The 9/11 Conspiracies - Fact Or Fiction Debunked - Part 2
Uploader Comments (Jonny35jj)
Top Comments
-
Thats right stick to your journalist experts tell you the truth don't ask questions don't listen to the families of the victims on that day demanding real answers. You just lap up the strawman debunking by popular mechanics, after all, physical evidence is all that matters, right? Who gives a shit if they know the first thing about intelligence/politics, or if bush won't swear under oath for the 9/11 commission report. If they say steel doesn't melt, the case is closed. :)
-
WTC 7 was not explained because it wasnt a target??? 100's of engineers with "real expertise" and then later claiming they have no expertise. Cmon there reason no-one is an expert in buildings collapsing by fire is because they don't. Instead of asking engineers what happened talk to demolition "experts" and they will clear up your confusion. When a building collapses into it's own footprint it is not luck. It is planned. Good try on that response bub.
All Comments (72)
-
v=yuC_4mGTs98 v=j5FhQc-LJ-o v=5qFsjdymqSk v=OQgVCj7q49o v=KhdppHwUJ9k v=zhnNy5EsebA v=iGqjzFQvfdI v=WxqoChniKVU v=qFpbZ-aLDLY v=9QWvkAgyIY4 v=HfmliaqIRBE v=HSjDCwN2i3w v=8XRMrMdn0NQ v=wKuLUu7SQU4 v=dVutUGDiQN0 v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4 v=9fNLz8zWwaM v=4CfNSDnz8qI v=Ne1FJBVkh4s v=2rYR3JLaNp0 v=9nc5_5IJek8 v=mVMrhqb4WwE v=7e_ImZYzNLs v=JeU1rxnj0o4 v=LG6i6WBHM3U v=q4dU_p9UTTs v=8En6Ag8y77M v=s9C7V_4iEyE v=YGAaPjqdbgQ v=kG4yGICFsi8 v=5c1WERse4uI v=G43zl4fzDQg
-
Ok a plane took down theft twin towers(if you say so)well building number7 was "pulled" even the owner of the fucking building said so! To "pull" meaning to bring down a building with explosives, ask any one that does that for a living and they will tell you it takes months of PLANNING ....PLANNING being the KEY word
-
You call the truth of overwhelming evidence and using our own eyes as the "theory". Hilarious. You truthers has lost your minds.
-
Garbage video.
-
Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Family who Theodore Roosevelt once said, "He is the most potent single influence for evil we have in our life." His heirs have openly admitted their allegiance to his views. In addition, American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the Popular Mechanics 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
-
popular mechanics is a tendentious government propaganda machine.
-
@canofsand Exactly. You're such a fag. Fuck yourself.
-
@DiCkRiChArDz Paraphrasing: "YOU ARE A DUMB DUMB STUPID HEAD [and more vulgar, which in truth makes you sound even more ridiculous] AND I CAN CALL YOU WHATEVER I WANT! I HAVE LOTS OF EVIDENCE AND NO AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY CAN PROVE ME WRONG!"
-
@canofsand Yeah, well, i have enough evidence to call you whatever the fuck I like, and i'm not your normal "conspiracy theorist", im a person who thinks logically, which is more you could say about yourself. Retard.
911 was inside!! Kerosene cannot pulverize concrete into MICRO POWER DUST?? WTC 7 flops over at 5:20 pm from fire???
Jim Miegs EXPLAIN WTC 7? EXPLAIN WHERE HANI HANJOUR'S DNA IS?? PROVE WITH A PHOTO HE WAS IN THE COCK PIT? and his TOP GUN FLYING MANEUVERS??? AHUH SURE....
Gwenlj 3 years ago
Gwenlj, I must say you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the official version. Although i appreciate that you are thinking outside the box, many people who were killed that day never had their DNA recovered due to the heat of the burning rubble which was enough to destroy DNA. Also, who no one is going to take a picture of hanjour in the cockpit, his ability to fly a plane into the twin towers however, well thats debatable.
Jonny35jj 3 years ago
So, are you saying that you should not debunk a conspriacy theory? I mean, what is wrong wih countering many far fetched conspriacies?
Requiredghr18 3 years ago
No, i'm not saying that at all. I could give a long explination but if you can't see what the aim of the video is by now i don't think there's much point. I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion that i'm saying "that you should not debunk a conspriacy theory" - i'm not sure if that's seriously your interpretation or wheather thats supposed to entice me into argument - but all i can say is read the description. (Apologies for double post. I keep posting on wrong account.)
Jonny35jj 3 years ago