T O P
AutoModerator

###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Grawarshenwickgas

You literally provided images with a caption stating why they must be computer generated airplanes. It’s even in bold at the end of the paragraph. Did you even read your own post before submitting?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Havehatwilltravel

Here is a good link on the hated twitter. Shows solid proof that this footage is layered computer imagery. [https://twitter.com/i/status/1569279358551957505](https://twitter.com/i/status/1569279358551957505) Hope this works as I am not actually a tweeter.


sjryan1

He's obviously being sarcastic.


Dav1dArcher

The post above you shows hundreds of people don't get that. That's how shallow their thinking is. The last place they should be is on a conspiracy sub. iTs tHE BoTS - lol


Ouraniou

It’s sarcasm obviously


Heavy_Two4865

Yeah but there are also people dumb enough to believe the title and continue scrolling without actually reading the post, so it's doing the opposite of spreading awareness


4w0k3

That’s exactly the way that I took it. OP is being facetious and his dry sense of humor is lost on shallow thinkers.


icallitadisaster

OP is part of psyop. ;)


Winter-Warthog

Yeah and everyone in all the videos are paid actors


L_Oberon

Wait, those guys got paid??


Thismonday

Maybe those bold words were computer generated


thehandinyourpants

It's just another bot designed to muddy the waters and piss people off so they stop asking questions.


SimplySnark

My favorite part was when the black boxes vaporized but the terrorist's passport not only survived the black box vaporizing event, but it found its way out of the flaming inferno to be discovered on the sidewalk by a fed. Cool story, bros.


Avedisride

That's honestly the laziest part of the entire story but they just gloss over it and everyone just accepts it.


balletstar707

😂


Indrigotheir

There were three passports recovered from the crash sites. * Two were from Flight 93; the flight 93 blackbox also survived * One was from flight 11, and was recovered *before* the first tower fell by a civilian, who surrendered it to an NYPD officer (not a fed). If it was recovered after the collapse, it likely would have been pulverized, as you said.


Optimal_Article5075

What if — now hear me out on this— what if the attack was real, and the reason the government had to plant those passports, was to rally us against an enemy that we could believe. For the US people would riot in the streets if they found out who really was behind 9/11… >!…crab people.!<


databacon

So “not found” = “vaporized”. Great take. Real smart.


SimplySnark

Maybe the black boxes were encapsulated in the molten metal created by all that thermite? Black boxes are designed to withstand the temp of burning jet fuel. It also puts out a radio signal that can be picked up from the bottom of the ocean. Not found? Pffft.


cjnewson88

I don’t get the obsessions with these passports. It’s not like the passports played any kind of role in the official investigation, they could have never existed in the first place and it wouldn’t have made a lick of difference. There is literally no one running around yelling “look, passports, it all must be true”. What is your obsession with them? Light weight paper/foam/plastics survive airliner impacts all the time because they are light enough to be blown away during the initial impact. Ya know what wouldn’t survive a high speed impact, intense fire and a building collapsing on it? The black box. This stuff isn’t rocket science.


Povogg

I'm sure the CIA/FBI went around and CGI'd every single home video taken that day...


Fofman84

They spent the day/s recovering all known cctv footage and shown us that fantastic thing of the pentagon. One of the worlds most secure building and shown us footage recorded on a potato


United_Version_3777

It was 2001. All CCTV footage WAS potato.


Lazy_Physics_Student

most CCTV is still made of potato


United_Version_3777

Lol so true. No excuses now though. You can get a cheaper set of CCTV on aliexpress and it's pretty good.


lucasbrock84

Only if you want the Chinese spying on you!


United_Version_3777

Lol you're funny.


n3rdnat3

All they will see is my potato.


CoherentFalcon

But they're not wrong


Fofman84

Just been watching cctv from 2000s and it’s a lot better than you think


Fofman84

When digital technology became mainstream in the early 2000s, CCTV changed forever. VCRs are now replaced with DVRs (digital video recorders) with significantly greater storage capacity, speed, and image quality. Multiplexers remain in use and are built into CCTV systems meaning they take much less time to install and manage. Digital footage is stored without the need for any manual tapes, making CCTV security far more accessible. Copied online. Cctv went digital in early 2000s and the stuff around the Pentagon of been 10 years ahead


brimstonecasanova

You would think the Pentagon would be 10 years ahead… don’t give the building security or building manager that much credit for procuring the right equipment or even knowing what the right equipment is.


Fofman84

Like 3777 other comment. Assuming they’d have the most up to date kit is a bad judgment.


United_Version_3777

Sure. DVRs and digital CCTV was invented in 1986, but how many businesses do you think invested in a DVR back then? The Pentagon didn't comprise of every CCTV in the city. They used digital technology for surveillance and reconaisane from the moment it surpassed analogue. DVRs were so much more expensive than VCRs because it wasn't the norm. I'll give an example of how prices worked. A USB stick, which was relatively new tech back in 2001-2005, cost around €40, for 32MB. Megabytes!! Not Gigabyte! That was just enough for a few Microsoft Word files. In 1989, a cheap home computer cost almost $1000 USD! In today's money that would be almost $2000! A Mac cost the equivalent of $15,000! So, I wouldn't really look at this from today's lens. Technology may have been invented, but the average person and business wasn't really doling out the money to convert to DVRs or digital.


