Either 2 things happened it landed in cleveland hopkins airport for fear of a bomb on board or it was shot down over Pa. Reports have it there was a debris field 6 miles long so you cant have it both ways.Oh and when you get the confiscated Pentagon video of the plane flying 10 ft off the ground I would love to see that
why would you waste your time on this? you know dam well no plane crashed there, wheres the ENGINES ? why did the corner say he never saw a body part not one drop of blood from this site? if a plane did crash here(not) how in the hell could they clean it up and no news footage of it??? how much were you and the rest of those hicks payed to LIE? stop with the madness!!, if the corner hadn't seen a body then no one else had, no records anywhere of anyone body @ that site and YOU KNOW IT!!!
In my dream, the Plaza is packed, people in every direction as far as the eye can see. All highways into Dallas are clogged with cars, and millions of people have left them, now walking to Dealy with JFK & 911 signs to be there for the Nov. 22, 50 year shakeup. The whole world watches in awe, as now, all roads into Texas are parking lots..
and then a chemtrail tanker fleet doses them with vallium and prozac....
95% i saw half a 30yrd containier, and few boxes, like 5%, this video is misleading...plane got shot down, "lets roll" made a great storie,but not to understand 911 as a false flag, jew attack on America and all that is know now, your outta your fuckin mind..
There isn't a lot of variety in what Truthies do, since on Youtube it's only about two dozen crackpots with about three hundred screen names, mostly spamming the same old shit, year after year.
Strange that the ID card for John M Talignanz is spelled incorrectly on every website I've looked at. On the internet it is being spelled John Talignani.
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE.
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
just over the top hilarious. as if a hole in the ground explains anything. wast of time. follow truth. these false distractions are just that, Cass Sunstein Distractions.
@cantonear1968 "Cognitive Infiltration" Former Chicago and Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, who in 2009 was appointed by President Barack Obama to direct an important executive branch office, had in 2008 co-authored an article containing a plan for the government to prevent the spread of anti-government "conspiracy theories," in which he advocated the use of anonymous government agents to engage in "cognitive infiltration" of these groups in order to break them up.
I love 9/11 conspiracy kooks. Even when they're blatanly wrong, they can't admit it. It's like their whole life is at stake if they admit they got something wrong. Tomaji69 is a great example. Even though he's wrong that Larry Silverstein said, "It was decided to pull the building," he just can't stand to admit he got something wrong. LOL! I've argued with Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other kooks, but 9/11 crackpots are the most fun.
@Poetry "Even when they're blatanly wrong, they can't admit it."
You know Hound, you're right. There's no point to this with Tomaji. This is an easy one. Youtubing the LS quote is extremely easy, and shows Tomaji is completely misquoting him. Here's exactly what LS says:
"“I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” and "they made that decision to pull".
He can't do the simplest of research and yet is convinced he's right.
@PoetryHound I had a very long response addressing all of his concerns. It spanned 12 posts. But what's the point. He will never admit to any of it. I'm simply going to have to leave him in his ignorance.
I'll PM it to him and see what he comes up with. I can probably guess the response; I've seen it it 100 times over before.
@cantonear1968 I'll have to go back and check your responses. Kooks like Tomaji are hopelessly lost in their baseless kookspiracy fantasies. I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I know that's impossible. I just enjoy shoving him down the stairs and watching him flail around trying to justify all the things he's gotten wrong.
@Poetry No, don't bother. I never posted it. When I know I have a long one, I usually write them out into 500 character sections and then copy and paste them in. Just easier for me that way.
And it's nothing you don't already know. I PM'd it to Tomaji, but it will be lost on him and I don't figure on much of a response.
I just can't be bothered with him. As you stated so well, their religious beliefs just does not allow them to admit an error because it will question their beliefs.
These "I'd believe anything the authorities tell me" kooks like PoetryHound won't admit when THEY are wrong or acknowledge well made points. Like the FACT that tall steel buildings DO NOT collapse from fires, even if fully engulfed with fire for days - yes, FACT. I posted the link to the proof & this KOOK won't admit it, still claiming this nonsense story that the towers "collapsed". Instead, he argues over semantics & exact wording of a quotation to be "right" about something!
@Tomaji69 Actually, if you ever go back and read some of my posts, I have indeed admitted mistakes. But I've been at this for some years now and I don't make many mistakes anymore, particularly when it's with people like you who make claims without backing them up. You claimed steel buildings can't collapse from fire, then when I showed you how wrong you are, you modified it to "tall" buildings. LOL! Still can't admit you got the Silverstein quote wrong, can you?
Toasted cars -? If a plane flies into a building, how does it melt cars 1 mile away? Cars were melted as if they were a sticks of butter in a 450 degree oven? Ya, Towel heads can melt cars from caves. Just google "toasted cars Judy Wood" Tha'ts called energy weapons. People please seek some truth.
the zionist MEDIA succeed to Brainwashed American through CNN,FUCKS all mainstream pro israHELL propaganda by Demonize Muslims image yet the zionist who controll the country stole the banks, bankrupted US ,made u Homeless ,jobless american
Building Seven...pre-wired with explosives. Same with the towers probably...what is "the math" on two ultra-tall buildings falling into their own footprint after an off-center damage event? Especially since the building structure BELOW the damaged floors were perfectly intact & have been supporting all that weight for 50 years? If the upper damaged sections simply collapsed down, they would have caused damage, yes, and maybe fallen off to the side, but not a total straight down collapse..
@PoetryHound - The towers were in perfect shape on all floors from their foundations up to about two floors or so below the impact floors. Thus, that structure could NOT collapse from weight it had been supporting for 50 years dropping a floor or two down onto it...yes, it would have been damaged & a big mess, but it just simply would NOT collapse like that. To believe that is to be a fool & thousands of engineers say the same thing. They were pre-wired & DEMO'd, plain & simple.
@Tomaji69 Looks like you didn't even read what I wrote. Got English comprehension problems?
As for your point about the towers collapsing from the weight they had been supporting, you evidently don't know the difference between static load and dynamic load. Do some research instead of speaking based purely on intuition.
@PoetryHound - If a "collapse": The upper sections weren't dropped from 1000 feet to drive the towers down, they only slipped 10 feet (slowly, due to "softened steel"), not "dynamic" enough to cause perfectly sound towers to crumble. Also, any "soft steel" was spotty - not ALL the steel would have been "soft" on those floors AND that doesn't happen anyway...was not hot enough to cause steel to melt. YOU do YOUR research! You're wrong & the engineers are right - it was a DEMO.
Towers like that being demo'd by sequentially blowing out each floor to pancake it would look just like it did that day - which is why no city would allow it, because even though it would MOSTLY pancake, there'd be too much collateral damage from debris & chunks to the side. They also can't be demo'd by blowing out the foundation, or they could fall sideways. So, they have to be deconstructed, which is VERY expensive. The twin towers were perfect for the Pearl Harbor event.
@Tomaji69 - Since BUILDING SEVEN was also pre-wired for demolition, but NO plane hit it (since it was grounded at Logan), they HAD to demo it anyway or the explosives would be discovered. It couldn''t be said that a plane crash caused it to collapse! They even slipped up and said "It was decided to pull the building". No office fires or full combustion has EVER brought any towers down, even after DAYS of complete combustion.
@PoetryHound - The superintendent of the complex made that statement - you don't know that?
You can't "back up" anything YOU claim either. You're just using "intuition" and "blind faith" in the "story" aren't you?
You say use "science" - OK, let's do that: science looks at other similar cases & NO...repeat NO burning towers (even fully ablaze for DAYS!!) have EVER collapsed. Steel does NOT melt at those temperatures and do not get "soft" & collapse. It just NEVER happens.
@Tomaji69 "The superintendent of the complex made that statement"
Wrong as usual. It was the OWNER, not the"superintendent." And he owned only the building (WTC 7), not the whole complex. He was the lessee of WTC 1,2,4, and 5.
And he did not say, "It was decided to pull the building." You got it wrong.
No one claims fires melted the steel. They WEAKENED it.
Fires have brought down all kinds of buildings and structures over the years. You don't know what you're talking about.
@PoetryHound - No, I don't have "evidence" the plane from Logan was going to hit Building 7 - I SURMISE it (and I said "Probable" as my opinion, because it explains why they demo'd Building 7 even though a plane didn't hit it). There were many "surmises" about where flight 93 was going to hit in D.C., yet nobody could "prove" if it was even going to D.C. - it PROBABLY was - maybe it was going to Langley or to McDonald's for a big mac. Thinking & surmising is key to solving things.
I agree. They are necessary but not sufficient. You need actual evidence before you can conclude anything. So far, there is no evidence to support any of the hundreds of "sumised" 9/11 conspiracy theories.
@PoetryHound - Yes, there is the evidence that NO plane hit Building 7, unless YOU know of an invisible plane....? There is NO proof that the planes caused the collapses either, right? Come on, admit it...you are SURMISING that because the planes hit the buildings, THAT is what caused the collapses, right? Come on, admit it.
@Tomaji69 Yes, according to people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering, the actual (not surmised) structural damage contributed to the collapses.
@PoetryHound - There was no proof of "structural damage"...that was all surmised to fit the story...it's no more valid than the more obvious truth...the buildings were demo'd, with the planes as the "precept" to the storyline. In fact, there are other such steel structures very much like the towers that burned for days and did not collapse. Then, building 7 collapses due to a couple of office fires that went OUT....hey, I have some land in Florida to sell you if you believe THAT.
@PoetryHound - There was no proof of "structural damage"...that was all surmised to fit the story...it's no more valid than the more obvious truth...the buildings were demo'd, with the planes as the "precept" to the storyline. In fact, there are other such steel structures very much like the towers that burned for days & did not collapse. Then, building 7 collapses due to a couple of office fires that went OUT??....hey, I have some land in Florida to sell you if you believe THAT.
