Every year, Every September the 11th, I watch these videos with watery eyes. I was only 4 when this happened, and i can't remember it. Part of me wishes i could, the other half is saying good riddance you rotten bastards that did this. Especially to Bin Laden who we FINALLY FREAKIN GOT. hoorah. And after watching and understanding these videos, i have made the decision that i am going to join the United States Marine Corps. Thumbs up so every1 can see that we need to fight for our freedom.
Special offer for 9/11 wtc attack video on DVD : 'Tuesday Morning in September'. Link is on the channel of this posts author. DVD runtime 130 minutes. It is the most complete video of the 9/11 attacks from a single cameraman that exists.
Auf dieses Video antworten... @BriansVideoHobby show me the evidence it was NOT like that ;) how your judge says in America? guilty until proven innocent? u know how stupid that is? more smart it would be to prove the guilty! not the innocent. and i really love (irony) how you americans believe all of the things said in TV. the tv can tell ANYthing, do you know its really like that? there are a lot of evidence which lets you be skeptical about it. ;) you just have to do researches for it!
@1994alexS First, we have a free exchange of information because we have freedom of speech. This site is a good example. If you believe the brother of GWB ordered the planes, prove it. He's innocent until proven guilty. You have your justice system confused with ours, we demand evidence of guilt.
@BriansVideoHobby hmm anyways can you prove that it was an attack from terrorists? can you prove it was bin laden who ordered his man to fly into the WTC? prove it, then ill believe you.
@1994alexS Why can't you look at the OVERWHELMING evidence that it was Al Quaeda and fucking accept it you nut case? You choose to cherry pick bullshit explanations from hundreds of loony sources to feed your stupid delusions about some conspiracy? You are a pathetic foreigner with an obvious anti-American bias. Not only are you mentally ill you are also predisposed to hate the US. You dishonor the people who died that day and you underestimate the group responsible. AL QUAEDA
@1994alexS You have no concept of how evidence and information can be used to form a conclusion. you are a brain dead anti-US foreigner who cherry picks bullshit off of lame sources like youtube to support your conspiracy theories. Nobody has to prove shit to you. It's like saying water is wet and you telling me to prove it. it's fucking nonsense.
@TheJjiggity but can you prove it was an attack from terrorists? i dont think so. so shut up (edit: you can prove that water is wet but can you prove that they were pakistans/terrorists?)
@1994alexS What can be proved, beyond contestation, is that as the World Trade Center fell Muslims in Palestine, among other places, were having a party and dancing in the streets. It can be proved that Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon. We know who did this. We know who supported it. We know who celebrated it. And those responsible will pay dearly for their actions.
@aether020685 ok then tell me, why the building 7 collapsed ;) don´t tell me it collapsed because the "earthquake" was that big, cause if it was like that why wheren`t the other buildings collapsing?
@1994alexS WTC 7 was hit heavily by debris from the twin towers. Firefighters reported 25% of one side of it was missing. It then caught fire and this was fueled by diesel tanks in the lower floors. WTC 7 also had a unique construction of 3 main vertical structural beams on it's lover floors that made it more fragile.
@aether020685 and one other fact: steel needs a white flame to smelt. on 9/11 it was a yellow flame. the steel couldn`t be smelted, the WTC would still stand if it was only an airplane. there was an arplain hitting the empire state building and it didn`t collapse! the WTC was built the same way.
my dad was there i was 6 years old and at school thankfully he made it unharmed but he told me that every few seconds he heard a thump sound that were people at the impact zones jumping out. may all who suffered that day rest in peace and may all who knew these people and were affect by this day be comforted. I <3 NY TILL I DIE
Can you believe that so called "truthers" claim that no plane ever hit the second tower? Even with the video proof seen here. Even with the thousands of eye witnesses, many claim a passenger plane did not hit the WTC. This is what our nation is up against internally. Traitors hell bent on hurting America and calling themselves patriots for what they call..."asking questions". Don't believe your eyes they say. Believe our bizarre nonsense instead. We truthers need you to believe America did this.
Where are all of these thousands of eye witnesses? I haven't heard or seen any of them mention a plane other than the network feeds we were all shown. They blacked out the local channels because they insisted that the antennas were on the towers. If you compare the major network feeds, you can tell the planes are fake icons, none of them match in size and shape, and they are mostly coming in from different angles. Fake holes were photoshopped in the "impact" sites. Demolition.
That fireball - about 200 ft in diameter. The first tower fireball was about twice as large. Someone who knows the density of burning jet-A please calculate how many gallons of jet-A ignited in those first few seconds to create such a huge fireball. I have.
Now read the endless journalist reports the "ALL" of the fuel was in the buildings, which caused them to collapse.
@HVYMETL "calculate how many gallons of jet-A ignited in those first few seconds to create such a huge fireball. I have."
U R lying to yourself
The plane disintegrated within a closed environment, mincing the fuel tanks in impossible-to-estimate ways, vaporizing some, but not all the fuel, creating a totally-uneven & randomly-inhomogeneous mix. The detonation then leaked slowly (relatively) out of an unknown number of windows & down & up into the tower
a formula 1 racing car doing 250mph will be obliterated if it hit a wall made of bails of straw yet a hollow aluminium airline at similar speed will glide through a steel structured building in 1 piece.....only joking both would be toast.
@imfecher....nice to see you wiping the floor with this prick
Thanks for the support. The reason fucktards like this guy refuse to see the truth is because they are spineless cowards who CHOOSE to deny the facts presented to them. It's called cognitive dissonance, when the facts are presented but too painful to accept, the cowards choose denial.
Did you notice he never answered my question about ramming his car into a building AND he has yet to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing INTO tower 2?
it wasn't long ago that you pathetic little shills claimed the aluminium airlines sliced there way through the steel outer walls of the wtc with enough force to ensure the nose cone could continue on and penetrate the steel outer wallls on its way out of the other side without losing its wing tips and tail-section in the process,now your claiming it was "vaporised" on contact...black boxes,cockpit,fuselage,wings...everything but the"indestructable" passport.
buy a hundred dollar digital camera, and go be the news sources, the msm is going broke due to paying 10-15 million for the talking tv heads newscasts contracts....yay.
send em packing, as they have been nothing but a hindrance and a catalyst for the last 60 years or so...
Like people!!! You think some news station is going to load up video on their play back machines just brought in by a camera person. (Of which a director, TD, producer, switcher, graphics person, roll to air person... etc etc are involved..)
And play some ... "Computer Generated airplane????!!!" and none of those people will know what the fuck they are doing??
Strange old world how we can believe some guys in a cave were able to hijack 4 planes at the same time without one security camera actually seeing them get on the planes, fly a perfect trajectory that even experienced pilots find hard to fly while having their transponders turned off, make NORAD stand down, make 30+ security camera tapes around the pentagon disappear and set their own country ablaze for a decade... Oh wait no, they were Saudis... Forget it, I didn't say a thing... =)
newtons 3rd law of motion "for every action there is an equal & opposite re-action" meaning for every force there is a re-action force that is equal in size but in the opposite direction.so there's damage to the wtc,but where's the damage to the plane?....or can hollow aluminium "planes" simply slice through the steel outer walls of the wtc without losing their "fragile" wing tips & tail section,the "planes" are cgi fakes only ever seen on tv,and added to generate support for a "war on terror"
@kansasinnovember You forget to calculate the weight and the force and all of that other good stuff. And if it was CGI, how do you explain the detailed accounts from home cameras? And from witnesses themselves? LOL.
@BodiesEatingDaggers i take it your referring to the witnesses (media & gov. employees) who claim to have seen "planes" while totally ignoring those who say they didn't..all witness statements contradict each other so how can they be classed as fact.
@575MAFIA575 Um most videos of the second impact does show people following the plane and hitting the building. The news like CNN, BBC don't because they are usually on a stand or are fixed to see one direct picture. Or in this case the cameraman knew the plane would be in line of sight of the picture.
