? Please, listen to yourself. You believe in pure bullshit, and suprisingly you don't even know it. You're so gullible that you fail to even reason with common sense. Stop thinking like a biased government pet. Look at what they're doing to you and your family. They don't care about you.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Sorry anyone who believes in that is a retard. You say im following the government, well actually i look at the facts. I have looked at all the theories that have been put forward and not one piece of evidence supports them. Even your statement its just a statement as was mine with no evidence backing it up. Until you can give real proof then i may think differently.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Haha, you sound like a lawyer defending something they know is wrong. Every rational, knowledgeable, and honest American knows what 9/11 was really all about. I don't know if I can say there is literal proof that 9/11 was an inside job, but the evidence is so overwhelming that I'd be lying to myself if I said 9/11 wasn't an inside job. You're one of those guys that would defend a killer just because there is no literal proof they murdered someone even though you know they did kill.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Why is that almost all engineers and scientists say that there is no evidence supporting your theories, and that in fact some of the theories can't work, such as the bomb or missile of the pentagon. The damage caused is nothing like the one caused by an explosion. I look at evidence simple as, there is more evidence supporting me than you. Face facts.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow "Almost all engineers and scientists say that there is no evidence supporting your theories." - No, actually there are tons of engineers and scientists supporting these theories. Even if a bomb or a missile couldn't work (which one of them did) a plane couldn't work either, and that's what your government is telling you caused the hole. They're lying right to your face, but yet you still believe them. You need to do more research. You look at evidence? You're obviously biased.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Actually the damage caused is that of an aeroplane. An outside experiment was done to test it and the damage was very similar, almost identical to that of the pentagon. Also why were there plane parts found at the site and all the passengers and crew member of the flight found there. Are you trying to say they were just placed there? Also you say one of them did. But neither does work. As I said before the damage was nothing like one of a bomb or missile. However was just like a plane.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow First of all, you still didn't explain building 7 falling in free fall. An outside experiment? Where can I see this experiment? "Neither does work?" Nice half ass explanation. Explain yourself. You simply side step all this evidence with stupid statements, and no evidence to back up your explanations. Of course the pieces were placed down. There isn't any official proof these pieces belong to flight 77.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Well WTC 7 caught fire cause of the collapse of the other buildings, the fire spread across the whole floor and caused the steel to weaken, this caused it to fail. Thousands of tonnes then fell on the floor below causing it collapse. This acted like a pile driver, the rest of the floors collapsed under the weight. Why they couldn't work? Well a missile to penetrate so deep would have to be massive but would destroy that whole side of the pentagon, the damage would of been a 1000 x worse.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Fire from diesel fuel and building debris does not remotely approach the necessary temperature required to weaken and melt steel. The owner of the WTC (Larry Silverstein) admitted they pulled building 7 down. You realise no other building in modern day history collapsed by fires? Building 7 was made to take fires for 6 days before falling, but yet building 7 fell in just a few hours. If you watch the way the building collapsed, you'll notice buildings were barely touched next to it.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Its not diesel its kerosene, that what aeroplane fuel is. It doesn't hot enough to melt it, but burns at around 1000-1400 F which is enough to weaken the steel and cause it to bend. Why thats never happened? Okay no building in history has the same sort of fire, they have always been in a small isolated area, only affecting one area. With the WTC buildings the fires covered whole floors affecting all the supporting steel there. It was not made to built fires like the ones that occured.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Already, in the first comment you failed. Diesel is used in many aircraft engines. Well, the steel becomes weak at 2,500 F, so 1000-1400 F wouldn't be a valid number to bring building 7 down. Were you in the WTC buildings when they were on fire? No, so you wouldn't know if whole floors were covered in fire. Wrong. These buildings were made to last fires on whole floors for days.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Actually no your wrong. Diesel can't be used as it just doesn't produce as much energy and the engine must be heavier than the ones that are used. Also that is the melting point for steel. And sorry I got it wrong before it burns at 1400 C so certainly enough to weaken it.Also you show me where they said it could hold fires like that
