The building starts exploding on the opposite side before the plane actually hits.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (14)
sorted by:
This is in reference to the video that was supposedly uploaded as "private" years ago, and just now made "public". https://greatawakening.win/p/141s6zZ3g2/new--unseen-911-footage-of-the-s/c/ This is the frame just before the second plane impacted... that's the two blurs on the side facing the camera. On the right side, the explosion is beginning, even though the plane has not yet impacted.
Good catch. I've played that clip over an over at very slow speeds. I tend to agree, however this view could be deceiving. It is entering at the edge the building, half the plane or more could be inside the building at this point and the pressure build up could cause that explosion on the other end. Any engineering/ physics Anons care to chime in?
My main point of contention is the fact that all the fuel of an airliner is in the wings. We actually see "that" fuel igniting upon impact. But there is a much larger fuel load on the far side of the building. That structural engineering study that many thousands of engineers signed off on, stated without doubt that an aluminum aircraft would never penetrate into a steel and concrete building. And even if it did there is absolutely no fuel in the front half of the plane. So why that huge fireball in that location?
WTC7 is the only part of 9/11 I talk about because it red pills everybody immediately. There's no debate about what happened to that building and it instantly makes everybody start to question why that building? why that day?
The thing that sold me on WTC7 wasn't the talk about controlled demolition It was the newscaster looking directly at it and saying "WTC7 has fallen, it is confirmed, truly devastating" while it was still standing. And it continued to stand for multiple hours thereafter.
I agree on WTC7 wholeheartedly.
That's because there were no planes. This is a good documentary, A Kite Plane Must Hit Steel: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IAyW1Lsqf0sH/
That's from the disinfo campaign meant to discredit all 9/11 truthers. Likewise with the Pentagon plane. Maybe they weren't the same planes as the one's highjacked, but there were planes. Possibly piloted remotely.
There was no plane at the Pentagon. There was NO WRECKAGE. No luggage, no seats, nothing.
The CGI shills are a limited Hangout. That is, a partial admission to distract from the truth. There were no planes. There were no planes at Shanksville and the Pentagon, but New York and the Trade Towers are always brought up as the example. Clearly everybody saw the planes including thousands of eyewitnesses.
Exactly. There WERE obviously planes in NY. The other 2? Uhhh, all signs point to "nope". But even that can't be proven one way or the other.
The whole "CGI" and "Hologram" stuff is so far fetched.
Much easier to focus on the 1,000's of other legitimate questions surrounding that day vs. playing make believe w/ sci fi based conspiracy hunches.
i think that is the first tower smoking and coming down uiltimately
the billowing smoke really confuses ...