@PoetryHound - The 1,500 engineers have experience...I trust them & not YOU. You're just guessing, come on admit it. The "official story" is all "THEORY" too...it's just a storyline, based on "the planes hit the building, so THAT brought them down". Ever hear of bait-and-switch? That's why Buillding 7 is the smoking gun....OH, OH, we missed it with a plane so what do we do now?...go ahead and "pull the building" and we'll make something up...or, we just won't talk about it.
@PoetryHound - well, according to YOU, over 1,500 "people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering" have said OTHERWISE...that those buildings did NOT collapse due to structural damage. So, believe a few who were paid to say that, or 1,500 who are risking their careers to speak out with the real truth?
@PoetryHound - And YOU have NO evidence whatsoever that the steel was "weakened" (you SURMISE it) - and also, you can't show even ONE such steel building ANYWHERE that totally collapsed due to fires (come on, show us!)...yet, there are numerous cases of such buildings with fires raging for days that did not collapse at all. One is on youtube that is same structure as the towers, it burned for days and no collapse. Why ignore THAT evidence?...because YOUR surmising doesn't hold up.
@PoetryHound No steel structures built like the towers...but once Google is up again, I'll check out your "story"...I bet this is bullshit. The ENTIRE buildings collapsed at free-fall speed after an hour or two?....we'll see.
@PoetryHound - OK, the FIRST one I checked shows you're putting up bullshit...the McCormick Place building was a LONG hanger like structure..long, but not tall & much lower gauge steel to simply support a huge high roof...it was that roof that collapsed, but about half the steel structure stayed in place. This is PROOF that in the WTC case, the steel would stay in place....ESPECIALLY the steel BELOW the fire. More on the others as I find out the truth.
@PoetryHound OK, the SECOND one is also bullshit...the Sight and Sounds Theater was a one story theater and the roof collapsed...we all know that these structures with low gauge steel supporting a roof only will collapse in a fire. This is silly bullshit you're throwing at us. I'm gonna stop there. I can't recall the tall bank building built like the WTC that is on YouTube - it completely burned and it did not collapse...anybody out there wanna jump in & help enlighten this person?
@Tomaji69 Whoever wrote that piece on your 911research site doesn't indicate what their expertise is in fire history. In any event, they got it wrong. But what's really interesting is that that site says the planes did in fact sever beams. LOL! Your own source says you're wrong! I love it.
@PoetryHound - That's a lie...those towers were perfectly sound from their foundations all the way up to just below the crash floors. Unless YOU know something we don't..got any news for us? You can have your opinion, but not your own facts. Support your claim that "the towers were fatally damaged" below the crash floors down to their foundations. Come on, where's YOUR evidence?...I haven't seen ANY evidence from you yet....just shooting off your mouth to attack others.
@Tomaji69 Yes, the buildings were sound in the places where there was no plane impact or fires. Duh.
If you want to see an engineering examination that concluded that the towers were fatally damaged, see the NIST report.
There are no engineering papers that support anything you've claimed. There are no demo experts that agree with you about the "explosions," and you are 100% full of shit in your claim that the towers fell in their footprints.
@Poetry "Yes, the buildings were sound in the places where there was no plane impact or fires."
Actually, even that's not true. One of the fire commanders on scene at the WTCs, whose name escapes me right now, commented that he could see plaster cracking within the core down to or very close to the lobby. Due to the load shift of the hat truss when 15% of the supports were taken out by the plane. This was a sure sign of a loss of structural integrity and weakening of the building.
@cantonear1968 Yes, you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. But yes, there was indeed damage beyond the impact floors. After the plane impact, witnesses reported the fireballs ignited by the jet fuel that traveled down elevator shafts and blew open elevator doors on various floors,including the basement and sub-basement, although I'm not sure of the extent of structural damage those caused.
@PoetryHound Sorry. Didn't mean to sound overly critical. I just thought it was pointing out to Tomaji that there were signs of structural damage.
I would think the structural damage from the fireball was minimal. But the cracking in the lobby was a clear sign of the weight load shifting and that the building was in serious condition.
@cantonear1968 - no question that the top of the buildings could have shifted perhaps (but doubtful, because the steel was, IMO, virtually unaffected by the fire or plane impact), but they would NEVER have collapsed totally like they did (and at "free-fall" velocity!). Those steel beam grids can't just "collapse", even if the (steel reinforced) concrete floors crack and break. It could have conceivably been a MESS, but not a collapse like that. Impossible.
@cantonear1968 - What those 1,600 Engineers and Architects are calling for is an independent investigation because the "theory" of the "official story" of the collapses, especially Building 7 just don't hold water. So, who do you believe, a dozen or so who were paid to tell the official "theory" (and leave out Building 7) or 1,600 who are not being paid and are speaking out for a wider investigation? What's wrong with looking deeper into YOUR fictional "theory" of the collapses?
@cantonear1968 Your question is irrelevant. Don't try to distract...you're "story" is bullshit. The WTC could NOT have collapsed like that and you have NO proof of it and there IS proof that buildings built like that do NOT collapse. They just don't, the steel is THICK and does NOT melt in a fire, so the steel structure would STILL be there for the most part...some floors might have crumbled and a mess made, yes, but not a free-fall collapse like that. Wake up!!
@cantonear1968 - Multiple independent studies that PROVE it? Bullshit. There is NOTHING published that PROVES the WTC simply collapsed & thick gauged steel grids just crumbled with no resistance. If you look for it, you'd find a great example of a tall building built like the WTC (may even be the same constr. company) that burned for days & did not collapse. PROOF POSITIVE. I think it was a bank building...I'll look for it...anyone else know of this and can help inform these guys?
@Tomaji69 Let’s have some fun and list all the things you’ve gotten wrong:
1. You claimed the twin towers fell in their footprints. WRONG.
2. You claimed the “superintendent” of the complex said "It was decided to pull the building." WRONG.
3. You claimed no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. WRONG.
4. You claimed, “There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in” Hahahaha! Even your fellow kooks disagree with you.
1. I claimed the towers fell in their footprints as if they were Demo'd & that's why cities wouldn't allow it. CORRECT.
2. I claimed the “superintendent” of the complex said "It was decided to pull the building." WRONG. This is childish - YOU said it was the OWNER, so I was CORRECT as to this POINT of EVIDENCE, which is what this is about.
3. I claimed TALL steel buildings don't collapse from fires. CORRECT (& I posted proof).
4. I claimed, “There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in” - CORRECT...none has been shown yet.
5. WTC 7 had only a couple of office fires that went out...POINT of EVIDENCE is that even if it was 3 or 4 or 169, it wouldn't bring the building down.
6. “over 1,500 people with years of experience & expertise in structural engineering" – CORRECT. YOU say "Hardly any have structural experience or expertise" - WRONG - more to follow....
7. The towers collapsed at “free fall velocity” WRONG.....seems FREE FALL to me, so I'm gonna stick with CORRECT.
I've noticed how you REALLY wanna be "right" and locked into your mindset, so you knit pick & spin things around & AVOID the truth - like "it was the OWNER, not the SUPERINTENDENT who said they pulled the building"...yeah and therefore....??....therefore what?....therefore they DEMO'd Building 7...You're WRONG.
@PoetryHound - You'd argue the sky isn't blue. The "pull the building" statement is famous & he gets hounded everywhere he goes. Also, nearly everyone simply watching the demolition of the towers will say they seem to fall with no resistance - as close to "free-fall" as it could get. And, yes, TALL steel buildings are made with very thick gauge steel that DOESN'T melt no matter how many rooms are on fire - they don't collapse. You are NOT seeking the truth, you're AGAINST the truth.
@Tomaji69 Wrong. He never said "pull the building." Get it right. But yes, conspiracy kooks are famous for misquoting and misinterpreting Larry Silverstein.
Who cares what it "seems" to you? You said the towers fell at freefall velocity. You are wrong. No wonder you can't substantiate your claim.
For the millionth time, the fires didn't melt the steel. They WEAKENED it. And yes, fire has weakened steel before & has caused the collapse of all sorts of steel structures.
@PoetryHound - OK, lets TRY to be scientific...can you do that? Let's say the steel on the floor hit by the plane & maybe the floor above & below had "weakened steel". And despite the FACT that fires do not cause steel in tall buildings to collapse, let's go along with it for a second. So, this upper section slips one floor onto the rest of the building that has NO weakened steel & has supported all that weight for 50 years. Get it? You claim to be smart, so you get it now, yes?
@Tomaji69 I haven't said anything about the U.S. government, but since you mention it, I see that YOU are motivated by a frothing hatred of the government as opposed to a serious line of scientific inquiry.
@Tomaji69 Uh oh, you got another thing wrong. You claimed that the rest of the building has supported that weight for 50 years. First of all, the "50 years" is wrong (You could easily have found out how old the WTC towers were), and second, the lower part of the structures were NEVER supporting the dynamic load, only the static load.
Now, since you can't cite any scientific publication, web site or scientist who agrees with you, I suggest you start by reading up on kinetic energy.
@Tomaji69 LOL! Now you're trying to weasel out of what you said!
1. You said the towers fell in their footprints, which is wrong.
2. You not only got "superintendent" wrong, you got the quote wrong. He sad nothing about pulling the building.
3. You claimed no steel building has fallen from fire & that's wrong. Even if you change it to "tall," what difference does it make? Fire can weaken steel and cause it to collapse, which is the point.
5. WTC 7 had only a couple of office fires that went out. WRONG.
6. “over 1,500 people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering" – WRONG. Hardly any have structural engineering experience or expertise
7. The towers collapsed at “free fall velocity” WRONG
@cantonear1968 Nice try, but this is bullshit. There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in...all that is SURMISED to support the official "story" of a collapse DUE to the planes. I supposed there was an invisible plane that flew into Building 7....? Gee, I wonder if I've ever seen any plaster cracked in a huge building like that...this explains everything...what a crock. Do you have ANY idea how strong these steel structures are?
