Witness accounts + physical evidence at the site + photographic/video evidence=high probability that the event occured
Witness accounts + no backing physical evidence at the site + no backing photographic/video evidence=a near zero probability that the event occured
There is no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board or even one body identified as a passenger.
@muzicmaker2001 There is physical and photographic evidence. Just watch this video:
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
No bodies found? What an unbelievable lie! What about witnesses? What about the fact that these bodies WERE found and WERE identified? And what about the passenger's families? Are they all lying? How could such a big conspiracy NOT completely have come apart by now?
Here's the mystery. There ARE photos of bodies, but there is no photographic evidence of even ONE body positively identified as a passenger. And the video clip you posted DOES NOT show any photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, luggage and not even one chair of the 239 on-board. So, much for photographic evidence of an 80 ton plane, huh? All you have are witnesses, correct?
1. Photographic evidence of the cockpit? wings? tail? both engines? any luggage at all? How about just 2 chairs out of 239? No?
2. One body identified as a passenger?
3. The DNA reports
4. Even 20 family members?
If you answered "NO" to all questions, the majority of your "evidence" is based on nothing but what you are told, but you seem to act as if this were FACT? Why?
You didn't answer any of the questions? But, you are campaign as if this were fact? Ok, simple question. Forget the missing 80 tons of plane, what do you think happened to all 239 chairs on-board?
You're not making any sense. First, you post examples of other plane crashes where you say (haven't verified this) no chairs were found, but then in the same post, you say seats were found at the Pentagon? The reality is there is no photographic evidence of ANY bodies identified as passengers or ANY seats attached to passengers. Prove me wrong?
@muzicmaker2001 Photographic evedence of bodies? These bodies were identified in a coroner's office, not with photographs as the bodies would be burned beyond recognition. They were identified by Douglas Owsley and Douglas Ubelaker.
Again, have you seen the DNA reports? No? How about just one body identified as a passenger? No? What's your main source of evidence? Witnesses. Enter logic: You shouldn't have to rely on witnesses as your main evidence when an 80 ton plane crashes into a small hole in a building. It should be obvious.
I think everyone in the free world has seen the photos before. This is like a merry-go-round. Once more, there is no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board or even one body identified as a passenger. That is the majority of the plane with the passengers=NO PLANE
There's seems to be alot of wreckage that "appeared" in later photos compared to LIVE video shot just 10 mins after impact by cameraman Bob Pugh..
"I'm looking for wreckage. umm, and I don't see anything discernable. I can't find a piece of anything that I recognize. I can't see the tail, I can't see the wheels, I can't see engines, theres no chairs, theres no luggage. Umm..theres no logo"-Bob Pugh
@muzicmaker2001 Most of that video is Pugh being interveiwed. I thought you said that you don't think witnesses are reliable...
The part of his footage in the video DID show small peices of debris on the gound. The reason he didn't see it was because he was looking for large pieces of wing and fusalage of the plane.
@muzicmaker2001 How about we try something different. First, you'll say your theroy WOTHOUT atacking mine, then I'll say my theory WITHOUT attacking yours. Then, you say the problems with my theory, while say the problems with theory. Can you see wehre I'm going?
@muzicmaker2001 Let me make myself more clear. First, you will say what you think happened, then I'll do the same. Don't say what's wrong with my theory before I even state mine.
@muzicmaker2001 If you think that a theory is the same thing as an opinion then you do not konw the first thing about science. A theory is what you make of the evedence you have seen. I'm asking you for that.
Interesting logic you have there. If ALL of the physical evidence points to another theory, just blindly accept the theory that's presented to you? And you mentioned science earlier. Wow!!
@muzicmaker2001 I did not just blimdly exept the theory. I looked at evedence that i could find and came to the same conclusion as the official report.
By blind, I mean you are blind to the majority of what you call evidence. For example, have you seen the DNA report? How about the autopsy report? A confirmation of ANY of the wreckage? One body identified as a passenger? A body identified as a hijacker? Any evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail section, or both engines? One chair out of 239 on-board? And evidence of a massive fire/burn damage from 5000 gals of jet fuel? No to all? Doesn't sound concrete to me at all..
@muzicmaker2001 First, the fire damage was on the 1st an 2nd floors only according to the official theory. Look at pictures of the Pentagon after the event and you'll fire damage on those floors, but only soot on the upper floors.
Now please tell me what you think hit the pentagon. I've ben waiting long enough.
Officially, 4,900 lb of jet fuel was involved in the fire at the time of impact outside the building. And 30,400 lb of jet fuel entered the building. Cameraman was on scene approx. 10 mins after impact. Since the fire was well under with workers within a few feet of the impact hole in Pugh's video, did they put out this fire in 10 mins? And worker April Gallop walked directly thru the hole and saw no plane parts or jet fuel? Your theory on this?
"And I came out in what is to believed to be the entrance or the place of initial impact..While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn't see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, luggage, nothing that would give me any indication that it was a plane that had hit the building. I didn't have jet fuel all over my body. My son didn't have jet fuel all over his body. The people that I helped didn't have jet fuel all over their body"-Pentagon worker April Gallop
At some point, you're going to have to deal with these witness accounts: FOUR people stated that some part of the plane hit the ground. TWO people stated that the wings were sheared off. ONE person stated that the fuselage hit the ground. ONE person stated that the tail came off. ONE person stated that an engine ricocheted into the mall parking area. ONE person stated that the plane did a cartwhell before impacting....there is no evidence to support any of these accounts
What made the smoke in this video doesn't matter at this time!!! What DOES MATTER??
The government is holding the video from at least 80 cameras and refuses to release it!!
They don't care how many times you see the planes crash into Trade Center but are afraid to let the public see more than these 5 frames from "1" of the cameras. WHY do you think that is? WHY would they be afraid of the truth? What are they hiding? "IF" the public ever sees the truth then a lot of heads will roll.
This is what's mind boggling about the 9/11 Official Conspiracies Versions, there's always SOMETHING out of the ordinary needed to explain what looks to the rest of us as obvious bullshit because without making up excuses, there's no way for their CT's to hold any water.
"Oh, the abnormal white smoke coming from the engine that looks perfectly like a weapons projectile exhaust is from thessfittuhg xx
The smoke can be explained by Flight 77 hitting light posts before crashing. The flight path suggests that the one of the luminaries of these posts went into the right engine before impact. This would cause this white smoke.
And the lack of debris from hitting the light posts can be explained by?? The lack of wreckage from an 80 ton plane slamming into a small hole can be explained by?? The lack of even one body identified as a passenger can be explained by?? Help me out here...
Look up Northwest Flight 255, where the 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? Really? Light posts can't severe a wing, but the wings just vanished at impact? Do you really belive everyone is this stupid? Again, there is no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger, but they DID show dead bodies. Does that make sense? Nope..
@muzicmaker2001 Ah, but you can't use that for a valid comparison because when 255 hit a light pole it was traveling much slower. Also, the wings didn't vanish on impact. the wings did leave a mark, as shown by this video:
watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4
Also, you must relize that you are under the wrong impresion when you say that they didnt't identify any passengers. The only passengers that wasn't fidentified was a baby.
@muzicmaker2001 The gash was also smaller than the wing span in the 1945 B-25 crash at the empire state building. And the engines did leave holes. Since you would have known that if you watched the video, I'll put the link again:
watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4
And BTW, how can a cruse missile knock down 5 lamp posts, two of which were 90 feet apart?
I watched the link and it doesn't show damage of an 80 ton 124 ft wingspan 757. No comment on how two witnesses stated that the wings came off, huh? How about the engines? Can you post a photo of the engine in the mall parking area? No? You do believe the witnesses, right?
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
@muzicmaker2001 When the wings hit the building, they would create a geryish cloud in the shape of the wings. Just watch the video of the inpact of Flght 175 and the same thing occurs
BTW, since I don't speeak Lunatic Truther, can you elaborate on the "missing engine in the mall parking lot"?
You weren't there, correct? Two witnesses that were supposedly there stated the wings were sheared off. I wonder what happened to the debris from the 124 ft wings if sheared off? Do you speak English? If so, see the quote below. Is there any photographic evidence of this engine in the mall parking area?
