FUCKING STUPIDITY PERSONIFIED. The "wake turbulance" is of an airplane flying thru AIR & not crashed into a fucking building you asshole moron.Besides the huge EXPLOSION would offset any turbulance & create it's own design moron.
OWLS?Woman's Breasts?Satan's face? What are you a fucking 8 year old asshole?
@cadu1995 what does my page have to do with anything? i like eminem? yea... that proves it... this is what you said. "FUCKING STUPIDITY PERSONIFIED. The "wake turbulance" is of an airplane flying thru AIR & not crashed into a fucking building you asshole moron.Besides the huge EXPLOSION would offset any turbulance & create it's own design moron." ... are you a flight expert? i dont necessarely believe there were no planes, but i dont call people names for having different ideas.
Hey. I agree that something about 911 doesn't ring true. However I humbly believe those planes were real. You wouldn't expect to see evidence of wave turbulence anywhere where there is a large heat intensive explosion. Large, heat intensive explosions overpower wave turbulence; the invisible shock wave followed by superheated air neutralizes the effect. :/ sorry. But, just cos the planes were real does not mean we are being told the truth... I guarantee that! Peace to you all...
@Whats the story with your channel C a NN iboy? 5years on youtube and only 4 favs? 1 channel comment? Come on now. Do you expect me to think you are not a troll?
To your post.1.This video contains footage of a BOMB being dropped and the flames and fumes from that interacting with the planes wake v trail?Did you miss that?
2.The planes are digital not real. How can a real plane pass through a wall without deforming in any way?
I love your 'casual' guy next door smooz.Bullshit agent.
indeed, however my point was, where is the hole exit whole? weather its a nose cone or what ever,, I cant find a hole,, all the panels are intact,,, I'm not kidding my self what I'm doing is trying to make sense of the whole thing... there is lots of anomalies in the videos that cant be ignored
No wake vorticies, no plane. Got it. If I can locate a few seconds of video free of paranoid tit feeders like you, would that constitute proper evidence of the complete lack of moron tit-feeders world wide? Cause that is what I would like to see.
@beachcomber2008 lmfao, i added a "s" by mistake and you think i don't know english, wow you really do have issue. and no there are NO vortexs in the video you linked, any retard with 1 eye can see there isn't. trolls be trolling. get a clue.
@alungwilliams1 watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4 - "there are NO vortexs in the video"
Wow, man. Such denial. Get your eyes tested or visit a witch doctor. Get a working Mojo...
And you've got this lying video (carefully cut to BEFORE the vortex makes the smoke swirl with it) and all the other fine vortex demos to compare it with. Que macho!
Trouble is, you're about to be found out by everyone else. Never mind.
@beachcomber2008 wow man, you lead a hell of a life, going from video to video telling everyone how they are wrong and you are right. like i said before. trolls be trollin. but nevermind eh, to me your just another american clouded by his government to pick up a gun and shoot ALLIED troops. there is more than enough evidence to support the claims that there were no 2nd plane or any planes for that matter. but hey as long as you get your kicks telling people they are wrong, right?
@alungwilliams1 Liars who are proved wrong deserve the title "troll". Wear the hat, because it fits you
Your "style" of life (avoiding the hard work required to understand the science of what you see) will wear you down by itself, without my help
All the evidence there is points to the conclusions drawn by the NIST Report and to your failing to understand what happened through ignorance, causing you to arrive at a conspiracy theory without the backing of physical evidence and reasoned logic
@beachcomber2008 ok, using YOUR science. explain how the united 93 plane disappeared into a field leaving far too small a ditch, all the emergency service admitted it didn't look like a crash site. the "plane" that hit the pentagon miraculously misses the lawn in front but still hits square on the side without taking down the lighting poles and leaving too small a whole in the side of the building. the fireman inside WTC both towers admitting in interviews of hearing multiple explosions?
@alungwilliams1 where aircraft falling vertically and terminally into Norfolk farmland were virtually undetectable, their engines ending up 30 feet down
Flight 93's evidence is entirely unsurprising. I believe that 95% of it was recovered from that pit, even so, and is available for inspection
Such a direct impact (speed 838 feet per second) would have rendered a human body to something between a pink mist (at the front of the plane) to a bag of mince (at the rear)
@alungwilliams1 for the same conditions applied. There were THOUSANDS of small pieces of that airliner all over the Pentagon lawn
It was a different story for the parts of the plane that passed through the window spaces. They would have passed through INTACT as separate 500 mph bomblets of vaporizing fuel, chopping through columns as they met them: watch?v=bMqgFaNvoP8
High-speed near-vertical dives into topsoil? Britain had a history of them between '39 and '45,
@alungwilliams1 The Pentagon's facia was about 2 ft thick reinforced concrete - not as substantial as the Phantom's nemesis
The 767 was more lightly-engineered and would ALSO have crumbled under impact, but not without imparting an EQUAL energy to the building, in some places (engine shafts, collapsing body & wing spar, undercarriage, and especially the FUEL) chopping straight through the columns. The rest would have crumbled in the same manner as the Phantom did,
@alungwilliams1 This is the crash of a titanium air-framed F4 Phantom at around the same speed as the Pentagon impact, but into a 500-ton reinforced concrete block watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
Note the flash of light upon impact, that the block is forced to move, that the initial deceleration produces a flash of light, and that as the airframe decelerates it breaks up into progressively larger pieces as its speed decreases
@beachcomber2008 that still doesnt explain, a full sized 747 can slam into the side of a building square on with no discernable slide marks on the lawn and no damage to the lampposts. also the united 93 flight didn't drop vertically, it was on a steep decline yes but not vertical, there would still be large enough sections of fuselage to be identifiable. everything that was picked up was no bigger than a suitcase.
@beachcomber2008 seeing as you have linked a few videos and don't fret i did watch them, my turn. watch?v=BeEJlicx1XU, not how no visible wreckage and minimal damage to the pentagon before the upper floors and roof collapse. impossible for a 757 to fit through a 16ft whole and cause no damage when the tail section should have collided with the building.
@alungwilliams1 You need to pay attention to what I've written already
The r/c block that destroyed the Phantom was thick enough to stop everything
The Pentagon r/c wasn't strong enough to prevent hard and massive parts like the engines and undercarriage from breaking through and the fuselage was fairly full of passengers, furniture, and fuel, which would have helped punch it through
The visual evidence is PERFECTLY consistent with a 757 impact at around 500 mph
@beachcomber2008 well i have done my bit and listened to your little rant about how everyone else but you is wrong. i even took the time to watch your videos which you have refused to with mine, who is the ignorant one here. i'm through listening to a brainwashed ignorant "patriot" take the time to listen to others before you claim your right. i always admit i am wrong when people are prepared to listen and i am proved wrong, you are not prepared to listen.
@alungwilliams1 There were five lies in your answer, and FYI I am a British expatriate
I have told you already that following your preconceptions is no way to discover the truth of anything
So far you have been consistently inaccurate in your interpretation, reading, and recall, and it is no surprise you find yourself holding the beliefs you do
The Pentagon Case Study directly contradicts your statement, yet you don't mention it
The damnedest plane I ever saw. But the 80 or so known videos show an object. If you accept one video you accept an object. I doubt they were holograms. Or that all are fakes. It's very sophisticated.
ITS TIME TO TAKE ILLUMINATI AWARENESS BEYOND UTUBE! WE THE PPL HAVE THE POWER. WE CAN TURN THIS WORLD AROUND. TAKE IT TO THE STREETS IN PROTEST, MAKE FACEBOOK GROUPS, TELL YOUR FRENDZ AND FAMILY. THE ONLY WAY TO DESTROY THEIR AGENDA IS TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE MASSES. THE ILLUMINATI HAVE POWER THROUGH IGNORANCE. WE MUST UNITE IN LOVE, PEACE, HARMONY. THE TIME IS NOW.DON'T SIT IN FEAR WAITING FOR IT TO HAPPEN.WE CREATE 2MORROW BY WHAT WE PUT ENERGY N2 2DAY. PLEASE THUMBS UP THIS. I LOVE U ALL
Nice proof dude people are pretty retarded now these days they think everything they see on TV is real lol.. they need to wake up they probably think the government is telling us nothing but the truth to lol
What Mensa club member posted this nonsense? Could it possibly be because the plane is generating the explosion and not PASSING THROUGH IT???????!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!
Dude whatever crack you are smoking its damaged your brain irreparably. It boggles my mind there are people out there that believe and post this crap.
@mcbrave15 thanks mcbrave ) its not too late...every single person who stops supporting this madness by watching TV and believing all they are told helps dismantle the mind control machine. Cheers
Wake turbulence, or wing tip vortices are ONLY produced if the aircraft is generating lift. When the planes hit the buildings they were no longer generating lift (because they crashed) and therefor could not be producing wing tip vortices, or wake turbulence. This is by far the easiest conspiracy theory to debunk....nice try tho, do some very basic research on this subject and you will realize how stupid this argument is.
dreadful response. Why do you think it is called 'wake' tubulence? A wake is what is left after a turbulent event happens and moves a fluid. The 'wake' of a plane remains in the air for several minutes after the plane has gone and any thing - smoke, other aircraft etc. WHO ENTER THE PATH OF WHERE THE PLANE TRAVELLED WILL ENCOUNTER THIS FORCE.. I.E. THE SMOKE AND FUMES FROM THE BUILDING. Dreadful response )
@skyarcher I understand what you are saying, but when the plane crashed into the WTC, the vortices would have been well below the point of impact by the time the smoke plumes began billowing out of the tower. I fly for a living and have a 4 year degree from an aviation school, im not trying to sound arrogant but this theory is ridiculous. And my comment before is 100 percent accurate. do some research.
@bengals101 you are too funny, immediately prior to the planes hitting, even if it was 1 nanosecond prior to hitting, the planes had to be generating lift or they would not have hit, because they would not have been flying, they wouldn't even have been there. Therefore the wake turbulence must be present and cause a corresponding presence in the airmass.
In dry air, wake vortices are not visible, smoke is used in wind tunnels to be able to see them. At 1:24 it can be seen that the wake vortices are left behind the aircraft that is generating them, they do not follow the aircraft, hence there would be no visible turbulence when an aircraft suddenly stopped. In the case of the South Tower plane, the turbulence created by the explosion would have swamped these vortices. This is not proof that the plane was not a real plane.