A "fairly sizeable hole" if it was going 5 mph. You failed to consider the energy conversion at the impact. If you added up all your improbable explainations and impossible excuses into a full unified probability analysis your odds would be beyond a billion to one. Probability analysis is exponential, not added. Your 500 to 1 odds for this weak clip times the 500 to 1 odds for your last stupid excuse video gets you in 250000 to 1 odds combined unified, times the next 500 to 1 unlikely .... Shill
There is an obvious need in America to be on a Team. This "debunking" group of people and believers is merely one of these Teams just like the contrary opinion. They feel it's the right Team, regardless of truth. I don't know which side is right about any of the events of 9/11, but what I do know is there is no open and shut case that has been presented. Still many questions to be answered. So, instead of going back and forth shouldn't we be after our leaders for the Truth? FFT
So what this video is showing me is this: plastic identification cards, cloth articles, and other "delicate" items survived the crash, yet there wasn't any human remains found at the site, also that "wing scar" was there before the crash, several officials, including Rumsfeld, have said it was shot down... There is absolutely no evidence that a plane hit the pentagon... two 6 ton jet engines would not have vaporized. period
@Jethu262 "there wasn't any human remains found at the site"
Yes there was. The county coroner and his team found human remains spread across a 60 acre area. Don't always take what conspiracy believers say at face value.
@PoetryHound According to eyewitnesses, the plane crashed at a very steep angle, making me question how these people could be spread that far around. One woman stated that the plane went almost straight down. How would the bodies be spread so far? One first responder stated that there were no bodies or remains of any kind. Where are the engines and other pieces that survive nearly 100% of all other plane crashes? How does an ID survive but not a 6 ton chunk of steel and titanium?
@Jethu262 "making me question how these people could be spread that far around"
Guess how many crash site investigators say the human remains were spread too far around for a plane crash? Zero. You're just making stuff up based on nothing but your own imperfect intuition. Since you fancy yourself a crash site investigator, why don't you explain how spread out the human remains and plane debris should have been?.
@PoetryHound "Since you fancy yourself a crash site investigator, why don't you explain how spread out the human remains and plane debris should have been?."
NOT OVER 10 MILES
LOL
Doesnt take a specialist to understand a crash doesnt go 10 miles. It never has before, and never will.
Duhbunktards lack something 99% of the world has.. COMMON SENSE.
@PoetryHound Another first responder stated that it "just looked like someone dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky", saying that it looked nothing like a plane crash, just a debris field spread over a large area. Odd, most crashes at lower angles don't spread that far. The "scar" that the plane supposedly left was already there and photographed in 1994 at least, and was probably there long before that.
@Jethu262 "Most crashes at lower angles don't spread that far"
Lower angles? What does that mean? Each plane crash has its own characteristics.
People who first arrived at the site said various dramatic things. Sometimes people at the site of huge fires say, "It's a war zone out there." They don't mean it literally. English comprehension is key. In the end, human remains of passengers were found. and most of the plane parts were found. Hundreds of people weren't lying.
@PoetryHound "English comprehension is key. In the end, human remains of passengers were found. and most of the plane parts were found. Hundreds of people weren't lying."
Rumsfield said flight 93 was shot down, this is a freudian slip, if you dont know english, dont attempt to teach it on youtube kid.
Hundreds of people also said flight 93 was shot down. So who is lying?
Rumsfield holds more weight than you though, so I'm going with his story, it was shot down.
@PoetryHound watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xkivdEGph9A#t=118s Then could you please explain to me how a plane going down at almost a 90 degree angle could spread bodies over 60 acres of land? The bulk of the debris would be in a very compact area. Doesn't take a scientist to use the simplest behaviors of physics to determine the spread from a crash at this steep of an angle. Once again, I mostly just see a bunch of guys around holes with puffs of smoke, very little wreckage.
@Jethu262 So who should we believe about finding the human remains and debris from FL 93 - the hundreds of first responders who found all of it . . . or you? It's not a difficult question to answer.
@Jethu262 "There is absolutely no evidence that a plane hit the pentagon"
No evidence? There's all the 757 debris, there's the human remains that DNA testing matched to the passengers, there's the recorded flight path, and there are hundreds of eyewitnesses. Actually, what there's no evidence of is Flight 77 going anywhere other than the Pentagon.
@PoetryHound They carried away scraps....scraps.....the plane had two Rolls Royce jet engines at around 6 TONS each. Where are the engines? All I've ever seen were some pieces of sheet metal, and some other oddments. The 9/11 commission report stated that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and I have seen stronger evidence to support that, rather than a plane crash. Wouldn't two 6 ton blocks of steel damage the foundation of the building at that angle? Support beans were blown out.
@Jethu262 As one would expect from a plane intentionally crashed into the Pentagon, most of the pieces were small. There were a few larger pieces too. And once again, there was also human remains that were DNA matched to the passengers. And once again, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. And once again, there's no evidence of FL 77 going anywhere other than the Pentagon.
"The 0/11 commission report stated that the Pentagon was hit by a missile"
@PoetryHound not in. What is the small hole (roughly 12 feet in diameter i am guessing) on the other side of the building from, and what went through it? The official report states that the plane vaporized in the fire....where is the debris that went out of the other side of the building? Aviators have agreed that it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit the pentagon at that angle, without crashing before the impact with the building, and the highjacker was a failed flight-
@Jethu262 Guess how many of the eyewitnesses said they saw a missile? Zero.
How could a missile zigzag around knocking over the light poles just before hitting the Pentagon?
"Aviators have agreed it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit the pentagon at that angle"
No they haven't. At what angle? An angle of coming straight into the Pentagon? Why is that so difficult? Don't worry, it doesn't matter. Hundreds of people saw it happen.
@PoetryHound student, who probably couldnt even fly a cesna, much less a commercial jet. Not to mention the eyewitnesses who give a different flight path than the official version....I have never been a conspiracy screaming neckbeard, but there is a lot of contradictions on the whole 9/11 story. You seen the slow-mo video of the WTC towers collapsing? there are explosions popping off 15-20 stories below the stack of floors that are falling, and they go all the way down. At least question it...
@Jethu262 Now here's a question for you: If the government was going to claim a 757 hit the Pentagon, why in the world would they use anything other than a 757 to fly into the Pentagon?
I don't see any explosion "popping" off the twin towers. You're imagining them. Guess how many demo experts in the world say those were explosions? Zero.
Let us never tolerate outrageous "official" conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of Sept. 11th...malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves....away from the guilty...
I love it when the conspiracy kooktards claim FL 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7. So the "inside job" plot simultaneously involved crashing the plane into the building and also shooting it down. Sure, makes perfect sense.
@PoetryHound Is it not possible that when the passengers decided to storm the cockpit, the US Airforce didn't shoot it down? Is it unreasonable that a military that kills innocent women, children, elderly, etc.... would shoot an American plane down if it failed its mission? Several of the "hijackers" who were supposedly on these planes are still alive, look it up. You should never take what any elected official says at face value...take a look from other angles, then decide what's true.
The mayor of shankville at the time has been on foreign media saying there was no plane. Not sure what i believe but feel free to youtube it and respond.
@SLINGSHOTandMOLOTOWS It's been PROVEN the 9/11 Truth Movement is a CIA operation. The government failed to stop 9/11 and is now lying to say they caused it to look competent and to spread FEAR. That FEAR is used to CONTROL.
Looking at your style of posting it shows classic signs of textbook CIA training of how to spread government LIES.
You are a CIA agent and WE THE PEOPLE will not SWALLOW YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES.
For those of you who are awake and understand what is happening in this country...stop arguing with these idiots on here. If you know it was an inside job then you also know you are smarter than these idiots who just accept everything the news and government tells them without question. Don't give them any fuel to fight with. I'm done peace out
I have not seen any pictures of the flight 93 crash site that include an engine, a wing, luggage, bodies, a tail. Just scraps. A photograph of a bolt is hardly convincing. It's easy to find photos online of actual plane crashes that leave a considerable amount of debris. There is simply no comparison. There is something fundamentally different about the wreckage left by this plane and the wreckage left by any other crash I have found. Specifically the 93 crash left no wreckage.
The guys there with the Hazmat suits said they couldn't find any remains larger than centimeter! You've got to be kidding me with this video "Debunking 9/11" lol
Sad, sad sheeple will remain ignorant & asleep until full enslaved....
That little "puff" of smoke came from a Boeing 757??? I have built bon-fires (for a weekend cook-out) that put out WAY more smoke than that...Hell, my cigarette can put out more smoke. A 757 crash thats FULLY laden with fuel would have put out an atomic sized mushroom cloud...I don't doubt it was a plane crash but it had to be a learjet that didn't land fast enough (or didnt respond on radio) on that fateful day, and was shot down. Flight 93 was escorted out over the Atlantic and shot down.
It's easy to say the wreckage and bodies were found. Why not throw in a couple of pictures too? Where's the cockpit? Where's a wing? A tail? An engine?
watch?v=XsS-xpyqi1w The Shankesville crater is a natural formation and was not created by any crashing plane. Knowing this, what are the odds, if it did, the plane crashed directly into this pre-existing crevice in the earth? Do you see the Conspiracy yet? the planning involved?
Thank you for this video. Excellent job. It is disgusting that you 9/11 "Truthers" would even think of using the backs of all of the thousands of murdered victims on 9/11/01, in order to further your anti-American political agenda. Psychologists have said that conspiracy theorists find the raw reality of tragedies too much to handle, emotionally, so they fabricate and build complicated theories to try to make sense out of a senseless, violent act, such as 9/11.