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
That link doesn't address anything. To summarize the witness accounts; FOUR people stated that some part of the plane hit the ground. TWO people stated that the wings were sheared off. ONE person stated that the fuselage hit the ground and blew up, ONE person stated that the tail came off, ONE person stated that an engine ricocheted into the mall parking area...and there's absolutely no evidence of any of this. Since you are obviously defending this, your thoughts?
@muzicmaker2001 I will not debunk any more of your theories until you can defend your own. youthery is so flawed that i cannot even begin to describe its problems in just one video.
uhh, what? You haven't debunked anything yet. You can't even defend or back up the witness statements. Nothing but excuses. Here's the problem you face with your job defending 911. Anyone with even half a brain knows that an 80 ton 757 with a 124 ft wingspan did not crash into the Pentagon.
@muzicmaker2001 Let me ask you something. How could a cruse missile knock down 5 light poles, two of which were 90 feet apart? And what about the bodies? All but one of the bodies of the occupants of Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon. And finally, what about witness acounts. 136 peo[le witnessed the attack, and not one of then reported seeing a cruse missile.
Do you really think that when an 80 ton plane traveling at 500+ mph and strikes light poles, they would be lying just a few feet from their foundation? Either the wings would've been destroyed or the poles would be in Canada. But, how do you explain how the FDR data puts the "plane" 480 ft too high and not in-line to hit ANY light poles? See clip below. There is no photographic evidence of even ONE body identified as a passenger.
@muzicmaker2001 I have a really great analogy for the first problem and two obvious facts about the second problem. However, until you solve THIS problem with YOUR theory, I can't tell you. So here's the problem:
How can a cruse missile knock dow five light poles, especially if two of them are 90 feet apart and none of them are in a strait line?
No theory. It is a FACT that the FDR data shows that the plane was too high to hit any light poles, so if you are a logical person, there MUST be another scenario, correct? But, there are people on here that will defend 911 at all costs no matter what evidence refutes it. Like stating that all but one of the bodies of the occupants were found and identified as FACT, but they haven't seen even one body identified as a passenger. Have you seen these types?
@muzicmaker2001 Did you read my comment? I said to explain how a cruse missile could have knocked down the lamp poles at the Pentagon. You seem to always be able to attack the official theory, but your completely unable to defend to truther myth. Just tell me how a cruse missile to the ground structures as were seen on 9/11, or I will be forced to conclude that you DON'T know how a cruse missile could have knocked down these light poles.
This is one of my fav quotes. The plane did a gymnastic move into the Pentagon? Really? Did we all miss this on the CCTV? Pretty funny unless you really believe it..
"Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, THEN THE PLANE CARTWHEELED into the building."-David Marra
I believe those were chemtrails, not contrails at 4:15. That's a whole other story, though. The video was a compelling comparison the two types of thrust and their traits, however. Thanks. Regardless of the vast amounts of data and questions that come up when one looks into the 911 attacks, most aren't ready to change their paradigm. Sad, but understandable. Change is usually quite scary.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken
@marvelfannumber1 u can buy eyewitnesses easy but not videorecordings. and why they removed all the other videorecords from gasstations and other cameras and left this shitty video footage? oh man. do your fucking research instead of sucking up official goverment theories. Oh and they found a pass from the ''pilot'' laying on the grass while the half ''plane'' disapeared by the crash, the pass was still ok. cmon man...i know u are not that stupid
@Minncord LOL face it man he will only believe what the govn't tells him. I wasnt there so I dont really know what hit the pentagon but it does seems fishy to me. The pentagon being one of the most secured building in the world, but only having one video showing the plane hitting. Come on. Something is wrong there.
This is not a conspiracy theory! What ever hit the Pentagon wasn't a Jet liner! This guy knows what he's talking about and the Pentagon has tons of security cameras every were and why there was only one security camera war trained on that one specific area of the Pentagon.I believe it was a cruise missile!.
I'd like to see a witness that actually seen it impact the building. The ones I have heard about just seen the plane fly over and then heard the impact/explosion. Maybe there was a AA plane and a missile both and the aa plane disappeared elsewhere? I wouldn't be questioning everything so much if it wasn't so obvious that building 7 was imploded. Many of the tenants of building 7 benefited from the loss of their documents. So convenient. Enron for example.
I'd like to see a witness that actually seen it impact the building. The ones I have heard about just seen the plane fly over and then heard the impact/explosion. Maybe there was a AA plane and a missile both and the aa plane disappeared elsewhere? I wouldn't be questioning everything so much if it wasn't so obvious that building 7 was imploded.
If the flight path stated by many witnesses is correct then the plane could not have knocked down the light poles because they were in a totally different direction. The cab driver even states that the official story put him, his cab and the downed light pole in a totally different place from where he actually was!! I think he said the officials ignored his testimony that his cab was elsewhere.
The official story states that the right engine was putting out smoke after impact with one of the light poles. I am very skeptical regarding 9/11, but I think this would explain why there would be a white trail. Many witnesses did see the plane and say it was an AA plane. I thought it was a missile, but I'm not so sure now. Too many witnesses, although many disagree with the flight path that is in the official report including the 2 policemen who were at the citgo gas station. something fishy
The official story states that the right engine was putting out smoke after impact with one of the light poles. I am very skeptical regarding 9/11, but I think this would explain why there would be a white trail. Many witnesses did see the plane and say it was an AA plane. I thought it was a missile, but I'm not so sure now. Too many witnesses, although many disagree with the flight path that is in the official report including the 2 policemen who were at the citgo gas station. something fishy
@ChrisOnStage2 AMEN TO YOU SIR... conspiracy theorists are the biggest dumbass's in the world. You are 100% correct? If the PLANE didnt hit the pentagon... then WWWTTTTFF happened to it...!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They could tell americans that the sky is green and the grass is blue, and they would believe it, as long as the corporate media tells them, their brains are all messed up. They will never face the truth, they put stuff in high fuctrose corn syrup, spray chemtrials, put fluroride in the water and toothpaste, then use the idiot box to make americans under a kind of hypnosis, making them believe anything they want to tell them. Poor freedumb monkeys.
I think people will be even more convinced it wasn't a plane when they see this. One eyewitness said "...it looked like a cruise missile, but with wings..."
and another question (sorry so many questions but this one can be answered by the viewers): how can a small country with less weapons and security can attack the most powerfull country of the world? not so powerfull? how can the most wanted man of world died so easy?exemple: when paccino killed that cop on godfather the mobb sent him away for security. bin laden was at front of pakistinian governmant with is ALL FAMILY. i also don't believe that no one eared a fuckin helicopter or bullet noise
i got another question for you, i believe the bbc (if not it was a program from england) has a difference of at least 4 hours, how can they make a report on LIVE just 20 minuts before the 7:30 am until the 8 am? (hour of the attacks to the wtc) and now i got another really interested question wich i would like an answer. do you believe in the illuminnati? don't you think there's a lot of strange things appenning around the world? some people think the next dead one is kadhafi. what do you think?
very good job bro but chek this out, we don't need to think very much, if you got the security camera images then you will see that a patrul car has passed by a few seconds before the impact. my question is easy, if there was a patrul car so close then how can't they ear the air plane? the jet? the missil? warever they want to say! some people say that there was pieces of the white plain saying america..that air plain has no chances to go so fast and so low at the same time, or a jet or a rocket
the pentagon was hit in the one spot the armed forces had the computers that had ther 2 trill dollar spending spree on that they had no clue what they spent it on
are you fucking serious? Peek a boo? WTF you ass hole! People died there, and no one gives two shits about your theories! Have a little respect, 9/11 is not a peek a boo subject you faggot
@Superfluco35 no one even died in the pentagon.. surprisingly.. got hit in the pentagon and nobody was in there lol. all a fucking big set up to their major plan. u guys are puppets don't even know why u cheer ur president on when u already know his a deceiving cunt that tricked u guys into voting for him. u got all these government cunts saying all this is classfied etc.. trying to protect your country. jsut stay the fuck in urs.. nobody was invading america in the first place
So explain to me how a 50-yds-wide PLANE-SHAPED HOLE was made without using a 757 at 500 mph.
If the potential energy of the towers was capable of melting 2,600 tons of steel then explain how it was not possible for the steel compacted into the basement to have been heated up by THAT energy
I would ask questions about buckling and stability, but you couldn't offer a sensible reply
Then there's the aircraft wave vortices visible in the smoke just after impact
LMAO!! Dude, you're killing me. A sensible reply? Welcome to reality...