@alawson911 I dont understand your comment. Wake vortices start at tip of the wing of an aircraft while it is flying . The wings of this 'aircraft' hit the building so when did the wake vortices stop? Before the plane hit the building? Please be clear. Are you saying that the vortices stopped coming from the wing tips and at what point b4 they encounter the building did they stop?
Wake vortices, as their description implies, are left behind in the wake of an aircraft, and are only visible in certain conditions. They are quite small when an aircraft is travelling at a high speed with 'clean' wings. Such vortices would not continue to be generated when the aircraft hit the building, because it was not, then, moving through the air. The amount of invisible turbulence that remained was obviously not enough to visibly affect the smoke from the explosion.
@alawson911 I will ask you again as you have avoided my question. If wake vortices begin at the wing tip of an aircraft in flight and in this faked representation the wings hit the building.. when did the vortices stop being produced? before the wing hit the tower or just as it hit the tower?
(p.s. in this fake representation the plane experiences no deceleration. THe wings slice through the building like a hot knife through butter)
You can ask me as many times as you like. This video you are referring to, in my opinion, is not a fake, and if you care to look up the physics of kinetic energy you will see why. You might also like to explain the engine that was ejected from the building, moments after the crash. Answer your own question. If you are on a bike, and you stop the bike, does the wind still whistle in your ears?
@alawson911 Quote "If you are on a bike, and you stop the bike, does the wind still whistle in your ears?"
Now that is an interesting comment as it reveals that you do not understand this concept.
A bicycle uses the friction between the wheel and ground to propel itself. A boat or plane cannot because they are in a liquid and need an aerofoil to interact with the liquid which leaves a wake behind.
The wind whistles in my ears in a boat going fast.When the boat stops the wake doesn't.Get it?
@alawson911Quote "I reserve my time for doing useful things. Arguing with people who don't think that planes hit the Twin Towers is not one of them.I reserve my time for doing useful things. Arguing with people who don't think that planes hit the Twin Towers is not one of them."
Once again your comment is very interesting??
Al.
You come to my channel, comment on my no planes video, argue with me..and now claim you never do this?
If you have better things to do why do it? what do you say???
And you appear to be unable to tell the difference between a comment and an argument. I commented on wake vortices, because someone sent me the link to your video, seeking my opinion. I sent it to him by e-mail, and decided to share it with others who may be interested. Clearly, I do not share your opinion that the lack of visible wake vortices indicates the absence of a real plane. That is what I am not prepared to argue about. A comment does not constitute an argument. Clear now?
@alawson911 I think Al it is simple. You are fully of rubbish. You come here and make a comment i.e. argue a point. You respond to 2 more times i.e. engage in an argument. When I point out to you the ridiculousness of your final comment ...the wind whistles in the ear analogy and how you don't understand the nature of wake vortices you go into a huff and act like a 10 year old child. This is your level and its what we have come to expect from you.
@alawson911 Thanks for your comments and please come back and comment on my other videos. Your comments highlight the big holes in logic and facts as presented by people who see planes in the faked footage .
One more thing, I noticed on your channel page that you mention that even the victims were fake, "digital characters" . That's bullshit in the first degree. Are you telling me that I had a "digital friend" up until 9/11? You give us Irish a bad name. Didn't you ever go to ground zero? Didn't you smell the jet fuel there or was your head so far up your own ass that you couldn't smell anything?
At least they're coming up with theories. What's your original theory? Or are you content to take Fox, CNN, NBC and CBS's version of the events? Oh ya... supported by the full faith and credit of the United States government. This is what I was trying to point out about you, you're very quick to try to discredit other peoples theories (as hairbrained as they may be), but you don't have any theories of your own. You left it up to other people.
You shouldn't believe what the government tells you without checking it out for yourself, always be skeptical. but you seem to be saying that whatever the government tells you can always know is false. Well, while there are countless times the government has lied to the public, they also sometimes tell the truth. the U.S. gov says there is a thing called gravity, and from what I've read on the subject and seen for myself I'm inclined to believe them, that there is a gravitational force.
Show me one time the government has told the truth and I'll show you how they were skimming off the top. Anything. Pick one. You can always be sure that if there is money involved one or both parties is not being honest. It's the way our society works, didn't you know that? The US gov invented the theory of gravity? Starnge, I thought that was Newton. So? Any real example of where the government was honest?
So it's not about who you agree with it's about if what you believe has evidence behind it. Remain skeptical until you have convincing evidence. As for me I rarely watch what you call Propaganda central (TV), not because I think they are in collusion with the government just because most of the programing is mindless drivel. My idea of what happened on 9/11 is based off my own knowledge of science, sociology, logic, and what I deem to be reliable sources of information.
Stop trying to twist your way out of it. No one said they were in collusion with the government, but you are naive if you believe the same people that donate to all of the House and Senate, and president races don't also own large chunks of these media companies and hold a huge sway over what is put out over their waves.
Well brother, you haven't looked very deep into it then, in my opinion.
What seems to be central to most conspiracy theories, be it those who deny the holocaust or the moon landing or that a plane ever stuck the twin towers, is the idea that there is some kind of large controlling group that can manipulate information. But information is much harder to control than some might think. There are fact checkers who expose lies, people who find the real facts through research and investigation. It's how other conspiracies have been exposed.
Of course they can manipulate information. Who do you think controls the info? The CIA is heavily involved with the private industry. They get most, if not all of their "intel" from these private, front line companies. Same thing for every other government agency. If you have money, information is not hard to control. They create it and disseminate it. If you still believe in the whole terrorism lie, I say to you, grow up and grow some balls.
You talk about the control of information, but of course your own idea of what happened on 9/11 is also based off of information presented by other people. Which information source is easier to manipulate? Where you get your information about these conspiracies or mainstream sources? At the very least they are equally capable of being deceitful.
So... what's your point? It's obvious you're still stuck on me calling you out for your ideals not being your own. Get over it. They're not.
I am not dependant on others to form my opinions for me. Sad to say, I spend most of my nights reading news. That's the beauty of the internet. It destroys the control systems. It allows for the transfer of free infofrmation and free opinions across all borders and allows us to read what the PEOPLE think. Not just the few wealthy oligarchs.
We are witnessing the rise of the peoples press, the free press. Hop on board with us. Believe me, one of these sides wants to use you for monetary gain and then toss you aside once you become a burden. The other side wants to inform you and help you because, wow, we're the same. It's sad to see so many people refusing to disconnect their mouth from the tit of corporate welfare. I don't blame you though. Deep down we all know how hard it would be to go it alone. I'm just as guilty as anyone
With all do respect, mr Peterpaulson, I agree with you that information is very hard to control, especially the amount of information and actions that lead to the 911 event. I wonder how the Arabs or Muslims pulled it of then, meaning, keeping all that data to themselfes. I find that harder to believe then the government distorting information, they do this all the time ...
I lived in NYC and on 10.11.01 i spoke to a waitress who worked on the roof top of a restaurant in NJ called Light Horse Tavern I think. She was on the roof when one of the planes flew over. It was deafening she said. I think that there are a lot more pertinent questions than this one about 911, and the "No Planes" theory serves those who wish to quell dissent well.
Well. Your friend is a liar. The plane was still around 10,000 feet over NJ. And a plane at that height is in no way deafening. They fly over my house all the time at a height way less than that.
The no plane theory is true. You just don't want to admit it because that would mean we live in hell ;) I don't blame you.
Come on now; just accept the fact that WE are in control of everything, We manipulate information to what we want the masses to hear. Why not stop all of this shouting about a 'hugh conspiracy' and just let us do our job? Why not come on over and join the winning team?
You ARE aware that if not, you'll go by the wayside of all those others who "have proof" of aliens, JFK being alive still, etc. In other words, you'll be discredited to the point of being labeled a lunatic.
The winning team, eh? What team would that be? Who is this WE you speak of? We as in the sheep? We as in the oligarchy? We as in the media? The government? Who?
No. The more you guys try to label us wackos, the more I think we're on the right path. Well, not you guys, but the media. We really don't give a shit what you sheep think, but if the media is taking note, and taking time out of their propaganda to propagandize you about these "truth" groups, I'd say we're pissing someone off ;)
Is that the 'Hugh' Grant the actor Conspiracy you speak of?
Are the 'WE' the 5 people who have bothered to visit your channel since you joined YOUTUBE in 2006? Sorry I just visited your channel so that makes 6 channel views I guess.
I hate to burst your bubble Spanky but not everyone who has a channel posts videos for the public. I do not want or desire an audience unlike some people... Now getting back to the actual subject... In regard to your statement regarding vortices taking minutes to degrade is factual (yep, I said it - alert the press) but it is not always the case. Other contributing factors must be considered such as ambient air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure as well as up or down draft.
I'm not a pilot, weatherman or physicist even though I work around jet aircraft everyday (including the B767) so I must put my trust in to the people who are trained and educated in those fields in order for me to make an logical choice of what to believe. Yes, I said trust. There are enough professionals in the world that 100 would have come forward if there were legitimate inconsistencies in the multiple videos from various angles. I'm curious as to how you are an expert on the subject.
I believe it's because the vortex was squashes by the MASSIVE explosion shockwave or something. The building explode, doesn'Tt hat create disturbuances? it's not at all like flying over right after it explodes on the ground, or before..
At 3:00 min there is a video of a plane dropping a BOMB. Can you clearly see the wake vortex from the plane in the EXPLOSION or not?
If you have new data which would explain why the fireball and smoke from the WTC do not interact with vortex of the 'plane' in anyway... please share this data with us.
It is not good enough to say explosion 'shockwave or SOMETHING'
All explosions have shockwaves so what is this other SOMETHING you talk about?
So you don't think the explosive force was enough to negate the wake turbulence force?
Also what is more likely?
Either
The plane crashes have some details that can be misconstrued as "impossible" by non-experts or that there is some massive conspiracy that would have to include tens of thousand of people. look at the amount of people who would have to be in on it: news reporters, air traffic controllers, government agencies, phone operators, firemen, pilots, flight engineers, and MANY more.
