So Let Me Ask
(media.gab.com)
Comments (147)
sorted by:
What happened to the 1.6 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon?
It was more than that...just shy of 3 T wasn't it?
That’s what I think. Inside job to wipe the slate clean and take control of the sheep
What happened to the hurricane?
A lot of normies are about to wake up to this now that they see their Tyrannical government in action. I sent my co-workers a video of Tower 7 falling yesterday and they didn’t even know about tower 7. These were the only three skyscrapers in world history to collapse from fire, and these buildings were built with steel exterior beams, making them as strong of building as you can make.
There were no planes involved in 911. There's a missile hole at the Pentagon, a crater in Shanksville, and explosions with Hollywood filming of planes melting into a steel building. The planes should have exploded upon impact with parts falling to the ground. Likewise, there should have been parts all over the ground at the Pentagon and in PA. There aren't. There were planes that took off, but I saw a video once that said the planes were changed over at an outer marker with missiles that flew in on the planes beacon. The planes landed, and the people on board were killed, perhaps after making calls to loved ones as their bargaining chip for their lives. Keep an open mind. With the ridiculous things we've seen play out in recent years, is it really so far fetched that this could be what happened? Anything is possible. John Lear of Lear jet fame, and many other pilots came out years ago and said that virtually no one could fly a plane at that speed 30 feet off the ground into the Pentagon. All these videos have long been scrubbed from the internet. There are dozens of questions that can't be answered if we believe planes were used. I believed the msm narrative until 9 years ago when I started to research after the Sandy Hooke and BB hoaxes. Over the years, I have shifted to the no plane theory after understanding the purpose of FF, the use of crisis actors, and the evil behind the need to do these events coupled with the fact that there are no plane parts at any of the 4 places where we are told planes crashed.
I can’t speak for the pentagon, nor PA but there were absolutely planes in NY. Did they cause the collapse? There are people much more educated than me and I do believe it was by design. But, even if it was just for optics, there were absolutely planes. I have many trusted friends who were there that day. I know many who perished. I was there at 11pm when my friends husband, who was a trader, showed up in the back of a pickup with five others covered in white dust on every part of his body but his eyes and nose area. I heard his story when he was finally able to come out of the shock. And I heard many other stories of people I know personally. Saying there were no planes at all, does not add any validly to the theory. Just my experience
My sweet grandfather use to say “I know enough to know I don’t know enough” and I don’t think we will ever truly know. As far as me producing video of planes, I don’t personally need that confirmation because I know dozens of people who were there, lived it, died, and saw the aftermath from getting out of a truck covered in dust to my children’s friends who buried their parents. I realize not everyone has the same experiences. You don’t know me, so why would you take my word? I don’t blame you at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the plane was carrying something in it. I can’t dismiss personal accounts of people I know.
Yeah I am way more suspicious of this event than I ever thought I would be but we need to cross our T's and dot our I's in our opposition. When you ask some of these questions, you'll get some reasonable sounding responses at times. For instance, the jet fuel didn't have to melt the steel. It just had to weaken it enough that along with a massive collision, would compromise structural integrity. I am NOT saying that it wasn't a false flag in some way. I'm only saying that we need to be analytical in the questions we ask, the accusations we make, and in the responses to reasonable comments we get when we ask our questions.
A plane hitting an exterior steel frame building would only damage the side that was hit. At the very most, the part of the building above that would crumple and tip over. There's no way in the world that would cause the entire building to drop straight down into it's own footprint.
A bomber flew into the Empire State Building a long time ago, and it just stuck. There was no explosion or anything but local damage. The plane was hoisted down, the building was repaired, and life went on.
Collapsing three of the strongest skyscrapers in existence with two "planes" is just total BS. The buildings were professionally demolished.
A smaller slower much lighter b25.
Being a warplane, I doubt that it was a whole lot lighter. I'm pretty sure it was a lot heavier for its size than an airliner.
Up vote to cancel the logic-less down vote you recieved.
Some people don't respect logic, even though it is what makes us higher than all other animals. Logic. Reasoning. The Word.
There were mock drills of intercepting hijacked planes - and every fighter was tied up in that. This is not even a joke, its amazing all this happened and they got away with it.
