@indec1224 Basically the buildings were attacked by hijacked planes and were thrown to the ground. The idea of them failing in their footprint does make sense is because the buildings are so high stacked and upwards stable. Not to the side, so dont listen to these idiots about the entire Governemnt doing this to go to war when clearly we could have made a better excuse. Although its good to notice that buildings have been on fire longer than this and the Osama and Bush relations. But thats it.
@indec1224 People will say its acted or fake, and everyone was told to run even though there is clearly a dust cloud. Its bullshit. The pressure makes the towers collapse on itself. But i personally do believe (i dont know) that somebody in our Governemnt helped the terrorist. But its not an inside job. We didnt blow up the Empire State Building as an excuse to go to War in Vietnam so why would we do that now? Cause people are morons. They 're bitches to conspiracies in the name of freedom.
What's scary is the man in the dark long coat following purposefully behind them. What did this poor man witness that they honed in on him. And is he alive today to tell?
My question is why Bldg 7 was such a hush hush that over 70% of PPL on the westcoast didnt even know of its existence. That is a number I heard and I believe it to because Katrina had a way of remaining a secret and you see it happening again with BP. Ughhh! There is definitely more known then we are to be told but one thing is for sure,The patriot act is the least American thing I have seen happen B4 my eyes! Unless, they wantedt a revolution 2 show the gov what true PATRIOTISM means!
@vilekyle22 Wait, so "70%" of you west costers didn't know about WTC7. OK whats your point. Name one building that NYC folk would know that is as small as WTC7. In NYC that was not a big building. Would you believe a man jumped from the 39th floor of a building and lived? Did you hear about that? Does that mean it never happend?
@krichards816 what i was trying to say was people were not informed of bldg 7 through the media. We heard so much about the twin towers but never about bldg 7. This makes me wonder why? I have a question: Why was molten steel found at the base of bldg 7? I heard why on the towers but no explaination for bldg 7.
1,250 Architects and Engineers have signed a petition for a reinvestigation of the collapse of the buildings. They state the building were in a free fall only possible with a controlled demolition.Not with a plane crashing into them!
@IDtopsecret 31,254 Architects and Engineers have also signed a petition that they agree with the findings. Why so few people for reinvestigation? Hmmm.
@IDtopsecret Buildings that tall are built so that if their integrity is compromised enough to cause a collapse, they 'pancake' like that so that they don't cause damage to any of the surrounding buildings. The weight of the floors above where the crashes were can easily cause a single floor beneath to collapse immediately. You think they hid explosives in every single floor without a single person noticing? Looks like they unblocked YouTube on the computers in the mental hospitals.
@IDtopsecret Controlled demolition means somebody helped crash the planes with the explosives in the buildings. It doesnt mean everyone in the Gov thought it up and was in on it. It means Bush and Osama probably got together and fucked something. I doubt Bush was even in on it, seeing how dumb he was to basically admit the Afghan war had nothing to do with attacks of the WTC,
So what does history teach us ... when the empire state building was hit by a B52 bomber back in the 1940s, it did not collapse as the WTC towers did, there was not dust all over the place, and I don't recall a passport being found on a nearby sidewalk either! It is what it is -
@B4iGo2it OK, it was not a b52. Let start with that tiny fact. It was a b25. The 52 was not around until the 50's. The b25 that hit the ESB weighed around 2500lbs and carries about 1000 gallons of fuel. A 767 (hit WTC) weighs 250000LBS and carried 24000 gallons of fuel. The construction type of the two buildings is totally different. But why bring and facts in. Where did you get your info. If you going to argue at least get the basics right. Just makes you all look stupid.
@krichards816 your right its not a B52 its a commercial airplane. Frank A DeMartini was quoted as saying that the each building was designed to survive a plane crash in fact he even said that each building could survive several plane crashes due to its design. Also there are some witnesses that have come forth such as William Rodriguez that said that there was an explosion from the basement that pushed him upwards.
@robinsl27 First, thank you for a logical response. I am not in bed with the gov. but I SAW the plan (second to be exact) impact the towers. I dont believe the BS that we have been feed, but I do believe it was THIS simple to hijack plans on 9/11. I am not sure about the petition I ref. in my post I could not find it. I think I was responding to a truther telling me there was a petition stating no aircraft hit the WTC's. I would be more than happy to debate like grown adults. Respect- K-
@krichards816 much respect to you too. I get flack from the debunkers and the 9/11 truthers sometimes b/c Im not in step with what they say. I think on both sides you get some people that have not looked at the evidence and say whatever someone suggest to them the truth is. if you want to watch a really good documentary on 9/11 watch "zero 9/11" it is kind of boring I'll warn you but it is full of real good fact. also watch davin coburn of pop mechanics vs charles goyette. it is very intriguing
Go check it out in the favorites on my page, perhaps this will help clear up some of the pentagon mess as well as highlight some EYEWITNESS testimony ( not real evidence to denierbud), but eyewitnesses, pay special attention to the last witness Lloyd England and how he and the conspiritors came across the bridge together-
How can the Arlington witnesses contradict the official report..?
Still no question about the official story? denialist
Anything done by that Avery asshole is laughable. I dont see what England'sinterview is supposed to proove. Even if one (out of many) witness has fuzzy recollections about what precisely happened that day 7 years ago, how does that proove a conspiracy by the US govt? How many eyewitnesses have testified that they saw a missile hit the Pentagon? How many eyewitnesses agree with your idiot CTs? So is England supposed to be in on it too?
you dont want evidence, you want to sleep soundly at night knowing bush and cheney protected you. Anything to the contrary would crush your idea of life.
If you have no questions about 911, you are happy being wrapped in a lie.
Wonder why they passed retroactive
immunity for wiretaps on Americans back to 2000, why would there be no record of what dick & george said to the commision?
Let you kids grow up in the plastic world of superarab boogeymen and heros who never fought only deferred-
Just listen to the newer 2 part Lloyd England interview, he is a bonafied witness we can all agree on right?
if you cant find it its in my favorites on my page.
I wont say what hesays, watch it for yourself.
Also remember his wife works for the FBI..
Barry jennings is dead this year, but he still has quite an eyewitness account.
The important thing to remember is if we are wrong, nothing changes, but if you are wrong everything changes, the time since begins to make sense and you see.
shanks at least seems to be willing to look at the evidence somewhat.
My explanation is not mine bro, it came from boeing, not me.
Commercial jets just have limitations, just like steel buildings, or the pentagon, so many laws were suspended on 911, its funny you "smart guys" have no questions. you just accept what happened pay no attention to what has happened since because of 911-
pay a few more trillion and accept your fate. If you are content its ok.
Then you should join with us to ask for another investigation free from the executive branch. Another investigation where we can recall Cheney and Bush, make them testify seperately and possibly, just possibly under oath this time, I think that's only fair. That's one of many ways a new investigation would benefit us.
I have read the Arlington report as well as the NYC Fire Dept report.. As well as the offical coincedence theory report, very unimpressive and all had to be cleared through the official channels..
You can believe what you want dumbass
and stay confused as to what happened or why, you have zero evidence to back up your claims mostly made up by you.
I will type slowly for you dumbass- F-B-I B-B-C B-O-E-I-N-G. You have No evidence that osama had anything to do with 911, nor do you have any evidence disproving Barry jennings or Lloyd England- So what do you have,100% faith in bush cheney, rice and rummy- and the govt- so still believe the gulf of tonkin lie too? That one cost over 58,000 USA lives- Or the removal of irans leader in the 50s? Denied until this year? must be a shallow stupid gene pool at your house- Loser
No you didnt call them yourself nor will you because you are not a debunker, youre just an idiot who cant handle the truth that you were lied to intentionally to invade iraq and build a pipeline across afghanistan..
Obviously you havnt read anything about 911 or you would have major problems with the coincedence theory..
but you just keep your fingers in your ears screaming nooooooooooooooooooo-
acting like you just take the steering wheel and fly a plane..
what a dumb fucking thing to say or even imply-
you can tell he has never flown a plane or probly ever been on one-
towers were NOT hit at 500mph because those planes will not get close to 500 mph at under 1500ft- hell dumbass!!! boing will tell you that, any pilot will tell you that-
inside job, brainscrubbed jackass, you have to be a child not to know that
What a dickhead! A plane might night reach 500 mph when you're FLYING it at lower than 1500 ft, but if you're PLUMMETING from well over that height while intentionally CRASHING an airplane, than you can definitely go that fast!! What a dumbass!!!
