Lots of easter eggs in this interview. Silverstein etc... but listen to Trump's answer to the question asked at (5:14) about the integrity of the buildings...
"How could a plane, even a plane, even a 767 or 747 or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through this steel? I happen to think they not only had a plane, but had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously, because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall..."
"It just seemed to me that, to do that kind of destruction, is even more than a big plane, because you're talking about taking out steel, the heaviest calibre steel that was used on a building. I mean these buildings were rock solid..."
Also worth noting the steel column vaporising at (2:03).
Yeah, the WTC buildings use a structural steel exoskeleton, which means thick structural beams form a vertical tube.
Aircraft wings are very thin aluminum sheet metal riveted to a lightweight aluminum frame designed to take vertical loads mostly.
We are supposed to believe that these wings, which are over 75 feet long, sliced through structural steel beams like butter is ridiculous. The sheet metal would mushroom on impact, increasing the surface area of contact and the wings would have be ripped off the airplane.
Couldn't have said it better.
9/11 skeptics, take a look at this picture, and then ask yourself, "Could a soft, aluminum plane take down a Reinforced Steel Fortress all by itself?
https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2022/08/08/69e224b8-5ee4-4581-ae77-bf0e4ae3fcec/thumbnail/1280x720/ae248f9e71fc624d8ccc6a710c5a9a97/6e6822bed4d134ebf6ea85dbd0b55be3.jpg
Best way to red pill normie friends is take them to a shooting range with a piece of steel beam and a high-powered rifle. Once somebody sees that a solid projectile traveling over 2,000 mph can't penetrate the beam. They will know a hollow aluminum cylinder cannot break through the beams at a couple hundred miles per hour.
The beams at the height of impact are supporting over a dozen floors of the building so they would be well over an inch thick.
100%. Yes.
So true the shills really hate this video of a F4 Phantom just being pretty much vaporized when crashing into a concrete wall and there is no way a bigger jet is going to go through those massive steel beams.
F4 Phantom Crash test
I remember also Trump said he got to visit the site the day afterward and saw all the metal beams which had holes and slices in them which was the result of shaped charges and also those melted steel beams before they hauled it all away as quickly as they could.
In emergency landings into fields, pilots are advised to try to steer the aircraft between trees because trees tend to tear the wings off which slows the plane and reduces energy (and injuries). Last I checked, steel is stronger than wood.
Five dancing Israeli’s…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fOiCMMMeXE8
The cone of the planes are hollow. It's common they hit a single bird and completely cave in. If you slow the video down, the cone doesn't cave in. It just seamlessly goes into the building.
Also, the wings are aluminum. The beams of the building are steel. Once again, as the wings go into the building, they remain intact.
There were no planes. As hard as that is to believe, go find the footage of the planes crashing into the building. Oh wait ... they don't hit the buildings, exploding and dropping huge plane parts all over the ground which are also found in the debris of the collapsed buildings. The planes melt into the building like plunging a knife into butter. And where are the plane parts at the Pentagon? Shenksville?
No plane parts, but they found a passport!
What are the chances!
Yes. No planes. I love how Trump smelled this rat straight away.