I have posted many photos on 03-12-2010. Planes flying two different directions from right and left directions toward the towers, different size/shape/color planes, multiple composited foregrounds. All composited stills on one page. Everything about 911 was fake, real estate fraud, planned demolitions, art market fraud, death hoax/vicsims fraud. 11 & 77 didn't fly on 911. No planes on 911.
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 2012 IS COMING FASTER THANTHE MOVE SAID D; RUN FOR YOUR LIVES (and buy some chips so you wont starve:]) IM TO YOUNG TO DIE D;
@GAGAGAGALOL ...it's not fake, all videos show the plane come from the exact same angle. It's just the camera's are in different places, have you worked that out? Exactly, all you heard was an explosion, you didn't see the plane, because you were not looking at the tower, and was far away i pressume.
WHY do all these asshole official storytellers can't answer my questions about WHY?
WHY was the entire white house on CIPRO 2 weeks b4 any ANTHRAX ATTACKS by "TERRORISTS" (LOL) to only DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR & poor old ladies & suckered postal workers?
"TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS" FROM Ft.Dietrick-AMES STRAIN ANTHRAX- from The Army Germ Warfare division.easily supplied to the CIA or even CHENEY'S HIT SQUADS-that the fucking CIA didn't even know about.
all ppl saying that it was missiles are fucking retarded. how would they be able to release 1000s of videos with planes hitting the towers if it was faked. are u actually that retarded that u think someone would fake something like this? yes this is cnn footage but mabye the bloke who posted it was there when someone took the video. most of the videos shown on the news are just donated videos from amatuers anyway. so shut the fuck up and pay some respect for everyone who died.
Wheres The Bang?.. ohh shit this is the fakest video ever. Missle! The TV reporters can do everything they want to and say its Terrorists, its a fucking plane with terrorist, NO! its not. Ok Dudes the 4 guys in the picture who people say terrorist to them, how the fucking hell do you guys know that? Its writing under his passport? ''TERRORIST'' BECAUSE THERE WAS MUSLIMS!!!
god those two wonderful buildings were so perfect... so many innocent people died, if someone has a problem with a country, then just say whatever you want about it or ignore it but dont kill families that dont even know what is going on... the most unfair death is cold blood.
@superfrickensexy Grey in colour because thats the livery paint for the airline. looks military because the military has a model of the same aircraft. and no windows? how can you see tiny 1 foot by 1 foot panes of plexy glass on an aircraft moving at over 300 knots? get out of here. it doesnt matter, almost 4000 people died, conspiricy or not
Hi, I'm from Holland, and whe saw it on television. And my heart was in my throat. Whe will allso never forget that terrible day. You were standing there? I believe you were in shock.
you would think that the way the plane hit this sky scrapper that if the building was to collapse the building might have collapsed side ways maybe. Interesting how it just falls at free fall speed STRAIGHT down a few hours later, ignoring the laws of physics. Well i guess the reason that happened was because th fire was too intense, causing ALL the steel support columns to give way at precisely the same exact time. ALL OF THEM.
@superfrickensexy Who is the wierdo? The person who cannot spell and doesn't show their respect for those who died, or the person who either was actually there, or DOES show their respects. Think about that.
I'm not sure if I'm the first to notice but, if this is a tape of the second attack happening just then. Then why in the hell did the banner on the bottom of the screen mention "multiple" attacks at 0:17. How could the news know about "multiple attacks when the second attack just happened HMMMM......
@cl70c200gem This video isn't live. Listen to the reporter: "We've seen it from the front angle, but not from this angle." This video isn't being aired live in this clip. They replayed the planes hitting over and over that day. That's how the bottom mention's multiple attacks.
@cl70c200gem This video isn't live. Listen to the reporter: "We've seen it from the front angle, but not from this angle." This video isn't being aired live in this clip. They replayed the planes hitting over and over that day. That's how the bottom mention's multiple attacks.
Well well well, it looks like a missile with wings! LMAO! Nice try to cover this up though. That audio is so fake it's not even funny. I also find it humorous that the only people who were "eye witnesses" ALL WORKED FOR THE MEDIA!! Dear Media, we, the American people are NOT STUPID!! Get your fucking head out of ur asses! By the way, if you check out all the news stations' views of the 2nd "plane", all the flight paths are different, Eat it bitches!!
@superfrickensexy you're a real fucken moron you know that. I was there. I saw the planes (both of them) also. They were commercial airliners. Seriously dude, get a life and stop making up bullshit.
JESUS-WHAT IS THAT? STOP THE FILM EXACTLY AT :09 SECONDS.
The plane hits the building & goes in but after it enters.......U can still see the outside of the building INTACT???? WTF IS THAT???
Stop it on 9 seconds. I'm not a no-plane theory into the towers either but this is the first time i saw this.There was no plane at the pentagon or in that hole in Shanksville either. That was obvious.
@ed11561 of course it's intact a millisecond after the front of the plane hits. They dont just disintergrate. By your logic, when i have a car accident, and hit the car infront, the back of the car wouldn't be intact.
@rogieroger WTF r u talking about genius? If the planes body & wings GO THRU
the building....how the fuck is the building going to be intact for any millisecond at all?
IT'S NOT.
And you logic isn't logic. If u hit a car in front of you in the REAR then that cars REAR is not going to be intact-without damage-pristine-totally impervious to your hit unless it was made out of Titanium & u were going 2 miles an hour.
I swear, I never knew the world was populated with such retarded morons until I looked up a few 9/11 videos. Comments like this persons give me little hope for the future of humanity. Superfrickensexy, you are an idiot...
it was a commercial plane what I saw and I was just waiting for the boat to go to the statue of liberty. the man next to me was a regular visitor too. get your crazy ideas out of your head - i was there
@just2b Crazy ideas? :D Hey man, I just got to tell you that this footage has been exposed as a fake footage like most of 911 stuff. It's proven that it is absolutely impossible to film this one from ground level. Don't fucking put me your bullshit fairytales! Don't even get me started about crash physics...
septemberclues (dot) info is a good place to start your 911 research. It has some minor innacuracies, but it's far from crap You are free to try debunking it in the forums, bitch!
@cadu1995 Thank you for compliment, but do research on this event. Also, if they used missiles in pentagon and in shanksville (flight 93), why use it on towers?
@cadu1995 Book about 911? Ridicioulous. 911 is NOT the kind of event where you find out thuth in books. It is an on-going scam. Check septemberclues (dot) info
@LithuanianGuitar Watched that YEARS ago. 911 was certainly something you can learn about in books.I've read a dozen of them. You don't learn about 911 by watching fucking videos guy.
@just2b Well, also, if you were on the boat at that time, why it is confirmed by the government and the footage author that it was taken from ground level, not on boat?
@LithuanianGuitar it was a commercial plane what I saw and I was just waiting for the boat to go to the statue of liberty. the man next to me was a regular visitor too. get your crazy ideas out of your head - i was there
HE WAS WAITING FOR THE STATUE OF LIBERTY TOUR BOAT-he was ON THE GROUND. I know exactly where it is-battery park south downtown-next to the water.
@just2b Can we see the photos you took from the same angle? Did you catch the plane in any of your photographs? I for one find it very strange that the person who filmed this focused excactly on wtc impactzone instead of the screaming jet coming over his head. If a car comes honking down the street you would film the car, not the possible location it would hit. Very intuitive behaviour indeed.
Maybe the planes hit, maybe not. Nothing surprises me anymore. And why does the wing disappear?
OMG. i stood there and watched the planes hiting the tower, i watched them crashing, i watched the people jumping out of the windows - so please stop that crap that nothing happend there ...
You saw a plane hitting a tower on TELEVISION, just like the rest of the world did.
FACT: A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of air density and structural integrity.
FACT: A 767 cannot penetrate a steel wall, slice through steel core columns, EXPLODE and then penetrate and exit out another steel framed wall with its nosecone intact.