I do not get my information from government sources - when possible I look at the primary source
Do you do the same> Or do you rely on what truthers say?
Have you ever read the Arlington Fire Department Report? The Somerset County report? NYPD official police report? NYFD oral histories or audio tapes from 911? What have you done to research the event? Please list the non-truther sites and sources for your information.
Your source is fox news and official conspiracy nonsense.
Ask the cabdriver what really happened to wind up with a lightpole in his car..
that is first hand info and it goes totally against everything you stand for...
you dont look ata nything that goes against your osama did it crap, dont care who funded the operation either i am sure, just like the comission, "it isnt important..
giant, who said they think it's simple to fly a plane? The hijackers had flight training, they knew enough about flying to crash their planes, simple as that. Your explanation about not being able to fly 500 mph under 1500 ft is misleading, and doesnt apply to what happened on 9/11, no matter what you want to believe.
Please don't act like a person that flys a cesna is certified or even able to handle a commercial airliner in the manner they were reported to fly. His statement is not misleading. I'm sure a plane is even more difficult to precisely steer in that lower air density. I question if a plane can even do that speed at that altitude.
Please dont put words in my mouth that I didnt say. The CONTEXT of his statement is what's misleading. The hijackers werent flying the plane at 15oo ft going 500+ mph the whole flight, they were rapidly descending from higher altitude. Do you think planes have anti-lock brakes that automatically slow the plane down when it hits a certain altitude? If a plane is hurtling PURPOSELY to the ground, it's not a normal flight condition. I doubt if the hijackers had SAFETY issues on their minds!
I never put words in your mouth. I responded to your comment. Stop being so sensitive and just debate, ok? By the way. They WERE reported as doing those speeds the whole flight, but not the altitude. The air traffic controllers have even said they thought it was a military plane and that they thought it was something small and manuverable like a fighter jet, NOT a 767. It's obvious you don't understand aerodynamics. Those breaks you are talking about is air density. It will slow the plane.
"air traffic controllers have even said they thought it was a military plane"
Why not provide the whole quote?
""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
True. Thank you for extending the quote. To me that means that the pilot would need to be that much better at flying a 767 to be able to fly the plane unsafely. While I agree with you that his quote isn't really supportive of my point of view it still raises questions like the one I just brought up. If they thought it was military, they were most likely impressed by the speed and maneuverability. To keep a plane in the air doing that stuff you have to be an expert I would imagine.
Maybe for the first one, but after AA11 hit they knew what was going on. Took them an hour and while watching the other 2 hit their targets they still had the same things to say about them as the first.
You act like those 3 planes were the only planes in the air on 9/11. And as denierbud pointed out, they were refering to the 3rd plane, so I dont understand what you meant when you said they still had the same things to say as the first.
And as I pointed out, there are many different accounts of all 3 planes. They has the same things to say, i.e. They were moving extremely fast, making crazy turns.
If the plane wasnt flying that altitude the whole time, it makes your point about the "500 mph at 1500 ft" absolutely pointless. Obviously, that speed can be maintained at higher altitudes. The ATCers thought they were witnessing somebody doing crazy stunts, they had no idea that they were watching somebody intentionally crash an airplane, of course their perspective would have been different BEFORE hand. What do those ATCs think now? Do they still think they saw a military plane?
Giantshadow - please tell us why it would be difficult to locate the largest building in the largest city that towers above every other building in the city?
You claim the planes were not moving fast, yet the visual evidence tells us they were - so who should we believe?
I don't know. I agree it would be a task to fly any plane without proper assistance from ground control. These men, who were supposedly disgruntled Saudis with minimal educations, managed to take a plane off its course and direct the planes to 3 different targets. I would just like to know where they got all the know-how to fly a 767. Those are some complicated systems in those cockpits. It's my understanding, that pilots receive their cords from the ground. Where did they get them?
boeing says the plane will stall out if you tried to fly it at 500 under 1500 ft, yeah some good visual evidence, which video has the flt speed indicator listed?
Dont the videos of the same event have to show the same thing?
they dont..
so which video is your favorite? I like the magenta personally, it adds pinache'
but you get a choice of colors and planes.
you should believe everything your govt -
and fox news tells you, they would never lie to YOU.. they couldnt fly planes at all
The source is boeing and you can call them as well, do you need me to look up the # for you too?
so YOU DO follow what the fox and govt tells you..
sad-
at least the truthers believe in an investigation of 911, unlike you or the "official comission" which started with the brainscrub that osama did it and threw out everything else...
better be a good boy or the superarab boogeyman will come get you.
Forcefully detaining people against their will? Hmmmm. I don't think we're getting the whole story on what happened in NYC that day, but I guess that much is obvious.
So a 1 second clip of a guy telling another man that he needs to get out of there brings you to the conclusion that people were held against their will???
Let's see. When someone has both their hands grasping the back of your shirt trying to direct you from behind, and the person being grabbed and pushed is saying "No no, I'm alright let me go" that isn't being held against your will to you? Did you even watch the video or are you just arguing to argue?
You mean the part at the very end of this video that ends abruptly? It looks to me like the guy was being forcibly removed from the area for his own protection. You left out the part where the guy is telling him "Hey, you gotta get outta here".
I think you're really not wanting to listen to what he said for some reason. No no I'm alright LET ME GO. If he was being escorted for his own safety he would have been told to run or something. He is being forcibly detained and directed like I said earlier. Do you notice this behavior in any other vids? No. You ignore the fact the agent, or whatever he is, is grabbing the man's shirt from the back.
I think you're ignoring something that's basic common sense. If you're in the middle of a disaster area, the emergency workers want you to get the fuck out of their way!! Hell, if you stand around in the middle of the scene of a car wreck, some cop will tell you to leave! Havent you seen all the other videos where the police, firemen, etc are telling people to PLEASE LEAVE THE AREA AND WALK NORTH????
Basic common sense? You can't even see what was happening before that part. You see the guy walk in controlling him from the back and then walks off with him while everyone else around there is standing still. There are at least 5 people in the background walking normally. And he's being escorted by who actually? No badge. No identifying name of what agency he works for. Just a tie. And also. Don't act like there were not New Yorkers all over those streets when WTC1, 2 and 7 collapsed.
Your Government. The same "I don't give a shit" attitutude thats been prevailent within our agencies for years. The same ones who have security clearances, but won't say shit. The same one's who had the information and did nothing. The same ones who point the finger at another country before taking responsiblity for its own actions. The same ones who could not find WMD's. The same ones who talk the talk, but cannot walk the walk. Shitbirds, thugs and punks wearing suits and ties in D.C.
wow your a good shot. I wonder if I joined the suits are we sworn to secrecy? I do know it is Satans system and thats why this filds the way it did. Truth shal set us free.
Believe what you want to believe. You won't get far in a world that cannot even believe in itself. Thats the big lie. Instead, we are being told what to believe by people who cannot even believe in itself. More money and profit is made by those who fool people this way. Reality is a hard slap in the face to those suit and tie folks. They get away with their own false sense of identity that they become used to it.
There were thousands and thousands of people in Manhatten watching this awful event unfold,are you telling me they didn,t see planes hitting the buildings. What qualifies these people to say this was an inside job.They are sad ,lonely,pathetic,paranoid,self important people who have no regard for the victims or their families.
What the hell do you think is going to happen when an airliner crashes at full speed into a skyscraper.I,s not going to bounce off, ,They caused massive damage to the building core,iron work and support trusses that were supporting the upper floors.How much weight do you think is 20 floors of a modern office block??????? I,m no Isaac Newton but anyone who works in construction would know that those buildings were doomed as soon as the planes flew in.
bytorbytor2112: Two planes flying 500mph at low altitude crashed STRAIGHT AND CENTER into each skyscraper? It is impossible. No Pilot is that good. It defies physics. Both skyscrapers collapse STARAIGHT DOWN? That defies physics. Nothing is that perfect. That kind of precision can only be made.
