9/11 - United 175 CGI Plane Theory Debunked

[psyCodEd]

you are paid well i hope.. 

[mfrank165]

and in direct response to the video, resolution, haze, blur and color were all doctored in this shot. take a look at all the videos that day, did it look particularly hazy or dim out in any of the shots that dont feature planes? of course not. video fakery, but keep up the disinfo, theres a sucker born every minute

[mfrank165]

id love to see these photos that show a debris field "6.8" times the size of the footprint. oh wait, there isnt any. this is a paid disinformant, expose him and add his name to the list of criminal conspirators

[TheMostAwesomeMan242]

all you conspiracy theorists out there can kiss my ass. btw to uploader: good job. i can see a black line going across the smoke/haze which is the second plane.

[PsyopsExposer]

A plane did not hit building 7, but that was a standard demolition and had a normal sized debri pile so i don't have a question about that building. it was clearly a planned demolition. hmm what an amazing coincidence. Im no demolitions expert but i find it hard to believe they set the charges in a day. hmm maybe they were already set. duh.

[PsyopsExposer]

I have another question for you. Why is it that a steel building has never collapsed before or after 911. Yet 3 of them "collapsed" on 911. They are designed to not collapse that is why. The towers were also designed specifically to survive the impact of a passenger sized plane as well as fire. Can't wait to see what you do with this question. LOL

[PsyopsExposer]

Mass cannot just disappear or can it? These buildings were over 100 stories high. The debri pile was less than 2 stories high. There is a lot of missing mass. The debri pile for building 7 demolition has the correct mass ratio.- There is only one conspiracy story - 19 unskilled pilots armed with boxcutters hijacked airplanes and performed aeronautic flying skills that trained pilots with many years of experience say they could not do. My point is that your focus is not significant whatsoever.

[BlisterHiker]

"Mass cannot just disappear or can it? These buildings were over 100 stories high. The debri pile was less than 2 stories high."

@PsyopsExposer

That's clearly a misinterpretation of facts.

Debris field covered much larger area than footprints of WTC 1 and 2. Large pieces of external structure collided with adjacent buildings.

Also, WTC 1 and 2 each had 7 underground levels, which is where most of debris got compressed by huge kinetic energy of collapsing towers.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker You obviously got your information from the TV. One of the many lies that was told on TV was that the debri all ended up underground. It makes sense that they would try to use this lie. How else could you logically explain the missing mass? It is very easy to find proof that the missing mass did not end up underground. This is not an issue of me or you being right or wrong. it is a disservice to people to repeat lies. If you want the truth you have to look for it.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

Again, no mass was missing. 7 underground levels under WTC 1 and 2 was enough to accumulate most of compressed debris from falling towers.

Debris field was much larger than footprints of the towers which means debris was distributed over larger area.

I am not going to continue this conversation because you clearly did not learn the basics about Twin Towers' structure and repeat the same lies.

Go and learn that vast majority of volume of the towers was air, not solid mass!

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker LOL well that explains it then - the buildings were mostly made of air. Yeah i was just about done myself. You want to be right not correct. Rest assured that in the reality that you have created for yourself you live in a world where everything you hear is truth. So you are right.

[BlisterHiker]

"the buildings were mostly made of air"

@PsyopsExposer

I did not say buildings were made mostly of air. I said most of their volume was air, not solid mass. There is a difference between "made of" and "volume", but it's apparently too much for you to grasp.

You demonstrate what it takes to be a truthin' ignorant who doesn't understand basic concepts, but talks about "reality"...

Twisting statements and opinions is the only thing you, so-called truthers, are really good at.

Bye.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker pathetic. get some help or find the right medication. good luck.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

Very cool answer... Why am I not surprised...

Let me address your stupid claim regarding height of debris at Ground Zero final time, this time with numbers.

Each tower was 110 stories high plus7 underground levels which makes total of 117 floors.

Each floor was approx. 1' (12 inches) of solid material, but lets make it 50% more to account for external columns, core, trusses, walls etc (which in reality wasn't that much considering surface area of each floor).

