@hideousman22 All of the "official" reports state it came in level. Nobody and no report indicated it came down at an angle. Otherwise, the light poles would not have been touched. Sorry.
I've worked on several flight decks and I've been behind a jets that were throttled up. I can tell you first hand, there would've been cars rolled over from the jet blast and the turbulence caused by something that big flying over your car by just a few feet at full throttle. The heat would've blistered the paint on most cars directly under it. But the one that really gets me is Lloyd the limo driver. A pole weighing 100s of lbs goes through his windshield and don't even scratch the hood.
You truthers have no freaking life. One if a plane was only flying inches from the cars this would mean that if a truck or van would have been hit. Also how the hell would a drone hit numerous light poles that were in various postions. You take accounts from one nut instead of the hundreds of witnesses that saw an american airlines plane. Losers get a life and respect 9/11
Respect 911? What does that mean? Just believe everything you are told? Ok, logic: The FDR data shows that the "plane" was 480 ft too high to hit any light poles. Also, do you really believe that light poles would be a few feet from their foundation if an 80 ton plane smacked into them at 500+ mph? Either the light poles would caused severe damage to the wings or the poles would be in Canada. Use your head.
@muzicmaker2001 neither. path of least resistance, even if the plane is travelling at hundreds of miles per hour, the pole will be just knocked out of the way. the poles could have damaged the wings, but no one would know, becuase the plane was destroyed just seconds later. if the plane was 500 feet in the air, then how could it have hit the pentagon? how could it have been caught on video? how could all those poles be knocked down?
Enter simple logic: Northwest Flight 255's left wing collided with ONE light pole and ripped away a 15-foot long section of the wingtip, but Flight 77 struck FIVE poles with no sign of damage to wing or debris? But, we can't tell because both wings just disappeared, right?And do you have any LIVE video of the poles knocked down on the Pentagon lawn?
@muzicmaker2001 you have clue what you are talking about the wings on a 757 are made of carbon-fiber hard plastic and i don't know what a MD-82 wing is made of. You aso aren't considering the speed of the planes the MD-82 was at take of speed while the 757 was almost if not a full speed
A 757's wings have an aluminum skin. The main structure, the spar beams, which give the wing its shape, are made from an aluminum alloy. Other than the spars, fuel tanks, wiring, and hydraulics, they are hollow.
@elpacman03 go tell that to the families of 9/11. Ask them why justice has not been brought to the killers of their families? And no Bin Laden had no connection to 9/11, even on the FBI's most wanted list, there was no connection with 9/11 under his name, so you talk about respect 9/11, it's about the families you turd face.
NO.I have been to enough crash sights to know.We have had planes that nose dive into the ground at 500 mph and there ia ALWAYS plane parts?Engines/Wing sections/etc in the debri as well as body parts.. Us people in the aviation industry know ther truth and so do all of the FDNY/NYPD and MIT and all metalergist,unless they are on the government payroll you should not believe those people.However our lives and jobs are at stake for telling the truth.
@koolbossjock Really? NTSB investigator maybe? Airline Flight Safety Lead Instructor? National news reporter? Or maybe just a police/fireman/paramedic/EMT certified to respond to every crash site jurisdiction in the world? At any rate, I would think someone with your smarts and supremely high level of training and expertise would know the difference between a sight and a site, how to spell metallurgist, simple rules of grammar and punctuation, etc. More likely you're just another troll.
Hey everyone, if you wanna see Ace Baker fail miserably and openly admit that a plane hit the WTC then skip to 0:23 then have a shot every time he mentions a plane hitting the WTC. It could be a pretty fun drinking game!
Hey Ace, I thought you said that no planes even hit the WTC, now you're saying they did to somehow prove that one didn't hit the Pentagon? Pick a side dude lol.
@muzicmaker2001 I don't know what you're talking about, this is my only account. I find it dis-concerning that you won't address my point and resort to ad hominem instead :(
@muzicmaker2001 hahahaha the king of the no planers now admits that a plane hit the WTC and when someone calls him out on it he won't even respond...I expected more from you Ace, I really did.
@muzicmaker2001 Ad hominem = desperation. And I am not a sock puppet, just someone with an understanding of basic logic and reasoning. Your argument is grossly fallacious.
@muzicmaker2001 Pick an argument and stick with it. No planes hit the WTC, two planes hit the WTC. Seek some help.
And this is my only account. Believe it or not but not everybody who disagrees with your crackpot theories is working for the NWO. I wish I got paid to pick apart your arguments, it would be the easiest money I could make :)
@muzicmaker2001 I don't know what a sock puppet is, I assume you mean I am not who I claim to be so I think some sort of NWO conspiracy was implied. I will move on when you answer my question: Why would you include footage of an airplane hitting the WTC and say several times in this video that an airplane did hit the WTC when you yourself do not believe that a plane hit the WTC? If anyone is a "sock puppet" here it's you, you screwed up you disinfo agent! LOL!
The only problem with this (its that nice Mr Rogers voice over guy again.. hey kiddies) is that last time i checked Global Hawks do not have AMERICAN AIRLINES WRITTEN ON THE SIDE OF THE MISSILE THE SAME AS WHAT IS ON ALL THE DEBRIS IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON..
If it was a smaller plane it would'nt even put a hole in the wall of the penagon.And if the man heard nothing why does he think it was a smaller plane.In that case maybe it was an elephant on a bike with C-4 on him.Your full of poop.
@muzicmaker2001 What physical evidence are you referring too. I can clearly see plane parts all over the place in pictures. How much faith can you have in conspiracy theorists who choose to ignore the facts to fit an agenda? Zero.
@muzicmaker2001 in point of fact YOU are putting half of your argument in the testimony of a single WITNESS. How much validity is in this video? zero.
@kaseyfan999 That is incorrect. My arguement is this.. No video/photo of a 757 No evidence of the majority of wreckage (cockpit, wings, tail, (2) engines, fuselage, luggage, 239 chairs) No verification of the wreckage No video evidence of a fire at the impact hole/lawn No evidence of even one body identified as a passenger No engine/wing/tail impact damage No seismic data for the impact FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles MAJOR witness inconsistencies
@muzicmaker2001 Not in this video. anyways 70% of the plane wreckage was found if not more. and if u remember how much jet fuel that had it was enough to incinerate anyone on board. no wing damage? the flight was almost verticle the left wing hit the ground in front and the rest continued on. inconsistencies? theres always going to be those as to being major a lot of people confirmed to seeing a plane flying over their heads
This video taken by cameraman Bob Pugh just 5-10 mins after impact will address all of your lies. There is absolutely no wreckage near the impact hole let alone 70% of an 80 ton plane. The most intense fire in the clip is from the generator. Also, did you know that passengers were supposedly found still strapped to their seats? More BS. There is no wing/engine damage to the building. Isn't video evidence great?
They do not hold up the building the pillars inside do this and thus are far weaker then the structural walls in WTC.
In fact the Pentagon's walls were originally made to sacrifice themselves to relive pressure to minimise damage to the rest of the building if a bomb dropped from an aircraft came in through the roof.
This was from the history channel modern marvels episode on the building.
Have you ever been within 100 feet of an operating Jet engine (outside of the plane)? I can tell you from experience, there is no possible way a person can "not notice much noise." It would be like "not noticing" gun shot noises from the gun you're holding.
And "feeling jet exhaust" is an understatement. The jetblast would have caused severe destruction. Jetblast is -nasty-
The plane wasn't a few feet above the guy who made that comment, what's more, he could have been in the plan'es acoustic shadow for all you know.
Do you even know what that is? I'm thinking no, you're too poorly read to be investigating the incident this in-depth, and capitalize on the few who don't go with the main observation over the majority who do.
Your shell games will convince no one, especially not the witnesses from that day, of which none are truther like you.
"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building"-Witness Lee Evey Walker
Also, how far off the ground do you think it was to strike the 1st and 2nd floors?
That's not the guy who "heard nothing", you're mixing witness testimony now.
And it was around 20-30 feet off when it hit, a little higher when flying over the parking lot, and more then close enough for it to take advantage of Ground effect.
The jet wash from the engines even at idle should have sent trailer,car, and generator flying.
The only way this could not have happened is if it came in with engines off in a dead stick landing which would be likely be beyond the terrorist's flying ability.