They were flying at a thousand feet ... if you think its hard to crash a plane into a stationary object you should read about the kamikaze's in WWII who struck moving objects (ships).
Everyone knows terrorists have been hijacking planes for decades. Your not telling me something new. What I am saying is the fact that two jet airliners steered directly center into both buildings at 500mph. That would not be EASY to do.
"What I am saying is the fact that two jet airliners steered directly center into both buildings at 500mph. That would not be EASY to do. "
Why?
Both planes were already airborne, so not take off required. The targets were the largest/tallest buildings in the largest city. Kind of hard to miss. What would be so hard? If you have the nerve, its easy to kill yourself when you are in control of a large plane.
It it were not for the fact that Bush has always had a hard on for war with Iraq I would be convinced that this was true. But, I have many unanswered questions as far as who was in charge of national security before this event as well as who was in charge after this event. I am very well certain that if everyone were privy to the entire truth of this 9/11 event we would all be surprised. Show me one person in Government who was resposible besides the 'terrorists"?
I think you're making light of how hard 757s and 767s are to fly. This isn't a plane that one could learn to fly by practicing on a cessna. Real pilots are required to spend hours in simulators I thought. The "terrorists" were reported to do unheard of dives and precise turns at very high speeds. Not only that they were able to get 3 planes moving 480+mph to hit three targets with a range of error of about 30 feet. That's three bulleyes in three hours. Pretty good for a group of rag tags, eh?
You may have an argument with the Pentagon - but I do not believe either tower would have been difficult to hit. Largest building in largest city and all that.
bweazel, so you're either saying that the planes were flown by professional pilots who committed suicide, or they were flown by RC which would be MUCH, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to fly. Which is it?
Personally I believe they were cruise missiles and everything we've seen on TV is fake. While I do believe that, it's not too realistic, but to answer your question I think remote control would not be hard at all. That technology was avaiable in the 80s and they were able to hit a target about 10 feet wide. Now let me ask you something. What do you believe? And are you trying to tell me, you think these "hijackers" were expert pilots? Why do you believe RC would be MUCH MUCH MORE difficult?
I was refering to the possibility to set a plane up to be flown by remote control. I do not believe this technology exists in planes that can be simply switched on and switched off at any time. That would be a bit unnerving. Nasa did an experiment back in the 80s that used remote control technology. That's what I was refering to.
I believe Islamic terrorists hijacked jets and intentionally flew them into buildings, except for the plane forced down when the passengers fought back. This is what the evidence overwhelmingly tells us, which is significant because the attacks of 9/11 were the MOST DOCUMENTED EVENTS IN HISTORY!! How can you explain the many thousands of eyewitnesses on the streets of NYC who saw planes fly into the WTC? Why would "THEY" direct everyone's attention to the WTC, then fake a plane crash?
And no, the hjers werent "expert pilots", they were flying school students who knew enough to crash the planes. And do you really think remote control of a 757 would be easy, with it's size and speed? That's not even getting into the fact that Boeing says their planes cannot be flown RC.
A RC system requires a clear visual on the target (multiple cameras), a transmission system of recieving and giving executable commands,and would require several seconds of natural delay time to process any command given. All of this plus it would have to be hidden somewhere so no one could see it. The largest predator drones are only about 25 ft and have an accident rate 100 times higher that manned aircraft. That would be an unacceptable risk in a conspiracy scenario.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Cite that ridiculous claim that drones are more likely to crash than manned aircrafts. The technology has been around since the 80s. I'm sure they have near perfected it over 20 years.
Don't try to quantify the likelihood of one conspiracy over another. Let's stick to the main point. This entire thing might be a conspiracy. That's a pretty big risk to kill 3000 of your own citizens for profit and contrrtol.
"Cite that ridiculous claim that drones are more likely to crash than manned aircrafts."
The Wall Street Journal, Aug 7, 2006 in an article titled "Drones in Domestic Skies?" It would be a ridiculous risk to kill 3000 of your own citizens, that's why it's extremely unlikely it happened that way. That's the whole point. Logic. The US govt has plenty of means to gain profit & control WITHOUT resorting to murdering it's own citizens in a huge, costly elaborate hoax!
So if the Towers weren't exploding into powder as they collapsed, just what the hell would an exploding building look like? With so much mass being ejected every direction up, out and away from the buildings, what small percent of dust is left to collapse the lower 2/3 of the vritually uninjured buildings? I don't recall sulfur being used as a major construction tool yet it is found throughout the debris. So much for the Madrid tower fire of 20 hours that didn't collapse.....
I wonder about some of this footage. For example, at :32, would the cameraman just stand there as that wall of smoke was coming toward them like that? I wonder how much of the footage wasn't real.
demolition period - done by Bush the front man for the 13 families that run the West. Shall I name them? Reason: A forever threat to americans, homeland security wiretapping, the patriot act, the end of freedom, the next move for the NEW WORLD. DEMOLITION PERIOD -- Obama Sez CHANGE - I say "FOCUS" Focus people, and get your head out of your al quida butt,
My question to all these pukes like Denierbud11 is why? Why are you on all these pages, why do you spend the energy trying to convince us? Do I go to your sites and talk shit to you? No, because if I did I would be an asshole. Whether it be aliens or elvis or fucking stupid celebreties, I dont go over there to fuck with people.. So, I ask you, why are you here? What do you hope to gain?
Why do I bother, because I think lies that defame the death of the victims of that day should not go unchecked.
Why do yoy lie about the events of that day? Are you just a fucking pathetic piece of shit, or are you so stupid that you think the live video shown that day was facked by ever media outlet, including foreing media outlets?
Do you think the witneses lie? Do you think the family that received phone calls are liars?
No offense, but regardless of how they died, they were still innocent victims, whether or not they were killed by our government. (I think they were).
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet,
Very convenient. Somehow it sounds about as likely as a fireball traveling DOWN 90 stories and destroying the lobby. Right. Man. Why do you guys try so hard to stay in a happy everything is perfect world? Where there are evil terrorists who want to kill us and a highly unlikely set of events that unfolded....... the way a fricking television show reported them. *sigh*
So now I think I have shown that explosions do not mean bombs, and in our other example (B-25), there were many explosions, therefore explosions were expected.
The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire.
"The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor"
Why else would someone (he's one of many just so you know) say there were explosions unless of course.... there were explosions. It collapsed did it? Ever stop to think the buildings may have had a bit of explosive help in bringing them down? I think I'll listen to the guy covered in WTC dust that said he heard explosions.
"stop to think the buildings may have had a bit of explosive help in bringing them down?"
Ever stop to think that things other than explosives explode - like generators.
When a B-25 hit the Empire State Building in 1945, there were reports of explosions - does that mean there were bombs planted in the Empire State Building?
Wow bud. You're just reaching for anything now. Does this mean you official theorists are starting to see the light? Let's see. Which is more probable? The WTC had generators next to or around all the core columns at the impact zone, that remained in tact for an hour and a half and then all at the same time "exploded" starting a collapse.... or, option two, there were explosives planted in the building. I'd have to go with option two.
"The WTC had generators next to or around all the core columns at the impact zone"
I guess logic does not work for you. Please tell me who saw explosions around all the core columns or how you come to the conclusion that this occurred.
What is more probable, that generators and other items exploded from fire, or that bombs were planted under the noses of the NYPA Police, tenants and Mainteance works in three buildings?
One, people make mistakes. Two, the guy was in shock and probably didn't think of what he said. Three, the plane hit, the building exploded, and then collapsed...Thoes poor people...
You say it so matter of factly. Why do you official theorists act like this is all fact? There are no facts on 9/11. You think just because the news told you something it's true and you can all act like arrogant asses when confronted with a differing opinion? Please be a little more open minded.
You dumb ass. How the hell would you know what I've done? You have to be one of the most arrogant people on youtube. I've said that before I know, but it's very true. Truthers have lots. Just conservative people like you that want to live in the past and not move forward refuse to accept any point we make. That's your own damn fault.