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Your explanation to how building 7 collapsed doesn't compare to the actual footage whatsoever. The building's bottum floor (support beams) actually fell first causing the entire building to fall. Secondly, even if fire did cause the necessary weakening of the buildings' steel support beams, each of those more than 50 beams would have had to weaken and fail at the exact same time to account for the symmetrical downward trajectory of the collapse. This kills your explanation.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Sorry not made to stand fires like that one. Its designed to withstand isolated fires. Actually no they didnt, seeing as the collapse started near the top. Actually no it doesn't first the fire covered the whole floor as i said , so all the beams would be affected roughly equally, and would be about the same weakness. So when a few fail it acts as a chain reaction causing the others to fail as the weakened steel is now holding extra weight.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow The collapse started at the top? Rewatch the video, because you obviously weren't paying attention. The building clearly falls from the bottum, and then the rest of the building falls in on itself, just like a controlled demolition. The beams on the outside would have stayed standing being that all the weight fell to the center. They weren't standing after the fall, which means unfortunately, they were blown up. Debris left over was heated at 2500 F, also points to bombs.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 What you just don't know how structures work do you? It wouldn't collapse to the centre. The whole collapsed cause it was all being weakened not the centre ones. If anything the beams on the outside would be be the weakest. Also its just not possible for it to collapse and the outside to be standing. Also the plane wingspan was bigger than hole, the many body of the plane was smaller. If there was a bomb was is there no reported explosions. And don't even try to say there was cause
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow A missile, a bomb, it doesn't matter how big it had to be. I'm sure you don't have any experience in that field anyway to provide scientific facts. That damage would have to be 1000 times worse? Really? Well who made that rule? Show me the evidence that the missile would have to be 1,000 times bigger because that's a massive claim. That isn't a valid statement, and you know it. Please explain it and back it up with actual info.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Well first do you know how a missile works. Clearly not. They can punch through material then have a delayed explosion. But they push everything away from the point of explosion. They don't just cause the explosion to go forward. So if the damage went so deep, then it should be like that in all other direction. Yeah it may have been an exaggeration but i'm trying to point out to you that this damage would be caused in all direction.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@LxE100 The reason is cause missiles and bombs push everything away from the point of the explosion. Now to the bomb. The bomb would also create a much wider hole than than the one that was created. And the damage would be very different, with the plane it punches through the wall, as you can see the damage didn't go much further than where the plane entered, a bomb would blow up the whole face. Also the hole was very circular and not much wider than the diameter of the plane.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@LxE100 I also love how your theory is that thousands of people came in and put aeroplane parts down, which frankly on that scale would be impossible. Also the passengers and pilots must of been put there after in your theory. Don't you think people would of noticed. I also forgot to mention with WTC 7, if it was a controlled demolition, then wires and the explosives used would be left in the rubble after, which was would be impossible to be done, as tonne's of explosive would be required.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner that supposedly came in on a flat trajectory? Why did the detachable wings and tail section of the plane not sheer off upon impact at 400 mph? Why is the impact hole so small? Why in the 1500 reviewed photos of the accident scene is not one seat, cushion, or piece of luggage visible?
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 First the wings are detachable but they have so much bolts and parts holding them in place that they don't just detach, wouldn't be very safe to fly would it. Also do you expect the whole engine just to be left outside? There would be none of that left because they are very weak materials. The aluminium and other metals of the plane can't torn apart. Those materials would be pretty much turned into dust in a collision of that force. The whole is small, because it punches through the wall
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Duh the wings don't just detach...but when you hit a building going 400 mph, then the wings should have detached. The hole shouldn't be that small. The plane was much bigger than the hole, end of story. "This isn't like cartoons..." I'm not 10 years old, obviously there isn't going to an exact outline of the plane. It doesn't matter regardless. The rest of your comments was all opinionated bullshit. I'd love the website.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 it simply hasnt been reported. The simple fact is nothing supports you. If this went to court they would be innocent simple as.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Many things weren't reported by the "media" that should have been. I guess you haven't seen the videos of firefighters inside building 7 just before it came down hearing massive explosions. The only reason they left the building was because they felt random explosions, not fire. Many killers get away with murder in court, but there is enough evidence out there for anyone involved to be convicted.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 You show me a report of someone saying there was explosions. Also as I have said many times when there is a controlled demolition that is left over that can't be hidden such as the wires and the explosives them self. Also the reason they would your case wouldn't hold up in court is that there is not enough evidence.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Watch some alex jones 9 11 inside job videos. In one of his videos, he shows clips of firefighters saying there were explosions in the buildings. You aren't making sense about the controlled demolitions. Please make more sense so we can communicate. There isn't enough evidence to you because you haven't seen all of the evidence. There's surely enough evidence. Let me get this straight; you know our government already admitted they do false flag operations right?