Interviewer:
"Now, your video has the best shot of the hole for video evidence. How big was the Pentagon hole?"
Bob Pugh:
"I would say it was 16 ft diameter, 20 ft tops. That's what struck as so curious. I can't find something...there was no marks on the grass..But, I can't believe the thing is more than a garage door."
@muzicmaker2001 Again, U're talking about something else when it's obvious I'm talking about WTC1&2
I am surprised when U know what happened 2 the titanium Phantom F4 at 500 mph into a large nuclear power station RC block that U can't extrapolate that 2 the damage effects at the Pentagon
It is quite obvious that the plane structure vaporized & exploded on the outside, except where there was a preponderance of strong materials - so the body, u/c & engines went thru the r/c - & the windows
Hey Einstein. If the bearing force of the upper undamaged floors caused the global collapse all the way to the WTC base, where was this large chunk of debris on top of the base? And since the majority of the floors were either pulverized to dust or ejected laterally, exactly what was this force pushing downward? Was it the dust or air? Read the physics book, ok?
@muzicmaker2001 Column buckling failure is abrupt & followed immediately by FREEFALL
30 floors & 70,000 tons falling 4 yards was more IMPACT ENERGY than the touching parts of top & bottom could survive, so both top & bottom were destroyed
All rubble produced moved downward at an acceleration LESS than G, (except 4 the free-falling ejected columns & concrete) reaching a ground impact speed of 150 mph
Imagine an ocean liner doing 150 mph!
By the way, I first picked up a physics book 56 yrs ago
Maybe you haven't read a physics book in 56 years? Ok, you must know what the path of least resistence is, right? And I'm sure you know that objects normally don't fall into the path of MOST resistance, meaning about 70-90 undamaged floors. Plug that in. BTW, no plane hit WTC7 so what's your explanation for that. Every shill has a different version.
"The towers fell into that path 2, 4 a buckled column offers NO resistance"
LMAO!!! And the lack of resistance is what also created the extreme temps buried underneath all three buildings. Dude, you're cracking me up..is this serious? is this a joke?
@muzicmaker2001 U may have laughed your ass off (where you're brain obviously resides) B4 U read "Try standing a straw erect & load it from above & watch what happens. There U are - U've LEARNT something!"
No wonder you understand very little and cannot learn
How does a turbofan leave a white trail? By FLAMING OUT
Have you tried the STRAW TEST yet?
Pick another point that makes you laugh, bozo, and let's see if you can CRY your way to enlightenment
@muzicmaker2001 It was all perfectly explained in the NIST report - it's simply that you guys don't understand it
The impact damage caused the tower to LEAN
This meant that there was just ONE column in the tower which had the greatest compressive load & this point (just outboard of the starboard engine strike) was subject to TWO further problems
(a) Progressive softening with increasing temperature
(b) Removal of lateral restraint due to detaching floor pans
Yes, I know its in the NIST report. Then why are you even here posting this BS? LOL. Its a very simple question. If the collapse continued to the WTC base, where was the massive piece of debris that was the force that caused this? And I know you that no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire. How do you feel about logic and probability? No high rise has collapsed before or after 911, but 3 collapses all on 911? A miracle beating the odds?
@muzicmaker2001 Why? U don't understand the report and are a PUBLIC disinformant
The FORCE was the unsupported MASS of the tower above the first failing column TIMES the acceleration due to GRAVITY - weights of 70,000 and 35,000 tons max (a guess)
All 3 buildings were completely ATYPICAL and this argument interests truthers only because their ignorance gives them no powers to make these distinctions
Education and understanding removes these "miracles" and also ALL your arguments
Don't let go of your day job. Engines that swallow a large unit will flame out, but the pumps will still be pushing a dense mist of kerosine though the engine.
Didn't anyone tell you not to mess with topics you aren't educated in?
@muzicmaker2001 You must be talking about some other incident of which I'm unfamiliar
The incident I am familiar with involved the knocking down of five lamposts, a huge kerosine explosion, MASSIVE damage to that section of the Pentagon, aircraft wreckage, undercarriage, turbofan parts, and bodies foreign to service personnel
It's a pity you mentioned the trail gap so out of context. The same gap is the disproof of chemtrails
I am already tired of the next arguments you might wish to present
Some other incident? That was a direct witness account? No engine anywhere? Any idea where both engines went with no engine impact damage? With all of this wreckage, why is there absolutely none around the impact hole? And if Northwest Flight 255's left wing collided with ONE light pole, ripped away a 15-foot long section of the wingtip and immediately crashed, we can use simple logic here...FIVE light poles??? ok. .Is a paycheck worth this?
Instead you merely demonstrate that your ignorance of physics has led U to draw false conclusions wherever U care to draw them
The Boeing 757 at 500+mph had nearly 20 times the impact energy of the (slatless) MD-80 at takeoff speed, well capable of cleaving lamp masts, clearing away a kerb & generator, punching through the Pentagon's r/c with its body, engines and u/c to further tear down r/c columns within
"The Boeing 757 at 500+mph had nearly 20 times the impact energy...blah, blah, blah"
But left absolutely no engine, wing and tail damage to the building? And still no comment on the "missing" engine that supposedly ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area? How do you feel about momentum. Physics? Really? Save it. I've heard the BS many times before. Let's call it 911 physics, ok? Funny..
@muzicmaker2001 "And still no comment on the "missing" engine that supposedly ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area?"
It's news to me. It isn't impossible for engine parts to be found outside. The engine which struck the parked generator was a prime candidate 2 sling its turbine blades ALL OVER the parking lot in the blink of an eye
The engine shafts were ten feet long, ten inches dia concentric steel tubes doing 3 and 20 thousand rpm & at 500 mph would have drilled their way IN
So, wait. You are preaching physics but you think one of most dense parts of the plane, the engines, should not follow the momentum of the plane? Is this some of that new physics ya got there? Serious question: If noone believes a word you say, why bother?
I would be bothered if YOU believed anything I say because as a "truther" you have already decided to face yourself away from it. As it never passes your way, you no longer speak it. You should have known when you passed up the chance to follow maths or physics that your chickens would come home to roost some day
And here you are, a "truther"... ...were there NO PLANES at the WTC too?
Just to let you know, this is nothing but entertainment. I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not my first shill...err..debunker, ok? All come off as arrogant know it alls, but in reality, its nothing more than desperation.
@muzicmaker2001 Why, we agree on something. You think I'm talking to you alone, but just as you do with me, I talk past you too
You're kinda sick, you have apophenia, you make certain predictable errors, you're actually messing your own life up worse than the harm you're doing to society in general, and your sickness prevents you from seeing it
There's a delicious irony in everything you write as a consequence
Now THAT's entertainment... :)
So why not RESEARCH your condition? You could benefit.
Not the F4 Phantom example again? I thought this was old news for debunkers? Ok, pay attention. Since "something" went thru 9 ft of concrete and created the perfectly circular C-ring exit hole, the F4 is not a relevant example, ehh? Also, passengers were supposedly found still strapped to their seats. So, which is it? The plane disintegrated or not? Those of us with some common sense know there was no 757 at all...
@muzicmaker2001 2 ft of r/c and a brick wall doesn't equal "9 ft of concrete" & the F4 perfectly relevant as it was travelling SLOWER than the 757
There was no damage 2 the building? I suppose COLLAPSING doesn't count...
I'll spell this out simply so U can follow: the kinetic energy of a moving body equals half its mass times the square of its velocity. Brought 2 a sudden stop from 500mph, parts of the aircraft vaporize. Following parts are decelerating - so they're SLOWER - so they don't. Twat.
"Brought 2 a sudden stop from 500mph, parts of the aircraft vaporize"
Oh wait. The majority of the plane vaporized..well, except for passengers...or...err..human flesh? But, thanks for breaking it down for me. Love your new physics though. Again, I've heard this BS many times before, ok?
"Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats."-USA Today, 09/13/2001
Re-read my posts slowly this time. There was no engine, wing or tail impact damage. There was a circular 16-20 ft hole. Sounds like a massive 757 to me. Yep...
