911: More Professionals Putting It Out There!

Sharing is Caring!


See also  Biden Admits There Never Was A COVID ‘Playbook’... White House Grilled: If Vaccines Work, Why The Masks Again?.... This Is Politics, Not Science.’
2,283 views
See also  Joe Biden Hints There May Be Forced/Mandated Vaccinations Across the Country by the Federal Government: "... I don't know that yet.

57 thoughts on “911: More Professionals Putting It Out There!

  1. He is taking time out of his busy day to make a false claim.
    Sorry, but all three buildings which collapsed were on fire, burning totally out of control. Fire was the cause of collapse, regardless what he wants to imagine.
    His two 15 story blocks would not have reached the ground at the same time. Just watching the video of the collapse of both Towers, free falling columns sections, which would have been like the block in his right hand, fell faster than the 95 floors collapsed to the ground.
    One home video of the South Tower collapse showed one column section just above the ground while maybe a third of the Tower was still standing.
    The building below his red line is impacted by the falling top 15 floors. Black smoke quickly envelopes a number of floors below his red line before the roof line reaches his red line.
    There were no waves of explosions. The building floor space was collapsing internally, forcing smoke and fine debris out of the building. The claim that the top 15 stories could not do that in a pancaking collapse, is simply false.
    Quite the dramatic flair, dropping the block on the table. The problem is that his argument doesn’t hold any air, or water for that matter.
    Waving arms in the air is not science. The man has no credible evidence of any explosives being planted in the Tower, yet proclaims that waves of explosions were the cause of the collapse below the 95th floor.
    The empty mantra that no steel building had completely collapsed due to fire, prior to 9/11 demonstrates the willful ignorance of the unique features of these particular fires.
    All three fires burned virtually completely out of control. Fire fighters never got to the 95th floor of WTC1. Fire fighters got to the 78th floor of WTC2, just before it collapsed. NYFD abandoned any effort to fight the fires in WTC7, as by that time they had already lost 343 men and they were concerned that WTC7 might fall, killing even more firefighters.

    • It was a controlled demolition, plain and simple. I’m sorry, but the central columns had to be severed in multiple places in order to fall at that speed. They would have given a massive amount of resistance against the free fall, and would have caused deflection of the upper debris away from the building, not into a nice pile in the foot print of the building. The pancake theory is physically impossible in this thing we call reality.

      • Plain and simple, the Tower shown in the video collapsed due to the out of control fire. There is no credible evidence of anything else.
        There was resistance against free fall. Just look at the video. Column sections were falling much faster than the Tower was collapsing. In the video several can be seen plummeting past floors of the building that were still standing. Why do you ignore what i noted was in the video? Because you don’t want to see what is actually there, because it is counter to your propaganda.
        The debris fell both inside and outside the footprint. There was no nice pile. Debris struck buildings well outside the footprint, such as WTC7.
        Pancake is what is seen in the video of the collapse. Why are you denying what is observable in the video? All the floor trusses were contained within the exterior walls and falling debris stripped them from their connections to the exterior walls and interior columns, sending them down to the next floor.

        • Hello jewscum. The WORLD knows your tribe from israHELL and the traitor criminals in the zog did 911. Fucking moron shill. Now tell us the fairy tale of the 145 wide 757 which folded up into a 14 foot wide hole inn the pentaCON.

        • Around 30,000,000 Patriots WILL see EVERY scumbag troll in the coming war – with a rope MF – have funnnnn trolling. We WILL get eeery IP and record of every troll, anywhere in the world. Then we will kill the families of the trollls in front of them, then slowly kill each troll. Sounds like a plan huh, propogada punk.

    • Moronic and pointless comments backed up with….NOTHING. Your opinion means nothing, zero, f–k all, etc. The fires were going out you twat. Amazing how many idiots there are in the US.

      • Nexus, you are not fooling me with your empty claim.
        The name calling is also empty. That is the substance of your argument, not actual facts.
        The fires were going out? Take a good look at the video again. Look at that big whoosh of flame as the Tower began to collapse, not to mention the heavy black smoke pouring out the the Tower at the time it collapsed. Dissipating fires produce less smoke, not copious amounts.