The mass murder of thousands of innocent people occurred, on 9/11/01, because a handful of fanatical Muslim cowards, armed with only box-cutters and mace, over-took those planes. It's as simple and as horrifying as that. You "Truthers" are giving the Islamic terrorists exactly what they want, which is to divide America with a sense of doubt and mistrust of government, instead of remaining strong, through being united. Way to go, Truthers...Way to go. -Sincerely, a 9/11 WTC collapse survivor
Six days after 9/11, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection began taking soil samples around the Flight 93 crash site, to test for jet fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other hazardous materials. At least three test wells were sunk to monitor groundwater for signs of contamination. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 93 had about 37,500 pounds of fuel remaining when it crashed, which was around 77 percent of its fuel load on takeoff. Yet the DEP tests found
CONTINUED: no evidence of this huge volume of jet fuel at the crash site. Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated." So, if indeed Flight 93 actually crashed here, how can this be explained? It is obvious that we have been lied to. The official story is nothing but a crock of shit.
@bottleman57 Why don't you go ask the victims of flight 93 if 9/11 was an "inside job". They'll be waiting for you at their graves...And while you're at it; why don't you ask the woman who was burned by jet fuel that spilled down onto Church Street, from the north WTC tower after the 1st plane hit, or the first responder who looked up into one of the WTC elevator shafts and got jet fuel in his eyes, causing permanent injury? Take your conspiracy B/S and shove it.
@Shepherd621 Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean and John Farmer all of the 911 Commission have gone on record as saying that we have not been told the truth concerning 911. Does that not bother you at all? Maybe I am wrong but I tend to believe that flt 93 would not completely disappear into the earth, nor is it's 35,000 pounds of fuel going to just go away without a trace. The ground isn't even scorched. Believe what you must, you gullible idiot. A true American asks questions.
Lots of sheeple on this page that believe the offical 911 story. I do hope that one day they wake up and see that they have been duped by the government and somewhat brainwashed to believe what they are told. Personally I have no time to argue with those who cant see the truth. If people want to walk around like the blind leading the blind there is nothing I can do for them, except to wish them luck.
If one reads the executive orders, presidential directives, signing statements, and a long list of totally unconstiutional acts and laws changed in recent times, then add in the unlawful sneek .n peek law, secret trials and courts, one can only conclude it's to quiet any future dissent. Privitized armies, wars of agression, jusitfying torture will need a hammer to nail the populace into conformity when critical mass is achieved.
At first I didnt understand why people didnt believe that a plane crashed there...Planes are giant aluminum cans...a well recorded example of what happens to an airplane when its coming straight down at high speed would be the reno air race incident, and even that was traveling far slower then this 757.... check it out, you cant even make out an airplane just from the debris
@FablehavenFan1: Sure. I will. The TV video cameras were facing building 7 from it's north side. Most of the damage occurred through it's south side, which was directly opposite the north WTC tower. I was there, as a first responder. At the time, I heard a cop say that there was fear that building 7 was going to collapse due to structural damage, after the north tower's collapse. I remember everything from that day. I heard him say that.
@Shepherd621 Thank you. I keep telling these kooks that if the government wanted to stage a false flag and had the ability and will to pull off something this big there are literally dozens of bigger, more efficient and effective ways to go about it. It would make absolutely no sense to do it in this manner. It would have taken massive amount of people. Something that big can't be covered up. Also why stage just one if you have the ability? Why not stage more instead of just 1 in 10.5 years?
@basketballplayer182 I fully agree, if the US Govt wanted to fake an attack, why use this method, involving "discreetly planted" TNT explosives that miraculously dont explode when hit by planes, but explode "on cue" and in sequence, that would require infinitely small probabilities that the towers would behave exactly as they wanted, hologram airplanes, a cast of 1,000s where one weak link in the chain would cause the whole event to fail.Just too far fetched to consider
@basketballplayer182 There would be just too many unpredictable variables to control in a conspiracy of such proportions. That people actually believe a conspiracy like this with no evidence or plausible mechanism, yet cant accept an infinitley more simple explanation with tons of evidence filmed live on TV that 2 jets can be hijacked and crashed into towers is beyond me. There WAS a conspiracy, by a network of jihadists with a motive, enough hatred and a death wish.
Either 2 things happened it landed in cleveland hopkins airport for fear of a bomb on board or it was shot down over Pa. Reports have it there was a debris field 6 miles long so you cant have it both ways.Oh and when you get the confiscated Pentagon video of the plane flying 10 ft off the ground I would love to see that
SAMMARTINO68 5 hours ago
why would you waste your time on this? you know dam well no plane crashed there, wheres the ENGINES ? why did the corner say he never saw a body part not one drop of blood from this site? if a plane did crash here(not) how in the hell could they clean it up and no news footage of it??? how much were you and the rest of those hicks payed to LIE? stop with the madness!!, if the corner hadn't seen a body then no one else had, no records anywhere of anyone body @ that site and YOU KNOW IT!!!
jdigga2012 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my dream, the Plaza is packed, people in every direction as far as the eye can see. All highways into Dallas are clogged with cars, and millions of people have left them, now walking to Dealy with JFK & 911 signs to be there for the Nov. 22, 50 year shakeup. The whole world watches in awe, as now, all roads into Texas are parking lots..
and then a chemtrail tanker fleet doses them with vallium and prozac....
They forget why they came....
and go home & watch the "nooz
MrNoblemanoflove 16 hours ago
95% i saw half a 30yrd containier, and few boxes, like 5%, this video is misleading...plane got shot down, "lets roll" made a great storie,but not to understand 911 as a false flag, jew attack on America and all that is know now, your outta your fuckin mind..
4624tone 17 hours ago
Someone is a fuckin moron.
TheFulkDaddy 1 day ago
open ur eyes
SuperJR4444 2 days ago
IMPOSIBLE TO DENIED: Leslie Raphael, Serendipity.li
Inigo37 2 days ago
Someone playing as RKOwens "mother" is just as expected from any crazy assinine Truther.
Truther Tactic 101: When in doubt, attack your opponent by talking about his/her parents. Or portraying them.
TruthersRAlwaysWrong 2 days ago
@TruthersRAlwaysWrong Can you direct one where he may converse with RKO?
Sure would like to pick his large brain.
Now, where's that icepick?.
Disdain4Lies 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Disdain4Lies
"Can you direct one where he may converse with RKO?" - How about his channel?
You can't pick his brain.
TruthersRAlwaysWrong 1 day ago
@TruthersRAlwaysWrong "Truther Tactic 101"
There isn't a lot of variety in what Truthies do, since on Youtube it's only about two dozen crackpots with about three hundred screen names, mostly spamming the same old shit, year after year.
SpookMSgt 1 day ago
@SpookMSgt
I know, and those people say we need to get a life? They got alot of room to talk.
TruthersRAlwaysWrong 16 hours ago
Wow 3:51 of my life I could have spent taking a dump. Thanks .
Ulbricht4279 2 days ago
How can anyone say there was no plane after watching this
Spindry96 3 days ago
Strange that the ID card for John M Talignanz is spelled incorrectly on every website I've looked at. On the internet it is being spelled John Talignani.
mygreenday69 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE.
mrh785 5 days ago 3
Resident Evil 4 FTW..!!
JoetheElectrician 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON....
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
Humor me, willya please?
Disdain4Lies 1 week ago
the time is 9:11 right now
nickbortz 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
—Governor George W Bush, November 2000
QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rarely mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?"
GEORGE BUSH JR: "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."
MrNoblemanoflove 1 week ago
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON RYAN KYLE OWENS IS PAID TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS AND POST THEM ON YOUTUBE.
HE HELPED US FINANCE OUR NEW HOME WITH MONEY HE WONT TELL ME WHERE IT IS COMING FROM
I AM NOW AWARE OF HIS LIES ON YOUTUBE AND TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK TO ME OR RYAN DIRECTLY CAN CALL ME AT MY HOUSE NUMBER FOR A FORMAL APOLOGY
(423) 913-0562
276 Hartman Rd
Jonesborough, TN 37659-3720
ONCE AGAIN, I AM SORRY FOR HIS DISINFORMATION AND LIES IN THESE VIDEOS
CynthiaOwens 1 week ago
@CynthiaOwens Oh dear. A person said something in all caps ON THE INTERNET. It must be true.
SpinyNorman416 1 week ago
This is a joke
NeilCrouse 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A brief stop at the asylum to check on the prognosis
of the patients shows therapy still in session,
and familiar faces still flinging feces at folk,
and pouring syrup on their "pancake" collapse.
Normal ppl's gut reject 3 "cakes" in 1 day.
Clean your plate, so you'll have more turds to toss.
Disdain4Lies 1 week ago
Leon Kennedy and Ashley Graham Background Music from Resident Evil 4 for Playstation 2 was a damn good game.
dmarkg 1 week ago
Attacking me rather than exploring logical points being made doesn't change the truth.
I don't "follow" the engineer/architect group in any way, but it's obvious WHY they are intent on seeking the real truth of what happened.
As I walk away, please note the mistletoe on my coattail.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
just over the top hilarious. as if a hole in the ground explains anything. wast of time. follow truth. these false distractions are just that, Cass Sunstein Distractions.
israeltucker 1 week ago
@israeltucker What did Cass Sunstein actually state as a plan?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 "Cognitive Infiltration" Former Chicago and Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, who in 2009 was appointed by President Barack Obama to direct an important executive branch office, had in 2008 co-authored an article containing a plan for the government to prevent the spread of anti-government "conspiracy theories," in which he advocated the use of anonymous government agents to engage in "cognitive infiltration" of these groups in order to break them up.
israeltucker 1 week ago
@israeltucker That's great that you can copy and paste the interpretations of others.
What was Sunstein's ultimate goal of the paper he wrote?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
I love 9/11 conspiracy kooks. Even when they're blatanly wrong, they can't admit it. It's like their whole life is at stake if they admit they got something wrong. Tomaji69 is a great example. Even though he's wrong that Larry Silverstein said, "It was decided to pull the building," he just can't stand to admit he got something wrong. LOL! I've argued with Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other kooks, but 9/11 crackpots are the most fun.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Poetry "Even when they're blatanly wrong, they can't admit it."
You know Hound, you're right. There's no point to this with Tomaji. This is an easy one. Youtubing the LS quote is extremely easy, and shows Tomaji is completely misquoting him. Here's exactly what LS says:
"“I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” and "they made that decision to pull".