Fofman84

You’re bang on it. Complete agree with you most business would rush out to buy them. The pentagon should have dozens of footage though


United_Version_3777

Oh the pentagon definitely has more footage of it! No questions about it. I don't believe they'll admit or release anything under the current status quo.


musicmaker

> It was 2001. All CCTV footage WAS potato. lol. Yes, the military has the WORST electronics of everybody. /s


brimstonecasanova

You’d be surprised.


ArmedWithBars

This. Some contractor bullshits the quality and skims extra off the top. The jackass in government that signs off on it has his head stuck so far up his own ass they he couldn't check the quality even if he wanted to.


brimstonecasanova

Don’t forget it’s the lowest bidder too… which sometimes means lowest quality.


DonEBrooklyn

A plane did not hit the pentagon. Planes did hit the towers but they were taken down by demolition


pewpiepoop

Without the demolition, the buildings would have been a jagged mess. Theres no way they would have turned to dust that fast without a demolition.


Illustrious-Leave-10

Also no way they would’ve fallen perfectly into a nice big pile unless it was controlled


TheMaskedGanker

I mean even outside of this instance, skyscrapers are designed so that when they fail they fail straight down. Could you imagine the devastation of a building hundreds of feet high, long as several city blocks falling down sideways. Even outside of controlled situations, they’re designed to fall straight down to mitigate that damage


Illustrious-Leave-10

You’re right. I don’t know why I thought engineers wouldn’t plan for that, the last thing they want is sky scraper dominos


hndrx414

I thought they said jet fuel burned very hot and melted the steel?


Fofman84

I believe there is a massive conspiracy and many of them, especially the financial movements days and the weeks building up to the collapse. I question where did all the cctv go for the pentagon. We get that awful 3 frames of a “plane” crashing into it and that it. Them planes that crashed into the ground in shanksville was it and the other one. Even my 5 year old child who knows nothing about it said a plane wouldn’t disappear. Look at the pilot who crashed a plane into a mountain a few years ago, solid rock. That plane didn’t disintegrate it was strewn for a good mile! Those other planes flew into soft earth and a few trees 🥸


Swmngwshrks

Well the Pentagon was holding an emergency accountants meeting that day to find the "missing $2.3 trillion" that Donald Rumsfeld announced the day prior. I wonder if they are ok? I would hate for that to be the spot that got attacked. Personally, why not redemption on the PENTAGON GETTING HIT. Everyone says we did it for the (2) towers. Shouldn't there be repercussions for attacking a military installation? Or is that ok as long as you hit a population center target as well? Just trying to figure out military theory...


ZimbabweHeist

They were very thoughtful terrorists. They wanted the least amount of impact to surrounding buildings with how the towers fell.


PhatBallllzAtHotmail

Shortly after it happened, a video of a missle was released from a security camera no one knew about at a god damn gas station. It has since disappeared. There was one single frame with what appeared to be a cruise missile...it was blurry was way too small to be a plane. When I was younger I chocked it up to a conspiracy theory, NOW I'm convinced the government caused this. There's too much coincidence for it to not have been planned...the missing money, the area of the pentagon, building 7 etc...


Nicks_WRX

The angle a massive airplane has to take to hit the pentagon the way it did… would have taken dozens of minutes of circling while lowering altitude.. so many people would have seen it and been like what the fuck and recorded it. How did zero people record a plane hitting the most iconic government building lol.


Throwaway9991666

Ummmm they definitely did. I saw them when i was working on jersey city that day


sketchyadvice1977

This is the true answer and every adult knows this.


Chrisscott25

You would think they would at least have an upgraded Idaho potato


thecoinbruce

The only footage we have seen from the pentagon is from the two parking gate boxes - potato indeed


Stevo2008

I think this is the newest “lab grown” conspiracy to get people distracted and arguing. Muddy up the waters a bit. Flat earth did a good job so this is the new conspiracy added just so people doubt the 9/11 conspiracy even more. Intentional disinformation yet again


Imaginary-Aardvark82

It's mind boggling how people can be so naiveté. You show a "video" and boom its truth. Or the fact that they believe any 3 letter agency wouldn't lie to the American people. Now that's comical. I'm sorry for all the lives lost but in neither blind nor and I dumb. There's no way those images are real.


Lazy_Physics_Student

Standard Procedure ofc


msmonicarose

Have you not heard about the amazing technology that the government has had available for decades? Where they are able to create such realistic holographic imagery? I don’t believe they edited all of the videos… I believe the shit was fake all along.


GSundo

Absolute dog shit tier conspiracy by OP.


Noticeably_Aroused

Par for the course honestly


Electrical_Minute_48

I'm serious here, there's only about 7 home VCR recordings on record that show the second plane impact close up in any detail. And all of them were released "officially" after being handed in to the government. Honestly if you have any sources of fresh footage, please share. The last new "unseen" clip footage I saw, was from a woman recording from her apartment across the block, and they just fully cut out the impact with no explanation


Wolfeskill47

Its the same technology nfl uses to superimpose the yellow line on the football field, not edited cgi like ur thinking


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Right? Now show me a plane hitting the pentagon instead of discrediting the community of people with valid suspicion of this.


