@Grommo Long ago, CIA had infiltrated these ''terror groups''. I even read an article where known Al CIAda members, being detained at the border without proper visas, were ushered through by CIA agents. It is also well known that these alleged hijackers were under FBI surveillance and even had an FBI landlord. So, in my estimation it is very feasible that fundamentalists could be funded, armed, and trained under the auspices of CIA agent/infiltrators. I am going to google CIA/Al Qaeda
Sorry simon. But you are going to have to try harder than that .
Your video is easily debunked and is rather childish .
Will you have the integrity to leave my comments up and write a written carefully reasoned response? I have made copies of my comments and forwarded them to a number of prominent 911 truthers.
@Grommo Firstly, it would be good if you addressed ALL the points raised in my video analysis. For you to say it is 'easily debunked' on the strength of one single, ancillary point of your choice is not intellectually correct. I will list all those points in my next comment. For now I have one question related to your argument: what exactly would have caused the fire in that rightmost office of the WTC - since the rightmost wingtip appears to have hit nowhere near that spot? (see 3:04 )
@simonshack The right wingtip impacted the building considerably above the black line of smoke. The right engine and wing tanks penetrated the same area.
the wing did NOT hit horizontally like the black smoke line but at an angle, breeching multiple floors and spilling fuel into multiple floors.
The energy of the impact and inrushing fuel pressurised the inside of the building causing windows to pop outwards and clouds of smoke and dust to burst outwards in multiple directions.
The fuel and fireball exited the building in all directions , obviously blowing back out the same hole they went in. This is to be expected of a sudden pressurisation of a confined space. The breeched floor simply burnt and offices to the right hand side received sufficient quantity of fuel to burn.
The secondary linear explosion at 2:34 is a wet fuel fire explosion, NOT the bright white and short duration orange of a charge.
The fuel and fireball exited the building in all directions , obviously blowing back out the same hole they went in. This is to be expected of a sudden pressurisation of a confined space. The breeched floor simply burnt and offices to the right hand side received sufficient quantity of fuel to burn.
The secondary linear explosion at 2:34 is a wet fuel fire explosion, NOT the bright white and short duration orange of a charge.
I've checked the measurements of the building calibrated to the proportions of building in frame and based on those units the impact marks exactly match the dimensions of the plane.
Your annotation at 2:15 is nonsense because you are using a black smoking window as your rightmost datum, NOT the actual rht wingtip impact point.
You can't fox me dude, I'm a professional VFX and SFX supervisor specialising in aviation and physics.
The right wingtip impact point at 6:07 is exactly the same number of vertical ribs from the building corner as the diagonal impact mark ABOVE the horizontal black line at 6.00
The right wing impact is the diagonal black line visible directly above your pink arrow when it is in its leftmost position around 6:10, NOT when you move it under the blackened window to the right .
Your secondary explosion exactly defines the impact and angle of the rightwing
@Grommo Okay you have convinced me that a 767 aircraft could have done the job. However the aircraft could well have been a 'military' 767- 200 or 767-300 aircraft. Even expert air force pilots state that such aircraft maneuvers at over 500 mph could not have been pulled off 'manually' at those low altitudes,,, especially by inexperienced pilots. This would explain the 'fishy' flight data. 'Military aircraft' also explains how transponders were precisely switched off in 'radar gaps'.
Transponder can be switched off by pulling out circuit breakers.
i know a number of qantas pilots who frequent the SSSF science forums. All of them attest that there is no difficulty at all flying those simple maneuvers.
The air is dense at low altitude and wings generate more lift and controls have more authority at low altitudes at high speed.
VNE speeds are calculated with a safety margin factored in.
Why anyone would use a "military" 767? It still has the same wing sections
@Grommo It took expert pilots ten 'tries' in their flight simulator to finally hit the tower target. Evidence on my web page reveals that the flight 11, 93 and 77 transponders were switched off within the point of 'radar gaps'. Air traffic controllers reported the activity to be similar to that of a 'military aircraft'. Besides the 'flight data discrepencies' even 7 of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive and well. It is all in my web blog . I am encouraged by your insights.
@Chidanandaji Regarding the question why would a 'military' 767 be used? If the job was an inside job....then a remote controlled military 767 would fit the bill wouldn't it? On my website, I put two references to contractors who have developed and used large, remote controlled aircraft. One site uses military 767 remote controlled aircraft.
@Grommo Now you know i stayed up all last night to do the research, so I am grateful if you'll search out those particular references on my web blog ''Digital Imaging...." or "My Thoughts on 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism"
I took the time to look at your article which verified that 767 aircrafts were used. That article indicated that military 767 aircraft could have been involved just as easily. So I went a searching for another six hours today to investigate that possibility.
@Chidanandaji I still want to thank Simon for his research. I used some of his material in my blog titled "Digital Imaging Used in TV Broadcasts of 9/11 Trade Tower Events" Just google that.
He and others have documented how specific 9/11 footage was 'transposed' with images of buildings to make them look like different shots taken from different cameras...It was obviously TV fakery.
For instance a military version of any airliner is still the same airliner with the same wing structure, same control surfaces, same fuselage. It might have a different engine but none of that changes the way it handless direction changes or high mach numbers.
The flight physics do not change.
It's just like painting up a car in pizza delivery markings and expecting it to behave differently.
The pilots weren't inexperienced. They were qualified pilots with sim time on those planes
@Grommo yes, that concept that a military aircraft could be painted up to look like a 'passenger' aircraft is conceivable....I did not reference the statements by the alleged hijackers's flight school instructors who stated that one hijacker couldn't even pass his cessna flight training. I guess the point I am making, and which you are questioning is, Could a remote guided system installed in a military 767, have made those maneuvers more successfully...or as successfully?
@Grommo And now you've given me more information to go a searching for. Here comes another few hours of investigation of 'the flight training of the alleged hijackers'
Have a read through the archived DR KARL SSSF science forum threads where pilots like Bill Sherwood, Martin Smith etc describe how easy it is to fly those paths and also hit the pentagon easily. Planes are really not hard to fly when airborne. The things that make a person not pass flight training are things like takeoffs, landing etc where you are juggling approach angles and slow stall speed .If you are not trying to fly a plane slowly then it's easy
Well a remote guidance system is a major undertaking to engineer. I know, I've made full size RC road trains (Trucks) for feature films.
During ww2 it was easy to have brainwashed japanese men in unstable planes divebomb moving narrow ships that were firing back at them and other planes trying to shoot them down and still get a good hit percentage.
So my point is that it's technically possible at enormous expense but somehow such an expensively modified plane had to be snuck into an airport and filled with passengers etc
Far easier to use cheap psyops and brainwash already fanatical anti-american religious extremists to do the dirty work!
I've narrowly avoided machine gun attacks and bombing of tourists in Egypt.
There are plenty of motivated fanatics to choose from
Additionally, if you read the SSSF pilots comments and those on any other forums you will see that the Autopilot navigational waypoint system of the planes can be altered and the plane automatically fly the appropriate path towards NY.
They then may have changed to manual control so as to fly at maximum speed and overide the autopilot's tendency to automatically avoid low altitude and VNE speeds
I think part of people's resistance to the idea that outsiders would want to attack America is many American's perception of their country as fantastic and admirable.
To I think a vast percentage of people of foreign nations there is enormous contempt towards America with the perception as a selfish greedy hoarding interfering country that spreads corrupt moral values and encourages tyranny and is totally hypocritical to its claim of high moral ground.
The so called secondary explosion is flames coming BACK out the gash left by the right wing. The right most extent of the flame at 2:36 exactly matches the wingtip gash visible at 6:10 and the angle of the flame emanating from the gash exactly matches the diagonal gash.
The top floor "explosions" are the result of the enormous pressure increase inside the building. The plane is suddenly acting like a large piston plunging into a confined space & the massive increase in air pressure is taking every available exit to equalise & release that pressure. The fire ball itself is a sudden expansion of hot gas.
The formula for decane combustion is 2 C10H22 + 31 O2 ->20 CO2 + 22 H20
That is a VAST increase in gas volume relative to the fuel
In other words, simply the fact that fuel is combusting means that there is a large increase in gas volume and thus pressure inside the building, PLUS the thermal expansion of gas already inside the building from the compression heat of the kinetic impact.
The concrete dust, smoke and flames rushed out any available exits.
Before you dish out another set of formulae - please respond using plain common sense - easily understandable by the man on the street. Do you think the exploding jet fuel could do what we can see in this video?
that's exactly what I already explained. there was a LARGE increase in pressure in the building and instantaneous production of debris, smoke and dust from the impact that was pumped by the pressure increase out all available exits.