Yes it's possible but it would take an expert pilot.
there is a remote possibility that the engines ware cut off. And I thought I saw pictures showing that there ware no airplane remain. Still the way all three WTC building came down makes for a plausible insider job.
Besides that, the war was started to catch Osama, and it was supposed to take less than six months, ten years later still no end in sight, only promises. And to top it of having a clown representing America and its people for ten years.
.. Presidents serve for eight years, and there are pictures of "airplane remains".
And nothing about how the WTC towers came down is amiss, but that's an arguement for one of their videos, this is the Pentagon Attack, and there is nothing amiss about it.
well i guess we all know 'sadakokid45' is full of shit, lol. anyway, the 757 put out 100,000 lbs of total thrust. its wake would have extended thousands of yards behind it. this wake would have blow that section of highway clear, theres vids showing examples of this on utube. also, the light poles.come on, you hit a light pole in a 757 at 450mph and its not going to fall over onto traffic. that poles going into fucking orbit. but no, what happened? it fell on car crashed window an dented hood
when i was at metro airport 2 days ago i was in my car with the windows rolled up and when a plane flew right over my car and i didn't hear a thing. shove that up ur asscrack faggot
Muzic some of the points in this video rely on comparisons to the plane that struck the first tower at the WTC. A plane that you stress did not exist in your series of no planer vids. You are using evidence that you claim is false to back up other claims that rely on that evidence being true. This reeks of hypocrisy and suggests to me that you are willing to use anything you can get your hands on to prove your point without thinking how it contradicts your other theories.
A comparison showing the inconsistencies of what's believed to be the accepted truth. Using logic, the two events cancel out each other. Therefore, both are false.
"A comparison showing the inconsistencies of what's believed to be the accepted truth".
What the hell does that mean?
It's a comparison showing that ~If the plane that struck the WTC made this much noise then why didn't the pentagon one~
It relies on the plane at WTC existing. Its uses it as evidence. You posting this as evidence for no plane at the Pentagon contradicts your stance that there was no planes at WTC. You quite clearly are looking at the WTC and pentagon attacks as different .....
What? It's a comparative analysis of all the events. Here's another. The planes in NYC easily entered a steel wall. Flight 11's engine supposedly went thru a second wall and was found fairly intact on the street. Flight 77 disintegrated from impacting a concrete wall. Flight 93, disintegrated from plain ol' dirt. When we logically compare the events, we come up short.
.....incidents and not looking at them together. Try making a vid that looks at both at the same time. You will soon see that this vid can not be included in it because it offers evidence based on there being a plane at NY.
There was a plane at NY, no one is denying that. However, watch the videos on the pentagon that were released. Pause them right before the impact. You will notice a white trail. It can't be a contrail, and a damaged engine would produce black smoke. There is one thing that produces tons of vapor when fired, and thats a rocket, since a good 30~40% of its 'smoke' is composed of vapor. Besides, it shows no plane, plus whatever the object is at the front, is roughly 10 feet long or so.
Who says the plane leveled off? It did not... It came in and eventually decreased its angle in, but did not level off. That would be why the FDR didn't record it.
Wrong date on the security camera. Ok, does that mean a plane didn't hit the pentagon?
You are arguing too many small insignificant things here. None of which add up to anything other than Flight 77 hitting the pentagon that day.
Now, you're confusing me. Didn't you post this video (911 Case Study) clearly showing the plane flying low and level to the ground hitting five light poles?
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
And, here's the actual CCTV again. Where's the incline?
watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
My main concern is how no time (secs) expired between the 1st and 2nd frame. And time standing still is not a small point here, it's actually impossible.
When a 225,000 pound airliner hits a very solid and reinforced wall at approximately 500 MPH, things like wings, the fuselage, and tail sections made of light weight material get completely disintegrated as they penetrate the wall. More solid parts of the plane such as landing gear and engines were found.
A plane hitting something like the pentagon at such high speeds is an enormous impact. Its not the same as throwing a paper air plane into your living room wall...
and you are 100 percent that the whole plane crumpled into the pentagon, disintefrated completely and didnt even leave the tail section behind? along with all of the seats? the cushions? the engines?
I am saying that no large sections of the plane which are made out of light weight aircraft aluminum were left intact. And their wouldn't be after an impact like that... Aircraft aluminum is light weight as is the structure of the plane.
And they did find the engines which are made of much stronger/heavier materials than the plane's body. They found debris and wreckage of all kinds, and there are pictures to prove it if you are still in disbelief.
exact emundo, so light weight that the tail went where? my first thought is that it would go airborne, second thought? crumpling into the body it should be there after the crash, as in accordian style. in other words, by the time the tail caught up to the nose its speed would be what?
If you think that the body of an airplane will simply fold in "accordion style" after hitting a solid wall at 500 MPH, then you my friend are very out of touch with real life physics. That's like saying you'll find big pieces of a watermelon after its been shot with a 30-06.
Physics? In one scenario, an aluminum plane freely enters a steel wall. The plane's engine exits through a second steel wall, travels 3 blocks, falls 800-1000 ft and slams onto Murray street. It is found standing upright? There is no damage to the engine or street from falling from the sky. In another scenario, the majority of a plane (including both engines) disintegrates when impacting a concrete wall. In yet another, a plane disintegrates when impacting good ol' dirt. ok...
Yes physics. So your saying that because aluminum is weaker than steel, it won't penetrate through steel beams? I guess lead bullets shouldn't be able to pass through steel either then...
If the force is great enough, anything will break through steel. Heck my company uses water to cut steel for making precision parts.
Please show me the picture of the engine that is "undamaged." I'd really love to see that....
"Please show me the picture of the engine that is "undamaged." I'd really love to see that.... "
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Do you really think the engine should be in one piece and not severally damaged after going through two steel walls, falling 800+ ft and slamming into the ground? If so, please explain how 6 out of the 8 engines involved in 911 crashes completely dissapeared. Use physics (momentum, densities of materials impacted..) to explain this.
No logical explanation for the Flight 11's engine found intact? Recall, 6 engines on 911 COMPLETELY dissapeared from impacting steel, concrete and just some plain ol' dirt. Let's compare. One of Flight 11's engines impacted 2 steel walls and slammed onto the street from 800-1000 ft up. Add to the logic mix, both of Flight 175's engines vanished while going through the exact same scenario as Flight 11's engine? Big problem here if you actually use logic and common sense...
Concrete and dirt? Steel? You left an aluminum plane vs. a steel wall at 500 mph? Why should that be any different? Your using some sort of homemade physics here.
You are thoroughly confusing me here... Homemade physics? I think not... I'm sorry but a 225,000 pound airliner smashing into the ground, a reinforced concrete wall, or the side of a sky scraper is not just going to bounce off like a tennis ball/fold up like an accordion... And you will not find large parts of the plane lying around either. If you can't fathom why this would happen, you need to step away from your computer and stop watching youtube videos about 9/11...
Again, you're leaving out crashing into steel wall? So, let me get this right. You think an aluminum plane (and engines) should totally disintegrate when impacting concrete and dirt, but should freely enter a steel wall? I think you should stop watching Bugs Bunny. This only happens in cartoons.
I don't know about totally disintegrate as in... the plane vanished, but again if you think there should be large pieces of wings and tail sections leftover from either impacting a steel wall, concrete wall, or the ground, then I'm sorry, I cannot argue with you. I actually think a Bugs Bunny cartoon might be more accurate than your explanations.
If you can find another time in history when an airliner was intentionally used as a weapon and flown into the sides of buildings, then you can get back to me.
there was no flight 77,11 or 175, there was a flight 93, which landed in hopkins airport, the passangers were herded into a disused hanger, their unfortunate fate is unknown, this explains the remarkably low passenger quantities for the 4 alleged flights.
Do a simple length vs. height comparison in the CCTV. A 757 is approx 155 ft long. The Pentagon is approx 77 ft high. Visually compare what you think is a plane's length vs. the Pentagon's height (at the approx. impact zone). The "plane's" length should be more than double the Pentagon's height. It's not even close...Other oddities with the CCTV. Wrong date/time: Sept 12 at 5:37pm?? And no time (secs) expires between the first and second frame.
But you see... it is impossible to make an accurate comparison like that based on the fish eye lens the camera had, and the fact that the plane came in at an angle to the building, so you can't accurately see the length of the plane in reference to the height of the building.