        • The heavy black smoke means the fire is STARVED of oxygen. . . . an oxygen starved fire is not, I repeat, NOT a raging fire. I don’t like the blacksmith rebuttle video – he has dealt with these idiots for so long (people just like you) that he’s angry & has let himself put out what I see as a non rebuttle video – he could’ve done a far better job. That said. WTC 1 & 2 weren’t raging & WTC 7 had virtually nothing in the way of real engulfing fire going on. Google “steel framed buildings on fire” There’s one in Windsor Building, Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental burning top to bottom . . .NEVER COLLAPSED

          • “The heavy black smoke means the fire is STARVED of oxygen. . . . an oxygen starved fire is not, I repeat, NOT a raging fire.”
            Repeat all you like. It means nothing.
            Floor to ceiling flames and beyond, pouring out WTC windows, were not oxygen starved. A pile of burning tires sitting on a road, will produce black smoke. They are not starved for oxygen.
            “That said. WTC 1 & 2 weren’t raging”
            Yes they were.
            ” Google “steel framed buildings on fire” There’s one in Windsor
            Building, Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental burning top to bottom . . .NEVER
            COLLAPSED”
            WTC buildings were unique design, which you deliberately ignore. Windsor Tower steel partially collapsed and was only stopped from completely collapsing due to a special slab floor, below the floors which did collapse. The WTC buildings did not have that feature.

          • An oxygen starved fire means nothing??!!?? Get a grip !!
            The WTC at NO TIME were engulfed from top to bottom or anything even approaching it, in flame. POST PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIM – I challenge you to produce a photo showing any of the WTC towers engulfed in flames.
            As for the Winsor in Madrid . . .it burned for 18 HOURS & had the outer partially collapse while the core remained Intact. Within a couple of hours the WTC buildings were largely reduced to dust and THE MOLTEN STEEL burnt in the rubble until early December from memory. Fireman’s boots melted after 2 hours work on top of the rubble pile for gods sake !!
            Here’s some links to absorb . . .lots of talk from professionals about the laws of thermo dynamics & melted & vaporised steel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8
            https://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/molten-steel-found-at-ground-zero-weeks-after-911/
            http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com/

          • “An oxygen starved fire means nothing??!!?? Get a grip !!”
            Can’t you read? “Floor to ceiling flames and beyond, pouring out WTC windows, were not oxygen starved. A pile of burning tires sitting on a road, will produce black smoke. They are not starved for oxygen.”
            “The WTC at NO TIME were engulfed from top to bottom or anything even approaching it, in flame.”
            Individual floor spaces were engulfed in flames, floor to ceiling and beyond, pouring out the windows. That caused structural weakness which resulted in the collapse of the Towers.
            “Within a couple of hours the WTC buildings were largely reduced to dust
            and THE MOLTEN STEEL burnt in the rubble until early December from
            memory”
            There was no molten steel. There was some hot glowing solid steel, of which there are photos.
            “As for the Winsor in Madrid . . .it burned for 18 HOURS & had the
            outer partially collapse while the core remained Intact.”
            The new WTC1 has a concrete lined core, the original did not. Why do you deliberately ignore the difference? Because you don’t want to see the truth that the totally out of control fire caused structural weakness, which caused it to collapse?

          • As I suspected . . more circular runarounds. WHERE IS THE PHOTOGAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE WTC BUILDINGS WHERE ENGULFED IN FIRE. The Windsors core never looked like collapsing. The core remained intact. where pray tell did the 47 steel columns from WTC 1 & 2 go. You said above somewhere that ” . . . . building was on fire and floor space collapsed, forcing smoke out windows. . . .” Do I take it from that that there was some sort of pancaking floor theory ?? That alone should’ve left the central core relatively intact, yet all 47 columns seem to have disappeared where did that steel go. Watch the videos I posted in my previous post . And don’t froget to POST THE PHOTOS.