You're wrong. My belief isn't based on popularity, but probability and looking at real evidence. You seem to think your position is stronger than mine based solely on the fact it isn't popular. I don't hop on bandwagons and going against the majority doesn't automatically make you right. I evaluate claims and that's why I don't believe in your ghost stories. Maybe if you knew how real logic was really used you'd be able to figure things like this out for yourself.
Quote .........look at the amount of people who would have to be in on it:news reporters, air traffic controllers, government agencies, phone operators, firemen, pilots, flight engineers, and MANY more....
If you think that's an argument on popularity you missed the point. I just am pointing out how for what you are saying to be true an impossibly large conspiracy would need to exist of tens of thousand of people. And not one of those people have come forward with a confirmable story? that goes against what he know about the nature of political conspiracies. If they couldn't even keep Watergate a secret with a dozen people involved how are they keeping this under wraps?
This is still the bandwagon fallacy...you are the one who has missed the point. IF i controlled the means of flow of information and stated on this means that black was actually white over and over again and had experts claiming this.. most people would eventually fall in line.
YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT.. please direct me to ACTUAL evidence of planes hitting the towers.. if you direct me to VIDEO evidence i will point out,point by point , why these are fake!
You give the government to much credit if you think they can keep secrets this well or that they have that much control. Also you've seen evidence of the plane crash, this video is evidence. We have engineer reports and eyewitnesses. What you attempt to do is discredit this evidence by saying there were no "owl eyes" but I pointed out the explosive force would have more than canceled out turbulence effects.
If you want I can point out why your propositions are fake....
Video is evidence-it is faked and so points finger towards the killers.
Engineer reports would be evidence except there are hundreds of engineers and professionals who believe this is a demolition. Scratch the surface a tiny bit and you will find them.
A large jet displaces, pushes down, hundreds of tons of air.this massive disturbance remains in the air for several minutes. None of this is seen in the 911 footage=faked.
I understand how turbulence works, you don't seem to realize the "owl eye" effect is only that perfect in wind tunnels in real conditions even wind would distort it. when the plane crashes and explodes the explosion was massive, but you still think you should be able to see the turbulence in the dust cloud. I've seen other videos of plane crashes and never seen owl eyes. Your attempts to discredit conventional evidence fails.
You have engineers, but we have engineers that use sound methods.
peter. It's you who gives the government too much credit. How small minded of you. Do you actually think the government owns anything or is at all powerful? The people who did this are the ones that own the government. Once you realize that there are people in this country rich enough to have their own space programs or air forces if they wanted, flying a couple cruise missiles into some buildings doesn't seem that far fetched does it?
Assertion: WTC collapse looked like a controlled demolition.
This is wrong. Controlled demolition usually starts from the lowest floors and goes up. If you look at video of the collapse then you see the structure fails where the planes hit.
The building fell, that's all any of us know. It is possible to take out a few columns and let gravity do the rest, which is the same thing both of us believe. You think a plane cut the columns, we think linear charges did. Either way, we're talking about the same thing, you are just in denial that you live in a world where you are constantly being propagandized and told what to think. Really I think you're too ashamed to admit your ideals are not your own. Pride sucks, don't it?
I wonder how you think your beliefs are any more original than mine? How are you less susceptible to "propaganda"? Or is it just because you go against conventional knowledge that you can claim to be more freethinking?
Yes, there are people who believe whatever their government tells them. People who don't think for themselves and don't bother looking into it for themselves. This is stupid. But we must be critical of all claims. I scrutinize both sides, you just scrutinize the less radical one.
Who said anything about originality? What I meant was you are fed your info. you apparently don't search it out. I'm less susceptible to propaganda because I can point it out. I don't watch TV (Propaganda central), I don't take a single word any of them say seriously and I can see a motive behind everything they do, which is never for the good of this country, only a few people. If you still believe the official story for 9/11, you haven't scrutinized anything.
Assertion: you can see explosions/squibs/plumes shooting out of the tower.
This is wrong. The stuff shooting out is debris pushed by air. Because of the open space that always must exist in a building it is natural for a building that is falling to have air rushing out, that air pushes the debris.
@peterpaulson I can think of one specific threat that could have coerced all of those people to participate in 9/11, and that is the threat of a homemade nuclear device (a dirty bomb) going of in the heart of New York City, and killings millions. That is the threat that was spread through the private sector with the promise that 9/11 would bring the laws, the removal of constitutional rights, and the volunteers, necessary to prevent it.
I'm not the one that thinks a missile hit trade center even though there were hundreds of thousands of people that saw an airplane crash, as well as the people that were actually on the plane! No, despite those facts you believe it a missile that was edited out on live TV and replaced with a jumbo jet. That all the people that actually saw it happen were mistaken. That the goverment killed an extra 200 people to make it look like planes actually crashed into the towers instead of a missile.
Okay, let's ignore for the moment the mountains of evidence that lies in direct contradiction of the 1970's CIA sitcom of "Arabs Attack US using Jumbo Jets" *ing M Attah as "hijacker. " Let's ignore the war games (VIg Warrior, Vig Guardian et al) simulating sit-com going on THAT DAY (7/7 anyone?). Forget the free-fall collapse, the immense explosions, and the prior FBI attempt w/ truck bomb in 1993, same sit-com. Forget the WTC . No special effects TV this time. What hit the Pentagon?
A plane. Also I'm pretty sure we're talking about the WTC and why you are very dumb.
Let's say the government was behind 9/11. Why the fuck would you think they used missiles? You do understand that there are people that saw this happen, in person, with their own eyes, right? NYC is a really big place with a lot of people. Why wouldn't the government just fly planes into the WTC? If they did use missiles, don't you think a lot of people would of saw that?
I'm not the one with blinders, friend. Missiles (and planted explosives to bring it down) are what would cause the proper damage, not planes. Planes would leave evidence OUTSIDE the buildings in the street: bodies and luggage and seats and engines (like what's missing from the Pentagon). Better just to use accurate missiles and hit the targets, have the media tell us what we were supposed to be seeing. Get Americans angry enuf at the intended victims that threaten USA, Inc's oil & DEMAND war.
Hahaha! Yeah, everybody knows that missiles look like planes, sound like planes, take off from airports on record, are full of real passengers, leave plane shaped holes, and eject landing gear and engines on impact. Duh!
Your assertions are mere conjecture. The only people who saw planes were watching TV. The hole was not the size of a 767. The hijackers were not on the manifest, the passengers unverified, the flights fictitious. There were war games exercises going on that day with "planes" flying into those very same buildings. No passenger plane at the Pentagon, or anywhere else. This was an inside job, a black op, no question. The official story is a lie, start to finish.
"The only people who saw planes were watching TV."
Yep, everyone in New York is in on it, and no one was looking up at the burning tower over the most populated city in the world. You are painfully stupid.
fallacy of belief? quote "everyone in New York is in on it, and no one was looking up at the burning " (ironic)
Here is a question for you brother. Why do almost none of the people interviewed live on the morning of 911 mention 'planes'? why do they only mention 'explosions'? this goes for people standing outside also like the marriot hotel doorman?
i can direct to videos of these people if you like ... what do you think??
Just because you can direct me to videos of people who didn't see planes, doesn't mean that there aren't any people who saw planes.
You see how that works? Sure, if you were on the other side of the building, you probably didn't see a plane, just an explosion. But plenty of people saw planes, photographed and video taped planes, reacted on tape to planes, reported planes live, etc.
I have a close personal friend who was in one of the towers. Your theory means nothing in the real world.
Great. we both agree on something then. What 'people' saw and heard on 911 is contradictory. All of it.
So lets get to the 'real' 'evidence' .Now, if a murder was caught by national media in real time on video live.... this would be the main 'piece' of evidence in any subsequent court case. So tell me why, why does the video evidence in this case not match reality? why do planes pass unimpeded through metal structures?
Whenever the 9/11 inside job turds give some type of "Scientific evidence" its almost always a bad example.
In this case, yes an airplane flying straight through a pocket of smoke, would create the owl pattern. But the plane in the example flew THROUGH the smoke.
In the WTC the plane HIT a building. The example you give is not an identical example and therefor is a bad analogy and bad science.
For fucks sake thousands of people saw a jumbo jet crash into one the tallest buildings in one the most populated sections of the United States during the middle of the fucking day! You on the other hand are just some guy that wasn't there and all your information comes from other nut jobs that weren't there!
And the proof to back up your claims? A faulty understanding of physics and a "money war" on a country that had nothing to do with it!
All who saw planes hitting buildings that day had one thing in common. They were watching TV. Live witnesses saw zero, but heard/felt/saw many INSIDE explosions (watch the tapes), large & small. Upset because some Illusions were shattered, because you've been, we've all been ->snookered? Me too! Anger is appropriate, but go after the right target. It's not your suspicious fellows. Be angry that we have been lied to, Partriot, & have just cause. Q? Why imp to you that official story is true?
Yeah dude, the entire population of NYC didn't see anything. They were all just watching TV. They didn't actually see a jumbo jet hit the one of the tallest buildings in NYC. They were just lied to and believed it.
This is what happens when you get all of your internet research from other dipshits that think they've uncovered the truth. You ignore what you don't want to hear, and jack off to the thought that you have some keen insight about how the world works. You lack basic logic.
why do you say the planes are digital, what about all of the real people who saw them crash into the buildings... plus if it is a conspiricy what good do they get out of destroying 2 landmarks... sorry to be a knob but there is not enough evidence
Brilliant! Great video! I have been saying this since 2002! And my buddy who flies charter jets for Tiger Woods, Schwarzenegger and Warren Buffet etc. says every pilot he knows who has looked into this, even for a second, agrees there were NO PLANES on 9/11. For gods sake people intelligent CAREER pilots are in agreement o this thing! WAKE UP! They are using the TV to sedate, and lie to you! EVERY CHANNEL, EVERY SECOND! TURN THEM OFF! Your living in an electronic version of reality. ITS A LIE!
So according to you..where did those 4 hijacked planes go? Oh maybe there was no hijacked planes? Go tell that to the familes that lost their family members. Lets see how they like it.
So basically you are disrespecting the people that died that day, oh and their families as well. Do you have any idea how many people would have to be behind an inside job? Oh and sir please explain to me oh so kindly why our government would do this? Entertain me twit.
Funny enough south park made an episode making fun of inside retards that think 9/11 was an inside job for money.