LxE100 2 months ago 2
@LxE100 I don't get what your not understanding about the controlled demolition. Well i will give it another try. When they place the explosives on the wires in the explosives themselves are left over after the demolition, but none were found at the site. Also the amount of explosives needed is just not possible without being noticed.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cup1966wow Did you watch the videos I showed you? "Also the amount of explosives needed is just not possible without being noticed." - Have you worked in demolition to even know this? Jesse Ventura worked in demolition for 6 years and he said that building 7 was obviously a controlled demoltion being that it fell at the speed of free fall. I'll look into this placing explosives on wires thing. I'm sure many things in the debris were covered up from by insiders so no one would find the evidence
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 This isn't like cartoons where it does an imprint of itself with the wings, There is also not explosion causing the whole to be bigger. I can't find any videos but show me there was no damage on the lawn. Also here is one for you show me proof of bombs or missiles.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Why did the US Postal Service not receive one complaint about missing goods and mail known to be carried on Flight 77? Why did the Secretary of Defense of the United States run out onto the Pentagon lawn after the crash for a rescue photo-op when a fourth known hijacked airplane was still airborne and the morning still wholly chaotic? Why did a construction generator trailer create such a massive explosion and fire when struck?
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Well first all the passengers on the flight where killed. They won't be making complaints and do you think the families care that there lost I wouldnt if some of my family just died. Cause those people still need to be rescued in it the building. Thee SOD doesnt handle stuff like hijacking himself, it will usually be put over to other people in charge that is how it works. What the hell is this construction generator?
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow The questions go on and on. It's also incomprehensible to believe that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. Are you that gullible, that you actually believe that?
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Its not cause of the fire, its because the whole plane got completely destroyed that is what happens in a large collision. Resulting in no big parts being left over.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow "Thousands of people came in and put aeroplane parts down, which frankly on that scale would be impossible." - Who said there were thousands of people? You realise these airplane parts weren't even idnetified as belonging to flight 77? That alone should make you suspicious, but yet you totally except that. People did notice it was a government cover up. I never said they didn't, that's why the information is out there.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Well 1000's of people would of had to be involved to put down the parts and also in your theory collect all the bomb cables and put the pilots and passengers in the building. Or in your theory was is it one person just running backwards and forwards. I think people would have noticed if someone was doing that.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Read all my comments I left you so far, and I want an explanation to everyone or that in itself shows you can't answer them therefore explaining you can't prove 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Go to 9/11hardfacts. c 0 m and you'll be kicking yourself. They have so many facts you won't be able to believe you're that ignorant into believing the government's bullshit non-factual evidence to back up their ridiculous fantasy stories.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 Okay you want a website that destroys every single one of your theories then I will give one to you. Also why are you not giving me any proof, your asking me to prove there innocence which is what i'm doing. Now its your time to start explaining. Also i'm pretty sure more people are on my side then yours. In fact I don't know anyone who believes in the conspiracy theory. Fankly they all think people like you are retards. Remember your innocent be proven guilty, and you havent done that.
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@cup1966wow Also, go to Google and type "9 11 hole in the pentagon conspiracy." There is a good Youtube video on freedomfiles. 0 r g you can watch for yourself. You'll have a heard time debunking that, I'm sure.
LxE100 2 months ago
@LxE100 I don't think I need to watch it i'm pretty sure I know what its about . Is it that an aeroplane didn't hit the building and in fact was a bomb or a missile. Well if it is that is incredibly easy to debunk. In fact the conspiracy theories have no evidence supporting them. But if there is anything else tell me. I will also happily tell you why the pentagon was hit by a plane and not a missile or bomb if you want?
cup1966wow 2 months ago
@CheapChad Additionally, I can suppose for a moment that your suggestion is correct, but then we can evaluate what might have happened if the big soft fiberglass nose of the plane hit against the columns and concrete.... Immediately the pressurized nosecone erupts and the plane would inevitably continue exploding now with less force exactly like the test plane.
The actual reason for the buildings destruction was nuclear demolition and there is clear indisputable evidence.
watch?v=M1JFCpFd6CA
JZJYRWO 1 year ago