Yeah, it was totally an Airplane... For sure.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (104)
sorted by:
Donald Rumsfeld announced the day before that 2.3 Trillion missing from Pentagon funds. Supposedly, that part of the buildings is where the records of this were kept. Dunno.
Reminds me of a dumbshit move by the guy our company is suing right now. We know he stole company secrets but he's claiming that his IT guy died in a motorcycle accident. So, that's that!
I heard a rumour that the office working on that issue was located in one of the inner rings of the Pentagon.
However, it was moved to the front of the building shortly before 9/11.
Other rumours include the ideas that other offices working on government fraud were located in one of the WTC tower's floors that was hit by a plane, allegedly, and the final office was in Building 7. I often wonder if those rumours are true.
Also the rumor that a Jewish business located in the WTC just happened to be closed that day for some reason so none of their employees were present.
Yes, the people who never made it into work that day is quite interesting. For instance, Larry Silverstein, who had recently taken out a lease on the World Trade Center, and had got it insured against terrorism, had an office in the Twin Towers.
That day, his wife had made him a doctor's appointment so he missed all the excitement. He also tried to claim the insurance money twice because there were two planes! I believe he failed after some appealing. I believe he also tried to claim money from two airlines as well.
He was the man who when talking about WTC 7 said he took the decision to: "Pull it." I wonder what that meant?
Then there was the famous BBC clip announcing live to the UK that the Salomon Brother's Building i.e. WTC 7 had just collapsed. In the broadcast we could clearly WTC 7 standing in the background!
YEP and Catherine Austin Fitz was trying to get the records to prove that there was at least MULTI-TRILLION DOLLARS that couldn't be accounted for...HMMMMM....GWB aint the good guy in this part of the movie!!!! Just like his Ol' Man!!!!!
NOW ISN'T that A COINCIDENCE (NOT)
But its a COHENCIDENCE
Also how did the wings and engines just disintegrate without making extra holes of their own outside of that big round one?
Don't forget that the papers sitting on the desk inside the hole were not burned by the jet fuel explosion they claimed caused the hole.
The papers were made of passportium.
Only because they were out of "unobtanium" :)
I thought jet fuel melted steel? Humm.
Makes me wonder what jet engines are made out of...
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-atoms-jet.html
Interesting. Still, melting points of nickel is around 2600 degrees F. Aluminum is around 1200, and steel is anywhere between 2500-2800 according to google. And not really any clear answers on what jet fuel burns at. Because I will not use the 2000 degrees C. Those temps are reached inside the jet engine, not in open air. In the engine the air is super compressed making it a bazillion times hotter inside that engine. But once exposed to the open environment, would disperse and immediately burn much cooler.
Jet fuel also has the amazing property of causing controlled demolitions as well. For instance, the Twin Towers in New York.
Depending on the alloy Steel does indeed have a fairly wide temperature range. Actually it's one of the reasons other than cost that we don't just use Stainless Steel everywhere is that it has a lower temperature range than plain Carbon Steel as well as the differences in tensile strength. That corrosion resistance comes at a price other than cash.
Structural Steel starts to lose strength at around 700* F, and is below half strength around 1000* F. So melting isn't required for materials to fail. Materials used inside jet engines are designed to operate within their strength tolerances at their operating temperatures, which is not flame temps. One of the tricks to maintaining material strength in a jet engine is boundary layer air flow over the turbine blades and other parts subjected to high stress.
A raging building fire can easily reach 1800* F. Jet fuel wouldn't increase the temperature much, if at all. Unless it's contributing to a chimney effect - pulling in air with enough velocity to make a fire hotter. A blast furnace can melt steel, and I think they get to around 3000* F.
Anyway, just some basic info on materials. Not a commentary on anything.
Jet fuel, chemically, is a lot like kerosene. Jet A1 fuel. Nothing top secret about it.
For sure.
u/#wildwest
Good, this meme needs to die...
https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
Interesting, but how long did that steel have to remain in the forge? How long did it take for the jet fuel to fully burn off? Why was there liquid, glowing metal flowing out of the buildings before the collapse? Why did the buildings collapse uniformly at freefall speed into their own footprint? And the icing on the cake, why was unreacted thermite found in the debris from the building by that university professor in Denmark?