          • “As I suspected . . more circular runarounds. WHERE IS THE PHOTOGAPHIC
            EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE WTC BUILDINGS WHERE ENGULFED IN FIRE”
            No circular runaround. There is plenty of video evidence of engulfing floor to ceiling flames and beyond, in the WTC fires.
            “The Windsors core never looked like collapsing. The core remained intact.”
            The WTC buildings did not have a concrete lined core.
            “You said above somewhere that ” . . . . building was on fire and floor
            space collapsed, forcing smoke out windows. . . .” Do I take it from
            that that there was some sort of pancaking floor theory ?? That alone
            should’ve left the central core relatively intact, yet all 47 columns
            seem to have disappeared where did that steel go.”
            The upper block of floors fell down upon the rest of each Tower’s remaining floors. It was a very destructive process, even to the 47 core columns. In WTC2, the top 30 floors fell onto the rest of the building.
            The core columns would have been no match for that.
            If you look at video of the North Tower collapse, you can see a few of the core columns still partially standing, until they fall over, as they no longer had any lateral support.

          • POST THE PHOTO OF ANYONE – TAKE YOUR PICK – OF A WORLD TRADE CENTRE BUILDING ENGULFED IN FLAMES. Here’s a piccy of the Mandarine in Beijing TOTALLY engulfed. . . .didn’t fall down

          • Just reread your post.
            ” . . . . the top 30 floors fell onto the rest of the building. The core columns would have been no match for that.”
            The floors of the building were attached to the core columns. The floors collapsing, no matter how destructive, would’ve had virtually no effect on the core . It should’ve remained standing unless they had neeb compromised at or near their base. We know that steel doesn’t melt at 1600 degrees which is the MAXIMUM temp that office fires burn at in IDEAL conditions so they should still have been resonably intact.
            See the core in the photo below ??? The floors are attached to that, they don’t run through the core They are bolted to the core. At the worst the core would have crashed down into lower Manhatten. most of it’s 110 floors . . . . Times 2 !!

    • Physics is 100% repeatable, there is no credible evidence that airliners hit the WTC. Alum will NEVER cut through structural building steel under such conditions.

      • There is plenty of video and photographic evidence that airliners hit the Twin Towers.
        The jetliners did not cut through the steel columns, they broke the connections between the column sections, which is what accounted for the huge hole in the north wall of WTC1.
        The bolts holding sections together were the weakest link.

        • And yet you won’t provide a shred of repeatable evidence to support your hypothesis. And Copperfield move the Statue of Liberty off it’s pedestal, according to your ‘video evidence’.

          • It is not a hypothesis. The column sections were connected together by a few bolts, run through holes in the top and bottom of each column section. the bolts would have been the weakest link in the column.
            When the Towers collapsed, the exterior walls broke apart in groups of column sections. That is a lot of repeatable evidence.

  2. The slimy troll below can’t explain the polls of molten steel below ground zero that persisted for months, or the metal fire that burned like a beacon at the 81st floor of the the sth tower, or the eutectic micro structure that precipitated out from the molten steel below WTC7.
    The troll also neglected to mention the 5 explosives-tainted jubilant Israelis caught with “maps linking them to the bombing plot” because he doesn’t want to indict his bloodthirsty supremacist cult of “chosen ones” who said “we decided to pull it” & “It was good for Israel”

    • Ah, the name calling.
      There was no molten steel. There is also no photography or video of pools of liquid molten metal, or solidified pools of molten metal.
      Are you talking about the stream of embers from one window of the 81st floor north wall?
      As you already know, pull it referred to the fire fighting effort in WTC7. A 47 story building is not demoed by pulling it.

        • “No photography?”
          Yes, no photography or video of pools of liquid molten metal, or solidified pools of molten metal.
          The bright spot in number 2 is not a pool of molten metal. It is the result of over exposure. No pool in number 3, either.
          Number 4 is glowing solid metal. Molten is liquid, not solid.
          The top picture, that column was cut with a cutting torch, after the building had already fallen.
          Nice pictures, though.