I have not dismissed anything, bud. My stance is I do not know what happened, but I sure do not believe the official version. You, on the other hand, believe the official version and attempt to ridicule people who disagree. Through our discussions I can tell you are close minded and do not care to research any other possibilities of what could have happened. You just care to defend the official version. That's it. You try to make light of the explosions, we think they are a big deal.
"You just care to defend the official version. That's it."
And all you do is dismiss facts that are harmful to your alternative events. Don't play the "I'm just investigating" canard - you are die hard in your beliefs, you sure as hell did not stop to consider the alternative I gave for explosions - though that alternative is endorsed by the NYFD.
There you go again being arrogant and calling things facts. I am not die hard in my beliefs. We've had this talk as well. Wow really? The same NYFD that said they heard explosions? Really depends on which firefighters you get on camera there, doesn't it bud?
I think the ones that could give us what we needed to know are dead now. There are a couple NYPD cops that have come forward and I think I have seen some firefighters too. And listen bud. Just because your governments facts haven't been disproven yet does not make them fact. Just makes them theories that have stood the test of time thus far. Need I remind you alot of things you official theorists hold up as facts have been changed plenty of times before. I'll look for a firefighter though
my dad saw the twin towers before 911 and he has pictures i am 11 now and am trying to learn about 911
indec1224 2 months ago
@indec1224 Basically the buildings were attacked by hijacked planes and were thrown to the ground. The idea of them failing in their footprint does make sense is because the buildings are so high stacked and upwards stable. Not to the side, so dont listen to these idiots about the entire Governemnt doing this to go to war when clearly we could have made a better excuse. Although its good to notice that buildings have been on fire longer than this and the Osama and Bush relations. But thats it.
DarPower1 2 months ago
@indec1224 People will say its acted or fake, and everyone was told to run even though there is clearly a dust cloud. Its bullshit. The pressure makes the towers collapse on itself. But i personally do believe (i dont know) that somebody in our Governemnt helped the terrorist. But its not an inside job. We didnt blow up the Empire State Building as an excuse to go to War in Vietnam so why would we do that now? Cause people are morons. They 're bitches to conspiracies in the name of freedom.
DarPower1 2 months ago
micronuke
mooncat1965 3 months ago
What's scary is the man in the dark long coat following purposefully behind them. What did this poor man witness that they honed in on him. And is he alive today to tell?
whatsyourbeefny 3 months ago
demolition
jkennerson123 4 months ago
I kept track of how many seconds it took for the first tower to fall and I got 9 seconds! HOLY SHIT!!!
SpecializedChild462 4 months ago
inside job..pathetic cheap actors...HELL.
brian2010lal 6 months ago
I watch this and the first thing that comes to mind is INSIDE JOB
qazzzie 7 months ago
demolition, demolition, demolition I N S I D E___J O B
INSIDE JOKE.
fastfoodclowns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 = 100% Inside Job
Born2Flesh 9 months ago
Holy HOT DAMN do you all hear those cutter charges!? Listen closely, it's a continual pattern of 'pow, pow, pow, pow!'
mit26chell 11 months ago
Nice job, a controlled demolition gem. Well done, condolences to the deceased.
DMB1985CA 1 year ago
My question is why Bldg 7 was such a hush hush that over 70% of PPL on the westcoast didnt even know of its existence. That is a number I heard and I believe it to because Katrina had a way of remaining a secret and you see it happening again with BP. Ughhh! There is definitely more known then we are to be told but one thing is for sure,The patriot act is the least American thing I have seen happen B4 my eyes! Unless, they wantedt a revolution 2 show the gov what true PATRIOTISM means!
vilekyle22 1 year ago
@vilekyle22 Wait, so "70%" of you west costers didn't know about WTC7. OK whats your point. Name one building that NYC folk would know that is as small as WTC7. In NYC that was not a big building. Would you believe a man jumped from the 39th floor of a building and lived? Did you hear about that? Does that mean it never happend?
krichards816 1 year ago
@krichards816 what i was trying to say was people were not informed of bldg 7 through the media. We heard so much about the twin towers but never about bldg 7. This makes me wonder why? I have a question: Why was molten steel found at the base of bldg 7? I heard why on the towers but no explaination for bldg 7.
vilekyle22 1 year ago
What's with the helicopter flying so close by just as the planes hit the tower?? At about 11 seconds into the video...
Cantantora 1 year ago
@Cantantora Its not as close as it looks. Not a real far leap in logic.
krichards816 1 year ago
1,250 Architects and Engineers have signed a petition for a reinvestigation of the collapse of the buildings. They state the building were in a free fall only possible with a controlled demolition.Not with a plane crashing into them!
IDtopsecret 1 year ago 20
@IDtopsecret 31,254 Architects and Engineers have also signed a petition that they agree with the findings. Why so few people for reinvestigation? Hmmm.
krichards816 1 year ago
@krichards816 could you show me what petition this is you are referring to.
robinsl27 1 year ago
@IDtopsecret Buildings that tall are built so that if their integrity is compromised enough to cause a collapse, they 'pancake' like that so that they don't cause damage to any of the surrounding buildings. The weight of the floors above where the crashes were can easily cause a single floor beneath to collapse immediately. You think they hid explosives in every single floor without a single person noticing? Looks like they unblocked YouTube on the computers in the mental hospitals.
v0lc0mma5ter 4 months ago
@IDtopsecret Controlled demolition means somebody helped crash the planes with the explosives in the buildings. It doesnt mean everyone in the Gov thought it up and was in on it. It means Bush and Osama probably got together and fucked something. I doubt Bush was even in on it, seeing how dumb he was to basically admit the Afghan war had nothing to do with attacks of the WTC,
DarPower1 2 months ago
There's been a huge explosion down at ground level? Not to worry it's just the explosives from the demolition.
IDtopsecret 1 year ago 3
@IDtopsecret thats a fine thought but it collapsed from the top down
MagnumPI4 1 year ago
@IDtopsecret Nope, its the air being pushed out as the building collapses.
krichards816 1 year ago
So what does history teach us ... when the empire state building was hit by a B52 bomber back in the 1940s, it did not collapse as the WTC towers did, there was not dust all over the place, and I don't recall a passport being found on a nearby sidewalk either! It is what it is -
B4iGo2it 1 year ago 3
@B4iGo2it OK, it was not a b52. Let start with that tiny fact. It was a b25. The 52 was not around until the 50's. The b25 that hit the ESB weighed around 2500lbs and carries about 1000 gallons of fuel. A 767 (hit WTC) weighs 250000LBS and carried 24000 gallons of fuel. The construction type of the two buildings is totally different. But why bring and facts in. Where did you get your info. If you going to argue at least get the basics right. Just makes you all look stupid.
krichards816 1 year ago
@krichards816 your right its not a B52 its a commercial airplane. Frank A DeMartini was quoted as saying that the each building was designed to survive a plane crash in fact he even said that each building could survive several plane crashes due to its design. Also there are some witnesses that have come forth such as William Rodriguez that said that there was an explosion from the basement that pushed him upwards.
robinsl27 1 year ago
@robinsl27 First, thank you for a logical response. I am not in bed with the gov. but I SAW the plan (second to be exact) impact the towers. I dont believe the BS that we have been feed, but I do believe it was THIS simple to hijack plans on 9/11. I am not sure about the petition I ref. in my post I could not find it. I think I was responding to a truther telling me there was a petition stating no aircraft hit the WTC's. I would be more than happy to debate like grown adults. Respect- K-
krichards816 1 year ago
@krichards816 much respect to you too. I get flack from the debunkers and the 9/11 truthers sometimes b/c Im not in step with what they say. I think on both sides you get some people that have not looked at the evidence and say whatever someone suggest to them the truth is. if you want to watch a really good documentary on 9/11 watch "zero 9/11" it is kind of boring I'll warn you but it is full of real good fact. also watch davin coburn of pop mechanics vs charles goyette. it is very intriguing
robinsl27 1 year ago
@robinsl27
How do you explain all 3 WTC's falling at free fall speeds?
How do you explain the molten metal found there weeks afterwards?
surfn123 5 months ago
People conspired to do this the question is who was ultimately in control and what was/is thier motive?!!!!
The facts are that those buildings inc7 where not taken down just by aircraft hitting them!!!
That is obvious to see!!!