>

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer >2

Distance between floors was 12 feet.

If material from all floors was stuck vertically, that would add up to 117*1.5' = 175.5 feet of solid material.

Each tower collapsed over the area much larger than footprint of the building, but not to exaggerate let's say the area was 2x larger.

That means pile of debris should be 175.5/2 = 88 feet high which translates to 88/12 = 7.3 floors of debris.

>

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker Ok now subtract the 7 underground levels and i'll give you your theory about dispersment of debri horizontally - the total debri field was not even 2 stories high. The bare minimum should have been 4 stories showing. There was no underground debri. They pulled fully intact trains from under the towers. They were not crushed and they were not buried by underground debri. They came out fully in one piece.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer >3

A few hours ago you said the pile was less than 2 stories high, which means 8..9 stories high from the foundation level.

I showed you with simple math it could easily be even less than 8, so do you still find something weird about the height of debris pile?

Go and do your homework, because facts speak for themselves. No rocket science is required here.

You are wrong about it just like all that so-called truth movement is wrong about other issues regarding 9/11.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker Ok now subtract the 7 underground levels and i'll give you your theory about dispersment of debri horizontally - the total debri field was not even 2 stories high. The bare minimum should have been 4 stories showing. There was no underground debri. They pulled fully intact trains from under the towers. They were not crushed and they were not buried by underground debri. They came out fully in one piece.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

There was no underground debris? Really? So what happened to 7 undergound levels?

Did you ever see images of Ground Zero from construction period and after cleanup operation ended?

Did you ever see how deep debris was piled?

Are you aware of the fact debris spread over much larger area and hit buildings which were more than 300 feet away from WTC 1 and 2?

If you really believe that bullshit you're posting, then you really need to check your sanity.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker Not too much happened apparently to the 7 underground levels. Do your own research drjudywood[dot]com/articles/DE­W/

Your desire to be right over logic makes you look like a desperate person clinging to shreds of clues that may work in your favor. You are completely wrong.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

I'm aware of location of Path and subway stations at WTC site before 9/11.

In article about Path station on website you listed, you will notice the station was located outside of WTC 1 and 2 perimeter, closer to Church St.

Even if some parts of the tracks which were going under WTC 2 (there were no tracks under WTC 1) survived, it does not change the picture at all.

Again, debris was spread over area much larger than 2x footprint.

You are wrong, to say the least.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker Ok then how do you explan that the WTC shopping mall at the concourse level (first subbasement) was not collapsed. oh maybe the debris went around it. why not? If you are willing to believe that an airplane or fire can make buildings disappear then i guess you will believe anything. what a clown.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

Shopping malls were not located directly under WTC 1 and 2, though were accessible through the lobbies.

They were located under the WTC plaza. Again, do your homework and check the plans.

If you don't stop lying, I will stop responding to you. I don't have time to address each lie of each lying "truther" who shows up here.

For the rest of your concerns, visit debunking911 . com and learn something real for a change.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker You didn't answer the real questions just like i expected. i was only testing you to see what you would do with questions that you could manipulate. You cannot explain why 3 steel buildings collapsed within hours. i could continue to throw other questions at you that you would not be able to rationalize or be unwilling to answer. you are completely full of crap.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

I will not allow you to steal more time from me.

I showed you the source which explains your concerns about collapses (debunking911 . com) and proved that you are not only wrong about your claims, but lying about simple facts, like location of Path station and shopping mall, which can be explained with one quick look at WTC site layout from before 9/11.

Enough of that. You are blocked. Go and do your truthin' somewhere else.

I don't tolerate liars very well.

[BadboygamingNet]

@PsyopsExposer You are a fool. Get out of your starwar pj's and stop trolling

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

One more time, debris spread over area much larger than 2x the footprint. If we look at aerial pictures of Ground Zero, it is obvious the area covered with debris was closer to 6..8x of towers' footprints, so by all means, pile of debris should not be higher than it was, even considering some parts of underground structure survived without collapsing.

[anthonyc31]

this video is bunk. 