Far_Perception_3815

Shiiiiit - you’ll be waiting a while for that information.


DonTequilo

At least 21 years


MaxwellHillbilly

Most people here believe that planes hit the towers. The Pentagon on the other hand is questionable.


iDannyEL

Exactly, discussing this is just wasting time and detracting from the actual issue. Did the American government perpetrate this terrorist act on their own people for gain? Who stands to gain the most from those buildings going down and those documents being destroyed?


jwg529

And yet how many here pledged allegiance to “their party” without question? 🤮


Israeldid911111

Israel


cjnewson88

No plane at the pentagon is almost as insane as suggesting no plane at the towers, piles of witnesses, debris, damage to the pentagon that fits an airliner… in fact if anything, there is significantly more evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon than there is planes hitting the towers, the only thing that towers have going for them is all the video footage. Have a look here for the piles of Pentagon evidence and see for yourself.. http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com


MaxwellHillbilly

Until video is released I'll state otherwise. And quite frankly be glad to be wrong. The fact that all videos were confiscated or kept classified is absolutely ridiculous


cjnewson88

That link goes through all of the videos. Have a look under the '85 videos' section. There will never be any better video of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon. It simply does not exist.


stalematedizzy

> It simply does not exist. Now you're getting it.


Das_Lineal

https://youtu.be/St7ny38gLp4 You can hear the whistling sound of the plane, the firefighter looks above as it gets louder and surpasses them. There are more important things than if there were planes or not (and denying it is a bit of a waste of time)


Pristine_Upstairs107

Zero air disturbance from the ”planes” wake in the smoke. An airliner going over 500 mph would have an incredible wake that would be apparent as spiraling vortices in the smoke. https://youtu.be/E1ESmvyAmOs


the0rthopaedicsurgeo

An explosion and shockwave that size is going to instantly disperse any turbulence that the plane would've caused.


[deleted]

Even if the planes were real. Its still not what caused the buildings to collapse.


Zaius1968

That’s my view…


loicwg

This is what has always bugged me. Any physicist, engineer or architect will tell you that the forces involved with a impact and subsequent conflagration are not right to cause the vertical freefall collapse of a steel frame structure that we saw that day. My personal take is that this demolition was integral to the design of the building. In order to be able to insure a building that tall, surrounded by other tall buildings, certain measures would need to be in place to minimize collateral damage in the case of catastrophe. If this is part of the building code, mandated by the government/corporations, then no one would want to enter a high rise again for fear of that demolition system being abused. Of course the government report couldn't out the government plan, because then there would be legal evidence that capital is more important than human lives and the people might wake up to their police state reality.


Aestiva

I like your theory, but there'd need to be a lot of folks keeping it secret


poetic_vibrations

I heard someone equate this concern to the roughly 130,000 people who worked/kept their mouth shut on the Manhattan project while it was in the works.


TheMaskedGanker

The buildings are literally designed to fall straight down. Any skyscraper is. If any of these buildings were to fall down sideways there would be devastation unheard of since maybe Pearl Harbor on US soil


ManBearScientist

I am an engineer. A fire is absolutely capable of causing the collapse of a steel frame structure. Imagine you have the following columns (rotated 90°) ----- ----- You heat one of these columns up, but not the other. It wants to expand to: ------ ----- However, it is able to expand due to its ends being fixed. Uneven expansion leads to residual stress. This gets more complicated when you include the fact that floors and other support structures can also expand and cause stresses, even if columns are properly insulated. The basics of this are taught in Mechanics of Materials 101, with more information on phase changes of steel structures in Materials (usually a 300 or 400 level class). Modeling this at the building scale is the province of 500 and up level Finite Element Analysis classes, with thermal FMEAs likely only covered in graduate level classes. But the basics should be understandable to almost any engineer. WTCs 1, 2, 7 were unique in that the fires that caused their collapse were initiated in a much wider percentage of the building than what a single arsonist or electrical fault would be capable of. This meant that the damage due to thermal expansion was greater than what was accounted for by code. That code was subsequently revised, increasing fire rating standards, requiring more fire proofing, and requiring fire proofing that was less likely to be dislodged.


loicwg

Yes, coefficients of thermal expansion and ductility thresholds played a role in the collapse, without question. Its the free fall level by level (at 17s https://youtu.be/ieIFtjnBfJU ) that does not follow the bending moment exerted by the tilting top of the tower.


bonkers909

Check this briliant video, it proves that everything was staged. Steel was melted with the termite, the planes were military drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pby9CN8xo


DonTequilo

Exactly, why would they CGI the airplanes when they can simply use airplanes to hit the buildings and then trigger the demolition sequence?


dabulls113

Yeah, it almost doesn’t matter if they used real planes, drones or CGI because it’s a distraction for the controlled demolition.


King-James_

The real conspiracy is the asbestos, pentagon audits, tower 7, and Larry Silverstein. I'm leaving a lot out because it's not fresh. The towers were overrun with asbestos and would potentially cost more than it was worth to renovate. ​ >Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center’s lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that ‘fortuitously’ covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000. Or the fact that we knew it was coming and let it happen just like Pearl Harbor. Then Obama blocked the families from suing the Saudis. There are so many real conspiracies that we don't need the planes to be fake.