It's like standing on a cardboard milk carton. The source of the pressure may have an initial direction of application but it acts in ALL directions, bursting outwards wherever it can.
Anyone who completes secondary school science can produce those equations.
Although I do have a university level science and engineering degree, such basic chemistry is learnt in first year chemistry class at any high school and so is extremely familiar to most people of 15 years old anywhere in the world.
At 2:20 a yellow dotted measurement is aligned across the building from the left side to the right side of the black line. But that is NOT the angle the plane hit. The black line is NOT an impact point of the right wing at all. The right wing clearly hit some floors further UP at a steeper angle and can be seen ABOVE the yellow dotted line.
At 6:18 the REAL right wing impact point can be seen higher than and an angle to the horizontal row of broken windows that emanated the line of black smoke.
The annotation that the fireball on the other side of the building being 20 floors lower is completely disingenuous or shows breathtaking ignorance of BASIC PERSPECTIVE and vanishing point.
The fireball on the other side is EXACTLY where it should be to represent a fireball coming from the same set of floors.
The angle of the gash and angle of the wings had the left wing LOWER than the right wing.
The black smoke line clearly slopes the OTHER WAY with the right side of the black line LOWER than the left line.That is ENTIRELY consistent with black smoke emanating from a line of broken windows. When the smoke ceased to emanate from that line of windows the black line was much fainter. At 6:06 a line of smoke can be seen emanating from a line of windows on THE SAME FLOOR of the adjacent face blowing up
At 6:06 A blackened window is clearly visible at the right of frame directly above the pink arrow.
It was the source of the black smoke that made the "black line" . The black line is not an attempt at falsifying a HORIZONTAL gash when obviously the wings hit at an OPPOSITE diagonal angle. The billowing of smoke on the left of the buildings CLEARLY indicate wind was blowing smoke from RIGHT to LEFT of camera. The black smoke emanating from the clearly arrowed broken window blew right to left & up
Does anyone have a link to the dubbed in images on the south tower ''fireball"?
I remember seeing an analysis somewhere, and I'd like to add it to my web page of references of digital imaging used in TV Broadcasting of 9/11 trade tower events.
The maximum hole in the wtc buildings would have been the 2 engines about 20 feet apart. Certainly not 160 to 200 plus feet. So much BS. Any idiot in 9/11 truth that ridicules those that question the 4 commercial airplanes lie is a moron at the very least.
@Exocet777 if you threw an orange at a brick wall you'd probably expect it to appear out of the other side with its peel still on and then you'd more than likely hang around waiting for the wall to fall down.
turn off your television,put your coloring books away and go and watch the original crash footage.
You should ask your friend to watch this video with great attention - and then my 90-minute September Clues research documentary. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues . info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9 11 videos show are another.
You should ask your friend to watch this video with great attention - and then my 90-minute September Clues research documentary. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues . info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another.
@cartoonplanes My friend can make the difference between a Boeing 767 and another planes and he is sure that was a Boeing. All is not as it seems in television land but this conspiracy is just crazy.
@Exocet777 what the FUCK did you just watch here in the above video...????!!!! it's OVER! ALL of the plane crash videos are frauds... your friend is crazy... there's NO wreckage at 4 plane crash sites... MIRACULOUS! bandanas and dna WERE found however!!! UNBELIEVABLY MIRACULOUS!!! where the fuck was JESUS on 9 fucking eleven is what you SHOULD be asking!!!!!! JUST ASK ALEX JONES! he can probably tell ya!
@2Xyousee You are crazy to believe in this shit and you are just a simple loser that believe on some lousy videos and rudiculous conspiracys. It is incredible that you believe it was missiles big as airplanes. My friend and all other people who was eyewitness are sure about what they saw. Alex Jones is just a crazy idiot that see conspiracy everywhere all from illuminati rules the financial market to all countrys government release cancervirus to stop the population. And you believe in him? LOL
@2Xyousee You are crazy to believe in this shit and you are just a simple loser that believe on some lousy videos and rudiculous conspiracys. It is incredible that you believe it was missiles big as airplanes. My friend and all other people who was eyewitness are sure about what they saw. Alex Jones is just a crazy idiot that see conspiracy everywhere all from illuminati rules the financial market to all countrys government release cancervirus to stop the population.And you believe in him? LOL
have you seen a plane hit a building before and know what's suppose to happen and look like? .... no you don't its new to everyone, this is it deal with it.
the woman who is filming this video + another women say - OMG IT WAS A MILITARY PLANE!!! they cut out the hit of the 2nd plane + wtc crash but forgot about that...
alot of your "explosion" is debris being flown all over the place. Imagine this. Fill a bucket with dust and sawdust. Take a windblower and aim it at the bucket and shoot just for a second. Not alot of force for along time but it causes everything to get up and move around. Essentially same effect....
there are many many holes in the "official" conspiracy theory,but there is one hole thats missing...the nose cones "exit hole",footage clearly shows the nose cone penetrate on its way in and out of the tower but later footage shows no "exit hole".and why have 2 different flight trajectories for the 2nd plane.."divebomber" or straight approach...is there any video of the engine found on murray street exiting the tower on its way out. the cgi guys have made the shills job so damn hard
@Salsuscanis What about the same building being on one side of one news footage but on the other side in another news footage when the WTC is in the exact same spot? Can buildings teleport in physics?
Hence the reason why there was smoke distributed all over the place. The wings of the plane at that speed would not shear off like some sort of cartoon clip you refer to. The impact of the wings cut through the building just like the rest of the plane did. Its pretty simple math but you retards cant even add and subtract so lets not even get into kenetic energy. As for the second explosion you refer to, that is not actually a explosion that is the continued fire ball created from the jet fuel.
@Salsuscanis Or how about airplanes coming in from different angles from all of the different news footage when the WTC is, once again, in the same spot? Physics that each news team saw different planes at once but missed the others?
@BlisterHiker why can't you answer the question ? the wreckage , it's either not there or it's incorrect . If you apply newtons 3rd law the other way round to say that the tower was moving at 360mph and the plane was stationary would the plane be sucked into the tower without any visible damage ?
I have had enough of you too , i don't even know why i'm wasting my time , you say i'm a liar so you also say Isaac Newton is a liar too . YOU'VE BEEN DEBUNKED .
@stevengreen775 the speed of the alledged "plane" is irrelevant as a hollow aluminum plane would never slice through a steel structured building in one piece & have its nose cone emerge out of the other side ( as depicted in original footage )
aluminum plane with huge mass glides through steel structured building intact...was the wtc made of butter
@BlisterHiker show me some proof then . Here's mine , Newtons 3rd Law which in simpleton terms means that the same force is subjected to both the plane and the tower at moment of impact , the plane weighing anywhere from 80,000 - 200,000kg depending on load and made from aluminium and the twin towers built from solid steel , steel reinforced concrete , complex design and built to withstand at least 2 plane impacts and winds of 100mph+ and yet there is no plane wreckage .
You are lying. There were many parts of the planes recovered around WTC, in Shanksville and Pentagon. Quick research with google is all it takes to find details and pictures.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation with ignorant liar like you.
You are clearly not interested in anything but what fits your view.
Blister... your debunking attempts of September Clues have dropped below the already abysmal stupidity of those concocted by Anthony Lawson (author of "September Clues Busted"). I have no idea what drives you to make such a fool of yourself - but I strongly suspect it is money. Why don't you just take that money and run - and leave us normal people alone? Thank you very much.
Is Blister saying the bit of the Naudet camera that records NY fire fighters testing for gas,plane impacts and resultant (not very carbon looking) explosions was working at a different frame rate and resolution to the bit that records impact silhouette formation???☺
OK. Just one thing. 4:25 was not any "Photoshoppoing" but damage done by relatively small mass of the wing. It appears at different angle than overall shape of the hole because of the building structure.
That created an effect similar to PIXELIZATION (the outer perimiter of WTC towers was a system of vertical and horizontal structers). Similar thing can be seen on the left side as well.
Ask yourself simple question: why even majority of 9/11 truthers do not buy that "no planes" bs?
All these things have been debunked already or don't even need debunking since all video and photo professionals understand why things appear that way.
There is no need for me to repeat these things.
What you see if a result of limited spatial and temporal resolution and physics of such dynamic processes.
Do some honest research, starting with the website I listed and you will find the answers, unless you already accept that conspiracy bs as the only possible explanation.
