A lil 9/11 truth for ya
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Hey folks. You are correct that 9/11 is not what they told us it was. Just fyi though, typically airline planes have things like radar in the nose of the plane. Can't surround that equipment with metal if you want useful data. So basically the nose of the plane is a much weaker non metallic material (fiberglass, quartz, graphite, Kevlar). Windshields similarly are not metal.
The meme image is really not indicative of the airplanes true structural and material strength at impact. Even if we know the buildings didn't fall down from only an airplane strike, I'm advocating for not raising memes that use mis-represented facts about one part of that event to bring people to believe the conclusions we have come to about that event. Because someone else eventually comes along and picks apart the flaws in the memes comparison and those people who were originally swayed never listen to things presented by our side on this topic again since they were burned and looked foolish (in their eyes) the first time they started believing from a flawed meme.
Alright, I said my peace. See y'all on the other side of the downvote brigade.
A kids drone took the end of a wing off. They are flying pop cans. Mythbusters launched a jet into a concrete barrier and it barely made a mark.
Also the engineer who designed the building designed it to take multiple plane hits because it sits in the middle of three of the busiest airports on the planet.
A plane wouldnt do much but blow out the glass. It wouldn't scratch the anything else.
I just dropped 4 nose cones at Boeing. 2500lbs(in wood creates) total. just fancy plastic!
I hear that, but I'm taking Trump's stance where he mentioned the exterior of the twin towers being unusually hardened, which is why the windows were so skinny. Fair point but hopefully the meme is enough to raise the right questions in normies at least
IMO this is the smoking gun:
One building was burning --- it was about to topple over in a big chunk as you would expect. But ---- RIGHT THEN ----> controlled demolition. Imagine that?
This was probably just a coincidence....................................
Pull it!
That's what Lucky Larry said.
The "Pull it" quote by Silverstein was in reference to building 7 fwiw.
I know. And the collapse was announced by the BBC forty something minutes early, while the stupid building was in view behind the announcer. The entire broadcast day of 9/11 for all the major networks is archived on Archive.org. Find the time of the collapse and look for the clip that covers the hour or so before that.
Try to find some interior pics of the twin towers. I was in one of the towers back in 1980 and even at the top of those buildings the support columns were massive. I'm talking about two inch thick steel girders. How can an airplane cut through several girders even when a bird and a hail stone can cause such damage? We've been lied to for a couple of hundred years. Heads need to roll for all the lies and theft which has occured.
TDLR: The building would have shredded the plane, and proper fire retardant system would have allowed the fuel to burn itself out in less than 2 hours with virtually zero structural damage to the building (superficial damage is NOT structural damage).
They intentionally monkeyed with the fire retardant coating on the targeted floors for one of the buildings to make sure there was a big fire:
"Overview of the Structural Design of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Buildings", NIST; https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
Did they hit the wrong floors on WTC2? The intended targeted ones likely had the thermal protection also modified like WTC1.
Both towers designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft and associated fires due to impact of a B-25 bomber airplane into Empire State Building in 1945: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
Design of World Trade Center Towers: Aircraft Impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Note that the 707 was a smaller version and earlier derivative model of the planes that supposedly hit with similar structural construction as a largely aluminum skin attached to minimal 7000 series aluminum frames and spars.
Agreed. The fires and explosions were for "show". Clearly some sort of concrete pulverization and timed charges on support columns caused the demolition.
We see ALL. Thank you, patriot.
Major sauce...the mini nukes had been speculated for years, and likely was the cause of the all the first responder cancers, imo. I remember seeing video of molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the pile even 3 weeks after 9/11.
Radiation poisoning of the thyroid? This is why we must take potassium iodine supplements periodically. It purges contaminated iodine that gets saturated with radioactivity we get exposed to unknowingly. Iodine has been intentionally removed from most generally available salts, and one must actively seek out “iodized salt” to actively add to the diet. [this is the root cause of most thyroid issues in US]. See Brownstein cures.
The vertical columns were 5" thick at the bottom.
Ineresting theory and the thought/investigation process used to develop the conclusion/theory -
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iQk7rdJwYB07/
I'm a structural sheetmetal aircraft mechanic.
I have no problem with the damage these planes did.
Wings skins are very thick 7075 T- 6 aluminum. It's almost as hard as steel to drill. At the speed they were going,that damage is not surprising.
Important to note that, as I'm sure you know, materials react differently to milling or cutting than they do at high speed impacts.
In almost every instance, the harder something is, the more brittle it is. If you flung a diamond hard enough, it would either chip or break entirely.
Obviously if it's too soft, it'd bend or shear off on impact.
I'm not in the "no planes" club as there have been a lot of first hand accounts that there were, but the way those towers (and a certain other building) went down was definitely suspect, especially considering it was built to withstand such impacts to begin with.
Oh fuck off, no you are not. You are a $0.50 per post faggot.
Gotcha.
No one with a worthwhile high school education would (honestly) say such a stupid thing.
Why is that surprising? And why do you take it so persoanal?
Q: Why is that surprising?
A: The (other) 5% who can think of course understand.
is the same (the same) as
2 smashing 550 mph steel girders into thin (lairs say "thick") aluminium sheets
I've changed every single major structural component on the large aircraft I work on.
If anything I'm more surprise that more of the plane didn't come out the backside of the building.
Go and get yourself an A and P license and 20 years of experience and get back to me,
You are a lying fucking retard Nazi who has no idea what he is talking about.