Not for much longer
All solid points except the jet fuel statement. I have no doubt that the building or at least 1 of the buildings got taken down via controlled demo as well. However while jet fuel is not hot enough to “melt” steel it is hot enough to re-arrange the molecules enough to weaken the tensile strength of steel. Not to mention the amount of damage that was done to the steel already by the impact. I really wish people would stop bringing the jet fuel thing up because it takes away for all the other valid points.
Wrong!
One of the main reasons skyscrapers are made of steel is because they are NOT subject to catastrophic failure due to fire.
Steel is the best conductor of heat. It disperses the heat throughout the entire structure, making it unlikely the original area of the fire would be a point of failure.
Those fires were not hot enough to even WEAKEN steel to the point that the fires could bring down such a building.
This is WHY no such building has ever collapsed in the history of steel-frame buildings. On 9/11, those 3 buildings were brought down with explosives and/or incendiaries that were pre-installed.
Yeah, and nevermind the seemingly molten steel spewing out of the side of the building. Even if jet fuel weakened the beams, itd only drop some floors, slowed and turned to the side as it hits non heated beams. The entire damn buildings steel didn't heat up from the top up from jet fuel ffs lol
I think you mean top-down, but yeah.
Setting aside whether or not jet fuel actually could take down a building on its own, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is the line that is repeated over and over by people who want to paint all 9/11 investigation as crazy conspiracy theory. If you mention jet fuel, normies are instantly going to tune you out. If you want to actually get through to them, there are plenty of other convincing angles you can use without bringing up jet fuel.
All the black smoke means the steel would have never gotten hot enough to give way. Consider those buildings are designed to stay upright if they catch fire.
Yes, and they also found thermite, which can cut through and melt steel. But those have to be planted as devices inside the buildings. Jet fuel and office fires can never burn that hot. Building 7 had no jet fuel, only office fires -- i.e. paper and wood on fire, like in your fireplace (does your fireplace melt when you put wood and paper in it?).
There were teams of service people checking “fire safety equipment” throughout the towers days prior. Perfect opportunity to set up their demo
and prime reason why building fire gets hotter than fireplace is that smoke and heat can stack on top instead of disperse (but even then, not so hot it could liquidity even iron,let alone steel)
How did they find intact passports of the hijackers after the crash?
These are great questions. Another question I always think of is why 9/11. I mean those numbers specifically. 911 is a very popular number. Why do people call it? It’s for emergencies. When your in trouble. So is it just another coincidence?
Many believe that was when Jesus was born.
Don't understand the downvote. This is a legitimate belief of many biblical historians.
Holy crap. It’s is at 9-11. That’s crazy.
September 11th marks 2 major defeats for the Ottoman Turks… their defeat at the siege of Malta in 1565 and the breaking of the Siege of Vienna by based Polish and Lithuanian Calvary in 1529. Given that the Ottoman Empire is seen as the previous caliphate, yeah it would make sense for Muslims to want revenge on that date. (Never mind they lost battles against the west defending themselves, but that’s logic for those that worship a 6th century pedo barbarian warlord).
Because the dancing Israelis (fake Jews) are very good at vanishing and setting many fingers to point to each other.
They have nearly perfected this technique over centuries.
Except to the few who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain not rotted.
Then we are fed some fake “conspiracy” by Michael Moore (liberal) to make us think it was Left vs Right, Bush’s war for daddy’s oil.
When actually it was the cabal needing our men and women to die for their control/safety in the Middle East. Because these Zionists see others as cattle.
_ Why are widespread reports of mystery work crews in the WTC a couple of weeks before the demolition being ignored?
Catastrophic damage caused in the way we are supposed to believe it happened does not lend itself to a building collapsing in it own footprint. Im a civil engineer, Ive seen some of the prints for these buildings and while I wont call myself an expert in structural engineering the narrative is not possible. If we are to believe that it was fire set by jet fuel then either one side of the building or the other would have begun to collapse first. Most likely the area where the planes entered the building. (Not that Im sure I even buy that planes were used) No way in hell the entire building collapses in unison. Theres built in redundancies that would have to fail too. Maybe in China this could happen but not here were codes are very strict.