He can't do the simplest of research and yet is convinced he's right.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@PoetryHound I had a very long response addressing all of his concerns. It spanned 12 posts. But what's the point. He will never admit to any of it. I'm simply going to have to leave him in his ignorance.
I'll PM it to him and see what he comes up with. I can probably guess the response; I've seen it it 100 times over before.
Cheers.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 I'll have to go back and check your responses. Kooks like Tomaji are hopelessly lost in their baseless kookspiracy fantasies. I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I know that's impossible. I just enjoy shoving him down the stairs and watching him flail around trying to justify all the things he's gotten wrong.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Poetry No, don't bother. I never posted it. When I know I have a long one, I usually write them out into 500 character sections and then copy and paste them in. Just easier for me that way.
And it's nothing you don't already know. I PM'd it to Tomaji, but it will be lost on him and I don't figure on much of a response.
I just can't be bothered with him. As you stated so well, their religious beliefs just does not allow them to admit an error because it will question their beliefs.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
These "I'd believe anything the authorities tell me" kooks like PoetryHound won't admit when THEY are wrong or acknowledge well made points. Like the FACT that tall steel buildings DO NOT collapse from fires, even if fully engulfed with fire for days - yes, FACT. I posted the link to the proof & this KOOK won't admit it, still claiming this nonsense story that the towers "collapsed". Instead, he argues over semantics & exact wording of a quotation to be "right" about something!
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Actually, if you ever go back and read some of my posts, I have indeed admitted mistakes. But I've been at this for some years now and I don't make many mistakes anymore, particularly when it's with people like you who make claims without backing them up. You claimed steel buildings can't collapse from fire, then when I showed you how wrong you are, you modified it to "tall" buildings. LOL! Still can't admit you got the Silverstein quote wrong, can you?
PoetryHound 1 week ago
Toasted cars -? If a plane flies into a building, how does it melt cars 1 mile away? Cars were melted as if they were a sticks of butter in a 450 degree oven? Ya, Towel heads can melt cars from caves. Just google "toasted cars Judy Wood" Tha'ts called energy weapons. People please seek some truth.
sweetgman46 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the zionist MEDIA succeed to Brainwashed American through CNN,FUCKS all mainstream pro israHELL propaganda by Demonize Muslims image yet the zionist who controll the country stole the banks, bankrupted US ,made u Homeless ,jobless american
9/11 was inside job american sheeple
haifab1 1 week ago
Building Seven...pre-wired with explosives. Same with the towers probably...what is "the math" on two ultra-tall buildings falling into their own footprint after an off-center damage event? Especially since the building structure BELOW the damaged floors were perfectly intact & have been supporting all that weight for 50 years? If the upper damaged sections simply collapsed down, they would have caused damage, yes, and maybe fallen off to the side, but not a total straight down collapse..
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "two ultra-tall buildings falling into their own footprint"
Um, no. They didn't fall into their footprints. Their collapses damaged lots of buildings OUTSIDE of their footprints. Duh.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - The towers were in perfect shape on all floors from their foundations up to about two floors or so below the impact floors. Thus, that structure could NOT collapse from weight it had been supporting for 50 years dropping a floor or two down onto it...yes, it would have been damaged & a big mess, but it just simply would NOT collapse like that. To believe that is to be a fool & thousands of engineers say the same thing. They were pre-wired & DEMO'd, plain & simple.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Looks like you didn't even read what I wrote. Got English comprehension problems?
As for your point about the towers collapsing from the weight they had been supporting, you evidently don't know the difference between static load and dynamic load. Do some research instead of speaking based purely on intuition.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - If a "collapse": The upper sections weren't dropped from 1000 feet to drive the towers down, they only slipped 10 feet (slowly, due to "softened steel"), not "dynamic" enough to cause perfectly sound towers to crumble. Also, any "soft steel" was spotty - not ALL the steel would have been "soft" on those floors AND that doesn't happen anyway...was not hot enough to cause steel to melt. YOU do YOUR research! You're wrong & the engineers are right - it was a DEMO.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
Towers like that being demo'd by sequentially blowing out each floor to pancake it would look just like it did that day - which is why no city would allow it, because even though it would MOSTLY pancake, there'd be too much collateral damage from debris & chunks to the side. They also can't be demo'd by blowing out the foundation, or they could fall sideways. So, they have to be deconstructed, which is VERY expensive. The twin towers were perfect for the Pearl Harbor event.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 - Since BUILDING SEVEN was also pre-wired for demolition, but NO plane hit it (since it was grounded at Logan), they HAD to demo it anyway or the explosives would be discovered. It couldn''t be said that a plane crash caused it to collapse! They even slipped up and said "It was decided to pull the building". No office fires or full combustion has EVER brought any towers down, even after DAYS of complete combustion.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Guess how much evidence there is to support your claim that a plane at Logan was supposed to hit WTC 7?
Answer: Absolutely none.
No one said, "It was decided to pull the building." No one.
One thing I can always rely on wit truthers like you: You never back up anything you claim.
Hey! Tell us more about how the towers fell in the footprints! LOL!
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - The superintendent of the complex made that statement - you don't know that?
You can't "back up" anything YOU claim either. You're just using "intuition" and "blind faith" in the "story" aren't you?
You say use "science" - OK, let's do that: science looks at other similar cases & NO...repeat NO burning towers (even fully ablaze for DAYS!!) have EVER collapsed. Steel does NOT melt at those temperatures and do not get "soft" & collapse. It just NEVER happens.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "The superintendent of the complex made that statement"
Wrong as usual. It was the OWNER, not the"superintendent." And he owned only the building (WTC 7), not the whole complex. He was the lessee of WTC 1,2,4, and 5.
And he did not say, "It was decided to pull the building." You got it wrong.
No one claims fires melted the steel. They WEAKENED it.
Fires have brought down all kinds of buildings and structures over the years. You don't know what you're talking about.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoetryHound "No one claims fires melted the steel. They WEAKENED it.
Fires have brought down all kinds of buildings and structures over the years. You don't know what you're talking about."
You cannot have free fall from WEAKENED steel.
FREE FALL MEANS NO STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE AT ALL
FIRES CANNOT CAUSE COMPLETE SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Go read a book, everyone with common sense OR a 7th grade education knows WTC 7 collapse was impossible. You obviously lack both.
FnkDctr 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - No, I don't have "evidence" the plane from Logan was going to hit Building 7 - I SURMISE it (and I said "Probable" as my opinion, because it explains why they demo'd Building 7 even though a plane didn't hit it). There were many "surmises" about where flight 93 was going to hit in D.C., yet nobody could "prove" if it was even going to D.C. - it PROBABLY was - maybe it was going to Langley or to McDonald's for a big mac. Thinking & surmising is key to solving things.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "No, I don't have "evidence""
Thanks for admitting it.
"Thinking & surmising is key to solving things."
I agree. They are necessary but not sufficient. You need actual evidence before you can conclude anything. So far, there is no evidence to support any of the hundreds of "sumised" 9/11 conspiracy theories.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - Yes, there is the evidence that NO plane hit Building 7, unless YOU know of an invisible plane....? There is NO proof that the planes caused the collapses either, right? Come on, admit it...you are SURMISING that because the planes hit the buildings, THAT is what caused the collapses, right? Come on, admit it.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Yes, according to people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering, the actual (not surmised) structural damage contributed to the collapses.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - There was no proof of "structural damage"...that was all surmised to fit the story...it's no more valid than the more obvious truth...the buildings were demo'd, with the planes as the "precept" to the storyline. In fact, there are other such steel structures very much like the towers that burned for days and did not collapse. Then, building 7 collapses due to a couple of office fires that went OUT....hey, I have some land in Florida to sell you if you believe THAT.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - There was no proof of "structural damage"...that was all surmised to fit the story...it's no more valid than the more obvious truth...the buildings were demo'd, with the planes as the "precept" to the storyline. In fact, there are other such steel structures very much like the towers that burned for days & did not collapse. Then, building 7 collapses due to a couple of office fires that went OUT??....hey, I have some land in Florida to sell you if you believe THAT.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Who should we believe about the structural damage - people with expertise and experience or you? Gee, I'm having such a hard time deciding!
"building 7 collapses due to a couple of office fires that went OUT?"
Who says there were only a couple of office fires? Not the firefighters. You sure are getting a lot of things wrong. A LOT OF THINGS.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - The 1,500 engineers have experience...I trust them & not YOU. You're just guessing, come on admit it. The "official story" is all "THEORY" too...it's just a storyline, based on "the planes hit the building, so THAT brought them down". Ever hear of bait-and-switch? That's why Buillding 7 is the smoking gun....OH, OH, we missed it with a plane so what do we do now?...go ahead and "pull the building" and we'll make something up...or, we just won't talk about it.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - well, according to YOU, over 1,500 "people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering" have said OTHERWISE...that those buildings did NOT collapse due to structural damage. So, believe a few who were paid to say that, or 1,500 who are risking their careers to speak out with the real truth?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - And YOU have NO evidence whatsoever that the steel was "weakened" (you SURMISE it) - and also, you can't show even ONE such steel building ANYWHERE that totally collapsed due to fires (come on, show us!)...yet, there are numerous cases of such buildings with fires raging for days that did not collapse at all. One is on youtube that is same structure as the towers, it burned for days and no collapse. Why ignore THAT evidence?...because YOUR surmising doesn't hold up.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 No steel building has ever collapsed from fire? McCormick Place, Chicago,'67 Sight & Sounds Theater, Strasburg PA 97 Dogwood Elementary School, Reston VA Sabena Technics Hangar, Brussels, '06 (collapsed fm aircraft fire) Madrid Windsor Hotel, '05 (steel portion collapsed, concrete didn't) Sandoz storage facility, Basel Switz, '86 Mumbai High North Platform (2005) GM plant, Livonia, 1953 Kmart fire, Falls Twnp PA,June 1982, steel bldg, collapsed in 40 min
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound Are these high-rise steel framed buildings?Did they collapse in 10-12 seconds or 7 seconds?