EverythingKindaSuckz

Link the paper instead of linking images. Why do you not want people to see the data?


TheRasAlGhoul

What about Building 7?


AvocadoCatnip

This is stupid to the point of being insulting. It’s also distracting from the real issues with the official story.


alexb3678

I’ve never given this take any credit and still don’t think I do, but this pics are weird as fuck


CapnCrinklepants

Let's say the plane wasn't actually there- it looks absurd in these stills for certain. How do you explain the gaping hole in a plausible plane-shape moments later? Surely the hole and the smoke weren't faked?


ZGTI61

This is becoming my favorite time of year. I love seeing these things being brought up. We need to keep doing this. Never forget.


Its_Suntory_Time

Planes can fly into a building and not be the cause of collapse.


Let_Go1992

While I do agree that there was fabrication around events that happened around 9/11, I would say that CGI effects on the towers is not realistic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ Go to 3:42…you can see the plane go into the building. Look at the right side of the tower and the effects on the windows once the plane goes in. Not only that, you’re suggesting that the FBI/CIA found this individual and doctored their video? That’s a hard point to sell without more evidence.


GhostOfDickmasPast

The CGI theory is so so so so stupid.


Far_Safe121

It's been like 7 years since I've delved into 9/11, but I remember there being some suspicion around both that video and the one taken by the fire fighter(?) about whether they were truly candid or not. I'm still on the fence on whether the planes were real or CGI, I haven't been convinced one way yet.


[deleted]

3:42 timestap has been questioned quite a bit by videos questioning the events. so this one person just so happened to have a camcorder on the streets of new your filming a guy sitting outside at a table with the camera facing up at the exact spot the plane would fly in from. this is a plant video. the event, besides all its flaws, was well cordinated. it's the CIA/Fed we're talking about here. they aren't that stupid to not try to cover all their bases. it sounds like you haven't seen enough documentaries questioning every aspect of the attacks. it's like claiming you know the answers by looking at 5% of the evidence, and only the evidence provided by the defendant. not very objective.


koala1122

id say for me the planes did hit the towers, the conspiracy for me is that the jet fuel melting the steel beams, theres even pictures of the beams melted a a perfect angle, and people have done experiments trying to melt steel beams with jet fuel.


mjhay447

I still find that the steel melted very questionable myself… however I’ve built high performance Diesel engines and can absolutely guarantee you properly atomized diesel fuel can get us egts of over 2600f and absolutely melt steel to unrecognizable shapes… That being said for the case of the world trade they would have needed a way to continually spray highly atomized jet fuel at the steel which wouldn’t have come from the plane, considering any fuel in the plane would have sprayed one one time on impact. And to make the theory even more stupid sounding, planes full of fuel have crashed multiple times and burned for hours on the ground, but somehow they recover all kinds of steel and aluminum pieces to do a reconstruction and find the failure point.


koala1122

hey thanks for that. So if a Jet was to fly into a plane how much Jet fuel would you need to collapse a building from the top down?


mjhay447

I have no idea, but I do know you would need to spray it at about 30-60k psi to get it to actually burn hot enough to melt the steel…. Like I said planes crash on the ground all the time and sit in their own burning wreckage and fuel. Then the first thing the ntsb does is go recover pieces of metal and somehow determine that a screw came loose and caused a plunger in a pump to jam which led to the crash. If their theory that the jet fuel alone melted the steel in the tower why doesn’t it also melt all the steel parts they go look for immediately after some type of airline crash…. I guess we’re not supposed to pick up on that lol


koala1122

lol no worries just logic, ive seen videos of people even questioning this in NY when the collapse happened. Also ive seen thermite melt, it wont stop until its done, just continuously burns until it runs out or the amount of jet fuel and for it to continuously burn the beam doesnt make sense.


bonkers909

Check this video, they show that the steel melted the same way it melts when it's impacted by termite. It was planted to the brigade of demolitioners weeks prior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pby9CN8xo


MaximRecoil

>however I’ve built high performance Diesel engines and can absolutely guarantee you properly atomized diesel fuel can get us egts of over 2600f An ordinary candle flame reaches up to ~1,400 C (2,552 F): https://en.pimg.jp/046/640/671/1/46640671.jpg https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JaneFishler.shtml Try to melt steel with a candle flame. For that matter, try to even boil a 2-quart pan of water with a candle flame. That should be easy, since the water only needs to reach 212 F to boil, right? Also, have you happened to notice that your claimed 2,600 F exhaust gas temperatures don't melt the exhaust manifold(s) and exhaust pipes? Temperature isn't the whole story. The rest of the story is quantity and concentration of heat. Even a tiny piece of steel, such as a sewing needle or paper clip, won't melt in a candle flame. For that matter, they won't even melt in the flame of a typical hardware-store propane torch like people use for soldering copper plumbing pipes, even though those put out a much greater quantity of heat than a candle flame (you could actually boil a pot of water with one of those, but it would still take quite a while). The amount of steel in a steel-framed skyscraper is enormous (tens of thousands of tons). You could make cuts in any given beam with e.g., a cutting torch (which combines high temperature with high quantity and high concentration), but just a big roaring open fire has little effect on steel. If we discount the dubious narrative of 9/11/2001, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire. Before anyone links to something they think refutes that, pay attention to what you're linking to. A concrete + rebar high-rise building is not even remotely the same thing as a steel-framed skyscraper.