          • So explain that precision cut on the support pilalr. Notice it appears in exactly the same configuration on 2 pillars. That’s not the twisted result of a building falling under the stress of it’s own weight, that’s a precision cutting charge at a very specific angle with no shearing or twisting that youd expect from mass causing it to collapse.
            #2 is not simply overexposure. Even if it was, there were clearly specular highlights created by molten metal. Molten metal doesnt have to be pure liquid. 3 shows metal retaining a huge amount of thermal heat, which couldnt be cause by simple exposure to quick burning jet fuel or retaining that thermal mass hours after the collapse.
            Number 4’s glowing solid metal is again nearly 14 hours after the collapse. Jet fuel doesnt burn that hot.
            You said there was no photography. There’s plenty of photography showing hot glowing metal days after the collapse that simply couldnt have been the result of a flash burn of jet fuel. Jet fuels maximum burn temp is 1500F. Steel doesnt even approach melting until 2750F. At exposure to 1500F for a period of less than 30 seconds, the metal would not be glowing for days. The friction from collapse would not have created temperatures that would even match the jet fuel. Someone has failed to explain how these masses of metal retained that much heat in what was essentially a flash burn where the fuel was consumed after being dispersed in less than a minute.

          • “So explain that precision cut on the support pilalr.”
            I explained it already. “The top picture, that column was cut with a cutting torch, after the building had already fallen.”
            “Even if it was, there were clearly specular highlights created by molten metal. Molten metal doesnt have to be pure liquid.”
            Molten is liquid. Over exposed bright highlights are what you see in that photo.
            “Number 4’s glowing solid metal is again nearly 14 hours after the collapse. Jet fuel doesnt burn that hot.”
            4 is not and never was molten. Jet fuel is empty propaganda mantra. Thermite did not cause that metal to glow like that. Common office combustibles fed the fire while the buildings were still standing. There was fire in the rubble for weeks afterward.
            “You said there was no photography.”
            No, i said “no photography or video of pools of liquid molten metal, or solidified pools of molten metal.”
            “Jet fuels maximum burn temp is 1500F. Steel doesnt even approach melting until 2750F.”
            Not a problem. There was no molten steel. Why do you keep bringing up jet fuel?
            “Someone has failed to explain how these masses of metal retained that
            much heat in what was essentially a flash burn where the fuel was
            consumed after being dispersed in less than a minute.”
            What you have failed to explain is the out of control office content fires which burned even while the buildings collapsed. That was not a flash burn.
            So why do you keep interjecting jet fuel, when you know the office content fires caused floor to ceiling and beyond flames, which burned well longer than a minute?

          • Find corroboration that those supports were cut with a cutting tool if that’s your excuse.
            As far as the definition of Molten:
            ” Full Definition of molten
            1: obsolete : made by melting and casting
            2: fused or liquefied by heat : melted
            3: having warmth or brilliance : glowing”
            Having warmth or brilliance.
            Photo #2 clearly shows more than simple overexposure, there are flames present. There is still shadow detail present as well. I actually took 3 years of photo and film classes and that is not simply explained away by overexposure. If it was grossly overexposed it would be too light and washed out and those shadow details would be unintelligible.
            Number 4, again, neither jet fuel nor office consumables create enough heat to make large chunks of metal glow with heat for 14 hours. It takes 2750F for steel to melt and there is clearly stuff coming off that piece of metal as its being lifted in the air. The fact its still glowing as emergency equipment was in place shows that the heat that was generated far exceeds any of the temperatures that could have been created by simple consumables, or with the best candidate, the jet fuel which you’ve already ruled out as empty propaganda. So if you dont think the jet fuel did it, then what created the heat retained by all these large pieces of metal? Friction generated thousands of degrees of heat and sustained it to the point these things would still be glowing more than 12 hours after the building fell?? Give me something rational to explain that phenomenon. Even fire in the rubble would not create the heat necessary to make a solid chunk of metal white hot, especially after weeks. The average temperature of a smoldering fire is even lower at 400F.
            I keep bringing up jet fuel because enough heat has to be generated to make these peices glow and the only likely candidate would be jet fuel. Except it burned hot and quick and then was expended. Theres nothing else that generates enough heat to make these pieces of GLOWING MOLTEN METAL that appear all over the place which you said didnt exist. Now you’re trying to narrow the definition of molten metal. According to the dictionary, glowing metal is molten metal.
            Office content fires are incidental, they dont reach the temperatures required to make metal objects retain heat glow for days. Even if they were smoldering office content fires, the highest temperatures they reached without an accelerant is 400F. The only possible thing in the record that could have achieved those temperatures is jet fuel, which still is 1250F under the melt point. But Thermite burns at 4000F and can slice through metal exactly like those supports were sheared. In fact, in a controlled demolition that is exactly how youd bring the building straight down, by cutting each of the support pillars at multiple points up and down the building at exactly the same angle so the whole thing fell off its supports and sandwiched on itself as it came down instead of canting over.
            We havent even talked about all the earmarks of controlled demolitions that appeared in all 3 of the buildings that were allegedly brought down by 2 commercial planes. Or the fact no skyscraper thats ever caught on fire has ever collapsed except on 911.
            Clearly we’ve been lied to. We’re also supposed to believe the Pentagon only had one security camera in the parking lot that captured a low resolution fireball in 5 frames of video.