HardcoreJungFunk 1 week ago
@PoetryHound No steel structures built like the towers...but once Google is up again, I'll check out your "story"...I bet this is bullshit. The ENTIRE buildings collapsed at free-fall speed after an hour or two?....we'll see.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - OK, the FIRST one I checked shows you're putting up bullshit...the McCormick Place building was a LONG hanger like structure..long, but not tall & much lower gauge steel to simply support a huge high roof...it was that roof that collapsed, but about half the steel structure stayed in place. This is PROOF that in the WTC case, the steel would stay in place....ESPECIALLY the steel BELOW the fire. More on the others as I find out the truth.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound OK, the SECOND one is also bullshit...the Sight and Sounds Theater was a one story theater and the roof collapsed...we all know that these structures with low gauge steel supporting a roof only will collapse in a fire. This is silly bullshit you're throwing at us. I'm gonna stop there. I can't recall the tall bank building built like the WTC that is on YouTube - it completely burned and it did not collapse...anybody out there wanna jump in & help enlighten this person?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - I wish they'd let me post a link...OK, go to
"911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html"
It details how "....no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.". PROOF POSITIVE.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Whoever wrote that piece on your 911research site doesn't indicate what their expertise is in fire history. In any event, they got it wrong. But what's really interesting is that that site says the planes did in fact sever beams. LOL! Your own source says you're wrong! I love it.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tomaji69 "Towers like that being demo'd by sequentially blowing out each floor to pancake it would look just like it did that day"
Says who? Just you. Which demo experts say that? None.
Your comments on demolitions are simply made up by you. No one agrees with you. No one.
And don't forget that your claim that the towers fell in their footprints is totally and utterly wrong.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "Not "dynamic" enough"
How do you kow? Once again, you're simply using your own intuition.
Why do you say the towers were "perfectly sound?" They were fatally damaged.
"not ALL the steeel would have been "soft""
Once there were insufficient columns to carry the load, they all collapsed.
Sorry, I'll stick with science. You can stick with your intuition.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - That's a lie...those towers were perfectly sound from their foundations all the way up to just below the crash floors. Unless YOU know something we don't..got any news for us? You can have your opinion, but not your own facts. Support your claim that "the towers were fatally damaged" below the crash floors down to their foundations. Come on, where's YOUR evidence?...I haven't seen ANY evidence from you yet....just shooting off your mouth to attack others.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Yes, the buildings were sound in the places where there was no plane impact or fires. Duh.
If you want to see an engineering examination that concluded that the towers were fatally damaged, see the NIST report.
There are no engineering papers that support anything you've claimed. There are no demo experts that agree with you about the "explosions," and you are 100% full of shit in your claim that the towers fell in their footprints.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Poetry "Yes, the buildings were sound in the places where there was no plane impact or fires."
Actually, even that's not true. One of the fire commanders on scene at the WTCs, whose name escapes me right now, commented that he could see plaster cracking within the core down to or very close to the lobby. Due to the load shift of the hat truss when 15% of the supports were taken out by the plane. This was a sure sign of a loss of structural integrity and weakening of the building.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Yes, you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. But yes, there was indeed damage beyond the impact floors. After the plane impact, witnesses reported the fireballs ignited by the jet fuel that traveled down elevator shafts and blew open elevator doors on various floors,including the basement and sub-basement, although I'm not sure of the extent of structural damage those caused.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound Sorry. Didn't mean to sound overly critical. I just thought it was pointing out to Tomaji that there were signs of structural damage.
I would think the structural damage from the fireball was minimal. But the cracking in the lobby was a clear sign of the weight load shifting and that the building was in serious condition.
Again, sorry. Please carry on.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 It was WORTH pointing out.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 - no question that the top of the buildings could have shifted perhaps (but doubtful, because the steel was, IMO, virtually unaffected by the fire or plane impact), but they would NEVER have collapsed totally like they did (and at "free-fall" velocity!). Those steel beam grids can't just "collapse", even if the (steel reinforced) concrete floors crack and break. It could have conceivably been a MESS, but not a collapse like that. Impossible.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Uh huh.
Why is it there are literally ZERO papers published in science journals agreeing with you?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 - What those 1,600 Engineers and Architects are calling for is an independent investigation because the "theory" of the "official story" of the collapses, especially Building 7 just don't hold water. So, who do you believe, a dozen or so who were paid to tell the official "theory" (and leave out Building 7) or 1,600 who are not being paid and are speaking out for a wider investigation? What's wrong with looking deeper into YOUR fictional "theory" of the collapses?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 You didn't answer my question.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Your question is irrelevant. Don't try to distract...you're "story" is bullshit. The WTC could NOT have collapsed like that and you have NO proof of it and there IS proof that buildings built like that do NOT collapse. They just don't, the steel is THICK and does NOT melt in a fire, so the steel structure would STILL be there for the most part...some floors might have crumbled and a mess made, yes, but not a free-fall collapse like that. Wake up!!
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "Your question is irrelevant."
Uh huh.
"The WTC could NOT have collapsed like that"
Why is there not one published paper that supports your claim?
And multiple ones FROM INDEPENDENT STUDIES that prove the exact opposite of what you claim?
Anything?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 - Multiple independent studies that PROVE it? Bullshit. There is NOTHING published that PROVES the WTC simply collapsed & thick gauged steel grids just crumbled with no resistance. If you look for it, you'd find a great example of a tall building built like the WTC (may even be the same constr. company) that burned for days & did not collapse. PROOF POSITIVE. I think it was a bank building...I'll look for it...anyone else know of this and can help inform these guys?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Let’s have some fun and list all the things you’ve gotten wrong:
1. You claimed the twin towers fell in their footprints. WRONG.
2. You claimed the “superintendent” of the complex said "It was decided to pull the building." WRONG.
3. You claimed no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. WRONG.
4. You claimed, “There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in” Hahahaha! Even your fellow kooks disagree with you.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - To correct you (again):
1. I claimed the towers fell in their footprints as if they were Demo'd & that's why cities wouldn't allow it. CORRECT.
2. I claimed the “superintendent” of the complex said "It was decided to pull the building." WRONG. This is childish - YOU said it was the OWNER, so I was CORRECT as to this POINT of EVIDENCE, which is what this is about.
3. I claimed TALL steel buildings don't collapse from fires. CORRECT (& I posted proof).
...4 to follow..
Tomaji69 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4. I claimed, “There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in” - CORRECT...none has been shown yet.
5. WTC 7 had only a couple of office fires that went out...POINT of EVIDENCE is that even if it was 3 or 4 or 169, it wouldn't bring the building down.
6. “over 1,500 people with years of experience & expertise in structural engineering" – CORRECT. YOU say "Hardly any have structural experience or expertise" - WRONG - more to follow....
Tomaji69 1 week ago
7. The towers collapsed at “free fall velocity” WRONG.....seems FREE FALL to me, so I'm gonna stick with CORRECT.
I've noticed how you REALLY wanna be "right" and locked into your mindset, so you knit pick & spin things around & AVOID the truth - like "it was the OWNER, not the SUPERINTENDENT who said they pulled the building"...yeah and therefore....??....therefore what?....therefore they DEMO'd Building 7...You're WRONG.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69
7. It "seems" like free fall to you? You can't even substantiate it. LOL!
"I've noticed how you REALLY wanna be "right" and locked into your mindset"
Yes, I'm locked into the truth. You're locked into "it seems like."
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - You'd argue the sky isn't blue. The "pull the building" statement is famous & he gets hounded everywhere he goes. Also, nearly everyone simply watching the demolition of the towers will say they seem to fall with no resistance - as close to "free-fall" as it could get. And, yes, TALL steel buildings are made with very thick gauge steel that DOESN'T melt no matter how many rooms are on fire - they don't collapse. You are NOT seeking the truth, you're AGAINST the truth.
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Wrong. He never said "pull the building." Get it right. But yes, conspiracy kooks are famous for misquoting and misinterpreting Larry Silverstein.
Who cares what it "seems" to you? You said the towers fell at freefall velocity. You are wrong. No wonder you can't substantiate your claim.
For the millionth time, the fires didn't melt the steel. They WEAKENED it. And yes, fire has weakened steel before & has caused the collapse of all sorts of steel structures.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound - OK, lets TRY to be scientific...can you do that? Let's say the steel on the floor hit by the plane & maybe the floor above & below had "weakened steel". And despite the FACT that fires do not cause steel in tall buildings to collapse, let's go along with it for a second. So, this upper section slips one floor onto the rest of the building that has NO weakened steel & has supported all that weight for 50 years. Get it? You claim to be smart, so you get it now, yes?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 - My guess is that you'll keep arguing "The government of mine must be telling me the truth...they must be....they must be...they must be".
Tomaji69 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 I haven't said anything about the U.S. government, but since you mention it, I see that YOU are motivated by a frothing hatred of the government as opposed to a serious line of scientific inquiry.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Who says fires can't cause steel in tall buildings to collapse? Since you want to be scientific, which scientists say that?
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 Uh oh, you got another thing wrong. You claimed that the rest of the building has supported that weight for 50 years. First of all, the "50 years" is wrong (You could easily have found out how old the WTC towers were), and second, the lower part of the structures were NEVER supporting the dynamic load, only the static load.
Now, since you can't cite any scientific publication, web site or scientist who agrees with you, I suggest you start by reading up on kinetic energy.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 LOL! Now you're trying to weasel out of what you said!