[BlisterHiker]

@anthonyc31

Thanks a lot for your comment and detailed analysis... I guess you must be right and all witnesses and evidence must be wrong...

[anthonyc31]

@BlisterHiker you're welcome. now go back to sleep.

[PsyopsExposer]

So because you are showing that a plane is htting the building you have jumped to the conclusion that 911 is not an inside job. How could you come to such a conclusion? Are you assuming that if the plane was real then the entire cover story was real? Or is it because you believe that it is possible to turn buildings into dust by crashing planes into them? ugh what a waste of time.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

You are either lying on purpose or too ignorant to understand what you're talking about.

Mechanism of WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapses has been very well explained. The energy that caused that distraction is called potential energy, and not even one piece of evidence for any kind of controlled demolition (explosive or thermal) was ever found. Molten metal in the rubble was a result of exothermic reactions which did not need any additional chemicals, btw.

>

[BlisterHiker]

Typo: not distraction, but destruction, of course.

[anthonyc31]

@BlisterHiker bla bla bla ... you're a paid disinfo whore ... .nobody believes your BS lies.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker

I have objectively listened to many accredited and well established proffessionals who specialize in the various fields of physics, demolition and other fields that relate to this event. I'm not going to bother trying to justify my knowledge. The information broadcasted on TV is not usable - it is either complete lies or just repeated nonsense. So if you are basing your stance on information heard on TV then you are misinformed. Look up Thermite, look up Judy Woods, etc.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

There is always someone who disagrees with others on subjects which are commonly agreed upon. Some even say pi number is a lie!

Funny you reject TV as source of information while 99.999% of truthers have not seen events of 9/11 with their own eyes...

Major networks like Fox, National Geographic and History Channel show programs about conspiracy theories which feature leading conspiracy theorists like Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Alex Jones and Dylan Avery.

Get a grip of reality.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker Yep you are entitled to believe whatever you want. TV is a source of information - i watch it so that i can read between the lines so that i can clearly understand the intended goal of what is being said. Most TV info is designed to make you believe something. Labeling is a form of negating credibility. Labels like "truthers", "conspiracy theorists", etc are created so that you will repeat them. You are taught to use them and you have learned that programming well.

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer

You don't have to tell me how mass media work. Yes, they play their game, but don't try to convince any mature person TV is a part of some cover-up.

It is people like you who accept anything that fits their preconceived views much easier than the masses you claim are dumbed down by official media. If you were really searching for truth, you wouldn't be showing up here saying there was something wrong with pile of debris at Ground Zero. You often don't even know basic facts.

[PsyopsExposer]

@BlisterHiker I did not say that TV spokespeople were knowingly part of the cover up. They are paid actors with scripts. If you want to get paid you read the script. I used to believe everything i was told up until a few years ago. Now that i understand the pyschology of how mass manipulation works my mind will no longer just accept any information i am told as truth or fact. If you are really listening and check or cross reference then you will find that most of what you are being told is a lie

[BlisterHiker]

@PsyopsExposer >

Buildings were not crushed into dust. There were large pieces of debris (steel and concrete) visible all over debris field. Keep such lies to other so-called truthers who don't even bother to think when they watch all those conspiracy lies on YouTube.

Finally, fact you don't even understand what I said at the end of the video was not derived directly from comparing those cases of airplane crashes, but just a general statement, only confirms how limited your mental horizons are.

[PsyopsExposer]

I think looking at the planes or the other distractions is exactly what was intended. In any good Psyops operation you do a lot of smoke and mirrors and have cover stories. The real issue is what type of weapon can turn buildings into dust in such a controlled way that pretty much only the targeted molecules are manipulated. The planes were just the top layer of the cover story and next level is demolition etc etc

[woodenmajor]

but blisterhiker ...there are still millions of very devoted and fairly intelligent americans who seem quite convinced that 911 was some kind of inside job .other than the thermate ,RC plane-drone ,atta was a CIA mole ,molten steel ,no airline wreckage found ,etc ,etc ..ppl .

is there a still a somewhat credible argument to support their clearly heart felt doubts about the "official narrative " from the 911 attacks ?..how can millions of ppl still believe that gw bush was so clever and evil?

