reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"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.

Jean initially didn't see a plane approaching the World Trade Center. She saw the top part of the building explode and later learned it was a plane. The fire department had been waiting for something to happen. Another bomb went off on the other side of the building. Jean questions why the CIA and FBI didn't check with them. She didn't see anything hit the building. The media's credibility is questioned. Jean saw the second building explode and urges everyone to go home. The size of the plane is unknown. The speaker questions how an aluminum plane could penetrate the steel perimeter of the Twin Towers. A plane went through one side of tower 2 and out the other.

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.

During the 9/11 attacks, witnesses describe hearing loud explosions and seeing the second building explode. Some believe it was a bomb rather than a plane that caused the destruction. They express confusion and disbelief, stating that they did not see a plane hit the second building, but rather witnessed it explode from the inside out. The witnesses question the official narrative and assert that what they saw does not align with the reported events.

A person recording video describes seeing a plane hit one of the Twin Towers. The speaker expresses shock and disbelief, repeatedly saying "Oh my god" and "Holy shit." They identify the event as a terrorist attack. The speaker then notes that another plane has hit the other tower. The speaker emphasizes the danger and describes the scene as "fucking terrorist." Another speaker reports that a plane appeared to bank sharply and smash directly into the tower. A news anchor reports that there were no reports of casualties, but notes the extent of the damage and the building's population. The anchor mentions a previous terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Another speaker describes amateur video footage showing a plane coming out the other side of Tower 2, hitting much lower than the first attack. A final speaker describes the second jetliner's strike as a "surgical strike" and a "terrorist arrow" piercing the heart of the city and nation.

The video discusses the events of 9/11 and raises questions about the official narrative. Witnesses describe explosions and the collapse of the Twin Towers, with some suggesting that a bomb caused the second tower to collapse. The video also questions the Pentagon attack, with witnesses claiming there was no evidence of a plane crash. The government's explanation is criticized as a conspiracy theory, and the video concludes by suggesting that people should question what they see on TV. Overall, the video challenges the official account of 9/11 and encourages viewers to seek alternative perspectives.

Speaker 1: "Well, it was an architectural defect." He says the World Trade Center was "always known as a very, very strong building" and notes "took a big bomb in the basement"—"the basement is the most vulnerable place"—yet "the building was standing solid, and half of the columns were blown out." He adds, "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." He asserts "this one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have, and it was almost just like a can of soup." Speaker 2: "within a matter of millisecond, the explosion pops out the other side." Speaker 1: "there were very big planes... going very rapidly" and "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." Speaker 3: "A plane doesn't do that." "If he was an insider, he wouldn't have said that." Speaker 5: "it's tremendous power and tremendous heat," "tremendous amounts of fuel that was dumped on the building" and "1,600 degrees temperature"

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 describes the collapse of the World Trade Center and suggests that it was not due to the impact of the planes but rather controlled demolition. They mention seeing the building come down in a series of straight hits and explosions, which they believe indicates the use of pre-engineered and precisely timed explosives. The speaker emphasizes that the only way a building can collapse with such acceleration is through controlled demolition.

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.

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.

The speaker describes witnessing the collapse of the World Trade Center and hearing what sounded like gunshots. They saw the building being taken down and people running away. The speaker observed explosions and then turned around to run for their life. Another speaker adds that the only way a building can collapse with acceleration is through controlled demolition using precisely timed and placed explosives.

The video discusses the events of 9/11 and raises questions about the official narrative. Witnesses describe explosions and the collapse of the Twin Towers. Some suggest that the planes were not real and that the media was involved in a cover-up. The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is also mentioned. Critics argue that the government's explanation is a conspiracy theory and question the lack of evidence at the Pentagon crash site. The video concludes by emphasizing the need to question the official narrative and consider alternative perspectives.

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.

This video analyzes amateur footage from 9/11, suggesting CGI planes were added to the official narrative. The video highlights that witnesses in the amateur footage describe hearing explosions, not seeing planes. One witness recalls saying it was a bomb after seeing smoke and something falling. The video emphasizes that no one in the amateur footage mentions seeing a plane hit the towers. One person on the roof stated that it just blew up, and there's no way it was a plane. The amateur videographer is quoted saying the second tower "flat out blew up." The video also includes a clip of George H.W. Bush discussing how operatives were instructed to ensure that explosives went off at a high point to prevent people trapped above from escaping. The video concludes with footage of the aftermath of the tower collapses.