Hey, I'd like to see the other footage from other cameras. I don't doubt they have it. I don't know why they haven't released it, but thats not just enough to claim a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
You didn't comment on the wrong date/time (Sep12, 5:37 pm) and no time expiring between the first and second frame (1st frame-17:37:19, 2nd-17:37:19) of the CCTV? But next, compare the CCTV footage (object coming in parallel to the ground) to data from the FDR. This shows the plane coming in at an incline and the plane missing all light poles???
there were plane parts.. ive seen the photos ive searched everywhere for answers and admit i dont buy the government story either nore should anyone elce however be advised there are covert psych operations specialists whos job is to muddy the water with crappy what if storys like this co confuse issues and burn us out from trying to find answers
nikkj2, having no plane parts would have been obvious, however the limited amount and there condition is questioned.
Try examining existing plane wreckage photos and videos, and what you will find is tons more debris, everywhere. The crumpled pieces of unscathed exterior parts have a definite appearance of being fabricated.
What has always struck me as odd, is one thing present in all visible debris from a major crash is insulation, something that is abundant in most yet missing in this crash.
afacfh3620 you really are extremely stupid. if a plane hit the pentagon why is there no available footage from the hundereds of cctv cameras? why is there no wreckage have you never seen the crash site of a real plane crash. stop being controlled by the bush/media propaganda machine!
Why are there no witnesses that say anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon? Why is it a fact that not one person in such a heavily populated area says anything other than a plane hit? Huh? Speak up dummy, we can't hear you!
there are many witnesses, but they disappeared from the archives of the media to help the cover up, if you look at original recordings from the day, you can hear those winesses. if there was a 757 crash there would be parts of a 757 all over the crash site, just like any other plane crash you retard.
There were no witnesses and no reports in the news that day or the next day before anyone even knew what was going on. You are simply a loser suckered by wacko conspiricy crap. I live next to the Pentagon. You have no idea what you are talking about. And you obviously know nothing about physics or basic science so do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit.
a perfect example of your intelligence, having to resort to abuse, and you can't even spell the word conspiracy. i know nothing about physics? I have a degree in physics at NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY.
As that may be how do YOU explain how a building with more cctv survelience cameras than anywhere else in the wolrd didnt show a plane hitting the pentagon? Why? because the FBI took them away and they havent surfaced since. So if a plane really did hit the pentagon you'd think the government would be quick to denounce this no plane theory.
How come no cameras show a rocket hitting the building? My roommate heard the plane and saw it from our Condo in Arlington. I live next to the Pentagon. You are full of shit.
Nor does any camera show a plane. And if you would refer to my comment i never said it was a missle. But that doesnt prove it was a boeing 757. it could have been a different kind of plane. And if you live so close to the pentagon you should be able to answer why there were no remnants of a plane. Why is it that people on washington blvd said it wasnt that loud, when in fact for the plane to as low as it was on order to hit the pentagon it would be deafening.
Actually, yes their are. And even though they aren't good quality, you can still see the plane. What you can't see in the video though, is a missile or a global hawk drone. That's because a plane hit the pentagon.
hahaha! there are cameras all over the pentagon, if a plane did hit the pentagon, and they have nothing to hide, then why dont they just release the footage? instead we get 5 stills showing a small white streak and a ball of fire, omg you are so brainwashed.
this video has none of the facts in it! the plane was able to fly that low AND have no one here it because its engines were turned off...ive flown planes before. do you really think that you can stay inches above the ground with the engines going full blast. they were turned off cuz it was coming down and needed a rapid decent thats why no one heard it. the plane at the wtc was heard because it needed to stay in the air 1000 feet above the ground so its engines were on............fucking retards
ok that makes sense......ON IMPACT!!!!!! didnt the plane fly over the guy before it impacted????? im not sure........retard. there is no conspiracy jackass
Upon descent and then impact. It sped up. Watch the video before making yourself look stupid....errr..more stupid. Other logical questions for intelligent people. Where's 99% of the plane? Why is the impact hole only big enough for a family of small gophers? Again, did you just make up the "engine turned off" theory or did you have radio contact with the plane?
LOL man you were just told by klextro. What you said completely contradicted your previous statement. I'm not a person who believes everything the government says, but I'm also not a person who believes every damn conspiracy out there just because it's anti-government.
Over a hundred eyewitnesses reported seeing an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. There are dozens of pieces of wreckage that could be from nothing other than an AA jet. There is landing gear, engine parts, as well as pieces of fuselage with the AA pain job on it. The jet also took out lamp posts along its flight path into the Pentagon. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The account of one confused witness is outweighed by the stagering amount of physical evidence on the ground.
And what if that physical evidence was planted? None of the recovered parts have been identified by their serial numbers and compared against the registered flights. The FOIA requested these serial numbers for all four planes and was denied.
Planted evidence? So, did someone miracle the flight recorders into the crash sites? Where did the planes and passengers go then, if not the actual planes? The fact of the matter is, the buildings did collapse with out bombs. Show me, a blasting cap, detonation cord, any bomb fragments! C'mon, teach me, smart ass! Don't give me, "what if" don't give me questions, speculation, or guesses. Show me your actual physical evidence. You got nothing!
I didn't ask for links to more ridiculous conspiracy videos! I asked YOU! You tell me exactly what evidence you have that has led to beleive what you believe. Guide me, take me step by step, from COMPLETE physical evidence gathering, to analysis (including ALL eyewitness accounts), to third party cross examination (debunkers, truthers, experts, whatever), to a mutual arrival at an irrefutable conclusion. This is the process of logic. I'm waiting.
Here's your guide. If you bother to open up your mind, you would've noticed that the links ARE eyewitness account, evidence, etc.I also listed direct quotes relating to demo devices planted in the WTC. Did you miss these? No need to wait. They are right in front of your face. Just open your eyes..
Ha ha ha! Most of those quotes from firemen say stuff like, "it was LIKE bombs going off", "it was ALMOST like a controlled demolition", "I THINK there were bombs in the building". These quotes have been twisted by people like you into meaning "There were bombs!" That is not what they are saying!
Again, one confused witness must be overturned by staggering physical evidence on the ground. At all four crash site, airplane wreckage was recovered, not bomb, missle, or explosive fragments. I would like this fire fighter you quoted to qualify and quantify his quote. I think he is simply mistaken. Rememer, quotes need to be corroboted with evidence. Where is the PHYSICAL evidence? You still haven't answered the who, what, when, where, and how did bombs get in those buildings!
"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli
"There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"- NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli
"There were about ten explosions.We then realized the building started to come down"
"We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"- NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia
"There was another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs.I can't tell you how many times I got banged around.There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."-Sue Keane, NJ Fire Police
"Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. There were definitely bombs in those buildings."-Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr.
I want to see photgraphs of explosive device fragments. Furthermore, I want you to explain to me how demolition crews could have carried out very visual, noisy, and time consuming planting of bombs. Do you know how many people are invovled in a buliding demolition? Lots! Architects, designers, chief of construction, foremen, demo crews, and more. You're suggesting, these people were persuaded to murder their own countrymen? Utter nonsense.
Yes, good for you. I would also like to see pictures of the heat weakened steel at the exact locations were it supposedly failed. You would think this would've been in all reports relating to the WTC's collapse. Where is your evdience? Just these reports? Someone else's opinion? Your turn....Show me undeniable proof that the WTC collapsed in the manner as the official story.
The videos show the building collapses from the impact site of the airplanes! One tower even dramatically tilts like a cut tree before gravity pulls it through the substructure. The official reports were done with several things silently understood, and some things not included because they were effects, NOT causes (WTC 7) for example. That does not justify the huge leaps you theorists have taken. By the way, attempting to make me defensive doesn't strengthen your argument.
Blah blah blah. I said, do you have any REAL physical evidence proving that the WTCs collapsed due to temp. weakened steel? Considering that this is the accepted truth, finding proof should be easy enough. How about just one picture of the weakened steel from the impact zone location from both buildings showing the exact point that started the pancake collapse (domino effect)? Got anything?
In addition to the video, there is science. The maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). It doesn't have to "melt" for it to fail.