-Not as long as the burning plane and burning debris.
-Does it matter once it got going?
-Gee, lets not look for possible explanations.
-It didn't freefall. It took 11 seconds to collapse from 1368ft, not 9.2 seconds.
-What is thermite composed of? Why wouldn't a sky scrapper contain the same elements? What makes a university professor back then more credible than university professors today?
Was the WTC designed to support 10 upper floors buckling like this? https://imgur.com/a/CxjxUmN
-The burning aluminum plane. Gotcha -What difference, at this point, does it make? -The 9/11 commission sure didn't -Let's set the time aside. With the plane allegedly damaging the structure on one side, why didn't it fall sideways instead of straight down? -So, your hypothesis is that thermite spontaneously formed as the towers were collapsing? What person who did materials analysis claimed there wasn't thermite or that it's presence was explainable by your hypothesis? -Irrelevant, there was no resistance beneath it
Aluminum/magnesium/plastics/Rubber etc etc. The impacted area basically became a raging furnace.
"why didn't it fall sideways instead of straight down?"
Because the floors above buckled and fell downward. Why would it fall sideways? It's not a fucking tree. Do you not know how physics work?
"your hypothesis is that thermite spontaneously formed"
I didn't say thermite spontaneously formed. I'm saying Niels Harrit is a fucking grifter if not a CIA plant to distract you from how the hijackers even got in to the country in the first place.
Only steel and concrete not paper.
It also makes buildings come crashing straight down in a very tidy manner.
No, dummy. Only office furniture fires get that hot, and then only when accelerated by printer paper. Science!
But it melted high grade steel.
Didn't you know? Airplane wings only go through steel beams, not masonry and drywall.
/s
Nah, never. Light poles were built by Need for Speed developers so they're not breakable. -nod-
Dude the wings fell off on the other side of the pentagon before doing the 180 and slamming into the pentagon wall.
Sheared off on impact. Metal gets awfully pliable at those speeds...
But didn't land on the pristine lawn, or knock down the light poles that were in the way...
Stop noticing things goyim.
It was the plane on the grassy knoll that did it.
😂
All of the easy truths to see with 911.
I think this is why they don't teach it in school. How could they when all the facts don't match up?
Cruise missle
But, but, but...the news media showed a grainy Bigfoot video of a "airplane " hitting the Pentagon. The media would never lie.
They showed an obvious (to me) missile hit the Pentagon.
Also, the one that crashed in PA, looks like no plane crash site that I have ever seen. It's like someone dump debris on the ground and said,"See? Plane crashed!"
I've always wondered what happened to the people on that plane if it got diverted to some other location. Can you imagine the terror of knowing you are about to be killed by your own government?
THIS... this right here is the reason there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.
There is zero doubt we shot that plane down, it was flying over nuke plants and heading back twords DC after the other 3 had been used as weapons. Planes were scrambled, it was intercepted, it was shot down.
The debris field is 100% a midflight breakup, not an intentional ground impact.
But how do you come on TV on 9/12 and say "yeah sorry about those people we killed we just couldn't risk a 4th plane attack"
So they shoot it down, invent this whole narrative about people calling loved ones and "let's roll", then they spray wet dogshit all over the conspiracy forums to hide the shady shit they pulled (covering it up not shooting it down) amongst a million other laughable fake theories (COINTELPRO).
Tom Cruz can do it. I watched a movie that said so. Maybe Val Kilmer and Denzel could too.
/s
And EVERY video footage available (hundreds) for miles around the Pentagram was immediately confiscated by... FBI.
Where's ALL that vid from convenience stores, parking lots, supermarkets, parking garages etc and of course the highly secured Pentagon itself?
Where are security cameras usually placed and where are they then pointed?
We remember
I'm always amazed at how the Pentagon sucked up the tail section in that little hole that was shown after the missile hit the wall. The wings were no big deal as they fell off during flight.
Is a plane that no longer has wings suddenly classified as a missile?
Now this is pod racing!
