I'm not swallowing any of their crap about the Pentagon crash. I'm about 23 minutes in so far. They say "Why was there no damage to the building from the wings and tail fins?" Then they show just how long the fuselage is in front of the wings. Do they not understand crumple zones? By the time the wings and fins get to the building, they probably wouldn't have enough energy to damage it.
They also say the lamp posts were ripped out of the ground, but another plane had hit a lamp post and only bent it. How else do they think the posts got ripped out of the ground? A missile wouldn't be able to do it.
If anyone is supposed to believe this, then why not believe
this video of a military test in which a jet was slammed into a concrete block at very high speed, making it vapourise instantly? That contradicts my point of crumple zones, so I can't explain that, but it makes a lot more sense than this conspiracy stuff.
When they say the exact materials of the 757 "are not public information", I think they just didn't to do enough research.
They show the part of the engine fan saying it's "only three feet in diameter" but they clearly haven't taken the blades into consideration. The picture in the article about that shows the same sort of part but about twelve to eighteen inches across, without blades.
I can't explain it all because I don't have the information. Not everything on the internet is real but I would rely on a major news channel to give better information than some angsty college student.
Maybe they explain more further in, I'll get there soon.
Actually, I just got to the bit about cordite where they say fuel explosions are "bright yellow at best" and a cordite explosion makes a white flash, then show the picture saying "A tiny bright, silvery flash" when it's obviously bright yellow.
Edit: Now they're talking about other buildings being hit by planes, or collapsing because of fire. The B-25 is considerably smaller and slower than the planes that went into the Twin Towers. Ergo, less energy. Listing steel framed buildings that had fires but didn't collapse is stupid because they didn't have a big plane crash into them at high speed! A fire alone wouldn't make these buildings collapse. WTC would have had structural damage as well as the aviation fuel fire, which, as they said before, burns at over 1100°. While steel melts at nearly 1400°C, I'm sure the burning fuel would be hot enough to soften the steel structure enough to cause failure, considering how heavy the tower was.