@muzicmaker2001 "There was no engine, wing or tail impact damage"
I saw the pictures. You can see where the building was struck. Holes created by the body and both engines was plainly visible before collapse. Marks on the r/c face where the wings and tail struck and shattered externally were also visible. Wing sections that had passed thru windows also cut down some columns inside
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, you saw it too, but it went into your mind through your eyes without the brain power to process it correctly
They were made of armoured glass. That face of the Pentagon had been recently "hardened". There was a running schedule for "hardening" the whole building which had begun with that face. THAT is why you see intact glass there. Research. Process. Think. Check out "pitfalls of thinking". Revaluate. Eat crow. :)
@muzicmaker2001 The plane covered 800 ft per sec - v. fast - making even expert eyewitness somewhat unreliable
The engines were lowest by 5 feet and would have left long scoops in the lawn
The first sign of ground impact was a starboard engine-shaped scoop out of a concrete kerb, causing that engine to shed more blades
The plane missed the lawn, striking the ground about 60 ft before the Pentagon, I guess, starboard wing dropping, yawing to the right because of the loss of starboard engine power
Four different witnesses stated that some part of the plane touched the ground. One witness even stated that after the plane touched the ground, " then the plane cartwheeled into the building."-David Marra. Wow! A cartwheel? But, hold onto something. We should discard all four witness accounts and instead rely on some random guy on youtube's evaluation? Really? Ya see? This is why noone believes your BS. Thanx for the entertainment...
"I wasted my time talking about 800 ft/sec, didn't I?...No-one could have seen the plane approach for more than 5 sec,"
Yeah, I think you wasted your time with the 800ft/sec BS. 5 second faces, huh? Its pretty funny that you think I'm "ill" because I'm not falling for the same BS I've heard a hundred times now?
"Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' -James R. Cissell
@lonewolf2379 Bro at what angle do you believe the plane crashed into the pentagon at? The height of the plane is 44 feet, and the wing span is somewhere around 120. How come the aftermath of the pentagon shows nowhere near a 120 foot airplane wing span. "No offence to anyone."? Are you kidding me that's an offense to human kind. Your one of those persons who believe Jewish people set the reichstage on fire. when clearly it was Hitler's cover up.
see for the first two lines of your post you engaged in thoughtfull dialogue then you resorted to anti semite shite to make your point....no need for that..i didnt insult anyone....its just i see a plane of some sort ..tail fin and nose from behind that pillar box....
@muzicmaker2001 Whoops, posted before I was done typing. I have 136 witnesses, and you only have 9.
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
This might help...
Witness accounts + physical evidence at the site + photographic/video evidence=high probability that the event occured
Witness accounts + no backing physical evidence at the site + no backing photographic/video evidence=a near zero probability that the event occured
There is no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board or even one body identified as a passenger.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 There is physical and photographic evidence. Just watch this video:
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
No bodies found? What an unbelievable lie! What about witnesses? What about the fact that these bodies WERE found and WERE identified? And what about the passenger's families? Are they all lying? How could such a big conspiracy NOT completely have come apart by now?
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Here's the mystery. There ARE photos of bodies, but there is no photographic evidence of even ONE body positively identified as a passenger. And the video clip you posted DOES NOT show any photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, luggage and not even one chair of the 239 on-board. So, much for photographic evidence of an 80 ton plane, huh? All you have are witnesses, correct?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 How do 9 comments (who don' t support your theory eiither
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
So, have you seen:
1. Photographic evidence of the cockpit? wings? tail? both engines? any luggage at all? How about just 2 chairs out of 239? No?
2. One body identified as a passenger?
3. The DNA reports
4. Even 20 family members?
If you answered "NO" to all questions, the majority of your "evidence" is based on nothing but what you are told, but you seem to act as if this were FACT? Why?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 @muzicmaker2001 See this link for wreckage:
watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk
The fact that you believe that the passengers are fake sickens me. Please visit Mark Robert's debunking site.
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
You didn't answer any of the questions? But, you are campaign as if this were fact? Ok, simple question. Forget the missing 80 tons of plane, what do you think happened to all 239 chairs on-board?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Are you serious? your asking for chairs?
There are plenty of air crashes in which the DON'T find chairs. Her's a few of those:
TAM 3054
West Carribean Airways 708
American 191
But if you had read any quotes, you may have some (like on the list from wtc7lies) which said that they saw bodies strpped to seats.
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
You're not making any sense. First, you post examples of other plane crashes where you say (haven't verified this) no chairs were found, but then in the same post, you say seats were found at the Pentagon? The reality is there is no photographic evidence of ANY bodies identified as passengers or ANY seats attached to passengers. Prove me wrong?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Photographic evedence of bodies? These bodies were identified in a coroner's office, not with photographs as the bodies would be burned beyond recognition. They were identified by Douglas Owsley and Douglas Ubelaker.
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Again, your entire bag of evidence are things you haven't seen directly and were only told. Not very logical
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74 Wow, you are a very stubborn pseudoscientist. I invite you to google the names of these coroners.
PostalCode74 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Again, have you seen the DNA reports? No? How about just one body identified as a passenger? No? What's your main source of evidence? Witnesses. Enter logic: You shouldn't have to rely on witnesses as your main evidence when an 80 ton plane crashes into a small hole in a building. It should be obvious.
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 There was plenty of debris at the crash site. There's even pictures!
watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Skip to 5:00 for pictures of wreckage.
I'm pretty sure that you would find the reports if you had googled those names.
PostalCode74 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
I think everyone in the free world has seen the photos before. This is like a merry-go-round. Once more, there is no photographic evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail, fuselage, both engines, any luggage, not one chair of the 239 on-board or even one body identified as a passenger. That is the majority of the plane with the passengers=NO PLANE
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 YES THERE IS!!!
watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk
Watch the WHOLE video!
PostalCode74 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
There's seems to be alot of wreckage that "appeared" in later photos compared to LIVE video shot just 10 mins after impact by cameraman Bob Pugh..
"I'm looking for wreckage. umm, and I don't see anything discernable. I can't find a piece of anything that I recognize. I can't see the tail, I can't see the wheels, I can't see engines, theres no chairs, theres no luggage. Umm..theres no logo"-Bob Pugh
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Most of that video is Pugh being interveiwed. I thought you said that you don't think witnesses are reliable...
The part of his footage in the video DID show small peices of debris on the gound. The reason he didn't see it was because he was looking for large pieces of wing and fusalage of the plane.
PostalCode74 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Remember:
Witness accounts + physical evidence at the site + photographic/video evidence=high probability that the event occured
Witness accounts + no backing physical evidence at the site + no backing photographic/video evidence=a near zero probability that the event occured
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 How about we try something different. First, you'll say your theroy WOTHOUT atacking mine, then I'll say my theory WITHOUT attacking yours. Then, you say the problems with my theory, while say the problems with theory. Can you see wehre I'm going?
PostalCode74 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Ok, this is simple enough. My theory is Flight 77 did not crash at the Pentagon and here's the evidence..
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
1. No video/photo of a 757 even approaching
2. No evidence of the majority of wreckage (cockpit, wings, tail, 2 engines, fuselage, luggage, 239 chairs)
3. No verification of the wreckage
4. No video evidence of a fire at the impact hole/lawn
5. No evidence of even one body identified as a passenger
6. No engine/wing/tail impact damage
7. No seismic data for the impact
8. FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles
9. MAJOR witness inconsistencies
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Let me make myself more clear. First, you will say what you think happened, then I'll do the same. Don't say what's wrong with my theory before I even state mine.
PostalCode74 1 week ago
@PostalCode74
Oh, my bad. I thought you wanted actual FACTS, not just my opinion??
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 Not an opinion. The theory that most truther accept about the Pentagon. That way I'll have a good understanding of the theory.
In the mean time, hears my theory. On September 11, 2001, hijackers took over AA 77, flying it into the Pentagon.
PostalCode74 1 week ago
@PostalCode74
What I or you think happened=an opinion.
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 If you think that a theory is the same thing as an opinion then you do not konw the first thing about science. A theory is what you make of the evedence you have seen. I'm asking you for that.
PostalCode74 1 week ago
@PostalCode74
Ya see. Unlike the facts I just posted, a theory can be debated. Since you are obviously here only to defend 911, why not start with the facts?
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! JUST TELL ME WHAT YOUR THEORY IS!
Seriously! You can't attack the official theory if you don't have an alternitive theory.
PostalCode74 1 week ago
@PostalCode74
Read this slowly and carefully. My theory is Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Rinse n' repeat if needed.
muzicmaker2001 1 week ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ok. What then, do you believe did hit the pentagon?