FACT: A REAL 767 loaded with fuel would have EXPLODED upon IMPACT.
@lmfecher Cool "facts". And you have tested this before? If that was "true" then why would the government lie and be so "careless" and so "obvious". Scientists believe the plane. So why don't you.
News flash, Skippy...the government lies to us ALL THE TIME. And who PAID the scientists to confirm that "airliners" hit the WTC towers? Who PAID Purdue for their "computer analysis" and why did it take two years to complete? What about the expert pilots, aircraft structual engineers, aircraft mechanics and even NASA employees who've also stated that no commercial airliners hit WTC 1 & 2?
@lmfecher Oh really? They lie ALL the time? Like what, tell me something other than Iraq.
...Scientists get paid whether they agree or disagree to offical stories. What matters is that they got the same conclusion. Ah well, sorry to say but there are very little people that think there were no planes, when it was thousands of people saw it in real life, as well as millions of people on TV, as well as plane evidence from all four planes.
Obviously, you don't know history. For starters, the government lied to us about the USS Maine, which led to the Spanish American War. They lied about the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor. They lied about the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to the Vietnam War. They lied about Watergate, the deaths of JFK, RFK & MLK. They lied about the Iran Contra. They lied about Saddam before the first Gulf War. They lied about Agent Orange, DU's, Anthrax, and WMD's. They LIE!
Okay i can't talk to you, please don't reply, your a conspiracy buff, that believe EVERY theory ever made up. Which is quite a worry i might add. Makes people do stupid shit. Out of that sazum list you made up, only TWO were OFFICALLY LIES, which means PROVED. So yes go on and think. But don't reply, because your like a brick, there's no change AT ALL or motion that you will even consider someone else's proper stories.
"Out of that sazum list you made up, only TWO were OFFICALLY LIES, which means PROVED"....
I listed many incidents where the government lied, but you refuse to look at the facts. When the facts are presented and the individual CHOOSES denial because the facts are too overwhelming to accept, it's called cognitive dissonance. Many people do this because they are too afraid to face and accept the truth. Planes crash INTO buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them.
@lmfecher No actually, i don't "refuse" to accept bullshit "facts" because they don't make any sense what so ever, and are not OFFICALLY PROVEN. Thats why they are called Theories, a thought or idea on an event.
Ah ah, you ignored what i said, why hasn't anyone important mentioned the slice through steel of UA 175?
You aren't paying attention, are you Skippy? There are MANY "important" people who know commercial airliners didn't hit the towers. People like Morgan Reynolds, Dr Judy Wood, John Lear and Dwain Deets for starters. Then there are all the professional pilots, aircraft engineers and mechanics (pilotsfor911truth org)
who also know what commercial airliners weren't used. Herd mentality is exactly why common sense goes out the window. You saw it on tv, so it must be true.
@lmfecher Anyway, like i said don't reply to me, because why should i even bother with someone who's obsessesd like you are, and just ignores anything that anyone says to you. And you are so corrupt and convinced every theory is "real", so why should i? And if you are so CERTAIN about ALL of these, then do something, no?
May I remind you of the "scientists" who got paid by the tobacco companies to say that nicotine wasn't addictive? Or the "scientists" who got paid by BP to say that most of the oil in the Gulf dissipated? Or the EPA declaring the air at ground zero was safe to breathe?
There are MANY rational, logical, critical thinkers who understand how commercial airliners couldn't have flown through steel framed buildings without first crashing into them.
I am a decorated Navy Gulf War veteran. I was a jet engine mechanic for six years and I worked on many types of military aircraft, their airframes and their powerplants. I know what aircraft can and cannot do. A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of air density and structural integrity. I also know that if UA 175 had been a real airliner, there would have been a crash and explosion on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2, a steel framed building.
@lmfecher Well okay then, are you a scientist or work for NASA? Because it is mainly THEM who say it's possible and came with the SAME conclusion NIST, FEMA and the NAA did. United Airlines and American Airlines also declared: "It is highly rare and nearly impossible for a Boeing 767 to reach the speeds it did, whilst decending on an angle. But as the conclusion of the NIST report states the speed of United Airlines 175 at 500mph, is NOT an accurate result. But with the Boeing decending and
NIST & FEMA? LMFAO!! Really? FEMA was already in place in NYC on September 10, 2001!! Prior knowledge? Sure enough! And NIST, who didn't even investigate the WTC for explosives! Gee, I wonder who pays them?
We were conned, scammed, duped, lied to, betrayed and deceived on a GRAND SCALE! The evidence is clear, 9/11 was an inside job and no commercial airliners were used as weapons. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
@lmfecher What you think i only rely or JUST mentioned FEMA and NIST. It's called alot more than just two organisations mate.
"We were conned, scammed, duped, lied to, betrayed and deceived on a GRAND SCALE! The evidence is clear, 9/11 was an inside job and no commercial airliners were used as weapons. Why is this so hard for you to accept?"
Do you know why? Because that paragraph sounds god damn retarded thats why. I see points where explosives could have been used. But saying no planes
"It's called alot more than just two organisations, mate"....
I've read the entire 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report and the FEMA Report, have you? No, you haven't, because if you had taken the time to read them, you'd see that all three reports had MAJOR discrepancies and many omissions. All of the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH a steel framed tower without CRASHING into it. Show me one video of UA 175 crashing into and exploding on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2.
@lmfecher Is just rubbish. If there were "no planes" i'm sure they would have just blown the building from the inside. As well as, how do you have proof there are no planes? That the explosion happened in the building? Is that it? That wouldn't suggest a fly to change their mind. You seem so certain you "know" exactly everything, and yet you share your "100% correct" information on Youtube? Take it higher if your so convinced, and if you win i will applaud you as a hero.
Are you even familiar with Newtonian mechanics? Newton's Three Laws of Physics? Basic crash physics?
The problem with UA 175 and WTC 2, is there wasn't a CRASH! If UA 175 had been real, upon impacting WTC 2 there would have been crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage. Parts of the airliner would have fallen to the street below and there would have been a tremendous explosion on the OUTSIDE of the tower.
Instead, UA 175 flies THROUGH WTC 2, without crashing into it.
I am referring to basic crash physics and Newtonian mechanics, which includes the laws of motion. Airliners crash INTO buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, there would have been an impact and explosion on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2. Instead, all of the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 without impact or deceleration. UA 175 never crashes INTO the tower which violates basic crash physics.
If UA 175 had been a real airliner that crashed into a steel framed building, there would have been aircraft debris in the street below. How is that a contradiction?
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing INTO WTC 2. Show me where UA 175 HITS and EXPLODES on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2.
Pay attention Skippy. Get into your car and drive as fast as you can into a parked car. Does your car pass through the parked car or does it stop abruptly when it crashes into it? Had UA 175 been a real airliner, it would have CRASHED INTO WTC 2. UA 175 would have also abruptly stopped. There would have been crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage and an EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of the tower.
@lmfecher That is not quite the right concept, but you're getting there. A plane, as you know, has a tapered point (the nose). This means that the force is confined to a focal point - a small surface area. Additionally, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you hold a belief that Newton's third law is instantaneous?
You're trying to compare a 767 to a bullet, Skippy. Epic fail. F=MA, but in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, force would be the IMPACT of the airliner on the tower, but there was no impact, there was no crash. Show me ONE video of UA 175 actually CRASHING INTO WTC 2. The impact and subsequent explosion would have been on the outside of tower 2.
@lmfecher Tell me, with your car example, are the cars of equal or similar weight? Did you also mean that my car would come to a immediate halt after the impact?
_ _
F = ma You're quite correct. Now with an aircraft it is necessary to factor in vector components. Heard of the Calfornia Bearing Ratio? Do you know why the landing area of some airstrips has to contend with a mass greater than that of a plane?
Blah blah blah....your ramblings on are starting to bore me Skippy. Are you doing this on purpose or are you really a helmet wearing, short bus riding, special school attending moron?
