reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the official explanation that a plane caused a building to explode. They point out that the building exploded after the alleged plane impact and express doubt about the accuracy of the information. They wonder how the other side of the building could have exploded as well.

"The amount of energy required to melt the girders, the steel in the tower, cannot be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that was in the airplane." "Not possible." "So any melting did not occur as a result of the hit from the airplane." "What are the puffs of smoke coming from? Well, they claim they're from the collapsing floors." "No, no, no. Those puffs of smoke are controlled demolitions." "That's exactly what they are, because that's exactly how they work." "The collapse of the building was caused by controlled demolition." "Building 7, the owner. He is heard on the video. Okay? And he says, pull it. It's pull it." "And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." "And that's when the LINK-seven blew up."

A speaker questions how a plane, even a large one like a 767 or 747, could have caused the destruction seen in the 9/11 attacks. They suggest that bombs may have been involved due to the difficulty of a plane penetrating the building. The speaker also notes that most buildings have steel on the inside, but this one was built differently, with the steel on the outside. Another speaker mentions seeing the plane approach and explode on the other side of the building. The first speaker believes that the planes used in the attacks were not only large but also going at high speeds, possibly aided by the downward slope of the building. They express astonishment at the level of destruction and predict that the country will be forever changed.

The speaker believes it's impossible for a plane alone to penetrate the World Trade Center towers, suggesting bombs exploded simultaneously with the plane impact. The speaker claims the building's unique construction, with steel on the outside, should have made it impenetrable. Another speaker describes seeing the plane impact Building Number 2 and an explosion erupting from the other side almost instantly. The first speaker reiterates the belief that the planes contained more than just fuel and were traveling at high speed, seemingly descending into the building to gain additional momentum. The speaker emphasizes the buildings' robust construction with heavy-caliber steel, asserting the destruction was caused by more than just the planes. The speaker concludes that the country has fundamentally changed.

Speaker 1 discusses the collapse of building 7 and requests a video clip to be shown. Speaker 0 mentions that the collapse is not shown and suggests there might be a code preventing it. Speaker 0 also mentions that questioning the collapse of building 7 is seen as weird and can lead to job loss. Speaker 2 explains that building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, despite not being hit by an aircraft. The building had been damaged by debris and fire, but most of the fires were extinguished by 5:20 PM. Speaker 2 questions the official explanation that the collapse was primarily due to fire and asks for opinions on what it looks like.

The speaker believes it's impossible for a plane alone to penetrate the World Trade Center towers, suggesting bombs exploded simultaneously with the plane impact. The speaker claims the building's unique construction, with steel on the outside, should have made it impenetrable. Another speaker describes seeing the plane impact Building Number 2 and an explosion erupting from the other side almost instantly. The first speaker reiterates the belief that the planes contained more than just fuel and were traveling at high speeds, seemingly descending into the building to gain additional momentum. The speaker emphasizes the buildings' robust steel construction and concludes that the destruction was caused by more than just the planes themselves. The speaker believes the event has fundamentally changed the country.

The speakers discuss their views on Building 7 and the 9/11 attacks. Speaker 0 believes that the buildings came down due to isolated pockets of fire or controlled demolition. They express frustration with conspiracy theories and wish those who promote them would be kicked out. Speaker 1 mentions the history of government-sponsored terror and questions whether the government was involved in 9/11. Speaker 0 dismisses these ideas, stating that real evidence is needed before making such claims. Speaker 1 argues that the implications are significant and that evidence withheld by the government should be released. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of making things worse for the victims' families.

The speakers discuss the difficulty of considering alternative explanations to a prevailing narrative about a terrorist attack. They suggest that, in any ultimate scenario or alternative explanation, people are reluctant to contemplate other possibilities, and this reluctance blocks further inquiry. The conversation shifts to the idea that if the mainstream account isn’t correct—if it weren’t the crazy Islamic terrorists who had this plot that brought down the buildings—then what did happen? Speaker 0 notes that they would want to talk to experts such as structural engineers, architects, and firefighters, who “know what they're talking about.” However, these professionals do not believe the narrative at all. They reportedly lay out convincing evidence for why the narrative should not be believed, proposing explosives as an alternative explanation. The claimed evidence cited includes “explosions,” specifically “thermite, military grade, nanoparticle thermite,” and various forms of evidence such as “unexploded fragments of it” and references to “thermite and iron globules.” The discussion then turns to the question of who would have placed explosives in the buildings. Speaker 0 highlights that “nobody literally, virtually no one wants to go down that path.” The suggested question—“who would have placed explosives in those buildings?”—is described as unthinkable. The speakers acknowledge that the unthinkability functions as a defense that prevents people from asking the questions that they consider “so pressing.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 restating the idea that the question of explosives remains a controversial or avoided line of inquiry.

The speaker discusses the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. They question the official explanation that the collapses were solely caused by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires. The speaker highlights the uniform collapse of Building 7 and suggests that controlled demolition may have been involved. They mention the presence of explosive material in the dust samples and the suspicious elevator renovation prior to the attack. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies from firefighters regarding explosions in the buildings. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation.

