I love how when you try to look at a conspiracy theory on you tube these days they only have debunk videos
Hugo Vaarend
that video debunked nothing. it was full of desperation lies
Zachorazor1
Yep. They scoured the net and took most of the raw footage and evidential vids down. That's not suspicious.
According to Joe, debunking means just reading the official narrative and making a lousy video of it π
Sam S
The official narrative defies the laws of physics and logic.
All I’m going to ask is what about tower 7? Two planes hit two buildings yet 3 building come down at the speed of gravity (9.81 m/s^2) which indicates there’s zero friction.
If I’m to comment on the topic we’d have to be here for years π
I love how when you debunk something you just made it more suspicious
Nothing suspicious about it, making bullshit up is done by a compulsive liar, someone looking for attention because they don’t get much themselves.
Frap 99
@John John who is the liar? The person of the vid or the people that know its an inside
jobmichelle
horrific, really this was one of the worst planned job by the 2 agencies
I am extremely proud of the people and their comments here, they really understand what is really going on. I read about 17 comments and noticed no one had anything positive to say about Joe ....everyone gave him a thumbs down. Well done guys!
So let’s see if he can debunk the one about the actual owner of the towers taking out a multi multi million dollar insurance policy against terrorism specifically and also that man used to have breakfast in the tower every morning but the day of the attacks he didn’t go he also told his daughter who worked in the towers not to go to work on the day of the attacks
I think it was in fact over a billion dollars he received
Ross Rossiter
The ability to film the first attack in its entirety and an assertion recorded for an Israeli TV show that they were just there "to document events" doesn't prove prior knowledge of the attack? That could definitely be used as evidence, were there the political will to do so, which of course there isn't. It's all fact though.
Sean Anderson
amrcombs
Galatians 2:20
Seems rather suspicious
debunker hahaha, brilliant
Five men known as the dancing Israelis were arrested after a new York resident saw them filming the attacks and celebrating. The police arrested them and sure enough they had filmed the first attack in its entirety. They were handed over to the FBI who held them for about 90 days, during which time the feds established that three of the five were mosad , not mosad assets but mosad operatives. After 90 something days they were deported , or repatriotated back to Israel where unbelievably three of the five appeared on a popular chat show. The host asked them "just what were you doing in NY on 9/11" to which they answered "we were just there to document events". Again, all facts.
Congratulations Joe..ππ. You've finally done it, you have gone full insane. Well done.
Daisy68
At least you did say ONE true thing in your video - “After 20 years, it is unlikely that some people will ever accept the truth.” Cognitive dissonance prevents them from accepting the truth presented to them because it conflicts with the narrative that they were fed in the beginning.
amrcombs
Joe is a prime example of your point.
UM.PA. S.S.A.
UM.PA. S.S.A.
So in terms of controlled demolition, are you aware there were traces if nano thermite found at the debris? And also there are multiple videos where you can see and hear explosions, also the NY fire department said they found traces of explosives and incendiary devices which caused the buildings to collapse "and not just by airplanes", and the chief of the firemen called for a grand jury reinvestigation.
Hatchet Harry π΄σ §σ ’σ ³σ £σ ΄σ Ώ
When you put on a debunking video to read the comments and find that JOE hasn’t replied a single one nor has he hearted any π€
jussssig
jussssig
that was the weakest debunk of building 7 i've ever heard.. basically: "building 7 wasn't an inside job, because they said it wasn't"
Tom Brooks
Tom Brooks
This site is being censored , what a joke
Brad Dennis
The burden of proof is upon you who believe that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition...
Ross B.
@Brad Dennis The burden of truth is upon anyone who makes a claim. Saying that the 9/11 theories are debunked is a claim…
Cor DuRoye 8 months ago (edited) Thanks Joe for this profound indept view on this matter... I can't wait on your vision on other mysteries....
Cor DuRoye 8 months ago (edited) Thanks Joe for this profound indept view on this matter... I can't wait on your vision on other mysteries....
DΓ«tox Nixon This is the silliest de-bunking video I’ve ever seenLynx
9 months ago (edited)
If i were a politician, i would hire this guy to lie for me and my own interests. I'd also use the phrase "conspiracy theory" whenever somebody wouldn't agree with my official established narrative.
Thanks Joe, you are an inspiration.
Ashley Burgess
#2 missing context. The reason architects and engineers for 9/11 truth say it’s a controlled demo isn’t just because of it failing into its own footprint (although in theory the top above impact would have likely toppled over) but the speed at which floors pancake on top of each other, as well as it’s ability to fall straight down
Niels Peter Borgen Nielsen
Try to debunk the Hulsey report on WTC 7, which is actually debunking the NIST report.
Try to debunk the nuclear physicist Heinz Pommers well-illustrated explanations at VeteransToday or in his book "The Ground Zero Model".