Show me ONE video, just ONE of UA 175 CRASHING into WTC 2. Show me IMPACT, show me deceleration, show me crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage, show me an EXPLOSION at the IMPACT site on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2. Airplanes CRASH into buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them.
@lmfecher No, I merely covering the concepts of mechanics as you lack the understanding of fundamentals behind your allegations. You are parroting Newton's laws without even grasping the basics. I have already given you a very valid reason as to how an aircraft can penetrate a building.
I was trained by the US Navy to work on aircraft, both powerplants and airframes. I did that for six years and I am a decorated Gulf War veteran. I know and understand Newtonian mechanics and basic crash physics and was on the crash recovery team for four years. I know and understand what aircraft can and cannot do, and they CANNOT fly THROUGH buildings, they crash INTO them.
I'm also aware that many more shills have been employed to troll the internet and spread disinformation. I took a peek at your channel and noticed that it looks similar to other shills I have exposed. Coincidence? I don't think so.
@lmfecher I don't even reside in American. Additionally, are you thinking that there are only two forces coming into play here? What can you tell me is incorrect about your assumption that there would be an explosion if the aircraft has already encountered an equivalent force in the form of the wall?
What did I say, Skippy? I took a peek at your channel already and it clearly states where you are from. Now suppose you tell me exactly why there wouldn't be a impact and explosion on the OUTSIDE of the tower. Tell me how a 767 could completely and neatly disappear into a steel framed structure without first CRASHING into it.
@lmfecher For some reason you're interpreting the 3rd law as only 2 forces equalling each other - it's actually a combination of forces (net force). You stated that the plane is meeting an equal force in the form of the wall, yet you say it would explode, which is an example of heat and sound (kinetic energy). That means that when you factor in kinetic energy into your "equation", it is now unbalanced as the force on one side is greater than the other. Newton's cradle covers this...
Again with all your babble! UA 175 was loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. The would have been an explosion upon impacting WTC 2 on the OUTSIDE of the tower. Show me ONE video where UA 175 actually CRASHES INTO WTC 2. Planes CRASH into buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them. Damn Skippy, don't they teach basic physics down under?
@lmfecher Eh...that's not babble - that's physics. Did you not read my comment prior to this? I repeat: if the plane encountered a force equal to itself in the form of the wall, the kinetic energy released as mostly heat and sound then throws out your equation.
And it did indeed explode AFTER it penetrated the building. Why's that? Because the aircraft did NOT encounter a force equal to itself in the form of the wall, but it did cause significant damage to the airframe.
And did you not read my comment? While F=MA, in order for the release of kinetic energy, there would have to be an IMPACT or CRASH FIRST!
UA 175 completely flew THROUGH WTC 2 without crashing into it and then exploded INSIDE the tower. And where do you see "significant damage to the airframe"? Show me ONE video where you see the nosecone, fuselage, wing section or tail section of UA 175 crumple upon entering WTC 2.
...and apparently a Tyre survived that Explosion and ended up on the Sidewalk!
ManOfOZ2011 5 months ago
where was spider man when we needed him?
gatorfan15wp 5 months ago
i dont believe in a conspiracy however im sorry but the second plane has something wrong , its not a normal plane
prettybitchesloveme 5 months ago
@prettybitchesloveme
why is it not a normal plane?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
0:14
Juhl1337 5 months ago
looks awful
bejli900 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year, Every September the 11th, I watch these videos with watery eyes. I was only 4 when this happened, and i can't remember it. Part of me wishes i could, the other half is saying good riddance you rotten bastards that did this. Especially to Bin Laden who we FINALLY FREAKIN GOT. hoorah. And after watching and understanding these videos, i have made the decision that i am going to join the United States Marine Corps. Thumbs up so every1 can see that we need to fight for our freedom.
01NissanSkyline 5 months ago
I really do hate when the woman scream shit gets annoying
NoLockDoors 5 months ago
0:14 you can see a devil face in the video
Thegoodvideos101 5 months ago
@Thegoodvideos101 that means the devils planned this disaster...
BlackCobrasTV 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Special offer for 9/11 wtc attack video on DVD : 'Tuesday Morning in September'. Link is on the channel of this posts author. DVD runtime 130 minutes. It is the most complete video of the 9/11 attacks from a single cameraman that exists.
Something new from that day.
TuesdayMorningInSept 5 months ago
lol you guys really think it was Osama Bin Laden? The planes all started from an airport in Washington, the brother of George W. Bush ordered them
1994alexS 5 months ago
@1994alexS And your evidence is?
BriansVideoHobby 5 months ago
Comment removed
1994alexS 5 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten... @BriansVideoHobby show me the evidence it was NOT like that ;) how your judge says in America? guilty until proven innocent? u know how stupid that is? more smart it would be to prove the guilty! not the innocent. and i really love (irony) how you americans believe all of the things said in TV. the tv can tell ANYthing, do you know its really like that? there are a lot of evidence which lets you be skeptical about it. ;) you just have to do researches for it!
1994alexS 5 months ago
@1994alexS First, we have a free exchange of information because we have freedom of speech. This site is a good example. If you believe the brother of GWB ordered the planes, prove it. He's innocent until proven guilty. You have your justice system confused with ours, we demand evidence of guilt.
BriansVideoHobby 5 months ago
@BriansVideoHobby hmm anyways can you prove that it was an attack from terrorists? can you prove it was bin laden who ordered his man to fly into the WTC? prove it, then ill believe you.
1994alexS 5 months ago
@1994alexS Why can't you look at the OVERWHELMING evidence that it was Al Quaeda and fucking accept it you nut case? You choose to cherry pick bullshit explanations from hundreds of loony sources to feed your stupid delusions about some conspiracy? You are a pathetic foreigner with an obvious anti-American bias. Not only are you mentally ill you are also predisposed to hate the US. You dishonor the people who died that day and you underestimate the group responsible. AL QUAEDA
TheJjiggity 5 months ago
@1994alexS You have no concept of how evidence and information can be used to form a conclusion. you are a brain dead anti-US foreigner who cherry picks bullshit off of lame sources like youtube to support your conspiracy theories. Nobody has to prove shit to you. It's like saying water is wet and you telling me to prove it. it's fucking nonsense.
TheJjiggity 5 months ago
@TheJjiggity but can you prove it was an attack from terrorists? i dont think so. so shut up (edit: you can prove that water is wet but can you prove that they were pakistans/terrorists?)
1994alexS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1994alexS Shut up, you are born 1994 and doesnt know shit
Nitionn 5 months ago
@1994alexS What can be proved, beyond contestation, is that as the World Trade Center fell Muslims in Palestine, among other places, were having a party and dancing in the streets. It can be proved that Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon. We know who did this. We know who supported it. We know who celebrated it. And those responsible will pay dearly for their actions.
aether020685 5 months ago
@aether020685 ok then tell me, why the building 7 collapsed ;) don´t tell me it collapsed because the "earthquake" was that big, cause if it was like that why wheren`t the other buildings collapsing?
1994alexS 5 months ago
@1994alexS WTC 7 was hit heavily by debris from the twin towers. Firefighters reported 25% of one side of it was missing. It then caught fire and this was fueled by diesel tanks in the lower floors. WTC 7 also had a unique construction of 3 main vertical structural beams on it's lover floors that made it more fragile.
Spindry96 5 months ago
@aether020685 and one other fact: steel needs a white flame to smelt. on 9/11 it was a yellow flame. the steel couldn`t be smelted, the WTC would still stand if it was only an airplane. there was an arplain hitting the empire state building and it didn`t collapse! the WTC was built the same way.
1994alexS 5 months ago
stupied osamabinlandin i hope ur happy u made a normel day to be the worst day in the history of the world
blieber100 5 months ago
@blieber100 Worst day in the history of your puny little life perhaps.