          • “Find corroboration that those supports were cut with a cutting tool if that’s your excuse.”
            Those supports were cut by a torch after the building had collapsed. No need to corroborate the obvious.
            “Photo #2 clearly shows more than simple overexposure, there are flames present.”
            Bright yellow over exposure. No detail.
            “I actually took 3 years of photo and film classes and that is not
            simply explained away by overexposure. If it was grossly overexposed it would be too light and washed out and those shadow details would be unintelligible.”
            The yellow is over exposed and washed out, which anyone with a photography background can see.
            An aperture setting for proper exposure in shade, will result in over exposure of anything in the sunlight.
            It is not the whole photo that is over exposed, just the bright yellow, which on video waveform monitor would exceed 100 IRE, losing all detail.

          • An absence of evidence is not evidence. You’re making a claim that you cannot back up. It is not obvious they were cut with a torch.
            There is shadow detail. It is slightly overexposed as well as being low res and shot with a slow shutter speed (low light conditions), but there is indeed shadow detail and open flames. That’s not an adequate explanation on your part. The washed out parts you’re seeing are flames not blown highlights from overexposure. If it was overexposed even the shadows would be washed out and they arent. The metal is clearly glowing as well as flames moving in the breeze. I can see detail shadow detail in the right center of frame, the lower left third and center left of the frame. Those should be blown out in a simple overexposure.
            I noticed you also had nothing to say about anything else. You have no logical explanation for what generated the heat the metal was retaining and smoldering fires of office consumables at 400F is not enough heat to make the metal glow.

          • “An absence of evidence is not evidence. You’re making a claim that you
            cannot back up. It is not obvious they were cut with a torch.”
            It is obvious it was cut with a torch.
            “There is shadow detail. It is slightly overexposed as well as being low
            res and shot with a slow shutter speed (low light conditions), but
            there is indeed shadow detail and open flames. That’s not an adequate
            explanation on your part. The washed out parts you’re seeing are flames
            not blown highlights from overexposure.”
            I know what over exposure looks like and that is blown out high lights, which is why i mentioned 100 IRE on a video waveform monitor.
            “If it was overexposed even the shadows would be washed out and they arent.”
            Again, you didn’t listen to what i said.
            Only the glowing areas in 2 are over exposed and without detail, not the whole frame.
            “I noticed you also had nothing to say about anything else. You have no
            logical explanation for what generated the heat the metal was retaining
            and smoldering fires of office consumables at 400F is not enough heat to make the metal glow.”
            Why are you talking about smouldering fires? The bright yellow glow in 2 is on the open surface.
            The logical explanation for glowing metal, was the office fire that was out of control in the building, with floor to ceiling flames producing the prolonged heat.
            As i have said already, thermite does not account for it. Burning thermite produces a fast reaction which burns out quickly.