1. You said the towers fell in their footprints, which is wrong.
2. You not only got "superintendent" wrong, you got the quote wrong. He sad nothing about pulling the building.
3. You claimed no steel building has fallen from fire & that's wrong. Even if you change it to "tall," what difference does it make? Fire can weaken steel and cause it to collapse, which is the point.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69
(cont'd)
5. WTC 7 had only a couple of office fires that went out. WRONG.
6. “over 1,500 people with years of experience and expertise in structural engineering" – WRONG. Hardly any have structural engineering experience or expertise
7. The towers collapsed at “free fall velocity” WRONG
So it turns out all you have is bullshit.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@Tomaji69 "Wake up!!"
How original.
I've never heard that one before.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Nice try, but this is bullshit. There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in...all that is SURMISED to support the official "story" of a collapse DUE to the planes. I supposed there was an invisible plane that flew into Building 7....? Gee, I wonder if I've ever seen any plaster cracked in a huge building like that...this explains everything...what a crock. Do you have ANY idea how strong these steel structures are?
Tomaji69 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tomaji69 "There's NO evidence of ANY of the beams being severed or weakened by the plane flying in"
Sigh!
[face palm]
Ok. I tried.
Carry on.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
I like how the plane doesnt leave a hole or set fire to the dry grass despite the huge fireball.
Or leave any visible wreckage.
The hole was an opencast mine and already there.
Funny how it hit that it isnt it?
Talk about deadly accuracy.
zenoist2 1 week ago
The only place 95% of the wreckage was found was in a debubkers feeble mind.
Are you even looking at the same video clips as I am?
Please tell me where 95% of the wreckage is?
zenoist2 1 week ago 2
There was no heroic struggle by the passengers of Flight 93, the plane was shot down by executive order. Cheney admits that much.
ViciousAlienKlown 1 week ago 2
A "fairly sizeable hole" if it was going 5 mph. You failed to consider the energy conversion at the impact. If you added up all your improbable explainations and impossible excuses into a full unified probability analysis your odds would be beyond a billion to one. Probability analysis is exponential, not added. Your 500 to 1 odds for this weak clip times the 500 to 1 odds for your last stupid excuse video gets you in 250000 to 1 odds combined unified, times the next 500 to 1 unlikely .... Shill
IranContraScumDid911 1 week ago
There is an obvious need in America to be on a Team. This "debunking" group of people and believers is merely one of these Teams just like the contrary opinion. They feel it's the right Team, regardless of truth. I don't know which side is right about any of the events of 9/11, but what I do know is there is no open and shut case that has been presented. Still many questions to be answered. So, instead of going back and forth shouldn't we be after our leaders for the Truth? FFT
PleasureCaddy 1 week ago
So what this video is showing me is this: plastic identification cards, cloth articles, and other "delicate" items survived the crash, yet there wasn't any human remains found at the site, also that "wing scar" was there before the crash, several officials, including Rumsfeld, have said it was shot down... There is absolutely no evidence that a plane hit the pentagon... two 6 ton jet engines would not have vaporized. period
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 "there wasn't any human remains found at the site"
Yes there was. The county coroner and his team found human remains spread across a 60 acre area. Don't always take what conspiracy believers say at face value.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound According to eyewitnesses, the plane crashed at a very steep angle, making me question how these people could be spread that far around. One woman stated that the plane went almost straight down. How would the bodies be spread so far? One first responder stated that there were no bodies or remains of any kind. Where are the engines and other pieces that survive nearly 100% of all other plane crashes? How does an ID survive but not a 6 ton chunk of steel and titanium?
Jethu262 1 week ago 2
@Jethu262 "making me question how these people could be spread that far around"
Guess how many crash site investigators say the human remains were spread too far around for a plane crash? Zero. You're just making stuff up based on nothing but your own imperfect intuition. Since you fancy yourself a crash site investigator, why don't you explain how spread out the human remains and plane debris should have been?.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound "Since you fancy yourself a crash site investigator, why don't you explain how spread out the human remains and plane debris should have been?."
NOT OVER 10 MILES
LOL
Doesnt take a specialist to understand a crash doesnt go 10 miles. It never has before, and never will.
Duhbunktards lack something 99% of the world has.. COMMON SENSE.
What a joke you are
FnkDctr 1 week ago
@FnkDctr The main debris field was 1/2 - 1 mile in diameter. The only stuff miles away was blown by the wind. Who says otherwise?
Wow, don't you think it's ironic that it turns out to be you who is the joke? I certainly do.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound Another first responder stated that it "just looked like someone dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky", saying that it looked nothing like a plane crash, just a debris field spread over a large area. Odd, most crashes at lower angles don't spread that far. The "scar" that the plane supposedly left was already there and photographed in 1994 at least, and was probably there long before that.
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 "Most crashes at lower angles don't spread that far"
Lower angles? What does that mean? Each plane crash has its own characteristics.
People who first arrived at the site said various dramatic things. Sometimes people at the site of huge fires say, "It's a war zone out there." They don't mean it literally. English comprehension is key. In the end, human remains of passengers were found. and most of the plane parts were found. Hundreds of people weren't lying.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoetryHound "English comprehension is key. In the end, human remains of passengers were found. and most of the plane parts were found. Hundreds of people weren't lying."
Rumsfield said flight 93 was shot down, this is a freudian slip, if you dont know english, dont attempt to teach it on youtube kid.
Hundreds of people also said flight 93 was shot down. So who is lying?
Rumsfield holds more weight than you though, so I'm going with his story, it was shot down.
FnkDctr 1 week ago
@PoetryHound watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xkivdEGph9A#t=118s Then could you please explain to me how a plane going down at almost a 90 degree angle could spread bodies over 60 acres of land? The bulk of the debris would be in a very compact area. Doesn't take a scientist to use the simplest behaviors of physics to determine the spread from a crash at this steep of an angle. Once again, I mostly just see a bunch of guys around holes with puffs of smoke, very little wreckage.
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 So who should we believe about finding the human remains and debris from FL 93 - the hundreds of first responders who found all of it . . . or you? It's not a difficult question to answer.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound watch?v=GlleeEL91jY&feature=related give that a gander....
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 "There is absolutely no evidence that a plane hit the pentagon"
No evidence? There's all the 757 debris, there's the human remains that DNA testing matched to the passengers, there's the recorded flight path, and there are hundreds of eyewitnesses. Actually, what there's no evidence of is Flight 77 going anywhere other than the Pentagon.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound They carried away scraps....scraps.....the plane had two Rolls Royce jet engines at around 6 TONS each. Where are the engines? All I've ever seen were some pieces of sheet metal, and some other oddments. The 9/11 commission report stated that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and I have seen stronger evidence to support that, rather than a plane crash. Wouldn't two 6 ton blocks of steel damage the foundation of the building at that angle? Support beans were blown out.
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 As one would expect from a plane intentionally crashed into the Pentagon, most of the pieces were small. There were a few larger pieces too. And once again, there was also human remains that were DNA matched to the passengers. And once again, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. And once again, there's no evidence of FL 77 going anywhere other than the Pentagon.
"The 0/11 commission report stated that the Pentagon was hit by a missile"
Wrong.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound not in. What is the small hole (roughly 12 feet in diameter i am guessing) on the other side of the building from, and what went through it? The official report states that the plane vaporized in the fire....where is the debris that went out of the other side of the building? Aviators have agreed that it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit the pentagon at that angle, without crashing before the impact with the building, and the highjacker was a failed flight-
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 Guess how many of the eyewitnesses said they saw a missile? Zero.
How could a missile zigzag around knocking over the light poles just before hitting the Pentagon?
"Aviators have agreed it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit the pentagon at that angle"
No they haven't. At what angle? An angle of coming straight into the Pentagon? Why is that so difficult? Don't worry, it doesn't matter. Hundreds of people saw it happen.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound student, who probably couldnt even fly a cesna, much less a commercial jet. Not to mention the eyewitnesses who give a different flight path than the official version....I have never been a conspiracy screaming neckbeard, but there is a lot of contradictions on the whole 9/11 story. You seen the slow-mo video of the WTC towers collapsing? there are explosions popping off 15-20 stories below the stack of floors that are falling, and they go all the way down. At least question it...
Jethu262 1 week ago
@Jethu262 Now here's a question for you: If the government was going to claim a 757 hit the Pentagon, why in the world would they use anything other than a 757 to fly into the Pentagon?
I don't see any explosion "popping" off the twin towers. You're imagining them. Guess how many demo experts in the world say those were explosions? Zero.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound "Guess how many demo experts in the world say those were explosions? "
Many. LOL
ae911truth has over 1400 experts saying free fall from fires is scientifically impossible.
blueprint for truth weighs the fire vs demolitions characteristics, and WTC 7 has NONE from fire.
Only a complete moron or disinformant would say NO people think 9/11 was demolitions, because they tested the dust and found thermite.
Explain the spheres kid? Good luck covering the truth you fraud
FnkDctr 1 week ago
@FnkDctr
"Guess how many demo experts in the world say those were explosions?
Many. LOL"
Okay, name some of those demo experts.
Lets see if a twoofer can back up a claim. This should be good.
(BTW, there are no demo experts at ae911twoof).
PoetryHound 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let us never tolerate outrageous "official" conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of Sept. 11th...malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves....away from the guilty...
wake up from your slumber-Payday Monsanto
MrNoblemanoflove 1 week ago
IDIOTS. Here you go, go lock yourself in a room and argue with yourself. watch?v=DFqAM2gi7ic Dick Cheney admits to the plane being shot down.
emerson24 1 week ago
I love it when the conspiracy kooktards claim FL 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7. So the "inside job" plot simultaneously involved crashing the plane into the building and also shooting it down. Sure, makes perfect sense.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
@PoetryHound Is it not possible that when the passengers decided to storm the cockpit, the US Airforce didn't shoot it down? Is it unreasonable that a military that kills innocent women, children, elderly, etc.... would shoot an American plane down if it failed its mission? Several of the "hijackers" who were supposedly on these planes are still alive, look it up. You should never take what any elected official says at face value...take a look from other angles, then decide what's true.
Jethu262 1 week ago
Of course it went down. Cheney, Rummy and Bush pretty much have said that they shot it down. Debunk that.