The average cruising speed for a 747 is Mach 0.85 or 652 mph. Just because you say things forcefully does not make them true. They fly faster than 550 mph as a routine every day occurrence.
Source of my speed claim: https://www.stratosjets.com/blog/cruise-speed/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20the%20typical%20cruising,knots%20(roughly%20575%20mph).
Yeah im with you...the being baffled is mostly a product of us not seeing these types of things happen so its hard to imagine how it can happen that way. If commercial airliners hit buildings full speed on a regular basis we could see over and over what theyre capable of. Its the shock of seeing a novel incident makes you immediately think “how is that possible?”
The concord hit an apartment building outside of Paris.
The picture should be on google. It has very extensive damage. And their isn't much wreckage to see either.....
Look up the 747 accident from 1992 hitting the 11 storey apartment block.
And which speeds exactly were "they" at again?
Anything over stalling speed would do that damage.
And since the planes were actually flying and not dropping like rocks, they were above that speed.
Ok genius.
No seriously, what was the IAS at the time, according to the official narrative?
Don't know or care. And read what I actually say.
I have no problem with the fact that the govt did it. When I say I belive the planes easily did that damage. It doesn't invalidate the above statement. I have other disagreements as well. But they are not important,if I belive the govt did it.
So true, this is a great video showing you what happens to a jet hitting concrete
Jet Hitting Concrete
The 911 shills hate this video kek
You would have to be retard to believe the msm version of events.
FYI...after the F-4 hits the concrete...THE CONCRETE MOVES BUT DOES NOT GIVE!!!!
I have some "idiots" that I'm going to show that too...can't wait too see the head explosion!!!
NOTE: I was UP in New York in the aftermath (recalled to Active Duty) and the girders and pillars had "slag" runs on them and I kept hearing it was the A/C fuel...I told them that A/C used in the jet engines is KEROSENE...that really frosted their cockles...
idk, perhaps it's not 100% accurate, still thought it was good enough to cause further digs by unawake people
Hologram theory? I lean more towards Field McConnell's BUAP theory, where the planes were remotely flown into the buildings with all aboard already dead from gas piped through the AC system, and bombs placed by the E Team Israeli Art Students taking the towers down. Open to being corrected though, not a hard liner on it
alright, shit. Just watched this Ace Baker video someone posted https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/ I am really doubting my opinion on the planes. Seeing that looped clip of the plane going in and out of the building makes no sense at all
Yea I think the planes disintegrated in the clouds of smoke and the debris was swept away with the buildings and sent to china asap. But what about the people on the ground seeing planes in real time, their reactions to the second plane on home video
I cant wrap my head around that, Ive seen people being interviewed on the street after the first explosion and the 2nd plane came flying through and they look up right at it. The amount of CGI and crisis actors required seems too high for my brain
The remote takeover of the aircraft is very plausible, and in my opinion it's why the smoking gun which is building 7 still had to fall, after flight 93 remote takeover went wrong.
Again, IMO flight 93 was intended to hit building 7 to complete the perceived collapse and cover the loss of the data that was housed there, as it was in the 3 other buildings that were bought down.
When flight 93 remote hijacking went wrong, they still had to destroy building 7 and turn it into the key fact that undermines the whole official narrative. The University of Alaska study into the collapse of building 7 fairly recently released shows categorically that the official NIST narrative about the collapse is full of shit.
The trouble is most people have never heard of the fall of building 7, nor what was housed there!
The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming there was any concrete at the point of impact. If the concrete and steel was removed prior to the plane's impact, it would fly right into the building.
We do see planes fly into the building. However the only part of the wall that was visible from the videos was the outermost aluminum layer. We don't know if the concrete and steel layers were still in place. Since the planes did fly into the building for the most part, it is safe to assume the concrete and steel layers were no longer there. That's certainly more likely than super advanced hologram technology instead of planes that fooled everyone who saw it in person and all the different kinds of video cameras that recorded them.
If you also study the videos closely at certain angles, you'll also see it looks like some internal explosion went off moments prior to both planes hitting. Perhaps that's when the concrete and steel layer of the wall was blown inward, and the plane impact covered it up. All that's required was preset charges ready to go at the right place at the right time, which they used on the entire building.
What CGI glitches? Are you referring to compression artifacts?
One of the glitches was the nose of the plane emerging from the other side of the building for one frame! wtf???
That's a compression artifact. When you're viewing a video which was compressed multiple times from the original, you'll see weird distortions like that.
I've seen bird strikes on a military airplane meant for combat. They were taken down. Trump is right. Taking those buildinfgown in a collapse made isn't logical.
That's not truth that's stupidity.
Fuck you Nazi
People don't understand that those big metal heavy looking things have to be light enough to fly, they're like Hollow egg shells filled with lighter fluid. Has anyone tried to melt their grill with a splash of lighter fluid?
Thank you you could probably pour a continuous supply of gasoline and it would be the same outcome
What about Building Seven. Also, there were no planes.
Saved.
A+ redpilling material
Test test test testing 123 how many 911 crashed flights first responder and fire fighter got test test test for Anthrax Test test test testing 123 who did the test test testing on 911 (talking about the AIRPLANES CRASH DAY not the Sen Dashal/Tom Brokov Envelopes anthrax day)
Ok here's a secret The cockroaches on Flight 93 Had Anthrax
https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/18878710.html#18878793