          • “It is obvious it was cut with a torch.”
            No, it is not obvious. You see what appears to be cuts by a torch, I see what appears to be cuts by shape charges. You cant prove your claim directly nor can I prove mine.
            Those highlights are blown out, but the shadow detail is there which you said wasnt there. Its clearly a photo of flames coming off white hot metal. No amount of overexposure can make metal glow on its own.
            Now you’re saying just the areas where the metal was were overexposed. That’s a screen grab from a video camera, cant you tell by the 72 DPI? They didnt purposely overexpose the image as much as they were dealing with white hot metal in low light conditions. The center of the frame was overexposed because the object was already on fire and glowing. Those are clearly flames on the frame.
            Again, the fires inside the building do not create the heat required to super heat that metal and cause it to glow for days. You are still not explaining what created the heat and the office fires do not explain the phenomonen as they see temperatures that are a maximum of 400F. The office fire didnt burn hot enough even with prolonged exposure to make the metal continue to glow.
            Thermite does not actually burn out quickly. Depending on its formulation and how much magnesium content it has, it can actually burn for hours.
            As far as the Pentagon, there is no evidence of a plane. If you think this frame shows a plane then clearly you’re making a leap based on a lack of evidence. All the rest of the security and surveillance footage from surrounding business was collected by the FBI and classified.
            The most damning evidence of foreknowledge of the events, the insider trading records, were also classified.
            We dont know what really happened on 911. All we do know is the official story does not add up and we’ve been told a colossal lie. Buildings dont collapse straight down. They will cant in one direction if the structure loses support. No skyscraper fires have ever caused a skyscraper to collapse except on 911. All 3 WTC buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds with evidence of controlled demolition.
            But this is progress. You started by saying there were no photos of molten metal. There are tons of pictures of glowing metal.

          • “Office content fires are incidental, they dont reach the temperatures
            required to make metal objects retain heat glow for days. Even if they
            were smoldering office content fires, the highest temperatures they
            reached without an accelerant is 400F. The only possible thing in the
            record that could have achieved those temperatures is jet fuel, which
            still is 1250F under the melt point. But Thermite burns at 4000F and
            can slice through metal exactly like those supports were sheared.”
            Those supports were cut by cutting torch after the building had fallen. Why do you deliberately ignore the demolition crew that was brought in to remove the debris from the site?
            Thermite will not cause steel to glow for days. Just watch a video of a thermite reaction. It doesn’t last very long, so picture 4 was not caused thermite, regardless that it may reach 4,000F. So we are back to office contents fire as the source of heat, as that would have been the only thing burning in the building, after the jet fuel fire ran its course.
            “We havent even talked about all the earmarks of controlled demolitions
            that appeared in all 3 of the buildings that were allegedly brought down
            by 2 commercial planes. Or the fact no skyscraper thats ever caught on
            fire has ever collapsed except on 911.”
            I have seen no earmarks of controlled demolition in the various videos.
            None of the buildings had dozens of timed explosives going off just before they collapsed, as one sees in numerous controlled demolition videos. Critics play let’s pretend that doesn’t matter.
            The WTC buildings were unique designs. There was no concrete lined core. All three fires burned totally out of control. The Towers were hit by jetliners, which did damage to the structures, though not fatal in and of itself- if there was no fire.
            But the crashes shifted load and the fires weakened elements of the steel structure, as well as causing expansion and contraction, which resulted in a catastrophic structural failure in the fire zone.
            “We’re also supposed to believe the Pentagon only had one security
            camera in the parking lot that captured a low resolution fireball in 5
            frames of video.”
            There were 2 camera videos. The Pentagon is a 5 sided building and cameras outside other sides of the building wouldn’t have anything relevant on them.
            At least one of the cameras was at a gate where cars pass through, which would be a natural place for a security camera. Critics have never bothered to take the time to go over to The Pentagon and count the number of security cameras- they just claim the place had to be crawling with them.
            There are photographs and video of the area around the crash site. How many security cameras did any of the critics note? None that i recall.