Jesusizjdoe 1 year ago 2
dragged away...told to comply...or be shot.
end of.
p4kiprincess 2 years ago 12
@p4kiprincess I doubt that
DarPower1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarPower1 then you are a fool.
p4kiprincess 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why did the plane not go right through and out the other side of the wtc? At the speed it was going you would think it would.
Terminator860 2 years ago
Not if you're educated.
NotZeMaidOfOrleansFV 2 years ago 5
well it may be going that fast but imagine all the steel and cement and all the stuff it had to go through and plus it exploded into the building
MrForthewin 2 years ago
Because the plane was torn to shreds.
EdwardPack1988 2 years ago
It looks like he probably didn't end up surviving..
e105b5 2 years ago
didn take much to stop the discussion..
No more clever retorts?
No more Lloyd England agrees with the official story?
No more arlington workers agreeing with the official story?
no more "move along nothing to see here"..
giantshadows 2 years ago
NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION
Go check it out in the favorites on my page, perhaps this will help clear up some of the pentagon mess as well as highlight some EYEWITNESS testimony ( not real evidence to denierbud), but eyewitnesses, pay special attention to the last witness Lloyd England and how he and the conspiritors came across the bridge together-
How can the Arlington witnesses contradict the official report..?
Still no question about the official story? denialist
giantshadows 2 years ago
Anything done by that Avery asshole is laughable. I dont see what England'sinterview is supposed to proove. Even if one (out of many) witness has fuzzy recollections about what precisely happened that day 7 years ago, how does that proove a conspiracy by the US govt? How many eyewitnesses have testified that they saw a missile hit the Pentagon? How many eyewitnesses agree with your idiot CTs? So is England supposed to be in on it too?
skankspankr 2 years ago
Why dont you just watch it instead of crying about something you didnt even look at. Nobody said they saw what hit the pentagon-
And it is NOT dylan avery. How many people actually claim to have seen a anything actually hit the pentagon?
Think you could remember which side of a gas station a jet flew over 7 years later?
Are you that retarded?
England says he is in on it, I didnt say it-
Try watching it before you toss a tantrum-
i dont care what you believe-
giantshadows 2 years ago
well shanks at least you looked, if you dont want to believe it, cool with me.
extremely unlikely?
easier to blame a phantom...
giantshadows 2 years ago
you dont want evidence, you want to sleep soundly at night knowing bush and cheney protected you. Anything to the contrary would crush your idea of life.
If you have no questions about 911, you are happy being wrapped in a lie.
Wonder why they passed retroactive
immunity for wiretaps on Americans back to 2000, why would there be no record of what dick & george said to the commision?
Let you kids grow up in the plastic world of superarab boogeymen and heros who never fought only deferred-
giantshadows 2 years ago
Just listen to the newer 2 part Lloyd England interview, he is a bonafied witness we can all agree on right?
if you cant find it its in my favorites on my page.
I wont say what hesays, watch it for yourself.
Also remember his wife works for the FBI..
Barry jennings is dead this year, but he still has quite an eyewitness account.
The important thing to remember is if we are wrong, nothing changes, but if you are wrong everything changes, the time since begins to make sense and you see.
giantshadows 2 years ago
denierbud is just in denial, so cool-
shanks at least seems to be willing to look at the evidence somewhat.
My explanation is not mine bro, it came from boeing, not me.
Commercial jets just have limitations, just like steel buildings, or the pentagon, so many laws were suspended on 911, its funny you "smart guys" have no questions. you just accept what happened pay no attention to what has happened since because of 911-
pay a few more trillion and accept your fate. If you are content its ok.
giantshadows 2 years ago
"denierbud is just in denial, so cool"
I just want to see evidence, not arguments from incredulity
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Then you should join with us to ask for another investigation free from the executive branch. Another investigation where we can recall Cheney and Bush, make them testify seperately and possibly, just possibly under oath this time, I think that's only fair. That's one of many ways a new investigation would benefit us.
bweazel 2 years ago 2
Yawn, you just learned more about 911 in 2 hours than you have ever known and still cant admit you were lied to.
I cant save you from your stupidity-
only laugh..
giantshadows 2 years ago
you dont even know who barry jennings is
or Lloyd England..
The govt doesnt lie to you does it.
I have read the Arlington report as well as the NYC Fire Dept report.. As well as the offical coincedence theory report, very unimpressive and all had to be cleared through the official channels..
You can believe what you want dumbass
and stay confused as to what happened or why, you have zero evidence to back up your claims mostly made up by you.
No slam dunk evidence they promised you stupid?
giantshadows 2 years ago
I know who both Jennings and Lloyd England are - but I am not going to guess what you think they said that contradicted the events of the day.
Again, what NON truther source have you used?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
your logic-
15 saudis and 4 hitchikers commit 4 acts of terror inside the USA, so lets go invade iraq...
makes perfect sense to you-
and most children.
giantshadows 2 years ago
"so lets go invade iraq..."
I never said that 911 justified Iraq, nor am I a defender of Bush - but I do know the truthers lie and every argument you have tried is defeated
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Lloyd England- the cabdriver with the pole in his car..
look that up and see what he says-
firsthand witness-
Barry jennings, died this year, firsthand witness-
if you find any lies or distortions in the official version, the whole becomes suspect-
why did bush and cheney talk to the 911 comission together, no oath, no record of what they said-
why do kean and hamilton now say they began with a conclusion and didnt look at anything that didnt merit said conclusion..
get busy-
giantshadows 2 years ago
Regarding Boeing, its your claim to make and prove.
good luck
You are a coward aren't you
I explained FBI
Otherwise is just chatter
But are you going to explain why you have ignored the earlier post regarding primary sources of evidence - why have ignored them?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
giantshadows 2 years ago
"any evidence disproving Barry jennings or Lloyd England"
What do I need to disprove regarding Lloyed England or Barry Jennings - just droping names or do you have an issue?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"I explained fbi"-
No you didnt call them yourself nor will you because you are not a debunker, youre just an idiot who cant handle the truth that you were lied to intentionally to invade iraq and build a pipeline across afghanistan..
Obviously you havnt read anything about 911 or you would have major problems with the coincedence theory..
but you just keep your fingers in your ears screaming nooooooooooooooooooo-
we will just laugh at you
giantshadows 2 years ago
"Obviously you havnt read anything about 911 "
Have you found the Arlington fire department report yet - do you need a link?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
so you dont want your own firsthand info.
So you wont call FBI or Boeing because they are twoofers.. right...
What did bhutto say about osamas murder by shiek omar to BBC?
he is dead since 2001. Then she is executed, so find that videotape( BBC did edit that out on their website.) coincidence-
The FBI spokesperson says they have NO EVIDENCE linking osama to 911-
No DOD smokescreen there-
There is Boeing, FBI and BBC, but since they go against your beliefs you consider them truthers.
sad.
giantshadows 2 years ago
you wont call boeing and make a video of what they tell you because you will look sillier than you already do.
you dont want the firsthand sources that tell you it isnt possible, Boeing is probly in on it too, real truthers there at Boeing-
Look at what doesnt agree with your official conspiracy, make that video of your call..
why isnt osama on the FBI list for 911?
NO EVIDENCE!
Call the FBI and ask them yourself.
where is all that bulletproof evidence we were promised by govt in 11-01?
giantshadows 2 years ago
"why isnt osama on the FBI list for 911?"
Because he has not been indicted, he is being sought as part of a department of defense operation - they want him in a tribunal, not a criminal court.
Still waiting for your list of non-truther sources.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
denierbud= serious stupid ass
acting like you just take the steering wheel and fly a plane..
what a dumb fucking thing to say or even imply-
you can tell he has never flown a plane or probly ever been on one-
towers were NOT hit at 500mph because those planes will not get close to 500 mph at under 1500ft- hell dumbass!!! boing will tell you that, any pilot will tell you that-
inside job, brainscrubbed jackass, you have to be a child not to know that
giantshadows 2 years ago 2
What a dickhead! A plane might night reach 500 mph when you're FLYING it at lower than 1500 ft, but if you're PLUMMETING from well over that height while intentionally CRASHING an airplane, than you can definitely go that fast!! What a dumbass!!!
skankspankr 2 years ago
as usual you dont comprhend how difficult it is to fly that plane.
you think, oh just take the wheel and hit the gas pedal..
so simple..
like your brain
giantshadows 2 years ago
"like your brain "
And you have no idea what would be involoved if half your nit wit ideas were true - but being a nitwit limits your ability to reason.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
alright so you now reply to responses not yours too..
if the shoe fits I guess..