Buddy there is no logical reason for 9/11 to be an inside job. There is no reason for our government to destroy our own buildings and kill our own people.
Anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job is a retard. Pretty much turning a blind eye away from terrorism.
Now I want you to entertain me. In your mind how was 9/11 played out.
You trust people who would sell you out for a nickel, pal. If you had a logical reason, would that be all that it would take to change your mind? How much evidence would it take? And if you discovered that you'd been snooker'd, been the victim of an official haox (like the Great Communist Conspiracy, or the "Missile Gap". eg), learned nothing from Vietnam's Pentagon Papers, would you apologize to those you once laughed at and called a retard? Check out "Operation Northwoods". Wise up, friend.
I don't think you understand. People, real life people, PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN NYC saw this happen. Most populated city during the day, one of the largest towers, huge fucking plane. How can you over look this?
If the government was behind it, they still would of used fucking planes. You know why? Because you can't fake run a jumbo jet into a giant tower in the middle of the day in a heavily populated city.
But I guess I should believe you instead of anything that makes sense.
"For your 'theory' to work it would have to be something like half a second per 200 foot?"
Are you going to produce any math to back up this ludicrous statement? Just wondering.
The sink rate of wake vortices is irrelevant; the point here is that they SINK. Watch the tests again; the vortices are NEVER seen above the planes' flight paths.
So knowing that the wake vortex & the fireball will never meet, why exactly should we see them interact?
I asked you a question to which you have not replied... now you brought up the wake vortices descent rate in the first place so i would expect that you know the answer ..
so again,,, what is the descent rate for wake vortices ?? as it is the answet to the question you pose..
pls answer this question first or i will block you.
400ft/min, i heard its less, but lets use this figure for arguments sake.
THIS IS 6 FOOT per sec!!!
'plane' hits building.. 1/2 sec later a huge fireball and smoke explode from building and extends upwards and downwards and sidewards and outwards ... a ball with diameter of over 300 ft..
AND YOU ASK WHY IS VORTEX DESCENT RATE RELEVELANT?
are u for real?
1 min later vortex is only 1/3 down building?? NO INTERACTION AT ALL WITH SMOKW IN MEANTIME.
Only an intellectually dishonest moron losing an argument would do what you just did - challenge me to a response after muting my account.
What a fucktard.
Anyway, the displacement, you pathetic dolt, IS THE GIANT FUCKING EXPLOSION COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING. These gases are not spinning, and they are not magically going to start spinning just because they occupy space formerly occupied by spinning air.
Actually anyone who cant have a mature discussion here gets blocked.Why shud i allow people to call me 'moron' 'fucktard' etc. I put effort into making these videos and dont like people who bring it down to the level of kindergarten like u have here.I got to scrap the shit from my shoes you know)
I am glad u have gone to all the trouble of setting up a new acc. just to 'reply' to me.U will have to set up another one now cos u still have not answered my question.
No, you're now ignoring some very valid contradictory information based on the fact that you don't like a person. This is bad science. He makes a good point, and to ask him to find EXACTALLY where in the video the displacement occurs when there is a huge fuck off fireball expanding from the impact site is a little ridiculous. In addition, the concussive outward wave is invisible to the naked eye, causing only a very slight visual distortion if highlighted with particulate matter, ie: smoke.
Another "thing" to, "Observe" Is, "How long was the "video", of the "plane hitting the tower/smoke", to "the time the vortex'es, would show up", like in your video? Maybe, "the media, already "knew that", as to only show minimal in timing, before the "owl/"womans breasts" would "show up"! (Get it?) My brothers died in Vietnam! Long before I "Found Out" that the "Gulf of Tonkin", was Just ANOTHER "FALSE FLAG", & Just Like "9/11"!!!!!!!
Very good informative video. The 9/11 footage and planes are definitely fake... after all, graphic cartoon images don't obey the laws of the real world, now do they? ;)
lololol, such an obvious troll. WHY would the government lie to us? for a bunch of sand nigger oil? hahahahahhahahahah
offic3space 1 week ago
Most of the 911 smoke we were shown on TV was fake. No chopper turbulence either.
Thanks.
CNN911Fakes 4 months ago
FUCKING STUPIDITY PERSONIFIED. The "wake turbulance" is of an airplane flying thru AIR & not crashed into a fucking building you asshole moron.Besides the huge EXPLOSION would offset any turbulance & create it's own design moron.
OWLS?Woman's Breasts?Satan's face? What are you a fucking 8 year old asshole?
Stupid gullible bullshit LIES.
911 WAS AN IINSIDE JOB though.
NO-PLANERS ARE RETARDED ASSHOLES
ed11561 4 months ago
@ed11561 you sound like a fucking jackass...
666alilthrowedoff666 3 months ago
@666alilthrowedoff666 looking at YOUR page proves you're a fucking jackass. hahahahaha
cadu1995 3 months ago
@cadu1995 what does my page have to do with anything? i like eminem? yea... that proves it... this is what you said. "FUCKING STUPIDITY PERSONIFIED. The "wake turbulance" is of an airplane flying thru AIR & not crashed into a fucking building you asshole moron.Besides the huge EXPLOSION would offset any turbulance & create it's own design moron." ... are you a flight expert? i dont necessarely believe there were no planes, but i dont call people names for having different ideas.
666alilthrowedoff666 3 months ago
@666alilthrowedoff666 good now fuck off. hahaha
cadu1995 3 months ago
Hey. I agree that something about 911 doesn't ring true. However I humbly believe those planes were real. You wouldn't expect to see evidence of wave turbulence anywhere where there is a large heat intensive explosion. Large, heat intensive explosions overpower wave turbulence; the invisible shock wave followed by superheated air neutralizes the effect. :/ sorry. But, just cos the planes were real does not mean we are being told the truth... I guarantee that! Peace to you all...
CANNIBoy 4 months ago
@Whats the story with your channel C a NN iboy? 5years on youtube and only 4 favs? 1 channel comment? Come on now. Do you expect me to think you are not a troll?
To your post.1.This video contains footage of a BOMB being dropped and the flames and fumes from that interacting with the planes wake v trail?Did you miss that?
2.The planes are digital not real. How can a real plane pass through a wall without deforming in any way?
I love your 'casual' guy next door smooz.Bullshit agent.
skyarcher 4 months ago
Beachcomber. Blocked. Spam removed.
skyarcher 5 months ago
indeed, however my point was, where is the hole exit whole? weather its a nose cone or what ever,, I cant find a hole,, all the panels are intact,,, I'm not kidding my self what I'm doing is trying to make sense of the whole thing... there is lots of anomalies in the videos that cant be ignored
technogong 5 months ago
No wake vorticies, no plane. Got it. If I can locate a few seconds of video free of paranoid tit feeders like you, would that constitute proper evidence of the complete lack of moron tit-feeders world wide? Cause that is what I would like to see.
dayradio65 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 is see no vortexs on the video you linked. you sir are talking out of your ass.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 "is see no vortexs"
Then after you have learned English, you need to learn how to observe
The vortices are plain to see, attached to the tower, picked out by both the smoke and the falling dust and fragments
Those vortices are only made by lifting wings. Those wings have already disappeared into the tower, but their effect remains
You are in a weak position. You know NOTHING about English, Logic, Engineering or Aerodynamics
Are you arguing because you don't know any better?
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 lmfao, i added a "s" by mistake and you think i don't know english, wow you really do have issue. and no there are NO vortexs in the video you linked, any retard with 1 eye can see there isn't. trolls be trolling. get a clue.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4 - "there are NO vortexs in the video"
Wow, man. Such denial. Get your eyes tested or visit a witch doctor. Get a working Mojo...
And you've got this lying video (carefully cut to BEFORE the vortex makes the smoke swirl with it) and all the other fine vortex demos to compare it with. Que macho!
Trouble is, you're about to be found out by everyone else. Never mind.
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 wow man, you lead a hell of a life, going from video to video telling everyone how they are wrong and you are right. like i said before. trolls be trollin. but nevermind eh, to me your just another american clouded by his government to pick up a gun and shoot ALLIED troops. there is more than enough evidence to support the claims that there were no 2nd plane or any planes for that matter. but hey as long as you get your kicks telling people they are wrong, right?
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 I'll tell you when you begin to harm others through your own arrogance and ignorance. Surely
Liars need to be brought to book
This way of thinking is a mental disease with its own name - apophenia - and its motivational power is manifest by the manipulation of FEAR
Because you rely on ignorance, the "cure" for your "social disease" is A PROPER SCIENCE EDUCATION for everyone, including you
Then there'd be fewer "gaps" in the people's knowledge base 4 hucksters like U 2 hide in
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 thank you, once again. in your neverending quest to prove others wrong in your ignorance you prove me right. keep on trolling.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 Liars who are proved wrong deserve the title "troll". Wear the hat, because it fits you
Your "style" of life (avoiding the hard work required to understand the science of what you see) will wear you down by itself, without my help
All the evidence there is points to the conclusions drawn by the NIST Report and to your failing to understand what happened through ignorance, causing you to arrive at a conspiracy theory without the backing of physical evidence and reasoned logic
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 ok, using YOUR science. explain how the united 93 plane disappeared into a field leaving far too small a ditch, all the emergency service admitted it didn't look like a crash site. the "plane" that hit the pentagon miraculously misses the lawn in front but still hits square on the side without taking down the lighting poles and leaving too small a whole in the side of the building. the fireman inside WTC both towers admitting in interviews of hearing multiple explosions?