"The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes."-Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST
Time from plane impact to collapse, South Tower=56 minites, North=102 minutes. Is this really enough time for steel to be weakened to the point of failure from blk smoke? It's funny that these high temps somehow didn't harm Edna Cintron who was at the impact hole made by the plane, but melted and overthrew cars on the street:
PROBABLY not definately... Again, this is not a difinitive quote. It is neither qualified or quantified. Fire was not the only causal factor. You have omitted the building weight, weight imbalance, steel weakening, and wind torque. The wind was blowing directly into the hole, the pushing the heat away from her.
Let's examine the facts. Edna Cintron was at the impact hole of the North Tower for approx. 20 minutes and then the building collapsed. The duration from plane impact to collapse for the North Tower was 102 mins. Do the math. After some 80 mins after impact and jet fuel induced fires/extreme heat, she shows up at the impact hole somehow walking through the path of the plane and avoiding this extreme heat hot enough to weaken steel. Please use your head.
Look man, if you haven't got hard proof of demolitions being used... you shouldn't be putting a video out there saying there were. I am open-minded, I am willing to accept anything is possible, provided it matches evidence, proof, science, physics, forensics, etc.. I am willing to accept bombs were in the buildings, but it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonalbe doubt. Out of respect to the victim's families, you should remove these videos from Youtube.
Nice dodge. So, what you're saying is that you have no pictures of the steel at the impact zone and you're only proof is someone elses's word? And, as far as the families go, maybe you should tell them to remove this site also:
Again, putting me on the defensive doesn't give strength to your arguemnt. Saying "blah blah blah" in regards to proper video analysis demonstrates your closed mind. The science of steel strength is science. The beauty of science is it can be reproduced, proven, and verified. This leads us to facts, which leads us to truth. I return the challenge to you to show me proof of explosives. Your only defense has been to try and make me defensive. It won't do. Prove detonation.
Blah is in relation to the lack of ANY evidence you have, but you somehow think I should produce direct evidence of explosives?? Let's examine probability. As you probably know, a steel framed building has NEVER totally collapsed from fire before or after 911. I mentioned the durations earlier because other fires (One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, New York Plaza, Caracas Tower, Windsor Building)have lasted longer and were more widespread, but no collapse? The science of steel?
In addition to the science of steel, there is WEIGHT, GRAIVITY, TORQUE, AND OTHER LAWS OF PHYSICS AT PLAY. Will you please look at the big picture? You have no evidence of demolition. I do, I have already stated it, not doing it again. You go on, I think the more times you tell a lie it comes true...right?
The British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
I have quote for you, "Blah, blah, blah" - musicmaker2001. Wow, a whole 8 floors! That was EXACTLY the same height, weight, and dimension as the twin towers - wasn't it? You are pretty stupid for even mentioning this.
It seems weight, height, design, location of damage, plane impact, jet fuel, or any thing else you want to throw into the mix had nothing to do with the "science" of the collapses on 911. Just compare these factors when looking at the Towers and WTC7. Again, you are inventing your own personal science and logic. And, I must've missed where you linked to pictures of the failed steel from the impact zone location? That is really the only physical evidence here.
Weight = strain. Design = weight imbalance. Jet Fuel = fires weakening steel. Wind = torque. This is not personal science, this is physics. For you to say "anything I want to through in the mix had nothing to do with the collapses makes you the biggest moron I've ever come across. There are several images and videos of one of the towers tilting sharply from the IMPACT AREA OF THE AIRCRAFT. Controlled demolition doesn't do that. You have missed it. You are a stupid person.
Controlled demo is just that...controlled. The demo crew can control placement, timing, when, where and how the building falls. It seems you have avoided my evidence and avoided my request for your own. Here it is again:
1. More examples of steel framed buildings (high rises) that have TOTALLY collapsed due to fire before or after 911. Steel is steel, right?
2. ANY physical evidence supporting the official story.
Apparently, not so here, huh? This occurrence has NEVER happened naturally and it can't be reproduced in an controlled environment (6X's). Science is based on history of occurence and repeatability of the event leading ultimately to probability. Using simple logic, the probability of three steel framed buildings collapsing "unassisted" on 911 is zero or near zero. There's your scienc
Meanwhile an estimated 58 videos of the actual crash and impact are being witheld.
That to me means its not the official story and the object hitting isnt the officiakl plane at all.
if it was the actual plane theyd release them.
zenoist2 2 weeks ago
@hideousman22 All of the "official" reports state it came in level. Nobody and no report indicated it came down at an angle. Otherwise, the light poles would not have been touched. Sorry.
thamnosma 4 months ago
a plane flying just a few feet above the ground at 500 miles/hour (805 kilometers/hour).
wow that' must have been spectacular.
too bad a 5-frame video did not catch it.
SpaceAudio 5 months ago
/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
/watch?v=5qFsjdymqSk
megamogx 5 months ago in playlist fishy 911
I've worked on several flight decks and I've been behind a jets that were throttled up. I can tell you first hand, there would've been cars rolled over from the jet blast and the turbulence caused by something that big flying over your car by just a few feet at full throttle. The heat would've blistered the paint on most cars directly under it. But the one that really gets me is Lloyd the limo driver. A pole weighing 100s of lbs goes through his windshield and don't even scratch the hood.
amzuel420 6 months ago
Outstanding graphics!!
pdc023 7 months ago
You truthers have no freaking life. One if a plane was only flying inches from the cars this would mean that if a truck or van would have been hit. Also how the hell would a drone hit numerous light poles that were in various postions. You take accounts from one nut instead of the hundreds of witnesses that saw an american airlines plane. Losers get a life and respect 9/11
elpacman03 8 months ago
@elpacman03
Respect 911? What does that mean? Just believe everything you are told? Ok, logic: The FDR data shows that the "plane" was 480 ft too high to hit any light poles. Also, do you really believe that light poles would be a few feet from their foundation if an 80 ton plane smacked into them at 500+ mph? Either the light poles would caused severe damage to the wings or the poles would be in Canada. Use your head.
muzicmaker2001 8 months ago 7
@muzicmaker2001 neither. path of least resistance, even if the plane is travelling at hundreds of miles per hour, the pole will be just knocked out of the way. the poles could have damaged the wings, but no one would know, becuase the plane was destroyed just seconds later. if the plane was 500 feet in the air, then how could it have hit the pentagon? how could it have been caught on video? how could all those poles be knocked down?
KIEflipROX 2 months ago
@KIEflipROX
Enter simple logic: Northwest Flight 255's left wing collided with ONE light pole and ripped away a 15-foot long section of the wingtip, but Flight 77 struck FIVE poles with no sign of damage to wing or debris? But, we can't tell because both wings just disappeared, right?And do you have any LIVE video of the poles knocked down on the Pentagon lawn?
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yeah they do and flight 255 was MD-82 which wings was a lot skinner than a 757
ryannewman4life1 3 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
Most wings are hollow aluminum tubes filled with fuel...
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 you have clue what you are talking about the wings on a 757 are made of carbon-fiber hard plastic and i don't know what a MD-82 wing is made of. You aso aren't considering the speed of the planes the MD-82 was at take of speed while the 757 was almost if not a full speed
ryannewman4life1 3 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
A 757's wings have an aluminum skin. The main structure, the spar beams, which give the wing its shape, are made from an aluminum alloy. Other than the spars, fuel tanks, wiring, and hydraulics, they are hollow.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@elpacman03 go tell that to the families of 9/11. Ask them why justice has not been brought to the killers of their families? And no Bin Laden had no connection to 9/11, even on the FBI's most wanted list, there was no connection with 9/11 under his name, so you talk about respect 9/11, it's about the families you turd face.
mjwible27 7 months ago
@elpacman03 you are an idiot you make me sick with your denial and ignorance
way2easy2love 2 months ago
Did Flight 77 really hit the Pentagon on 911?
NO.I have been to enough crash sights to know.We have had planes that nose dive into the ground at 500 mph and there ia ALWAYS plane parts?Engines/Wing sections/etc in the debri as well as body parts.. Us people in the aviation industry know ther truth and so do all of the FDNY/NYPD and MIT and all metalergist,unless they are on the government payroll you should not believe those people.However our lives and jobs are at stake for telling the truth.
koolbossjock 1 year ago
Comment removed
pdc023 7 months ago
@koolbossjock Really? NTSB investigator maybe? Airline Flight Safety Lead Instructor? National news reporter? Or maybe just a police/fireman/paramedic/EMT certified to respond to every crash site jurisdiction in the world? At any rate, I would think someone with your smarts and supremely high level of training and expertise would know the difference between a sight and a site, how to spell metallurgist, simple rules of grammar and punctuation, etc. More likely you're just another troll.
pdc023 7 months ago
Hey everyone, if you wanna see Ace Baker fail miserably and openly admit that a plane hit the WTC then skip to 0:23 then have a shot every time he mentions a plane hitting the WTC. It could be a pretty fun drinking game!