[woodenmajor]

it seems like there are still a lot of truthers and many seem quite rational but ive not heard any truther theorys that dont seem poorly suported at best .

is there any standing truther theory which is still somewhat credible and rational ? is there any sort of peer reviewed science that supports their position even slightly ? are there really still ppl who yet think that those f#king airplanes werent airplanes ,after ten years ?

[BlisterHiker]

@woodenmajor

From what I see, all flavors of so-called truth movement, from mainstream inside job theory, through foreknowledge, ending with delusional theories like fake airplanes and "Aliens did 9/11", are slowly fading away. More and more people realize they were wrong, but it takes time.

Similar thing happens to Moon landing hoax and JFK Conspiracy Theory, as more and more science explains those events and leaves only the most fanatical Conspiracy Theorists guarding their faith.

[24547377]

These no planers are starting to piss me off. I saw with my own eyes 175 hit the tower. I was there at the time. The plane flew virtually over me as it came in, i looked up and followed it in. My sister was screaming as we both realised what was going to happen. So if idid'nt see a plane what did i see? Iam English and on my fist visit to America so i am not part of the goverment. I also belive the goverment has not told the truth.

[BlisterHiker]

@24547377

Me too. I was in NYC on 9/11, about 400 yards away from WTC. My friend saw the first plane and my brother who was on the other side of the Hudson River (in New Jersey), saw the second plane approaching and hitting the South Tower.

It would be great if Conspiracy Believers actually spent some time doing true research, but most of them are not interested in learning what they don't want to hear. That's how far their "honesty" goes.

[BlisterHiker]

@24547377

All governments lie. That's nothing new, but it does not mean they lie all the time.

There is no proof for US government lying about 9/11. On the contrary, facts and thousands of witnesses confirm official story.

On the other hand, various kinds of Conspiracy Theories (from foreknowledge, inside job to Aliens did 9/11), have no real strengths and are full of errors.

Fact that vast majority of engineering community has no problems with official explanations tells a lot too.

[drifter402]

@BlisterHiker actually there is a lot of proof that they are. but the no planes thing is one of the most retarded things I have ever come across. mostley the arguments r just cuz of low qualtiy footage of compression.

[drifter402]

what this guy says about the truth movement is bullshit. but i hate the no planers. all of them its so stupid.

[dasraiser]

well i dont know what to make of any of this, do i believe conspiracy?, not sure, there is something iffy about all this, maybe just tainted by all this fluff, however i did find it interesting in your vid that the camera man in the chopper zoomed in just when the plain was going to be visible in frame! maybe he subconsciously noticed it and didnt want it in his frame, i dont know. the timing of the zoom is rather coincidental.

[BlisterHiker]

@dasraiser

Camera operator did not notice the airliner approaching from the side. He was simply zooming in on the towers.

In this video I simply debunked one claim made by Conspiracy Theorists. They not only got their math wrong, but also do not understand the limitations of video and compression used in many clips available online.

My comment at the end saying 9/11 was not an inside job, is a general statement.

If you are interested, visit debunking911 . com. It's a very interesting read.

[drifter402]

@dasraiser they sey that the helicopter was arriving on the scene so its not surprising that it zoomed in

[dasraiser]

@drifter402 all i was pointing out was that if you watch the stabilized window shrinking (from 2:56) the plane was always clipping the edge of the shot then the zooming started again, so maybe the cameraman was aware of it.

[drifter402]

@dasraiser oh i see what u mean. but like i said i reckon he was just zooming in cuz he had arrived. I understand what u r saying but i think its just well yea.

[BlisterHiker]

"(from 2:56) the plane was always clipping the edge of the shot then the zooming started again, so maybe the cameraman was aware of it"

@dasraiser

The plane was not that close to the edge of the frame until final zoom on the towers.

Ask any professional camera operator in the world and you will hear the same explanation: the way that camera was zoomed in was really nothing special, but this is really irrelevant for the subject here.

The airplane was real.

[ProtectAus]

WARNING

.