PostalCode74 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
This did..
watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 And what do you think it is?
PostalCode74 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
No idea, but its obviously not a 155 ft long 757, right?
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 No idea? You can't attack a theory if you don't have an alternate one.
PostalCode74 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
Interesting logic you have there. If ALL of the physical evidence points to another theory, just blindly accept the theory that's presented to you? And you mentioned science earlier. Wow!!
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 I did not just blimdly exept the theory. I looked at evedence that i could find and came to the same conclusion as the official report.
Now, what's your alternative theory?
PostalCode74 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
By blind, I mean you are blind to the majority of what you call evidence. For example, have you seen the DNA report? How about the autopsy report? A confirmation of ANY of the wreckage? One body identified as a passenger? A body identified as a hijacker? Any evidence of the cockpit, wings, tail section, or both engines? One chair out of 239 on-board? And evidence of a massive fire/burn damage from 5000 gals of jet fuel? No to all? Doesn't sound concrete to me at all..
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@muzicmaker2001 First, the fire damage was on the 1st an 2nd floors only according to the official theory. Look at pictures of the Pentagon after the event and you'll fire damage on those floors, but only soot on the upper floors.
Now please tell me what you think hit the pentagon. I've ben waiting long enough.
PostalCode74 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
Officially, 4,900 lb of jet fuel was involved in the fire at the time of impact outside the building. And 30,400 lb of jet fuel entered the building. Cameraman was on scene approx. 10 mins after impact. Since the fire was well under with workers within a few feet of the impact hole in Pugh's video, did they put out this fire in 10 mins? And worker April Gallop walked directly thru the hole and saw no plane parts or jet fuel? Your theory on this?
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 4 days ago
@PostalCode74
"And I came out in what is to believed to be the entrance or the place of initial impact..While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn't see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, luggage, nothing that would give me any indication that it was a plane that had hit the building. I didn't have jet fuel all over my body. My son didn't have jet fuel all over his body. The people that I helped didn't have jet fuel all over their body"-Pentagon worker April Gallop
muzicmaker2001 1 day ago
@PostalCode74
At some point, you're going to have to deal with these witness accounts: FOUR people stated that some part of the plane hit the ground. TWO people stated that the wings were sheared off. ONE person stated that the fuselage hit the ground. ONE person stated that the tail came off. ONE person stated that an engine ricocheted into the mall parking area. ONE person stated that the plane did a cartwhell before impacting....there is no evidence to support any of these accounts
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
What made the smoke in this video doesn't matter at this time!!! What DOES MATTER??
The government is holding the video from at least 80 cameras and refuses to release it!!
They don't care how many times you see the planes crash into Trade Center but are afraid to let the public see more than these 5 frames from "1" of the cameras. WHY do you think that is? WHY would they be afraid of the truth? What are they hiding? "IF" the public ever sees the truth then a lot of heads will roll.
kbspapa 3 weeks ago
I saw the plane crash. All I recall seeing was a sign in the window, It said " Elie Wiesel has no tattoo, another phony "
390bullitt1968 4 weeks ago
I was sitting in traffic on 9-11 and saw the plane fly into the building. I can prove it but prefer not to.
390bullitt1968 1 month ago
@390bullitt1968
yes, me too. but, i saw that elvis was the pilot. cut the bs. noone believes a word.
seeknthetruth 4 weeks ago
@postalcode74
This is what's mind boggling about the 9/11 Official Conspiracies Versions, there's always SOMETHING out of the ordinary needed to explain what looks to the rest of us as obvious bullshit because without making up excuses, there's no way for their CT's to hold any water.
"Oh, the abnormal white smoke coming from the engine that looks perfectly like a weapons projectile exhaust is from thessfittuhg xx
N1k1mon 1 month ago
The smoke can be explained by Flight 77 hitting light posts before crashing. The flight path suggests that the one of the luminaries of these posts went into the right engine before impact. This would cause this white smoke.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
And the lack of debris from hitting the light posts can be explained by?? The lack of wreckage from an 80 ton plane slamming into a small hole can be explained by?? The lack of even one body identified as a passenger can be explained by?? Help me out here...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Light posts can't sever a wing of a 767.
Lots of debris was found. Do a Google image search.
The bodies of all but 1 of Flight 77's occupants were found and identified. That none were found is either complete ignorance or a complete lie.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
Look up Northwest Flight 255, where the 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? Really? Light posts can't severe a wing, but the wings just vanished at impact? Do you really belive everyone is this stupid? Again, there is no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger, but they DID show dead bodies. Does that make sense? Nope..
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ah, but you can't use that for a valid comparison because when 255 hit a light pole it was traveling much slower. Also, the wings didn't vanish on impact. the wings did leave a mark, as shown by this video:
watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4
Also, you must relize that you are under the wrong impresion when you say that they didnt't identify any passengers. The only passengers that wasn't fidentified was a baby.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
So, let me get this straight. These 124 ft wings that did not leave 124 feet of damage, then disintegrated? What do witnesses say about the wings?
"The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building"-Tom Hovis
"It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings."-Mike Walter
And what of the massive engines attached to those wings?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 The gash was also smaller than the wing span in the 1945 B-25 crash at the empire state building. And the engines did leave holes. Since you would have known that if you watched the video, I'll put the link again:
watch?v=Z8B-AvIt6V4
And BTW, how can a cruse missile knock down 5 lamp posts, two of which were 90 feet apart?
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
I watched the link and it doesn't show damage of an 80 ton 124 ft wingspan 757. No comment on how two witnesses stated that the wings came off, huh? How about the engines? Can you post a photo of the engine in the mall parking area? No? You do believe the witnesses, right?
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Can a cruse missile knock down 5 lamp posts, tweo of which were 90 feet apart? You have not given me an explanation about that.
As for the video, did you notice the wing marks? How does a cruse missile cause that?
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
As soon as you explain the missing engine in the mall parking area and sheared off 124 ft wings from the witness accounts?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 When the wings hit the building, they would create a geryish cloud in the shape of the wings. Just watch the video of the inpact of Flght 175 and the same thing occurs
BTW, since I don't speeak Lunatic Truther, can you elaborate on the "missing engine in the mall parking lot"?
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
You weren't there, correct? Two witnesses that were supposedly there stated the wings were sheared off. I wonder what happened to the debris from the 124 ft wings if sheared off? Do you speak English? If so, see the quote below. Is there any photographic evidence of this engine in the mall parking area?
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Think about how these quotes are talking about seeing a plane with wings, engines, blue and red and silver paint:
watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0
And now, I need you tell me how a cruse missile can cause this sort of damage to light poles and ground structures.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
That link doesn't address anything. To summarize the witness accounts; FOUR people stated that some part of the plane hit the ground. TWO people stated that the wings were sheared off. ONE person stated that the fuselage hit the ground and blew up, ONE person stated that the tail came off, ONE person stated that an engine ricocheted into the mall parking area...and there's absolutely no evidence of any of this. Since you are obviously defending this, your thoughts?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 I will not debunk any more of your theories until you can defend your own. youthery is so flawed that i cannot even begin to describe its problems in just one video.
PostalCode74 4 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
uhh, what? You haven't debunked anything yet. You can't even defend or back up the witness statements. Nothing but excuses. Here's the problem you face with your job defending 911. Anyone with even half a brain knows that an 80 ton 757 with a 124 ft wingspan did not crash into the Pentagon.
muzicmaker2001 4 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Let me ask you something. How could a cruse missile knock down 5 light poles, two of which were 90 feet apart? And what about the bodies? All but one of the bodies of the occupants of Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon. And finally, what about witness acounts. 136 peo[le witnessed the attack, and not one of then reported seeing a cruse missile.
PostalCode74 4 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
Do you really think that when an 80 ton plane traveling at 500+ mph and strikes light poles, they would be lying just a few feet from their foundation? Either the wings would've been destroyed or the poles would be in Canada. But, how do you explain how the FDR data puts the "plane" 480 ft too high and not in-line to hit ANY light poles? See clip below. There is no photographic evidence of even ONE body identified as a passenger.
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
muzicmaker2001 4 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 I have a really great analogy for the first problem and two obvious facts about the second problem. However, until you solve THIS problem with YOUR theory, I can't tell you. So here's the problem:
How can a cruse missile knock dow five light poles, especially if two of them are 90 feet apart and none of them are in a strait line?