The secondary explosion your focusing on, is way above where the wings hit, you have zoomed in, not allowing us to see the correct spot which is way below that explosion, you said so yourself at the beginning that this particular explosion is way above impact zone. I only say this as I want to see good solid evidence, I believe it was an inside job but having wrong evidence & data doesnt help the cause
You proved that the video has been tampered with and that it probably wasnt a plane that blew all those holes, but there is still tons of private videos that show a plane hitting the tower. That does not mean, that charges might not have been involved.
You measure pre-photoshop 130 ft wingspan in a wrong way. The right wing tip is thin and higher. If you measure to that point, it will make 156 ft of 767 wingspin.
You can see the still intact facia upright steel between the six second post impact fire and the fire to its lower left. Who would be the optimum 9/11 main player to confront with this anomaly?
The thing is, you seem to forget all the flamable fuel on the plane. plus that fact that the video is not great quality. i admit, theres something not right about 911, but i dont think they would be so stupid to set it up.
Jesus, who is this guy? I watched all of his video, and I'm incredibly OUTRAGE that NONE OF HIS VIDEO REACH MILLION VIEWS!!! This guy is amazing! He just proved 100% 9 11 was a hoax!!!!!!!! It's amazing, a BEYOND BREAKTHROUGH. And yet, no one is seeing this? I don't understand, why is this video not famous yet? Why is not shown to the world to everyone? The logic is incredibly SOLID here!
@sephirothrikusora unfortunatley the mass media are incredibly powerful and the television is the ultimate propaganda weapon,it is only the corrupt media who stand between the myths of 9/11 and the world knowing the truth.
beware your television is a "weapon of mass distraction"
The perpetrators understand human psychology and exploit American's patriotism. The fact that so many people do not believe 9/11 was an inside job is what allow the perps to carry out their scheme with confidence.
What i dont understand is if the planes were fake how the hell do you explain all the first hand witnesses. that had said they seen actually planes crash into the towers? Explain this to me? I mean there is no way for the government to tell thousands of people to hush up about a major event like this. Would love to hear your response.
Please go to my research website ( septemberclues . info), click on ENTER SITE, then click (in the righthand sidebar) on "The Eyewitnesses". And do make sure you read the full article. Thanks!
@CapsFan315 Some saw a small plane, some a big plane, some a missile, some no planes, etc. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Andrew Johnson at ChecktheEvidence did a study of 1000s of eyewitnesses & found all are contradicting each other. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony in any court of law worthy of the name. You can never convict someone on eyewitness testimony alone. Shack & Ace Baker proved that Media lied about EVERYTHING from the Very Beginning
@CapsFan315 Maybe they were payed actors cause some people didnt freak out. They used very correct grammar. If it was me, I would of been screaming you know? and stuttering because of shock. The planes looked very fake. The air is different way up where the top of twin towers is. It is hard for a plane to literally make a unique spin to hit a tower & explode after a few seconds with seperate places exploding like at 1:30. If a plane hits a tower, then surely, it would explode on the outside.
I believe the government had something to do with this. Bill cooper a guy who said " and whatever's gonna happen that there gonna blame on osama bin ladin, dont u even believe it". This man died for exposing this. America needed oil and a big disaster such as 9/11 gave us a reason to go to war with them. Now people just have to open their eyes and really see the world! , history repeats itself so lets take action people.
Okay so you just deleted my comment. Why? I was only suggesting people check out another angle which explains the black "gash". It's smoke. See it here:
You are relentlessly promoting the 'new wave'' of fake videos purportedly "released with a FOIA act by NIST". Those 'never-before-seen-videos' are nothing but a newly rendered batch of digital animations. They feature dreadful, Playstation-style buildings, piss-poor image textures and the usual, insultingly lame soundtracks/background dialogues. Perps are not welcome on my channel - and I have every reason to believe you are one of them. Say hi to Steven Rosenbaum. Bye.
Btw - I am actually thankful for that idiotic 2010 "FOIA-release-of-never-seen-before-NIST-videos". Some of the now slightly sharper 3D animations (featuring "the burning WTC") now show even grosser rendering flaws such as this:
watch?v=dFLXXGj2m4E (stop that vid at 1min38secs - and take a good look at the northeast corner of WTC2)
That is an Ockham's razor proof of fraud - and anyone defending videos such as the above-linked as REAL is either blind, a fool or a perp.
a hollow aluminium plane flown by hijackers with pinpoint accuracy at speeds unheard of at low alt (air density) into the wtc with such force that the nose cone rips its way through the steel outer walls with ease and still has enough momentum for the wings to slice through and amazingly enough force left for the fragile tail-section to rip through the steel structured building in one piece...un-fucking-believable,
Hey Simon, great observations. But I was lead to believe that the visual damage done to the buildings were graphic overlays, cartoon-like drawings pasted onto the buildings through video editing, not necessarily caused by explosives to make it look like the shape of a plane. Don't you agree that this method is quite feasible seeing how the planes were digitally inserted as well?
@BrutalMind1984 Oh yes- absolutely. When I made "Amateur p2" I left open the possibility that this video composite partly used real footage of the WTC façade's explosion. We know better now. Either way, the bottom line remains that what we see in these images can NOT portray what we are meant to believe: "a real passenger crashing into a steel tower". This is what it comes down too - whatever techniques were employed to achieve the illusion (& the same logic applies to FOX's nose-out sequence).
@simonshack True, and since you mention the nose-out sequence, not only do we know that this is physically impossible, but I just recently came across the "elevator music" video which shows a close up of the north side of the south tower where the nose would have supposedly come out through and guess what, no exit hole, steel beams still in tact (not that I believe these images either). Do you believe we will ever get the truth across to enough people to get something done about these lies?
I think maybe the shadow jutting down to the bottom right from the blast hole at 6:09 looks like the black gash you can see, what do you think, Simonshack?
@Silkenos The unpredictable result would be the damage to the building you retard, not the plane itself.
Even so, how in the world does your ridiculous example even relate to the topic since there is no plane that crashed with its "nose fully intact" on 9/11. Are you delusional or something?
Wow some of you guys are so beyond retarded it's like your trying hard. Especially from someone who gets scared from a vibration of a violin pull... lol nice one pansy.
haahha holy shit it's 3 am in the morning... I was staring very carefully while having headphones on but not realizing that the video had no sound until 4:00 it scared the fuck out of me
@icedstar, forget the physics for a sec, some one 'drew on' a big black line, see just before 4 mins.... as that's all you got to say, you need not reply ; )
@stalinka86 please explain in plain english how the 30ft short plane silhouette in WTC1 formed from the right wing tip SIX SECONDS+ after alleged F11 completely entered the building!
Whatever the truth about the plane (or no plane), one thing is for sure: that building was demolished, along with the other two. Denying it is serious disrespect for honest people whose job it is to demolish buildings in this country and elsewhere.
And as for note about disinformation at the end, you really need to take a look at what belief sect of the truth movement the media portrays all truthers as being. It's YOU hologram/live video edit guys! So if what you are saying is true about the media, you just told everyone not to believe a word you preach a long with all others like you. Your denseness and bias is amazing. You don't even realize that you called yourself out as being a disinfo puppet. Any sensible truther won't spread this.
@TheAgingGamers surely the main point here is that the Naudet 9/11 film shows, six seconds after alleged f11 total immersion into all that steel and concrete, a small fire appears in unmarked alleged impact side facia, this then grows to form the 30ft short , clearly faked, silhouette??
at 3:50 you can tell and see that the windows blew out from either secondary explosion or the heat. It is obvious since a prefect rectangle blows out and is unlike all the other damage. You clearly see it in an abundance of videos and photos available that. To assume it was painted in at all is absurd and shows that you lack the adequate unbiased logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills to be doing this. You push people from the truth movement and those you convince you lead the wrong way.
@TheAgingGamers At 6:00 You show two different views from different angles of the same thing, except lots of black smoke is coming out of it. Looks about right to me coming from that angle with a industrial grade super telephoto video camera. The part of the building is closer the other part is not. There is distortion but not really much at all. Less than I thought there would be. You matched them up and you can't even see it. I do film, and 3d animation, effects & compositing. I don't buy it.
@TheAgingGamers just a note it was just windows that fell out but the bar panneling too, you can see photos of this in different states of disarray and detachment. You can see the progression from the pictures you show at 6:00 show before the panneling after the panneling was falling. Something tells me you will not see it though. I believe it was an inside job, but this is ridiculous.
3:33 actually you lied. It is covered in smoke and there is and was a lot of white stuff flying out from what you say is solid building. But if you look even closer you just wait until the smoke clears enough to look like the building to people who aren't paying proper attention, when it is obvious that there is still smoke along that stretch you claim to be the wall. Thats not cool bro, some of us want the real truth to come out you know.
