The WTC towers were specifically designed to withstand being hit by an airliner.
They had an exoskeleton of structural steel beams.
Which apparently could be cut through like butter by airplane wings extending nearly 100 feet out, which were light frames with a thin skin of aluminum. The wings didn't break off. Nope, they cut through many inches of structural steel.
The plane slipped right into the building like it was made of butter.
You can see it happen. No plane. If there was a plane there it would be covering up the explosion.
You really should use some of the better quality video sources for that claim. Your text is right but that video link does nothing but make me squint at my 1440p monitor.
The left wing of the first plane disappears in frame before its about to hit; i always thought it was just poor quality of vhs tapes but maybe it was CG/holograms all along??
The point is that you can see the explosion, and there is no plane between the camera and the explosion.
It isn't a question of quality or speed of the airplane vs. frame rate. There is nothing there. Just the explosion. Starting at the center which would have been occluded by an airplane if an airplane had been there, and then all along the wing-shaped holes.
The Empire State building was built in a time when that WAS one of the largest aircraft was around. It was built to withstand the hit, and it did.
Fast forward to the twin towers where much bigger airliners existed and was built for that.
I've worked on aircraft for 36 years now and there is zero chance an airliner could have sliced thru like they would have you brianwashed to believe. Aircraft practically disintigrate when anything hits them at speed or vice versa.
Example: A bird strike can be catastrophic, punching holes into the aircraft skin and components underneath. They're gonna have me believe that same aircraft skin can cut thru reinforced girded steel structure, let alone concrete!? Laughable.
After the falcon handler and his documentary, who I found extremely credible and the obvious fuckery going on today and since then I am all on board with it being a False Flag . (WTF!)
What I am not sold on is that it required a controlled demo to achieve this. I am a civilian ex-pilot and I know about aircraft construction but you talk about it like it's a paper airplane. Let's assume it is, it is still carrying 71940 kilos of aviation turbine fuel traveling at 0.86 Mach and that is a shit tonne of kinetic energy right there.
This fuel would then penetrate the windows, deforming around the steel structure, as it is liquid and then burn at high temperature reducing the load bearing limit of all steel present.
I tend to think that the controlled demolition theory was the counter propaganda designed to make anyone espousing the FF theory seem stupid at the time. I am not calling you stupid, just that people like Rosie O'Donnell were pimping this back in the day. "The first time in history fire melted steel" was the quote (possibly the dumbest of all time).
It was a false flag but I am not sold on the demo yet.
I acknowledge however, that this is bizarro world and I am constantly surprised.
Addendum: THIS is what happens to an aircraft hitting concrete....which is what a lot of the interior structure of the WTC buildings were made of. Remember, both entire WTC building exoskeleton structure was steel made specifically to shrug aircraft hits.
Synchronicity, Fren. It's becoming more and more common as days pass.
As far as the Pentagon, that was a cruise missile, not a plane. Speaking as former Air Force Aircraft Mishap Investigator (one of many hats I wore) and up close inspection of buildings hit by cruise missiles in Iraq. Same exact signature and is the reason all the external cameras were confiscated by the FBI (which some have since leaked).
Video footage exists of the blasts coming from the towers tho including witnesses saying they heard blasts before the plane hit. Buildings have been on fire for literally days before and not come down due to losing structural integrity. Even if they were not hit by a plane, the building would NOT come down at freefall speeds. Then there is always building 7. Nothing but debri and fires somehow brought that down? It was a controlled demolition and you can read about things like the "art students" that were going in and out of there before it "got pulled" Hell they even reported on the planes hitting BEFORE they were ever hit??? They made a trillion dollars disappear and destroyed all of the evidence of the investigation into it by shooting a missile at the pentagon but hoping you'd believe a plane made that tiny hole with literally no plane debris. Google plane crashes and look at the pentagon 'crash site' They will not look anything alike.
Building 7 is interesting and I admit I have never deep dived on this subject.
I don't really have enough time to speak to everything you have raised ATM, but I do have 1 video for you:- Watch an F4 completely disintegrate
I don't find the pentagon surprising. Why would they half ass a FF by firing a stupid missile and hoping no-one notices instead of actually doing the job?
In context of a high-speed aluminum construction, thin skinned, flying craft striking or getting struck by anything of weight, it might as well be paper.
I respect your former flying status, but consider: I've been one of the guys on the ground fixing everything pilots did to the aircraft and I do it all: Engines, hydro, sheet metal repair, electronic repair, literally everything from nose to tail.