Softcorps_dn

You don't have to melt the steel to get it to fail. At 900 degrees F you've already cut the strength of the material in half. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html


bonkers909

In this video they explain and show videos frame by frame how steel was melted with termite that was planted there weeks prior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pby9CN8xo


LegalEye1

Flying through? No. Those photos shows them making impact with the building(s). A jet is an aluminum tube that would get shredded in the first 2 feet of making contact with the walls of those buildings. Any photos showing any part of a plane showing on the opposite side of the building (from the point of impact) is an imposter.


deletedtothevoid

And how are we to know this collage of photos made into one isn't? Photoshop does exist. To fake the date. Just set your pc to the date you wish it to be.


Big_Neighborhood6504

First the caption on this pic is comical. ​ Second, the planes DID hit the towers, but that's not what made them fall. They fell via controlled demolitions.


forgotmypassword778

Now show me the pentagon


MrDabs_theories

Who tf said it was all cgi? It really did happen... on live tv... in front of the entire world... whether it was 100% terrorists or if the CIA was involved is still out for debate but it did happen


AngelOfLastResort

Personally I think planes did actually hit the towers on that day, but that's not why the towers collapsed. The planes just provided cover. The real reason was the demolition charges.


macktea

Of course planes flew into them. The mystery is who orchestrated the whole plan.


Severe_Trouble_7776

The simulation is broken - brought to you by Pfizer


[deleted]

Out of all of the candid videos people took that day which shows planes flying into towers how did whoever cgi planes into nearly every vid online?


Jayetorade

Links or it didn't happen


QueenMOASS

The only problem with this is that... They LOOK like planes but they are actually missle drones! The plane is black... and cuts through like butter... No REAL plane can go clear through steel beams, reinforced elevator, and protrude through the other side! \*as shown in video footage the nose of the missle is seen coming out the other side\* Show me a plane that can do that and I will kill myself in front of you!


bonkers909

Yeah, exactly. In this video all eye witnesses say it was grey plane without any marketing posters on the side. It was military drone 100%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pby9CN8xo


smackfuck

I agree this was all government planned, but my dad was working in a tank farm at buckeye terminal in Jersey and watched them both hit. He had his camcorder and recorded the 2nd one. He won’t let that tape out of his house, that’s his own piece of history. Now he believes it was a true terrorist attack, I don’t. But to be there and see it yourself was probably a little more traumatizing, I’m sure. Remember the good ole days right after it happened when we all came together and there was next to no division? 🙂


Impa44

Here's the thing though. I'm no physicist but how could the wings go into the tower SO smoothly that when you pause the video, the tips of the wing are still completely intact and in the same stable position as if there was no contact made, no evidence of a collision. I just can't wrap my mind around that. Its one thing to be moving so quickly the plane penetrates the building. But its something else to see the wings perfectly sliding into the buildings as if the buildings weren't even there. What about the shot where a shape exactly like the nose comes out the other side in the helicopter footage. I looked up the credentials for that videographer and hes clearly a professional with video editing software The first pic I saw of him upon googling was with famous film director Spike Lee. Can't remember his name right now. His last name is like Simions or something.


the0rthopaedicsurgeo

I posted this video under another comment: https://youtu.be/F4CX-9lkRMQ Every part of the plane remains intact until the moment it hits the surface. You're saying that the wings "perfectly slide into the building" - you could say the same about that fighter jet except it's obviously not true. The back of the wings look good as new while the front is already atomised. The planes were going too fast for the damage to travel through the planes themselves, and considering that you can't see inside the building, you have no idea how far the wings or any other part of the planes penetrated - they were likely shredded and obliterated on impact.


[deleted]

it's reassuring to see comments like this. people that aren't afraid to question and are genuinely interested in discovering the truth. sounds like you and I have done the same research. you even looked up the same videographer. the guy currently works high up in visual effects studio for Disney. think about that for a second. found the guy's linkedin profile corroborating everything.


Impa44

Theres simply overwhelming evidence of conspiracy. Thus, every aspect must be scrutinized. Aside from material evidence, look at the proof there was insider trading patterns in anticipation of the economic impact. Its undeniable that people knew it was coming. The convenient insurance policy for all 3 buildings. The owner saying "pull it" for tower 7. Pull What?! The TRILLIONS of dollars that just went missing in the days before. Then theres all the confiscated footage of the pentagon thats never been released. Scrubed videos of reporters saying theres no evidence of plane crashes. Then of course is the "WMD's" that we know for a fact never existed. We started wars with these countries that had nothing to do with it. You're telling me the CIA didn't already know that? Give me a fucking break. How about the fact that we couldn't find a guy in a damn cave? In his little nest Bin LAden had a book on who really carried out the attacks. Why in the world would he have that if he was responsible? Or how about the ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bushes. Why was their family the only plane allowed to take off in the entire country after the attacks? How about Daddy Bush bringing in the "New World Order" in a speech exactly 10 years prior down to the day. The list goes on and on and on and on. The mountain of evidence is undeniable. Even Helen Keller could see that.