No planes hit any buildings on 911
The plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings were the work of B-Thing, E-Team, Gelitin.
https://files.catbox.moe/z9cbsy.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/hbcrsc.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/hqczpj.jpg
I think Turner Construction planted the main explosives for the demolition
But Mossad did the plane-shaped holes.
I honestly think they really did crash at least one plane into the towers but pre-planted explosives were used to finish the job. The crash was cover for the explosives.
I disagree. The plane and all that fuel would have a high chance of fucking up all the precision wiring and detonators. But we don't have to agree on every detail fren!
Just so we are clear... you acknowledge that a fully fueled plane slamming into a building full of explosives could cause a major problem with pre-planted explosives going off as intended.... correct?
Hmmm that’s actually a really good counterpoint.
Did you not see the building buckle at the impact? Do you think they planted explosives right in the impact area or is it more likely the impact and fire compromised the structure enough for it to fold over? Do you think the floors below would withstand the floors above collapsing in on them? Focus on who got the damn hijackers their passports and stop hyping the obvious smoke screen.
So it fell nearly perfectly (not folding over) at freefall speed. Maybe the lower floors would buckle, sure, but at freefall speed it means they're offering zero resistance.
What the fuck does this look like to you?
https://imgur.com/a/CxjxUmN
What is "freefall speed?" What speed should a 110 story building collapse at? How much resistance should 90+ floors offer 10 floors above falling over on them? That 10 floors is a giant ass wrecking ball.
Freefall speed is the speed it would take gravity alone to bring something to the ground.
Any amount of resistance should make a fall a little slower than that.
Ok, then you can put your mind at ease. It took 11 seconds vs a 9.2 seconds freefalling from 1,368ft with an initial velocity of zero.
Maybe you could build something that collapses slower than that with the weight of 10 floors (22,000-55,000 tons without office equipment) crashing down on the lower floors on the same budget.
Infinite budget.
Here's what it really looked like.
https://files.catbox.moe/bsvmvo.mp4
And no point is there a gigantic plane between the building and the camera.
Here is the new version from Oct 17, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7ny38gLp4
Ha ha ha
It was a cruise missile.
Here’s the thing. I totally believe 911 was an inside job. However, I am a firefighter and my friend was a firefighter at the Pentagon when the plane hit. He was outside of the station when the plane hit and 100%, absolutely saw the plane hit the pentagon. Now, do with that what you want. This person has never given me any reason to doubt them. Although, if you were threatened, you could give any story.
I remember when it first happened, people were saying "missile". However, after the reporters asked leading questions saying "What did you see when the plane hit the building?" or something like that, they started doubting what they saw and said "plane". So perhaps your friend says "plane" because that's what he was programmed to see, and now he believes it.
People lie all the time. I don't know why people assume otherwise. Your friend lied to you, there was no plane. Either he outright lied, or he exaggerated, or took someone else's testimony and made it his own, or he's a poor observer. We have the footage: there was no plane
source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5O1fGmscMc
I am never one to assume people do not lie. I am not naive. I was simply sharing. Calm down.
The big lie was that it flew into the building, when it actually just taxied over from Reagan Airport and hit full throttle on the Pentagon lawn.
I doubt it... There would be tracks on the lawn... Which was essentially perfect.
No tracks, equipt with racing slicks.
Anyone that believes in the mainstream narrative in any capacity about 911 is a full blown retard.
A plane did hit the Pentagon. There were plane parts everywhere & they weren’t planted there. Too big.
People should stop arguing over the how & rather concentrate on Who & Why. IMO.
The lawn looked pretty pristine to me.
If I am wrong, I’ll happily eat that. I just feel people get caught up too much in the insignificant details. I really don’t care whether it was a cruise missile or a plane hitting the Pentagon or explosives in building 7 or whatever. Someone took them down which, in turn, caused the US to panic & give up our Constitutional rights & empower our government to spy on us.
***9/11 happened. Who was behind it & why is what I believe are most important. Not how. *** That sidetracks people from the bigger picture.
Ryan Dawson has some really good research on 9/11 that throws out all the kook theories and gets to the facts. I tend to agree with him & believe Israel was behind the thing so we could keep the Middle East destabilized while enriching the Industrial Military Complex & increasing the power of the federal government.
https://www.ancreport.com/
https://rumble.com/user/RyanDawson
He has tons of videos on Rumble, BitChute, & Odyssey under the channel ‘Anti Neocons’.