@TheAgingGamers You waited for the orange glow to go away on part of the smoke so that it looks like a lot of wall, you then proceded to draw a line above that through orange fire/smoke? wtf dude are you serious. over half your line was drawn through the smokey right side of that fire ball, the other half through a lighter grey smoke. That really is not cool. Also use better video as your source and don't shrink or compress it, upload in hd regardless. So blurry I don't think u did it purposely
The Elite and powerful people did it, but they also started all the false versions of the truth movement. Everyone is an expert now and they count on crap like this to stop the more reasonably minded potential skeptics from becoming truthers altogether.
Meanwhile they suck in all the people without minimal critical thinking and unbiased investigative skills into one pot, the wrong pot, where they want you. Two sides, two mascots, normal people and the crazy halogram/live video edit truthers.
Seriously how can people take you seriously after just the beginning of the video, they should know. You called it pure chance, you are obviously unreasonably biased. Which greatly effects critical thinking.
To an unbiased person, they were among the most prepared to that day to capture that on film, on top of that, there are a lot of filmmakers in NY.
I am surprised by the lack of videos given the amount of tourists, artists and population density. I do think it was an inside job though.
@mistrbrwn er, so how do you account for the lost SIX SECONDS between plane melding into tower and 30ft short silhouette forming pray?(sssssch everyone☺)
The silhouette formed SIX SECONDS late fact, clear proof of fakery but the exta bit on the right might have been mystery black smoke coming from a window , there's another youtube kicking around showing this methinks.
@gtfo9999 Well, If I wanted people to believe that all debunks ar poor, I wouldn't post links like that. It's common sense, you know :). But IMO this attempt to debunk this video is prett damn bad :). Very few people actually did debunk SOME aspects of SC correctly.
very interesting but i cant say for sure i'm skeptical about both side of this argument: perhaps this footage was doctored but it is harder to prove that the whole thing is a hoax
fact is noone has ever before seen what happens when an airliner hits a giant building. furthermore noone knows what explosive material was in the building. id imagine a jet engine on a wing would explode...and probably has the destructive capacity to tear through a dozen floors of flooring when travelling at such a high speed. all this said perhaps it was an inside job..im very open to the idea, but until someone builds an exact replica and flies a plane into it. im not believing anything.
@Dyltreeno If the 'plane' managed to enter the building, then where are the wing marks after impact? The marks from the engines? The engines are the heaviest part of the plane. They would have left significant marks on the building on impact, but as can clearly be seen, there are is no damage where the wings would have been until the second explosion some 6 seconds after impact. This is undeniable proof that a plane did not hit this buildings as is supposed to have happened.
@Kalecgos65 sorry I don't follow, should a hole in something form immediately or form several seconds after that something has been penetrated by a flying object as appears to happen in the above video? why do the ms media not investigate this apparent anomaly?
@diosmio99 It's unpredictable, the walls on that building are much thicker than they appear. It takes a bit of time for heat to transfer and actually form a "black gash" on a massive building like this.
How in the world can you just assume that it "should" happen immediately? There is no physics that proves this? The angle in which the video was shot only shows a 2Demensional shot, you don't see the other end of the building or how long it took for the "black gash" to form on the other end.
You must be intrigued by this analysis, Kalecgos65 - since you have it as a main feature on your (almost empty)channel. On my side, I am intrigued by your bizarre understanding of physics and dearly hope you are not an engineer of some sort. Oh wait, perhaps you have a plum job at NIST! :O)
Y don't u's tell us da twins weren't & no one mass murdere
Tapper7765 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXTREMELY FAKE AND INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS...
now in select theaters...
2Xyousee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grommo Long ago, CIA had infiltrated these ''terror groups''. I even read an article where known Al CIAda members, being detained at the border without proper visas, were ushered through by CIA agents. It is also well known that these alleged hijackers were under FBI surveillance and even had an FBI landlord. So, in my estimation it is very feasible that fundamentalists could be funded, armed, and trained under the auspices of CIA agent/infiltrators. I am going to google CIA/Al Qaeda
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
Comment removed
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
Comment removed
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
Sorry simon. But you are going to have to try harder than that .
Your video is easily debunked and is rather childish .
Will you have the integrity to leave my comments up and write a written carefully reasoned response? I have made copies of my comments and forwarded them to a number of prominent 911 truthers.
Grommo 2 months ago
@Grommo Firstly, it would be good if you addressed ALL the points raised in my video analysis. For you to say it is 'easily debunked' on the strength of one single, ancillary point of your choice is not intellectually correct. I will list all those points in my next comment. For now I have one question related to your argument: what exactly would have caused the fire in that rightmost office of the WTC - since the rightmost wingtip appears to have hit nowhere near that spot? (see 3:04 )
simonshack 2 months ago 4
@simonshack The right wingtip impacted the building considerably above the black line of smoke. The right engine and wing tanks penetrated the same area.
the wing did NOT hit horizontally like the black smoke line but at an angle, breeching multiple floors and spilling fuel into multiple floors.
The energy of the impact and inrushing fuel pressurised the inside of the building causing windows to pop outwards and clouds of smoke and dust to burst outwards in multiple directions.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
The fuel and fireball exited the building in all directions , obviously blowing back out the same hole they went in. This is to be expected of a sudden pressurisation of a confined space. The breeched floor simply burnt and offices to the right hand side received sufficient quantity of fuel to burn.
The secondary linear explosion at 2:34 is a wet fuel fire explosion, NOT the bright white and short duration orange of a charge.
Grommo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simonshack
The fuel and fireball exited the building in all directions , obviously blowing back out the same hole they went in. This is to be expected of a sudden pressurisation of a confined space. The breeched floor simply burnt and offices to the right hand side received sufficient quantity of fuel to burn.
The secondary linear explosion at 2:34 is a wet fuel fire explosion, NOT the bright white and short duration orange of a charge.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
I've checked the measurements of the building calibrated to the proportions of building in frame and based on those units the impact marks exactly match the dimensions of the plane.
Your annotation at 2:15 is nonsense because you are using a black smoking window as your rightmost datum, NOT the actual rht wingtip impact point.
You can't fox me dude, I'm a professional VFX and SFX supervisor specialising in aviation and physics.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
The right wingtip impact point at 6:07 is exactly the same number of vertical ribs from the building corner as the diagonal impact mark ABOVE the horizontal black line at 6.00
The right wing impact is the diagonal black line visible directly above your pink arrow when it is in its leftmost position around 6:10, NOT when you move it under the blackened window to the right .
Your secondary explosion exactly defines the impact and angle of the rightwing
Grommo 2 months ago
@Grommo Okay you have convinced me that a 767 aircraft could have done the job. However the aircraft could well have been a 'military' 767- 200 or 767-300 aircraft. Even expert air force pilots state that such aircraft maneuvers at over 500 mph could not have been pulled off 'manually' at those low altitudes,,, especially by inexperienced pilots. This would explain the 'fishy' flight data. 'Military aircraft' also explains how transponders were precisely switched off in 'radar gaps'.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
Transponder can be switched off by pulling out circuit breakers.
i know a number of qantas pilots who frequent the SSSF science forums. All of them attest that there is no difficulty at all flying those simple maneuvers.
The air is dense at low altitude and wings generate more lift and controls have more authority at low altitudes at high speed.
VNE speeds are calculated with a safety margin factored in.
Why anyone would use a "military" 767? It still has the same wing sections
Grommo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Grommo It took expert pilots ten 'tries' in their flight simulator to finally hit the tower target. Evidence on my web page reveals that the flight 11, 93 and 77 transponders were switched off within the point of 'radar gaps'. Air traffic controllers reported the activity to be similar to that of a 'military aircraft'. Besides the 'flight data discrepencies' even 7 of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive and well. It is all in my web blog . I am encouraged by your insights.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji Regarding the question why would a 'military' 767 be used? If the job was an inside job....then a remote controlled military 767 would fit the bill wouldn't it? On my website, I put two references to contractors who have developed and used large, remote controlled aircraft. One site uses military 767 remote controlled aircraft.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Grommo Now you know i stayed up all last night to do the research, so I am grateful if you'll search out those particular references on my web blog ''Digital Imaging...." or "My Thoughts on 9/11 and False Flag Terrorism"
I took the time to look at your article which verified that 767 aircrafts were used. That article indicated that military 767 aircraft could have been involved just as easily. So I went a searching for another six hours today to investigate that possibility.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji I still want to thank Simon for his research. I used some of his material in my blog titled "Digital Imaging Used in TV Broadcasts of 9/11 Trade Tower Events" Just google that.