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 where aircraft falling vertically and terminally into Norfolk farmland were virtually undetectable, their engines ending up 30 feet down
Flight 93's evidence is entirely unsurprising. I believe that 95% of it was recovered from that pit, even so, and is available for inspection
Such a direct impact (speed 838 feet per second) would have rendered a human body to something between a pink mist (at the front of the plane) to a bag of mince (at the rear)
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 for the same conditions applied. There were THOUSANDS of small pieces of that airliner all over the Pentagon lawn
It was a different story for the parts of the plane that passed through the window spaces. They would have passed through INTACT as separate 500 mph bomblets of vaporizing fuel, chopping through columns as they met them: watch?v=bMqgFaNvoP8
High-speed near-vertical dives into topsoil? Britain had a history of them between '39 and '45,
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 The Pentagon's facia was about 2 ft thick reinforced concrete - not as substantial as the Phantom's nemesis
The 767 was more lightly-engineered and would ALSO have crumbled under impact, but not without imparting an EQUAL energy to the building, in some places (engine shafts, collapsing body & wing spar, undercarriage, and especially the FUEL) chopping straight through the columns. The rest would have crumbled in the same manner as the Phantom did,
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 This is the crash of a titanium air-framed F4 Phantom at around the same speed as the Pentagon impact, but into a 500-ton reinforced concrete block watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
Note the flash of light upon impact, that the block is forced to move, that the initial deceleration produces a flash of light, and that as the airframe decelerates it breaks up into progressively larger pieces as its speed decreases
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 that still doesnt explain, a full sized 747 can slam into the side of a building square on with no discernable slide marks on the lawn and no damage to the lampposts. also the united 93 flight didn't drop vertically, it was on a steep decline yes but not vertical, there would still be large enough sections of fuselage to be identifiable. everything that was picked up was no bigger than a suitcase.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 "square on, no discernable slide marks, no damage to the lampposts" - wrong on all counts
"didn't drop vertically" - The direction's irrelevant. It's the matching speed that counts
"no bigger than a suitcase" - I think the same applied to the F4
"my turn" - Seen it already. My second is its disproof
"impossible for a 757 to fit through" - It didn't
Nearly all the dural parts shattered on the outside - except for where they went through the windows
It didn't hit square on, either.
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 seeing as you have linked a few videos and don't fret i did watch them, my turn. watch?v=BeEJlicx1XU, not how no visible wreckage and minimal damage to the pentagon before the upper floors and roof collapse. impossible for a 757 to fit through a 16ft whole and cause no damage when the tail section should have collided with the building.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 You need to pay attention to what I've written already
The r/c block that destroyed the Phantom was thick enough to stop everything
The Pentagon r/c wasn't strong enough to prevent hard and massive parts like the engines and undercarriage from breaking through and the fuselage was fairly full of passengers, furniture, and fuel, which would have helped punch it through
The visual evidence is PERFECTLY consistent with a 757 impact at around 500 mph
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
@beachcomber2008 well i have done my bit and listened to your little rant about how everyone else but you is wrong. i even took the time to watch your videos which you have refused to with mine, who is the ignorant one here. i'm through listening to a brainwashed ignorant "patriot" take the time to listen to others before you claim your right. i always admit i am wrong when people are prepared to listen and i am proved wrong, you are not prepared to listen.
alungwilliams1 6 months ago
@alungwilliams1 There were five lies in your answer, and FYI I am a British expatriate
I have told you already that following your preconceptions is no way to discover the truth of anything
So far you have been consistently inaccurate in your interpretation, reading, and recall, and it is no surprise you find yourself holding the beliefs you do
The Pentagon Case Study directly contradicts your statement, yet you don't mention it
Is that your selective blindness kicking in?
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
Forensic evidence proves there were no Boeing 767s and 757s that crashed on 9/11... watch?v=hyZU6eYkC4c
zonsb 8 months ago
NOW THAYS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! GOOD WORK
mdwlcx 8 months ago
@beachcomber2008 What is that supposed to be? another fuzzy faked 911 piece of footage.
Ha would you like to point out what exactly you can see here?
skyarcher 8 months ago
@skyarcher "another fuzzy faked 911 piece of footage" - there is NO "faked footage". People would have complained by now if there had been
A "wave vortex" is a linked oppositely-handed pair of "pressure-spill" vortices generated by an aircraft wing in flight ONLY when it is lifting
A TORNADO is a vortex. Vortices like to STICK to flat areas, & can regenerate themselves while they posses rotational energy into "braids"
This is completely visible at the end of watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4
U can't forge it
beachcomber2008 8 months ago
@beachcomber2008 What is a ,quote, "wave vortices"?
What the F*&k do you know about this subject? Can I ask you some questions>
skyarcher 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skyarcher "What is a "wave vortex" - You see them in this video.
"What do you know about this subject?" - A fair bit, as I trained as an aeronautical engineer nearly 50 yrs ago, working on Concorde
"Can I ask you some questions? - Yes
beachcomber2008 9 months ago
@skyarcher "Can I ask you some questions?"
Fire away...
beachcomber2008 9 months ago
Excellent Work!!!
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
@Born2Flesh Thanks you born. Please forward the information here to other people. cheers
skyarcher 10 months ago
The damnedest plane I ever saw. But the 80 or so known videos show an object. If you accept one video you accept an object. I doubt they were holograms. Or that all are fakes. It's very sophisticated.
IExposeMormonism 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ITS TIME TO TAKE ILLUMINATI AWARENESS BEYOND UTUBE! WE THE PPL HAVE THE POWER. WE CAN TURN THIS WORLD AROUND. TAKE IT TO THE STREETS IN PROTEST, MAKE FACEBOOK GROUPS, TELL YOUR FRENDZ AND FAMILY. THE ONLY WAY TO DESTROY THEIR AGENDA IS TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE MASSES. THE ILLUMINATI HAVE POWER THROUGH IGNORANCE. WE MUST UNITE IN LOVE, PEACE, HARMONY. THE TIME IS NOW.DON'T SIT IN FEAR WAITING FOR IT TO HAPPEN.WE CREATE 2MORROW BY WHAT WE PUT ENERGY N2 2DAY. PLEASE THUMBS UP THIS. I LOVE U ALL
lalayinise 11 months ago
FANTASTIC VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!! peace bro!!!!!
technogong 1 year ago
@technogong Peace to you also 0)
skyarcher 1 year ago
Nice proof dude people are pretty retarded now these days they think everything they see on TV is real lol.. they need to wake up they probably think the government is telling us nothing but the truth to lol
jerkswithstyle 1 year ago
What Mensa club member posted this nonsense? Could it possibly be because the plane is generating the explosion and not PASSING THROUGH IT???????!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!
Dude whatever crack you are smoking its damaged your brain irreparably. It boggles my mind there are people out there that believe and post this crap.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
This is the 2nd best proof ever about this subject. Too bad it's too late and american people are still at war. Keep up the good videos man!!!
PEACE
mcbrave15 1 year ago
@mcbrave15 thanks mcbrave ) its not too late...every single person who stops supporting this madness by watching TV and believing all they are told helps dismantle the mind control machine. Cheers
skyarcher 1 year ago
Wake turbulence, or wing tip vortices are ONLY produced if the aircraft is generating lift. When the planes hit the buildings they were no longer generating lift (because they crashed) and therefor could not be producing wing tip vortices, or wake turbulence. This is by far the easiest conspiracy theory to debunk....nice try tho, do some very basic research on this subject and you will realize how stupid this argument is.
bengals101 1 year ago
@bengals101
dreadful response. Why do you think it is called 'wake' tubulence? A wake is what is left after a turbulent event happens and moves a fluid. The 'wake' of a plane remains in the air for several minutes after the plane has gone and any thing - smoke, other aircraft etc. WHO ENTER THE PATH OF WHERE THE PLANE TRAVELLED WILL ENCOUNTER THIS FORCE.. I.E. THE SMOKE AND FUMES FROM THE BUILDING. Dreadful response )
skyarcher 1 year ago
@skyarcher I understand what you are saying, but when the plane crashed into the WTC, the vortices would have been well below the point of impact by the time the smoke plumes began billowing out of the tower. I fly for a living and have a 4 year degree from an aviation school, im not trying to sound arrogant but this theory is ridiculous. And my comment before is 100 percent accurate. do some research.
bengals101 1 year ago
@bengals101 You just got owned and don't accept it!?!? I feel sorry for you man, classic amrican brainwashed sheep. Wake up man!!!
mcbrave15 1 year ago
@bengals101 you are too funny, immediately prior to the planes hitting, even if it was 1 nanosecond prior to hitting, the planes had to be generating lift or they would not have hit, because they would not have been flying, they wouldn't even have been there. Therefore the wake turbulence must be present and cause a corresponding presence in the airmass.
starfleetx1 1 year ago
@bengals101 I agree.
In dry air, wake vortices are not visible, smoke is used in wind tunnels to be able to see them. At 1:24 it can be seen that the wake vortices are left behind the aircraft that is generating them, they do not follow the aircraft, hence there would be no visible turbulence when an aircraft suddenly stopped. In the case of the South Tower plane, the turbulence created by the explosion would have swamped these vortices. This is not proof that the plane was not a real plane.
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 I dont understand your comment. Wake vortices start at tip of the wing of an aircraft while it is flying . The wings of this 'aircraft' hit the building so when did the wake vortices stop? Before the plane hit the building? Please be clear. Are you saying that the vortices stopped coming from the wing tips and at what point b4 they encounter the building did they stop?
skyarcher 10 months ago
@skyarcher
Wake vortices, as their description implies, are left behind in the wake of an aircraft, and are only visible in certain conditions. They are quite small when an aircraft is travelling at a high speed with 'clean' wings. Such vortices would not continue to be generated when the aircraft hit the building, because it was not, then, moving through the air. The amount of invisible turbulence that remained was obviously not enough to visibly affect the smoke from the explosion.
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 I will ask you again as you have avoided my question. If wake vortices begin at the wing tip of an aircraft in flight and in this faked representation the wings hit the building.. when did the vortices stop being produced? before the wing hit the tower or just as it hit the tower?
(p.s. in this fake representation the plane experiences no deceleration. THe wings slice through the building like a hot knife through butter)
skyarcher 10 months ago
@skyarcher
You can ask me as many times as you like. This video you are referring to, in my opinion, is not a fake, and if you care to look up the physics of kinetic energy you will see why. You might also like to explain the engine that was ejected from the building, moments after the crash. Answer your own question. If you are on a bike, and you stop the bike, does the wind still whistle in your ears?
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 Quote "If you are on a bike, and you stop the bike, does the wind still whistle in your ears?"
Now that is an interesting comment as it reveals that you do not understand this concept.
A bicycle uses the friction between the wheel and ground to propel itself. A boat or plane cannot because they are in a liquid and need an aerofoil to interact with the liquid which leaves a wake behind.
The wind whistles in my ears in a boat going fast.When the boat stops the wake doesn't.Get it?
skyarcher 10 months ago
@alawson911 Where have you gone?