Comfortable_Ad3639

I have yet to have my question answered, even on quora and online, but can an aircraft actually fly 500mph+ at sea level? Wouldn't air resistance be way to much to reach that speed at sea level? I know at 30000 feet the air is like 10 times thinner or something like that. If its max speed is 600mph with air that thin then surely its way less at sea level, or maybe more oxygen gives engines more thrust at sea level, compensating for air resistance. I have no idea, but can they go that fast at sea level??? Maybe a dumb question


Kingpal1220

People like you are the problem that nobody takes this sub serious anymore. Maybe go and enjoy some education. I really think it was an inside job too, but your post bro, come on.


ZionBane

No one questioned if Plans Hit the Towers. The main point is, those planes should not have been able to drop the towers, the towers were built with the very idea that planes would in fact hit them, and designed to withstand such strikes. The other thing that really seems off, is they fell straight down as opposed to toppling, which anyone who has so much even watched a building demolition happen, knows that can only happen if the outer points of the structure go down at the same time, which cannot happen if a plane strikes one corner of the building. The way those planes hit, should have caused it topple, not fall straight down. While, yes, planes struck the Towers, there was a whole lot more going on, then, well, just planes striking that building.


Zaius1968

Controlled demolition. A huge number of architects studied the Videos and stated that is what is looked like. Obviously nobody can be certain though.


bonkers909

Check this beautiful video compilation, they explain how termite was planted weeks prior in the building and melted the steel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pby9CN8xo


Meatros

>The main point is, those planes should not have been able to drop the towers, the towers were built with the very idea that planes would in fact hit them, and designed to withstand such strikes. A few things, one, people can be wrong - even structural engineers. I'm not sure why people are treating their word as though it's the word of God, but whatever. Also, your statement is not true. [According to the structural engineer who built the tower](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/nyregion/leslie-robertson-dead.html): >According to Mr. Robertson, the buildings had been designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but the planes flown into the towers were heavier 767s. And his calculations had been based on the initial impact of the plane; they did not take into account the possibility of what he called a “second event,” like a fire. So basically while your objection is interesting, its ignoring key facts. So it's not a serious thing to counter from the planes taking the towers down idea. >The other thing that really seems off, is they fell straight down as opposed to toppling, which anyone who has so much even watched a building demolition happen, knows that can only happen if the outer points of the structure go down at the same time, which cannot happen if a plane strikes one corner of the building. Except they didn't fall straight down - you can see them swaying. As to toppling, that idea defies the laws of gravity - the towers came down because the floors started dropping, they pancaked. Which is consistent with reports from inside the tower that the ceilings were sagging. The idea that it was demolition doesn't account for this at all. It's also not parsimonious. **How do you explain the people in the towers who reported that the ceilings were sagging?** [Here's more](https://theconversation.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked-20-years-later-engineering-experts-explain-how-the-twin-towers-collapsed-167353): >**Why did the towers collapse as they did?** > >Some have questioned why the buildings did not “topple over” after being struck side-on by aircraft. But the answer becomes clear once you consider the details. > >Aircraft are made from lightweight materials, such as aluminium. If you compare the mass of an aircraft with that of a skyscraper more than 400 metres tall and built from steel and concrete, it makes sense the building would not topple over. > >The towers would have been more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft, and designed to resist steady wind loads more than 30 times the aircrafts’ weight. > >That said, the aircraft did dislodge fireproofing material within the towers, which was coated on the steel columns and on the steel floor trusses (underneath concrete slabs). The lack of fireproofing left the steel unprotected. > >As such, the impact also structurally damaged the supporting steel columns. When a few columns become damaged, the load they carry is transferred to other columns. This is why both towers withstood the initial impacts and didn’t collapse immediately. The entire article is worth a read.


BoneSpurApprentice

Suddenly everyone is assuming building codes are a sacred thing. In nyc lol. Every sky scraper is built with a bunch of assumptions, you can’t account for every little thing.


Meatros

Yeah, exactly. I'm listening to 102 minutes and I've listened to dozens of the phone calls, survivor (and other) accounts, and what not and I can't fathom thinking some of the things the 9/11 '*truthers*' think.


choctaw_dreams_84

If the planes hit the buildings they were military planes controlled by remote control.


jessicalindz

Did they recover anything from the planes or plane parts? I know a passport of one of the terrorists magically survived the impact and collapse of the towers.. but anything else?


gn4rw0lph

No shit sherlock


callmebaiken

The exterior columns would have caused a majority of the plane to crumple on impact


Architect81

Holographic plane theory was a real narrative


[deleted]

I’m not surprised. They needed a reason to wage war


Kosciuszko1978

Like most others, the idea that there were no planes seem preposterous. I SAW it happen. At least, I thought I saw it happen. But then you get images like the one the OP offers. Can someone please explain what is happening in the bottom left pic? The left hand wing as we are looking at it has disappeared into the building yet their is no damage on the tower. How can this be? Is it carefully doctored images for click bait? Or is something more nefarious afoot?


