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.
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 🧐