Kallister18 1 week ago
I've seen real Picture.
ddamos00 1 week ago
Good Photo Shop
ddamos00 1 week ago
The mayor of shankville at the time has been on foreign media saying there was no plane. Not sure what i believe but feel free to youtube it and respond.
cartmen316uk 1 week ago
search 9/11 Flight 93 Shanksville Mayor Eyewitness "No Airplane!"
cartmen316uk 1 week ago
the passports was undamage hahahahaha this video is debunked and the uploader is a missinformation agent fuck the New World Order
SLINGSHOTandMOLOTOWS 1 week ago
@SLINGSHOTandMOLOTOWS It's been PROVEN the 9/11 Truth Movement is a CIA operation. The government failed to stop 9/11 and is now lying to say they caused it to look competent and to spread FEAR. That FEAR is used to CONTROL.
Looking at your style of posting it shows classic signs of textbook CIA training of how to spread government LIES.
You are a CIA agent and WE THE PEOPLE will not SWALLOW YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES.
pantspoopie 1 week ago
Now, any minute Fuckhead Dctr will come along to accuse me of being RKOwens and you 2 can have a little circle jerk together!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
For those of you who are awake and understand what is happening in this country...stop arguing with these idiots on here. If you know it was an inside job then you also know you are smarter than these idiots who just accept everything the news and government tells them without question. Don't give them any fuel to fight with. I'm done peace out
20Jeremy12 1 week ago
I have not seen any pictures of the flight 93 crash site that include an engine, a wing, luggage, bodies, a tail. Just scraps. A photograph of a bolt is hardly convincing. It's easy to find photos online of actual plane crashes that leave a considerable amount of debris. There is simply no comparison. There is something fundamentally different about the wreckage left by this plane and the wreckage left by any other crash I have found. Specifically the 93 crash left no wreckage.
ghostclownprophet 1 week ago
@ghostclownprophet
Well the evil government hijacked the plane then said "Aww fuck it" and shot it down.
Seriously, in a "normal" plane crash the pilot is trying to Land the plane, in this case it was flown straight down at full throttle - big difference
AlQaedaIsReal 1 week ago
What saddens me as much as anything is that there are people who will believe this propaganda.
PissedOffChurchLady 1 week ago
WTC 7 was free fall, impossible
Flight 77 cockpit door never opened, contradicting the official conspiracy hijackers with box cutters crashed it.
CNN 9/11 victims were uploaded BEFORE 9/11. Cant have victims before tragedy!
Rumsfield said on TV flight 93 was shot down
9/11 commission said a missle hit the pentagon
Both are perfect examples of freudian slips.
en wikipedia org/wiki/Freudian_slip
Seismic readings confirm vibrations before and larger than the actual collapses.
Inside job 100%
FnkDctr 1 week ago
The guys there with the Hazmat suits said they couldn't find any remains larger than centimeter! You've got to be kidding me with this video "Debunking 9/11" lol
Sad, sad sheeple will remain ignorant & asleep until full enslaved....
TheFreedomMinistry 1 week ago 2
Lame....
W3PO 1 week ago
That little "puff" of smoke came from a Boeing 757??? I have built bon-fires (for a weekend cook-out) that put out WAY more smoke than that...Hell, my cigarette can put out more smoke. A 757 crash thats FULLY laden with fuel would have put out an atomic sized mushroom cloud...I don't doubt it was a plane crash but it had to be a learjet that didn't land fast enough (or didnt respond on radio) on that fateful day, and was shot down. Flight 93 was escorted out over the Atlantic and shot down.
MydogTobes 2 weeks ago
It's easy to say the wreckage and bodies were found. Why not throw in a couple of pictures too? Where's the cockpit? Where's a wing? A tail? An engine?
ghostclownprophet 2 weeks ago
yes, looks like the wreckage from space shuttle challenger.
NWONoWorldOrderNWO 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TROLLS;
Their persona is as phoney as their pompous and perverse patriotism
Title them traitors to be tried and transcend the trash talk trap
Provoking pernicious pathology is perfuctory to polarize people
It is just as likely to be a DOD computer gleaning the public pulse, as sentient beings are not so persistently pitiful.
Conquently, verbosity and vulgarities are devoid of merit.
Behooves us to focus on the living....
not the walking dead...
Disdain4Lies 2 weeks ago
That hole in the ground was already there, shot before 9/11.
Fesheca 2 weeks ago
watch?v=XsS-xpyqi1w The Shankesville crater is a natural formation and was not created by any crashing plane. Knowing this, what are the odds, if it did, the plane crashed directly into this pre-existing crevice in the earth? Do you see the Conspiracy yet? the planning involved?
stephenrblv 2 weeks ago
Thank you for this video. Excellent job. It is disgusting that you 9/11 "Truthers" would even think of using the backs of all of the thousands of murdered victims on 9/11/01, in order to further your anti-American political agenda. Psychologists have said that conspiracy theorists find the raw reality of tragedies too much to handle, emotionally, so they fabricate and build complicated theories to try to make sense out of a senseless, violent act, such as 9/11.
Shepherd621 2 weeks ago
The mass murder of thousands of innocent people occurred, on 9/11/01, because a handful of fanatical Muslim cowards, armed with only box-cutters and mace, over-took those planes. It's as simple and as horrifying as that. You "Truthers" are giving the Islamic terrorists exactly what they want, which is to divide America with a sense of doubt and mistrust of government, instead of remaining strong, through being united. Way to go, Truthers...Way to go. -Sincerely, a 9/11 WTC collapse survivor
Shepherd621 2 weeks ago
Six days after 9/11, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection began taking soil samples around the Flight 93 crash site, to test for jet fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other hazardous materials. At least three test wells were sunk to monitor groundwater for signs of contamination. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 93 had about 37,500 pounds of fuel remaining when it crashed, which was around 77 percent of its fuel load on takeoff. Yet the DEP tests found
bottleman57 2 weeks ago
CONTINUED: no evidence of this huge volume of jet fuel at the crash site. Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated." So, if indeed Flight 93 actually crashed here, how can this be explained? It is obvious that we have been lied to. The official story is nothing but a crock of shit.
bottleman57 2 weeks ago
@bottleman57 Why don't you go ask the victims of flight 93 if 9/11 was an "inside job". They'll be waiting for you at their graves...And while you're at it; why don't you ask the woman who was burned by jet fuel that spilled down onto Church Street, from the north WTC tower after the 1st plane hit, or the first responder who looked up into one of the WTC elevator shafts and got jet fuel in his eyes, causing permanent injury? Take your conspiracy B/S and shove it.
Shepherd621 2 weeks ago
@Shepherd621 Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean and John Farmer all of the 911 Commission have gone on record as saying that we have not been told the truth concerning 911. Does that not bother you at all? Maybe I am wrong but I tend to believe that flt 93 would not completely disappear into the earth, nor is it's 35,000 pounds of fuel going to just go away without a trace. The ground isn't even scorched. Believe what you must, you gullible idiot. A true American asks questions.
bottleman57 2 weeks ago
Lots of sheeple on this page that believe the offical 911 story. I do hope that one day they wake up and see that they have been duped by the government and somewhat brainwashed to believe what they are told. Personally I have no time to argue with those who cant see the truth. If people want to walk around like the blind leading the blind there is nothing I can do for them, except to wish them luck.
arecuk1 2 weeks ago
The snowball is rolling and won't stop.
If one reads the executive orders, presidential directives, signing statements, and a long list of totally unconstiutional acts and laws changed in recent times, then add in the unlawful sneek .n peek law, secret trials and courts, one can only conclude it's to quiet any future dissent. Privitized armies, wars of agression, jusitfying torture will need a hammer to nail the populace into conformity when critical mass is achieved.
MrNoblemanoflove 2 weeks ago
At first I didnt understand why people didnt believe that a plane crashed there...Planes are giant aluminum cans...a well recorded example of what happens to an airplane when its coming straight down at high speed would be the reno air race incident, and even that was traveling far slower then this 757.... check it out, you cant even make out an airplane just from the debris
denverJPUE 2 weeks ago
HAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH........LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A DUMBASS !
TheZen200 2 weeks ago
This is one of the most compelling and well-researched I've seen. Thanks for posting it. Now, if you could only explain Building 7...
FablehavenFan1 2 weeks ago
@FablehavenFan1: Sure. I will. The TV video cameras were facing building 7 from it's north side. Most of the damage occurred through it's south side, which was directly opposite the north WTC tower. I was there, as a first responder. At the time, I heard a cop say that there was fear that building 7 was going to collapse due to structural damage, after the north tower's collapse. I remember everything from that day. I heard him say that.
Shepherd621 2 weeks ago
@Shepherd621 Thank you. I keep telling these kooks that if the government wanted to stage a false flag and had the ability and will to pull off something this big there are literally dozens of bigger, more efficient and effective ways to go about it. It would make absolutely no sense to do it in this manner. It would have taken massive amount of people. Something that big can't be covered up. Also why stage just one if you have the ability? Why not stage more instead of just 1 in 10.5 years?
basketballplayer182 2 weeks ago
@basketballplayer182 I fully agree, if the US Govt wanted to fake an attack, why use this method, involving "discreetly planted" TNT explosives that miraculously dont explode when hit by planes, but explode "on cue" and in sequence, that would require infinitely small probabilities that the towers would behave exactly as they wanted, hologram airplanes, a cast of 1,000s where one weak link in the chain would cause the whole event to fail.Just too far fetched to consider
rossini55 2 weeks ago
@basketballplayer182 There would be just too many unpredictable variables to control in a conspiracy of such proportions. That people actually believe a conspiracy like this with no evidence or plausible mechanism, yet cant accept an infinitley more simple explanation with tons of evidence filmed live on TV that 2 jets can be hijacked and crashed into towers is beyond me. There WAS a conspiracy, by a network of jihadists with a motive, enough hatred and a death wish.
rossini55 2 weeks ago