As for the WTC 7 building narrative? Hahahahahahahaha Only a moron would believe that.
Full disclosure on my credentials: after college I never used my degree. I immediately began my own concrete construction company.
It’s not being ignored. It feels like an echo chamber in here, and that is frustrating because we want more people to see the obvious, but there are still a lot of us.
Yeah, agreed . . . swept under the rug, anyway. Prayerfully, all will be exposed and prosecuted -- ideally, without a 20-year delay for everyone else who're not already at Guantanamo.
Seriousl question - planes are aluminum, thus non-ferrous. "Jet fuel" is essentially higher refined kerosene. Kerosene has very low volatility. What was the source of immediate ignition? If the PA plane vaporized hitting dirt, how did a soft aluminum plane make it thru hard reinfoced concrete, steel etc... And have a Hollywood esque fireball exit on the opposite side? Thats like throwing a water balloon against your house and having it blow out the other side
The Pentagon plane did not vaporize. There are photos of an engine and other debris if you search for it. People could use those pictures to dimiss the rest of these questions in their mind. Yet, why there is no footage of this is still a mystery. Perhaps it was a different plane than stated and video would reveal this.
From what I remember, the engine at the pentagon wasn't the correct engine model for the type of plane that was supposed to have hit it.
There is a store across the river that had video of the incident, but was confiscated.
. . . AND it had no wings . . .
Exactly! What angle would it have to hit at for the wings to vaporize into the ground outside but the nose was able to hit the trillion dollar office?
Many think that the damage was caused by a missile.
also, there never was enough plane debris left to build even quarter of a plane
And the big big question, what did 9/11 distract from or prevent from happening?
That would be an interesting dig.
Why hasn't the dig been done? It has been 20 years of avoidance.
So the planes jetfuel is burning at the top of the building and breaking apart the molecular structure of the metal beams on those floors. But even if they collapse, wouldn't the unaffected floors beneath be able to/designed to withstand the weight of the floors collapsing on them?
absolutely not.
think about how much weight you are talking about here... it's the top 1/3 of one of the tallest buildings in the world.
whats easier to stop while it's rolling down a hill... a golf ball or a bowling ball?
can you even imagine how much mass we are talking about here?
there isn't a building on the entire planet that is going to survive that, it's not designed to "catch" that much weight once it starts moving, especially when you consider that a large part of support in the design on the WTC was the core and skin which were both damaged... so the lower portion isn't even an intact structure it's already compromised.
the only thing stopping that much mass is going to be the ground.
WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand a passenger jet impact because of the proximity to major airports.
The added weight was miniscule, and once the top floors were incinerated, the lower floors had LESS load than before. Progressive collapse was a physical impossibility because the collapse went down through the path of MOST RESISTANCE. Explosives are needed to bring down high rises this way.
ae911truth.org has hundreds of expert videos explaining all of this from an architectural/structural engineering standpoint.
the fucking buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a much smaller plane, low on fuel, lost in a fog looking for the nearby airport...
because that is exactly what happened when a b-52 flew into the empire state building.
they were NEVER designed to withstand the impact of much LARGER planes flying much faster and fully loaded with enough fuel to make it to the west coast (notice all flights were chosen to be west coast flights to have a full load of fuel)
they were built to survive an accident, not an on purpose.
and i'm not talking about the added weight of a fucking plane you moron it's a question of how in the fuck do you stop that much weight once it starts moving. we're talking millions of pounds... once it started falling there is no stopping it till it hits the ground.
how much do you think dozens of floors of one of the worlds largest skyscrapers weighs?
couple hundred pounds?
perhaps more than that?
B25 big difference.
yeah some sort of B whatever... point is they built the towers to survive an accident... a plane flying slow.
they weren't designed to have planes that big flying full speed into them with a full load of fuel.
Are you a structural engineer? If not shut the fuck up shill.
are you?
i live in a 3 story building built from corten steel 40 foot high cube shipping containers.
how bout you?
Nice credentials bruh
i built it, that was the implication
Even better credentials bruh.
explain or go fuck yourself.
hey dumbfuck...
i told someone to google a quote, you told me to google "physics"
you're the dumbest person i encountered in all these discussions, take pride in that.