MaleficMoose 5 months ago
@MaleficMoose are u talking about me
blieber100 5 months ago
fucking dirty paki cunt kill all the pakki cunts fuck them dirty pakkis
SmerkzBs10 5 months ago
my dad was there i was 6 years old and at school thankfully he made it unharmed but he told me that every few seconds he heard a thump sound that were people at the impact zones jumping out. may all who suffered that day rest in peace and may all who knew these people and were affect by this day be comforted. I <3 NY TILL I DIE
thebigmeat92 5 months ago
What would i do if i were usa
NUKE THE FUCKING PAKIS AND WHO CARES FOR THE... INCEONT OF THERE COUNTRY KILL THE ONES THT DONT DESEVRE THEN WE WILL KILL THT DONT TOO
MrScottnDavid 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
those fucking animals i wish i took the damn shot to kill osama i hope he rotes in hell god blessing the U.S of fucking A
RunescapeDirectory 7 months ago
Its loke like a graphic plane
KingLeipzig 8 months ago
Can you believe that so called "truthers" claim that no plane ever hit the second tower? Even with the video proof seen here. Even with the thousands of eye witnesses, many claim a passenger plane did not hit the WTC. This is what our nation is up against internally. Traitors hell bent on hurting America and calling themselves patriots for what they call..."asking questions". Don't believe your eyes they say. Believe our bizarre nonsense instead. We truthers need you to believe America did this.
Appleholic1 8 months ago
@Appleholic1
Where are all of these thousands of eye witnesses? I haven't heard or seen any of them mention a plane other than the network feeds we were all shown. They blacked out the local channels because they insisted that the antennas were on the towers. If you compare the major network feeds, you can tell the planes are fake icons, none of them match in size and shape, and they are mostly coming in from different angles. Fake holes were photoshopped in the "impact" sites. Demolition.
retiredaxmurderer 7 months ago
@retiredaxmurderer dumbass. i cant believe 10 years later morons like you think this was still controlled demolition.
jack52594 6 months ago
That fireball - about 200 ft in diameter. The first tower fireball was about twice as large. Someone who knows the density of burning jet-A please calculate how many gallons of jet-A ignited in those first few seconds to create such a huge fireball. I have.
Now read the endless journalist reports the "ALL" of the fuel was in the buildings, which caused them to collapse.
The math doesn't add up, folks.
HVYMETL 9 months ago
@HVYMETL "calculate how many gallons of jet-A ignited in those first few seconds to create such a huge fireball. I have."
U R lying to yourself
The plane disintegrated within a closed environment, mincing the fuel tanks in impossible-to-estimate ways, vaporizing some, but not all the fuel, creating a totally-uneven & randomly-inhomogeneous mix. The detonation then leaked slowly (relatively) out of an unknown number of windows & down & up into the tower
Ur "maths" is toasted by Ur assumptions
beachcomber2008 9 months ago
a formula 1 racing car doing 250mph will be obliterated if it hit a wall made of bails of straw yet a hollow aluminium airline at similar speed will glide through a steel structured building in 1 piece.....only joking both would be toast.
@imfecher....nice to see you wiping the floor with this prick
kansasinnovember 9 months ago
@kansasinnovember "both would be toast" - Well the impact speed was double the speed you quote and the impact energy QUADRUPLED - and BOTH were toast
beachcomber2008 9 months ago
@kansasinnovember
Thanks for the support. The reason fucktards like this guy refuse to see the truth is because they are spineless cowards who CHOOSE to deny the facts presented to them. It's called cognitive dissonance, when the facts are presented but too painful to accept, the cowards choose denial.
Did you notice he never answered my question about ramming his car into a building AND he has yet to show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing INTO tower 2?
Typical punk ass bitch move.
lmfecher 9 months ago
it wasn't long ago that you pathetic little shills claimed the aluminium airlines sliced there way through the steel outer walls of the wtc with enough force to ensure the nose cone could continue on and penetrate the steel outer wallls on its way out of the other side without losing its wing tips and tail-section in the process,now your claiming it was "vaporised" on contact...black boxes,cockpit,fuselage,wings...everything but the"indestructable" passport.
NO PLANES ON 911
kansasinnovember 9 months ago 2
Come on guys.. we all know the truth.
yall can lie here on youtube, but don't be lying to yourself.
luksfarris 9 months ago
I crying. This is terible
majesiu526 9 months ago
buy a hundred dollar digital camera, and go be the news sources, the msm is going broke due to paying 10-15 million for the talking tv heads newscasts contracts....yay.
send em packing, as they have been nothing but a hindrance and a catalyst for the last 60 years or so...
time for a cleansing.
RequiemForChange 10 months ago
pauze at 0:09 See the thing under the plane? A bomb!?
LilTmovies 10 months ago
Like people!!! You think some news station is going to load up video on their play back machines just brought in by a camera person. (Of which a director, TD, producer, switcher, graphics person, roll to air person... etc etc are involved..)
And play some ... "Computer Generated airplane????!!!" and none of those people will know what the fuck they are doing??
Grow the fuck up you twits!!!!
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
Strange old world how we can believe some guys in a cave were able to hijack 4 planes at the same time without one security camera actually seeing them get on the planes, fly a perfect trajectory that even experienced pilots find hard to fly while having their transponders turned off, make NORAD stand down, make 30+ security camera tapes around the pentagon disappear and set their own country ablaze for a decade... Oh wait no, they were Saudis... Forget it, I didn't say a thing... =)
1famekouby 1 year ago
newtons 3rd law of motion "for every action there is an equal & opposite re-action" meaning for every force there is a re-action force that is equal in size but in the opposite direction.so there's damage to the wtc,but where's the damage to the plane?....or can hollow aluminium "planes" simply slice through the steel outer walls of the wtc without losing their "fragile" wing tips & tail section,the "planes" are cgi fakes only ever seen on tv,and added to generate support for a "war on terror"
kansasinnovember 1 year ago 2
@kansasinnovember Only ever seen on TV? LOL yeah cool idea you have there.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@kansasinnovember You forget to calculate the weight and the force and all of that other good stuff. And if it was CGI, how do you explain the detailed accounts from home cameras? And from witnesses themselves? LOL.
BodiesEatingDaggers 11 months ago
@BodiesEatingDaggers i take it your referring to the witnesses (media & gov. employees) who claim to have seen "planes" while totally ignoring those who say they didn't..all witness statements contradict each other so how can they be classed as fact.
kansasinnovember 11 months ago
@superfrickensexy You're a fucking dick dude, and learn how to spell.
PowerSquadA 1 year ago
Comment removed
575MAFIA575 1 year ago
@575MAFIA575 Um most videos of the second impact does show people following the plane and hitting the building. The news like CNN, BBC don't because they are usually on a stand or are fixed to see one direct picture. Or in this case the cameraman knew the plane would be in line of sight of the picture.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy you are a fag were you there?! and since when do missiles have wings!
TheArabmobile1 1 year ago
@TheArabmobile1
Missiles DO have wings. As a matter of fact, a JASSM bunker buster missile looks just like a small aircraft in flight.
You really should research the material before commenting.
lmfecher 1 year ago
Totally fake.
074August 1 year ago
@074August any proof?
The1979Warriors 1 year ago
@The1979Warriors Google IMAGES, No hole in WTC.
davidicke. com/forum/showthread.php?t=143486&page=61
I have posted many photos on 03-12-2010. Planes flying two different directions from right and left directions toward the towers, different size/shape/color planes, multiple composited foregrounds. All composited stills on one page. Everything about 911 was fake, real estate fraud, planned demolitions, art market fraud, death hoax/vicsims fraud. 11 & 77 didn't fly on 911. No planes on 911.
074August 1 year ago
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 2012 IS COMING FASTER THANTHE MOVE SAID D; RUN FOR YOUR LIVES (and buy some chips so you wont starve:]) IM TO YOUNG TO DIE D;
TheShadow478 1 year ago
why killing these ppl they owned nothing from this
supemcpc 1 year ago
*i was there* that one word would totally buy everyone over now wouldn't it?
-i was there-!!!!!!
and to be quite honest!!