This Video contains footage unseen in TEN years, even TV star Anthony Lawson has never presented this "gold" footage as evidence in his many 9/11 Fox5 debunking videos.

BTW, on the last frames when the image is clearest, i can degrade this video to match the apparent resolution of the other old footage and the Plane is CLEARLY visible, this fake video made the plane too distinct and therefore is PROVED to be fake.

Sorry, try again.

.

WARNING

[BlisterHiker]

People like ProtectAus are classic examples of poor mental condition of Conspiracy Theorists.

They have no problems with accepting low quality video material as valid evidence because they don't see what they don't want to see in them, but when higher quality evidence is presented, clearly showing what they don't want to see, they immediately dismiss it as fake!

That high quality video clip is available at w w w . 911conspiracy . tv / 2nd_hit . html

File name: 2nd-hit_WNYW_FOX5_DrEbbetts . avi

[ProtectAus]

@BlisterHiker "higher quality evidence is presented"

.

That should be LATER quality evidence! LOL.

Pause your video @ 5:24 your plane graphic is much wider than the WTC but we know from the last Zoom-in that the Plane is MUCH smaller than each tower!

We know where Fox5 was and the trajectory of the plane was perpendicular to the chopper as can be seen on the Map on 911conspiracy tv. By using photogrammetry and knowing that the Plane was further away we are left with a visual paradox!!!

[BlisterHiker]

"this fake video made the plane too distinct and therefore is PROVED to be fake"

@ProtectAus

That's one of the most idiotic claims I've seen in while! Proved fake? In your sick mind only.

Talk to any video professional who worked with SD technology around 2001 and get ready for some harsh words you deserve not only for your ignorance, but also for your delusion.

Even mainstream 9/11 truthers consider that "fake planes" theory crazy! That tells a lot about how insane people like you are. Bye.

[BlisterHiker]

@rcq214

So far, the best you could do was to insult me and remove your comments, so others couldn't see.

Feeling better now? Read my comments again. Maybe next time you finally get the idea of what the subject means, and what I meant by my general statement at the end. Bye.

[Gregk82]

is this a joke video? the retard who made this video forgot to debunk the most important part... LOL mind debunking videos i posted too? hilarious

nice try, better luck next time, i doubt you convinced some1...unless he didnt need convincing

[BlisterHiker]

@Gregk82

No, this is not a joke. I debunked a claim which says that no airliner approaching WTC is visible in footage from Fox 5 until the last moment before it hit the building, and yes, it's the same story with all other arguments presented by all "truthers" more or less detached from reality.

You have nothing but lies and speculations, at best.

You present no arguments. Instead, you insult me the first time you show up here and for that you are blocked. Bye.

[PAGE672]

@BlisterHiker So where is the debunking about all the money Larry made and how much money is still being made on the events that day? Answer this brain buster, Who benefits the most from this? Sadam = dead, not him. Al Queda being supressed and being forced to hide, so they didn't benefit at all. Larry Silverstein, owner of trade center made over 5 billions dollars profit. Wow, he had some incentive there. Oil and contruction corps, still making millions and placing new contracts.

[BlisterHiker]

@PAGE672

Do you "truthers" even understand what term subject means?

In this video, I prove that a specific theory made by some 9/11 "truther" who thinks he's got his math right, is wrong.

My statement at the end of the video is based on larger picture, and this video is not meant to debunk all possible claims made by Conspiracy Theorists.

Visit debunking911 . com and you will find answers to your questions there.

Btw, none of the arguments you listed proves 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

[PAGE672]

@BlisterHiker What you are putting across is that 9/11 was not an inside job and that the victims who week actual truth are insane, based on your own description. You have proved nothing but that there is motion blur in the image. Great job sheep! This so called insane imagination of the "truthers" is real. Stop being a sheep and following your sheperd.

[BlisterHiker]

@PAGE672

I have already explained what the subject here is. My video proves another conspiracy theorist wrong.

I have explained my statement also, and showed you reference where most, if not all of your concerns are explained.

I will not be tolerating insults and lies. You are blocked.