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
dude, you're a moron.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth dude, you're a sock puppet.
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
Hey Ace, I thought you said that no planes even hit the WTC, now you're saying they did to somehow prove that one didn't hit the Pentagon? Pick a side dude lol.
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
Nice sock puppet. How many are you up to now?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I don't know what you're talking about, this is my only account. I find it dis-concerning that you won't address my point and resort to ad hominem instead :(
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
ok, right...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 hahahaha the king of the no planers now admits that a plane hit the WTC and when someone calls him out on it he won't even respond...I expected more from you Ace, I really did.
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
Sock puppets=desperation. Remember that.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ad hominem = desperation. And I am not a sock puppet, just someone with an understanding of basic logic and reasoning. Your argument is grossly fallacious.
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
Pick an account and stick with it. If you're bi-ploar, seek some help.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Pick an argument and stick with it. No planes hit the WTC, two planes hit the WTC. Seek some help.
And this is my only account. Believe it or not but not everybody who disagrees with your crackpot theories is working for the NWO. I wish I got paid to pick apart your arguments, it would be the easiest money I could make :)
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
@Meeksgoo
I never mentioned the NWO or being paid. Very interesting. Even a moron could figure this out? Move on. You're embarrassing yourself.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I don't know what a sock puppet is, I assume you mean I am not who I claim to be so I think some sort of NWO conspiracy was implied. I will move on when you answer my question: Why would you include footage of an airplane hitting the WTC and say several times in this video that an airplane did hit the WTC when you yourself do not believe that a plane hit the WTC? If anyone is a "sock puppet" here it's you, you screwed up you disinfo agent! LOL!
Meeksgoo 1 year ago
The only problem with this (its that nice Mr Rogers voice over guy again.. hey kiddies) is that last time i checked Global Hawks do not have AMERICAN AIRLINES WRITTEN ON THE SIDE OF THE MISSILE THE SAME AS WHAT IS ON ALL THE DEBRIS IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON..
Why don't you call Mr Mcfeely and ask him??
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what is the pentagon???
jodieeemily 1 year ago
what is the pentagon???
jodieeemily 1 year ago
If it was a smaller plane it would'nt even put a hole in the wall of the penagon.And if the man heard nothing why does he think it was a smaller plane.In that case maybe it was an elephant on a bike with C-4 on him.Your full of poop.
bboybieber 1 year ago
Hundreds of people stated that they saw a passenger airplane flying low that day. Do you know how many people said they saw a rocket? ZERO!!!
AnAmericaninTJ 1 year ago
@AnAmericaninTJ
If the accounts can not be backed by physical evidence left at the crash site, how much validity can we put into the witnesses? Zero....
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 What physical evidence are you referring too. I can clearly see plane parts all over the place in pictures. How much faith can you have in conspiracy theorists who choose to ignore the facts to fit an agenda? Zero.
AnAmericaninTJ 1 year ago
@AnAmericaninTJ
"The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."-Mary Owens
Do you recall seeing this in the CCTV? Any fuselage derbis or lawn damage/fire?
"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately" Vin Narayanan
Did we miss that burning tail. Maybe you have a picture of this tail? Do you smell poop?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 in point of fact YOU are putting half of your argument in the testimony of a single WITNESS. How much validity is in this video? zero.
kaseyfan999 1 year ago
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Not in this video. anyways 70% of the plane wreckage was found if not more. and if u remember how much jet fuel that had it was enough to incinerate anyone on board. no wing damage? the flight was almost verticle the left wing hit the ground in front and the rest continued on. inconsistencies? theres always going to be those as to being major a lot of people confirmed to seeing a plane flying over their heads
kaseyfan999 1 year ago
@kaseyfan999
This video taken by cameraman Bob Pugh just 5-10 mins after impact will address all of your lies. There is absolutely no wreckage near the impact hole let alone 70% of an 80 ton plane. The most intense fire in the clip is from the generator. Also, did you know that passengers were supposedly found still strapped to their seats? More BS. There is no wing/engine damage to the building. Isn't video evidence great?
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@Impellios
They do not hold up the building the pillars inside do this and thus are far weaker then the structural walls in WTC.
In fact the Pentagon's walls were originally made to sacrifice themselves to relive pressure to minimise damage to the rest of the building if a bomb dropped from an aircraft came in through the roof.
This was from the history channel modern marvels episode on the building.
Membrane556 1 year ago
Have you ever been within 100 feet of an operating Jet engine (outside of the plane)? I can tell you from experience, there is no possible way a person can "not notice much noise." It would be like "not noticing" gun shot noises from the gun you're holding.
And "feeling jet exhaust" is an understatement. The jetblast would have caused severe destruction. Jetblast is -nasty-
dasgregorian 1 year ago
The plane wasn't a few feet above the guy who made that comment, what's more, he could have been in the plan'es acoustic shadow for all you know.
Do you even know what that is? I'm thinking no, you're too poorly read to be investigating the incident this in-depth, and capitalize on the few who don't go with the main observation over the majority who do.
Your shell games will convince no one, especially not the witnesses from that day, of which none are truther like you.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building"-Witness Lee Evey Walker
Also, how far off the ground do you think it was to strike the 1st and 2nd floors?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
That's not the guy who "heard nothing", you're mixing witness testimony now.
And it was around 20-30 feet off when it hit, a little higher when flying over the parking lot, and more then close enough for it to take advantage of Ground effect.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
So much knowledge. It's as if you were flying the plane yourself. Amazing...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Ground effect:
aerospaceweb(.)org(/)question(/)conspiracy(/)q0274(.)shtml
Read all about it.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
The jet wash from the engines even at idle should have sent trailer,car, and generator flying.
The only way this could not have happened is if it came in with engines off in a dead stick landing which would be likely be beyond the terrorist's flying ability.
Yes it's possible but it would take an expert pilot.
Membrane556 1 year ago
there is a remote possibility that the engines ware cut off. And I thought I saw pictures showing that there ware no airplane remain. Still the way all three WTC building came down makes for a plausible insider job.
Besides that, the war was started to catch Osama, and it was supposed to take less than six months, ten years later still no end in sight, only promises. And to top it of having a clown representing America and its people for ten years.
Walerka11 1 year ago
@Walerka11
.. Presidents serve for eight years, and there are pictures of "airplane remains".
And nothing about how the WTC towers came down is amiss, but that's an arguement for one of their videos, this is the Pentagon Attack, and there is nothing amiss about it.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
...and i suppose the "aircraft debris" was put there in advance?
chasing91a 2 years ago
I suspect it likely was a UAV as well. Flight 77 was probably shot down by fighters or ended up like flight 93.
The turbine wheel they found did not appear to match a RB211.
The fins appeared shorter then those on a RB211.
Also the hole was not plane shaped as on WTC even though the Pentagon's outer walls are much weaker.
WTC's walls were load bearing while the Pentagon's were just curtain walls made to blow out which would be much weaker then a load bearing steel wall.
Membrane556 2 years ago
LOL @ the conspiracy theories of people who know nothing about aviation or physics
CrazyRay7979 2 years ago
well i guess we all know 'sadakokid45' is full of shit, lol. anyway, the 757 put out 100,000 lbs of total thrust. its wake would have extended thousands of yards behind it. this wake would have blow that section of highway clear, theres vids showing examples of this on utube. also, the light poles.come on, you hit a light pole in a 757 at 450mph and its not going to fall over onto traffic. that poles going into fucking orbit. but no, what happened? it fell on car crashed window an dented hood
governmentcheese411 2 years ago
so your gonna believe one guy that never heard it huh?
cammyarr2k7 2 years ago 2
when i was at metro airport 2 days ago i was in my car with the windows rolled up and when a plane flew right over my car and i didn't hear a thing. shove that up ur asscrack faggot
sadakokid45 2 years ago
Please check out
´New Documentary - The Pentagon Witnesses´
9 parts
VERY IMPORTANT
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Muzic some of the points in this video rely on comparisons to the plane that struck the first tower at the WTC. A plane that you stress did not exist in your series of no planer vids. You are using evidence that you claim is false to back up other claims that rely on that evidence being true. This reeks of hypocrisy and suggests to me that you are willing to use anything you can get your hands on to prove your point without thinking how it contradicts your other theories.
sillybuttons44 2 years ago
A comparison showing the inconsistencies of what's believed to be the accepted truth. Using logic, the two events cancel out each other. Therefore, both are false.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
"A comparison showing the inconsistencies of what's believed to be the accepted truth".