I didn't see anything that looked remotely like a 747 all i heard was a massive explosion
this footage is fake as fuck to all the people out there please don't buy it!
there were loads of other videos that were filmed and the footage does not add
up from all of the angles of wich the plane was shot there all different!!
GAGAGAGALOL 1 year ago
@GAGAGAGALOL ...it's not fake, all videos show the plane come from the exact same angle. It's just the camera's are in different places, have you worked that out? Exactly, all you heard was an explosion, you didn't see the plane, because you were not looking at the tower, and was far away i pressume.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
comment removed
zakfoot4 1 year ago
Comment removed
zakfoot4 1 year ago
My bs meter is going off.
eg6roll 1 year ago
LOL :08 seconds - "ALLAH HOO AKH BARH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" *AHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHH OH NOO AHHHH OH MY GOD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
t10h190 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHY do all these asshole official storytellers can't answer my questions about WHY?
WHY was the entire white house on CIPRO 2 weeks b4 any ANTHRAX ATTACKS by "TERRORISTS" (LOL) to only DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR & poor old ladies & suckered postal workers?
"TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS" FROM Ft.Dietrick-AMES STRAIN ANTHRAX- from The Army Germ Warfare division.easily supplied to the CIA or even CHENEY'S HIT SQUADS-that the fucking CIA didn't even know about.
cadu1995 1 year ago
whos the a-hole cheering in the backround???
chassolefdx 1 year ago
all ppl saying that it was missiles are fucking retarded. how would they be able to release 1000s of videos with planes hitting the towers if it was faked. are u actually that retarded that u think someone would fake something like this? yes this is cnn footage but mabye the bloke who posted it was there when someone took the video. most of the videos shown on the news are just donated videos from amatuers anyway. so shut the fuck up and pay some respect for everyone who died.
por0003 1 year ago
@por0003 only missiles were in the pentagon & up the ass of Flight 93
cadu1995 1 year ago
id fucking shit my pants if i saw all this in real life
bmanolf 1 year ago
that is the scariest thing.
makethingsforsmile 1 year ago
Wheres The Bang?.. ohh shit this is the fakest video ever. Missle! The TV reporters can do everything they want to and say its Terrorists, its a fucking plane with terrorist, NO! its not. Ok Dudes the 4 guys in the picture who people say terrorist to them, how the fucking hell do you guys know that? Its writing under his passport? ''TERRORIST'' BECAUSE THERE WAS MUSLIMS!!!
TonihGangstar 1 year ago
god those two wonderful buildings were so perfect... so many innocent people died, if someone has a problem with a country, then just say whatever you want about it or ignore it but dont kill families that dont even know what is going on... the most unfair death is cold blood.
kokoroyer 1 year ago
1/3 - Analysis of "Ball" Footage on NBC - Richard D Hall search for this on YouTube - watch all 3 chapters - and be amazed.
domodunc 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy Grey in colour because thats the livery paint for the airline. looks military because the military has a model of the same aircraft. and no windows? how can you see tiny 1 foot by 1 foot panes of plexy glass on an aircraft moving at over 300 knots? get out of here. it doesnt matter, almost 4000 people died, conspiricy or not
bajesus666 1 year ago
Hi, I'm from Holland, and whe saw it on television. And my heart was in my throat. Whe will allso never forget that terrible day. You were standing there? I believe you were in shock.
Weldboy1974 1 year ago
you would think that the way the plane hit this sky scrapper that if the building was to collapse the building might have collapsed side ways maybe. Interesting how it just falls at free fall speed STRAIGHT down a few hours later, ignoring the laws of physics. Well i guess the reason that happened was because th fire was too intense, causing ALL the steel support columns to give way at precisely the same exact time. ALL OF THEM.
Origin305 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy
you dumb shit
fishtank901 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy Who is the wierdo? The person who cannot spell and doesn't show their respect for those who died, or the person who either was actually there, or DOES show their respects. Think about that.
Rightnut20 1 year ago
i don't care who took the video, you can clearly see it is NOT a commercial jet. it's drab greenish grey like most MILITARY planes.
Lydirius 1 year ago
it was a face
jrmedrano1 1 year ago
How is it that every time I see this clip, there is a different audio??????????????
Enferushostis 1 year ago
I'm not sure if I'm the first to notice but, if this is a tape of the second attack happening just then. Then why in the hell did the banner on the bottom of the screen mention "multiple" attacks at 0:17. How could the news know about "multiple attacks when the second attack just happened HMMMM......
cl70c200gem 1 year ago
@cl70c200gem This video isn't live. Listen to the reporter: "We've seen it from the front angle, but not from this angle." This video isn't being aired live in this clip. They replayed the planes hitting over and over that day. That's how the bottom mention's multiple attacks.
ajbeecher21 1 year ago
@cl70c200gem This video isn't live. Listen to the reporter: "We've seen it from the front angle, but not from this angle." This video isn't being aired live in this clip. They replayed the planes hitting over and over that day. That's how the bottom mention's multiple attacks.
ajbeecher21 1 year ago
-bitch slaps all the women screaming on the ground who aren't anywhere close to to the danger-
elektrinate 1 year ago
Well well well, it looks like a missile with wings! LMAO! Nice try to cover this up though. That audio is so fake it's not even funny. I also find it humorous that the only people who were "eye witnesses" ALL WORKED FOR THE MEDIA!! Dear Media, we, the American people are NOT STUPID!! Get your fucking head out of ur asses! By the way, if you check out all the news stations' views of the 2nd "plane", all the flight paths are different, Eat it bitches!!
natureboy84 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy you're a real fucken moron you know that. I was there. I saw the planes (both of them) also. They were commercial airliners. Seriously dude, get a life and stop making up bullshit.
rogieroger 1 year ago
@rogieroger So u just happened to be in NYC 9 years ago watching planes flying into buildings when u r fromAUSTRALIA????
ed11561 1 year ago 2
@ed11561 ah yes, i live in LA and was working in New York, but Im from australia. Wow. You should be a detective.
rogieroger 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy Stop this film at 9 seconds-do it a couple of times.The plane goes
into the tower-STOP- but the outside of the tower is still INTACT. No holes whatsoever
It's b4 the fireball&smoke??? What the fuck is that?
The film also has a WarnerBros. logo on the top right? WTF? Someone fuckedwith this film.
ed11561 1 year ago
JESUS-WHAT IS THAT? STOP THE FILM EXACTLY AT :09 SECONDS.
The plane hits the building & goes in but after it enters.......U can still see the outside of the building INTACT???? WTF IS THAT???
Stop it on 9 seconds. I'm not a no-plane theory into the towers either but this is the first time i saw this.There was no plane at the pentagon or in that hole in Shanksville either. That was obvious.
ed11561 1 year ago
@ed11561 of course it's intact a millisecond after the front of the plane hits. They dont just disintergrate. By your logic, when i have a car accident, and hit the car infront, the back of the car wouldn't be intact.
rogieroger 1 year ago
@rogieroger WTF r u talking about genius? If the planes body & wings GO THRU
the building....how the fuck is the building going to be intact for any millisecond at all?
IT'S NOT.
And you logic isn't logic. If u hit a car in front of you in the REAR then that cars REAR is not going to be intact-without damage-pristine-totally impervious to your hit unless it was made out of Titanium & u were going 2 miles an hour.
ed11561 1 year ago
@rogieroger So according to your logic if i put my fist through your chest -your chest would be intact for a few milliseconds? LOL
ed11561 1 year ago
STOP THIS FLM AT EXACTLY :09 SECONDS. THE WINGS ARE IN THE BUILDING
BUT THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING IS STILL INTACT????????WTF IS THAT?
Real convenient to have that banner on the bottom of the film isn't it CNN?
ed11561 1 year ago
@superfrickensexy
I swear, I never knew the world was populated with such retarded morons until I looked up a few 9/11 videos. Comments like this persons give me little hope for the future of humanity. Superfrickensexy, you are an idiot...