If you get all your info from trusted govt sources (the official conspiracy) and believe in no evidence or corroboration,
you must believe everything they say.. so yeah, the shoe fits.
giantshadows 2 years ago
I do not get my information from government sources - when possible I look at the primary source
Do you do the same> Or do you rely on what truthers say?
Have you ever read the Arlington Fire Department Report? The Somerset County report? NYPD official police report? NYFD oral histories or audio tapes from 911? What have you done to research the event? Please list the non-truther sites and sources for your information.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
no shithead, you call boeing and ask them, stop being such a screwball tossing out all kinds of nonsense-
YOU CALL BOEING YOU LAZY CUNT-
Ask them about turning a jet at speeds and angles like the one that hit the pentagon, get your facts right, they will laugh at you too...
giantshadows 2 years ago
"no shithead, you call boeing and ask them, stop being such a screwball tossing out all kinds of nonsense-"
Its your claim not mine
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Your source is fox news and official conspiracy nonsense.
Ask the cabdriver what really happened to wind up with a lightpole in his car..
that is first hand info and it goes totally against everything you stand for...
you dont look ata nything that goes against your osama did it crap, dont care who funded the operation either i am sure, just like the comission, "it isnt important..
jeez, you are a debunker?
laughing at you-
giantshadows 2 years ago
giant, who said they think it's simple to fly a plane? The hijackers had flight training, they knew enough about flying to crash their planes, simple as that. Your explanation about not being able to fly 500 mph under 1500 ft is misleading, and doesnt apply to what happened on 9/11, no matter what you want to believe.
skankspankr 2 years ago
Please don't act like a person that flys a cesna is certified or even able to handle a commercial airliner in the manner they were reported to fly. His statement is not misleading. I'm sure a plane is even more difficult to precisely steer in that lower air density. I question if a plane can even do that speed at that altitude.
bweazel 2 years ago
Please dont put words in my mouth that I didnt say. The CONTEXT of his statement is what's misleading. The hijackers werent flying the plane at 15oo ft going 500+ mph the whole flight, they were rapidly descending from higher altitude. Do you think planes have anti-lock brakes that automatically slow the plane down when it hits a certain altitude? If a plane is hurtling PURPOSELY to the ground, it's not a normal flight condition. I doubt if the hijackers had SAFETY issues on their minds!
skankspankr 2 years ago
I never put words in your mouth. I responded to your comment. Stop being so sensitive and just debate, ok? By the way. They WERE reported as doing those speeds the whole flight, but not the altitude. The air traffic controllers have even said they thought it was a military plane and that they thought it was something small and manuverable like a fighter jet, NOT a 767. It's obvious you don't understand aerodynamics. Those breaks you are talking about is air density. It will slow the plane.
bweazel 2 years ago
"air traffic controllers have even said they thought it was a military plane"
Why not provide the whole quote?
""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Unsafe being the key here.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
True. Thank you for extending the quote. To me that means that the pilot would need to be that much better at flying a 767 to be able to fly the plane unsafely. While I agree with you that his quote isn't really supportive of my point of view it still raises questions like the one I just brought up. If they thought it was military, they were most likely impressed by the speed and maneuverability. To keep a plane in the air doing that stuff you have to be an expert I would imagine.
bweazel 2 years ago
"To keep a plane in the air doing that stuff you have to be an expert I would imagine"
Or have a disregard for safety ... but yes, diffrent conclusions can be drawn.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
True true.
bweazel 2 years ago
You also have to keep in mind that nobody was expecting that the plane was deliberately being crashed.
skankspankr 2 years ago
Maybe for the first one, but after AA11 hit they knew what was going on. Took them an hour and while watching the other 2 hit their targets they still had the same things to say about them as the first.
bweazel 2 years ago
This quote is in relations to the third plane
Denierbud11 2 years ago
You act like those 3 planes were the only planes in the air on 9/11. And as denierbud pointed out, they were refering to the 3rd plane, so I dont understand what you meant when you said they still had the same things to say as the first.
skankspankr 2 years ago
And as I pointed out, there are many different accounts of all 3 planes. They has the same things to say, i.e. They were moving extremely fast, making crazy turns.
bweazel 2 years ago
In other words, the ATCs were saying "What's that guy trying to do, crash that thing?" Which IS EXACTLY what he was doing.
skankspankr 2 years ago
If the plane wasnt flying that altitude the whole time, it makes your point about the "500 mph at 1500 ft" absolutely pointless. Obviously, that speed can be maintained at higher altitudes. The ATCers thought they were witnessing somebody doing crazy stunts, they had no idea that they were watching somebody intentionally crash an airplane, of course their perspective would have been different BEFORE hand. What do those ATCs think now? Do they still think they saw a military plane?
skankspankr 2 years ago
Giantshadow - please tell us why it would be difficult to locate the largest building in the largest city that towers above every other building in the city?
You claim the planes were not moving fast, yet the visual evidence tells us they were - so who should we believe?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I don't know. I agree it would be a task to fly any plane without proper assistance from ground control. These men, who were supposedly disgruntled Saudis with minimal educations, managed to take a plane off its course and direct the planes to 3 different targets. I would just like to know where they got all the know-how to fly a 767. Those are some complicated systems in those cockpits. It's my understanding, that pilots receive their cords from the ground. Where did they get them?
bweazel 2 years ago
boeing says the plane will stall out if you tried to fly it at 500 under 1500 ft, yeah some good visual evidence, which video has the flt speed indicator listed?
Dont the videos of the same event have to show the same thing?
they dont..
so which video is your favorite? I like the magenta personally, it adds pinache'
but you get a choice of colors and planes.
you should believe everything your govt -
and fox news tells you, they would never lie to YOU.. they couldnt fly planes at all
giantshadows 2 years ago
"boeing says the plane will stall out if you tried to fly it at 500 under 1500 ft"
Source?
"you should believe everything your govt -
and fox news tells you"
Hey, why don't we blindly follow everything any truther on the internet says - they would never lie right?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The source is boeing and you can call them as well, do you need me to look up the # for you too?
so YOU DO follow what the fox and govt tells you..
sad-
at least the truthers believe in an investigation of 911, unlike you or the "official comission" which started with the brainscrub that osama did it and threw out everything else...
better be a good boy or the superarab boogeyman will come get you.
as a child-
giantshadows 2 years ago
Forcefully detaining people against their will? Hmmmm. I don't think we're getting the whole story on what happened in NYC that day, but I guess that much is obvious.
bweazel 2 years ago 2
So a 1 second clip of a guy telling another man that he needs to get out of there brings you to the conclusion that people were held against their will???
skankspankr 2 years ago
Let's see. When someone has both their hands grasping the back of your shirt trying to direct you from behind, and the person being grabbed and pushed is saying "No no, I'm alright let me go" that isn't being held against your will to you? Did you even watch the video or are you just arguing to argue?
bweazel 2 years ago
You mean the part at the very end of this video that ends abruptly? It looks to me like the guy was being forcibly removed from the area for his own protection. You left out the part where the guy is telling him "Hey, you gotta get outta here".
skankspankr 2 years ago
I think you're really not wanting to listen to what he said for some reason. No no I'm alright LET ME GO. If he was being escorted for his own safety he would have been told to run or something. He is being forcibly detained and directed like I said earlier. Do you notice this behavior in any other vids? No. You ignore the fact the agent, or whatever he is, is grabbing the man's shirt from the back.
bweazel 2 years ago 2
I think you're ignoring something that's basic common sense. If you're in the middle of a disaster area, the emergency workers want you to get the fuck out of their way!! Hell, if you stand around in the middle of the scene of a car wreck, some cop will tell you to leave! Havent you seen all the other videos where the police, firemen, etc are telling people to PLEASE LEAVE THE AREA AND WALK NORTH????
skankspankr 2 years ago
Basic common sense? You can't even see what was happening before that part. You see the guy walk in controlling him from the back and then walks off with him while everyone else around there is standing still. There are at least 5 people in the background walking normally. And he's being escorted by who actually? No badge. No identifying name of what agency he works for. Just a tie. And also. Don't act like there were not New Yorkers all over those streets when WTC1, 2 and 7 collapsed.
bweazel 2 years ago
shanks did you find the lloyd england?
just give it a look.
giantshadows 2 years ago
Your Government. The same "I don't give a shit" attitutude thats been prevailent within our agencies for years. The same ones who have security clearances, but won't say shit. The same one's who had the information and did nothing. The same ones who point the finger at another country before taking responsiblity for its own actions. The same ones who could not find WMD's. The same ones who talk the talk, but cannot walk the walk. Shitbirds, thugs and punks wearing suits and ties in D.C.