No the steel is weakened and concrete fucked.they will fall.they fell surprisingly orderly though.you can vaporize steel with propane if you want to.
Yep, they make all sorts of things, magic bullets, magic jet fuel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYswf3lzU8
This will blow your mind in less than 5 minutes
Did Uninterruptible Autopilot play any role?
I rather think it did.
It was more than 3 buildings.
because the 2 buildings, which fell first, fucked up the 3rd building, which fell later from that damage
security cameras are mounted high (to keep them secure) and pointed down (where the people are), there would be zero reason to have security cameras installed that were intended to look at the sky just in case a savage with a boxcutter flew a passenger jet into the building. the only reason we have the 2 or 3 frames of the blurry plane hitting the building is because it was from a gate keypad camera (like you see at the drive up ATM or air tubes) that was mounted at car window level designed to take low res vid of peoples faces as they access the gate... so it captured stuff in the background.
there was pieces of both planes recovered from both sites, the 4th planes debris field was scattered over a large area because it was shot down mid-air by the 180th ANG fighter wing out of swanton ohio. they picked it up after it looped out over lake erie (near davis bessie nuke plant) headed back to washington and they waited till it was over an unpopulated area to shoot it down. "lets roll" is bullshit.
please stop, this is embarrassing to even ask, please understand that structural steel doesn't need to melt in order to fail, being softened by fire is enough to lead to collapse when you account for the insane weight and forces bearing down on those heated steel superstructure components. heat + force is how you make things with steel, it's been that way for much longer than you've been alive.
they absolutely did, we had ANG in the air.
everyone responsible didn't get promoted, they died in the plane crashes.
because sadam violated 17 UN resolutions and it became part of the "war on terror" when we began cracking down on violent/radical islam because some of them flew planes into our buildings. he also gassed the kurds and had mobile biochem trucks.
people hijacked planes that were headed to the west coast (so they would be carrying a full load of fuel) and slammed them into buildings, two of those buildings then fell and fucked up a 3rd building next to the other 2.
because it's designed to make you look like a retard for not coming to the above conclusions on your own, it's the same reason people come here and claim the earth is flat... so that anyone who questions government gets called a crazy person...
thanks for that btw.
You haven't explained the actual melted steel yet, though. How did that happen?
You wrote all of that, just to defend some of the worst criminals in history. I hope you washed your hands, cause they're filthy.
what melted steel?
i want to see pictures of the solidified molten chunk of melted steel that was craned out of the bottom of that "bathtub" that the WTC was built in. i want video of it getting craned out of the hole.
just because some COINTELPRO agent told you that someone saw "a moletn pool of metal" doesn't mean it happened when there is zero pics or video of it while it was molten or after it would have cooled.
it would have been one of those cheesy memorials somewhere.
why can't you show me that picture or video? (because you are wrong).
Apparently you have literally never watched any of the 9/11 videos.
Because this is literally your very first post asking for it, you fucking spaz. Shut your fucking mouth before you stick your foot in any further. I can not only show you pictures, I can show your stupid ass video of molten steel.
Since you were so kind to ask for it, and then very forcefully re-ask, acting as though I had time to respond to you in-between your next paragraph like an ACTUAL retard, here you go:
You don't deserve to be awake, by the way. <---- It's right here. Since you were too stupid to find it the first time around.
https://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
not one picture or video, just a bunch of links to people making claims
so just as i suspected, thanks for absolutely nothing of value
I literally sent you a video, it's not my fault you were too stupid to click on the Youtube icon. 😂
No fucking wonder you can't even figure out something like 9/11. Like I said, you don't deserve to be awake. You literally can't even see what's right in front of you.
Wrong. Ask the mods if you want, I'm pretty sure edit history is available.
You dumb fuck, the hyperlink with custom text was there the whole time. That feature has been available on message boards forever. You were literally too stupid to see the youtube icon and click on it.
The other website was literally the one I added in during the edit.