What the hell does that mean?
It's a comparison showing that ~If the plane that struck the WTC made this much noise then why didn't the pentagon one~
It relies on the plane at WTC existing. Its uses it as evidence. You posting this as evidence for no plane at the Pentagon contradicts your stance that there was no planes at WTC. You quite clearly are looking at the WTC and pentagon attacks as different .....
sillybuttons44 2 years ago
What? It's a comparative analysis of all the events. Here's another. The planes in NYC easily entered a steel wall. Flight 11's engine supposedly went thru a second wall and was found fairly intact on the street. Flight 77 disintegrated from impacting a concrete wall. Flight 93, disintegrated from plain ol' dirt. When we logically compare the events, we come up short.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
.....incidents and not looking at them together. Try making a vid that looks at both at the same time. You will soon see that this vid can not be included in it because it offers evidence based on there being a plane at NY.
sillybuttons44 2 years ago
There was a plane at NY, no one is denying that. However, watch the videos on the pentagon that were released. Pause them right before the impact. You will notice a white trail. It can't be a contrail, and a damaged engine would produce black smoke. There is one thing that produces tons of vapor when fired, and thats a rocket, since a good 30~40% of its 'smoke' is composed of vapor. Besides, it shows no plane, plus whatever the object is at the front, is roughly 10 feet long or so.
DigitalBoyVer4 2 years ago
watch?v=r9DSXVceQKM&feature=related
drift4lif3 2 years ago
There was a story of that section of the Pentagon being closed for renovation?? prior to 911!!!
HABAKKUP 2 years ago
Who says the plane leveled off? It did not... It came in and eventually decreased its angle in, but did not level off. That would be why the FDR didn't record it.
Wrong date on the security camera. Ok, does that mean a plane didn't hit the pentagon?
You are arguing too many small insignificant things here. None of which add up to anything other than Flight 77 hitting the pentagon that day.
fengineer08 3 years ago
Now, you're confusing me. Didn't you post this video (911 Case Study) clearly showing the plane flying low and level to the ground hitting five light poles?
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
And, here's the actual CCTV again. Where's the incline?
watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
My main concern is how no time (secs) expired between the 1st and 2nd frame. And time standing still is not a small point here, it's actually impossible.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
fengineer08
where is the wreckage? sheared off wings, crumpled body, tail wing section being thrown in the air. some 200 seats plus missing.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
vengence,
When a 225,000 pound airliner hits a very solid and reinforced wall at approximately 500 MPH, things like wings, the fuselage, and tail sections made of light weight material get completely disintegrated as they penetrate the wall. More solid parts of the plane such as landing gear and engines were found.
A plane hitting something like the pentagon at such high speeds is an enormous impact. Its not the same as throwing a paper air plane into your living room wall...
fengineer08 2 years ago
and you are 100 percent that the whole plane crumpled into the pentagon, disintefrated completely and didnt even leave the tail section behind? along with all of the seats? the cushions? the engines?
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
You are confusing me here...
I am saying that no large sections of the plane which are made out of light weight aircraft aluminum were left intact. And their wouldn't be after an impact like that... Aircraft aluminum is light weight as is the structure of the plane.
And they did find the engines which are made of much stronger/heavier materials than the plane's body. They found debris and wreckage of all kinds, and there are pictures to prove it if you are still in disbelief.
fengineer08 2 years ago
exact emundo, so light weight that the tail went where? my first thought is that it would go airborne, second thought? crumpling into the body it should be there after the crash, as in accordian style. in other words, by the time the tail caught up to the nose its speed would be what?
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
If you think that the body of an airplane will simply fold in "accordion style" after hitting a solid wall at 500 MPH, then you my friend are very out of touch with real life physics. That's like saying you'll find big pieces of a watermelon after its been shot with a 30-06.
fengineer08 2 years ago
Physics? In one scenario, an aluminum plane freely enters a steel wall. The plane's engine exits through a second steel wall, travels 3 blocks, falls 800-1000 ft and slams onto Murray street. It is found standing upright? There is no damage to the engine or street from falling from the sky. In another scenario, the majority of a plane (including both engines) disintegrates when impacting a concrete wall. In yet another, a plane disintegrates when impacting good ol' dirt. ok...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
Yes physics. So your saying that because aluminum is weaker than steel, it won't penetrate through steel beams? I guess lead bullets shouldn't be able to pass through steel either then...
If the force is great enough, anything will break through steel. Heck my company uses water to cut steel for making precision parts.
Please show me the picture of the engine that is "undamaged." I'd really love to see that....
fengineer08 2 years ago
"Please show me the picture of the engine that is "undamaged." I'd really love to see that.... "
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Do you really think the engine should be in one piece and not severally damaged after going through two steel walls, falling 800+ ft and slamming into the ground? If so, please explain how 6 out of the 8 engines involved in 911 crashes completely dissapeared. Use physics (momentum, densities of materials impacted..) to explain this.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
And about the engines.... oh ya baby! They looked great! Probably ready to run again huh??
fengineer08 2 years ago
No logical explanation for the Flight 11's engine found intact? Recall, 6 engines on 911 COMPLETELY dissapeared from impacting steel, concrete and just some plain ol' dirt. Let's compare. One of Flight 11's engines impacted 2 steel walls and slammed onto the street from 800-1000 ft up. Add to the logic mix, both of Flight 175's engines vanished while going through the exact same scenario as Flight 11's engine? Big problem here if you actually use logic and common sense...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
Its obvious that you do not realize the magnitude of impacts like these...
An aluminum aircraft vs. the Pentagon wall at 500 MPH... Geeze, I wonder who's going to win?
An aluminum aircraft vs. the ground at 500 MPH... damn.... I wonder who will still be left after that one?
Please stop throwing paper airplanes at the ground and telling yourself "this is what really should have happened!"
fengineer08 2 years ago
Concrete and dirt? Steel? You left an aluminum plane vs. a steel wall at 500 mph? Why should that be any different? Your using some sort of homemade physics here.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
You are thoroughly confusing me here... Homemade physics? I think not... I'm sorry but a 225,000 pound airliner smashing into the ground, a reinforced concrete wall, or the side of a sky scraper is not just going to bounce off like a tennis ball/fold up like an accordion... And you will not find large parts of the plane lying around either. If you can't fathom why this would happen, you need to step away from your computer and stop watching youtube videos about 9/11...
fengineer08 2 years ago
Again, you're leaving out crashing into steel wall? So, let me get this right. You think an aluminum plane (and engines) should totally disintegrate when impacting concrete and dirt, but should freely enter a steel wall? I think you should stop watching Bugs Bunny. This only happens in cartoons.
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
I don't know about totally disintegrate as in... the plane vanished, but again if you think there should be large pieces of wings and tail sections leftover from either impacting a steel wall, concrete wall, or the ground, then I'm sorry, I cannot argue with you. I actually think a Bugs Bunny cartoon might be more accurate than your explanations.
fengineer08 2 years ago
Don't argue with me, use a little logic and look at the history of some (high speed) plane crashes. Compare:
911review*org/flight93/crash-comparisons*html
That's all folks....
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
If you can find another time in history when an airliner was intentionally used as a weapon and flown into the sides of buildings, then you can get back to me.
fengineer08 2 years ago
*cough* KAMIKAZE!
DigitalBoyVer4 2 years ago
*cough* KAMIKAZE FROM THE GOVT
joshbulldog1661 2 years ago
Ever actually shot a watermelon with a 30.06?
It Actually does leave large pieces. Yes it blows apart but not disintegrate as you seem to be claiming it would.
TheMexicanJulio 2 years ago
Id like to see those pictures. The only ones I've seen prove absolutely that there was no plane that hit the pentagon.
