9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 14

The 9/11 Un-debunked series is a series of videos made in response to the videos posted by RKOwens4 and also to respond to the claims of other so-called 9/11 debunkers. The series does not address every subject raised by RKOwens4 in his videos, only the most important ones. The series mainly focuses on the collapse of the WTC and Building 7. The series does address the issues of the Pentagon and Flight 93 some what. Other issues are not raised simply because either the theories have no merit and have been debunked or the issue has been debated to the point where all the information has been exhausted. This video series does not endorse any "missile" or "no planes" theories. It focuses on scientific evidence based from the work of Dr. Steven Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan. It is strongly encouraged to use this video series to answer any of the claims made by so-called "debunkers." Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself. I DO NOT OWN THE MUSIC OR PICTURES SHOWN IN THIS VIDEO SERIES.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• 911
• Truth
• Movement
• New
• World
• Order
• Steven
• E.
• Jones
• Richard
• Gage
• Kevin
• Ryan
• James
• Jim
• Hoffman
• David
• Ray
• Griffin
• Trade
• Center
• WTC
• Twin
• Towers
• Thermite
• Thermate
• Pentagon
• Flight
• 93

[rroman3212]

That video was a waste of 8 minutes. Besides the "evidence" that means very little to nothing there is one major problem with your theory: If the plane was shot down it would have left large chunks of debris like any other crash. It left no visible degree because it flew straight into the ground at 500 mph. That would not have happened if the plane was shot down. And why do half of your eye witnesses have no names?

[CptJackAubreyRN]

What, no debunkernuts on here commenting about the lousy information contained in this video? What's wrong fellas, cat got your typing fingers? Maybe this video is just too convincing for the shills to tear it apart. Far too much evidence of what really happened and bugger all worth a fart from the official side. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry, I shouldn't laugh. This is a serious subject but you shills are so pathetic.

[Tommygb21]

Once again un-debunkers (LOL) ... An aircraft in flight that is shot down does NOT simply "suddenly drop like a stone, an almost vertical nosedive." It loses its aerodynamic properties all together, and fails to maintain any predictable movement, other than the movement will be unpredictable. oh, and the poster of this video drastically fails to understand kinetic energy. an aircraft crashing at 600 mph into the ground is going to leave a VERY large debris field.

[rroman3212]

@DanTheBrahman By "that piece of evidence" I can only assume you are talking about what the video shows at 1:51. All the video does at that point is take "facts" and interpret them however they want to show that it fits their theory. If you consider that falsifying then I guess my answer would be Yes.

[rroman3212]

@AlexanderTheGood89 lol! No they never do. It is more fun to live in their conspiracy world. Much more interesting over their.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@rroman3212

Sorry, citizenfor911lies1 does not respond to legitimate criticisms of his work.

[TheGodKingOfMusic]

im sure these videos brings up some interesting facts about stuff but the music is horrible

[vivalaryan54]

@bf2lover42 more like ricocheted not really bounced. The ground would just deflect all that momentum not absorb it. Yes you are right there is no way UA93 was shot down if that was the case, debris would have been found along the flight path before the crash site. The debris was found downwind towards the southeast. And idk about TWA 800 i have no idea what happened with that I dont see a reason not to believe the official story of that 

[bf2lover42]

@vivalaryan54 but it is wierd that such a dense object would simply bouce off the ground. It would if both the ground and the engine had elastic prorieties, but the engine itself is made from parts with different masses and sizes, so I guess it would scatter - several hundreds of feet away the place it crashed.

But I don't think that the evidence shows a plane shot down. Even that TWA plane chopped in half is more consistent with missile damage (only with continuous-rod warheads, though)

[vivalaryan54]

@bf2lover42 There are some questions raised about the lack of engines in the Pentagon but I'm guessing it was crushed when the outer ring collapsed, I'm not positive.

3.5 tons of metal traveling at 563mph has a tremendous amount of momentum because of the initial speed and the immense mass. The reason it didn't travel farther than 2000 feet (3.5 tons at 563mph with no resistance could potentially travel a little under a mile) was because of the 40 degree impact angle you mentioned.

[bf2lover42]

@vivalaryan54 Sorry for bumping a 6 month old comment, but I couldn't ignore the situation.

In a video I wacthed a few mins ago, a comment was "proving" that the engines were found in the Pentagon, just in pieces because of the impact.

Now you are telling us that the engine can tumble 2000 feet after crashing to the ground at a 40º degree angle @ 850 feet per second.

Debunkers are as much coherent as Conspiracy Theorists. 9 years later, and the arguements are still interesting.