Have you got it or have you not Alawson911?
Do you understand?
skyarcher 10 months ago
@skyarcher
I reserve my time for doing useful things. Arguing with people who don't think that planes hit the Twin Towers is not one of them.
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911Quote "I reserve my time for doing useful things. Arguing with people who don't think that planes hit the Twin Towers is not one of them.I reserve my time for doing useful things. Arguing with people who don't think that planes hit the Twin Towers is not one of them."
Once again your comment is very interesting??
Al.
You come to my channel, comment on my no planes video, argue with me..and now claim you never do this?
If you have better things to do why do it? what do you say???
skyarcher 10 months ago
@skyarcher
And you appear to be unable to tell the difference between a comment and an argument. I commented on wake vortices, because someone sent me the link to your video, seeking my opinion. I sent it to him by e-mail, and decided to share it with others who may be interested. Clearly, I do not share your opinion that the lack of visible wake vortices indicates the absence of a real plane. That is what I am not prepared to argue about. A comment does not constitute an argument. Clear now?
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 I think Al it is simple. You are fully of rubbish. You come here and make a comment i.e. argue a point. You respond to 2 more times i.e. engage in an argument. When I point out to you the ridiculousness of your final comment ...the wind whistles in the ear analogy and how you don't understand the nature of wake vortices you go into a huff and act like a 10 year old child. This is your level and its what we have come to expect from you.
skyarcher 10 months ago
@skyarcher
Whatever.
alawson911 10 months ago
@alawson911 Thanks for your comments and please come back and comment on my other videos. Your comments highlight the big holes in logic and facts as presented by people who see planes in the faked footage .
As such they are informative and educational )
skyarcher 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bengals101 "Wake turbulence, or wing tip vortices are ONLY produced if the aircraft is generating lift"
That's true, but once they are generated they remain in motion for MINUTES AFTERWARD
They don't "just vanish" if the plane disappears
What a crackpot U R
beachcomber2008 6 months ago
One more thing, I noticed on your channel page that you mention that even the victims were fake, "digital characters" . That's bullshit in the first degree. Are you telling me that I had a "digital friend" up until 9/11? You give us Irish a bad name. Didn't you ever go to ground zero? Didn't you smell the jet fuel there or was your head so far up your own ass that you couldn't smell anything?
gaarack 1 year ago
@gaarack BEFORE WE continue... WHAT WAS THE NAME OF YOUR FRIEND?????
skyarcher 1 year ago 6
@gaarack .... shill account with nothing in it. YT user since 2006?come on now..
Still waiting for your 'friends' name..
You are not Irish you are a "digital charachter'
skyarcher 1 year ago 3
"gaarack" : please get lost, you shill channel. Just leave my friend Skyarcher alone, ok ?
simonshack 1 year ago 7
I would like to see this researched more. But I think there may be something to it.
MajorBuckSnort 1 year ago
Hmmm, that is odd. Especially for them to claim the planes flying at 500+ MPH. Which is also false.
Yerizzo 1 year ago
Google "Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC"
WTCnucleardemolition 2 years ago
ah the mini-nuke theory, best thing since the shape-shifting reptilian theory.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
At least they're coming up with theories. What's your original theory? Or are you content to take Fox, CNN, NBC and CBS's version of the events? Oh ya... supported by the full faith and credit of the United States government. This is what I was trying to point out about you, you're very quick to try to discredit other peoples theories (as hairbrained as they may be), but you don't have any theories of your own. You left it up to other people.
So what exactly do you think happened on 9/11?
bweazel 2 years ago
You shouldn't believe what the government tells you without checking it out for yourself, always be skeptical. but you seem to be saying that whatever the government tells you can always know is false. Well, while there are countless times the government has lied to the public, they also sometimes tell the truth. the U.S. gov says there is a thing called gravity, and from what I've read on the subject and seen for myself I'm inclined to believe them, that there is a gravitational force.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Show me one time the government has told the truth and I'll show you how they were skimming off the top. Anything. Pick one. You can always be sure that if there is money involved one or both parties is not being honest. It's the way our society works, didn't you know that? The US gov invented the theory of gravity? Starnge, I thought that was Newton. So? Any real example of where the government was honest?
bweazel 2 years ago
So it's not about who you agree with it's about if what you believe has evidence behind it. Remain skeptical until you have convincing evidence. As for me I rarely watch what you call Propaganda central (TV), not because I think they are in collusion with the government just because most of the programing is mindless drivel. My idea of what happened on 9/11 is based off my own knowledge of science, sociology, logic, and what I deem to be reliable sources of information.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Stop trying to twist your way out of it. No one said they were in collusion with the government, but you are naive if you believe the same people that donate to all of the House and Senate, and president races don't also own large chunks of these media companies and hold a huge sway over what is put out over their waves.
Well brother, you haven't looked very deep into it then, in my opinion.
bweazel 2 years ago
What seems to be central to most conspiracy theories, be it those who deny the holocaust or the moon landing or that a plane ever stuck the twin towers, is the idea that there is some kind of large controlling group that can manipulate information. But information is much harder to control than some might think. There are fact checkers who expose lies, people who find the real facts through research and investigation. It's how other conspiracies have been exposed.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Of course they can manipulate information. Who do you think controls the info? The CIA is heavily involved with the private industry. They get most, if not all of their "intel" from these private, front line companies. Same thing for every other government agency. If you have money, information is not hard to control. They create it and disseminate it. If you still believe in the whole terrorism lie, I say to you, grow up and grow some balls.
bweazel 2 years ago 2
You talk about the control of information, but of course your own idea of what happened on 9/11 is also based off of information presented by other people. Which information source is easier to manipulate? Where you get your information about these conspiracies or mainstream sources? At the very least they are equally capable of being deceitful.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
So... what's your point? It's obvious you're still stuck on me calling you out for your ideals not being your own. Get over it. They're not.
I am not dependant on others to form my opinions for me. Sad to say, I spend most of my nights reading news. That's the beauty of the internet. It destroys the control systems. It allows for the transfer of free infofrmation and free opinions across all borders and allows us to read what the PEOPLE think. Not just the few wealthy oligarchs.
bweazel 2 years ago 2
We are witnessing the rise of the peoples press, the free press. Hop on board with us. Believe me, one of these sides wants to use you for monetary gain and then toss you aside once you become a burden. The other side wants to inform you and help you because, wow, we're the same. It's sad to see so many people refusing to disconnect their mouth from the tit of corporate welfare. I don't blame you though. Deep down we all know how hard it would be to go it alone. I'm just as guilty as anyone
bweazel 2 years ago
With all do respect, mr Peterpaulson, I agree with you that information is very hard to control, especially the amount of information and actions that lead to the 911 event. I wonder how the Arabs or Muslims pulled it of then, meaning, keeping all that data to themselfes. I find that harder to believe then the government distorting information, they do this all the time ...
FrancisCapelle 2 years ago
I lived in NYC and on 10.11.01 i spoke to a waitress who worked on the roof top of a restaurant in NJ called Light Horse Tavern I think. She was on the roof when one of the planes flew over. It was deafening she said. I think that there are a lot more pertinent questions than this one about 911, and the "No Planes" theory serves those who wish to quell dissent well.
andrewnevsky 2 years ago
I love the internet..u can say anything ...
e.g MY friend said she saw AN ELEPHANT CARTWHEELING INTO THE TWIN TOWERS!
Talk about trying to change the subject!!U RE BLOCKED.
Message me if you have anything to say about the ACTUAL NATURE of aircraft and flight dynamics which is the POINT OF THIS VIDEO and I will unblock u.
If you dont have anything to say about this F..K off!
skyarcher 2 years ago
Well. Your friend is a liar. The plane was still around 10,000 feet over NJ. And a plane at that height is in no way deafening. They fly over my house all the time at a height way less than that.
The no plane theory is true. You just don't want to admit it because that would mean we live in hell ;) I don't blame you.
bweazel 2 years ago 5
haha well said, sad but true..
WearechangeN 1 year ago
Come on now; just accept the fact that WE are in control of everything, We manipulate information to what we want the masses to hear. Why not stop all of this shouting about a 'hugh conspiracy' and just let us do our job? Why not come on over and join the winning team?
You ARE aware that if not, you'll go by the wayside of all those others who "have proof" of aliens, JFK being alive still, etc. In other words, you'll be discredited to the point of being labeled a lunatic.
Truth sucks, huh?
gaarack 1 year ago
The winning team, eh? What team would that be? Who is this WE you speak of? We as in the sheep? We as in the oligarchy? We as in the media? The government? Who?
No. The more you guys try to label us wackos, the more I think we're on the right path. Well, not you guys, but the media. We really don't give a shit what you sheep think, but if the media is taking note, and taking time out of their propaganda to propagandize you about these "truth" groups, I'd say we're pissing someone off ;)
bweazel 1 year ago
Is that the 'Hugh' Grant the actor Conspiracy you speak of?
Are the 'WE' the 5 people who have bothered to visit your channel since you joined YOUTUBE in 2006? Sorry I just visited your channel so that makes 6 channel views I guess.
We. hmmmm
skyarcher 1 year ago 2
@skyarcher
I hate to burst your bubble Spanky but not everyone who has a channel posts videos for the public. I do not want or desire an audience unlike some people... Now getting back to the actual subject... In regard to your statement regarding vortices taking minutes to degrade is factual (yep, I said it - alert the press) but it is not always the case. Other contributing factors must be considered such as ambient air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure as well as up or down draft.
gaarack 1 year ago
I'm not a pilot, weatherman or physicist even though I work around jet aircraft everyday (including the B767) so I must put my trust in to the people who are trained and educated in those fields in order for me to make an logical choice of what to believe. Yes, I said trust. There are enough professionals in the world that 100 would have come forward if there were legitimate inconsistencies in the multiple videos from various angles. I'm curious as to how you are an expert on the subject.
gaarack 1 year ago
I believe it's because the vortex was squashes by the MASSIVE explosion shockwave or something. The building explode, doesn'Tt hat create disturbuances? it's not at all like flying over right after it explodes on the ground, or before..
MyWordizBond 2 years ago
At 3:00 min there is a video of a plane dropping a BOMB. Can you clearly see the wake vortex from the plane in the EXPLOSION or not?