He and others have documented how specific 9/11 footage was 'transposed' with images of buildings to make them look like different shots taken from different cameras...It was obviously TV fakery.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
For instance a military version of any airliner is still the same airliner with the same wing structure, same control surfaces, same fuselage. It might have a different engine but none of that changes the way it handless direction changes or high mach numbers.
The flight physics do not change.
It's just like painting up a car in pizza delivery markings and expecting it to behave differently.
The pilots weren't inexperienced. They were qualified pilots with sim time on those planes
Grommo 2 months ago
@Grommo yes, that concept that a military aircraft could be painted up to look like a 'passenger' aircraft is conceivable....I did not reference the statements by the alleged hijackers's flight school instructors who stated that one hijacker couldn't even pass his cessna flight training. I guess the point I am making, and which you are questioning is, Could a remote guided system installed in a military 767, have made those maneuvers more successfully...or as successfully?
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Grommo And now you've given me more information to go a searching for. Here comes another few hours of investigation of 'the flight training of the alleged hijackers'
LOL
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
My pleasure Bill.
Have a read through the archived DR KARL SSSF science forum threads where pilots like Bill Sherwood, Martin Smith etc describe how easy it is to fly those paths and also hit the pentagon easily. Planes are really not hard to fly when airborne. The things that make a person not pass flight training are things like takeoffs, landing etc where you are juggling approach angles and slow stall speed .If you are not trying to fly a plane slowly then it's easy
Grommo 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
Well a remote guidance system is a major undertaking to engineer. I know, I've made full size RC road trains (Trucks) for feature films.
During ww2 it was easy to have brainwashed japanese men in unstable planes divebomb moving narrow ships that were firing back at them and other planes trying to shoot them down and still get a good hit percentage.
These building weren't moving nor firing back
Grommo 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
So my point is that it's technically possible at enormous expense but somehow such an expensively modified plane had to be snuck into an airport and filled with passengers etc
Far easier to use cheap psyops and brainwash already fanatical anti-american religious extremists to do the dirty work!
I've narrowly avoided machine gun attacks and bombing of tourists in Egypt.
There are plenty of motivated fanatics to choose from
Grommo 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
Additionally, if you read the SSSF pilots comments and those on any other forums you will see that the Autopilot navigational waypoint system of the planes can be altered and the plane automatically fly the appropriate path towards NY.
They then may have changed to manual control so as to fly at maximum speed and overide the autopilot's tendency to automatically avoid low altitude and VNE speeds
Grommo 2 months ago
@Chidanandaji
I think part of people's resistance to the idea that outsiders would want to attack America is many American's perception of their country as fantastic and admirable.
To I think a vast percentage of people of foreign nations there is enormous contempt towards America with the perception as a selfish greedy hoarding interfering country that spreads corrupt moral values and encourages tyranny and is totally hypocritical to its claim of high moral ground.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
The so called secondary explosion is flames coming BACK out the gash left by the right wing. The right most extent of the flame at 2:36 exactly matches the wingtip gash visible at 6:10 and the angle of the flame emanating from the gash exactly matches the diagonal gash.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
The top floor "explosions" are the result of the enormous pressure increase inside the building. The plane is suddenly acting like a large piston plunging into a confined space & the massive increase in air pressure is taking every available exit to equalise & release that pressure. The fire ball itself is a sudden expansion of hot gas.
The formula for decane combustion is 2 C10H22 + 31 O2 ->20 CO2 + 22 H20
That is a VAST increase in gas volume relative to the fuel
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack 2 C10H22 + 31 O2 ->20 CO2 + 22 H20
In other words, simply the fact that fuel is combusting means that there is a large increase in gas volume and thus pressure inside the building, PLUS the thermal expansion of gas already inside the building from the compression heat of the kinetic impact.
The concrete dust, smoke and flames rushed out any available exits.
Grommo 2 months ago
@Grommo
Nice formula : "2 C10H22 + 31 O2 ->20 CO2 + 22 H20"
You must be a trained physicist. How impressive, Grommo!
So is that the case also for the fireball seen at 1:40 ?
And for the smoke exiting the top floors at 1:45?
Before you dish out another set of formulae - please respond using plain common sense - easily understandable by the man on the street. Do you think the exploding jet fuel could do what we can see in this video?
simonshack 2 months ago
@simonshack
that's exactly what I already explained. there was a LARGE increase in pressure in the building and instantaneous production of debris, smoke and dust from the impact that was pumped by the pressure increase out all available exits.
It's like standing on a cardboard milk carton. The source of the pressure may have an initial direction of application but it acts in ALL directions, bursting outwards wherever it can.
Grommo 2 months ago
@simonshack
""2 C10H22 + 31 O2 ->20 CO2 + 22 H20"
You must be a trained physicist."
Anyone who completes secondary school science can produce those equations.
Although I do have a university level science and engineering degree, such basic chemistry is learnt in first year chemistry class at any high school and so is extremely familiar to most people of 15 years old anywhere in the world.
It is very low level BASIC chemistry.
Grommo 2 months ago
At 2:20 a yellow dotted measurement is aligned across the building from the left side to the right side of the black line. But that is NOT the angle the plane hit. The black line is NOT an impact point of the right wing at all. The right wing clearly hit some floors further UP at a steeper angle and can be seen ABOVE the yellow dotted line.
At 6:18 the REAL right wing impact point can be seen higher than and an angle to the horizontal row of broken windows that emanated the line of black smoke.
Grommo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The annotation that the fireball on the other side of the building being 20 floors lower is completely disingenuous or shows breathtaking ignorance of BASIC PERSPECTIVE and vanishing point.
The fireball on the other side is EXACTLY where it should be to represent a fireball coming from the same set of floors.
4DOTbpDOTblogspotDOTcom/_KWlt7wwdsyA/TBMU7MEyfEI/AAAAAAAAAL8/5vMH5dl0VeM/s400/Exercise+9_2-3+Point+Prespective.jpg
Grommo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Grommo 2 months ago
The angle of the gash and angle of the wings had the left wing LOWER than the right wing.
The black smoke line clearly slopes the OTHER WAY with the right side of the black line LOWER than the left line.That is ENTIRELY consistent with black smoke emanating from a line of broken windows. When the smoke ceased to emanate from that line of windows the black line was much fainter. At 6:06 a line of smoke can be seen emanating from a line of windows on THE SAME FLOOR of the adjacent face blowing up
Grommo 2 months ago
At 6:06 A blackened window is clearly visible at the right of frame directly above the pink arrow.
It was the source of the black smoke that made the "black line" . The black line is not an attempt at falsifying a HORIZONTAL gash when obviously the wings hit at an OPPOSITE diagonal angle. The billowing of smoke on the left of the buildings CLEARLY indicate wind was blowing smoke from RIGHT to LEFT of camera. The black smoke emanating from the clearly arrowed broken window blew right to left & up
Grommo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does anyone have a link to the dubbed in images on the south tower ''fireball"?
I remember seeing an analysis somewhere, and I'd like to add it to my web page of references of digital imaging used in TV Broadcasting of 9/11 trade tower events.
Chidanandaji 2 months ago
The maximum hole in the wtc buildings would have been the 2 engines about 20 feet apart. Certainly not 160 to 200 plus feet. So much BS. Any idiot in 9/11 truth that ridicules those that question the 4 commercial airplanes lie is a moron at the very least.
TruthInjector 3 months ago
goood very good, crap bush.
papoulos2 3 months ago in playlist 9/11 Truth
One of the best analyses on YT, very convincing and logical! keep it up, simonshack!!
sadnane 4 months ago in playlist sadnane's favorites
This is tremendous new information. Astounding. What liars they are. I enjoy your use of music in these videos, by the way.
DivineFellowship 5 months ago
@Exocet777 if you threw an orange at a brick wall you'd probably expect it to appear out of the other side with its peel still on and then you'd more than likely hang around waiting for the wall to fall down.
turn off your television,put your coloring books away and go and watch the original crash footage.
cartoonplanes 5 months ago 4
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video with great attention - and then my 90-minute September Clues research documentary.
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another. All the 9/11 videos (without exception) are by now proven fakes.
septemberclues.info
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video with great attention - and then my 90-minute September Clues research documentary. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues . info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9 11 videos show are another.
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video with great attention - and then my 90-minute September Clues research documentary. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues . info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another.
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video - and September Clues. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues . info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another.
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video - and September Clues. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues .info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another.