          • There is no evidence to support your conclusion, there is simply your allegation they were cut with a cutting torch. You cant actually verify they were. There were construction crews present which means you could back up the claim if they were cut. You cant.
            You ignore the hot glowing pieces and grasp on to the impossibility that office content generated the heat. Thermite burns very slowly, and can maintain that burning under water. You still are not providing an adequate explanation of what kept the metal glowing long after the building collapsed.
            There is tons of evidence of controlled demolition. The building came straight down and video clearly shows puffs of smoke coming (timed explosions) out of the buildings as the floors collapsed. Buildings dont naturally free-fall. All 3 fell straight down, all 3 had the same tell-tale signs of controlled demolitions and the idea that 2 commercial planes had the destructive power to take out 3 skyscrapers is delusional on a grand scale. But you cling to it. The fires were simply not enough to do the job and would not have led to a freefall collapse. Building 7 is the biggest WTF of the entire story.
            There were 100s of video cameras on the Pentagon property as well as all the surrounding businesses. The videos from the private companies, banks, etc were all subpoenaed and classified. As well, insider trading activity was classified. All that evidence was withheld from the public. No video evidence has been released that corroborates the claims the Pentagon was hit by a plane. We only have photos and videos of the aftermath. No video shows the plane descending and crashing into the Pentagon. The 5 frames of video from the parking lot are so low resolution you cannot actually see the object that hits the building, its simply a fireball. This of course completely ignores the 2 air fields within a 5 mile radius and the lack of defensive assets protecting arguably the most strategic military facility in the entire world. And there was no video released outside of the parking lot camera. There was definitely more than 2 cameras performing surveillance of the Pentagon’s perimeter and we’re ignoring all the other surveillance videos that were collected and classified.
            I dont know exactly what happened on 911. All I know is the official story is a bunch of crap that doesnt pass basic scrutiny, that nobody in power would testify under oath on and that we’re being lied to.

          • “There is no evidence to support your conclusion, there is simply your allegation they were cut with a cutting torch.”
            It is not just an allegation. Cutting torches were used as a part of the demolition process, after the building fell.
            “There were construction crews
            present which means you could back up the claim if they were cut. You
            cant.”
            The column was not found as it appeared in that photo. The column was cut after the building had fallen.
            “There is tons of evidence of controlled demolition. The building came
            straight down and video clearly shows puffs of smoke coming (timed
            explosions) out of the buildings as the floors collapsed”
            No there isn’t. The manner in which the building fell is not proof of controlled demolition. Video showed the building was on fire and floor space collapsed, forcing smoke out windows. Those are not timed explosions.
            In a controlled demolition, the timed explosions occur before the building collapses.
            “All 3 fell straight down, all 3 had the same tell-tale signs of
            controlled demolitions and the idea that 2 commercial planes had the
            destructive power to take out 3 skyscrapers is delusional on a grand
            scale.”
            Straight down means nothing. Gravity pulls straight down. It is not proof of controlled demolition. Two commercial jetliners caused out of control fires in the Towers, which lead to a catastrophic structural failure, resulting in total collapse. There is nothing delusional about the plane crashes and out of control fires being the cause of the collapse of the buildings.
            “No video evidence has been released that corroborates the claims the Pentagon was hit by a plane”
            One of the 2 videos has one frame which showed the nose of the jetliner at the right edge of the frame.
            “There were 100s of video cameras on the Pentagon property as well as all the surrounding businesses.”
            100’s of cameras on the property means nothing. Most of the hundreds were probably inside the huge Pentagon building and had no view of the crash. They had no need for hundreds of cameras outside the building.
            Cameras on surrounding businesses is also a meaningless mantra. I have seen lots of footage on the news from cameras on businesses, particularly convenience stores, showing a robbery. The cameras tend to be high on a wall and pointing down at the sidewalk and parking spaces in front of the store. The sky is not particularly visible.
            “No video shows the plane descending and crashing into the Pentagon. The
            5 frames of video from the parking lot are so low resolution you cannot
            actually see the object that hits the building, its simply a fireball.”
            Resolution was not the issue, the speed of the recording was. The recorder captured a frame once every so many 30 fps video frames.

          • Wow. How much does it pay to be a stupid shill? Less than a good one? lol….
            Congrats, Schlomo! That’s one of the stupidest responses and greatest denials I’ve ever encountered.

  3. r2bzjudge – Has WIMPED OUT. I challenged him repeatedly to post the photographic evidence of any of the 3 towers being engulfed in flames and after posting replies to all my previous posts suddenly there was nada, zip, zilch. Why ??? Because his theories don’t hold water. Because he’s either deluded into believing the official story or he’s being paid to sow confusion. I suspect the former as the latter usually go to name calling & denigration fairly quickly.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.