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
No theory. It is a FACT that the FDR data shows that the plane was too high to hit any light poles, so if you are a logical person, there MUST be another scenario, correct? But, there are people on here that will defend 911 at all costs no matter what evidence refutes it. Like stating that all but one of the bodies of the occupants were found and identified as FACT, but they haven't seen even one body identified as a passenger. Have you seen these types?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Did you read my comment? I said to explain how a cruse missile could have knocked down the lamp poles at the Pentagon. You seem to always be able to attack the official theory, but your completely unable to defend to truther myth. Just tell me how a cruse missile to the ground structures as were seen on 9/11, or I will be forced to conclude that you DON'T know how a cruse missile could have knocked down these light poles.
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
You obviously can't address my comment about the FDR data, but who said a cruise missile knocked down any poles?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 There were no less than FIVE lightpoles in front of the Pentagon that were knocked down. How could a cruse missile do that?
PostalCode74 3 weeks ago
@PostalCode74
This is one of my fav quotes. The plane did a gymnastic move into the Pentagon? Really? Did we all miss this on the CCTV? Pretty funny unless you really believe it..
"Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, THEN THE PLANE CARTWHEELED into the building."-David Marra
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
I believe those were chemtrails, not contrails at 4:15. That's a whole other story, though. The video was a compelling comparison the two types of thrust and their traits, however. Thanks. Regardless of the vast amounts of data and questions that come up when one looks into the 911 attacks, most aren't ready to change their paradigm. Sad, but understandable. Change is usually quite scary.
DTK5689 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken
DTK5689 1 month ago
Keep paying your taxes like good little americans if you trust the gov't , puppets
picojohnson 3 months ago
It said SEPT 12, 2001..WTF....
STBNY 4 months ago
Gotta love how conspiracy theorists ignore evidence T_T
Several eyewitnesses said they saw the plane and the smoke is coming off the wing because it is moving so fast and touching the ground.
marvelfannumber1 4 months ago
@marvelfannumber1
Its all captured on video:
watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
muzicmaker2001 4 months ago 13
@marvelfannumber1 And a 757 leaves a 14 foot hole?
the5k0k3r 4 months ago
@marvelfannumber1 youtube[dot]com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE&feature=related
the5k0k3r 4 months ago
@marvelfannumber1 if it was touching the ground, how come there are no marks there?
lukatme2 2 months ago
@marvelfannumber1 you are an idiot
Minncord 1 month ago
@Minncord
Says the hy who belives in aliens that are gonna invade the earth next year.
marvelfannumber1 1 month ago
@marvelfannumber1 hahaha and? idiot. that i watched the video doesnt mean anything. I believe in facts my friend
Minncord 1 month ago
@Minncord
What facts? That no plane hit the pentagon contrary to what all the eyewitnesses say?
marvelfannumber1 1 month ago
@marvelfannumber1 u can buy eyewitnesses easy but not videorecordings. and why they removed all the other videorecords from gasstations and other cameras and left this shitty video footage? oh man. do your fucking research instead of sucking up official goverment theories. Oh and they found a pass from the ''pilot'' laying on the grass while the half ''plane'' disapeared by the crash, the pass was still ok. cmon man...i know u are not that stupid
Minncord 1 month ago
@Minncord LOL face it man he will only believe what the govn't tells him. I wasnt there so I dont really know what hit the pentagon but it does seems fishy to me. The pentagon being one of the most secured building in the world, but only having one video showing the plane hitting. Come on. Something is wrong there.
MtthwSmmns 1 month ago
This is not a conspiracy theory! What ever hit the Pentagon wasn't a Jet liner! This guy knows what he's talking about and the Pentagon has tons of security cameras every were and why there was only one security camera war trained on that one specific area of the Pentagon.I believe it was a cruise missile!.
Drakon6956 4 months ago 7
Love this video. =)
isam1335 4 months ago
I'd like to see a witness that actually seen it impact the building. The ones I have heard about just seen the plane fly over and then heard the impact/explosion. Maybe there was a AA plane and a missile both and the aa plane disappeared elsewhere? I wouldn't be questioning everything so much if it wasn't so obvious that building 7 was imploded. Many of the tenants of building 7 benefited from the loss of their documents. So convenient. Enron for example.
BIGINSF 4 months ago
I'd like to see a witness that actually seen it impact the building. The ones I have heard about just seen the plane fly over and then heard the impact/explosion. Maybe there was a AA plane and a missile both and the aa plane disappeared elsewhere? I wouldn't be questioning everything so much if it wasn't so obvious that building 7 was imploded.
BIGINSF 4 months ago
If the flight path stated by many witnesses is correct then the plane could not have knocked down the light poles because they were in a totally different direction. The cab driver even states that the official story put him, his cab and the downed light pole in a totally different place from where he actually was!! I think he said the officials ignored his testimony that his cab was elsewhere.
BIGINSF 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The official story states that the right engine was putting out smoke after impact with one of the light poles. I am very skeptical regarding 9/11, but I think this would explain why there would be a white trail. Many witnesses did see the plane and say it was an AA plane. I thought it was a missile, but I'm not so sure now. Too many witnesses, although many disagree with the flight path that is in the official report including the 2 policemen who were at the citgo gas station. something fishy
BIGINSF 4 months ago
The official story states that the right engine was putting out smoke after impact with one of the light poles. I am very skeptical regarding 9/11, but I think this would explain why there would be a white trail. Many witnesses did see the plane and say it was an AA plane. I thought it was a missile, but I'm not so sure now. Too many witnesses, although many disagree with the flight path that is in the official report including the 2 policemen who were at the citgo gas station. something fishy
BIGINSF 4 months ago
Just one question: IF Flight 77 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it? One plane, 64 passengers? Where'd it go?
ChrisOnStage2 4 months ago
@ChrisOnStage2 AMEN TO YOU SIR... conspiracy theorists are the biggest dumbass's in the world. You are 100% correct? If the PLANE didnt hit the pentagon... then WWWTTTTFF happened to it...!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exposemedia1 4 months ago
Our Goverment does not lie they just exagerate.. a little hahahahaha
Dorisequador 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dorisequador
"Our Goverment does not lie they just exagerate.. a little hahahahaha "
Hahahaha ... maybe you're onto something? Comment of the decade! :D
aNdYmAtTeR 4 months ago
They could tell americans that the sky is green and the grass is blue, and they would believe it, as long as the corporate media tells them, their brains are all messed up. They will never face the truth, they put stuff in high fuctrose corn syrup, spray chemtrials, put fluroride in the water and toothpaste, then use the idiot box to make americans under a kind of hypnosis, making them believe anything they want to tell them. Poor freedumb monkeys.
chuck3377 5 months ago 2
@chuck3377 Yeah, a lot of Americans are fucking stupid.
The Commission Report completely ignored WTC7. That right there is proof enough that there was a coverup to some extent.
mustbeburtreynolds 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and debunkers think that 911 truthers dont use science look at this
nb45001 5 months ago
Google 'AGM-86D Missile'.
I think people will be even more convinced it wasn't a plane when they see this. One eyewitness said "...it looked like a cruise missile, but with wings..."
Looks obvious to me.
FamousNoName 6 months ago
lol it's clearly missile smoke. If it was smoke from the plane the plane would have been sooo visable it would have ended debate.
ChristianHolloway7 6 months ago
1:14 - "Shoots out the rear".. Sorry.. Had to make note of that..
On a serious note this is a great set of videos. Very informative.
cgram75 6 months ago
@cgram75 hahaha i wouldnt have noticed that
psolo3 5 months ago
Comment removed
me123775 7 months ago
Comment removed
me123775 7 months ago
and another question (sorry so many questions but this one can be answered by the viewers): how can a small country with less weapons and security can attack the most powerfull country of the world? not so powerfull? how can the most wanted man of world died so easy?exemple: when paccino killed that cop on godfather the mobb sent him away for security. bin laden was at front of pakistinian governmant with is ALL FAMILY. i also don't believe that no one eared a fuckin helicopter or bullet noise
KamptonSquad 8 months ago
i got another question for you, i believe the bbc (if not it was a program from england) has a difference of at least 4 hours, how can they make a report on LIVE just 20 minuts before the 7:30 am until the 8 am? (hour of the attacks to the wtc) and now i got another really interested question wich i would like an answer. do you believe in the illuminnati? don't you think there's a lot of strange things appenning around the world? some people think the next dead one is kadhafi. what do you think?