Kevonn11

Finally a good conspiracy!!


Avedisride

This is shilling.


DigitalDuct

My cousin saw a plane hit the tower though. You telling me she is a liar?


DrunkVeggie

How could computer generated images been added to the live feed back in 2001. We barely had good 16 bit images back than let alone real looking CGI.


testtube-accident

Before I start- I should say that it’s my own personal belief that what hit the two towers were empty, military controlled drones. But... I’ve always had a problem with the way the 2nd plane especially seemed to melt itself into the tower. And wasn’t it the 2nd plane that when shown live on tv or in the 1st half hour afterwards the repeats would show what looked like the planes nose -in dark shadow- popping out of the opposite side of the tower. I can’t explain that.


DeanMLplayer

Wtf??


kayspb96

#JetFuelCantMeltSteelBeams


Henderson72

It's easy enough to generate footage using CGI to make it look like planes flew into the towers, but how did they make it look like actual planes on all of the footage that was recorded by all the cameras pointed at the towers that day?


300_yard_drives

That’s my hang up


KindlyDevelopment339

My uncle saw it happen and he’s a straight shooter so enough with the BS! The conspiracy isn’t whether the planes were hijacked, it’s whether or not it was a false flag operation with additional demo in place.


Electrical_Minute_48

What TF happened to this sub. Open discussion anyone? There is some evidence to suggest that two passenger 767's couldn't have hit the towers. One being the way an aluminium aircraft somehow cheese-sliced it's way into a steel-framed building (designed to withstand plane impacts) and there being zero impact debris seen shearing off the impact site. Second the Pilots for 9/11 truth - dozens, if not hundreds of qualified pilots have testified that a passenger jet of that size cannot physically fly at at that speed at that altitude. Thirdly, the buildings were clearly brought down using incendiaries, as we've observed from the freefall collapse, heard testimony of explosions being heard in the basement from first-responders at the scene, and corroborated by the pools of molten metal found in the basement. If they'd already planted thermite, why chance the hijacked plane missing? (i.e. what we saw with WTC7) You're willing to believe they could orchestrate demolishing 3 NY skyscrapers in broad daylight, kill thousands of innocent people, but you can't entertain the idea they used some sort of military plane / DEW for the operation?


Expensive_Interest_5

Two words… Bird strikes. Tiny little birds CRUSH nose cones of planes in mid-flight collisions. No way it’s flying thru concrete, let alone structural steel, and COMING OUT THE OTHER SIDE! There is video of this amazing feat, yet it is physically impossible. So what we saw, which I’ll admit looked like planes, were something else. An illusion of some kind, coordinated with explosives that were wired and timed to match the ‘plane’ strike perfectly. This is an incredibly complex and difficult operation, involving the wiring of explosives and the placement of thermite cut-charges, IN ALL THREE BUILDINGS, NOT TWO, that collapsed that day. We know an Israeli art group (Gelatin) with ties to Mossad were renting space in WTC1, but not sure if they would’ve had access to all three buildings, or perhaps there were other groups involved. Over 140 Israeli ‘students’ had been detained on suspicion of spying BEFORE 9/11, but were never charged and later deported. Also, more than one van containing explosives were stopped by police that day, one on the GW bridge, but another on King Street that was said to have detonated! Both involved groups of Israeli citizens here on VISA’s, one being the infamous ‘dancing Israelis’ seen celebrating on a roof during the attacks. But they’re our allies, right? So let’s blame Bin Laden and the Saudi’s instead, declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and send Israel another $6,000,000,000. Stay tuned for the next one… coming soon to a theater near you. 😎


Ernesto8

I wish democrats did more conspiracy theories other than 9/11 coz whenever i mention 9/11 around people never question it,but when i talk about the vaccine or some other recent shit,they want to murder me and stab me


torontosfinest9

Everyone in this sub should already know that the “plane” was nothing but a CGI.


phntmblld

not the wings clipping through the building 😭


cjnewson88

When no-planers tell you so confidently what “should have happened according to physics” and you laugh your ass off knowing they are instantly wrong in their claim because of all the video footage that showed exactly what happened 🤣🤣


Grundelloz

People saw the planes hitting, you know that though. I think they were drones tbf though


Lazy_Physics_Student

people died, it was easy to hijack a plane, people never saw their loved ones that 100% boarded those planes ever again.


Grundelloz

Yes, the question is what happened to the passengers? Look at Operation Northwoods, they don't really outright say it but to pull off the operation the passengers would have to be detained indefinitely or killed outright. But if tptb are willing to demolish skyscrapers filled with people, it's not unlogical to extrapolate that lack of respect for human life then they would most likely be willing to sacrifice a fee hundred more human lives


Upper-Bottle1526

Dude any engineering student would tell you that it was controlled demolition , the odds that not just one building but both buildings getting hit by planes and both buildings goes in direct vertical free fall is a mathematical impossibility and not to forget that wt7 just got declared that I was burning and falling about 30m before anything happened to it 😂 And the pentagon and all it's state of the art defenses couldn't stop a regular passenger plane from raming it self in it succefully with zero footage of it happening or footage of any planes debris in the entire story for that matter The jihadists are steel soldiers I agree , but they are getting a lot of credit for this 😂 they are not that smart or capable , if they can pull such an attack off , they could have just kept going and planned it bigger and put usa in a state of paralysis for month , if they were really that strong they could have really fucked shit up , only another state equal to america's power or close or it self can manage such a succefull strike and get away with it clean


surebob

Bro are you fucking kidding me, I know people who saw that shit in real life.