7514328 2 years ago
wow your a good shot. I wonder if I joined the suits are we sworn to secrecy? I do know it is Satans system and thats why this filds the way it did. Truth shal set us free.
diamondcalves 2 years ago
Believe what you want to believe. You won't get far in a world that cannot even believe in itself. Thats the big lie. Instead, we are being told what to believe by people who cannot even believe in itself. More money and profit is made by those who fool people this way. Reality is a hard slap in the face to those suit and tie folks. They get away with their own false sense of identity that they become used to it.
7514328 2 years ago
There were thousands and thousands of people in Manhatten watching this awful event unfold,are you telling me they didn,t see planes hitting the buildings. What qualifies these people to say this was an inside job.They are sad ,lonely,pathetic,paranoid,self important people who have no regard for the victims or their families.
bytorbytor2112 2 years ago
What the hell do you think is going to happen when an airliner crashes at full speed into a skyscraper.I,s not going to bounce off, ,They caused massive damage to the building core,iron work and support trusses that were supporting the upper floors.How much weight do you think is 20 floors of a modern office block??????? I,m no Isaac Newton but anyone who works in construction would know that those buildings were doomed as soon as the planes flew in.
bytorbytor2112 2 years ago
bytorbytor2112: Two planes flying 500mph at low altitude crashed STRAIGHT AND CENTER into each skyscraper? It is impossible. No Pilot is that good. It defies physics. Both skyscrapers collapse STARAIGHT DOWN? That defies physics. Nothing is that perfect. That kind of precision can only be made.
7514328 2 years ago
They were flying at a thousand feet ... if you think its hard to crash a plane into a stationary object you should read about the kamikaze's in WWII who struck moving objects (ships).
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe that any terrorist could get the training and skill to do this THE FIRST TIME.
7514328 2 years ago
Why do you find this hard to believe? Crashing a plane is easy, and terroritsts have been hijacking planes for decades.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Everyone knows terrorists have been hijacking planes for decades. Your not telling me something new. What I am saying is the fact that two jet airliners steered directly center into both buildings at 500mph. That would not be EASY to do.
7514328 2 years ago
"What I am saying is the fact that two jet airliners steered directly center into both buildings at 500mph. That would not be EASY to do. "
Why?
Both planes were already airborne, so not take off required. The targets were the largest/tallest buildings in the largest city. Kind of hard to miss. What would be so hard? If you have the nerve, its easy to kill yourself when you are in control of a large plane.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
It it were not for the fact that Bush has always had a hard on for war with Iraq I would be convinced that this was true. But, I have many unanswered questions as far as who was in charge of national security before this event as well as who was in charge after this event. I am very well certain that if everyone were privy to the entire truth of this 9/11 event we would all be surprised. Show me one person in Government who was resposible besides the 'terrorists"?
7514328 2 years ago
"Show me one person in Government who was resposible besides the 'terrorists"? "
Not sure what you are looking for here.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I think you're making light of how hard 757s and 767s are to fly. This isn't a plane that one could learn to fly by practicing on a cessna. Real pilots are required to spend hours in simulators I thought. The "terrorists" were reported to do unheard of dives and precise turns at very high speeds. Not only that they were able to get 3 planes moving 480+mph to hit three targets with a range of error of about 30 feet. That's three bulleyes in three hours. Pretty good for a group of rag tags, eh?
bweazel 2 years ago
You may have an argument with the Pentagon - but I do not believe either tower would have been difficult to hit. Largest building in largest city and all that.
Denierbud11 2 years ago 2
The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world, why would it be difficult to hit? It would probably be easier to hit than the towers were.
skankspankr 2 years ago
bweazel, so you're either saying that the planes were flown by professional pilots who committed suicide, or they were flown by RC which would be MUCH, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to fly. Which is it?
skankspankr 2 years ago
Personally I believe they were cruise missiles and everything we've seen on TV is fake. While I do believe that, it's not too realistic, but to answer your question I think remote control would not be hard at all. That technology was avaiable in the 80s and they were able to hit a target about 10 feet wide. Now let me ask you something. What do you believe? And are you trying to tell me, you think these "hijackers" were expert pilots? Why do you believe RC would be MUCH MUCH MORE difficult?
bweazel 2 years ago
"That technology was avaiable in the 80s and they were able to hit a target about 10 feet wide."
It may be available, but can be disconected by the pilot at any time. The pilot controls on a Boeing were not fly by wire.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Yo Bud. It's been awhile. How's life?
I was refering to the possibility to set a plane up to be flown by remote control. I do not believe this technology exists in planes that can be simply switched on and switched off at any time. That would be a bit unnerving. Nasa did an experiment back in the 80s that used remote control technology. That's what I was refering to.
bweazel 2 years ago
Hi bweazel - life is good, its summer and all - and Pittsburgh sport teams have been kicking ass this year, Stanley Cup and Superbowl
Nice to be in the city of campions
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Go Penguins!
bweazel 2 years ago
I believe Islamic terrorists hijacked jets and intentionally flew them into buildings, except for the plane forced down when the passengers fought back. This is what the evidence overwhelmingly tells us, which is significant because the attacks of 9/11 were the MOST DOCUMENTED EVENTS IN HISTORY!! How can you explain the many thousands of eyewitnesses on the streets of NYC who saw planes fly into the WTC? Why would "THEY" direct everyone's attention to the WTC, then fake a plane crash?
skankspankr 2 years ago
And no, the hjers werent "expert pilots", they were flying school students who knew enough to crash the planes. And do you really think remote control of a 757 would be easy, with it's size and speed? That's not even getting into the fact that Boeing says their planes cannot be flown RC.
skankspankr 2 years ago
A RC system requires a clear visual on the target (multiple cameras), a transmission system of recieving and giving executable commands,and would require several seconds of natural delay time to process any command given. All of this plus it would have to be hidden somewhere so no one could see it. The largest predator drones are only about 25 ft and have an accident rate 100 times higher that manned aircraft. That would be an unacceptable risk in a conspiracy scenario.
skankspankr 2 years ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. Cite that ridiculous claim that drones are more likely to crash than manned aircrafts. The technology has been around since the 80s. I'm sure they have near perfected it over 20 years.
Don't try to quantify the likelihood of one conspiracy over another. Let's stick to the main point. This entire thing might be a conspiracy. That's a pretty big risk to kill 3000 of your own citizens for profit and contrrtol.
bweazel 2 years ago
"Cite that ridiculous claim that drones are more likely to crash than manned aircrafts."
The Wall Street Journal, Aug 7, 2006 in an article titled "Drones in Domestic Skies?" It would be a ridiculous risk to kill 3000 of your own citizens, that's why it's extremely unlikely it happened that way. That's the whole point. Logic. The US govt has plenty of means to gain profit & control WITHOUT resorting to murdering it's own citizens in a huge, costly elaborate hoax!
skankspankr 2 years ago
shanks, dont forget, they faked the gulf of tonkin that killed 58,000 Americans.
Cant dismiss that FACT-
obama is owned by the intl bankers, like bush was owned by the oil companies.
I am surprised you havnt noticed.
Esp with all the trillions in new debt we have in 6 monthes.
This admin is NO different because the elections are a joke, the plans never change no matter the "leader", just like always.
wall street financed the bolshevik revolution-
Who financed hitler?