KamptonSquad 8 months ago
very good job bro but chek this out, we don't need to think very much, if you got the security camera images then you will see that a patrul car has passed by a few seconds before the impact. my question is easy, if there was a patrul car so close then how can't they ear the air plane? the jet? the missil? warever they want to say! some people say that there was pieces of the white plain saying america..that air plain has no chances to go so fast and so low at the same time, or a jet or a rocket
KamptonSquad 8 months ago
the pentagon was hit in the one spot the armed forces had the computers that had ther 2 trill dollar spending spree on that they had no clue what they spent it on
budking127 8 months ago
STUPID STUPID!! "LOOKS LIKE" ?
REALLY UR FACTS ARE BASED ON "LOOKS LIKE"?
WATCH THE VIDEO ENGINEERS DID AND SEE THE LAMPPOST GOING DOWN CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE. DID U VEN KNOW THE PATH THE PLANE MADE?
AND OF COURSE ALL THE EYEWITNESES MEAN NOTHIN TO U UNLESS THEY SAY SOMETHING CONFUSING AND THEN U JUMP ON THAT AS "PROOF".
U R A DISGRACE TO THE THOSANDS WHO DIED THAT DAY!!
bluegrassreb1 9 months ago
@bluegrassreb1
yo....where's that video at?
ghyprh 8 months ago
Comment removed
bluegrassreb1 9 months ago
are you fucking serious? Peek a boo? WTF you ass hole! People died there, and no one gives two shits about your theories! Have a little respect, 9/11 is not a peek a boo subject you faggot
Superfluco35 9 months ago
@Superfluco35 no one even died in the pentagon.. surprisingly.. got hit in the pentagon and nobody was in there lol. all a fucking big set up to their major plan. u guys are puppets don't even know why u cheer ur president on when u already know his a deceiving cunt that tricked u guys into voting for him. u got all these government cunts saying all this is classfied etc.. trying to protect your country. jsut stay the fuck in urs.. nobody was invading america in the first place
llcooljohnnie 8 months ago
@llcooljohnnie nobody died??? you sir just need to shutup cuz u obviously have no fucking clue
flipmasta14 8 months ago
OMG U R a "no-plane" theorist! Great!
So explain to me how a 50-yds-wide PLANE-SHAPED HOLE was made without using a 757 at 500 mph.
If the potential energy of the towers was capable of melting 2,600 tons of steel then explain how it was not possible for the steel compacted into the basement to have been heated up by THAT energy
I would ask questions about buckling and stability, but you couldn't offer a sensible reply
Then there's the aircraft wave vortices visible in the smoke just after impact
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"50-yds-wide PLANE-SHAPED HOLE "
LMAO!! Dude, you're killing me. A sensible reply? Welcome to reality...
Interviewer:
"Now, your video has the best shot of the hole for video evidence. How big was the Pentagon hole?"
Bob Pugh:
"I would say it was 16 ft diameter, 20 ft tops. That's what struck as so curious. I can't find something...there was no marks on the grass..But, I can't believe the thing is more than a garage door."
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 Read my posts
"So explain to me how a 50-yds-wide PLANE-SHAPED HOLE was made without using a 757 at 500 mph.
If the potential energy of the towers"
TOWERS, you "no-planer"
Get yourself de-fixated
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Again, U're talking about something else when it's obvious I'm talking about WTC1&2
I am surprised when U know what happened 2 the titanium Phantom F4 at 500 mph into a large nuclear power station RC block that U can't extrapolate that 2 the damage effects at the Pentagon
It is quite obvious that the plane structure vaporized & exploded on the outside, except where there was a preponderance of strong materials - so the body, u/c & engines went thru the r/c - & the windows
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Hey Einstein. If the bearing force of the upper undamaged floors caused the global collapse all the way to the WTC base, where was this large chunk of debris on top of the base? And since the majority of the floors were either pulverized to dust or ejected laterally, exactly what was this force pushing downward? Was it the dust or air? Read the physics book, ok?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Column buckling failure is abrupt & followed immediately by FREEFALL
30 floors & 70,000 tons falling 4 yards was more IMPACT ENERGY than the touching parts of top & bottom could survive, so both top & bottom were destroyed
All rubble produced moved downward at an acceleration LESS than G, (except 4 the free-falling ejected columns & concrete) reaching a ground impact speed of 150 mph
Imagine an ocean liner doing 150 mph!
By the way, I first picked up a physics book 56 yrs ago
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"The impact damage caused the tower to LEAN"
Maybe you haven't read a physics book in 56 years? Ok, you must know what the path of least resistence is, right? And I'm sure you know that objects normally don't fall into the path of MOST resistance, meaning about 70-90 undamaged floors. Plug that in. BTW, no plane hit WTC7 so what's your explanation for that. Every shill has a different version.
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 The path of least resistance is the path you're on
The towers fell into that path 2, 4 a buckled column offers NO resistance
Unrestrained columns aren't stable (U should empathize)
Try standing a straw erect & load it from above & watch what happens
There U are - U've LEARNT something
WTC7 lay its virtually-undamaged front face over its rubble, a visual & confirmatory PROOF that it did NOT freefall
Think about it - no U can't cos U already took the path of least resistance...
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"The towers fell into that path 2, 4 a buckled column offers NO resistance"
LMAO!!! And the lack of resistance is what also created the extreme temps buried underneath all three buildings. Dude, you're cracking me up..is this serious? is this a joke?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 U may have laughed your ass off (where you're brain obviously resides) B4 U read "Try standing a straw erect & load it from above & watch what happens. There U are - U've LEARNT something!"
No wonder you understand very little and cannot learn
How does a turbofan leave a white trail? By FLAMING OUT
Have you tried the STRAW TEST yet?
Pick another point that makes you laugh, bozo, and let's see if you can CRY your way to enlightenment
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 It was all perfectly explained in the NIST report - it's simply that you guys don't understand it
The impact damage caused the tower to LEAN
This meant that there was just ONE column in the tower which had the greatest compressive load & this point (just outboard of the starboard engine strike) was subject to TWO further problems
(a) Progressive softening with increasing temperature
(b) Removal of lateral restraint due to detaching floor pans
It buckled, & its neighbours followed
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Yes, I know its in the NIST report. Then why are you even here posting this BS? LOL. Its a very simple question. If the collapse continued to the WTC base, where was the massive piece of debris that was the force that caused this? And I know you that no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire. How do you feel about logic and probability? No high rise has collapsed before or after 911, but 3 collapses all on 911? A miracle beating the odds?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Why? U don't understand the report and are a PUBLIC disinformant
The FORCE was the unsupported MASS of the tower above the first failing column TIMES the acceleration due to GRAVITY - weights of 70,000 and 35,000 tons max (a guess)
All 3 buildings were completely ATYPICAL and this argument interests truthers only because their ignorance gives them no powers to make these distinctions
Education and understanding removes these "miracles" and also ALL your arguments
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
Don't let go of your day job. Engines that swallow a large unit will flame out, but the pumps will still be pushing a dense mist of kerosine though the engine.
Didn't anyone tell you not to mess with topics you aren't educated in?
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
I do appreciate the heads up and the "education", but there were no engines found anywhere and no engine impact damage to the building.
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You must be talking about some other incident of which I'm unfamiliar
The incident I am familiar with involved the knocking down of five lamposts, a huge kerosine explosion, MASSIVE damage to that section of the Pentagon, aircraft wreckage, undercarriage, turbofan parts, and bodies foreign to service personnel
It's a pity you mentioned the trail gap so out of context. The same gap is the disproof of chemtrails
I am already tired of the next arguments you might wish to present
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Some other incident? That was a direct witness account? No engine anywhere? Any idea where both engines went with no engine impact damage? With all of this wreckage, why is there absolutely none around the impact hole? And if Northwest Flight 255's left wing collided with ONE light pole, ripped away a 15-foot long section of the wingtip and immediately crashed, we can use simple logic here...FIVE light poles??? ok. .Is a paycheck worth this?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 U have no way to use Ur "simple logic"
Instead you merely demonstrate that your ignorance of physics has led U to draw false conclusions wherever U care to draw them
The Boeing 757 at 500+mph had nearly 20 times the impact energy of the (slatless) MD-80 at takeoff speed, well capable of cleaving lamp masts, clearing away a kerb & generator, punching through the Pentagon's r/c with its body, engines and u/c to further tear down r/c columns within
I'm a retired pensioner, thanks :)
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"The Boeing 757 at 500+mph had nearly 20 times the impact energy...blah, blah, blah"
But left absolutely no engine, wing and tail damage to the building? And still no comment on the "missing" engine that supposedly ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area? How do you feel about momentum. Physics? Really? Save it. I've heard the BS many times before. Let's call it 911 physics, ok? Funny..