[BlisterHiker]

@Gregk82

Even mainstream 9/11 truthers agree that "invisible planes" theory is insane, and that says a lot about people like you. No more comments necessary.

[Jackblind1000]

Can you tell me, what TV network was George W, Bush watching when he witnessed the first plane(Flight 11) fly into the North Tower "live", just before he walked into that classroom in Florida? He states he watched it on TV in two of his public speeches. It couldn't have been from the Naudet Brothers film, that was released the next day on television. There aren't any other videos that caught the first plane, that I'm aware of. That is a real dilemma for me.

[BlisterHiker]

@Jackblind1000

Are you familiar with the meaning of term "subject"? Do you know what the subject here is?

I debunked one, specific claim made by some 9/11 conspiracy believers, and I'm sure you can find answer to your question with just a little bit of googlin', as long as you are interested in finding it.

[Jackblind1000]

@BlisterHiker Your "subject" at the beginning of your video, is that "Conspiracy Theorists" = "Truthers" = wrong.

We have been lied to and frauded by our government about 911. There is ample proof. I wish to find Truth in a court of law, without Federal interference with previously censored eyewitness testimony. Do you object?

How can you call the ever-growing mass of taxpaying citizens that have questions, "Conspiracy Theorists"? I have no theory. What kind of "name-calling" person are you?

[BlisterHiker]

@Jackblind1000

Don't be so sensitive. I did not say anything inappropriate based on your comment.

My reply still stands. You come here and post irrelevant comments about issues which do not prove anything related to 9/11. Yes, politics is dirty. All mature people know that. You don't have to tell me that. That fact, however, does not give conspiracy theories any credit by itself.

If you are truly interested in finding the truth, start with good websites like debunking911 . com, for example.

[Jackblind1000]

@Jackblind1000 "You come here and post irrelevant comments about issues which do not prove anything related to 9/11."

My first comment implies that GW Bush had prior knowledge of 911. He may have had a private camera setup to view F11 hit WTC1, live. The world has not seen this footage. GW states twice in two separate speeches, he watched F11 hit WTC1, when it happened. There was no "live" footage from our networks of that event.

This evidence is very strong, unless GW lied to his country.

[BlisterHiker]

@Jackblind1000

You still don't get what the subject here is?

I will make this exception and ask you a simple question: if they had prior knowledge, don't you think everything would be scripted to perfection and no mistakes or "slips of tongue" would've ever occured?

Think for a minute about how stupid that theory is!

He was simply confused, like we all were in those first moments. He's only human, unlike 9/11 conspiracy theorists, of course...

For the last time, this is not the subject here.

[grandmacaesar]

i know that wtc 7 fell straight down in under 7 seconds. i know there are no pix or video of a plane at the pentagon, or at shanksville. i know there are no pix or video of 110 pancaked floors. and i know that zionist tools are posting bs videos trying to keep us good american citizens asleep. and i know that blisterhiker and booste30 are two of those zionist tools, because no one can be so ignorant as to believe the lies after they have been shown the truth. kiddos.

[BlisterHiker]

"i know... i know... i know... i know... and i know that blisterhiker and booste30 are two of those zionist tools"

@grandmacaesar

By now I know you're just another ignorant parroting the same irrelevant noise the leaders of your twoofing sect make.

Unfortunately for your theory, vast majority of people who really know what they talk about with reference to 9/11 and structural engineering, dismiss your theories!

For calling me a "zionist tool", you are blocked. I have no tolerance for such lies.

[grandmacaesar]

no. i think we should blindly believe everything our zionist-owned media tells us.  we should never question anything. and if the media says two 110-story buildings "pancaked" into smaller than 3 floors, we should not question. so what if all the concrete was turned to dust? our zionist-owned media and government would never lie to us...heck, they can't. they are incapable of telling us anything but the truth, right? so...don't believe the eyes GOD gave us, believe the tv. kiddo.

[BlisterHiker]

"blindly believe everything our zionist-owned media tells us"

@grandmacaesar

Do you think that people who debunk 9/11 conspiracy bs are like that?

In reality, it's the opposite! It is you, 9/11 nutcases who very rarely display any healthy ability to think critically. It is you who mostly blindly accept conspiracy theories without even bothering to learn something on your own!