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777
You should ask your friend to watch this video - and September Clues. He may then be interested in reading the research at septemberclues.info
What he saw is one thing. What the 9/11 videos show are another.
simonshack 5 months ago
@Exocet777 look in the mirror and tell your "friend" all is not as it seems in television land
cartoonplanes 5 months ago
@cartoonplanes My friend can make the difference between a Boeing 767 and another planes and he is sure that was a Boeing. All is not as it seems in television land but this conspiracy is just crazy.
Exocet777 5 months ago
2Xyousee 5 months ago
@2Xyousee You are crazy to believe in this shit and you are just a simple loser that believe on some lousy videos and rudiculous conspiracys. It is incredible that you believe it was missiles big as airplanes. My friend and all other people who was eyewitness are sure about what they saw. Alex Jones is just a crazy idiot that see conspiracy everywhere all from illuminati rules the financial market to all countrys government release cancervirus to stop the population. And you believe in him? LOL
Exocet777 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2Xyousee You are crazy to believe in this shit and you are just a simple loser that believe on some lousy videos and rudiculous conspiracys. It is incredible that you believe it was missiles big as airplanes. My friend and all other people who was eyewitness are sure about what they saw. Alex Jones is just a crazy idiot that see conspiracy everywhere all from illuminati rules the financial market to all countrys government release cancervirus to stop the population.And you believe in him? LOL
Exocet777 5 months ago
Ummmm guys I was there. I Hell, I was young but I saw a big fucking plane hit the tower. Nuff said.
monsterjamkid 5 months ago
have you seen a plane hit a building before and know what's suppose to happen and look like? .... no you don't its new to everyone, this is it deal with it.
pause112 5 months ago in playlist photoshop911
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL
SEPTEMBER FOOLS DAY COUNTDOWN PAGE...
we will all watch WAG THE DOG to commemorate the 10 year SCAMIVERSARY...
CGI B.S. footage aired by mass media is NOT terror!
it's a HIGH CRIME...
hang the media moguls and heads of ALL "intelligence' agencies...
THEY ARE TRAUMATIZING US FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
get FUCKING ANGRY!
2Xyousee 5 months ago
no it`s 12:15
SuperYesyesyo 5 months ago
the woman who is filming this video + another women say - OMG IT WAS A MILITARY PLANE!!! they cut out the hit of the 2nd plane + wtc crash but forgot about that...
watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk
2:15
and i think between 7:40-8:00 you can see the controlled demolition on the front tower..
SuperYesyesyo 5 months ago
Fantastic Vid
bobsurgranny 5 months ago
alot of your "explosion" is debris being flown all over the place. Imagine this. Fill a bucket with dust and sawdust. Take a windblower and aim it at the bucket and shoot just for a second. Not alot of force for along time but it causes everything to get up and move around. Essentially same effect....
64notorious 5 months ago
there are many many holes in the "official" conspiracy theory,but there is one hole thats missing...the nose cones "exit hole",footage clearly shows the nose cone penetrate on its way in and out of the tower but later footage shows no "exit hole".and why have 2 different flight trajectories for the 2nd plane.."divebomber" or straight approach...is there any video of the engine found on murray street exiting the tower on its way out. the cgi guys have made the shills job so damn hard
cartoonplanes 8 months ago
@Salsuscanis Also, whether it was just a continued fire ball from fuel or a second explosion, it surely wasn't the "wing" that created it.
douchiedude 9 months ago
@Salsuscanis What about the same building being on one side of one news footage but on the other side in another news footage when the WTC is in the exact same spot? Can buildings teleport in physics?
douchiedude 9 months ago
@BlisterHiker 911 truthers!!!
baaa! baaaa!!
infowars...alex jonestown....
YOU ARE LOOKING AT VIDEO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD...
it has been forensically disected and PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT IS FABRICATED CRAP....what;s your problem???
the building is still INTACT at the point where the wings were supposed to have gone through!!!!
OVER....PROVEN FAKE RIGHT HERE before your eyes...
if you can't see it and bear to comprehend it, you're in an
ORWELLIAN FUCKING MIND LOCK!!!
wsee 9 months ago
Hence the reason why there was smoke distributed all over the place. The wings of the plane at that speed would not shear off like some sort of cartoon clip you refer to. The impact of the wings cut through the building just like the rest of the plane did. Its pretty simple math but you retards cant even add and subtract so lets not even get into kenetic energy. As for the second explosion you refer to, that is not actually a explosion that is the continued fire ball created from the jet fuel.
Salsuscanis 9 months ago 2
@Salsuscanis Or how about airplanes coming in from different angles from all of the different news footage when the WTC is, once again, in the same spot? Physics that each news team saw different planes at once but missed the others?
douchiedude 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
debunking 911 . com . If you fancy a laugh check it out .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
@BlisterHiker why can't you answer the question ? the wreckage , it's either not there or it's incorrect . If you apply newtons 3rd law the other way round to say that the tower was moving at 360mph and the plane was stationary would the plane be sucked into the tower without any visible damage ?
I have had enough of you too , i don't even know why i'm wasting my time , you say i'm a liar so you also say Isaac Newton is a liar too . YOU'VE BEEN DEBUNKED .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
@stevengreen775 the speed of the alledged "plane" is irrelevant as a hollow aluminum plane would never slice through a steel structured building in one piece & have its nose cone emerge out of the other side ( as depicted in original footage )
aluminum plane with huge mass glides through steel structured building intact...was the wtc made of butter
cartoonplanes 9 months ago
@cartoonplanes that's what i thought . if you ask a debunker to explain the lack of or incorrect wreckage they have no answer .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh well mr blisterhiker , blocking me does not answer my questions i asked you so i take it from that you can't answer them .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
@stevengreen775
No planes magically disappeared on 9/11.
You people have to learn the difference between typical airplane crashes and high speed impacts nose down at the ground or the building.
Physics of such events makes the results quite different from what you, "experts" expect.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
Comment removed
stevengreen775 9 months ago
@BlisterHiker show me some proof then . Here's mine , Newtons 3rd Law which in simpleton terms means that the same force is subjected to both the plane and the tower at moment of impact , the plane weighing anywhere from 80,000 - 200,000kg depending on load and made from aluminium and the twin towers built from solid steel , steel reinforced concrete , complex design and built to withstand at least 2 plane impacts and winds of 100mph+ and yet there is no plane wreckage .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
"yet there is no plane wreckage "
@stevengreen775
You are lying. There were many parts of the planes recovered around WTC, in Shanksville and Pentagon. Quick research with google is all it takes to find details and pictures.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation with ignorant liar like you.
You are clearly not interested in anything but what fits your view.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
@BlisterHiker
Blister... your debunking attempts of September Clues have dropped below the already abysmal stupidity of those concocted by Anthony Lawson (author of "September Clues Busted"). I have no idea what drives you to make such a fool of yourself - but I strongly suspect it is money. Why don't you just take that money and run - and leave us normal people alone? Thank you very much.
simonshack 9 months ago
@simonshack
Unless you stop lying about WTC 1 impact and other things, we really have nothing to talk about.
Many websites and people exposed those lies you parrot, and again, even mainstream 9/11 CTs reject such delusions.
Bye.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
If this video gets seen by the right people, it will eventually be discussed in history textbooks
zootallurez 9 months ago
military planes..any volenteers for a suicde mission?..thought not,
remote planes...can't risk them missing there target and crashing into the streets of NY for the watching world to see...
the only panes guarenteed to hit there targets and leave no tell tale wreckage were cgi planes
cartoonplanes 9 months ago
Dude, subscribed.
P4trykos94 9 months ago
Is Blister saying the bit of the Naudet camera that records NY fire fighters testing for gas,plane impacts and resultant (not very carbon looking) explosions was working at a different frame rate and resolution to the bit that records impact silhouette formation???☺
MarkB1ngham 10 months ago
@simonshack
OK. Just one thing. 4:25 was not any "Photoshoppoing" but damage done by relatively small mass of the wing. It appears at different angle than overall shape of the hole because of the building structure.
That created an effect similar to PIXELIZATION (the outer perimiter of WTC towers was a system of vertical and horizontal structers). Similar thing can be seen on the left side as well.
Ask yourself simple question: why even majority of 9/11 truthers do not buy that "no planes" bs?
BlisterHiker 10 months ago
Dear simonshack,
All these things have been debunked already or don't even need debunking since all video and photo professionals understand why things appear that way.
There is no need for me to repeat these things.
What you see if a result of limited spatial and temporal resolution and physics of such dynamic processes.
Do some honest research, starting with the website I listed and you will find the answers, unless you already accept that conspiracy bs as the only possible explanation.