My full (brief) resume includes: been everything from Aircraft Mishap Investigator, Jet Engine Mishap Investigator, Wing Flight Safety Officer, to Quality Assurance, to Chief of Maintenance, to the guy turning the wrenches/inspecting/performing scheduled maintenance. The odd ones are that I was also on the PACAF Space Shuttle recovery team, weapons courier in the AOR, and Convoy gunner. There's more but serve as tie-ins to what I've already listed; i.e. different but the same wheelhouses, so to speak.
These days, I'm happy just working on aircraft for the DoD with that full skillset under my belt. Point is, I am keenly aware of what even a sparrow hitting a radome can do at speed. I've seen holes punched in C130 leading edges by Pelicans off the Louisiana coastline that crushed the piccolo tubes, snapped reinforcing structures, and nearly severed flight control....by a pelican.
There is no person alive that will convince me, based on my extensive knowledge of aircraft design and metallurgy, that a steel reinforced building meant to take a hit from a modern airliner was near cut in half by one. Just no.
That is a very impressive list and my experience of 1500 hours or so is fairly meager.
I must say that I certainly don't think the aircraft cut a building in half but refer to my argument regarding the fuel being forced into the building at speed, burning and then weakening the structure. It is pretty much the popular mechanics theory.
Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
Just stop with this BS. For it to be a controlled demolition there would be structural engineers, massive building damage placing the charges and running all the cables, literally hundreds of people involved with making the preparations. But somehow that was all done without anyone noticing? and they have all stayed silent?
Then to actually get jetliners to make it look like a plane crash? you sir, might be a retard.
Listen, you condescending POS...Explain Building 7 then...Nothing Hit it and it collapsed...You sir ARE a Fucking RETARD...If you think 9/11 wasn't an inside job you're in the wrong place...I must be wrong because the Government said so...DUMBASS...
I was on my way to a job that morning when I heard a plane crashed into the WTC on the radio. My first thought was of the B25 crashing into the ESB and that while tragic it wouldnt be a super big deal.
Empire state building is an enormous steel and concrete spire with floors hung off of the spire. Twin towers were spaghetti boxes built from three story steel Lego like pieces that were not even bolted together, they slotted together and stringers stretched from side to side, 200 feet long. The empire state building has almost 3 times the building material per square foot of floor space. The towers 40000 square feet of space, on each floor, was filled with plastic walls and furniture, fuel. The state building walls are concrete and stone. Just some facts, no emotional content, no embellishment. There is more if anyone is interested
Those pieces disconnect from each other if they are displaced a few degrees, I think that it was 7 degrees. If one of them moves out 7 degrees the one on top of it just falls straight down. I read an engineering comparison between the state building and the towers written and read before the collapse. Look at all of the tallest buildings built since, which do they look most like? The towers had survivability problems. There are other buildings built using similar techniques that is why this info is suppressed. Sears tower is a little better, it is a collection of spaghetti boxes tied together, they just don't build em like those anymore for good reason and they won't tell you why. That is why questions and theories multiply, the real truth is hidden.
All those Saudis that were flight training in Florida in 2001 and Bush and Co laid the blame at the feet of the Iraqis, like blaming the Portuguese for something the Polish did just because they were 2 European countries beginning with P.
The WTC towers were specifically designed to withstand being hit by an airliner.
They had an exoskeleton of structural steel beams.
Which apparently could be cut through like butter by airplane wings extending nearly 100 feet out, which were light frames with a thin skin of aluminum. The wings didn't break off. Nope, they cut through many inches of structural steel.
The plane slipped right into the building like it was made of butter.
You can see it happen. No plane. If there was a plane there it would be covering up the explosion.
https://files.catbox.moe/bsvmvo.mp4
You really should use some of the better quality video sources for that claim. Your text is right but that video link does nothing but make me squint at my 1440p monitor.
Source
https://youtu.be/miA8Td4oNcY?t=69
The left wing of the first plane disappears in frame before its about to hit; i always thought it was just poor quality of vhs tapes but maybe it was CG/holograms all along??
The point is that you can see the explosion, and there is no plane between the camera and the explosion.
It isn't a question of quality or speed of the airplane vs. frame rate. There is nothing there. Just the explosion. Starting at the center which would have been occluded by an airplane if an airplane had been there, and then all along the wing-shaped holes.
No planes hit any buildings on 911, fren.
That is why you never find any legitimate videos that show it.
Caroline Dries' footage - she was a student in her flat at the time. (Now she runs the godawful Batwoman TV show lol)
Maybe. She is a far left LGBT Cult member lol
B25s are much smaller than 767s tho..
Really...