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "The Boeing 757 at 500+mph had nearly 20 times the impact energy...blah, blah, blah"
.
But it DID have that much more energy, and it's provable. Just do the math.
.
"Blah, blah, blah" - WOW, what a great put-down. You REALLY destroyed me there.
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"You REALLY destroyed me there."
Since you offer no explanation for the lack of impact damage, well..yes.
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "And still no comment on the "missing" engine that supposedly ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area?"
It's news to me. It isn't impossible for engine parts to be found outside. The engine which struck the parked generator was a prime candidate 2 sling its turbine blades ALL OVER the parking lot in the blink of an eye
The engine shafts were ten feet long, ten inches dia concentric steel tubes doing 3 and 20 thousand rpm & at 500 mph would have drilled their way IN
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
So, wait. You are preaching physics but you think one of most dense parts of the plane, the engines, should not follow the momentum of the plane? Is this some of that new physics ya got there? Serious question: If noone believes a word you say, why bother?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Follow my posts please
I would be bothered if YOU believed anything I say because as a "truther" you have already decided to face yourself away from it. As it never passes your way, you no longer speak it. You should have known when you passed up the chance to follow maths or physics that your chickens would come home to roost some day
And here you are, a "truther"... ...were there NO PLANES at the WTC too?
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"Follow my posts please"
Just to let you know, this is nothing but entertainment. I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not my first shill...err..debunker, ok? All come off as arrogant know it alls, but in reality, its nothing more than desperation.
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Why, we agree on something. You think I'm talking to you alone, but just as you do with me, I talk past you too
You're kinda sick, you have apophenia, you make certain predictable errors, you're actually messing your own life up worse than the harm you're doing to society in general, and your sickness prevents you from seeing it
There's a delicious irony in everything you write as a consequence
Now THAT's entertainment... :)
So why not RESEARCH your condition? You could benefit.
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"There's a delicious irony in everything you write as a consequence....You're kinda sick, you have apophenia..."
LOL. This is good stuff. Can I use this?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
This is what happens when a TITANIUM Phantom F4 fighter strikes a virtually-unbreakable block of reinforced concrete
watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
Now go away and rethink your positions
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Not the F4 Phantom example again? I thought this was old news for debunkers? Ok, pay attention. Since "something" went thru 9 ft of concrete and created the perfectly circular C-ring exit hole, the F4 is not a relevant example, ehh? Also, passengers were supposedly found still strapped to their seats. So, which is it? The plane disintegrated or not? Those of us with some common sense know there was no 757 at all...
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 2 ft of r/c and a brick wall doesn't equal "9 ft of concrete" & the F4 perfectly relevant as it was travelling SLOWER than the 757
There was no damage 2 the building? I suppose COLLAPSING doesn't count...
I'll spell this out simply so U can follow: the kinetic energy of a moving body equals half its mass times the square of its velocity. Brought 2 a sudden stop from 500mph, parts of the aircraft vaporize. Following parts are decelerating - so they're SLOWER - so they don't. Twat.
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"Brought 2 a sudden stop from 500mph, parts of the aircraft vaporize"
Oh wait. The majority of the plane vaporized..well, except for passengers...or...err..human flesh? But, thanks for breaking it down for me. Love your new physics though. Again, I've heard this BS many times before, ok?
"Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats."-USA Today, 09/13/2001
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"There was no damage 2 the building?"
Re-read my posts slowly this time. There was no engine, wing or tail impact damage. There was a circular 16-20 ft hole. Sounds like a massive 757 to me. Yep...
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 "There was no engine, wing or tail impact damage"
I saw the pictures. You can see where the building was struck. Holes created by the body and both engines was plainly visible before collapse. Marks on the r/c face where the wings and tail struck and shattered externally were also visible. Wing sections that had passed thru windows also cut down some columns inside
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"I saw the pictures"
Uhh, we've ALL seen the pictures, ok? Ya gotta love the intact windows around the impact zone, huh?
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, you saw it too, but it went into your mind through your eyes without the brain power to process it correctly
They were made of armoured glass. That face of the Pentagon had been recently "hardened". There was a running schedule for "hardening" the whole building which had begun with that face. THAT is why you see intact glass there. Research. Process. Think. Check out "pitfalls of thinking". Revaluate. Eat crow. :)
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Hey, what's your take on the lack of any lawn damage? Just curious...
"it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the GROUND"-Tim Timmerman
"The fuselage hit the GROUND and blew up."-Mary Owens
"banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the GROUND"-Steve Anderson
"Then he caught an edge of his wing on the GROUND."-David Marra
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 The plane covered 800 ft per sec - v. fast - making even expert eyewitness somewhat unreliable
The engines were lowest by 5 feet and would have left long scoops in the lawn
The first sign of ground impact was a starboard engine-shaped scoop out of a concrete kerb, causing that engine to shed more blades
The plane missed the lawn, striking the ground about 60 ft before the Pentagon, I guess, starboard wing dropping, yawing to the right because of the loss of starboard engine power
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
Four different witnesses stated that some part of the plane touched the ground. One witness even stated that after the plane touched the ground, " then the plane cartwheeled into the building."-David Marra. Wow! A cartwheel? But, hold onto something. We should discard all four witness accounts and instead rely on some random guy on youtube's evaluation? Really? Ya see? This is why noone believes your BS. Thanx for the entertainment...
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 U can't have read much on witness testimony, & I wasted my time talking about 800 ft/sec, didn't I?
No-one could have seen the plane approach for more than 5 sec, and it disappeared into the building in 0.186 sec
What about the 100 witnesses that correctly identified the plane?
As I said before, U R ill. U have set Ur mind in a single direction, & reject truth 4 "opinion"
"We should rely on some random guy on YT's evaluation?"
U're a "random guy" too
& U're LYING right now
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
"I wasted my time talking about 800 ft/sec, didn't I?...No-one could have seen the plane approach for more than 5 sec,"
Yeah, I think you wasted your time with the 800ft/sec BS. 5 second faces, huh? Its pretty funny that you think I'm "ill" because I'm not falling for the same BS I've heard a hundred times now?
"Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' -James R. Cissell
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
And they say there are smart people out there!!!!!!
If you can't prove it was not a plane, then you must be stupied.
With over 2,000 people calling 911 and reporting the plane crash, it must have happen.
TomRundle 1 year ago
the "pillar box camera shot" is more convincing than the other camera.....
coz here you can clearly see the tail-fin ....and also the white/grey nose sticking out..
i used to be a truther ..but the more i watch this the more i believe a plane did hit...
no offence to anyone
lonewolf2379 1 year ago
@lonewolf2379
that's not the tail fin...
watch?v=0Om9_Lbco6A
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
it really does like a nose and tail fin to me me in this clip....
but what do you think it is in the other one...still looks like a plane to me....
lonewolf2379 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 No, it's a TRAIL from a damaged engine BEHIND the tail fin
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@beachcomber2008
And the small blue gray object in front of the trail? That's not a 757.
muzicmaker2001 10 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Perhaps its fin. Image quality's too bad to know.
beachcomber2008 10 months ago
@lonewolf2379 Bro at what angle do you believe the plane crashed into the pentagon at? The height of the plane is 44 feet, and the wing span is somewhere around 120. How come the aftermath of the pentagon shows nowhere near a 120 foot airplane wing span. "No offence to anyone."? Are you kidding me that's an offense to human kind. Your one of those persons who believe Jewish people set the reichstage on fire. when clearly it was Hitler's cover up.
Bondie11 11 months ago
@Bondie11
see for the first two lines of your post you engaged in thoughtfull dialogue then you resorted to anti semite shite to make your point....no need for that..i didnt insult anyone....its just i see a plane of some sort ..tail fin and nose from behind that pillar box....
lonewolf2379 11 months ago
@lonewolf2379 Anti semit