BlisterHiker 10 months ago
The secondary explosion your focusing on, is way above where the wings hit, you have zoomed in, not allowing us to see the correct spot which is way below that explosion, you said so yourself at the beginning that this particular explosion is way above impact zone. I only say this as I want to see good solid evidence, I believe it was an inside job but having wrong evidence & data doesnt help the cause
PistolC 10 months ago
like it, this is a stunning job of observation !!
meo109 10 months ago
Linear explosives don't make flames. They make booms and bright flashes of light. Not flames.
Secondly, the black area that you're seeing is smoke and flames coming from the towers. That is what happens when shit burns.
NWOiAM 10 months ago
You proved that the video has been tampered with and that it probably wasnt a plane that blew all those holes, but there is still tons of private videos that show a plane hitting the tower. That does not mean, that charges might not have been involved.
cassius969 10 months ago
You measure pre-photoshop 130 ft wingspan in a wrong way. The right wing tip is thin and higher. If you measure to that point, it will make 156 ft of 767 wingspin.
The was no reason to "photoshop"
yasenpen 11 months ago
You can see the still intact facia upright steel between the six second post impact fire and the fire to its lower left. Who would be the optimum 9/11 main player to confront with this anomaly?
MarkB1ngham 11 months ago
The thing is, you seem to forget all the flamable fuel on the plane. plus that fact that the video is not great quality. i admit, theres something not right about 911, but i dont think they would be so stupid to set it up.
MATTNATTMATT 11 months ago
Jesus, who is this guy? I watched all of his video, and I'm incredibly OUTRAGE that NONE OF HIS VIDEO REACH MILLION VIEWS!!! This guy is amazing! He just proved 100% 9 11 was a hoax!!!!!!!! It's amazing, a BEYOND BREAKTHROUGH. And yet, no one is seeing this? I don't understand, why is this video not famous yet? Why is not shown to the world to everyone? The logic is incredibly SOLID here!
sephirothrikusora 1 year ago 27
@sephirothrikusora unfortunatley the mass media are incredibly powerful and the television is the ultimate propaganda weapon,it is only the corrupt media who stand between the myths of 9/11 and the world knowing the truth.
beware your television is a "weapon of mass distraction"
cartoonplanes 11 months ago
The perpetrators understand human psychology and exploit American's patriotism. The fact that so many people do not believe 9/11 was an inside job is what allow the perps to carry out their scheme with confidence.
donguinto 1 year ago
kryptonite+tiberium enriched fuel!
freitasnetuno 1 year ago
assuming this was all true, how do you explain the missing planes, the missing passangers, the phone calls from Flight 93?
dorminas22 1 year ago
@dorminas22
If you are truly interested in this issue, please take a sunday off - and read all the articles at my website:
septemberclues . info (remove spaces)
Thanks ! :O)
simonshack 1 year ago
@dorminas22 this has been dealt with many times. its not a rebuttal. it can all be done
thisisyourwakeup 8 months ago
What i dont understand is if the planes were fake how the hell do you explain all the first hand witnesses. that had said they seen actually planes crash into the towers? Explain this to me? I mean there is no way for the government to tell thousands of people to hush up about a major event like this. Would love to hear your response.
CapsFan315 1 year ago
@CapsFan315
Please go to my research website ( septemberclues . info), click on ENTER SITE, then click (in the righthand sidebar) on "The Eyewitnesses". And do make sure you read the full article. Thanks!
simonshack 1 year ago
@CapsFan315 Some saw a small plane, some a big plane, some a missile, some no planes, etc. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Andrew Johnson at ChecktheEvidence did a study of 1000s of eyewitnesses & found all are contradicting each other. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony in any court of law worthy of the name. You can never convict someone on eyewitness testimony alone. Shack & Ace Baker proved that Media lied about EVERYTHING from the Very Beginning
metamorphosis67 1 year ago
@CapsFan315 Maybe they were payed actors cause some people didnt freak out. They used very correct grammar. If it was me, I would of been screaming you know? and stuttering because of shock. The planes looked very fake. The air is different way up where the top of twin towers is. It is hard for a plane to literally make a unique spin to hit a tower & explode after a few seconds with seperate places exploding like at 1:30. If a plane hits a tower, then surely, it would explode on the outside.
Syaaj17 5 months ago
omfg.. 4:01 scared the shit out of me lol... all silent.. then the low note of piano key plays XD
Syaaj17 5 months ago
I believe the government had something to do with this. Bill cooper a guy who said " and whatever's gonna happen that there gonna blame on osama bin ladin, dont u even believe it". This man died for exposing this. America needed oil and a big disaster such as 9/11 gave us a reason to go to war with them. Now people just have to open their eyes and really see the world! , history repeats itself so lets take action people.
Roycee29 1 year ago 2
Okay so you just deleted my comment. Why? I was only suggesting people check out another angle which explains the black "gash". It's smoke. See it here:
watch?v=wZJXNdhkhCY
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
You are relentlessly promoting the 'new wave'' of fake videos purportedly "released with a FOIA act by NIST". Those 'never-before-seen-videos' are nothing but a newly rendered batch of digital animations. They feature dreadful, Playstation-style buildings, piss-poor image textures and the usual, insultingly lame soundtracks/background dialogues. Perps are not welcome on my channel - and I have every reason to believe you are one of them. Say hi to Steven Rosenbaum. Bye.
simonshack 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
Btw - I am actually thankful for that idiotic 2010 "FOIA-release-of-never-seen-before-NIST-videos". Some of the now slightly sharper 3D animations (featuring "the burning WTC") now show even grosser rendering flaws such as this:
watch?v=dFLXXGj2m4E (stop that vid at 1min38secs - and take a good look at the northeast corner of WTC2)
That is an Ockham's razor proof of fraud - and anyone defending videos such as the above-linked as REAL is either blind, a fool or a perp.
simonshack 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
existenceisfake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I watched SC. Why did you delete my comments?
existenceisfake 1 year ago
a hollow aluminium plane flown by hijackers with pinpoint accuracy at speeds unheard of at low alt (air density) into the wtc with such force that the nose cone rips its way through the steel outer walls with ease and still has enough momentum for the wings to slice through and amazingly enough force left for the fragile tail-section to rip through the steel structured building in one piece...un-fucking-believable,
cartoonplanes 1 year ago 13
@cartoonplanes
Yup - "un-fucking believable" I would say ! :O)
Thanks for your intelligent comment. Let's shove this hoax out of our lives, once and for all.
simonshack 1 year ago
@cartoonplanes well fuckin said . thumbs up .
stevengreen775 9 months ago
Hey Simon, great observations. But I was lead to believe that the visual damage done to the buildings were graphic overlays, cartoon-like drawings pasted onto the buildings through video editing, not necessarily caused by explosives to make it look like the shape of a plane. Don't you agree that this method is quite feasible seeing how the planes were digitally inserted as well?
BrutalMind1984 1 year ago
@BrutalMind1984 Oh yes- absolutely. When I made "Amateur p2" I left open the possibility that this video composite partly used real footage of the WTC façade's explosion. We know better now. Either way, the bottom line remains that what we see in these images can NOT portray what we are meant to believe: "a real passenger crashing into a steel tower". This is what it comes down too - whatever techniques were employed to achieve the illusion (& the same logic applies to FOX's nose-out sequence).
simonshack 1 year ago
@simonshack True, and since you mention the nose-out sequence, not only do we know that this is physically impossible, but I just recently came across the "elevator music" video which shows a close up of the north side of the south tower where the nose would have supposedly come out through and guess what, no exit hole, steel beams still in tact (not that I believe these images either). Do you believe we will ever get the truth across to enough people to get something done about these lies?
BrutalMind1984 1 year ago
I think maybe the shadow jutting down to the bottom right from the blast hole at 6:09 looks like the black gash you can see, what do you think, Simonshack?
luke72801 1 year ago
I think maybe the shadow jutting down to the bottome right from the blast hole looks like the black gash you can see, what do you think, Simonshack?
luke72801 1 year ago
I shat myself at 4:00
luke72801 1 year ago
Maybe the bullet that blew Kennedy's head off impacted six seconds earlier, I'll go and check the Zapruder footage on youtube ☺
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
@Kalecgos65 would such an unpredictable result be a plane that pierces through a building with its nose fully intact?
Silkenos 1 year ago
@Silkenos The unpredictable result would be the damage to the building you retard, not the plane itself.
Even so, how in the world does your ridiculous example even relate to the topic since there is no plane that crashed with its "nose fully intact" on 9/11. Are you delusional or something?
Wow some of you guys are so beyond retarded it's like your trying hard. Especially from someone who gets scared from a vibration of a violin pull... lol nice one pansy.