If you have new data which would explain why the fireball and smoke from the WTC do not interact with vortex of the 'plane' in anyway... please share this data with us.
It is not good enough to say explosion 'shockwave or SOMETHING'
All explosions have shockwaves so what is this other SOMETHING you talk about?
Pls direct us to your data.
skyarcher 2 years ago
So you don't think the explosive force was enough to negate the wake turbulence force?
Also what is more likely?
Either
The plane crashes have some details that can be misconstrued as "impossible" by non-experts or that there is some massive conspiracy that would have to include tens of thousand of people. look at the amount of people who would have to be in on it: news reporters, air traffic controllers, government agencies, phone operators, firemen, pilots, flight engineers, and MANY more.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Pleae repost your comment. But before you do, please look up on the internet 'bandwagon fallacy'.
When you have discovered the meaning of the 'bandwagon fallacy' repost your comment WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF THIS FALLACY IN YOUR COMMENT. THANKS
skyarcher 2 years ago
You're wrong. My belief isn't based on popularity, but probability and looking at real evidence. You seem to think your position is stronger than mine based solely on the fact it isn't popular. I don't hop on bandwagons and going against the majority doesn't automatically make you right. I evaluate claims and that's why I don't believe in your ghost stories. Maybe if you knew how real logic was really used you'd be able to figure things like this out for yourself.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Quote ... My belief isnt based on popularity"
Peter paulson.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Quote .........look at the amount of people who would have to be in on it:news reporters, air traffic controllers, government agencies, phone operators, firemen, pilots, flight engineers, and MANY more....
PETER PAULSON
skyarcher 2 years ago
If you think that's an argument on popularity you missed the point. I just am pointing out how for what you are saying to be true an impossibly large conspiracy would need to exist of tens of thousand of people. And not one of those people have come forward with a confirmable story? that goes against what he know about the nature of political conspiracies. If they couldn't even keep Watergate a secret with a dozen people involved how are they keeping this under wraps?
peterpaulson 2 years ago
This is still the bandwagon fallacy...you are the one who has missed the point. IF i controlled the means of flow of information and stated on this means that black was actually white over and over again and had experts claiming this.. most people would eventually fall in line.
YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT.. please direct me to ACTUAL evidence of planes hitting the towers.. if you direct me to VIDEO evidence i will point out,point by point , why these are fake!
Real evidence pls
skyarcher 2 years ago
You give the government to much credit if you think they can keep secrets this well or that they have that much control. Also you've seen evidence of the plane crash, this video is evidence. We have engineer reports and eyewitnesses. What you attempt to do is discredit this evidence by saying there were no "owl eyes" but I pointed out the explosive force would have more than canceled out turbulence effects.
If you want I can point out why your propositions are fake....
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Video is evidence-it is faked and so points finger towards the killers.
Engineer reports would be evidence except there are hundreds of engineers and professionals who believe this is a demolition. Scratch the surface a tiny bit and you will find them.
A large jet displaces, pushes down, hundreds of tons of air.this massive disturbance remains in the air for several minutes. None of this is seen in the 911 footage=faked.
skyarcher 2 years ago
I understand how turbulence works, you don't seem to realize the "owl eye" effect is only that perfect in wind tunnels in real conditions even wind would distort it. when the plane crashes and explodes the explosion was massive, but you still think you should be able to see the turbulence in the dust cloud. I've seen other videos of plane crashes and never seen owl eyes. Your attempts to discredit conventional evidence fails.
You have engineers, but we have engineers that use sound methods.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
peter. It's you who gives the government too much credit. How small minded of you. Do you actually think the government owns anything or is at all powerful? The people who did this are the ones that own the government. Once you realize that there are people in this country rich enough to have their own space programs or air forces if they wanted, flying a couple cruise missiles into some buildings doesn't seem that far fetched does it?
bweazel 2 years ago
Assertion: WTC collapse looked like a controlled demolition.
This is wrong. Controlled demolition usually starts from the lowest floors and goes up. If you look at video of the collapse then you see the structure fails where the planes hit.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
You are right it is not controlled demolition. It is semi controlled implosion. There is a difference.
skyarcher 2 years ago
The building fell, that's all any of us know. It is possible to take out a few columns and let gravity do the rest, which is the same thing both of us believe. You think a plane cut the columns, we think linear charges did. Either way, we're talking about the same thing, you are just in denial that you live in a world where you are constantly being propagandized and told what to think. Really I think you're too ashamed to admit your ideals are not your own. Pride sucks, don't it?
bweazel 2 years ago
I wonder how you think your beliefs are any more original than mine? How are you less susceptible to "propaganda"? Or is it just because you go against conventional knowledge that you can claim to be more freethinking?
Yes, there are people who believe whatever their government tells them. People who don't think for themselves and don't bother looking into it for themselves. This is stupid. But we must be critical of all claims. I scrutinize both sides, you just scrutinize the less radical one.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Who said anything about originality? What I meant was you are fed your info. you apparently don't search it out. I'm less susceptible to propaganda because I can point it out. I don't watch TV (Propaganda central), I don't take a single word any of them say seriously and I can see a motive behind everything they do, which is never for the good of this country, only a few people. If you still believe the official story for 9/11, you haven't scrutinized anything.
bweazel 2 years ago
Assertion: you can see explosions/squibs/plumes shooting out of the tower.
This is wrong. The stuff shooting out is debris pushed by air. Because of the open space that always must exist in a building it is natural for a building that is falling to have air rushing out, that air pushes the debris.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
Please feel free to tell me your other "evidence"
peterpaulson 2 years ago
I have removed some of your comments ... this video is not about the entire 911 claims and counterclaims.
Best of luck .
skyarcher 2 years ago
Jeez, I thought only the masonic conspiracy used that kind of censorship.
peterpaulson 2 years ago
@peterpaulson I can think of one specific threat that could have coerced all of those people to participate in 9/11, and that is the threat of a homemade nuclear device (a dirty bomb) going of in the heart of New York City, and killings millions. That is the threat that was spread through the private sector with the promise that 9/11 would bring the laws, the removal of constitutional rights, and the volunteers, necessary to prevent it.
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
I do see an owl, but it's small, further indicating a missile, it seems to me. Great work! 5*
FRTothus 2 years ago
The poor people that took that missile flight. If only they boarded an airplane instead of a missile, they might still be alive today.
God you're a stupid cock.
Treniths 2 years ago
Stupid cock? You must be looking into a mirror.
FRTothus 2 years ago
I'm not the one that thinks a missile hit trade center even though there were hundreds of thousands of people that saw an airplane crash, as well as the people that were actually on the plane! No, despite those facts you believe it a missile that was edited out on live TV and replaced with a jumbo jet. That all the people that actually saw it happen were mistaken. That the goverment killed an extra 200 people to make it look like planes actually crashed into the towers instead of a missile.
Treniths 2 years ago
Okay, let's ignore for the moment the mountains of evidence that lies in direct contradiction of the 1970's CIA sitcom of "Arabs Attack US using Jumbo Jets" *ing M Attah as "hijacker. " Let's ignore the war games (VIg Warrior, Vig Guardian et al) simulating sit-com going on THAT DAY (7/7 anyone?). Forget the free-fall collapse, the immense explosions, and the prior FBI attempt w/ truck bomb in 1993, same sit-com. Forget the WTC . No special effects TV this time. What hit the Pentagon?
FRTothus 2 years ago
A plane. Also I'm pretty sure we're talking about the WTC and why you are very dumb.
Let's say the government was behind 9/11. Why the fuck would you think they used missiles? You do understand that there are people that saw this happen, in person, with their own eyes, right? NYC is a really big place with a lot of people. Why wouldn't the government just fly planes into the WTC? If they did use missiles, don't you think a lot of people would of saw that?
You must live in a really small world.
Treniths 2 years ago
I'm not the one with blinders, friend. Missiles (and planted explosives to bring it down) are what would cause the proper damage, not planes. Planes would leave evidence OUTSIDE the buildings in the street: bodies and luggage and seats and engines (like what's missing from the Pentagon). Better just to use accurate missiles and hit the targets, have the media tell us what we were supposed to be seeing. Get Americans angry enuf at the intended victims that threaten USA, Inc's oil & DEMAND war.
FRTothus 2 years ago
Hahaha! Yeah, everybody knows that missiles look like planes, sound like planes, take off from airports on record, are full of real passengers, leave plane shaped holes, and eject landing gear and engines on impact. Duh!
Miko5000 2 years ago
Your assertions are mere conjecture. The only people who saw planes were watching TV. The hole was not the size of a 767. The hijackers were not on the manifest, the passengers unverified, the flights fictitious. There were war games exercises going on that day with "planes" flying into those very same buildings. No passenger plane at the Pentagon, or anywhere else. This was an inside job, a black op, no question. The official story is a lie, start to finish.
FRTothus 2 years ago
"The only people who saw planes were watching TV."
Yep, everyone in New York is in on it, and no one was looking up at the burning tower over the most populated city in the world. You are painfully stupid.
Miko5000 2 years ago
fallacy of belief? quote "everyone in New York is in on it, and no one was looking up at the burning " (ironic)
Here is a question for you brother. Why do almost none of the people interviewed live on the morning of 911 mention 'planes'? why do they only mention 'explosions'? this goes for people standing outside also like the marriot hotel doorman?
i can direct to videos of these people if you like ... what do you think??
skyarcher 2 years ago
Just because you can direct me to videos of people who didn't see planes, doesn't mean that there aren't any people who saw planes.
You see how that works? Sure, if you were on the other side of the building, you probably didn't see a plane, just an explosion. But plenty of people saw planes, photographed and video taped planes, reacted on tape to planes, reported planes live, etc.
I have a close personal friend who was in one of the towers. Your theory means nothing in the real world.
Miko5000 2 years ago
Great. we both agree on something then. What 'people' saw and heard on 911 is contradictory. All of it.
So lets get to the 'real' 'evidence' .Now, if a murder was caught by national media in real time on video live.... this would be the main 'piece' of evidence in any subsequent court case. So tell me why, why does the video evidence in this case not match reality? why do planes pass unimpeded through metal structures?
Your response please.
skyarcher 2 years ago
What? Re-read what I wrote and try again.