TheMexicanJulio 2 years ago
And where are the people who bought tickets on flight 77? Their families have not seen them since 9/11.
wimbledonchik 3 years ago
there was no flight 77,11 or 175, there was a flight 93, which landed in hopkins airport, the passangers were herded into a disused hanger, their unfortunate fate is unknown, this explains the remarkably low passenger quantities for the 4 alleged flights.
jonmns77 3 years ago
Really? You ever watch this?
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related
fengineer08 3 years ago
Data from Flight 77's supposed FDR as opposed to someone's made up computer animation:
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Ok, I'll watch that. But in the mean time... did that video not show the plane? Yes or no.
fengineer08 3 years ago
You must mean in the Pentagon security camera because the majority of clip has computer animation in it? Here's an even closer look at CCTV:
watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
No plane....
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Correct, their were 2 security cameras that captured the plane. The animation fades into it so you can see it... did you miss that?
That video you sent me shows the plane. It is poor quality, but thats it....Red, blue and silver man...
fengineer08 3 years ago
Do a simple length vs. height comparison in the CCTV. A 757 is approx 155 ft long. The Pentagon is approx 77 ft high. Visually compare what you think is a plane's length vs. the Pentagon's height (at the approx. impact zone). The "plane's" length should be more than double the Pentagon's height. It's not even close...Other oddities with the CCTV. Wrong date/time: Sept 12 at 5:37pm?? And no time (secs) expires between the first and second frame.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
But you see... it is impossible to make an accurate comparison like that based on the fish eye lens the camera had, and the fact that the plane came in at an angle to the building, so you can't accurately see the length of the plane in reference to the height of the building.
Hey, I'd like to see the other footage from other cameras. I don't doubt they have it. I don't know why they haven't released it, but thats not just enough to claim a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
fengineer08 3 years ago
You didn't comment on the wrong date/time (Sep12, 5:37 pm) and no time expiring between the first and second frame (1st frame-17:37:19, 2nd-17:37:19) of the CCTV? But next, compare the CCTV footage (object coming in parallel to the ground) to data from the FDR. This shows the plane coming in at an incline and the plane missing all light poles???
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
there were plane parts.. ive seen the photos ive searched everywhere for answers and admit i dont buy the government story either nore should anyone elce however be advised there are covert psych operations specialists whos job is to muddy the water with crappy what if storys like this co confuse issues and burn us out from trying to find answers
nikkj2 3 years ago
nikkj2, having no plane parts would have been obvious, however the limited amount and there condition is questioned.
Try examining existing plane wreckage photos and videos, and what you will find is tons more debris, everywhere. The crumpled pieces of unscathed exterior parts have a definite appearance of being fabricated.
What has always struck me as odd, is one thing present in all visible debris from a major crash is insulation, something that is abundant in most yet missing in this crash.
KrisKhaos 3 years ago
You are utterly full of shit.
chekist1917 3 years ago
afacfh3620 you really are extremely stupid. if a plane hit the pentagon why is there no available footage from the hundereds of cctv cameras? why is there no wreckage have you never seen the crash site of a real plane crash. stop being controlled by the bush/media propaganda machine!
jonmns77 3 years ago 2
Why are there no witnesses that say anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon? Why is it a fact that not one person in such a heavily populated area says anything other than a plane hit? Huh? Speak up dummy, we can't hear you!
chekist1917 3 years ago
there are many witnesses, but they disappeared from the archives of the media to help the cover up, if you look at original recordings from the day, you can hear those winesses. if there was a 757 crash there would be parts of a 757 all over the crash site, just like any other plane crash you retard.
jonmns77 3 years ago
There were no witnesses and no reports in the news that day or the next day before anyone even knew what was going on. You are simply a loser suckered by wacko conspiricy crap. I live next to the Pentagon. You have no idea what you are talking about. And you obviously know nothing about physics or basic science so do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit.
PutinClown 3 years ago
a perfect example of your intelligence, having to resort to abuse, and you can't even spell the word conspiracy. i know nothing about physics? I have a degree in physics at NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY.
jonmns77 3 years ago
Those Jet engines can blow cars off the road and into the air. No way in hell it was 757
timrocket2008 3 years ago
As that may be how do YOU explain how a building with more cctv survelience cameras than anywhere else in the wolrd didnt show a plane hitting the pentagon? Why? because the FBI took them away and they havent surfaced since. So if a plane really did hit the pentagon you'd think the government would be quick to denounce this no plane theory.
wedvarn 3 years ago
How come no cameras show a rocket hitting the building? My roommate heard the plane and saw it from our Condo in Arlington. I live next to the Pentagon. You are full of shit.
chekist1917 3 years ago
Nor does any camera show a plane. And if you would refer to my comment i never said it was a missle. But that doesnt prove it was a boeing 757. it could have been a different kind of plane. And if you live so close to the pentagon you should be able to answer why there were no remnants of a plane. Why is it that people on washington blvd said it wasnt that loud, when in fact for the plane to as low as it was on order to hit the pentagon it would be deafening.
wedvarn 3 years ago
so wheres the video of a fucking plane hitting the pentagon? there arent any
jonmns77 3 years ago
Actually, yes their are. And even though they aren't good quality, you can still see the plane. What you can't see in the video though, is a missile or a global hawk drone. That's because a plane hit the pentagon.
fengineer08 3 years ago
hahaha! there are cameras all over the pentagon, if a plane did hit the pentagon, and they have nothing to hide, then why dont they just release the footage? instead we get 5 stills showing a small white streak and a ball of fire, omg you are so brainwashed.
jonmns77 3 years ago
get a life
jonasli200 3 years ago
this video has none of the facts in it! the plane was able to fly that low AND have no one here it because its engines were turned off...ive flown planes before. do you really think that you can stay inches above the ground with the engines going full blast. they were turned off cuz it was coming down and needed a rapid decent thats why no one heard it. the plane at the wtc was heard because it needed to stay in the air 1000 feet above the ground so its engines were on............fucking retards
AFACFH3620 3 years ago
Facts? According the Flight Data Recorder, Flight 77 increased vertical speed upon impact. Engines off? Where did you get your facts?
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
ok that makes sense......ON IMPACT!!!!!! didnt the plane fly over the guy before it impacted????? im not sure........retard. there is no conspiracy jackass
AFACFH3620 3 years ago
Upon descent and then impact. It sped up. Watch the video before making yourself look stupid....errr..more stupid. Other logical questions for intelligent people. Where's 99% of the plane? Why is the impact hole only big enough for a family of small gophers? Again, did you just make up the "engine turned off" theory or did you have radio contact with the plane?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Are you saying that a plane that didn't exist sped up upon descent and then impact?
klextro 3 years ago
This is what the FDR read out states, but it doesn't matter. There was no plane...
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
LOL man you were just told by klextro. What you said completely contradicted your previous statement. I'm not a person who believes everything the government says, but I'm also not a person who believes every damn conspiracy out there just because it's anti-government.
B18FTMFW 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence of the truth. Look. Copy and paste the following in 'you tube' search window,
9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories
9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2
ZERO : An Investigation Into 9/11 - PART 1 of 10
Micro Chips in Credit Cards
See the lies of "The powers, 9/11, Real ID Chips, Cover-ups, Schools and the real biggie, The Mass Media." revieled.
Go to Google Video and watch the series Pt 1,2,3,
David Icke - Freedom to Fascism part 1
mskydolphin 3 years ago
You are kind of smart but why you do that?
Dieagra 3 years ago
i think that a a person wouldnt survive the time anough to kill themself if he is in a place where the heat es hot enough to melt steel
ComeGuaguas 3 years ago
Over a hundred eyewitnesses reported seeing an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. There are dozens of pieces of wreckage that could be from nothing other than an AA jet. There is landing gear, engine parts, as well as pieces of fuselage with the AA pain job on it. The jet also took out lamp posts along its flight path into the Pentagon. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The account of one confused witness is outweighed by the stagering amount of physical evidence on the ground.
punctualbird 3 years ago
And what if that physical evidence was planted? None of the recovered parts have been identified by their serial numbers and compared against the registered flights. The FOIA requested these serial numbers for all four planes and was denied.