On the other hand, it's the 9/11 debunkers who much more often verify the facts by themselves.

[grandmacaesar]

@BlisterHiker "Do you think that people who debunk 9/11 conspiracy bs are like that?"

in a word, yes.

[booste30]

@grandmacaesar Paranoia, a bit much? You're no physicist, you're no engineer, you're no architect, you're in no position to be looking at the one of the world's most devastating terrorist attacks and pointing out things you think "defy the laws of physics" in the accepted explanation. Try reading some legit source material instead of adoring David Dumbass Griffin.

[booste30]

Great video, man! You should definitely do some more on 9/11 "theories" that are still lingering about like a bad odor.

Despite the CGI "theory", the CTs' arguments still don't quite get me. How else do they explain the airplanes smashing into the buildings? Were they remotely controlled airliners or some shit with zero passengers, or were they being piloted by some government employees willing to give their lives for capitalists' greedy desires for Middle Eastern oil?? lmfao, best bs around.

[BlisterHiker]

@booste30

Conspiracy theorists are usually motivated by their distrust for authority. Believing they know secrets that are beyond most of "dumbed down masses", boosts their egos as well.

Sometimes, when they grow up, they begin to understand the world they live in better, and despite all convenient facts like oil and power that seem to fit their theories, 9/11 was not a government conspiracy.

[BlisterHiker]

@booste30

Thanks! I will be uploading one more soon today, showing how irrelevant comparisons between 9/11 and impact of B-25 at the Empire State Building, and Iranian C-130 crash are.

9/11 crackpots abuse even arguments which have almost nothing to do with 9/11!

Mainstream 9/11 conspiracy stuff has been debunked many times. There is no need to do that again, but maybe I will get back to that subject in the future. For now, I going back to my favorite field: debunking Moon landing hoax bs.

[MarkB1ngham]

Is that Flight 175's nosecone exiting appx' floor 80 of WTC2 or dust doing a faithful impression of a moving Boeing nosecone and fuselage as I've heard from several official 911 conspiracy theory apologists? Did it pass through 3 thicknesses of structural steel and 1 acre of steel reinforced concrete intact? Why have all the 911 plane salvaged components been made classified info? how are they a threat to national security? All questions that MUST be answered!

[BlisterHiker]

@MarkB1ngham

Are you talking about that alleged nose of the airplane appearing on the other side of the building?

For someone who claims to be from UK, your English is really hard to understand.

That "nose" was just a coincidence. The explosion on the North side looked that way only from that angle, and only for a short time!

Check other videos of second impact and you will see the same thing looked much different from other angles.

Boy, do you people have any spatial imagination at all?...

[MarkB1ngham]

@BlisterHiker "the nose was a coincidence"??? what on earth does that mean? It looked like a moving Boeing nosecone and fuselage exiting WTC2 from several angles and you know it. You ignored my point about salvaged 9/11 plane components being made classified information, is this not clear guilty demeanour? who are your paymasters?

[BlisterHiker]

@MarkB1ngham

What does that mean? Exactly what I said! Things look different from different angles sometimes.

Maybe it was not 100% coincidence, because the shock wave the plane caused could reflect its shape to some degree.

Again, take a look at the same event seen from other angles. Do you also see the nose of the plane there? No, that is not what we see! It looks very much different!

Do you also believe the devil manifested himself in the crash smoke?

Get back in touch with reality.

[MarkB1ngham]

@BlisterHiker I didn't believe in the devil but I'm beginning to wonder where you are coming from me good mate! F175 relayed its image in dust through the building and exited the other side??? are you taking the p!ss?

[BlisterHiker]

@DeepSpace8andahalf

You are a fraud, and you won't admit it even when I prove that right in your face!

First you come here and lie about plane's speed. Then you lie again and show you don't even understand basic high school physics!

Now you come here again, totally change subject and post some irrelevant bs.

You demonstrate again what kind of people mostly advocate lies about 9/11.

You are blocked. Go and do your truFin' somewhere else. There are many liars like you out there. Go join them.