I don’t expect you to search or watch them but I providing my sauce.
https://rumble.com/v1j6nhw-talking-911-with-adam-green-from-know-more-news.html Latest video…skip to about 4:30 min. This is the latest but one of MANY.
Yes, and?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Silly arguments like these are designed to distract you from the three letter agency that helped the hijackers get their passports.
The hijackers had passports from their countries of origin, what you mean are visas to enter the U.S.
Yeah.
Dam didn't know Crusie Missiles had passengers or wings my bad!!
We have footage of the tomahawk cruise missle that hit it from the security checkpoint camera
This post and most the comments inside are exactly why people who speak out against official narratives are called crazy.
Some of the most blatant well poisoning and misdirection in recent history and so many on "our side" just shamelessly deep throat all of it.
I have to believe some of the people doing this are doing it on purpose, it can't all be people who've been puppeted... there has to be active misdirection going on because i refuse to believe that otherwise freethinking people are so easily manipulated into discrediting themselves.
The best way to demonize those who speak out against the propaganda is to convince some of those people to believe in blatantly obvious bullshit that can't withstand just-below-the-surface critical thinking...
Yet here some of you are not only falling for it but regurgitating it like gospel... as if you're the counter culture rebel you want everyone to believe you are because you commit reputational seppuku by parroting planted false-narratives.
please research COINTELPRO and reflect inward.
Well to be fair a plane didn't hit it, it was a cruise missile but where was it and who launched it?
I'll meet you half way and say the government is ultimately responsible for 9/11. Decades of playing in the sandbox stirred up a mess. Fine.
But let's pretend I was totally on board with it being an inside job, this is a terrible argument.
Assume for a moment that Saudi terrorists are flying a plane at the Pentagon. Would they just roll along the ground, or would they try to come in at an angle? Also, stab in the dark, they probably meant to hit the center of the complex, not just one wall. (It was the first time they had done this, after all😛)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yes, this is what happened. And we never even found one pack of peanut on the ground, did we??
I was going to incorporate that fact into the first title I made for this picture. That's what gets me every time. Not a shred of airplane found at the scene.
Would have been impossible due to ground effect.
it just beggars belief people still eat this stuff up hook line and sphincter.
We all know it was a cruise missile. The purpose of 9/11 was to prevent Saddam Hussein from selling his oil for Iraqi dinars. Save the petro dollar was the agenda.
WWWWWWWWOW.....when you actually SEE THIS....makes total sense ABOUT A MISSLE HIT....OOOOOOOOMG
Whatever it was, it came from an airplane.
Building 7 was my first red pill regarding 9/11. Even normies will admit that they believe it was brought down independent of the other buildings.
Agreed. That was my first red pill as well. It is one that is difficult to deny. The building fell down without being hit by any plane and did so just as if it was being expertly demolished.
If people tell you it was on fire so could have fallen down ask them to find another modern, steel-framed building that fell all the way down when it caught fire. There isn't one.
In the same way 'given enough time your boiling water will melt your steel kettle" /s
It doesn't get hot enough to do that and will be turned to steam like the jet fuel will turn to smoke. So why do people believe laws of nature was put on pause that morning.
Jet fuel burns fast and wouldn't stay around for so long and the office stuff that was ignited wouldn't be hot enough to melt the steel.
9/11 was my wake up call, I came home from school and saw how the towers collapsed, they didn't buckle and snap off the part that was above the collision point.
There was no reason for the framework below the collision point to fail, if anything they had less weight to hold up.
It clearly fell into itself perfectly, little 13 year old me knew instantly.
"There was no reason for the framework below the collision point to fail"
"no reason"
I've had my suspicions all along from the way the buildings pancaked but I hadn't even heard of Building 7 until nearly 20 years later. I'll be honest on how my last doubts were wiped away, it was the episode of Timcast with Alex Jones where he mentioned Building 7 and seconds later the stream mysteriously went dead for several minutes. Discussion being killed in real-time by YouTube was something I had never seen before then.
cough cough Warren Commission