If you are updated.
Chad Johnson
I guess if you just assert something is debunked for four minutes, the matter is resolved - FOREVER. Great work.
John Doe
1 month ago
I like how you present truth by saying you are debunking it when you don't debunk it. π Very cleverly subversive, Joe. Thanks for the assist and keep up the good work. π
Supreme_Court
When did "debunked" mean simply repeating the same official story everyone already knows?
600wheel
You didn’t debunk anything you just disagreed with everything and just because somebody can show you something on a computer screen doesn’t mean it’s any more real than Mario brothers I still haven’t seen a single explanation as to how the damage to the top 15% of the building was able to cause the rest of the lower part of the building to suddenly disintegrate while the top part that was on fire stayed a solid piece as it fell through the building and I’m not a YouTube conspiracy junkie I used to be an ironworker I used to build those structures for a living I have knowledge and experience to back up what I’m saying you sound like another guy who’s just watched to many YouTube videos and suddenly thinks your opinion is valid
Tago Mago
Thanks for putting my mind at rest and convincing me in 5 mins! Funny that you didn't explain how compounds found in explosive devices and not in the structure of the buildings were found in massive quantities amongst the rubble!
Felix von Nida
5 months ago
I’m always interested to hear debunking theories as I feel it’s good to listen to opposing arguments. It’s a pity that this one goes down the rather easy route of just saying what the theory is and then saying someone else has debunked it. I feel it would lead to more of a discussion if there was more science behind videos like this (as to be fair there very often is in ones that suggest more controversial theories) rather than just saying it’s not true because one other source said it isn’t true. This makes the argument seem weak and desperate in my opinion.
Jon Wootten
When does the debunking start??
Naked Mind
You just proved the conspiracy’s even furtherππ
willease
The 'weakened steel' theory would be true at or above the impact site. However, it does not explain why the tower continued to pancake beyond the impact site, especially at the breakaway floors, which were designed for exactly this scenario.
crystallize
1 year ago
Even if building's interior would act like a marten forge overlaid with brick for some reason, accumulating the heat instead of venting it, weakened beams would GRADUALLY and SLOWLY start bending, squashing the damaged floors and actually stopping the fire. The top of the building would gain some inertia but not much, it would destroy just a few "healthy" floors below and then stop because the beams below were still normal and they were planned to withstand some excessive force like any engineered structure.
Left, Right, Goodnight
I'm also encouraged that if I ever decide to become a criminal and want to break into the pentagon I'll get in easy no cameras,I can't get into poverty stricken counsel houses here because there's at least 25 cameras surrounding these flats,there should be more footage of that incident than anything else
Imad Islam
I'm glad most of the comments agree this video proved nothing
Magnus Guglius Vuglius
No mention of the molten metal pools on the ground. No mention of found thermate. You didn’t change my mind.Any Saint-Martin
1 year ago (edited)
What a nonsense doc! great job to prove that there WAS a conspiracy! And by the way, don't you think it was odd that a film crew in one of the tower was there just that day? Great way to push the narrative... About the planes: look at project Blue Beam...
drxxl
The problem with your first excuse is that ppl said they saw MELTED steel running down.
Dennis Cannon
Literally, to 'debunk' the theories would be to remove the 'bunk' or 'false' theories, leaving only the remaining solid concerns of, for example:
1) why the towers collapsed at a speed approaching that of free-fall, as if all of the joints from all of the floors were broken at the same moment (to the 'coincidental' tune of multiple consecutive explosions)
2) why so many direct winesses heard the sounds of multiple, consecutive explosions (the sounds of which were also captured on the soundtracks of video footage), which are normally heard when a building is intentionally demolished, resulting in a rate of collapse near free-fall rate of speed. (If some of the joints were broken through damage to the steel, while other remained intact, one can imagine the unsteady rate of the uneven collapse caused by the initial damage to the steel of those joints in the sections of the buildings first exposed the the heat of burning jet fuel.)
3) why explosions took place on floors away from the plane impact sites and away from the basement, which may have contained fuel from generators.
4) how the airline passengers were able to use their cell phones at such high altitudes, despite the fact that this was, apparently, technically impossible.
5) why the footage from other pentagon cameras was not realeased, despite the existence of so many video cameras operating on the exterior of the pentagon.
6) why the crash site in Shanksville, PA was so small and so little wreckage remained compared to other similar plane crash sites.
7) Why WTC building 7 collapsed despite not having been hit by a plane, also at a speed approaching that of free-fall.
With all due respect, so many skeptics de-bunk the ludicrous theories, which, admittedly, should be done. However, it seems there are still many unanswrered questions that seem to be, in all seriousness, far from 'bunk'.
Lindsay85
This just made me more suspicious wtf