Best 911 Video Ever

This is an amazing piece of work that should be shown on every channel on every TV station in every country.

Not even 5mins long and blows the official theory out the water. Excellent vid.

Like this Article? Subscribe to Our Feed!

217 Responses to "Best 911 Video Ever"

  1. Ron B  September 11, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Yah and all the people on each plane was in on it

    Reply
    • Demetrius Syriopoulos  September 12, 2013 at 9:46 am

      no Rob, they were just collateral damage.

      eg.
      if you make a million U$D and in the process kill a million people, the kill is worth it.

  2. ELMER FUDD  September 12, 2013 at 1:05 am

    We are still waiting for all your “proof” this was an “inside job” Truthers. It’s been 12 years and you guys can’t prove a single claim you make. That is why you are called conspiracy theorists. All you have is theory and nothing solid. Suspicions, paranoia and speculation do not constitute proof of anything. Until you have it you should give it a rest.

    Reply
    • The People  September 12, 2013 at 3:15 am

      It can also be considered a conspiracy theory to to believe that we were attacked, since the evidence is tucked away and/or destroyed. Give us proof that it was an outside job. The argument is a two edged sword.

    • Pinger  September 12, 2013 at 11:50 pm

      Nothing solid? How about fire alone can’t bring down a building as if there is no resistance.? Not once in history, before or after 9/11 has a building collapsed with no resistance, (that bits important- no resistance) due to fire damage! Last I checked physics is not a conspiracy theory ? No resistance is no resistance= nothing there !!! If a falling brick hits another stable brick, the stable brick will slow it down ! This didn’t happen in 3 buildings in 1 day ! 3 times it happened when in history it has never occurred. There has been fires on record in buildings for over 20 hours on 50% or more of its floors, never come down. So Elmer, the question becomes, you prove to me how a building can collapse at free fall speed, otherwise known as with no resistance , if all the base columns were not taken care?

  3. truth hurts  September 12, 2013 at 2:38 am

    This guy needs to keep hunting wabbits^^^^cause you still think it’s still season….anyone with half a brain can see the truth

    Reply
  4. mist42nz  September 12, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Who was it that said don’t give me intellectuals and thinkers, give me strong men and loyal women to lead…. (words to that effect)

    Reply
  5. speekntungs  September 12, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Why have we NEVER seen footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon??? The most video taped building in the world and still no video showing a plane that, every pilot interview, states that it would have been absolutely impossible for and inexperienced pilot to pull off the manuvers it would have taken to fly a jumbo jet into that building the way they claim it was done. Wake up sheeple!!!!!

    Reply
    • Michael  November 27, 2013 at 2:31 am

      What you mean apart from the footage showing the plane hitting the pentagon.

  6. Alex Dickinson  September 13, 2013 at 12:57 am

    Mike Orr: “how were the fires started?” – really? Didn’t I just explain about the building being showered by debris and burning jet fuel from the neighbouring crashes? Can you either not read, or not comprehend?

    Reply
    • curious  September 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm

      curious why then only (1) building was the victim to all this falling debris covered in Jet fuel???

  7. Michael Paul Goldenberg  September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am

    I realize that not accepting this video as proof positive that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks makes me hopelessly . . . well, something or other, but for starters, those of you who find this all very convincing, could you explain to me what the fact that the airspace involved in the attacks was “the most heavily defended in the world” has to do with the man in the moon? Because no one knew there was an attack until, well, there was an attack: you know, when the big plane hit one tower of the WTC and then, shortly thereafter another big plane hit the other tower? Assuming just for a moment that no one but the attackers knew this was going to happen, would doubling the defense of the air space made it NOT happen? Tripling it?

    My point, of course, is that the amount of defense you have over an airspace doesn’t much matter until you realize you’re being attacked. . . and if what tells you that you’re being attacked is that a plane hits the WTC (which most people thought was a tragic if bizarre accident one the first plane hit, and only started to grasp that it was an attack when the second one crashed into the other tower).

    So if that’s the opening salvo, I’m not impressed. Neither am I impressed by the mention of box cutters (as if the simplicity of the weapon made the compliance of those on board impossible to imagine; I’m sure if YOU had one of those pressed against your throat or that of someone you cared about, you’d go about your business unconcerned, because, well, the weapon is just “too crude” and inexpensive). The dismissive comments about Bin Laden, his medical condition, the use of a laptop, etc., don’t really diminish any of what happened, make it less likely, or lead to the conclusion that this must have been a plot by the US government.

    In other words, the opening of this video sounds like argument by sarcasm, not by facts or logic, and that doesn’t predispose a neutral viewer to think, “Oh, here comes a steel-trap argument that no reasonable person could refute or resist. In fact, it makes this viewer think that what follow will be more of the same, and hence, not convincing at all.

    If you have to open with nothing more than argument by tone of voice, you’ve already lost.

    By the way, for those of you who believe that this was all a put-up job by some very insidious government agents who were supporting the Bush Administration’s plans to invade Iraq, why didn’t they bother to use Iraqis instead of Saudis?

    Reply
    • Orkon Askov  September 30, 2013 at 12:23 am

      LOLOL

    • Orkon Askov  September 30, 2013 at 1:14 am

      The terrorist organisations are a collective group of punjabs, iraqis, saudi arabians, africans, people from pakistan, turkey, russia, bosnia. And loads more, they all consist of many ethnic groups, many with their own agenda. Mostly developing countries,
      Which is why you see so much hate, from many countries in the middle east, asia and Europe.

      America has a long, deep and brutal history with the countries mentioned. And they won’t just bow down and accept invasion when their countries are dominated by a religion that teaches them to fight to the death when attacked, until they are destroyed completely.
      For them to claim that they were all Iraqis without undeniable irrefutable evidence would be absurd. So in that, they used the country with the most terrorists come out of as percentage of their population.
      You can’t have it all point in one direction, otherwise it would make sense and nobody would support the war.

  8. Seppo  September 17, 2013 at 7:19 am

    Conspiracy theorists are not structural engineers or scientists (and if they are, they are doing their mindwork poorly). So they can believe in anything and stomp on the PROVEN facts with accusations/ evidence they cannot prove. = G E T A L I F E

    Reply
  9. leo  November 17, 2013 at 4:27 am

    everyone on the side of government, give me a stinking break. theorists don’t need hard evidence. the evidence is all the interviews and science and facts that we all know can or can’t happen based on materials and how the materials are affected. so you are calling all those professionals and scientists liars? they accumulated knowledge and experience for years then gave their opinions based on fact and that’s not good enough? screw you all. the government is the liars!

    Reply

Leave a Reply