B25 Empty weight 8836 kg - Max Weight 15876 kg - Max fuel 974 USG
767 Empty Weight 88654 kg - Max Weight 187272 kg - Max fuel 23980 USG
so between 10 times and 11.7 times smaller by weight
24.6 times smaller fuel capacity.
Yes, but also consider:
The Empire State building was built in a time when that WAS one of the largest aircraft was around. It was built to withstand the hit, and it did.
Fast forward to the twin towers where much bigger airliners existed and was built for that.
I've worked on aircraft for 36 years now and there is zero chance an airliner could have sliced thru like they would have you brianwashed to believe. Aircraft practically disintigrate when anything hits them at speed or vice versa.
Example: A bird strike can be catastrophic, punching holes into the aircraft skin and components underneath. They're gonna have me believe that same aircraft skin can cut thru reinforced girded steel structure, let alone concrete!? Laughable.
As OP stated, it was a controlled demo.
After the falcon handler and his documentary, who I found extremely credible and the obvious fuckery going on today and since then I am all on board with it being a False Flag . (WTF!)
What I am not sold on is that it required a controlled demo to achieve this. I am a civilian ex-pilot and I know about aircraft construction but you talk about it like it's a paper airplane. Let's assume it is, it is still carrying 71940 kilos of aviation turbine fuel traveling at 0.86 Mach and that is a shit tonne of kinetic energy right there.
This fuel would then penetrate the windows, deforming around the steel structure, as it is liquid and then burn at high temperature reducing the load bearing limit of all steel present.
I tend to think that the controlled demolition theory was the counter propaganda designed to make anyone espousing the FF theory seem stupid at the time. I am not calling you stupid, just that people like Rosie O'Donnell were pimping this back in the day. "The first time in history fire melted steel" was the quote (possibly the dumbest of all time).
It was a false flag but I am not sold on the demo yet.
I acknowledge however, that this is bizarro world and I am constantly surprised.
Addendum: THIS is what happens to an aircraft hitting concrete....which is what a lot of the interior structure of the WTC buildings were made of. Remember, both entire WTC building exoskeleton structure was steel made specifically to shrug aircraft hits.
Total aircraft destruction <--
What a trip, I just posted the same video as you atlthough I posted it regarding the lack of damage at the pentagon
This does not account for what I said about the fuel.
Synchronicity, Fren. It's becoming more and more common as days pass.
As far as the Pentagon, that was a cruise missile, not a plane. Speaking as former Air Force Aircraft Mishap Investigator (one of many hats I wore) and up close inspection of buildings hit by cruise missiles in Iraq. Same exact signature and is the reason all the external cameras were confiscated by the FBI (which some have since leaked).
Video footage exists of the blasts coming from the towers tho including witnesses saying they heard blasts before the plane hit. Buildings have been on fire for literally days before and not come down due to losing structural integrity. Even if they were not hit by a plane, the building would NOT come down at freefall speeds. Then there is always building 7. Nothing but debri and fires somehow brought that down? It was a controlled demolition and you can read about things like the "art students" that were going in and out of there before it "got pulled" Hell they even reported on the planes hitting BEFORE they were ever hit??? They made a trillion dollars disappear and destroyed all of the evidence of the investigation into it by shooting a missile at the pentagon but hoping you'd believe a plane made that tiny hole with literally no plane debris. Google plane crashes and look at the pentagon 'crash site' They will not look anything alike.
Building 7 is interesting and I admit I have never deep dived on this subject. I don't really have enough time to speak to everything you have raised ATM, but I do have 1 video for you:- Watch an F4 completely disintegrate
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
I don't find the pentagon surprising. Why would they half ass a FF by firing a stupid missile and hoping no-one notices instead of actually doing the job?
This guy seems to have noticed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73psegkg69c
And this post points out what looks like the FBI tampering with, or maybe planting, evidence https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFrvpf1u/plane-wreckage-on-the-pentagon-l/c/
In context of a high-speed aluminum construction, thin skinned, flying craft striking or getting struck by anything of weight, it might as well be paper.
I respect your former flying status, but consider: I've been one of the guys on the ground fixing everything pilots did to the aircraft and I do it all: Engines, hydro, sheet metal repair, electronic repair, literally everything from nose to tail.
My full (brief) resume includes: been everything from Aircraft Mishap Investigator, Jet Engine Mishap Investigator, Wing Flight Safety Officer, to Quality Assurance, to Chief of Maintenance, to the guy turning the wrenches/inspecting/performing scheduled maintenance. The odd ones are that I was also on the PACAF Space Shuttle recovery team, weapons courier in the AOR, and Convoy gunner. There's more but serve as tie-ins to what I've already listed; i.e. different but the same wheelhouses, so to speak.