But all of that is moot because now you're demanding a completely separate video that might not even exist? Are you just making shit up? Are you going to ask for videos of aliens jumping out of the twin towers next? Just how retarded ARE you? I show you a video of molten steel and a website with lots of actual corroborating evidence from first responders and this is how you react?
Exactly how far have you gotten your head stuck up your own ass?
point 1: take a look at the arieal photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ground_zero_aerial_view.png In the top left quadrant we see 2 standing buildings with holes in their roof, and further to the top left corner we see a pile of rubble. It's irrational to think wtc7 in the top left corner would fall to rubble while the 2 buildings closer to ground 0 would have just some holes in their roof. Result: valid question.
Point 1b: to even consider your point as factual, you would need to claim there was horizontal ejection from wtc1 & 2, and that energy would have had to come from somewhere to send a piece from (here) ------------------------> (to here)
Point 2: there was a security footage, but was scrubbed/cut leading to suspicion.Result: valid question.
Point 3: not nearly enough debris was found to suggest a plane, however scattered debris indicated placements. In the Pennsylvania crash, magically the plane was swallowed up by the whole ground and caved back in, which would be impossible even if it was flying down perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Result: valid question.
Point 4: Jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even if it could, there's not nearly enough jet fuel in a plane to weaken steel in the 1st to 80th floor, significantly below the impact, so that wtc1 and 2 could completely collapse to the ground floor. Result: valid question.
point 5: misdirection, while they were in the air, NORAD was up north in war games. Result: valid question.
Point 6: further misdirection: people living were promoted.Result: valid question.
Point 7: 'they didn't attack SA because saddam was bad man' doesn't answer the question. . Result: valid question.
Point 8 - dismissed not question related
Point 9: ad-hominem response Result: valid question.
BTW thx for that
explain that please.
the gov came in a snatched up all available cameras in hopes of finding evidence of what the fuck happened and who did it... they don't return it... it's all sitting in a box somewhere in a basement probably. either way lack of evidence isn't evidence.
there was a massive debris field in PA, they blamed it on wind but they found metal parts scattered all over that area... it's very mountainous out that way... near a couple ski resorts... there was debris everywhere and it only happens that way if the plane fell apart in the sky... from being blown the fuck up.
nobody says it has to melt, all you have to do is get it hot and hammer on it (force), it's how swords have been made for thousands of years.
180th ANG was in the air while the 4th plane was headed to DC... they are who shot it down.
you're assuming these "promoted people" were responsible... thats ridiculous. the people who did it were in the planes
the question was why iraq, the answer is violating multiple UN resolutions and running terrorist training camps and having WMD's, and having gas trucks, and gassing the kurds, and flying over the line he wasn't supposed to fly over... etc... etc... you can't say i'm wrong about the first half of the question because you were hoping i would answer the other half.
(you're not good at this)
Explain why WTC 7, if damaged in that bottom corner, and were to fall, did not topple, and instead came straight down? Unexplainable without demolition or at least explosives.
Cameras: who knows what's on it except those who have seen it.
PA flight 93 debris field? yes.. it's massive /s
More misdirection. floors 1-80 were built to hold the upper floors up. no fire was there, no fuel was there. why would they suddenly give way?
emergency crew was supposedly scrambled.
you're assuming that. people were promoted, and evidence points to it's likely they knew what was going on beforehand.
the question was why not Saudi Arabia. 'iraq is doing something we don't like so we went there instead' isn't valid.
(you're horrible at this)
Please name the 17 UN resolutions+provide sauce+provide link. Thank you.
no, you do it, just google it. "saddam violated 17 UN resolutions" it was the reason they went. it's not a secret.
I don't do Google searches, but my search yielded this site. The disparity between the link title and the article text made me go hmmm. I wondered why it said 17 in the headline and sixteen in the article.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
it's always been "17 UN violations" anytime i've ever heard anyone talking about it.
the UN let him stay in power so long as he stuck by a whole bunch of rules...
he didn't
If you look at the document in the link, only sixteen UN resolutions are listed. And, the link is to the Bush Whitehouse archive. One would think this would be a valid source.
yeah i'm just claiming anytime i've ever heard it it was 17... maybe some mandella effect shit going on i dunno. lol
either way... that is what was used to justify the invasion
Noted, with thanks.