PhoenixPhire22 1 year ago
@PhoenixPhire22 believe mate. The human race is about 80% total fucktards with limited mental capacity.
rogieroger 1 year ago
@rogieroger And u r in top 1% of those fucking MORONS.lol
ed11561 1 year ago
holely shit almost cryed when i seen this?
y in the hell would those fags do that
chutter28 1 year ago
it was a commercial plane what I saw and I was just waiting for the boat to go to the statue of liberty. the man next to me was a regular visitor too. get your crazy ideas out of your head - i was there
just2b 2 years ago 2
@just2b
How was it driving back from the statue?
JSSTyger 1 year ago
@just2b Crazy ideas? :D Hey man, I just got to tell you that this footage has been exposed as a fake footage like most of 911 stuff. It's proven that it is absolutely impossible to film this one from ground level. Don't fucking put me your bullshit fairytales! Don't even get me started about crash physics...
septemberclues (dot) info is a good place to start your 911 research. It has some minor innacuracies, but it's far from crap You are free to try debunking it in the forums, bitch!
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
@LithuanianGuitar This is not fake footage -there were planes into towers but the us government was behind it.
nice guitar playing too dude.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 Thank you for compliment, but do research on this event. Also, if they used missiles in pentagon and in shanksville (flight 93), why use it on towers?
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
@LithuanianGuitar I've done more research on this than you would ever imagine.They DIDN'T use missiles on the Towers. only on flight 93 & pentagon.
You should read Crossing the Rubicon
Debunking 911 Debunking
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 The video analysis prove more.
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
@LithuanianGuitar WHAT video analysys by WHOM?
Prove WHAT? Try reading a book or twenty, about 911 & find out some read facts.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 Book about 911? Ridicioulous. 911 is NOT the kind of event where you find out thuth in books. It is an on-going scam. Check septemberclues (dot) info
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
@LithuanianGuitar Watched that YEARS ago. 911 was certainly something you can learn about in books.I've read a dozen of them. You don't learn about 911 by watching fucking videos guy.
cadu1995 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LithuanianGuitar "The video analysis prove more."
Do you always answer questions or statements with one-liners that mean nothing??
Seems like you don't know too much about a subject with 1 liners that are useless.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@just2b Well, also, if you were on the boat at that time, why it is confirmed by the government and the footage author that it was taken from ground level, not on boat?
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LithuanianGuitar it was a commercial plane what I saw and I was just waiting for the boat to go to the statue of liberty. the man next to me was a regular visitor too. get your crazy ideas out of your head - i was there
HE WAS WAITING FOR THE STATUE OF LIBERTY TOUR BOAT-he was ON THE GROUND. I know exactly where it is-battery park south downtown-next to the water.
cadu1995 1 year ago
i stood next to the man taking this video and I shot photos from the same angle. nothing generated on the computer, you retard ...
just2b 2 years ago
@just2b Fukin a
rearwheelslider 2 years ago
@just2b Can we see the photos you took from the same angle? Did you catch the plane in any of your photographs? I for one find it very strange that the person who filmed this focused excactly on wtc impactzone instead of the screaming jet coming over his head. If a car comes honking down the street you would film the car, not the possible location it would hit. Very intuitive behaviour indeed.
Maybe the planes hit, maybe not. Nothing surprises me anymore. And why does the wing disappear?
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
OMG. i stood there and watched the planes hiting the tower, i watched them crashing, i watched the people jumping out of the windows - so please stop that crap that nothing happend there ...
just2b 2 years ago 7
@just2b Lies
Outo94 1 year ago
@just2b
You saw a plane hitting a tower on TELEVISION, just like the rest of the world did.
FACT: A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of air density and structural integrity.
FACT: A 767 cannot penetrate a steel wall, slice through steel core columns, EXPLODE and then penetrate and exit out another steel framed wall with its nosecone intact.
FACT: A REAL 767 loaded with fuel would have EXPLODED upon IMPACT.
lmfecher 1 year ago 6
@lmfecher Cool "facts". And you have tested this before? If that was "true" then why would the government lie and be so "careless" and so "obvious". Scientists believe the plane. So why don't you.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
News flash, Skippy...the government lies to us ALL THE TIME. And who PAID the scientists to confirm that "airliners" hit the WTC towers? Who PAID Purdue for their "computer analysis" and why did it take two years to complete? What about the expert pilots, aircraft structual engineers, aircraft mechanics and even NASA employees who've also stated that no commercial airliners hit WTC 1 & 2?
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Oh really? They lie ALL the time? Like what, tell me something other than Iraq.
...Scientists get paid whether they agree or disagree to offical stories. What matters is that they got the same conclusion. Ah well, sorry to say but there are very little people that think there were no planes, when it was thousands of people saw it in real life, as well as millions of people on TV, as well as plane evidence from all four planes.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
Obviously, you don't know history. For starters, the government lied to us about the USS Maine, which led to the Spanish American War. They lied about the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor. They lied about the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to the Vietnam War. They lied about Watergate, the deaths of JFK, RFK & MLK. They lied about the Iran Contra. They lied about Saddam before the first Gulf War. They lied about Agent Orange, DU's, Anthrax, and WMD's. They LIE!
lmfecher 1 year ago 15
@lmfecher But until then, no way.
Okay i can't talk to you, please don't reply, your a conspiracy buff, that believe EVERY theory ever made up. Which is quite a worry i might add. Makes people do stupid shit. Out of that sazum list you made up, only TWO were OFFICALLY LIES, which means PROVED. So yes go on and think. But don't reply, because your like a brick, there's no change AT ALL or motion that you will even consider someone else's proper stories.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
"Out of that sazum list you made up, only TWO were OFFICALLY LIES, which means PROVED"....
I listed many incidents where the government lied, but you refuse to look at the facts. When the facts are presented and the individual CHOOSES denial because the facts are too overwhelming to accept, it's called cognitive dissonance. Many people do this because they are too afraid to face and accept the truth. Planes crash INTO buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher No actually, i don't "refuse" to accept bullshit "facts" because they don't make any sense what so ever, and are not OFFICALLY PROVEN. Thats why they are called Theories, a thought or idea on an event.
Ah ah, you ignored what i said, why hasn't anyone important mentioned the slice through steel of UA 175?
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
You aren't paying attention, are you Skippy? There are MANY "important" people who know commercial airliners didn't hit the towers. People like Morgan Reynolds, Dr Judy Wood, John Lear and Dwain Deets for starters. Then there are all the professional pilots, aircraft engineers and mechanics (pilotsfor911truth org)
who also know what commercial airliners weren't used. Herd mentality is exactly why common sense goes out the window. You saw it on tv, so it must be true.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Anyway, like i said don't reply to me, because why should i even bother with someone who's obsessesd like you are, and just ignores anything that anyone says to you. And you are so corrupt and convinced every theory is "real", so why should i? And if you are so CERTAIN about ALL of these, then do something, no?
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
May I remind you of the "scientists" who got paid by the tobacco companies to say that nicotine wasn't addictive? Or the "scientists" who got paid by BP to say that most of the oil in the Gulf dissipated? Or the EPA declaring the air at ground zero was safe to breathe?
There are MANY rational, logical, critical thinkers who understand how commercial airliners couldn't have flown through steel framed buildings without first crashing into them.
You CHOOSE to be deceived.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
I am a decorated Navy Gulf War veteran. I was a jet engine mechanic for six years and I worked on many types of military aircraft, their airframes and their powerplants. I know what aircraft can and cannot do. A 767 cannot fly 500mph at 800ft because of air density and structural integrity. I also know that if UA 175 had been a real airliner, there would have been a crash and explosion on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2, a steel framed building.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Well okay then, are you a scientist or work for NASA? Because it is mainly THEM who say it's possible and came with the SAME conclusion NIST, FEMA and the NAA did. United Airlines and American Airlines also declared: "It is highly rare and nearly impossible for a Boeing 767 to reach the speeds it did, whilst decending on an angle. But as the conclusion of the NIST report states the speed of United Airlines 175 at 500mph, is NOT an accurate result. But with the Boeing decending and
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
NIST & FEMA? LMFAO!! Really? FEMA was already in place in NYC on September 10, 2001!! Prior knowledge? Sure enough! And NIST, who didn't even investigate the WTC for explosives! Gee, I wonder who pays them?