Multiple witnesses describe a gray plane, resembling a fighter jet, hitting the World Trade Center. It did not look like a commercial plane and had no windows. Some speculate it could have been a drone aircraft. As people were gathering in the lobby, there was a heavy explosion, causing panic and injuries. Doctors treating the injured believe there were devices planted in the building, causing secondary explosions. There is talk of another explosion prior to the collapse of the first building, possibly caused by a bomb. CNN reports a third explosion causing the collapse of World Trade Center one. The collapse was described as a series of consecutive bangs, resembling a waterfall.

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.

Speaker 0: Someone ran floor by floor instead of popping out. Then it was like bang bang bang bang bang like bullet shots. Just like 20 straight hits went down. As the bombs were going, people just started running. World Trade Center was coming right down from the corner. The whole building just went, and as the bombs were gone, people just started running. Speaker 1: The only way that a building can accelerate as it collapses is by having pre engineered, precisely timed and precisely placed explosives, in other words control.

The speaker describes hearing a loud noise and witnessing the south tower explode, but did not see the airplane. Another person with a view of the flight path claims there was enough time to see and hear the plane. Some individuals believe the second tower was bombed, not hit by a plane. One witness recounts being in the basement when they heard an explosion and saw the elevator doors blow open. They rescued a burned man and witnessed the second tower explode. Another witness describes seeing a big hole in the first building, followed by flames and the collapse of the second tower. Some argue that there was no plane involved in the second tower's destruction.

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.

The speaker describes a building collapsing floor by floor, likening the sounds to bullet shots or bombs going off in rapid succession. They saw multiple explosions and then ran as the World Trade Center came down. Another speaker claims that the only way a building can accelerate as it collapses is through controlled demolition, involving pre-engineered, precisely timed, and placed explosives.

Speaker 1 discusses his involvement in 9/11-related inquiries after receiving concerns from families. He emphasizes the role of whistleblowers who fear disclosure of anonymity, noting that while his office is good at protecting identities, not every congressional office is. He credits investigative reporters for bringing information forward and explains that his involvement began when nine/eleven families approached him with a heavily redacted FBI report on Saudi involvement, asking for it to be unredacted. He mentions that Richard Blumenthal is the chairman of PSI in the last Congress and that the inquiry extended to topics like the PGA Tour’s deal with Live Golf and Saudi Arabia, but that those are private matters not to be intruded upon. He says, however, that due to the redacted FBI document about Saudi involvement, he started gathering information and is currently in a position to review it, with an invitation to the audience to share information, though with the expectation that information will be debunked by his staff. He notes his own background from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and that he initially accepted the prevailing narrative about 9/11 but began receiving information from sources that challenged it, leading him to pursue a more open investigation. He stresses that his staff’s primary goal is to obtain information and debunk it, to poke holes in the claims, and that he does not want to avoid discussing the topic. He acknowledges there are many legitimate questions that he is willing to ask, starting with World Trade Center 7, a building he had not heard of before. He asks why it is so difficult to discuss these topics and why legitimate questions seem to be quashed, suggesting there is something unexplained that has not been disclosed. He mentions public reception, including hostile comments online, and notes that many Americans had never heard of World Trade Center 7. Speaker 1 describes the scene surrounding WTC7, including a BBC reporter on air describing its collapse while the building still appears to be standing behind her. He points to a video that appears to show a single perspective of the event and references a later interview with a controlled demolition expert who asserted it was controlled demolition, though this assertion predates the event. He emphasizes that the building collapsed on September 11, and there are unanswered questions. He recounts Graham McQueen’s investigation before his death, who compiled approximately 150 documented recordings from first responders and reporters on the morning of 9/11 who said they heard explosions. He states that the 9/11 Commission and NIST did not discuss these explosions. He mentions Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7, who had to evacuate, but could not gather because the stairwell between the 6th and 8th floors had been blown out.

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.