Miko5000 2 years ago
Whenever the 9/11 inside job turds give some type of "Scientific evidence" its almost always a bad example.
In this case, yes an airplane flying straight through a pocket of smoke, would create the owl pattern. But the plane in the example flew THROUGH the smoke.
In the WTC the plane HIT a building. The example you give is not an identical example and therefor is a bad analogy and bad science.
Grow up turd.
ghpink 2 years ago
For fucks sake thousands of people saw a jumbo jet crash into one the tallest buildings in one the most populated sections of the United States during the middle of the fucking day! You on the other hand are just some guy that wasn't there and all your information comes from other nut jobs that weren't there!
And the proof to back up your claims? A faulty understanding of physics and a "money war" on a country that had nothing to do with it!
Treniths 2 years ago
All who saw planes hitting buildings that day had one thing in common. They were watching TV. Live witnesses saw zero, but heard/felt/saw many INSIDE explosions (watch the tapes), large & small. Upset because some Illusions were shattered, because you've been, we've all been ->snookered? Me too! Anger is appropriate, but go after the right target. It's not your suspicious fellows. Be angry that we have been lied to, Partriot, & have just cause. Q? Why imp to you that official story is true?
FRTothus 2 years ago
Yeah dude, the entire population of NYC didn't see anything. They were all just watching TV. They didn't actually see a jumbo jet hit the one of the tallest buildings in NYC. They were just lied to and believed it.
This is what happens when you get all of your internet research from other dipshits that think they've uncovered the truth. You ignore what you don't want to hear, and jack off to the thought that you have some keen insight about how the world works. You lack basic logic.
Treniths 2 years ago
haha they want to be special thinking they found the secret when there is no secret and what they think is all bullshit
it was not an inside job why would u want it to be so bad anyway this is your country be proud and fight for it stop being such cowards
cityisonfire 2 years ago
why do you say the planes are digital, what about all of the real people who saw them crash into the buildings... plus if it is a conspiricy what good do they get out of destroying 2 landmarks... sorry to be a knob but there is not enough evidence
henman9010 2 years ago
Comment removed
henman9010 2 years ago
Comment removed
DanSaw24 2 years ago
Brilliant! Great video! I have been saying this since 2002! And my buddy who flies charter jets for Tiger Woods, Schwarzenegger and Warren Buffet etc. says every pilot he knows who has looked into this, even for a second, agrees there were NO PLANES on 9/11. For gods sake people intelligent CAREER pilots are in agreement o this thing! WAKE UP! They are using the TV to sedate, and lie to you! EVERY CHANNEL, EVERY SECOND! TURN THEM OFF! Your living in an electronic version of reality. ITS A LIE!
kidwave1 2 years ago 2
So according to you..where did those 4 hijacked planes go? Oh maybe there was no hijacked planes? Go tell that to the familes that lost their family members. Lets see how they like it.
DanSaw24 2 years ago
Quote "Oh maybe there was no hijacked planes?"
correct,
simple insertion of digital planes into a TV image.
skyarcher 2 years ago
So basically you are disrespecting the people that died that day, oh and their families as well. Do you have any idea how many people would have to be behind an inside job? Oh and sir please explain to me oh so kindly why our government would do this? Entertain me twit.
DanSaw24 2 years ago
Money...when you boil it down...this is why....Money....next is control.
Do some of your own investigating in to our goverment...you'll find what your looking for...cause its there.
Bloodlyne357 2 years ago
Funny enough south park made an episode making fun of inside retards that think 9/11 was an inside job for money.
Buddy there is no logical reason for 9/11 to be an inside job. There is no reason for our government to destroy our own buildings and kill our own people.
Anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job is a retard. Pretty much turning a blind eye away from terrorism.
Now I want you to entertain me. In your mind how was 9/11 played out.
DanSaw24 2 years ago
Why do you say that? Retard?...because there are thoses who don't buy into what the goverment tells us?
And i was in the military, supporting this war on terrorisim if you will.
you believe what you want...you have that right....for now.
but in doing so let us believe what we want.
because in the end (and the end is coming). there will be a resistence.
I will be in that resistence, among many.
Bloodlyne357 2 years ago
There is only one word that describes insiders. Retards. Why would you think that our government is corrupt?
DanSaw24 2 years ago
What would convince you other wise?9/11 along with
this war has made alot of people very very rich indeed at the account of over 110,000 lives.
the evidence is there...you dont bother to question it....why?
Bloodlyne357 2 years ago
You trust people who would sell you out for a nickel, pal. If you had a logical reason, would that be all that it would take to change your mind? How much evidence would it take? And if you discovered that you'd been snooker'd, been the victim of an official haox (like the Great Communist Conspiracy, or the "Missile Gap". eg), learned nothing from Vietnam's Pentagon Papers, would you apologize to those you once laughed at and called a retard? Check out "Operation Northwoods". Wise up, friend.
FRTothus 2 years ago
I don't think you understand. People, real life people, PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN NYC saw this happen. Most populated city during the day, one of the largest towers, huge fucking plane. How can you over look this?
If the government was behind it, they still would of used fucking planes. You know why? Because you can't fake run a jumbo jet into a giant tower in the middle of the day in a heavily populated city.
But I guess I should believe you instead of anything that makes sense.
Treniths 2 years ago
This video fails to mention on CRUCIAL fact about wake vortices that NEGATES the entire argument:
Smoke & fire RISE.
Wake vortices SINK.
And never the twain shall meet.
Mystery solved.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Quote 'Mystery solved' ?
Answer me this.... What is the wake vortice descent velocity?
For your 'theory' to work it would have to be something like half a second per 200 foot?
I know what it is but i would like to hear it coming from your mouth.. so lets hear it you..
what is the descent velocity of wake vortices??
skyarcher 2 years ago
"For your 'theory' to work it would have to be something like half a second per 200 foot?"
Are you going to produce any math to back up this ludicrous statement? Just wondering.
The sink rate of wake vortices is irrelevant; the point here is that they SINK. Watch the tests again; the vortices are NEVER seen above the planes' flight paths.
So knowing that the wake vortex & the fireball will never meet, why exactly should we see them interact?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
I asked you a question to which you have not replied... now you brought up the wake vortices descent rate in the first place so i would expect that you know the answer ..
so again,,, what is the descent rate for wake vortices ?? as it is the answet to the question you pose..
pls answer this question first or i will block you.
You brought it up now answer pls.
skyarcher 2 years ago
"you brought up the wake vortices descent rate in the first place"
No I did NOT. Read it again; it was YOU who brought up the rate. I merely pointed out that they DO sink.
"pls answer this question first or i will block you."
Srsly? Baby gonna take his ball & go home? Are you really that afraid of honest questions & debate?
OK here you go: 400 ft/minute, give or take. There, I answered your question so please answer mine: How is that relevant?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
An answer good.
400ft/min, i heard its less, but lets use this figure for arguments sake.
THIS IS 6 FOOT per sec!!!
'plane' hits building.. 1/2 sec later a huge fireball and smoke explode from building and extends upwards and downwards and sidewards and outwards ... a ball with diameter of over 300 ft..
AND YOU ASK WHY IS VORTEX DESCENT RATE RELEVELANT?
are u for real?
1 min later vortex is only 1/3 down building?? NO INTERACTION AT ALL WITH SMOKW IN MEANTIME.
I have heard enough TIM.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Last time I remember, the planes were slanted and away from the ground, not upright and horizontal.
BTW: Tornadoes form differently than these whirlwinds.
Ghostwarrior213 2 years ago
Where is the displacement? please point it out. Pause the video and tell us where u can see it.
Why is the explosion on the 'plane' side have the same form and shape as the explosion on the non 'plane' impact side?
A jet liner displaces 100s of tons of air , it pushes air downwards.
Please explain where this huge volume of air has gone to?
call me a moron if you like but if u cannot explain this i think your dog may have a better grasp of physics than you.
Lets hear you.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Only an intellectually dishonest moron losing an argument would do what you just did - challenge me to a response after muting my account.
What a fucktard.
Anyway, the displacement, you pathetic dolt, IS THE GIANT FUCKING EXPLOSION COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING. These gases are not spinning, and they are not magically going to start spinning just because they occupy space formerly occupied by spinning air.
jjjjj64 2 years ago
Actually anyone who cant have a mature discussion here gets blocked.Why shud i allow people to call me 'moron' 'fucktard' etc. I put effort into making these videos and dont like people who bring it down to the level of kindergarten like u have here.I got to scrap the shit from my shoes you know)
I am glad u have gone to all the trouble of setting up a new acc. just to 'reply' to me.U will have to set up another one now cos u still have not answered my question.
skyarcher 2 years ago
No, you're now ignoring some very valid contradictory information based on the fact that you don't like a person. This is bad science. He makes a good point, and to ask him to find EXACTALLY where in the video the displacement occurs when there is a huge fuck off fireball expanding from the impact site is a little ridiculous. In addition, the concussive outward wave is invisible to the naked eye, causing only a very slight visual distortion if highlighted with particulate matter, ie: smoke.
Gunny467 2 years ago
Why can't I post any more comments on this video? This one prob'ly will, though, since it doesn't say anything...
911Checkmate 2 years ago
Another "thing" to, "Observe" Is, "How long was the "video", of the "plane hitting the tower/smoke", to "the time the vortex'es, would show up", like in your video? Maybe, "the media, already "knew that", as to only show minimal in timing, before the "owl/"womans breasts" would "show up"! (Get it?) My brothers died in Vietnam! Long before I "Found Out" that the "Gulf of Tonkin", was Just ANOTHER "FALSE FLAG", & Just Like "9/11"!!!!!!!
crlwllns 2 years ago
Another "Word" for "Tele-Vision", IS, "Devil-
VISION"! THANK YOU! For Your Most EXCELLENT Observation! It IS, "Right UP There", With "SUPER-Thermite"!!!!!!!
crlwllns 2 years ago
Very good informative video. The 9/11 footage and planes are definitely fake... after all, graphic cartoon images don't obey the laws of the real world, now do they? ;)
ImyManz99 2 years ago
Lies.. all bullshit. Fucking FAKE!
CleetzI337 2 years ago 3
I agree with you. Faked images of aircraft on 911.
It is all lies.
Good comment.
skyarcher 2 years ago