Speaker 0: Probably the best known builder, particularly of of of great buildings in the city. There's a great deal of question about whether or not the damage and and the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by the airplanes, by architectural defect, or possibly by bombs or or aftershocks. Do you have any thoughts on that? Speaker 1: Well, it was an architectural defect. You know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building. Don't forget, that took a big bomb in the basement. Now the basement is the most vulnerable place because that's your foundation, and it withstood that. And I got to see that area about three or four days after it took place because one of my structural engineers actually took me for a tour because he did the building. And I said, I can't believe it. The building was standing solid, and half of the columns were blown out. I mean, so this was an unbelievably powerful building. If you know anything about structure, it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside. The steel, the reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had the steel on the outside. So you had the steel on the outside of the building. That's why when I first looked and you had big heavy I beams. When I first looked at it, I couldn't believe it because there was a hole in the steel. And this is steel that was you remember the the width of the windows in the World Trade Center folks? I think you you know, if you're ever up there, they were quite narrow. And in between was this heavy steel. I said, how could a plane, even a plane, even a seven sixty seven or seven forty seven or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through this deal? I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built with the steelers on the inside around the elevator shaft. This one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have, and it was almost just like a like a can of soup. Speaker 2: You know, Donald, we were looking at pictures all morning long of that plane coming into Building Number 2. And when you see that approach the far side and then all of a sudden, within a matter of millisecond, the explosion pops out the other side. Speaker 1: Right. I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel. I think, obviously, they were very big planes. They were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast, it seemed to be coming down into the building. So it was getting the speed from going downhill, so to speak. It just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane because you're talking about taking out steel, the heaviest caliber steel that was used on a building. I mean, these buildings were rock solid, And, you know, it's just an amazing it's an amazing thing. Speaker 3: And it's not right to call up and then extrapolate and connect him to 09:11 when he came out on the day of 09:11 and the day after on Fox and on CNN and said, I believe there had to be bombs in those buildings. It was brought down by explosives. A plane doesn't do that. And then described the architecture of Tower 1 and Tower 2. If he was an insider, he wouldn't have said that. Speaker 4: A lot of people ask, how is it possible that, a Boeing plane would be able to destroy the or two planes would be able to destroy the Twin Towers because they were constructed to withstand like a 07/2007 Speaker 5: attack. It's tremendous power and tremendous heat, and people were willing to die. And when they're willing to die and when they're willing to become kamikazes of a sense, there's very little you can do about it. I mean, the the heat and the power actually, it was amazing that the the initial jolts didn't jar the building as much as people would have thought. But the the tremendous amounts of fuel that was dumped on the building and 1,600 degrees temperature, I guess that's probab

The speaker believes the World Trade Center's collapse was due to architectural defects, not just the planes hitting it. They mention the building's strong structure and how it was built with steel on the outside, making it very sturdy. They speculate that bombs may have been involved in addition to the planes because they find it hard to believe a plane could have caused such extensive damage. The speaker also mentions the speed and angle at which the planes hit the buildings, suggesting it contributed to the destruction.

The speakers discuss a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the possibility of a cover-up. They mention the work of Dr. Judy Wood and her book "Where Did the Towers Go," which questions the official explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. They also discuss evidence of molten metal and missing materials from the site. The conversation touches on the role of the government and media in shaping public perception of the events. Overall, they suggest that there is more to the story of 9/11 than what has been officially presented.

A person questions how a plane, even a large one like a 767 or 747, could have caused the destruction of the World Trade Center. They suggest that bombs may have been involved due to the difficulty of a plane penetrating the building. The speaker also mentions that most buildings have steel on the inside, but the World Trade Center was built with steel on the outside, making it stronger. Another person agrees, mentioning the explosion that occurred on the other side of the building. The first person believes that the planes used in the attacks were not only carrying fuel but also something else. They note the speed and trajectory of the planes, suggesting that the destruction caused was more than what a plane alone could do. The speaker concludes by stating that the events of 9/11 have forever changed the country.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the collapse of Building 7. They argue that the building's uniform collapse indicates controlled demolition rather than fire damage. Comparing it to a stack of cast iron stoves, they suggest that the intact structure below should have slowed the collapse. The speaker believes there is more to the story than just planes and fire.

Speaker 0 describes hearing a series of explosions that sounded like bullet shots, followed by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The speaker states that people began running as the "bombs were gone" and describes watching a few explosions before fleeing as the building came down. Speaker 1 claims that the only way a building can accelerate during a collapse is through pre-engineered, precisely timed, and precisely placed explosives, which they identify as controlled demolition.