I think he helped write it.
thats an ironic statement
don't you find it odd that whenever someone wants to discredit any conspiracy theory... they go after the trifecta... 9/11 inside job, flat earth, holocaust denial.
if i say we shot the 4th plane down, people think i'm a some kind of dumb piece of shit who thinks the earth is flat.
it's done on purpose.
it's called "poisoning the well" and it's part of COINTELPRO
it's how they burned jones with sandy hook
There's so many questions from top to bottom to be asked here, everything needs to be questioned.
That's why they go so grandiose, people are so blinded by the shock of the event, they don't look at the actual evidence. Plus MSM steers them away, and Bush with his Axis of Evil and "with us or against us" steered people from the event to vengeance.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/t5NkcrY0QfDU/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/A0xlzyNybsKv/
Great Links. Worth of a re-post today themselves.
I'm so sick of the lies more than anything.
And FUCK SILVERSTEIN.
Yeah I posted them solo several places.
The truth will set us free.
I think 911 was a burnt sacrifice to the Beast. The bodies were taken to Freshkills Landfill. I found that creepy.
One question I would love to have an answer for: What really happened to the people on the planes that were "hijacked"?
Where else were you going to take it.bodies went to an ice rink too.
Anyone know what was in Building 7?
The SEC, CIA, Salomen Brothers, all the files from Enron. And most likely the paper trail leading back to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing is stupid. Jet fuel can burn hot enough to make steel incredibly malleable. It wouldn't actually need to melt it.
I've so many who think 9m deranged for not buying the lies.
Dr. Judy Wood.
Ten years ago I would’ve been irate with someone daring to ask those “absurd” questions. Today, I am the one asking those questions.
I always loved how Larry Silverstein, the owner of the wtc, was conveniently at a “dermatologist appointment” when the planes hit and neither of his kids were in the building who worked there everyday. One was in the parking garage and got out and the other was stuck in traffic. And got a multi billion dollar insurance settlement out of the whole thing.
How did anyone know to short the Airline stocks?
Pentagon footage does exist, but the object striking the building is not a plane. I seen that video on 9/11/01 and a number of times since spread online. surprised it hasnt popped up today, been waiting for it to come up again so i can save it.
there were ' 2 ' crash sites at shanksville ... one was the plane, one was the left wing. I heard the jet that shot down the plane as did my neighbors, it flew out of a SAC base north of Detroit
Please make better arguments.
#1. Two were struck by airliners. Their collapse did enough damage to destroy the third. NYC doesn't experience hurricanes or earthquakes so they wouldn't be designed to withstand such force. I'd be interested in seeing how many buildings around the world would survive a strike like that. #2. B/c HD cameras weren't pointed at the Pentagon in 2001, it's a black eye on the DoD and there's no reason to give our enemies free BDA. #3. They didn't. Plenty of identifiable debris was recovered. #4. It doesn't need to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA #5. They did. https://www.militarytimes.com/2016/09/11/this-is-the-story-of-heather-lucky-penney-who-was-asked-to-do-the-unthinkable-on-9-11/ #6. That's how it works when you fail upward. I don't like it either but it still applies today. #7. They were supporting terrorism. Don't ask about SA because Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002 #8. They're carrying extremely heavy loads and aren't designed to be struck by airliners. The force is well beyond what was considered in their construction. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Full disclosure: I'm on board with any discussion regarding the validity of the official account of 9/11 but the hypothesis cannot guide the discussion. I remember watching Loose Change when it was released and became fairly convinced it was accurate, until I found a far more well-researched point-by-point rebuttal of every single piece of 'evidence' they cited.
Were the hijackers known? I find that compelling but Hanlon's razor applies. So does Occam's in this case.
The administration spent decades ignoring the growing terror threat b/c no one way paying attention to islam's true intentions.
Obviously some people knew what was coming and were able to profit from it. I'd find that dig to be more interesting.
The aftermath gave the government an excuse to gain more power, but the same can be said for every action since 1776.
In general, we cannot fall into the trap of adjusting our required burden of proof when deciding what to believe. Lots of people should be held to account but such is the world in which we live.