Mao?
coincidence?
giantshadows 2 years ago
So if the Towers weren't exploding into powder as they collapsed, just what the hell would an exploding building look like? With so much mass being ejected every direction up, out and away from the buildings, what small percent of dust is left to collapse the lower 2/3 of the vritually uninjured buildings? I don't recall sulfur being used as a major construction tool yet it is found throughout the debris. So much for the Madrid tower fire of 20 hours that didn't collapse.....
rushfan9thcmd 2 years ago
I wonder about some of this footage. For example, at :32, would the cameraman just stand there as that wall of smoke was coming toward them like that? I wonder how much of the footage wasn't real.
victordrazen2 2 years ago
demolition period - done by Bush the front man for the 13 families that run the West. Shall I name them? Reason: A forever threat to americans, homeland security wiretapping, the patriot act, the end of freedom, the next move for the NEW WORLD. DEMOLITION PERIOD -- Obama Sez CHANGE - I say "FOCUS" Focus people, and get your head out of your al quida butt,
income101 2 years ago
demolition period
What exactly is demolition speed?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
So there were loud noises, sounding like explosions, in a commercial building fire -- what a fucking surprise .... NOT. Ask any fireman.
Floors, equipment & debris crashing down, plus actual explosions from:
thousands of hi-voltage transformers thruout the bldg
Oxygen,acetylene & propane tanks in maintenance & engrg areas
Oxygen, Co2 and nitrous tanks in medical & dental offices
Propane and LP gas tanks in restaurants & snack bars
Loud, sharp noises does NOT equal "bombs."
Get a grip.
FarmGirlJB 2 years ago
"you can't believe there were bombs in the WTCs"
It's difficult for normal people to believe in something for which there is absolutely not the slightest bit of evidence.
FarmGirlJB 2 years ago
your so intelligent
shiimshiim 2 years ago
You're
bweazel 2 years ago
My question to all these pukes like Denierbud11 is why? Why are you on all these pages, why do you spend the energy trying to convince us? Do I go to your sites and talk shit to you? No, because if I did I would be an asshole. Whether it be aliens or elvis or fucking stupid celebreties, I dont go over there to fuck with people.. So, I ask you, why are you here? What do you hope to gain?
Are you trying to awaken us?
jejojassy76 2 years ago
" No, because if I did I would be an asshole"
You are an asshole regardless of the forum, do not sell youself short.
I like to wack twoofers.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I knew your response would be something like that. Answer the question you coward. Answer the fucking question.
jejojassy76 2 years ago
Why do I bother, because I think lies that defame the death of the victims of that day should not go unchecked.
Why do yoy lie about the events of that day? Are you just a fucking pathetic piece of shit, or are you so stupid that you think the live video shown that day was facked by ever media outlet, including foreing media outlets?
Do you think the witneses lie? Do you think the family that received phone calls are liars?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
No offense, but regardless of how they died, they were still innocent victims, whether or not they were killed by our government. (I think they were).
EffAreOhhGee 2 years ago
Or this
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet,
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Very convenient. Somehow it sounds about as likely as a fireball traveling DOWN 90 stories and destroying the lobby. Right. Man. Why do you guys try so hard to stay in a happy everything is perfect world? Where there are evil terrorists who want to kill us and a highly unlikely set of events that unfolded....... the way a fricking television show reported them. *sigh*
bweazel 2 years ago
These were all quotes from the B-25 impact with the Empire State Building in 1945. All published prior to 911, all easily found.
The similaries are:
1) Large sky scraper
2) Impact by plane
3) Witness accounts of explosions and fireballs
4) All legitimate
Denierbud11 2 years ago
So now I think I have shown that explosions do not mean bombs, and in our other example (B-25), there were many explosions, therefore explosions were expected.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
see above
jejojassy76 2 years ago
Or this
The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Uh Huh. You weren't there. Pretty shitty of you to burn someone in your imagination though. ouch.
bweazel 2 years ago
"The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor"
Guess what this is from.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
i dont see it
Caldom92 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Explosion was caused by the planes fuel fire going down the elevator's and hitting the bottom of the center.
ShadowsAnger 3 years ago
Comment removed
fresniak 3 years ago
38:00 escaped convict ( in orange )
happymoddsinc 3 years ago
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
ETWarlords 3 years ago
lol it truu
happymoddsinc 3 years ago
''...oh my god, there's been a explosion..''
EXPLOSION ? It collapsed god dammit.
Why do they say that ?
Everybody saw it
R.I.P
recklessroad86 3 years ago
Why else would someone (he's one of many just so you know) say there were explosions unless of course.... there were explosions. It collapsed did it? Ever stop to think the buildings may have had a bit of explosive help in bringing them down? I think I'll listen to the guy covered in WTC dust that said he heard explosions.
bweazel 3 years ago
"stop to think the buildings may have had a bit of explosive help in bringing them down?"
Ever stop to think that things other than explosives explode - like generators.
When a B-25 hit the Empire State Building in 1945, there were reports of explosions - does that mean there were bombs planted in the Empire State Building?
Ever stop to think and forget to start?
LOL
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Wow bud. You're just reaching for anything now. Does this mean you official theorists are starting to see the light? Let's see. Which is more probable? The WTC had generators next to or around all the core columns at the impact zone, that remained in tact for an hour and a half and then all at the same time "exploded" starting a collapse.... or, option two, there were explosives planted in the building. I'd have to go with option two.
bweazel 2 years ago
"The WTC had generators next to or around all the core columns at the impact zone"
I guess logic does not work for you. Please tell me who saw explosions around all the core columns or how you come to the conclusion that this occurred.
What is more probable, that generators and other items exploded from fire, or that bombs were planted under the noses of the NYPA Police, tenants and Mainteance works in three buildings?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
One, people make mistakes. Two, the guy was in shock and probably didn't think of what he said. Three, the plane hit, the building exploded, and then collapsed...Thoes poor people...
EmmyGurl523 3 years ago
You say it so matter of factly. Why do you official theorists act like this is all fact? There are no facts on 9/11. You think just because the news told you something it's true and you can all act like arrogant asses when confronted with a differing opinion? Please be a little more open minded.
bweazel 2 years ago
"You think just because the news told you something it's true "
No, unlike you, I have done investigations and heard the arguments from both sides.
Twoofers have nothing. Just some wild speculations and arguments from incredulity.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
You dumb ass. How the hell would you know what I've done? You have to be one of the most arrogant people on youtube. I've said that before I know, but it's very true. Truthers have lots. Just conservative people like you that want to live in the past and not move forward refuse to accept any point we make. That's your own damn fault.
bweazel 2 years ago
You through accusation at me first, so if you do not care for it, don't level it at others.
I will accept any valid point, but I have not seen one from you yet.
I give you an example of a plane hitting a building and subsequent explosions, and what do you do? Dismiss it out of hand.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I have not dismissed anything, bud. My stance is I do not know what happened, but I sure do not believe the official version. You, on the other hand, believe the official version and attempt to ridicule people who disagree. Through our discussions I can tell you are close minded and do not care to research any other possibilities of what could have happened. You just care to defend the official version. That's it. You try to make light of the explosions, we think they are a big deal.
bweazel 2 years ago
"You just care to defend the official version. That's it."
And all you do is dismiss facts that are harmful to your alternative events. Don't play the "I'm just investigating" canard - you are die hard in your beliefs, you sure as hell did not stop to consider the alternative I gave for explosions - though that alternative is endorsed by the NYFD.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
There you go again being arrogant and calling things facts. I am not die hard in my beliefs. We've had this talk as well. Wow really? The same NYFD that said they heard explosions? Really depends on which firefighters you get on camera there, doesn't it bud?
bweazel 2 years ago
Show me a firefighter who has given an interview that believes the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Just one NYFD person, who was there that day, that has gone on record saying bombs were used and it was a controlled demolition.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I think the ones that could give us what we needed to know are dead now. There are a couple NYPD cops that have come forward and I think I have seen some firefighters too. And listen bud. Just because your governments facts haven't been disproven yet does not make them fact. Just makes them theories that have stood the test of time thus far. Need I remind you alot of things you official theorists hold up as facts have been changed plenty of times before. I'll look for a firefighter though
bweazel 2 years ago