Eyewitnesses describe explosions at the World Trade Center, with initial confusion about the cause. Some report seeing a plane strike the tower, while others claim it was a bomb. A professor alleges 9/11 was an inside job, claiming the government's OBL story is fiction. He suggests a frame-by-frame analysis of the South Tower impact reveals a "cartoon display," arguing an aluminum plane couldn't penetrate the building as depicted. Others claim there was no plane visible in certain shots. Eyewitnesses describe a large explosion sound and debris, with one reporting the elevator blew up. Another witness near the Pentagon claims there was no plane debris, just a hole in the ground. Some suggest the collapse of the towers resembled a controlled demolition, citing consecutive "bangs" and a waterfall-like descent. One person claims it's impossible for a building to collapse like that unless all columns are blown up simultaneously. A reporter references the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 during a live broadcast while the building was still standing. A speaker claims the government's conspiracy theory involves Islamic radicals armed with box cutters defeating the air defense system, and questions whether to believe the government or the people who lived through it.

In this video, two speakers discuss their views on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 2 left a Ron Paul event when someone mentioned that 9/11 was an inside job. Speaker 2 clarifies that he didn't leave because he believed it, but because he thought it was stupid. Speaker 1 asks about Building 7, but Speaker 2 refuses to continue the conversation. They also discuss government involvement in terrorism and the need for evidence before making claims. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 1 for bringing up the conspiracy without evidence. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mentioning Alex Jones and Speaker 2 stating that evidence is necessary to imply a conspiracy.

The speakers discuss the collapse of the World Trade Center. They mention that the building was taken down floor by floor, not by popping out. They describe hearing loud noises like bullet shots and seeing the building collapse in a series of explosions. They believe that the collapse was caused by pre-engineered explosives, suggesting a controlled demolition.

A person questions how a plane, even a large one like a 767 or 747, could have caused the destruction seen on 9/11. They suggest that bombs may have been involved due to the difficulty of a plane penetrating the building. The speaker also mentions that most buildings have steel on the inside, but this one was built differently. Another person agrees, mentioning the explosion on the other side of the building. The first person believes that the planes were not only carrying fuel but also something else, as they seemed to be going very fast and descending into the building. They emphasize the immense destruction caused by taking out the heavy steel used in the buildings. The speaker concludes by stating that the events of 9/11 have forever changed the country.

The speakers discuss the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th. They mention reports of secondary explosions and the buildings collapsing as if they were demolished. There is speculation about controlled demolition and the presence of molten steel in the rubble. The speakers question the official explanation of the collapses and highlight anomalies such as the presence of dust clouds and the pulverization of concrete. They also mention a power down in the towers prior to the attacks and suspicious behavior by maintenance workers. Overall, they express skepticism and a desire for further investigation into what really happened.

Speaker 1 claims a legitimate investigation into 9/11 never occurred and questions how the perpetrators were identified so quickly. Speaker 1 alleges the Bush administration ignored intelligence, suggesting they wanted the attacks to happen, citing Condoleezza Rice's memo from August 6, which stated Bin Laden planned to use steel planes to attack buildings. Speaker 1 states that every war starts with a false flag operation. Speaker 1 references a BBC report that allegedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 before it actually happened, claiming the reporter spoke of the collapse 27 minutes before it occurred.

Speaker 1 questions the official narrative of 9/11, suggesting a conspiracy. Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on Building 7's collapse before it happened. Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The discussion shifts to Israel and Iran. Speaker 1 insists on the truth of the BBC report. The conversation ends abruptly. Translation: Speaker 1 questions the official story of 9/11, implying a conspiracy, while Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on the collapse of Building 7 before it occurred, but Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The conversation then moves on to discussing Israel and Iran, with Speaker 1 standing by the accuracy of the BBC report.

In the discussion, the collapse of Building 7 is debated through direct claims by several speakers. Speaker 0 states, "I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition." Speaker 1 counters with skepticism, arguing that "That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof." The exchange shifts toward accountability and transparency. Speaker 2 asserts, "I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further." The conversation then moves to specific explosive claims. Speaker 3 contends, "It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us." A sense of urgency and confusion is conveyed, with a voice adding, "We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?" Personal losses and the human cost are underscored. Speaker 0 reflects on the impact on his own life, saying, "And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day." The conversation culminates with a tribute to fallen colleagues. Speaker 2 notes, "343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice."

Speaker 0: Alleging not simply a cover up by the US government, but by the entire American media. It's totally implausible. Like, we would report that if that were true. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. Speaker 3: That's seen Building 7 collapse, the Sallon Brothers building? No. I wanna show you that right now. Speaker 4: Now here, we're gonna show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Describe that feeling. Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building. It's amazing. Amazing. Speaker 3: I t's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately store destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down. No plane hit that building. Speaker 6: Well, it starts with Building 7. Yes. Where you look at that and it just yeah. I mean, this this is really weird. You know, it it does come down just like a, you know, building demolition type of project. When you start putting together at what temperature steel melts. They had molten steel in the twin towers, and I'm not sure we had a number seven. Speaker 0: I never questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact. Speaker 6: And, of course, the Overton window is is is is about this is what you can discuss without threat or without, you know, risk. And but you gotta go beyond that. Speaker 0: What began to make me wonder, I have no idea what happened in 09/11, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. Speaker 0: because I was part of the cover up, and I feel guilty about it. That's why. And I'm trying to atone for my previous sense. That's the real reason. Speaker 0: I did it on tape more than once because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot.

The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition. One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire. One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition. One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.