Kalecgos65 1 year ago
@Kalecgos65 I was being ironical >_<.. check out the "nose out" shot from episode B of "september clues" from the same channel, minute 5:22
Silkenos 1 year ago
@Kalecgos65 wait not episode B... its A
Silkenos 1 year ago
haahha holy shit it's 3 am in the morning... I was staring very carefully while having headphones on but not realizing that the video had no sound until 4:00 it scared the fuck out of me
Silkenos 1 year ago
What if....we did this all over again
Build a wall/ building just like world trade center and flyed a plan into it?
then could we compared
KimIrfanTV 1 year ago
the sound on 4:00 scared the hell out of me
i was tunring up the sounds since here where no sound...the suddenly BAAAM
rofl
brb, need to change pants
KimIrfanTV 1 year ago
I am sorry, but this is SCARY
BillyBoysing 1 year ago
@icedstar, forget the physics for a sec, some one 'drew on' a big black line, see just before 4 mins.... as that's all you got to say, you need not reply ; )
technogong 1 year ago
@stalinka86 please explain in plain english how the 30ft short plane silhouette in WTC1 formed from the right wing tip SIX SECONDS+ after alleged F11 completely entered the building!
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
Whatever the truth about the plane (or no plane), one thing is for sure: that building was demolished, along with the other two. Denying it is serious disrespect for honest people whose job it is to demolish buildings in this country and elsewhere.
trilogiedelarche 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try Russain brides in your area ### gettop5.info ###
allennyquistlas 1 year ago
And as for note about disinformation at the end, you really need to take a look at what belief sect of the truth movement the media portrays all truthers as being. It's YOU hologram/live video edit guys! So if what you are saying is true about the media, you just told everyone not to believe a word you preach a long with all others like you. Your denseness and bias is amazing. You don't even realize that you called yourself out as being a disinfo puppet. Any sensible truther won't spread this.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
@TheAgingGamers surely the main point here is that the Naudet 9/11 film shows, six seconds after alleged f11 total immersion into all that steel and concrete, a small fire appears in unmarked alleged impact side facia, this then grows to form the 30ft short , clearly faked, silhouette??
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
at 3:50 you can tell and see that the windows blew out from either secondary explosion or the heat. It is obvious since a prefect rectangle blows out and is unlike all the other damage. You clearly see it in an abundance of videos and photos available that. To assume it was painted in at all is absurd and shows that you lack the adequate unbiased logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills to be doing this. You push people from the truth movement and those you convince you lead the wrong way.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
@TheAgingGamers At 6:00 You show two different views from different angles of the same thing, except lots of black smoke is coming out of it. Looks about right to me coming from that angle with a industrial grade super telephoto video camera. The part of the building is closer the other part is not. There is distortion but not really much at all. Less than I thought there would be. You matched them up and you can't even see it. I do film, and 3d animation, effects & compositing. I don't buy it.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
@TheAgingGamers just a note it was just windows that fell out but the bar panneling too, you can see photos of this in different states of disarray and detachment. You can see the progression from the pictures you show at 6:00 show before the panneling after the panneling was falling. Something tells me you will not see it though. I believe it was an inside job, but this is ridiculous.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
3:33 actually you lied. It is covered in smoke and there is and was a lot of white stuff flying out from what you say is solid building. But if you look even closer you just wait until the smoke clears enough to look like the building to people who aren't paying proper attention, when it is obvious that there is still smoke along that stretch you claim to be the wall. Thats not cool bro, some of us want the real truth to come out you know.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
@TheAgingGamers You waited for the orange glow to go away on part of the smoke so that it looks like a lot of wall, you then proceded to draw a line above that through orange fire/smoke? wtf dude are you serious. over half your line was drawn through the smokey right side of that fire ball, the other half through a lighter grey smoke. That really is not cool. Also use better video as your source and don't shrink or compress it, upload in hd regardless. So blurry I don't think u did it purposely
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
The Elite and powerful people did it, but they also started all the false versions of the truth movement. Everyone is an expert now and they count on crap like this to stop the more reasonably minded potential skeptics from becoming truthers altogether.
Meanwhile they suck in all the people without minimal critical thinking and unbiased investigative skills into one pot, the wrong pot, where they want you. Two sides, two mascots, normal people and the crazy halogram/live video edit truthers.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
Seriously how can people take you seriously after just the beginning of the video, they should know. You called it pure chance, you are obviously unreasonably biased. Which greatly effects critical thinking.
To an unbiased person, they were among the most prepared to that day to capture that on film, on top of that, there are a lot of filmmakers in NY.
I am surprised by the lack of videos given the amount of tourists, artists and population density. I do think it was an inside job though.
TheAgingGamers 1 year ago
lol secondary linear explosion. You douchenozzles are certifiable.
mistrbrwn 1 year ago
@mistrbrwn er, so how do you account for the lost SIX SECONDS between plane melding into tower and 30ft short silhouette forming pray?(sssssch everyone☺)
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
The silhouette formed SIX SECONDS late fact, clear proof of fakery but the exta bit on the right might have been mystery black smoke coming from a window , there's another youtube kicking around showing this methinks.
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
abovetopsecret (dot) com/forum/thread458194/pg1
A pretty damn poor attempt to debunk this video :D
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
@LithuanianGuitar Not as poor as you'd like people to believe...
gtfo9999 1 year ago
@gtfo9999 Well, If I wanted people to believe that all debunks ar poor, I wouldn't post links like that. It's common sense, you know :). But IMO this attempt to debunk this video is prett damn bad :). Very few people actually did debunk SOME aspects of SC correctly.
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
very interesting but i cant say for sure i'm skeptical about both side of this argument: perhaps this footage was doctored but it is harder to prove that the whole thing is a hoax
BrandonHusky 1 year ago
fact is noone has ever before seen what happens when an airliner hits a giant building. furthermore noone knows what explosive material was in the building. id imagine a jet engine on a wing would explode...and probably has the destructive capacity to tear through a dozen floors of flooring when travelling at such a high speed. all this said perhaps it was an inside job..im very open to the idea, but until someone builds an exact replica and flies a plane into it. im not believing anything.
Dyltreeno 1 year ago
@Dyltreeno If the 'plane' managed to enter the building, then where are the wing marks after impact? The marks from the engines? The engines are the heaviest part of the plane. They would have left significant marks on the building on impact, but as can clearly be seen, there are is no damage where the wings would have been until the second explosion some 6 seconds after impact. This is undeniable proof that a plane did not hit this buildings as is supposed to have happened.
fullmetalparker 1 year ago
@fullmetalparker Provide the evidence of the experimentation that was conducted that resulted you to thinking that...
"This is undeniable proof that a plane did not hit this buildings as is supposed to have happened."
"supposed to have happened" If it were to happen another way, then that MUST be backed up with experimentation as evidence. So provide it.
We are all waiting for your response as this is an insult to science and the range of possibilities that exist in physics and thermodynamics
Kalecgos65 1 year ago
@Kalecgos65 sorry I don't follow, should a hole in something form immediately or form several seconds after that something has been penetrated by a flying object as appears to happen in the above video? why do the ms media not investigate this apparent anomaly?
diosmio99 1 year ago
@diosmio99 It's unpredictable, the walls on that building are much thicker than they appear. It takes a bit of time for heat to transfer and actually form a "black gash" on a massive building like this.
How in the world can you just assume that it "should" happen immediately? There is no physics that proves this? The angle in which the video was shot only shows a 2Demensional shot, you don't see the other end of the building or how long it took for the "black gash" to form on the other end.
Kalecgos65 1 year ago
@Kalecgos65
You must be intrigued by this analysis, Kalecgos65 - since you have it as a main feature on your (almost empty)channel. On my side, I am intrigued by your bizarre understanding of physics and dearly hope you are not an engineer of some sort. Oh wait, perhaps you have a plum job at NIST! :O)
simonshack 1 year ago
Thank you for sharing this video.
LadyASG 1 year ago
I don't understand, how do you account for all the people on the ground that testify to seeing an airplane?
gtfo9999 1 year ago
@gtfo9999 Missle dressed up to look like a plane
loper9 1 year ago
@loper9 Wouldn't a plane full of jet fuel act very similar to a missile?
gtfo9999 1 year ago
Whats sad is that Justin bieber videos have less dislikes than this video.
I'm so done with people.
AnttyK47 1 year ago
Great video Simon! Absolutely stunning and impossible to debunk!
Fakers911 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She is lonely and seeking a date *lushfmlk.info*
colemanrs4 1 year ago
Comment removed
turtle4000000 1 year ago