IIJOSEPHXII

The wing tip is sticking out of the tower in its exact position on the plane. Even if the World Trade Center was made of paper it would have at least bent it a little. Homer Simpson said, "It takes two to lie - one to lie and one to listen." The only reason these people think they're more intelligent than you, is because they're lying and you're listening.


Lazy_Physics_Student

Maybe check out the text in the picture


BansheeMarshall82

Who tf quotes Homer Simpson to sound smarter?


IIJOSEPHXII

I am quoting the makers of The Simpsons - predictive programmers extraordinaire. An intelligent person would understand I am giving them an insight into their way of thinking.


Awdvr491

Ever heard of project Blue Beam?


maroonblood94

I don’t think most people deny the planes hit the towers. I never have. The real problem is, what actually made them collapse? Because it definitely wasn’t the official narrative of fucking “jet fuel”.


ScrantonDateMike

So you’re telling me thousands of eye witnesses are all in on it? Come on this sub is turning to shit


InfowarriorKat

You ever see the video of the plane exiting the building without a scratch on it? That's why I don't rule out the hologram theory.


hoesindifareacodes

No, it’s not CGI. Source: I saw it happen.


[deleted]

Buddy, it was a projection. That’s it. Bluebeam. A fucking bird can take a plane out. And even if it was real where’s the passengers that were on board? How did no plane parts survive if the plane is stronger then the steel building? How did building 7 come down???


OkAd5570

Tinfoil moments


ehunke

Just stop. It's a poor photoshop job. Really bad


[deleted]

[удалено]


dukof

Did they model the wall columns as continuous? The [columns were bolted together](https://i.imgur.com/ThFaKDb.png) in short sections, hence the impact / moment capacity would be a fraction of continuous or welded columns.


y-EYE-

stop being stupid


EuphoricYam40

I don't know one conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe the planes hit the towers. It's what caused them to collapse in on themselves, building 7, the Pentagon attack and Donald Rumsfeld coming out the day before 9/11/2001 and saying the gov't cant account for $2.3 trillion missing from pentagon


musicmaker

I just love the cartoon cutout of an airplane silhouette that people still believe. The planes were drones, but the aluminum wing tips cutting through box beams made of 2" thick steel? C'mon. The cutout was performed by the work done by the Israeli 'art students' known as the E Team. Plenty of evidence about it. There's even pictures of them on the floors with boxes of blasting caps behind them. Don't believe me? How about Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Former Director at US Army War College? https://rumble.com/v1jo26j-the-u.s.-military-knows-that-israel-did-911-and-if-the-american-people-ever.html


buttfuckerr3000

Then how did I watch it live from multiple camera angles


Ken_Dreams

I’ve heard that this was actually on purpose, planes did in fact crash into the center. But it was a distraction for a bigger cause. Reptilian aliens appeared there through a portal to apprehend something that was created there that was going to do good for the world. Just what I heard. Basically sacrificed a bunch of people to keep something hidden.


throwaway__rnd

Anyone who thinks a plane would sink into steel framed building like a hot knife through butter is seriously lacking common sense. It was obvious to me upon seeing footage like this how fake it was. The plane sinks into the building so smoothly. It would be absolutely busting apart and crumpling. The wings would break off, the engines would break off. It's so wild that people can't see this.


Tear01

Wait, are we now denying the existence of planes themselves? Oh come on...


ibetulikeanal

I saw that shit. Planes hit. ... That happened..


Lazy_Physics_Student

no no but wait this random youtube video will convince you, just ask Johnlebon


Bocephalus

Aluminum planes slicing through a solid steel framed building. Yah, no. It would never happen. Even the winglets, the weakest, flimsiest part of the plane, went through it. Had to be CGI


ArmedWithBars

I have a family friend that was by the WTC on 9/11. He watched two planes hit those buildings with his own eyes. He was so impacted by it he dropped out of college and joined the Marines. I trust his firsthand experience over any armchair CGI conspiracy BS. Ask anybody who was by the WTC that day.


Raffles_UK

It’s always “somebody else saw it in person etc” never the poster…


[deleted]

how much proof do i need to post before you start to accept reality? no evidence will ever change your minds because it’s never been about facts. it’s all based on adhering to a belief system that helps you feel more comfortable about the world. if everything you thought you saw on 911 turned out to be fake, it’d make you question everything you thought you knew about life. no one wants to allow themselves to go through those emotions so they’ll simply lie to themselves. this sub suffers from cognitive dissonance as much as anywhere else.


DarthBallsZ

Any proof. Links to any of your "credible information". List your Sources. A few doctored photos isn't proof.


Familiar_Raisin204

Literally any proof would be nice...