911blogger*com/node/13149
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Planted evidence? So, did someone miracle the flight recorders into the crash sites? Where did the planes and passengers go then, if not the actual planes? The fact of the matter is, the buildings did collapse with out bombs. Show me, a blasting cap, detonation cord, any bomb fragments! C'mon, teach me, smart ass! Don't give me, "what if" don't give me questions, speculation, or guesses. Show me your actual physical evidence. You got nothing!
punctualbird 3 years ago
If you are now talking about the WTCs:
youtube*com/watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
youtube*com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
(cont.)
youtube*com/watch?v=MUhyS7i7TnI
youtube*com/watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQ
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
I didn't ask for links to more ridiculous conspiracy videos! I asked YOU! You tell me exactly what evidence you have that has led to beleive what you believe. Guide me, take me step by step, from COMPLETE physical evidence gathering, to analysis (including ALL eyewitness accounts), to third party cross examination (debunkers, truthers, experts, whatever), to a mutual arrival at an irrefutable conclusion. This is the process of logic. I'm waiting.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Here's your guide. If you bother to open up your mind, you would've noticed that the links ARE eyewitness account, evidence, etc.I also listed direct quotes relating to demo devices planted in the WTC. Did you miss these? No need to wait. They are right in front of your face. Just open your eyes..
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Ha ha ha! Most of those quotes from firemen say stuff like, "it was LIKE bombs going off", "it was ALMOST like a controlled demolition", "I THINK there were bombs in the building". These quotes have been twisted by people like you into meaning "There were bombs!" That is not what they are saying!
punctualbird 3 years ago
"These quotes have been twisted by people like you into meaning "There were bombs!" That is not what they are saying!"
Really?
"There were definitely bombs in those buildings."-Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Again, one confused witness must be overturned by staggering physical evidence on the ground. At all four crash site, airplane wreckage was recovered, not bomb, missle, or explosive fragments. I would like this fire fighter you quoted to qualify and quantify his quote. I think he is simply mistaken. Rememer, quotes need to be corroboted with evidence. Where is the PHYSICAL evidence? You still haven't answered the who, what, when, where, and how did bombs get in those buildings!
punctualbird 3 years ago
(cont.)
Witnesses.
"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
(cont.)
"There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"- NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli
"There were about ten explosions.We then realized the building started to come down"
- NYFD Firefighter Craig Carlson
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
(cont.)
"We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"- NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia
"There was another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs.I can't tell you how many times I got banged around.There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."-Sue Keane, NJ Fire Police
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
"Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. There were definitely bombs in those buildings."-Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
There's a difference between what people know and what they believe.
punctualbird 3 years ago
There's also a difference between assuming what you know and actually being there, huh?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
I want to see photgraphs of explosive device fragments. Furthermore, I want you to explain to me how demolition crews could have carried out very visual, noisy, and time consuming planting of bombs. Do you know how many people are invovled in a buliding demolition? Lots! Architects, designers, chief of construction, foremen, demo crews, and more. You're suggesting, these people were persuaded to murder their own countrymen? Utter nonsense.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Yes, good for you. I would also like to see pictures of the heat weakened steel at the exact locations were it supposedly failed. You would think this would've been in all reports relating to the WTC's collapse. Where is your evdience? Just these reports? Someone else's opinion? Your turn....Show me undeniable proof that the WTC collapsed in the manner as the official story.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
The videos show the building collapses from the impact site of the airplanes! One tower even dramatically tilts like a cut tree before gravity pulls it through the substructure. The official reports were done with several things silently understood, and some things not included because they were effects, NOT causes (WTC 7) for example. That does not justify the huge leaps you theorists have taken. By the way, attempting to make me defensive doesn't strengthen your argument.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Blah blah blah. I said, do you have any REAL physical evidence proving that the WTCs collapsed due to temp. weakened steel? Considering that this is the accepted truth, finding proof should be easy enough. How about just one picture of the weakened steel from the impact zone location from both buildings showing the exact point that started the pancake collapse (domino effect)? Got anything?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
In addition to the video, there is science. The maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). It doesn't have to "melt" for it to fail.
punctualbird 3 years ago
"The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes."-Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST
Time from plane impact to collapse, South Tower=56 minites, North=102 minutes. Is this really enough time for steel to be weakened to the point of failure from blk smoke? It's funny that these high temps somehow didn't harm Edna Cintron who was at the impact hole made by the plane, but melted and overthrew cars on the street:
youtube*com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk
I smell explosives...
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
PROBABLY not definately... Again, this is not a difinitive quote. It is neither qualified or quantified. Fire was not the only causal factor. You have omitted the building weight, weight imbalance, steel weakening, and wind torque. The wind was blowing directly into the hole, the pushing the heat away from her.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Let's examine the facts. Edna Cintron was at the impact hole of the North Tower for approx. 20 minutes and then the building collapsed. The duration from plane impact to collapse for the North Tower was 102 mins. Do the math. After some 80 mins after impact and jet fuel induced fires/extreme heat, she shows up at the impact hole somehow walking through the path of the plane and avoiding this extreme heat hot enough to weaken steel. Please use your head.
youtube*com/watch?v=hvYqRTPtrNc
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Look man, if you haven't got hard proof of demolitions being used... you shouldn't be putting a video out there saying there were. I am open-minded, I am willing to accept anything is possible, provided it matches evidence, proof, science, physics, forensics, etc.. I am willing to accept bombs were in the buildings, but it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonalbe doubt. Out of respect to the victim's families, you should remove these videos from Youtube.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Nice dodge. So, what you're saying is that you have no pictures of the steel at the impact zone and you're only proof is someone elses's word? And, as far as the families go, maybe you should tell them to remove this site also:
patriotsquestion911*com/survivors*html
Ignorance.....
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Again, putting me on the defensive doesn't give strength to your arguemnt. Saying "blah blah blah" in regards to proper video analysis demonstrates your closed mind. The science of steel strength is science. The beauty of science is it can be reproduced, proven, and verified. This leads us to facts, which leads us to truth. I return the challenge to you to show me proof of explosives. Your only defense has been to try and make me defensive. It won't do. Prove detonation.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Blah is in relation to the lack of ANY evidence you have, but you somehow think I should produce direct evidence of explosives?? Let's examine probability. As you probably know, a steel framed building has NEVER totally collapsed from fire before or after 911. I mentioned the durations earlier because other fires (One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, New York Plaza, Caracas Tower, Windsor Building)have lasted longer and were more widespread, but no collapse? The science of steel?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
In addition to the science of steel, there is WEIGHT, GRAIVITY, TORQUE, AND OTHER LAWS OF PHYSICS AT PLAY. Will you please look at the big picture? You have no evidence of demolition. I do, I have already stated it, not doing it again. You go on, I think the more times you tell a lie it comes true...right?
punctualbird 3 years ago
The British Steel/Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700F in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100F, no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
I have quote for you, "Blah, blah, blah" - musicmaker2001. Wow, a whole 8 floors! That was EXACTLY the same height, weight, and dimension as the twin towers - wasn't it? You are pretty stupid for even mentioning this.
punctualbird 3 years ago
It seems weight, height, design, location of damage, plane impact, jet fuel, or any thing else you want to throw into the mix had nothing to do with the "science" of the collapses on 911. Just compare these factors when looking at the Towers and WTC7. Again, you are inventing your own personal science and logic. And, I must've missed where you linked to pictures of the failed steel from the impact zone location? That is really the only physical evidence here.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Weight = strain. Design = weight imbalance. Jet Fuel = fires weakening steel. Wind = torque. This is not personal science, this is physics. For you to say "anything I want to through in the mix had nothing to do with the collapses makes you the biggest moron I've ever come across. There are several images and videos of one of the towers tilting sharply from the IMPACT AREA OF THE AIRCRAFT. Controlled demolition doesn't do that. You have missed it. You are a stupid person.
punctualbird 3 years ago
Controlled demo is just that...controlled. The demo crew can control placement, timing, when, where and how the building falls. It seems you have avoided my evidence and avoided my request for your own. Here it is again:
1. More examples of steel framed buildings (high rises) that have TOTALLY collapsed due to fire before or after 911. Steel is steel, right?
2. ANY physical evidence supporting the official story.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
"The beauty of science is it can be reproduced"
Apparently, not so here, huh? This occurrence has NEVER happened naturally and it can't be reproduced in an controlled environment (6X's). Science is based on history of occurence and repeatability of the event leading ultimately to probability. Using simple logic, the probability of three steel framed buildings collapsing "unassisted" on 911 is zero or near zero. There's your scienc