These days, I'm happy just working on aircraft for the DoD with that full skillset under my belt. Point is, I am keenly aware of what even a sparrow hitting a radome can do at speed. I've seen holes punched in C130 leading edges by Pelicans off the Louisiana coastline that crushed the piccolo tubes, snapped reinforcing structures, and nearly severed flight control....by a pelican.
There is no person alive that will convince me, based on my extensive knowledge of aircraft design and metallurgy, that a steel reinforced building meant to take a hit from a modern airliner was near cut in half by one. Just no.
That is a very impressive list and my experience of 1500 hours or so is fairly meager. I must say that I certainly don't think the aircraft cut a building in half but refer to my argument regarding the fuel being forced into the building at speed, burning and then weakening the structure. It is pretty much the popular mechanics theory.
Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
Yeah, I have come nearly all of that way myself, it's a trip.
Very fucking light when you look at it.
True
Well I never said it was THE largest...
One of, I said, not THE 🧐
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
I don't remember ever hearing about that. Thanks for this post, purkiss.
My Pleasure...
BuT tHaT wAsNt a MoDeRn aIrPlaNe!!!!
REEEEeeeeeeeeeEeeeeeEeeeeEEEEEeeeee!
Haha purkiss I always look forward to your posts. Btw, what flag are you repping?
South Africa
Thank you...Are you talking about my avatar....? If so...South Africa
And a plane (93) crashed into a Pennsylvania cornfield causing WTC7 to collapse as well......
Just stop with this BS. For it to be a controlled demolition there would be structural engineers, massive building damage placing the charges and running all the cables, literally hundreds of people involved with making the preparations. But somehow that was all done without anyone noticing? and they have all stayed silent?
Then to actually get jetliners to make it look like a plane crash? you sir, might be a retard.
Listen, you condescending POS...Explain Building 7 then...Nothing Hit it and it collapsed...You sir ARE a Fucking RETARD...If you think 9/11 wasn't an inside job you're in the wrong place...I must be wrong because the Government said so...DUMBASS...
To be fair I think I B2B bomber has a slower speed of travel and perhaps less weight than a modern airplane however this is an interesting point.
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit/Cruise speed/weight
559 mph - 158,100 lbs
Boeing 767/Cruise speed/weight
529 mph
176,650 lb (empty) - 450,000 lb (max weight takeoff)
So I guess the speed is the same but the Boeing would still have more inertia due to mass basic physics.
You’re correct.
Building 7 and the BBC report of it's collapse before it actually came down, was the smoking gun for me...
Exactly...
I was on my way to a job that morning when I heard a plane crashed into the WTC on the radio. My first thought was of the B25 crashing into the ESB and that while tragic it wouldnt be a super big deal.
Size, weight, fuel capacity and top speed are completely different here. Those are extremely relevant mathematical factors in this comparison.
Empire state building is an enormous steel and concrete spire with floors hung off of the spire. Twin towers were spaghetti boxes built from three story steel Lego like pieces that were not even bolted together, they slotted together and stringers stretched from side to side, 200 feet long. The empire state building has almost 3 times the building material per square foot of floor space. The towers 40000 square feet of space, on each floor, was filled with plastic walls and furniture, fuel. The state building walls are concrete and stone. Just some facts, no emotional content, no embellishment. There is more if anyone is interested
lol, you make it sound like WTC was built like lego blocks, and yet it didnt fall apart like a Lego tower would when the plane crashed into it.
Those pieces disconnect from each other if they are displaced a few degrees, I think that it was 7 degrees. If one of them moves out 7 degrees the one on top of it just falls straight down. I read an engineering comparison between the state building and the towers written and read before the collapse. Look at all of the tallest buildings built since, which do they look most like? The towers had survivability problems. There are other buildings built using similar techniques that is why this info is suppressed. Sears tower is a little better, it is a collection of spaghetti boxes tied together, they just don't build em like those anymore for good reason and they won't tell you why. That is why questions and theories multiply, the real truth is hidden.
You, sir, are a peddlar for grade A horseshit. I heard there was an opening in the FBI's cleanup department, you might fit right in!
No need to get nasty...
Lol, I forgot the part where Q said the whole plan was hinging on JFK Jr is alive.
That was my first thought on day one.
All those Saudis that were flight training in Florida in 2001 and Bush and Co laid the blame at the feet of the Iraqis, like blaming the Portuguese for something the Polish did just because they were 2 European countries beginning with P.
The whole world bought it.
You mean Afganistan for harboring the terrorist organization who planned the attack (Al-Qaeda)
Iraq was justified later by saying “hey they have weapons that could result in another 9/11 we need to go in before that happens”....