[BlisterHiker]

@DeepSpace8andahalf

10% loss of speed equals 10% loss of KE? LOL!

1. First you say the plane does not slown down at all, but it did. Your Lie #1.

2. Now you say 10% loss of speed = 10% loss of KE... Lie #2. KE is function of velocity squared! This is not linear! That means the plane lost about 19% of KE, not 10!

3. The plane did not hit flat, solid wall but surface filled mostly with windows.

You're just another conceited ignorant truther like millions others. Go get proper education, "expert".

[BlisterHiker]

"airliner does NOT even slow down upon striking the wall"

@DeepSpace8andahalf

That is not true. The airplane lost about 10% of its speed while penetrating the wall.

Take a look at analysis of impact on:

questionsquestions . net/WTC/175speed . html#update

Of course, remove all spaces from that URL and add usual triple w at the beginning.

It's like that with other lies made by 9/11 "truthers" too.

[GoneToPlaid]

In Photoshop, you could apply a highpass filter to each of the wide angle camera video frames, and then greatly narrow the input range of the luminance channel, and the airplane would clearly stand out against the background plain as day.

[BlisterHiker]

@GoneToPlaid

Results of such advanced technique could look dangerously close to greenmagoos' crazy contrast games :-)

I already had to be careful at 5:30 when I adjusted contrast/brightness slightly.

Good thing that high quality avi clip is available online and the plane is visible to naked eye.

[Rob260259]

Thanks BH.

[grandmacaesar]

this is disinformation. the first sentence is untrue. most "9/11 truthers" (as opposed to the "9/11 liars" in the corporate-owned government and media)

do not buy the "no plane at the wtc" theory, and believe the story to be a strawman argument, set up as a diversion.

[BlisterHiker]

@grandmacaesar

I adressed specific theory and proved it wrong with available evidence.

"Mainstream" 9/11 conspiracy theory claims have been debunked many times already, and official version accepted by vast majority of engineering and scientific community i.e. people who really know what they talk about.

A few exceptions made by some politically biased people do not give conspiracy theories any credibility.

Visit links I listed in description and learn some real facts for a change.

[grandmacaesar]

4 pieces of 9/11 evidence our corporate-owned government and media should easily be able to produce to support the "official" story, but cant:

1. video or pix of a plane at the pentagon.

2. video or pix of a plane at shanksville.

3. video or pix of two piles of 110 pancaked floors.

4. an explanation into the "collapse" of the twin towers and wtc7 that doesn't defy the laws of physics.

[booste30]

@grandmacaesar lol, you really think the towers' collapse should have left two cartoonishly thought-up piles of 110 stacked floors? Get a hold of that imagination, kiddo.

[BlisterHiker]

@booste30

The towers collapsed that way because outer perimiter of columns narrowed their descent.

It's all consistent with the tube structure of the buildings and initial motion of upper part of the towers.

First floor impacted by the upper part of each tower at the beginning of collapses was overloaded with ratio at least 10:1 (the most optimistic scenario!), and then collapses were only speeding up until the towers piled up.

Vast majority of engineers confirm it was nothing surprising.

[booste30]

@BlisterHiker I know that they collapsed that way, and I'm not arguing against that, I'm just laughing at the CTs' claims that all those floors should have been so perfectly piled up, standing out amongst all other debris in that mess.

[BlisterHiker]

@booste30

I understand. I just made general comment.

[Xenomorph911WTC]

Yes, you're right, but, the people creating these fake plane "theories" are deliberate disinformation pushers, liars, most likely looking to distract people from real evidence and reinforce the "war on terror". They'll just look at this and laugh at you, if you debate and bother them too much they''ll start to harass and try to intimidate you. I dare other's to try, and be persistant about it, you'll begin to see how these sick no-planers operate. They're fraud's. Been there done that.

[BlisterHiker]

"people creating these fake plane "theories" are deliberate disinformation pushers"

@Xenomorph911WTC

And how in the world do you know that? What evidence you have for that? You have none.

From my experience, based on people I met, they genuinely believe those planes were fake.