We were conned, scammed, duped, lied to, betrayed and deceived on a GRAND SCALE! The evidence is clear, 9/11 was an inside job and no commercial airliners were used as weapons. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher What you think i only rely or JUST mentioned FEMA and NIST. It's called alot more than just two organisations mate.
"We were conned, scammed, duped, lied to, betrayed and deceived on a GRAND SCALE! The evidence is clear, 9/11 was an inside job and no commercial airliners were used as weapons. Why is this so hard for you to accept?"
Do you know why? Because that paragraph sounds god damn retarded thats why. I see points where explosives could have been used. But saying no planes
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
"It's called alot more than just two organisations, mate"....
I've read the entire 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report and the FEMA Report, have you? No, you haven't, because if you had taken the time to read them, you'd see that all three reports had MAJOR discrepancies and many omissions. All of the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH a steel framed tower without CRASHING into it. Show me one video of UA 175 crashing into and exploding on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Is just rubbish. If there were "no planes" i'm sure they would have just blown the building from the inside. As well as, how do you have proof there are no planes? That the explosion happened in the building? Is that it? That wouldn't suggest a fly to change their mind. You seem so certain you "know" exactly everything, and yet you share your "100% correct" information on Youtube? Take it higher if your so convinced, and if you win i will applaud you as a hero.
2Trueforyouu 1 year ago
@2Trueforyouu
Are you even familiar with Newtonian mechanics? Newton's Three Laws of Physics? Basic crash physics?
The problem with UA 175 and WTC 2, is there wasn't a CRASH! If UA 175 had been real, upon impacting WTC 2 there would have been crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage. Parts of the airliner would have fallen to the street below and there would have been a tremendous explosion on the OUTSIDE of the tower.
Instead, UA 175 flies THROUGH WTC 2, without crashing into it.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Are you referring to Newton's third law of motion?
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
I am referring to basic crash physics and Newtonian mechanics, which includes the laws of motion. Airliners crash INTO buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, there would have been an impact and explosion on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2. Instead, all of the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 without impact or deceleration. UA 175 never crashes INTO the tower which violates basic crash physics.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher You contradicted yourself:
"Parts of the airliner would have fallen to the street below"
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
If UA 175 had been a real airliner that crashed into a steel framed building, there would have been aircraft debris in the street below. How is that a contradiction?
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing INTO WTC 2. Show me where UA 175 HITS and EXPLODES on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher "Fallen to the street below" - that defies inertia.
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
"Fallen to the street below" - that defies inertia"....
LMFAO!
How are those GED courses working out for ya?
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Furthermore, can you please outline how the aircraft violates basic crash physics? I can not find any such violation.
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
Pay attention Skippy. Get into your car and drive as fast as you can into a parked car. Does your car pass through the parked car or does it stop abruptly when it crashes into it? Had UA 175 been a real airliner, it would have CRASHED INTO WTC 2. UA 175 would have also abruptly stopped. There would have been crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage and an EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of the tower.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher That is not quite the right concept, but you're getting there. A plane, as you know, has a tapered point (the nose). This means that the force is confined to a focal point - a small surface area. Additionally, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you hold a belief that Newton's third law is instantaneous?
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
You're trying to compare a 767 to a bullet, Skippy. Epic fail. F=MA, but in the case of UA 175 and WTC 2, force would be the IMPACT of the airliner on the tower, but there was no impact, there was no crash. Show me ONE video of UA 175 actually CRASHING INTO WTC 2. The impact and subsequent explosion would have been on the outside of tower 2.
lmfecher 1 year ago
Comment removed
squirttle92 1 year ago
@lmfecher Tell me, with your car example, are the cars of equal or similar weight? Did you also mean that my car would come to a immediate halt after the impact?
_ _
F = ma You're quite correct. Now with an aircraft it is necessary to factor in vector components. Heard of the Calfornia Bearing Ratio? Do you know why the landing area of some airstrips has to contend with a mass greater than that of a plane?
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
Blah blah blah....your ramblings on are starting to bore me Skippy. Are you doing this on purpose or are you really a helmet wearing, short bus riding, special school attending moron?
Show me ONE video, just ONE of UA 175 CRASHING into WTC 2. Show me IMPACT, show me deceleration, show me crumpling of the nosecone and fuselage, show me an EXPLOSION at the IMPACT site on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2. Airplanes CRASH into buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher No, I merely covering the concepts of mechanics as you lack the understanding of fundamentals behind your allegations. You are parroting Newton's laws without even grasping the basics. I have already given you a very valid reason as to how an aircraft can penetrate a building.
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
I was trained by the US Navy to work on aircraft, both powerplants and airframes. I did that for six years and I am a decorated Gulf War veteran. I know and understand Newtonian mechanics and basic crash physics and was on the crash recovery team for four years. I know and understand what aircraft can and cannot do, and they CANNOT fly THROUGH buildings, they crash INTO them.
Show me ONE video of UA 175 crashing INTO WTC 2.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@squirttle92
I'm also aware that many more shills have been employed to troll the internet and spread disinformation. I took a peek at your channel and noticed that it looks similar to other shills I have exposed. Coincidence? I don't think so.
How much to they pay you to be a trolling whore?
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher I don't even reside in American. Additionally, are you thinking that there are only two forces coming into play here? What can you tell me is incorrect about your assumption that there would be an explosion if the aircraft has already encountered an equivalent force in the form of the wall?
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
What did I say, Skippy? I took a peek at your channel already and it clearly states where you are from. Now suppose you tell me exactly why there wouldn't be a impact and explosion on the OUTSIDE of the tower. Tell me how a 767 could completely and neatly disappear into a steel framed structure without first CRASHING into it.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher It says Australia. Australia =/= America
squirttle92 1 year ago
@lmfecher I'm flattered that you took the time to look at my channel. Soon we will be exchanging phone numbers! Then the first date... :)
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
A date? With a real person? Stick with what you know, shit stain... dates that you have to inflate first.
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher For some reason you're interpreting the 3rd law as only 2 forces equalling each other - it's actually a combination of forces (net force). You stated that the plane is meeting an equal force in the form of the wall, yet you say it would explode, which is an example of heat and sound (kinetic energy). That means that when you factor in kinetic energy into your "equation", it is now unbalanced as the force on one side is greater than the other. Newton's cradle covers this...
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
Again with all your babble! UA 175 was loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. The would have been an explosion upon impacting WTC 2 on the OUTSIDE of the tower. Show me ONE video where UA 175 actually CRASHES INTO WTC 2. Planes CRASH into buildings, they don't fly THROUGH them. Damn Skippy, don't they teach basic physics down under?
lmfecher 1 year ago
@lmfecher Eh...that's not babble - that's physics. Did you not read my comment prior to this? I repeat: if the plane encountered a force equal to itself in the form of the wall, the kinetic energy released as mostly heat and sound then throws out your equation.
And it did indeed explode AFTER it penetrated the building. Why's that? Because the aircraft did NOT encounter a force equal to itself in the form of the wall, but it did cause significant damage to the airframe.
squirttle92 1 year ago
@squirttle92
And did you not read my comment? While F=MA, in order for the release of kinetic energy, there would have to be an IMPACT or CRASH FIRST!
UA 175 completely flew THROUGH WTC 2 without crashing into it and then exploded INSIDE the tower. And where do you see "significant damage to the airframe"? Show me ONE video where you see the nosecone, fuselage, wing section or tail section of UA 175 crumple upon entering WTC 2.
lmfecher 1 year ago